User talk:Balph Eubank/Archives/2010/July

hi
It wasn't my intent to offend you; what's-his-name is a well-known entity that I'm familiar with. That's who I meant to offend. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 03:37, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No big deal. Burpelson AFB (talk) 21:37, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 July 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 15:15, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Templates
The templates are exceedingly ugly and pointless. Nobody in the history of Wikipedia has ever looked at one of those templates and actually gone looking for references. The best course of action is to either find references yourself if you think they are needed or remove the unreferenced and contested material. Personally, I vote for removing the unreferenced stuff. Burpelson AFB (talk) 20:46, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Well... I have done so, and I know others who have as well. So we stand in contradiction to your assertion. But where I'm heading with those templates is toward a consensus to have the unsourced stuff removed from the page after a certain date. The template tags help in that regard.&mdash;RJH (talk) 21:54, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The template itself says "unsourced content may be removed". Just remove it and save yourself the trouble of extended discussions. Because I can promise you that plenty of people will want to keep it but won't actually help reference the stuff. Burpelson AFB (talk) 22:11, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but that would seem to be uncivil. It won't hurt to be patient and wait a little while. But I will bring up the subject on the associated WikiProject page and see if that prompts any further action.&mdash;RJH (talk) 23:10, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Up to you. Burpelson AFB (talk) 23:26, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested: User talk:Greatartista
Hello Burpelson AFB, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of User talk:Greatartista, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The reason given is not a valid speedy deletion criterion. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. — m o n o  (how's my driving?) 01:29, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
— m o n o  (how's my driving?) 01:34, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 July 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 20:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Going forward
Please do not go to AN/I with complaints involving me. That IP editor was upset because he could not manipulate me into doing what he wanted. All of the idiots fighting about global warming are irrelevant to me. Let them all turn Wikipedia into the 1936 Soviet Politburo! I believe I am done with Wikipedia for a while, as this entire episode has left a bad taste in my mouth. Kindzmarauli (talk) 05:21, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, sorry about that. Take a few days or weeks and see if you feel like coming back. Burpelson AFB (talk) 21:44, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Just so you know, there's idiots on both sides of this game. I've honestly suggested deleting all attempts to suggest sockpuppets.  -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:58, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think I'll make a comment at the ARBCOM decision. Regards of which side is doing it, they should consider it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:15, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 July 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 15:25, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

July 2010
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. ElKevbo (talk) 01:38, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:RfC
Edit warring with Carthage44 isn't going to produce the results you want. Yes, he's unreasonable and uncommunicative. Rather than fighting with him, file an RfC. You'll get some fresh eyes. If things move to slowly for you, try advertising the RfC in a neutral way where others can see it. WikiProjects are usually the best place to do so. AniMate 01:47, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your note. I've stopped edit warring, but I have invited people from the College Sports Wikiproject to join in the discussion on the talk page, and a few others have already joined in. I'd rather try to establish a consensus there instead of going through the hassle of building and formatting a RfC if I can help it. That's next if the talk page discussion doesn't work. Burpelson AFB (talk) 01:49, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * So you know, article RfCs are insanely easy. The user RfCs are the tough ones. I've asked for some clarification on both of your positions on the article talk page. I think it would be helpful for others coming in if you both explained things calmly and clearly. AniMate 02:12, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I've attempted to do so. If this doesn't work out I'll draft the RfC. I'm not online over weekends though, so I'll be around for another couple hours or so and then back on Monday. Burpelson AFB (talk) 02:15, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Protection expired
Proposal to add disputed player - see Talk:Wisconsin_Badgers_football. Exxolon (talk) 17:10, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 July 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 02:45, 27 July 2010 (UTC)