Corrections Corporation of America
I think you're absolutely correct. Your original post never should have been removed.
I think that CCA has paid minders watching and sanitizing the page, but I don't think COLLECT is one of them, since he's only posted one innocuous comment on the page before, going back 50 edits.
Thanks for your persistence. Activist (talk) 17:27, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
- Please note my comments on the CCA Talk page regarding the removals of the Sayre and Crowley incidents. Thanks much. Activist (talk) 12:07, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Nomination of Innocence of Muslims for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Innocence of Muslims is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Innocence of Muslims until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. KeptSouth (talk) 18:24, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
A page you started (Syrian Emergency Task Force) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Syrian Emergency Task Force, BlueSalix!
Wikipedia editor Mike1901 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:
Beat me to creating this! Will help out where I can :-)
To reply, leave a comment on Mike1901's talk page.
- Hey User:Mike1901, just a FYI, someone connected with the SETF has left a comment on the entry's talk page. I left a reply but I don't know if he's seen it. I just wanted to give you a heads-up in case you were still interested. (I've tried to look for RS to back-up his requests for correction but have been unable to find any so have kept the article as-is.) I believe this individual is the one who was previously blanking the page, though, I think he may just not have known better. BlueSalix (talk) 12:39, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for November 17
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Don Benton, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Olympia and Agua Dulce (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Frescas!
Thanks for the modesty barnstar. Have a delicious day! |-) Wikibojopayne (talk) 06:13, 19 November 2013 (UTC) |
November 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Jamie Pedersen may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on .
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- [[Yale]] (J.D.
Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:15, 19 November 2013 (UTC) Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Washington State Republican Party may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on .
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- on-women-responsible-for-pay-reduction/ |work=The RAW Story |accessdate=24 November 2013}}</ref>[[[[File:Rossi_Sign.jpg|thumb|right|A campaign sign for Republican Dino Rossi's 2010 campaign for U.S.
Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 10:29, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
File permission problem with File:Rob McKenna - candidate for governor.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Rob McKenna - candidate for governor.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.
If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
- make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
- Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.
If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.
If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:35, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Sfan00 IMG - it looks like I used the wrong license. It is, in fact, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0 (see here). Can you update that for me? Thanks! BlueSalix (talk) 22:24, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
- Wikipedia can't accept NC images. You couldn't ask the campaign for a CC-BY-SA image?Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:47, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
- Apologies, that makes sense - my mistake. I don't have any contact with the campaign, this is just a subject of interest to me. I'll look for an appropriately licensed image. Thanks for your direction and guidance, Sfan00 IMG! BlueSalix (talk) 12:34, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for December 1
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
- Jamie Pedersen (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Norwegian
- Montgomery Johnson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Native American
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:31, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for January 1
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Uniforms of the United States Army, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 1st Cavalry Division (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
File:U.S. Army All-American Band.png missing description details
is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.
If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 04:39, 4 January 2014 (UTC)Disambiguation link notification for January 8
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Political debates about United States military bands, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sacred cow (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for January 15
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited United States military music customs, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Cadence, Blue Room and Retreat (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
3RR
You went over WP:3RR at Ronan Farrow before I had a chance to warn you, though from your edit summaries you appear to have been aware. I began a discussion on the talk page about your edits, in which you did not participate before your fourth reversion, and you did not initiate discussion with IP editor 108 on the talk page at any time. You accuse 108 of being a sockpuppet, but that is not one of the IPs at the relevant SPI, as I noted in my talk-page post. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:33, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
File permission problem with File:Chicago Police.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Chicago Police.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.
If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
- make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
- Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.
If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.
If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Puffin Let's talk! 20:18, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for January 22
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
- Issues in reporting on North Korea (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added links pointing to Eccentricity, New Yorker and Bill O'Reilly
- Police uniforms of the United States (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added links pointing to Menlo Park, Truncheon and Ascot
- NK News (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to The Telegraph
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank you
Thank you friend ! --CultureEurope (talk) 20:21, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
- You're welcome and thank you for your very excellent contribution, CultureEurope! I look forward to seeing your other work! BlueSalix (talk) 00:11, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 01:44, 24 January 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Cheers! —Unforgettableid (talk) 01:44, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:David Ogden Stiers
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:David Ogden Stiers. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for January 29
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Duke of Edinburgh's Award, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Prince Edward (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Rodgers
I wasn't sure it was settled and now a particular person claims that mentioning it is unaccredited is a "smear attempt." RobinBnn (talk) 17:22, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your invaluable help
Thank you again for your support and suggestions. :) --CultureEurope (talk) 00:39, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:LGBT rights in Russia
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:LGBT rights in Russia. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your help
Thanks again, BlueSalix, for everything. --CultureEurope (talk) 12:20, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Schweitzer?
Hi, saw you created Political positions of Brian Schweitzer. Was wondering why you created it as a separate article, and if you'd have concerns with a merge back to the main bio; it all seems relevant to be put there. Don't want to start an editing dispute over a merge, so thought I'd ask before tagging. Montanabw(talk) 21:18, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
- If you think it's best, I won't object, Montanabw. I created a separate article since adding such a large volume of text to the current Schweitzer article would, I thought, make it rather unwieldy. I normally wouldn't think the level of detail in a "political positions of ..." article is appropriate for an inactive politician, however, created it only because he is a speculated 2016 contender. If he formally announces in the next few months, won't we need to break that off into a separate article again, a la Political positions of Ron Paul, Political positions of Rudy Giuliani, etc.? Anyway, like I said, I'll defer to your good judgment on the question - whatever you think is best!~ BlueSalix (talk) 21:23, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
- My feeling is that the "political positions of" articles are kind of content forks unless an article is so long that it is at the level of Hillary Rodham Clinton, and even then her article contains a summary and section link to the "positions of" article. So, my take is that "old Gov B.S." (as some of us out here call him) could have the political positions at least summarized in his main article. I suppose if he really runs, then maybe a separate article is needed if it's going to become really long and involved, but do ALL candidates wind up with these? You did a great job sourcing, by the way. Montanabw(talk) 21:56, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
- Montanabw, in answer to your question, over the last two elections all major candidates from the two institutional parties (Biden, Obama, Palin, McCain, Clinton, Romney, Guiliani, Paul, Kucinich, etc.) have had independent "Political positions of ..." articles created. That said, if you'd like to nominate this for speedy deletion I won't contest it; we can always revisit it later if he makes a formal announcement. BlueSalix (talk) 06:57, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
- I loathe the dramaboards, I think a merge and redirect is better, preserves the content and the title, can be re-spun out again if needed. OTOH, there is also the argument that Schweitzer's people regularly patrol his bio and have been busted in the past for editing it, so I don't know how the addition of political positions there would stack up. What do you think? Montanabw(talk) 21:28, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
- Hey Montanabw, I wasn't aware his bio was being patrolled; I can't stand that! I've been monitoring Don Benton and Ronan Farrow off and on due to similar and endemic issues with abusive editing by publicists and socks of publicists. You seem to have a better handle on Schweitzer vis a vis Wikipedia than I do, so I will support whatever you think is the best next step (merge, delete, leave, etc.). BlueSalix (talk) 00:23, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
- I loathe the dramaboards, I think a merge and redirect is better, preserves the content and the title, can be re-spun out again if needed. OTOH, there is also the argument that Schweitzer's people regularly patrol his bio and have been busted in the past for editing it, so I don't know how the addition of political positions there would stack up. What do you think? Montanabw(talk) 21:28, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
- Montanabw, in answer to your question, over the last two elections all major candidates from the two institutional parties (Biden, Obama, Palin, McCain, Clinton, Romney, Guiliani, Paul, Kucinich, etc.) have had independent "Political positions of ..." articles created. That said, if you'd like to nominate this for speedy deletion I won't contest it; we can always revisit it later if he makes a formal announcement. BlueSalix (talk) 06:57, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
- My feeling is that the "political positions of" articles are kind of content forks unless an article is so long that it is at the level of Hillary Rodham Clinton, and even then her article contains a summary and section link to the "positions of" article. So, my take is that "old Gov B.S." (as some of us out here call him) could have the political positions at least summarized in his main article. I suppose if he really runs, then maybe a separate article is needed if it's going to become really long and involved, but do ALL candidates wind up with these? You did a great job sourcing, by the way. Montanabw(talk) 21:56, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Like and LOL! Or, as I like to say, SCOMN! (Snorted coffee out my nose)
Please dear friend help me
I have done a great job on this wikipedia page. The article is perfect. Help me ! --CultureEurope (talk) 12:34, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Lost my words
Every day there are users who would like to cancel my wikipedia page. I feel sad and dejected. Anyway, thank you again ! --CultureEurope (talk) 15:12, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
- CultureEurope - don't be sad, I have had many of my articles nominated for deletion, too. However, I don't think you'll have any more problems - in bocca al lupo! BlueSalix (talk) 02:37, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
- This is my hope - ¡¡¡ buena suerte !!! --CultureEurope (talk) 09:51, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Your kind two notes of thanks.
I share some interests with you. Especially a dislike for PR editors, although my pet peeve is the medical PR types, who are pushing a point of view that is protective of the medical industry, which is not always honest or accurate. That is a far tougher fight than Ronan Farrow.
I also noticed a couple of things on your talk page.
http://www.worldmilitarybands.com/sousas-marches/
I dated Kieth Brion's daughter for many years, and marched with him in the Yale band at the Yale-Harvard game one year. No-one has done more for Military Music then he, and his love was John Philips Souza. Don't have much RS for you, as that was his passion, not mine.
I also know quite a bit about North Korea. I would probably have thought the bias article you created was a candidate for deletion, but I am not that interested in doing that kind of advocacy. I am interested in why you believe that North Korea is significantly more functional than the media impression. Having studied both in some detail, I think much of the basic premise of their reputation is well founded, but I do appreciate different opinions.Bob the goodwin (talk) 11:14, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps you might wanna add media coverage of North Korean famine and cannibalism claims. I'd give you a "barnstar" for such awareness, but I don't wanna add too much space. --George Ho (talk) 07:25, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Happy Easter
--CultureEurope (talk) 10:09, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Category:Perennial candidates from Washington state
Category:Perennial candidates from Washington state, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Pichpich (talk) 02:09, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Some baklava for you!
I am very sorry if I seemed bitey, my layman knowledge of American history is poor. Again, I am truly sorry that you withdrew this as it would have been a good nomination. Nom again at GA? Thanks, Matty.007 15:59, 4 June 2014 (UTC) |
What's up?
We have two relatively new contributors participating in this article who share a very aggressive editing style. Care explaining what's up? Cwobeel (talk) 04:40, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
I would appreciate it if you discuss my edits and not me. Also, your interpretation of WP:BLP is incorrect. The burden of proof means that the content needs to be verifiable, which in this case it is:
The [[Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden of evidence|burden of evidence]] for any edit rests with the person who adds or restores material.
Cwobeel (talk) 20:02, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
- I have been discussing your edits. Which I shouldn't have to; we should be discussing the substance of your content, not your unusual editing pattern. BlueSalix (talk) 20:07, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
- You are calling my editing "aggressive" (in several occasions already) and even maybe "relatively new contributor" from what I can gather. Discuss my edits, not your impression of my style, my persona, or my editcount. Thank you in advance. Cwobeel (talk) 20:17, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
- I have been discussing your edits; specifically, their aggressive style. A violation of WP:TPOC is virtually unheard of ... further, your rather thinly veiled attempt to ape my comments to Michael with your "discuss my edits, not your impression of my style, my persona" will be unlikely to reflect well when the question of your behavior is brought up for review, as I have a feeling will inevitably occur if you continue along this path you seem determined to travel. BlueSalix (talk) 20:25, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
- I don't think that WP:TPOC applies here, as changing an RfC framing mid way it is not acceptable. As for the other comments, I hear you. Just please if you have any other comments about me, use my talk page. 21:08, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
- I have been discussing your edits; specifically, their aggressive style. A violation of WP:TPOC is virtually unheard of ... further, your rather thinly veiled attempt to ape my comments to Michael with your "discuss my edits, not your impression of my style, my persona" will be unlikely to reflect well when the question of your behavior is brought up for review, as I have a feeling will inevitably occur if you continue along this path you seem determined to travel. BlueSalix (talk) 20:25, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
- You are calling my editing "aggressive" (in several occasions already) and even maybe "relatively new contributor" from what I can gather. Discuss my edits, not your impression of my style, my persona, or my editcount. Thank you in advance. Cwobeel (talk) 20:17, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
- I have been discussing your edits. Which I shouldn't have to; we should be discussing the substance of your content, not your unusual editing pattern. BlueSalix (talk) 20:07, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
"Displays of triumphalism" .. I must admit you made me laugh (in a good way). Thank you for your patience, and apologies for apparently rattling your cage with that sentence in the RFC. It was never my intention. Cwobeel (talk) 21:46, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
ANI
Just to let you know that many of the changes you are making really should be strikes, not deletions. If you change the tone or content of a comment that has already been seen, it is expected that you will not refactor it in a way that changes its meaning. Instead you strike through the text using <s>bad words</s>. The reasoning is that changing the meaning will often make the reply to your comment look odd, or even irresponsible. As an unrelated example: imagine if "Bob" called "Alice" a jerk in a comment, but then removed that portion after they replied. Of course Alice would complain that Bob was making a persona attack and call him out on it. But now that personal attack is removed instead of struck, so it looks like Alice is trying to pick a fight where there never was a problem. This is why policy says you shouldn't refactor at all once replied to. Correcting spelling or grammar is fine of course, but not content or tone, as it makes it a huge burden for anyone to go back and reassemble to see what really happened. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:52, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for this direction, Dennis Brown, I will do this in the future. Up to the present I had made changes instead of strikethroughs if no one had yet replied (or if it was a grammar issue) as I was under the impression that was the policy. In the future I will use strikethroughs exclusively (except for grammar). BlueSalix (talk) 23:56, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
- No problem. It was clear to me that you had no ill intent and I just guessed you weren't familiar with the method of striking. Lots of experienced editors aren't. I think changing something directly after you have written is ok, I will add a sentence sometimes if no has replied, but the rest of the time striking is best. Kind of like I did here :) Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:58, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
- Either way, thanks for bringing it to my attention, Dennis Brown. :) BlueSalix (talk) 23:59, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
- No problem. It was clear to me that you had no ill intent and I just guessed you weren't familiar with the method of striking. Lots of experienced editors aren't. I think changing something directly after you have written is ok, I will add a sentence sometimes if no has replied, but the rest of the time striking is best. Kind of like I did here :) Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:58, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for this direction, Dennis Brown, I will do this in the future. Up to the present I had made changes instead of strikethroughs if no one had yet replied (or if it was a grammar issue) as I was under the impression that was the policy. In the future I will use strikethroughs exclusively (except for grammar). BlueSalix (talk) 23:56, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Ta-Nehisi Coates
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Ta-Nehisi Coates. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for June 15
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited International opinion on the South Atlantic sovereignty dispute, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages John Baird and Vatican (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:51, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Patience wearing really really thin
I can't believe you wouldn't write a proper edit summary here. Of course an edit like that is going to be reverted and waste several people's time further. Bishonen | talk 14:08, 15 June 2014 (UTC).
Where's the e-mail?
I'm still waiting for the e-mail you promised to send me, that was going to clear everything up. Bishonen | talk 17:32, 16 June 2014 (UTC).
The situation
Hi, BlueSalix. It has become obvious that there was no substance in the allegations you made against another user. At this time, you haven't edited for a couple of days, nor sent me the promised e-mail. That's all right, everybody always has a right to disappear from Wikipedia, temporarily or permanently. Also I suppose real life may have intervened, so your absence isn't the main reason the facts have become obvious. Don't worry too much, I can understand how the situation arose — I mean, I understand how it became more and more difficult to retract. You certainly have a moral obligation to apologize (I think you know to whom), but I'll say no more about that. I won't try to impose any sanctions on you in absentia, that would be absurd. But you should be aware that if and when you return to Wikipedia, the matter may be raised again. So, you're not blocked, but if you start to edit again, I'll advise with ArbCom, and you may subsequently face sanctions.
Please feel free to blank this page. (I won't count a single edit blanking the page as "starting to edit again".) Or ask me by e-mail to courtesy blank it, if you prefer. Good luck. Bishonen | talk 15:01, 17 June 2014 (UTC).
- I'm sorry, I've been out of the country for a few months and just returned. Can you kindly bring me up to speed on what I missed? BlueSalix (talk) 05:30, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
- You didn't miss anything as far as I know. I'm still waiting for you to forward the emails "from Cwobeel" (or from Mosfetfaser..?) that you were complaining about here, with full headers, and to explain, if you can, what caused the appearance of evasiveness on your part. Note especially my post here, and the links in it to postsf by you. (These links: [1][2]. I believe those posts of yours had been removed from the thread before it was archived, but that doesn't mean you're not responsible for them.) (Correction: No, these posts, together with your original accusations and more over-the-top attacks against Cwobeel from you are still in the thread, please see the part that was collapsed by T.Paris, and you do indeed remain responsible for all of it. 08:23, 22 August 2014 (UTC).)
- About e-mailing me: I'm sorry, but I don't want to put my e-mail address out in public on the site. To e-mail me, please enable wiki e-mail through your Preferences panel. As soon as you've done that, you will be able to see, and use, the "E-mail this user" function in the sidebar on my page, under "Tools". If you prefer not to have e-mail enabled, you can then disable yours again. It wouldn't have to be up more than a few minutes, if that's your preference. Alternatively, if you don't like that, you can forward the e-mails directly to ArbCom, at arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org. Please include the context, a link to the ANI thread, and explanations, if you have them.
- You realize that I've already been waiting bootlessly, and without information that you intended to be away, for e-mail from you for a couple of months. Please inform me of your intentions this time, here on the page: should I expect your e-mail, or will you send it to ArbCom? In either case, I strongly recommend you not to edit Wikipedia until this is cleared up. It hasn't disappeared just because you've been away, and you may still face sanctions. Bishonen | talk 00:19, 22 August 2014 (UTC).
- I'm happy to see if I still have this email and send it, but I would prefer not to be using my email address for the same reason you've indicated you'd prefer not to use yours. However, as per your request, I will happily email ArbCom (I will be able to do this before 2300 GMT on 22AUG2014) and tell them I will start looking for this email (I have a version I forwarded from my registered account to my spam account, but it does not contain headers - since it wasn't a big deal to me and I never filed an ANI about this I felt no need to keep a trail of evidence ... that said, I feel pretty confident I can retrieve the original from my hard-drive archived emails with only minor difficulty if this is something ArbCom has decided they want to pursue) and also provide them updates on my travel itinerary and schedule for the upcoming few weeks so they do not have to wait bootlessly and an assurance that I will not edit Wikipedia as I am currently facing sanctions. I believe this satisfies the three requests you've outlined (a- email; b- itinerary as to when I will be on WP; c- non-editing until clearance). Please let me know if that concludes our business or if there is something else.
(Also, please note, I made two [2] edits to WP since returning but prior to reading your message that I should not make edits without consulting you. In both cases they were to undo IP edits on historically sanitized articles that are regularly maintained by myself and others through undo actions, and neither contained a positive addition of content. These can be viewed in my edit history. Unfortunately, I do not have a way to prove that I did not read your message prior to making those edits. However, I was with another person at the time and, if necessary, I can ask them to sign a testament of what they witnessed during my editing that could be notarized and forwarded to ArbCom. Please LMK if you need me to begin this process as it will take some time for me to accomplish given my current circumstances.)BlueSalix (talk) 01:36, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
- I'm happy to see if I still have this email and send it, but I would prefer not to be using my email address for the same reason you've indicated you'd prefer not to use yours. However, as per your request, I will happily email ArbCom (I will be able to do this before 2300 GMT on 22AUG2014) and tell them I will start looking for this email (I have a version I forwarded from my registered account to my spam account, but it does not contain headers - since it wasn't a big deal to me and I never filed an ANI about this I felt no need to keep a trail of evidence ... that said, I feel pretty confident I can retrieve the original from my hard-drive archived emails with only minor difficulty if this is something ArbCom has decided they want to pursue) and also provide them updates on my travel itinerary and schedule for the upcoming few weeks so they do not have to wait bootlessly and an assurance that I will not edit Wikipedia as I am currently facing sanctions. I believe this satisfies the three requests you've outlined (a- email; b- itinerary as to when I will be on WP; c- non-editing until clearance). Please let me know if that concludes our business or if there is something else.
- (Please note the addition to my earlier post that I just made above.) So after your entire song and dance about these abusive e-mails that you accused Cwobeel of sending, and the emphasis from me and other editors on the importance of sending the full headers to someone who could take stock of your claims (and indeed after your reluctant provision of partially X'd out headers, with fulsome promises of providing the rest privately to me or anyone who needed it "forthwith", here), you're now saying you felt no need to keep a trail of evidence and may only have a "version" without the full headers? I'm sorry if I sound incredulous. It's because I am. Please do your best to retrieve the original and forward it to ArbCom within the time you have specified (before 2300 GMT on 22AUG2014). (Or rather forward them. You were talking about several e-mails, I don't know why they have now shrunk to one.) It does not conclude our business, as, if ArbCom in turn refers the question of sanctions to me, I will still need to take stock of that. As indeed I will if you should fail to locate your "trail of evidence". But as for making a few edits before reading my messages above, never mind, they were harmless edits, don't worry about it. No need at all for witnesses etc. Bishonen | talk 08:43, 22 August 2014 (UTC).
- I'm sorry, this just wasn't a very significant moment in my life that I felt necessary to build a forensic "trail of evidence." I very much enjoy and appreciate Wikipedia but it's nothing more than something I occasionally pop-in to edit or create an article occasionally. After reviewing your link, it appears my only contribution to this issue was a poorly thought-out side remark to an editor in an unrelated ANI a few months back. I never pursued the matter beyond that, nor did I file a complaint regarding the emails, nor did I even remember it occurred until I logged back on after a few months away to edit an article I'd previously written and found your many messages to me. Please understand:
- The "song and dance" is not a creature of my conjuring. I am only following up on this short exchange that I barely recall as you escalated the question and have pursued it over a period of several months. However, as I said, I am committed to doing my absolute best to accommodate your interest in this matter (in point of clarification to your above comment, I have to admit I am unaware of other third-party editors who expressed similar passion to you and seem to recall the others involved (IIRC User:NE Ent, User:Dennis Brown, User:TParis) were differently expressive, but if I am wrong then kindly accept that I should have said I am also trying to accommodate their interest as well). As far as I know, it is your interest in pursuing this I am accommodating and the characterization of a "song and dance" is not one I feel is appropriate to describe my total ambivalence to your inquiry (please understand - the preceding is not intended to be trite, I simply want to unambiguously communicate that the entire matter is one of no interest to me, so as to assuage any concerns of a "song and dance").
- I would like to personally apologize to you for not responding to your interrogatories "forthwith." I can only give you my personal assurance that I did not leave Wikipedia for two months as part of a scheme to evade your investigation. I know you've said you're incredulous to that notion, but I will offer you this personal assurance anyway.
- Kindly accept this post in the spirit in which it was intended - as a frank and direct response to concerns you are expressing - and not as a slight in any way. If I have failed to communicate something here with appropriate finesse, understand it is only because of serious IRL issues I currently face that limit the time I can commit to pursuing online intrigue, and absolutely not because I am trying to scandalize you.
- If there is anything else I can help you with, please do not hesitate to let me know, however, in interests of wrapping this up in a succinct manner, I would like to suggest we terminate this back-and-forth and allow ArbCom to do whatever it is their role in this is supposed to be. Best - BlueSalix (talk) 10:48, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry, that's too vague, I can't wrap it up yet, much as I appreciate your interest in succinctness. Please be more precise: do you or do you not intend to forward some e-mails to ArbCom before 23:00 GMT today? Yes or no, if you don't mind. Because if you don't intend to do that, ArbCom has no reason to become involved. Indeed, I only suggested ArbCom as the addressee because you have gone back on your undertaking here to use wikimail to send it to me. ArbCom doesn't have any intrinsically necessary role; it is altogether within my admin remit to sanction you myself. Yes or no, please? If it's yes, I'll await developments; if it's no, or if you merely continue to deflect and obfuscate, I'll deal with it myself. Bishonen | talk 11:38, 22 August 2014 (UTC).
- As per my message time-stamped 01:36 (above), "as per your request, I will happily email ArbCom (I will be able to do this before 2300 GMT on 22AUG2014) and tell them I will start looking for this email." (Also, I would kindly ask you not say I "gone back" on an "undertaking." The diff you provided is an affirmation by me that I would follow-up with you or ArbCom and I resumed dealing with this matter within 24 edit-hours of making that statement. That's the work schedule I can commit to right now in helping with your project.) Thank you - BlueSalix (talk) 12:11, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry, that's too vague, I can't wrap it up yet, much as I appreciate your interest in succinctness. Please be more precise: do you or do you not intend to forward some e-mails to ArbCom before 23:00 GMT today? Yes or no, if you don't mind. Because if you don't intend to do that, ArbCom has no reason to become involved. Indeed, I only suggested ArbCom as the addressee because you have gone back on your undertaking here to use wikimail to send it to me. ArbCom doesn't have any intrinsically necessary role; it is altogether within my admin remit to sanction you myself. Yes or no, please? If it's yes, I'll await developments; if it's no, or if you merely continue to deflect and obfuscate, I'll deal with it myself. Bishonen | talk 11:38, 22 August 2014 (UTC).
- I'm sorry, this just wasn't a very significant moment in my life that I felt necessary to build a forensic "trail of evidence." I very much enjoy and appreciate Wikipedia but it's nothing more than something I occasionally pop-in to edit or create an article occasionally. After reviewing your link, it appears my only contribution to this issue was a poorly thought-out side remark to an editor in an unrelated ANI a few months back. I never pursued the matter beyond that, nor did I file a complaint regarding the emails, nor did I even remember it occurred until I logged back on after a few months away to edit an article I'd previously written and found your many messages to me. Please understand:
On a side note, I don't doubt that you've been away, and I certainly don't suppose you travelled abroad as "part of a scheme to evade my investigation" — please don't be so daft. When did I say that? That wasn't at all what I expressed incredulity about, if you'll be so good as to re-read my post timestamped 08:43 above. Bishonen | talk 13:19, 22 August 2014 (UTC).
- Hi guys. I just read through this thread, and no bells are ringing in my head about what this is about and how I am involved. Can someone help me out here?--v/r - TP 16:54, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
- What Tom said, and Blue S is more than welcome to email me at entofwikipedia at gmail dot com and I'll forward whatever to Bish. NE Ent 21:48, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
August 2014
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bishonen | talk 12:26, 24 August 2014 (UTC)