User talk:Bi

lowtax's law
You're not seriously suggesting we agreed on something, are you? Avriette 02:57, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I'll say that I agree with the US law which you quoted. Bi 07:48, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I guess that's a start. Avriette 12:43, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

3rr
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. — Mets 501 (talk) 03:34, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Going down the same path over and over
Renominating an article for deletion over and over is disruptive. After the AfD "failure", I would recommend using WP:3O or WP:RFC. Using the same approach over and over again isn't going to work. Electrawn 21:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Reliability
William Starr Myers: The Story of New Jersey. He makes the straightforward claim of unconstitutional tyranny, with less detail and substantiation than is available dozens of other places; starting, I believe, with the Liberty Lobby. Septentrionalis 15:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Bi 17:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Do not vandalize articles
Stop vandalizing articles. You are deleting cited info. You are also deleting my comments from talk pages. Bridge &amp; Tunnel 07:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I have grounds for deleting them. Thank you. Bi 07:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

3RR and Revert Warring Block
I have blocked both yourself and Bridge & Tunnel for 24 hours for repeated reverting. I don't see why others should suffer by having a page locked if two users are reverting each other. I understand you may feel that B&T has been disruptive but our polices on reversions only legitimise it for obvious vandalism, which this isn't a case of. Cool off, try and discuss further and don't react to users by reverting. --Robdurbar 14:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I am willing to discuss further with Bridge & Tunnel to form a consensus on what information to include; however, it's getting evident that Bridge & Tunnel plain refuses to listen to other people's (not just mine) explanations of Wikipedia policy, so I guess I'll have to try other avenues once the 24 hours is up. Thank you. Bi 15:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmm, I don't paticularly think that Bridge and Tunnell is acting in bad faith. His reverting is a bad thing but he's not edited for getting on two days. Rather than go doubt the route of the RfC, I think the best way of possibly solving the problem would be to list Frank R. Wallace for deletion. If the community decides he's worth keeping, then we can work to provide decent sources for it. If not, then the article is gone. I don't think an RfC is the route to go down yet. --Robdurbar 10:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the suggestion. I've also considered putting up the Frank R. Wallace article for AfD, but since the tag has only been up for a short while I was wondering if it's good to start an AfD so soon. Should I start an AfD immediately? Bi 13:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I've decided to go ahead and start an AfD. Sorry and thanks. Bi 15:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

User conduct RFC
Generally, a user-conduct RFC is seen as a pretty serious step. Before dispute resolution and article RfC's have even been tried or offered, I'm very hesitant to certify one, and I'm not sure this case rises to that level. I think the AfD is probably a better step to resolve the questionable notability. Have you offered or tried any other methods in WP:DR? Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 22:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm doing that, but I think it's a huge waste of time. I don't see why someone else should be able to get away with throwing abusive remarks around for weeks on end, while I have to go through some bureaucratic procedure just to stop that. Bi 07:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation
This message delivered: 22:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC).

Wikistalking
Wikistalking to retaliate against an edit you don't like can result in a block. Please adhere to Wikipedia rules and policies. THF 19:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, but I know a scarecrow when I see one. Bi 03:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Help with some research/maintenance
I am doing some Wallace related research. I think we may be on the same page about some of this. From seeing your experience, I know there will be some push-back. My project is a bit different, but we expect to have hundreds of citations. I'm looking for a little guidance as well as maybe some help on the site to protect some edits. Are you still active, interested? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChuckWingate (talk • contribs) 18:00, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Neo-Tech for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Neo-Tech 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 Articles for deletion/Neo-Tech & 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 notice from the top of the article. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:17, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:02, 23 November 2015 (UTC)