User talk:Bbatsell/Archive4

Mark Lemire
Thanks for your help so far. Any further help you could give would be appreciated. There was a lot of good material in the site, but one big problem is that facts which are evident in reliable sources were sourced to completely absurd sources (message boards). It will take a bit of study to sort it all out.--Jimbo Wales 02:50, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: User:Linuxbeak
I was close to getting mad at you for reverting my otherwise funny edit on User:Linuxbeak BUT when I read your musical interests I was taken aback by how similar they were to mine. Welcome to my Last.FM Friends' List :)--74.229.235.2 06:31, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I suppose it was passive vandalism at best, I will add another one to his counter, though :)

ALSO: Happy new years...-74.229.235.2 06:40, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

HELP!!!!!!!!!!
Can You Please give my page userboxes my username is iMac boy please I'm only 11 THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! P.S. THERE WILL BE IDEAS ON WHAT KIND OF USERBOXES. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by IMac boy (talk • contribs).

Thanks for the laugh
Your edit summary "staggering -> staggered; staggering made it sound like the requirements for serving on the council were difficult :)" cracked me up. Thanks for the laugh! -- Nataly a  20:31, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Heh, no problem :P. Happy new year!  —bbatsell  ¿?  20:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Troll-feeding category and pages
If you have time, could you please delete the pages i tagged with "speedy delete" (check my contributions list)? &mdash; Canderous Ordo 22:22, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Checking. —bbatsell ¿?  22:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand why you would want those pages to be deleted; however, in general, those notices and category help administrators who are unfamiliar with the user in question become acquainted with the user's actions on Wikipedia. Is there a specific reason that you are asking for them to be deleted in this instance?  (Also, please note that WP:DENY is not policy.)  Thanks, —bbatsell  ¿?  22:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, the user (Jeb Berkeley) and his alternate accounts only vandalized and made no legitimate contributions, and Jeb Berkeley himself is a sockpuppet of Jake Remington (also known as North Carolina Vandal, Fillmore, Briefs), so there is no reason to keep "sockpuppets of Jeb Berkeley" after the deletion of many "Long term abuse pages". Keeping these categories waste server resources and only encourage the vandals to create more sockpuppets, or encourages vandals to create "copycats". It's just a suggestion; i personally don't see any use for these categories that only list vandal accounts. Any vandal's user page should be deleted after a month anyway (if i recall correctly).&mdash; Canderous Ordo 22:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's true that most vandal user pages are to be deleted after a month, but sockpuppets are treated differently because they usually involve long-term vandalism, and like I said above, administrators use this information in determining what has happened in the past and how to proceed in the future. From Category:Temporary Wikipedian userpages, I quote:
 * Caution: Please do not delete pages tagged as sockpuppets. They should not be in this category in the first place (and Pathosbot removes them when they are found), but if they are, please leave them. These pages are required for sockpuppet tracking purposes; a number of administrators expressed their concern that many were being removed, making things difficult for them, and have requested that this not happen in future.
 * —bbatsell ¿?  22:46, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * OK. Well, you can proceed to revert my edits in light of this :) &mdash; Canderous Ordo 22:50, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Vandals
I appreciate the instructions, which I read, but I chose to ask for other intervention rather than open myself for vandalism, by engaging in a pissing match with a vandal.

--Kevin Murray 00:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!! THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by IMac boy (talk • contribs) 02:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC).

Adrian Lamo
Hey -- you can WP:CITE the area you're concerned about by way of this article.

Hope this helps. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 08:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks Adrian, I'll take a look at that later today. —bbatsell  ¿?  14:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Shoulda thought of this one earlier too. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 09:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Supercede / supersede
Both are valid (see - although 'widely regarded as an error' is wrong), but I always preferred 'supercede' as it ties in better with concede, precede, cede, etc, despite its origin supposedly being from 'superseder'. Change it back if you have to. Proto :: ►  09:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

edit on adultery
if you take a look at the edit, I cleaned up an entire section of confused and slanted preaching with a short description. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.36.182.49 (talk • contribs).

Non-sense? Try again.
I am not making up non-sense. My name is Andrew "Creepy" Flanagan and I'm a relatively well-known Poet in the Phoenix-Mesa area. I am a person, who has a history, and a tale to tell.

If David Hassle-Hoff can get in the Wikipedia, why can't I? Why can't Brent Heffron, David Tabor, Corbet Dean, or Bill Campana (other famous poets, 2 of which were Arkasanti champions, one of whom was a National Poetry Slam Winner) be on Wikipedia?

It's not nonsense. It's who I am. No one gives hell's tears over that magazine. Besides, if I didn't change the picture, you never would have noticed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Phreakmillion (talk • contribs).

Thank you!
Something strange happened, I'm still not sure what, but you fixed it up before I was able to. Thanks for being on the lookout for things like that! Happy New Year (I hope it's not too late to still be saying that), Dar-Ape 22:53, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I've had it happen to me far too many times :). Of course it's not too late, happy new year to you. —bbatsell  ¿?  22:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Esperanza
I have but one agenda: to improve Wikipedia. I spent six weeks forming my opinion of Esperanza during their overhaul, and I tried very, very hard to get it fully deleted because I knew this endless nit-picking would be dragged on forever if we didn't, and we all have articles to edit. I was overruled by Mailer and I abide by his decision, it's the others that are trying to pick away at it. Excuse me if I can't resist a mild "I told you so". It's all getting very frustrating. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Marc Lemire Edits
I reverted the page to the one previous to the changes made by Veritas-Canada. I asked if she or he wishes to inclued said information to simplify the language and to avoid speculation, analysis, and interpretation. Thank you very much for your input. It has been appreciated by at least this editor. AnnieHall 07:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice.
Thank you for your instructions on the notice board. I am still new here, so i often feel kind of unsure about how to react to things. Next time this happens i will know, so thanks a lot. :) - -  ' twsx 'talk'cont' 20:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Sure, feel free to ask me here if you have any further questions. —bbatsell  ¿?  21:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

About my RfA
My apology, but for the canvassing of three oppose voters, epecially for the latter two votes, they only write a line "oppose". I know many people just go to RfA and write a line of "support" or "oppose" without having a second look at the nom. I just hope their reconsideration, not change their mind. I think I have the right to make an explanation and make things much clearly, right? Yao Ziyuan 00:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It's pretty universally frowned upon. See Canvassing for some reasons why.  There's no requirement that they specify the exact reasons they chimed in the way they did; remember, it's not a vote, it's a discussion to obtain consensus.  The closing bureaucrat is free to ignore them if he/she feels that it is not in line with consensus.  —bbatsell</b>  ¿?  00:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I did follow each the guideline on Canvassing. And which is still under development and not yet became an official policy. Yao Ziyuan 00:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Did you ask everyone who voted support to reconsider their votes as well? :) (Falls under "campaigning".) My position is that people are free to "vote" (not a vote, but you know what I mean) how they choose and should not be asked to change their vote afterwards. At any rate, I don't mean any ill will, and I'm just one lowly editor. You have a ton of support votes. —<b style="color:#333333;">bbatsell</b> ¿?  00:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) I didn't say you violated policy, I said you did something I didn't like, and I pointed you to a page explaining the reasoning behind my opinion. —<b style="color:#333333;">bbatsell</b>  ¿?  00:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, if you were me, I think you not want someone misunderstanding you either. But if someone not having looking at the nom just write a line of "oppose" and go away, not even watch the nom page, what do you think? so I made some explanation... I asked the reconsideration only for this three. Yao Ziyuan 00:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

December 30
Hello, you recently reverted some apparent vandal edits to the December_30 page. I made a minor edit (so I thought) to two dates, but when I viewed the page again, there were a couple of totally random edits scattered about. Did I do this somehow or was it from the guy before you or what. Sorry, I'm still learning, but can you tell what happened? Rossman7000 04:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

OMG, I just figured it out! Apparently, the software filter I have installed trapped out what it thought to be inappropriate words, as "death", "porn", "occult" were missing in the post-edit text. Thanks for fixing, Rossman7000 04:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

In response to your comment at WP:ANI
I presume the AfD you said you contributed to which resulted in deletion was: Articles for deletion/Ass to mouth. Just thought I'd mention, given that you expressed a belief that this may have been against consensus, that the AfD is presently listed for review at WP:DRV. WJBscribe (WJB talk) 05:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads-up :) —<b style="color:#333333;">bbatsell</b> ¿?  05:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you!
Thank you very much. I confess my eyes are getting a little bleary tonight, so your comment is just what I need to perk up a bit. May I inquire what particular piece of my writing happened to catch your eye? And, oh, yes, by-all-means Hook 'em! I don't know if we can get all the way back to the top next year, but we should be in the mix again, for sure. Johntex\talk 07:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, I know just what you mean. It is always good to see friends around the place.  I miss Scm and Jareha - I've not seen them much laterly.  I am really happy for the great edits youv'e made lately to UT articles.  It is great to see us arguing the same point at WP:ANI and WP:DRV too - a nice break from UT articles! Johntex\talk 08:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Cherif Championship Show
Thank you for your response. Can you clarify that if we ( that is Arabian lines / or me as Zarife ) send the copyright notice as per your suggestion that future articles will be allowed on this or new subjects. Or is there something specific we must do in advance everytime we want to offer content to Wikipedia?

Our problem is that only certain parts of our main site content will be available with full permission, and by sending a notice we "Certainly Do Not " want any visitors/editors believing that any content is fair game.

I look forward to your response and thank you for your time.

Zarife —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zarife (talk • contribs).

Re: "The Return"
Time to move the article named Oscar's Return found in "The Office episode" template. I'll do it. -- Viewdrix 23:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Caching system
I have already programed a caching system for User:HighInBCBot. I will have it only download a new version if the cache is over 12 hours old and the page in question has actually changed(easily checked). HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 01:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I knew you would have already had that done :) —<b style="color:#333333;">bbatsell</b>  ¿?  01:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Check it out in action: User:HighInBCBot/logs. It knew of the 123 files it was watching it only needed to update two, by looking at it's watchlist. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 01:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Very very nice. Just spent some time reading up on what it's doing at the moment.  —<b style="color:#333333;">bbatsell</b>  ¿?  01:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Image:The Fray live.jpg
So what is the proper protocol for that image? I was under the impression that we were encouraged to scour flickr CC archives for non-copyrighted works. Teemu08 06:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Alright, thanks for clearing that all up. Teemu08 06:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for notification of the ANI discussion
I've left my comments there. Cheers, Moreschi Deletion! 08:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

User:HBC Searchbot
Check it out: Current source and search patterns.

All I have left to do it parse the found information into a report, once the format of the report is decided at Administrators%27_noticeboard. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 23:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Chad
Hey mate,

Think there is another Chadbryant sockpuppet here User:Pedorelli DXRAW 07:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Looks like it to me. Blocked and will list on AN/I for review.  Thanks.  —<b style="color:#333333;">bbatsell</b>  ¿?  07:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you DXRAW 07:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for unblocking me
I was really concerned that I had done something wrong on the Tara Reid article after another admin blocked me. I was trying to remove incorrect or slanderous information. janejellyroll 04:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

When did Wikipedia start?
I've known about it for a while now, and I use it a lot for school projects and such.

When did Wikipedia start? It has a whole lot of information, it's very difficult to find a topic that someone hasn't already contributed to! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.56.251.197 (talk) 08:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC).

Dental Floss
In case you aren't watching it, a brand-new user copied one of 's deletions. --Ronz 02:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * And now a second one, yay!
 * Blocked indef as sockpuppets. —<b style="color:#333333;">bbatsell</b> ¿?  02:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the quick response. --Ronz 02:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

You've been so helpful so far that I hate to bring this up, but there was an edit made in Dental Floos by the same ip address previously by an indefinitely blocked editor, (possibly another, more recent editor too). On one hand, the current editing appears to be going fairly well. On the other, if it is indeed the same person that's been blocked multiple times, then I'm not sure how much leniency should be allowed. --Ronz 03:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Could you clarify which user you think it belongs to? I know not the history of the article, but if you're talking about SoLongBaby (which, judging by the edit summaries, you might be), he is not indefblocked, only his socks are (and even those were only blocked because he was using them to evade a block).  Once his block expires (which it did long ago), he is free to edit.  Are the edits disruptive?  —<b style="color:#333333;">bbatsell</b>  ¿?  03:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * So far, I'm only guessing it's SoLongBaby also. It's pretty apparent that  is, who is listed in Suspected_sock_puppets/Ceula as a sockpuppet for .  The current edits are not disruptive.  It's just a matter of how much leniency should be allowed. --Ronz 16:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah yes, it definitely looks like the same person. But I'm not really inclined to block at the moment; my philosophy doesn't quite fit into policy, but if they're no longer editing disruptively, then I don't see the need for a new block.  Their block was 5+ months ago and last activity even before then.  If they become disruptive or start spamming their site again, then give me a ring and I'll block posthaste.  —<b style="color:#333333;">bbatsell</b>  ¿?  01:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * That's my thinking as well. He has made useful edits and he certainly knows the subject matter.  --Ronz 18:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for protecting my userpage
Thnaks for sorting that out. Weird, I've got no idea who that might be. Oh well. Cheers, Moreschi Deletion! 09:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * No problem. Let me know if/when you want it unprotected.  —<b style="color:#333333;">bbatsell</b>  ¿?  15:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Vince Young
Why did you erase my changes? Both of those statements were absolutely true. There was nothing defamatory about it. If Wiki wants to be a real encyclopedia, then it really needs to take in all the facts, not just suck the dick of celebrities. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.52.217.210 (talk) 23:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC).

User:193.219.28.146 trolling on Talk:Ass to mouth
Well, I've used up my three reversions of inflammatory comments. I have reported this troll on Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. I note there's a backlog there. I'm not even sure if that is the correct place to report persistent trolling. Would you mind looking into it? Thanks. =Axlq 22:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I do my best to stick to WP:1RR so I'm refraining from touching the page again. That's not really the place to report trolling, but it is the place to report 3RR.  I'll await a decision from an uninvolved admin on that noticeboard.  —<b style="color:#333333;">bbatsell</b>  ¿?  22:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, I'll wait too. I didn't notice you had already reverted it a couple days ago; I was paying attention only to today's activities. Hmm... I'm embarrassed to admit that I got trolled myself; in that conversation you first deleted from the talk page, one of my responses was in there. Hopefully someone on the 3RR noticeboard will clear the backlog. Wikipedia needs more administrators! =Axlq 22:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

help
help

Hi, i need your help

One of your admin, Doc glasgow, is threatening me and blocking my account. We have a dispute in the definition on living person.

Please contact me for more information.

Thanks

Senatorto —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Senatorto (talk • contribs).


 * I looked into the matter, and the above user is inserting unsourced and unverifiable information on expelled students to a high school article. He has been admonished numerous times and is now blocked for WP:3RR.  —<b style="color:#333333;">bbatsell</b>  ¿?  20:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad's RfA
Thank you for your support on my RfA, which closed favorably this morning, as well as for your extremely kind comments accompanying your !vote. I appreciate the confidence the community has placed in me and am looking forward to my new responsibilities. Please let me know if ever you have any comments or suggestions, especially as I am learning how to use the tools. Best regards, Newyorkbrad 20:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Not a spam link.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3274671562874167260&hl=en is not a spam link. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Emilmm (talk • contribs) 22:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC).

user you warned continues to violate 3RR
See Special:Contributions/193.219.28.146, and the user has also stated intent to sockpuppet to evade block. I left this note at User talk:Wangi too but I think Wangi is sleeping. — coe l acan t a lk  — 01:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've noticed, but I'm refraining from implementing a block because I am involved in the dispute (I started the deletion of his comments :P). Wangi came in completely uninvolved, so I'll wait for him or someone else to see it and block.  On a completely unrelated note, have you ever considered requesting adminship?  —<b style="color:#333333;">bbatsell</b>  ¿?  01:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I have; I don't do a lot of maintainance work at the current time though. Isn't that something of a necessity to have under my belt? — coe l acan t a lk  — 02:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I.E., it seems that I'm not entirely knowledgeable about all the things that admins do to keep the gears running smoothly, and I would need "pre-admin coaching" or something like that, I think. — coe l acan t a lk  — 02:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Janitor... Speaks for itself.
No, it is not a spam link. I am not posting it in mass quantities. No wonder, you're a JANITOR. Btw, God doesn't exist. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Emilmm (talk • contribs) 06:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC).

Bonny Jain Citing
Thanks for cleaning up the citing on the Bonny Jain. It was a big help. Oh yeah, and thanks for the citing guide. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BearsWinXLI (talk • contribs) 22:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC).

microsoft ooxml format review
I need to know why i am being threatened with a block. saying my opinion is not welcome is not reason enough. I have changed my entry to be nothing but factual and am told by you that I will be blocked for it and given a last warning. Please give me a valid reason for this and why you are making sure no one reads the factual information on the page....

In response to your writing


 * Please read Wikipedia's core policies (also known as the five pillars). In particular, WP:N, WP:V, WP:OR, WP:NPOV. A link to a news article discussing the activity can be found in the external links, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. We must not include events simply because they're on blogs or newspapers today, we must determine whether the event is in fact notable and merits inclusion in an encyclopedia. The comment that you kept deleting explained exactly why the text you added is not appropriate. Your edits were reverted by 5 editors within minutes; you were addressed on your talk page and were encouraged to engage in discussion on the article's talk page. You refrained from communicating until you realized that your non-constructive actions might result in a block. What else are we supposed to do, exactly? —bbatsell ¿? 05:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)*

If this is the case then all articles dealing with current events must be taken off. Considering it's my opinion that microsoft hiring someone to change an article on wikipedia is relevant to the article, and it's your opinion that it's not does not give you the right to consider the information not factual for the article. This is factual information that is based on a factual event that can have major implications to the format considering millions of people view this article. It can show microsoft wanting to change information others have added by doing the same thing I am wanting to do, change the article to show what they believe to be true. If you have evidence this is not factual information then show it to me and delete what I wrote, other wise leave it there as is done in most other articles about current events.

Thank you for changing the article, and I will continue to do more research and word this more appropriately to be better suited for the article.

Need your help
Hello Bbatsell,

Re: thanks for your comments.

Any suggestions you may have in this checkuser case?

After looking over the evidence, your opinion on Suspected sock puppets/Mobile 01 is welcome. Travb (talk) 17:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll see if I can take a look later tonight. Don't have the time to devote to it right this second.  —<b style="color:#333333;">bbatsell</b>  ¿?  17:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Just spotted your picture
Nice to come away with a win today, huh? :) —<b style="color:#333333;">bbatsell</b>  ¿?  03:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The most exciting basketball game versus Baylor that I've ever been to! Corpx 19:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

My RfA
Thank you for your support in my recent RfA. I think valid criticisms were raised in areas that I need to work on, so I've withdrawn my name. I intend to work on addressing the concerns that were raised, and think I need to work contributing without allowing myself to become as stressed as I have been at times, which did result in some inappropriate behavior. Perhaps I may re-explore adminship at some point in the future, but it's a little early to consider that. Again, thank you. Fan-1967 21:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you again
Thank you for your help yesterday Bbatsell about the Men's Rights incident. I'm sorry to bother you again but unfortunately davidusher has not heeded your advice. I want to alert you to this. I'm not sure if this could be called inviting meat puppets or is just WP:POVPUSH. IMHO it could be seen as a case of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point--Cailil 00:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I have posted about it on AN/I to get some more people to watch the article and to look into the circumstances. —<b style="color:#333333;">bbatsell</b>  ¿?  00:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Random smiley
Jerry lavoie 03:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Why is this not the correct venue?
Why would I have to go this way to have someone remove info about me on wikipedia?  I just want this editor to stop the personal attacks. I figured not having to contact Jimmy Wales, Designated Agent to stop this use of my quotes on wikipedia and report the incident on the Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents was the correct way. --Janusvulcan 21:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * WP:BLP applies to articles, not users. Quoting your own words is not a "personal attack" in any way, shape, or form (and by the way, you license all of your edits under the GFDL every time you press the "Save page" button).  You have been told that a number of times and continually respond "that's your opinion".  Well no, you're wrong, it's Wikipedia's policies.  I encourage you to read them before you waste any more of our time.  If you have a dispute with an editor, then the proper venue is dispute resolution.  Nothing here requires administrative intervention, which is what WP:AN/I is for.  —<b style="color:#333333;">bbatsell</b>  ¿?  22:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * So anything any editors has ever said could be quoted on my User page? --Janusvulcan 23:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Well I hate to talk in absolutes because I can't envision all future scenarios, but basically, yes. If the original text is an attack or uncivil than perhaps not, and any accompanying text has to meet all the relevant guidelines, but yeah.  Someone quoting you is not an attack.  —<b style="color:#333333;">bbatsell</b>  ¿?  01:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

The Office
I saw a preview clip on nbc.com

Thanks!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mdineenwob (talk • contribs) 13:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC).

Ip user posting same comment on multiple pages
Hi Bbatsell thanks for your recent help with the dispute on Men's Rights Talk Page. I'm sorry to bother you again but I'm looking for some advice about a Troll identifying themselves as (drop in ditor) and using IPs in the University of California, Santa Barbara. On Talk:Project gender studies we've had a recuring problem with an anonymous user. I believe it's just one person becuase of the pattern of edits and the similarity of the content being posted. We've had the project semi-protected in January because of the user's disruption of the project page. The page was previously fully protected in December because of this same user's disruption. They are also posting the same comments (verbatim) on the talk page of other gender studies articles. What follows is a list of the disruption: (latest first) "pov check" feb 07 on WP:GS, same comment in talk:feminism,  same comment posted in December 06 on Talk:women's studies, the same gain on WP:GS in dec 06, "pov check" on WP:GS Dec 06. This user has made 1 good contribution to Sexism as well and I understand that they are frustrated but I can't deal with their problem - I've asked them to evidence their concerns but they wont. I'm sorry to bug you again as I know your probably very busy. My concern with this user is that they could get UCSB IPs banned with their behaviour, which would be unfair on genuine users. --Cailil 15:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmm... well, I can't really tell how disruptive the editor is being without some diffs, but if they're using a very large IP block, then there's not all that much we can do to stop them other than to do a rangeblock (and again, not sure how disruptive, so I'm not sure how viable that is). If we were to do that, I'm sure it would be what is usually called a "softblock", where anonymous editing is disabled, but you can still log in to your account to edit.  If this doesn't happen, then the unblock template should be used to alert us.  —<b style="color:#333333;">bbatsell</b>  ¿?  18:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Bbarsell, sorry it took me so long to get back to you. I took a while to disengage and clear my head before look at this again. Here are some diffs from this Ip user first in relation to their non-consensus edits to Wikipedia Project Gender Studies. Jan 21st 2007 at 04:58 (UTC), December 29th wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AWikiProject_Gender_Studies&diff=94624287&oldid=89944329 Dec 16th 2006, 01:38 (UTC). These edits have been reverted 3 times. Twice an admin has seen fit to protect the project page afterwards.

Here are the diffs of the multiposting of content on WP:GS, WP:GS again, on women's studies and on feminism The user referes to themselves as 'Drop in Editor". They have made good contribs as well but their behavior on Gender related articles is uncivil and is frustrating other users (espeicially at Talk:Women%27s_studies.  These are the IPs used by "drop in editor", , , , ,  & .  All address are in California, all but 71.102.254.163 are from the University of California, Santa Barbara.  Their beahviour is more disruptive than anything else.  Some of their points are valid but they will not engage in meaningful discussion, especially with anyone from project gender studies. Sorry for bothering you again.--Cailil 18:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Barack Obama
Fyi, and thanks for the support. --HailFire 16:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the userpage revert
These kids are cracking me up...--Isotope23 00:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * np —<b style="color:#333333;">bbatsell</b> ¿?  03:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Gareth Keenan screenshot.png)
Thanks for uploading Image:Gareth Keenan screenshot.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 06:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Ahhh, Toad!
Toad is my favorite band of all time. I have spent years collecting bootlegs and promos. Good to see :) Teke ( talk ) 05:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * [[Image:Crystal Clear app ksmiletris.png|20px]] — bbatsell  ¿?   ✍  01:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Who are you on monsterbowl....

RE: Donnie Darko move
I had started an article on Donnie Darko (character), so I felt the need to move the page to disambiguate. Sorry for any inconvenience...I kind of have trouble distinguishing good articles and worthless articles. Depressed Marvin 22:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Re Ricky Gervais
So it is vandalism to post factual information attested to on national television by Mr. Gervais himself? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 154.20.34.50 (talk) 05:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC).

Thanks for the note
I've removed my comment from the user's talk page; you're right, it is unproductive, and serves no purpose. I keep forgetting to add subst:, will try to be better about it next time. I realized after I posted the warning that I had gone one too many, so thank you for your quick action. Ckessler 08:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Notification AN/I Discussion
Thank you for participating in this discussion. I feel that this discussion has helped me clarify and improve my practice in providing these notices. I have summarized these improvements on my talk page. Please feel free to comment. Thanks again. Edivorce 18:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)Edivorce 18:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Blocking revert of page move by null edit
Perhaps you'd be the right person to take a look into such an edit recently (details at administrators' noticeboard/Incidents). :-) &mdash; Instantnood 11:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Just to alert you that, who you blocked for an inappropriate username, is contesting the block on WP:RFCN. Sam Blacketer 23:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Nkras
Thanks for blocking Nkras's IP sock. He's now using to edit the Community Noticeboard. Sigh, he seems to have an endless supply of IP addresses. WjBscribe 00:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * sigh*. Blocked.  See he's now been banned, but if he continues at someplace other than the CN (I don't follow the LGBT WP), let me know; may have to do a rangeblock.  — bbatsell   ¿?   ✍  01:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Cheers. Unfortunately if Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Nkras is correct (and it seems to be) a rangeblock won't be possible given the amount of collateral damage it would cause. WjBscribe 01:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Legal threats:
 * Legal threats:
 * Legal threats:

Annonymous User 71.103.243.211
I have just reverted some vandalism directed at the article on The Grand Inquisitor from the address 71.103.243.211. I've checked the talk page and it seems there is a history of vandalism originating from that address. I bring this to your attention because you've already warned this user (or users) that they will be blocked if they continue such nonsense. I would like to respectfully request that you consider following through with this. -- Todeswalzer | Talk 14:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)