User talk:Wikibofh/Archive6

Republika Srpska

While I do appreciate your decision to protect the Republika Srpska article, I would like to bring some things to your attention considering which version of the page you protected. I realize that when protecting pages administrators don't pay much attention to which version they're protecting, and I'm sure that as I was a participant of the debate you're probably reading this with a wary eye. Nonetheless, I hope that you will take what I write here into account and consideration. Protecting pages is supposed to stop edit-wars and encourage involved users to discuss the matter and try and reach a consensus. The problem here is that the version that has been protected is supported by users who have refused to discuss things on the talk page or even try and reach a consensus. There are a number of users who are following the same agenda on this page; they are users Lowg, Estavisti, KOCOBO, and Svetislav Jovanoviċ (the last two I suspect to be sockpuppets). Meanwhile, the other side of the issue is represented by user Dado and myself. I doubt you're very familiar with the finer points of modern Bosnian politics (no offense), so I'm not going to bore you trying to convince you to take one side or another of the various debates. Rather, I'd just like to bring to your attention how the four users listed above are manipulating Wikipedia policies in order to bully those with differing views. All four of them are well aware of the 3RR, and they're using their numerical advantage to revert the article to their desired version without violating the rule while coaxing us into doing so. Me and user Dado have repeatedly tried to discuss the issue on the talk page, but the said users have almost completely ignored us. When they did respond on the talk page they labeled us trolls and vandals, declared that our concerns were illegitimate, refused any attempt at a version acceptable to all users and told us that their version is factually accurate and balanced, that the only problem we have with it is due to our attempts to force POV (which, from where I'm standing of course, is the complete opposite), etc. When me and user Dado would stop reverting the article to a version that should theoretically be acceptable to all (and by that I mean one that follows wikipedia policies in that it acknowledges debates and adequately represents both sides of the issue) and merely place a tag to indicate our dispute of the article's factual accuracy and neutrality, the four users would take off the tag and say that they've decided our disputes aren't worthy of a tag. When we would leave the article alone and simply try to discuss things on the talk page, well then the four users would stop participating in the discussion completely and ignore it until we again tried to make an edit. I hope that from this you can begin to understand our frustrations. Furthermore, many aspects of the version they're trying to force onto the article (in fact, it was them who first made altercations to the article that started the most recent round of "debates") are simply provocative and offensive to other users. If you'll allow me to "bore" you with just one example, notice that the "gallery" section (which is, obviously, supposed to contain pictures that showcased the topic of the article) contains a picture of a Mosque. This picture of the Mosque was actually taken before the topic of the article (a political entity) was even created. And when the topic of the article was created, its authorities blew up the mosque with dynamite as part of an ethnic cleansing campaign against local Muslims. For the next decade and more, the site of this 400-year-old mosque was used as a garbage dumb by the authorities of this entity, which continously refused to allow for its reconstruction. And now in this gallery section, the four users are insisting for a picture of that mosque (a picture that is older than the topic of the article itself) represent the entity. Now when I try to remove this picture from the gallery (along with other pictures that are decades old) these four users keep reverting my edits and call me a vandal. I explain my edits in the edit summary and on the talk page, but they completely ignore me and just revert to the previous version, their only explanation in the edit summary being that they're reverting my "vandalism" and that my edits are just me trying to force my POV. I'm sure even you can immediatly recognise the absurdity of this situation (hypothetically speaking, if we had a contemporary photograph of an anceint Maya capital, would it make any sense to place it under a gallery illustrating some modern latin american state?) and that this all makes some sense to you. Live Forever 21:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

• You wrote:

I doubt you're very familiar with the finer points of modern Bosnian politics (no offense).

Actually, it's the sole topic of conversation in the small fishing village I come from. (I'm kidding, it's just a great line). I recognized when I protected the article that the version was going to be a problem. With mass edits happening, and limited time I not have time to go through the niceties of figuring out which was the consensus version and which was the disruptive version. I also recognize your frustration at having the disruptive version up. I will take a look at it, but I can't promise it will be tonight (the next 5 hours my time), but I will no later than tomorrow (ie about 14 hours from now). I won't be changing versions without proper research, and I'll post on the talk page as well. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. If you think that the timing is simply too long, feel free to contact other admins to ask for help. I have no issues with that. Wikibofh_(talk) 00:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Just to point out that what's disruptive is the fact that Live Forever and Dado refuse to compromise on issues, and if you look through history, when we did come to consensus on the two major issues and it seems the 'edit wars' settled down and all parties were happy, I removed the "POV" tag since everything was addressed and a "Totally Disputed" was added to article. Since big issues were settled (Anglicsed name was removed from top description, and map was done in the same style as the England article) everything was fine, at least I thought so but then Live Forever decides he has a problem with one word (Serbian Cyrillic vs Cryrillic) he deceides to put the "Totally Disputed" tag on the page. After this was done and I removed,the reasons he fabcricates some brand new issues that were not previously discussed (see latest on talk page where I request specific reasons) such as the excessive info in template was the first time it ever came up, as well issues with photos, and a strong comment he added that was questioned by me. Please look into these and tell us if believe these issues warrent an entire article being marked totally dispusted, instead of marking a section or sentatnace that was not liked. I just ask you to please look deep into this issue and help us come with a solution but I can assure you that Live Forever and Dado are not looking for a consensus, only the get exactly what they want or they will not be statisified. I honestly believe that Live Forever and Dado's main gripe is to not have any mention of "Serb" or "Serbian" in the top description section, since it seems like those stop any sort of talks for compromise (see the "Serb Republic" translation discussion in talk for the another example. --Lowg 04:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I've started looking. It will take a while, even be tomorrow. Too many people who like to watch themselves type. Wikibofh_(talk) 22:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I've had virtually no wiki time in the last week, so have only been able to do cursory work. I'm now going on vacation, so it will be at least another week. I've unprotected it in the meantime, and I'll post a notice to see if admins can monitor it. Wikibofh_(talk) 23:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

art tyrant -

You make a good point in saying what else do we have to offer - nothing - only great examples of Sam Francis works of art and close CLOSE affiliation with the Sam Francis Estate. I was researching the other links on the site and found that one had 11 Sam Francis works of art - 6 of them were OURS -via (artprice). One of the other links lists art by a completely different artist with the same name. We have small and large bios and resumes on our artists and I'm adding more information daily. I really only feel that the links that are listed now do no justice to the artist and if they stay on the site then ours should be included just for a better reference.

Thanks for your quick reply!

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Novakart (talk • contribs) 21:37, July 10, 2006

I agree with deletion of links. They don't add significantly to article. Tyrenius 23:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

• Ok, first things first. I appreciate you coming here and having a dialogue. I apologize if the initial warnings come off poorly because I think you are being genuine in your efforts. Recognize that some percentage of people who do the linking similar to what you do (probably in the high 90%) have no intention in engaging in dialogue, so it's a refreshing change. Second, you can sign you name automagically by simply typing four tildes (ie ~~~~. Finally, I would probably agree with you on the other links as well. My response is the opposite of yours though. If the other links appear to be only for the purposes of selling items, then yours should not be added, the others removed.  :) Feel free to do it. I rarely find cases where people are removing links in bad faith and appreciate a review of them by someone familiar with the subjects. Wikibofh_(talk) 00:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Giovanni33 recommendation

I've made a recommendation regarding User:Giovanni33; I'd appreciate it if you would comment here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Giovanni33 again. Regards, Jayjg ^(talk) 22:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Organ Stop Pizza

The article you created is up for deletion. PT ^(s-s-s-s) 18:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for the notification. Wikibofh_(talk) 04:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Turkification

Major edit war going on concerning content of the article. Requesting Full protection --Kilhan 05:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Yoism on deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Yoism. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, your reasons on how or why you did so will be greatly appreciated in the above review. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa! 09:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

• I have commented there. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Wikibofh_(talk) 12:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Nixer

These articles are now being vandalized by Nixer:

Russian Empire - Reverts without provides. Rejects official sources and does not specify the sources. Refuses to cooperate.

Naval ranks and insignia of the Russian Federation and Ranks of the People's Liberation Army - multi 3RR violation

• • Nixer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Please, help to stop his attack and reverts.--Bonaqua 11:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• It looks to me like he is reverting stuff from a blocked sockpuppet. I've looked at the edits, and actually, there is one 3RR violation but seems reasonable in the case of the sockpuppet work. I'm also a bit suspicious that you have a total of 4 edits, one to your userpage, one here, two to another admin and that's it. That doesn't seem like a normal edit pattern. I'm choosing to do nothing on this. Wikibofh_(talk) 15:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
  • obviously another sock, see also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Roitr_again. dab (ᛏ) 15:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Roitr

See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Abuse_reports#Roitr --Nixer 15:58, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Did you block the whole IP range this evening? Roitr's anonymous sockpuppet activity seem to be all-time low, at least for this July... --Dmitry _{(talk •contibs )} 20:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I did, but only for 30 minutes, so it expired long ago.  :) We must just be lucky. I did block a sock earlier today. Wikibofh_(talk) 21:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, from his last statement it doesn't look like he gives up easily, not to mention edit summaries like Now you will spend all day long with me. I have plenty of free time, have you? (88.152.125.131 (talk · contribs))

Is it possible to block this IP range for, say, 4 hours in total, starting from 16:00 UTC to 20:00 UTC, or maybe break it in some lesser intervals? --Dmitry _{(talk •contibs )} 22:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Blocked 152 to 155 for 4 hours (anon, account creation still allowed). There isn't really a cron for block that I know of so this will have to do for now. Someone had already blocked 153, for a day. If this doesn't slow him down, let me know and I'll get the ranges for longer. Wikibofh_(talk) 23:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, you might want to take a look at User talk:88.155.198.100, an anon from the IP range you blocked. I got suspicious because he wrote "my edits weren't rv" in his first sentence, even though apparently the block message didn't say anything about User:Roitr's 3RR violations. It seems he got an account and edits from there now. --Zoz (t) 21:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks. I looked, yep, creating an account should work as well as waiting the few hours needed. Wikibofh_(talk) 22:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

It looks like his anonymous IP edits seem to have disappeared for now... whatever reason it is for :) Once thing: could you please either mark the instances you block with appropriate templates (see User:Roitr/sockpuppet#Maintenance), as suggested by WP:BLOCK, or simultaneously update Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Roitr#Activity report? Without it, I often find myself reporting already blocked accounts... --Dmitry _{(talk •contibs )} 21:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Templates on ranges don't make sense.  :) Although you're right about user accounts, I just get tired of always adding them for an obvious sockpuppet. I blocked the ranges again because I saw he was active and figured that the IP abuses were on the way. I think sprotection of the articles is slowing that down some. I'll try to do betta.  :) Wikibofh_(talk) 21:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Spoken barnstar

The Spoken Barnstar This barnstar is awarded to Wikibofh for his audio recordings of wikipedia articles. Blnguyen | rant-line 05:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks! I'll try to do more soon. Work in the way.  :) Wikibofh_(talk) 16:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Trucks

If you object to my prod nominations, but all means remove the tags. Perfectly fair - you may well be right to do so. But please do not use admin rollback - it is extremely rude to treat my good faith edits in the same manner as vandalism. Removing my prods with rollback also leaves no useful edit summery to indicate what you are doing. Thanks. --Aoratos 23:23, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• I was going to send you a note in a few minutes. I'm on a remote computer, and it's hard for me to do the manual edit. I apologize, but I did do it manually for the first two I saw. I'll put a note on your page so it's obvious to anyone taking a look that it wasn't vandalism. Wikibofh_(talk) 23:26, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

re: Phoenix Zoo

Thanks for the barnstar! My kids love the zoo so I couldn't let it languish.  :) --Aguerriero (talk) 00:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• My pleasure. Wikibofh_(talk) 00:14, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Ranks of the People's Liberation Army

Ok, I give.  :) The last edit is when I did a rollback almost 10 days ago. Why the sprotect? Wikibofh_(talk) 00:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• Ok, I give, why am I an idiot?  :) I see I had it protected. It should be able to be unprotected, and I will do so.  :) Wikibofh_(talk) 00:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• Haha. There has got to be an easier way to see tags, logs, and all that at once! — Rebelguys2 ^talk 00:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• • *grin* Or how about having tags automagically inserted with protection?  :) I've seen articles without tags protected, and articles without protection tagged. Oh well. Thanks for doing the tag and keeping me honest. Wikibofh_(talk) 00:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

in-n-out anonymous boy

all signed up, thanks! Berol 01:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks! I appreciated your edits even before you had an account.  :) Wikibofh_(talk) 01:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Cockroaches

Thanks for your suggestions. The reason I commented on this in the first place was that my initial search on the left hand search box (cockroach) simply led to the main page, and I didn't find anything about the Asian Cockroach. I didn't even know that there was an "Asian" cockroach, and nothing at all in plain english about my local roaches. I see what you mean about a Disambiguation page being an inappropriate solution to the problem. Would it be appropriate to add something along the lines of "Common Names" or some such in the sidebar beneath the "Families" section which would make it easier for casual users to find relevant information without knowing scientific names, or would that be outside of guidelines?

Thanks for your help

BaikinMan 16:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• I'm going to punt, and suggest you ask at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Tree_of_Life.  :) Wikibofh_(talk) 16:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Cockroaches part 2

Simple solutions are the best, I noticed that there was reference to the American and German cockroaches in the third paragraph but that the references weren't linked to the pages, so I linked them (and added the Asian cockroach link to the paragraph), which solves the initial problem with easy access that prompted me to (inappropriately) suggest a disambiguation page. Thanks for your suggestions and guidance on this issue.

BaikinMan 03:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• Sounds great. Thanks for checking around. Wikibofh_(talk) 14:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Giovanni33 and Professor33

Hi, I just want to let you know that Professor33 is now confirmed as a sockpuppet of Giovanni33. See here. AnnH ♫ 22:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for the notice. Wikibofh_(talk) 15:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

WWI

Are you sure that you have the pronunciation of Gallipoli right in the audio? I've always heard it empasized on the second syllable in English. - Vonfraginoff 13:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

• I would be absolutely shocked if there weren't several words in there mis-pronounced.  :) So, I suspect your pronunciation is correct.  :) That thing took probably 6-8 hours to record, so I don't see an update anytime soon.  :) Wikibofh_(talk) 15:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry can you please unblock this Ip address.

This Ip address 125.236.44.42 is a school one and unfortunately, it has already been blocked numerous of times, it's a school Ip address and it has done some trouble to friendly editors in the school. Can you please unblock it this time? Necrowarrio0

• Unless there is a convincing reason, I'm disinclined to. The block is anon-only, which means if you create an account, you can still edit from there, and the IP can create accounts. So, the users at the school just need to create accounts, and then they can edit away. Does that work? Wikibofh_(talk) 01:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Ok that is fair enough. Necrowarrio0

Re: User:Daniel575 NPA block

If I were him, I'd feel your block was a little unfair. I'd warned him about the first one; and then User:Aguerriero warned him about the second one, saying if he did it again he'd be blocked. So far so good. But then you blocked him even though he hadn't, yet (and still hasn't) made another personal attack. (Or another edit.) So basically we'd given him one last chance, and then you revoked our chance-giving. Sends mixed messages. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 00:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

• I saw the first one, and he was warned. Then, he went ahead (about 24 hours later) and did it again, only varying the "no brains" with "fish brains". That being said, I don't feel ownership over the block, and would not object if you shortened it. I have little tolerance for PA, so may have been a bit aggressive. Thanks for talking to me about it. Wikibofh_(talk) 03:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: User:24.15.217.4

Bit confused here, you seemed to have blocked this user and reverted several edits which didn't appear to be vandalism. As far as I'm aware, so far the information he or she's contributed to List of performers on Top of the Pops have been valid and accurate. If it's that the contributions are extreme in size, it wasn't going to be a problem as I was going to assist with columnising the information so it's more tidy. Other than that I could see no problem and was pleased that a user with a history of vandalism seemed to have reformed. Of course I'll accept if you had another reason, I'm just not seeing it here. Thanks in advance for any feedback ~~ Peteb16 15:14, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for bringing this up. Evidently not enough caffeine. I had read that edit as a massive deletion of material, as opposed to addition. I have unblocked the ip, and removed the block notice. Thanks again. Wikibofh_(talk) 15:33, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

• • That's okay, so long as it wasn't me that was lacking caffeine - could be dangerous. :D ~~ Peteb16 18:22, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

In N Out

Why the all-caps? I don't understand that particular edit. Rsm99833 05:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Because that is the precise format from the wikisource entry. I just cut-n-pasted it. I was planning on doing the others the same (ie making them fit the source) but am actually (still) working and don't have time now.  :) Wikibofh_(talk) 05:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Seems rather unneeded. I;m actually wondering why it's that way in the entry, as that it doesn't appear that way in any accepted biblical versions. Rsm99833 05:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• I'm not arguing with you...perhaps the wikisource needs to be fixed. I'm a biblical scholar, precisely like I'm underwater ballerina. If you know better, or have better sources, go for it.  :) Wikibofh_(talk) 05:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I know you aren't arguing with me. I'm just trying to save you some time in editing. Is there an overall discussion page for your source? I'll drop a line, and suggest it. Rsm99833 05:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• here is the page (it links down in references). You'll notice, however, that the discussion tab is a nice juicy redlink. (ps: at work for the last 16 hours, up even longer, so a little punch drunk  :) ) This was all precipitated when I saw a user change "sup" to "dine" and went and looked at the source. figured we ought to source those. Wikibofh_(talk) 05:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that, but let it pass as that it is that way in a couple of different versions. Didn't think it was worth getting into an edit war over, if you know what I mean. Yeah, I can relate. Just finished up 12 hours of working on a story. So I'm about ready to log out as well. Rsm99833 05:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey. I just wanted to let you know that 4x4 is now the new burger limit at In N Out. It was recently revised about two weeks ago from 8x8. I have heard this directly from my store manager. Bridarshy 03:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Cockroach

If you are the person reverting the erroneous information in "Interesting Facts" please STOP.

I have altered this entry because it is factually incorrect. It is almost impossible to find an ach insecticide in the suprmarket these days. The vast majority of insecticdes a cockroach will encounter are pyrethroids. I have provided a refercne for this. If you wish to dispute it then provide a counter-reference. Don't simply revert my entry because you disagree with it.

If you have any facts then present them. If you don't then kindly bugger off. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.164.198.60 (talk • contribs) 02:59, September 3, 2006

• This is the first time you've provided a citation. And pay attention to WP:NPA. Wikibofh_(talk) 05:28, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Hi Wikibofh--I see you've been working on the Cockroach article recently. This is one I contributed to some months ago, but neglected to keep an eye on. On 22 July 2006 an anonymous user did a major rewrite (I would call it vandalism) of the article, in the process deleting the references and external links. If I had noticed this I would have reverted immediately, but my attention was elsewhere. Numerous editors have worked on the article since then so I'm reluctant to revert to such an old version. Sorry to dump such an unpleasant mess in your lap, but I don't have time to deal with it myself right now! MrDarwin 21:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• • Thanks for the heads up. I'll see what I can do. Time restricted myself. Wikibofh_(talk) 21:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• • • I don't see any big deletions here. [1] Do you have another diff I'm missing? Wikibofh_(talk) 22:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Your attention needed

Hiya wikibofh, Category:Turkish-Americans is repeatedly being vandalized by an anonymous user with the IP 195.93.60.37. Can you least semi-protect it so that he/she doesn't keep messing it up ? Judging by his/her edits (adding super categories, edit summaries such as "revert vandalism"), 195.93.60.37 seems to be an established user who logs out just to hide his/her identity and edit the category, so can you also keep an eye on it ? Thanks !--Kilhan 09:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• sprotected. Wikibofh_(talk) 14:55, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• • Ah thanks! Its done at last!--Kilhan 03:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

BaseballGA and others...

First of all, explain why that template should be deleted. Also, in your comment on the Boston Red Sox talk page you said "(remove baseball GA...PLEASE CHECK...might be other stuff that needs to be reverted!)" I took this to mean that you thought I had gone and vandalized the page, let me know what you meant. aido2002 20:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Templates are for that are generally on the talk page, not the article. I had the "please check" because your edit was the last of several that included anons. I didn't have the time to see what those changes were and if they weren't vandalism. It was more that yours was at the end of a chain of edits I couldn't go through and check at the time. Make sense? Wikibofh_(talk) 21:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

curious about revert to Clear Channel Communications

Hello,

I am not extremely knowledgeable about Wikimedia, but I am curious about the reversion you recently made to Clear Channel Communications. When I compare the reverted version to the version prior to reversion, a block is highlighted, but I can't see any differences. I am wondering about this because a similar thing happened in another article I monitor (Miami Bass). An anonymous user edited a block and the block highlights as if it were changed but there are not any visible changes. Is something nefarious going on?

Thanks, -E

• /sigh I was attempting to get rid of the "if ugly" section that was added, but it only got the commas. Comma's and spaces are notoriously hard to see in diffs. (in this case, you'll notice comma's got erased) Thanks for bringing it up so I would see it. Wikibofh_(talk) 22:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

How is this vandalism?

just wondering... - Bagel7 06:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• Single edit by user User:Homosexual. Seemed likely to be a vandal only account, the edit was innocuous, but more than anything the revert was to make it obvious someone was watching. I chose not to usernameblock the account though. /shrug Wikibofh_(talk) 13:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Jerry Holkins

It is unfortunate that there is no room for humor in Wikipedia. Even more unfortunate is the increasing use of Wikipedia as a serious reference by the uneducated. I weep for our future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.62.130.194 (talk • contribs) 18:27, September 13, 2006 67.62.130.194

• We're not trying to be funny. That's a different site, or WP:BJAODN Wikibofh_(talk) 18:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

It might be useful to at least have a reference to the whole business, so that people don't go there and think that they're the first person to ever edit the page. 192.91.171.42 23:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

• Because it's not notable. /shrug. Primarily, it also violates WP:SELF Wikibofh_(talk) 03:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• There have been almost as many edits relating to the horse thing as all the other edits put together, and it's "not notable"? As I said elsewhere, this has stopped being about anything other than personal issues. 192.91.171.42 21:51, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• Last time I checked, the amount of vandalism to an article does not establish it's notablity. It is not encyclopedic. Wikibofh_(talk) 02:12, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: User:169.150.128.50

I traced this address which you blocked, and it turns out to be a school IP. Are there any different procedures for dealing with school IP addresses that are used for vandalism as opposed to DSL and cable modem users? Jesse Viviano 16:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• Not really. The block is Anonymous Only (AO) which means they just have to register for an account in order to edit. My latest block was their 7th unique block. Wikibofh_(talk) 16:41, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: User:212.219.242.13

This is a recently blocked, by you, IP for changes to the spelling of Hubberstone, which is actually spelt HUBBERSTON. Please rectify this.

(this is a school IP address btw) thanks :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Displayed (talk • contribs) 07:56, September 20, 2006

• Actually, I blocked it as being related to User:212.219.242.12, and it was actually this edit that showed clear vandalism. The block is Anonymous Only, so if people register (and thus take responsibility for their actions) they can continue to edit. Wikibofh_(talk) 15:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

• But the fact that that was not the first edit tot hat page, and that the IP is repetedly blocked, (yes the user found away around your block system to do that) and that Wiki is blocking this IP for the PROPER spelling of a local place name. Many pupils and teachers would like this Rectified.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Displayed (talk • contribs) 12:06, September 26, 2006

• Did you actually read what I wrote? The link above shows that it wasn't a spelling correction, it was clear vandalism. Second, anyone can still edit from the school. All they have to do is get an account. There is nothing to rectify. Wikibofh_(talk) 14:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Removal of prods on school vanity articles

You recently removed the prod on Blessed Trinity Catholic School. This doesn't really suprise me, as prods have been removed on some other very poor quality vanity articles on schools. Is it now the case that one cannot propose deletion of a school article on vanity grounds? You are correct to say that there are people who will never let these articles be deleted through the afd route, and I don't have time to get involved in the wikipolitics when I could be doing real editing, but it seems sad if wikipedia is to become a junkyard of abandoned vanity articles because some people insist that all schools are inherently notable. Robotforaday 11:54, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• The problem I see is that realistically, no school article is going to get voted delete through AfD, so, like you, I don't feel like dealing with the politics of it. What really needs to happen on articles like that is that they probably need to be turned into stubs and let the normal wiki process take hold. Then again, I could be wrong.  :) Wikibofh_(talk) 14:15, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

204.248.50.26

Thanks for taking care of User:204.248.50.26 - much appreciated! njan 21:25, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• My pleasure. Wikibofh_(talk) 21:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I just dont understand why you would edit that out

you reverted somthing that not only was true but actualy sitted the refferance to it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Holkins I mean what gives? this is somthing that has to do with both Jerry and wikipedia.

• Violates WP:SELF. It is NN. Discussed in detail on the talk page. Wikibofh_(talk) 02:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Question about In-n-Out Secret Menu change

On the page for the In-n-Out secret menu, you changed the new restriction from 4x4 to 4x6. I just stopped by an In-n-Out and know that I can't get more than 4 patties anymore, but were you specifically told that you could have as many as four cheeses?

• I haven't made an edit to that article since September 14th. Care to provide the edit you're talking about? Regarddless, that would probably be WP:OR without citations. Wikibofh_(talk) 02:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Cheers!

Thanks for looking at the Final Fantasy XIII Vandal :) I've been here a day and already I think I'm going to have a break down and shoot someone ;) So much to do! Pursey 15:48, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• No problem. Wikibofh_(talk) 15:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)