User talk:BM

Archived Versions of This Talk Page
I am archiving this Talk page by blanking it periodically. In order to facilitate the reading of old conversations, here are pointers to the versions in the page history just before each blanking of the page:


 * 1) From 20-Sep-2004 to 5-Apr-2005

Images and media for deletion votes

 * I am contacting people who previously helped to vote to delete a generally objectionable photograph by a vote of 88 to 21, and who might be unaware that immediately after that image was voted to be deleted someone posted another which was very similar in content. My objections to this, and the previous image that was voted to be deleted might be based upon reasons far different from any that you have, but I do object to it, and consider the posting of such images to be acts of asinine stupidity, which burdens the project and its major educational aims in ways that they should not be burdened, and can be extremely detrimental to the acceptance and growth of WIkipedia's use and influence. Thus far those who I believe to be in the extreme minority of Wikipedians who would like to include these images, many who have been channeled to the voting page from the article with which it is associated have dominated the voting, 23 to 12 (as of the time that I composed this message). I would like to be somewhat instrumental in shedding a bit more light upon the issue, and if possible, helping to turn the tide against its inclusion. It might also be necessary to begin making an effort to establish an explicit Wikipedia policy against explicite photographic depictions of humans engaged in erotic, auto-erotic, or quasi-erotic activities. To my limited knowledge such images have not been accepted as appropriate anywhere else within this project, and frankly I can agree with those who are casually labeled prudes for opposing their inclusion, that they should not be. Vitally important information that might be unwelcome by some is one thing that should never be deleted, but un-needed images that can eventually prevent or impede many thousands or millions of people from gaining access to the great mass of truly important information that Wikipedia provides is quite another. There are vitally important distinctions to be made. Whatever your reasons, or final decisions upon the matter, I am appealing for more input on the voting that is occurring at Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion ~ Achilles † 21:30, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Pantheism
Inevitably, I suppose, our opinionated anon has started deleting my addition to the Pantheism article. I wonder if you'd like to look at it. Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 17:49, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

216.45.221.155/Paul Vogel
It's been determined that 216.45.221.155 (talk &middot; contributions) is in fact Paul Vogel. I've banned 216.45.221.155 for an initial period of 24 hours until I can ascertain the proper procedure with an IP-address sockpuppet of a banned User. Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 21:15, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Smirking Chimp
BM, please don't recreate Smirking Chimp. I believe there's a vote going on. I don't know its current status but when I last checked, there had been no decision to recreate it. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:54, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * This title has been deleted by several admins. As there's a vote going on, the vote will decide what to do with it. What I don't understand is why, in the meantime, you keep on recreating it rather than just leaving it alone. The other problem with having this as a redirect, apart from the childishness of it, is that it's better known as the name of a website which, notwithstanding that the name derived from the insult, is now in more common currency that the insult itself, so if the title is to exist, it should probably be as an article about that site, not as a redirect. If you can't see that Smirking Chimp is more offensive, and not as well known, as Slick Willy, then I don't know what to say to you. The impression I'm getting, Brian, is that anything an admin does is by definition wrong in your view. I apologize if I have the wrong impression. I'm not going to interfere with this anymore by the way, so you can do what you want with Smirking Chimp. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:52, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

SlimVirgin
I feel that User:SlimVirgin has abused her administrative powers in both the Smirking Chimp redirect deletion and in several other situations. (For example, she once accused me of "vandalism" for making a page move that she personally disagreed with.) I feel that she is unable to separate her personal opinions from the use of her administrative powers. If this behavior continues, I am going to open a RFC on these actions. Since you have also had encounters with this administrator, I will notify you if this is done. Firebug 21:16, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree with you in this case, but I'm afraid I won't support you on the RFC. SlimVirgin is a nice person, a good editor, and a relatively new admin, who is still feeling her way in that role.   I haven't seen her making a lot of mistakes as an admin.   I think she should get a little heat on AN/I and on her Talk page over this Smirking Chimp incident, but I think that should be the end of it.   --BM 21:22, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * That's certainly your prerogative. If this does go to a RFC, I will include your perspective via the comments above. Firebug 21:39, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * No Firebug, don't threaten and insinuate. If you feel I'm abusive enough to open an RfC on, please go ahead and do it. The behavior will continue, because I don't feel I'm abusing any admin powers, so that admission should save you some time. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:23, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not threatening anything at this point, SlimVirgin. Since a RFC requires two users, I am attempting to determine whether I can find another user who shares my view of the seriousness of these actions. I respect BM's decision to refrain from participating in that step, but I have a right to communicate with other users on these matters. Firebug 21:39, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Firebug, you very precisely did threaten me on my talk page. Or were you contacting me only to ask whether I'd be the second signatory? SlimVirgin (talk) 21:46, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)


 * Brian, thank you for your reply, and for the above. My understanding is that an admin may delete a redirect if it is offensive, not merely if it counts as intentional vandalism. Two points here: first, what is the motive of the anon IP who wants to have that article as a WP title? It's silly, childish, offensive, and if it should exist, it should be an article about the website, which is quite well known, and not as a redirect. (Someone almost certainly will create such an article soon, which means we're all wasting our time here anyway.) It seems to me that the original motive was childish POV pushing, pure and simple, by someone who couldn't even be bothered to log on, so why should any one us waste our time with it? (And certainly, we shouldn't allow ourselves to fall out over it.) Second, about the admin thing in general. Before I became an admin, I often heard other admins say that non-admins had no idea how depressing it was to be constantly criticized; and sometimes I'd think: "yeah, right, good excuse." But it's true: it can be a thankless job. If you don't take action to help people who complain to you, you're a useless idiot; if you do take action, you're abusing your admin powers and people threaten you with RfCs. I've just spent two hours trying to educate myself about proxy IPs so I can help an editor who keeps being blocked inadvertently when a certain IP address (not even his) is blocked for vandalism. That time and work doesn't show up anywhere, yet it will benefit Wikipedia more than time spent deleting, keeping, or arguing about Smirking Chimp. My point is: please do take the complexities of the job and human nature into account when you feel an admin may have overstepped the mark over some issue, because the decisions that have to be made are not always black and white ones, and the people making them are fallible human beings. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:46, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, I think the anon is most likely a sock-puppet or someone who has a lot more experience on WP than the typical anon.  Also, he may have created Smirking Chimp to make a point, which is a violation of the WP:POINT guideline.   But, you know, even though one shouldn't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point, once someone has, other people aren't obliged to pretend that the point was never made or that it was not a good point.   In this case, if the anon was actually trying to make the point that Slick Willy is a POV article, he succeeded.  We should either have both Slick Willy and Smirking Chimp, or we should have neither.   There are as many people -- well, nearly as many -- who find disrespect for President Clinton to be as offensive as there are people who feel that way about disprespect for President Bush.   Slick Willy is pretty disrespectful.   Given the "anything goes" philosophy of Wikipedia where we revel in having articles about every imaginable sex practice, complete with helpful illustrations, no matter how weird or offensive they might be to some people, it is hard to argue that Slick Willy should be deleted because some people find it offensive.  Therefore: enter all the notable nicknames for politicians, including nicknames that some people find offensive. By the way, in the RFD votes, it looks like Slick Willy is going to be kept as a redirect to List of U.S. Presidential nicknames.  For me, that means Smirking Chimp comes in too, unless we want to change the tag-line in the logo to "Wikipedia, The Free Right-Wing Encyclopedia".   Perhaps you are right that Smirking Chimp should be an article about the web site as well as the term, rather than a redirect to List of U.S. Presidential nicknames.  But that would entail keeping it also.  --BM 22:04, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * We shouldn't decide issues on the basis of there being as many people offended by X as by Y. We should make decisions in an encyclopedic way. Slick Willy is very definitely in common currency. Smirking Chimp (other than as the title of the website) isn't. These names can be listed as nicknames in the article without there being corresponding titles on Wikipedia. (As for the anon IP, I agree he's a regular user, but I don't know whether he was doing this to make a political point: he also created Nuthouse and Loony Bin as redirects to psychiatric hospital, so I get the impression he's just childish.) We don't create pages with redirects for all the names listed under Ethnic slurs, so there's no reason to do it for presidential nicknames. I applaud your attempt to preserve political evenhandedness, but it shouldn't be done at the cost of being encyclopedic or using commonsense. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:22, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

WP:DICK
You might want to vote at Redirects for deletion. Zocky 20:46, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

User_talk:Jimbo Wales
I posted a follow up to a somewhat older message of your on the Achilles topic on Jimbo's talk page. No idea if I said anything you'll feel the need to reply to, but I just thought I'd let you know. Please feel free to delete this notice. --Gmaxwell 21:46, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Category:Rumored 2008 Democratic Presidental Candidates
A new category has recently been formed which I believe to be rather unnecessary. I was interested in what your opinion on it might be. --BaronLarf 15:46, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

Comparative edits
I thought you might be interested in readng, and perhaps giving me your feedback on the following:  

-- rrcaballo AT yahoo.com

Style vote
I've never seen you deal with biography pages, but I know you have a level head from what I've seen of you on editing stuff like the atheism article. Anyway, there is currently a survey on style at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies)/Survey on Style-Prefixed Honorary Titles and I'm pretty sure some level-headed input would be appreciated there, as most of us there are less than level-headed about the subject. Its currently a vote, and its looking like its going to come down pretty close to 50-50 on the matter, and I think that right now there really haven't been enough people (a little over 30) to really settle the matter, especially given how deep the split seems to be. Also, there have been some questions of impropriety, as to whether the vote is really "valid", though I think a great deal of that is because a few users are afraid the vote will go against them and didn't want it to be done at all, as well as others concerned with the issue of whether a vote really consitutes a consensus on the matter, especially when many people seem to be split very deeply. Anyway, I was just kind of trying to get the word out a bit because deciding Wikipedia policy on thousands of articles with 32 votes seems like it would be kind of messy. I'm pretty sure giving users messages is less than effective, but I can't really think of what else to do. Titanium Dragon 11:41, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Invitation to Inquiry
Brian, you are cordially invited to join the Inquiry project. Adraeus 10:36, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Sam Spade took over the project, and twisted its purpose. Unfortunately, the project can't be deleted; however, I'm moving it offsite so I can exhibit more control over the documentation and membership. Adraeus 14:07, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

verses
Hiya,

you recently voted to delete John 20:16

Uncle G has made a wider proposal covering a much larger group of verses.

would you be prepared to make a similar vote at Votes for deletion/Individual Bible verses, which covers the full list of verses in Uncle G's suggestion?

9 July 2005 16:39 (UTC)

Ranks and insignia of NATO Armies Officers
I am trying to rename and move all images on the page to commons. I could move every image individualy but hope to find a faster and more fficent method. Cat chi? 13:03, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

I have already moved images of Turkey UK and US. Cat chi? 13:03, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Greetings from the United Federation of Planets
I come in one peice... Ne-ways whatcha upto being away this LONG? -- Cool CatTalk 21:44, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Francis Sant-Cassia
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Francis Sant-Cassia. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/Francis Sant-Cassia (2nd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:06, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Said-Vassallo-Acknowledgement
Template:Said-Vassallo-Acknowledgement has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ricky81682 (talk) 09:04, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

"Intactivist" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Intactivist. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 28 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:57, 28 April 2021 (UTC)