User talk:BlueGoose

Welcome to the Wikipedia!
Welcome to the Wikipedia, BlueGoose! And thanks for the contribution to the Donald Rumsfeld article. Hope you enjoy editing here and becoming a Wikipedian! Here are a few perfunctory tips to hasten your acculturation into the Wikipedia experience:


 * Take a look at the Wikipedia Tutorial and Manual of Style.
 * When you have time, take a look at The five pillars of Wikipedia, and assume good faith, but keep in mind the unique style you brought to the Wiki!
 * Always keep the notion of NPOV in mind, be respectful of others' POV, and remember your unique perspective on the meaning of neutrality is invaluable!
 * If you need any help, post your question at the Help Desk.
 * Explore, be bold in editing, and, above all else, have fun!

Some odds and ends: Boilerplate text, Brilliant prose, Cite your sources, Civility, Conflict resolution, How to edit a page, How to write a great article, Pages needing attention, Peer review, Policy Library, Utilities, Verifiability, Village pump, Wikiquette, and you can sign your name on any page by typing 4 tildes: &#x7e;&#x7e;&#x7e;&#x7e;.

Best of luck, BlueGoose, and have fun! Ombudsman 06:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Robin Bush
It is so not speculative ... he's acknowledged as much himself — in statements when he was younger and by writing a paper to that effect in boarding school. Everything currently in the article is sourced. Did you sign up just so you could do this? There is such a thing as being too bold ... I am wary here of people whose first move after creating an account is to slap NPOV tags on articles.

In any case I've already this dicussion on the Talk page for the article, and I believe it's been resolved as the user who originally brought it up has not continued the discussion after I made changes to the article in its wake. Daniel Case 16:30, 18 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Amazon reviews are not considered reliable sources. There is no way to verify who wrote them, and they are frequently subject to astroturfing campaigns. Daniel Case 02:50, 19 December 2005 (UTC)


 * See pages 221-238 of the book. I will incorporate all those into the reference section as well since they are the primary sources in this case.


 * I am having serious difficulty assuming good faith here. You set yourself up with a user account here only two days ago; my user page gets vandalized for the first time in almost a year since I set it up; you erroneously claim that "Wikipedia is not for children", and then you add section heds to the Robin Bush talk page which weren't there before. Rather audacious things to do in your first week. Daniel Case 03:45, 19 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I accuse you of nothing. I'm merely noting that it occurred for the first time today despite a year of engaging in some often contentious edits. Daniel Case 03:52, 19 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorry for all this ... I've been through some edit wars where it was clear to me that the other side was not acting in good faith, and I tend to get suspicious. Since my user page was vandalized today I was especially edgy. I think what we all decided to do was best, and I like the result.


 * Upon further review that vandalism to my page was probably someone whose article I had speedied the night before. Happens. Daniel Case 05:48, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Copwatch scandal
I removed the claim added to Copwatch about the July 2005 scandal. It was not cited and I could not find any information about it online. If you have a reference, please cite it. Also, please clarify which Copwatch group was involved, as all of the groups are autonomous and self-governing. Mycota 23:37, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Once again I removed that claim. You stated that you have "personal information" about the incident but do not want to disclose the source. This definitely does not count as a reliable source according to Wikipedia standards. See Reliable sources for information about this policy. Here's what it says about primary sources: "We may not use primary sources whose information has not been made available by a credible publication." If the information has been published in print or online, you must include the citation. If not, you may not add this allegation to the article. Mycota 01:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I emailed the Oakland County Sheriff's Office about this issue and here is the response I received from a commander:
 * I am not aware of any issues that our department has with Copwatch. They did not release any personal information on any of our department members.


 * Captain Douglas S. Molinar
 * Commander
 * Patrol Services Division

I will assume this issue is resolved unless an actual source for the allegations can be provided. 216.19.216.84 18:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Rudy Giuliani
I don't have cite, but the reason given where this is mentioned as commonly known is the improbability that Rudy Giuliani could have been mistaken that he shared a great grandparent and not a great-great grandparent with Regina Peruggi. In any case, the Church would allow a marriage of second cousins. patsw 01:52, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

"Scalito"
I think a vote of some sort should be set up on the redirect. I don't want to get into a pety edit war. Scalito clearly is not offensive to Judge Alito as he had an opportunity to address the name in his hearing and showed no objections to its use. I think the Dubya parallel, which at some level plays on his stereotype as a southern hillbilly, is quite relevant. Monarch75 17:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Monarch75 17:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

National Organization for Women
Can you explain why you think an article about the National Organization for Women is not encyclopedic? Please explain it on the discussion page, rather than just tagging the article.

Chuck Norris
I know you meant well with your addition of the vandalism notice to Chuck Norris, but that notice was self-referential and doesn't make sense as a part of the article text. Remember, the article text is supposed to be the final stuff that would end up, say, being printed out into a dead tree edition of the encyclopedia. In that context a vandalism notice doesn't make sense. That's why all self-referential/non-encyclopedic text is put into templates (i.e. sprotect, npox, even spoiler). What I ended up doing was put a similar comment as an HTML comment inside the article source, so people won't see that when reading it, but when they go to edit it (like, say, to add more "Chuck Norris Facts") they will see that comment. Check out how I did it. Seeya around. -- Cyde Weys 23:20, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Doyle Brunson
I wrote the family life section, which you put a possible hoax tag on. I've put my thoughts on the article's talk page - any comments would be welcome. CTOAGN (talk) 07:45, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for removing the pic of Prussian Blue from the AH article. Let's see if it stays out. Wyss 01:38, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Requests for adminship/Ec5618
You recently voted in my Requests for adminship, unfavourably. Please read the page again, as I have tried to clarify my position. I did not mean to imply that I find Wikipedia too large, nor that I would like to standardise spelling. Since these seem to be your major objections to my Adminship, I would like to ask you to reconsider your vote. I would hate for a simple misunderstanding to skew the votes.

If you still have questions, ask them, please. Thank you. -- Ec5618 23:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Adminship Vote
I want to sincerely thank you for voting on my successful adminship nomination. Whenever I mess up, please let me know. I want to learn from my mistakes so they don't become patterns. Superm401 - Talk 05:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

re: Joe Clark
I'm not really sure, it might be a hoax. An anon added his death date. I was doing researching to find out if it was true. If I don't find any new info today, I'll remove the info about his death. | QzDaddy 12:51, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * -Actually, I saw you have already removed the info about his death. Thats good, Thanks! | QzDaddy 13:07, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

George W. Bush
I noticed you removed an entire section from the Bush article, calling it "weasel words"   I think this was a mistake. Straight up, the removed text does technically contian weasel words, but the section is a summary of a linked article. The "critics" and "opponents" the text referes to are properly explained and cited by the linked article. The entire Bush article is this way. Please reconsider your edit, or at least improve the text and not simply delete it because you don't like it.

I completely understand your point, but its sort a Wikipedia guideline (I know that link is somewhere around here!) that instead of removing text that's not great, its better to improve it. And it you can't, something is better than nothing. You could have pointed out the issue on the talk page instead of just deleting it. If you are unable to improve and article, maybe someone else could have. Ehlkej 08:24, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

AfD Comment
I have to admit that I do not really understand your seemingly sarcastic remark at Articles for deletion/Yahoo! trolling phenomena. (I don't really understand why my comment was caleld "impressively restrained", either. I simply don't think that there is any need to have "procedural keep" votes under any circumstances. However, I do apologise for any unfair implication that you did not try to fix the nomination. JPD (talk) 11:39, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * No worries - I can see why you felt personally attacked in light of the next comment, even though I didn't intend it that way. JPD (talk) 12:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

AIV vs VIP
Hi. I noticed you added to Vandalism in Progress. That page is only for very specific cases, as described by the page's guidelines. Your alert would be better placed on Administrator intervention against vandalism (WP:AIV), where it will usually be processed within minutes. Many alerts that are incorrectly placed on Vandalism in Progress are never dealt with, simply because they become old before an administrator gets to them. Thanks for your efforts. :) -- light  darkness (talk) 06:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Dick Sargent
You've re-editted Elizabeth Montgomery's age at her death as 62, as on Dick Sargent's page, and sent me a message about vandalising. This is untrue! If you check Elizabeth Montgomery page, her lifetime is noted as spanning from 1938 - 1995. Which is 57 years as I editted the page to be (and I have done so again)! Verify information before you lash out at users, thanks.Shayan

Adam and Steve
I am not claiming to be admin, however your edits are clearly vandalism. If you continue you will be blocked. --Scaife   (Talk)   Don't forget Hanlon's Razor 05:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. Scaife   (Talk)   Don't forget Hanlon's Razor 05:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Apparently there is a misunderstanding. I merely reverted observed vandalism, just as you did. What is the problem? No one is acting as admin. I am working within the scope of Vandalism. --Scaife   (Talk)   Don't forget Hanlon's Razor 05:25, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for sticking up for me, bro. Some of these "articles" are fucking horseshit, if you know what I mean!!! You'd think they were written by an 8 year old. 67.163.110.126 06:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Could you please not edit war about warnings on IP talk pages. 67.163.110.126 was carrying out vandalism, and therefore it was quite proper to warn them. If you had comments/suggestions about the exact nature of the warnings the proper place to discuss them is on Scaife and your talk pages (I see you did, but discussion should have remained there). Also please be careful not to violate WP:NPA. Thanks. Petros471 21:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I have applicable comments on all responder's pages. BlueGoose 00:05, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Personally I probably wouldn't have gone to test4 from test1 (i.e. probably used 2 or 3 first). I was saying was that discussion over this should have been kept away from the IP talk page. Could you please point out the personal attack against you by Scaife on User talk:67.163.110.126? You could probably point to Scaife calling the IP "the perp" as out of order, but that was on his discussion page when talking to you. Petros471 09:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Talk:UK Islamist demonstration outside the Danish Embassy
Hi Mr Goose. please have a look at replies at Talk:UK Islamist demonstration outside the Danish Embassy. cheers mate. Veej 02:05, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

by the way, sorry for arbitrariliy removing that tag. i get a bit shirty about these tags sometimes. i prefer to have the discussion first but we're having it now anyway. Veej 02:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

i can't spell arbitrariliy either which is why cut it from your edit box entry & pasted it here. i only put "arbitrariliy removing" in italics because i had used your words. I probably didn't need to. I didn't put much thought into it really. honestly, i'm not trying to wind you up. i apologuised above only for arbitrary removal of the tag without much discussion. however, after giving good reasons why your nigger analogy doesn't work, asking for elaboration on why you dislike the term islamist and offering proof that the notable media use this term, i felt it was reasonable to remove the tag. i'm not sure why your comments on my usertalkpage were labelled "Chill out". Veej 13:42, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Rationale for Vote?
Can you explain why you voted Strong Oppose in my RfA? joturner 21:55, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments from User talk:Joturner
Sorry, I couldn't get back to you quickly. The reason I opposed your RfA is because I felt you would take too confrontational an approach in dealing with potential disruptors as evidenced in your answers. The fact that somebody claims a scientific theory is false does not mean he is a bad-faith disruptor and banning him immediately without having a dialouge much less giving him the usual number of warnings only antagonizes people against Wikipedia. I believe a better solution would be to revert the user's changes and explain to him why the article in Wikipedia is written the way it is, hopefully by citing our relevant policies as well. He may come back and say that criticisms of the theory are not cited in the article, and you may come back and say that Wikipedia does have a way of outlining the minority view as the minority view. Then, you may act as a mentor for him to edit Wikipedia within the constraints of our policies. I believe this would work better than to play the role of police officer with a stick. BlueGoose 03:06, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the comments. Not to carry on this discussion extensively, but it seems like you weren't aware of Cyde's entire question. The hypothetical situation involved a vandal who in addition to proclaiming that a scientific theory was false (as you explained thoroughly in the above statement) also vandalized a page with a Goatse image. It was the part about the Goatse image that, in my opinion, makes the user a particularly harmful vandal. joturn e r 03:37, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for your vote of confidence in my recent request for bureaucratship. Even though it didn't pass, I greatly appreciate your support and hope I will continue to have your respect. Thank you! Flcelloguy (A note? ) 23:04, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi..
I can't help but notice your username is designed to parody/impersonate/disparage a wikipedia sysops by the name of, with an M, a one letter permutation, might I suggest that you avoid doing such a thing in the future, as hostile/insulting username attacks have a tendency to lead to username blocks--172.136.102.28 19:42, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Heh,
That IP was just a reincarnation of this guy which did this and this and this. So frankly, everytime I see that message, I'm going to block for a month at least unless there's other edits (shared IP). But should anyone email me, I would be happy to unblock. Thanks for you concern though and usually I am not this vindictive but this guy is pushin it. Cheers and happy editing! Sasquatch t|c 00:43, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Racism
If you're accusing me of being Racist then that is a digsusting allegation I entirely refute. Legendary Steve 22:50, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Response is on your talk page. BlueGoose 00:05, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually I included MLK Jr. for precisely the opposite reason, which was to show that I wasn't being racist. Legendary Steve 00:09, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Bluegoose, I'd like to point out that Legendary Steve also created a 'White criminals' category and including Joseph Stalin and Kenneth Lay before it was taken down. I don't think he's acting in bad faith, or that he's racist. I do think that the categories are unnecessary, though. - Richardcavell 00:35, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Even if an editor thinks that those categories are desirable, writing, "Many criminals have been white, especially white-collar and other victimless crimes requiring high intellect" implies that other races, like African Americans, have lower intellects. Such unsourced assertions do not bring credit to this encyclopedia. -Will Beback 03:58, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Requests for comment/Merecat
Thanks for your kind comment. What you said is exactly how I feel regarding that. Merecat 19:10, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

regarding your comments at rationale to impeach
i very much agree with you that the page has become unreadable. I think that somebody should go ahead and look at that "history". The comments were deleted not once, but twice by merecat, the first time i was working and in the middle of cleaning things up.

So the problem here is abusive deletions by merecat. Prometheuspan 17:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

rex
like the tyrannosaurus that lived a mere 071404 million years ago05:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Deletion Review

 * Hi BlueGoose, thanks for your message. Yes, you are exactly right. If the AfD closure was out-of-process, then the right thing to do is to list it at Deletion Review.  Even if you have now been persuaded to change your oppinion of the article, there were other people who felt the opposite way who have not said they changed their opinions.  I have already posted this at deletion review. Johntex\talk 00:12, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry
I've blocked you for 48 hours for employing the sockpuppet on Deletion Review and elsewhere. If you regard that account as your main account I will swap the blocks. Please refrain from such activity in the future. Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 15:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I am not the only editor at this residence. BlueGoose 20:17, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Denied. I take it then that you deny responsiblity for an account (which I'll not name here) created just four minutes after you made that edit? Mackensen (talk) 21:42, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Request for Editor / User Page Review
Hey BlueGoose – You opposed my last RfA in March on rationale I believe may have been related to my user page. In the time since then, I have changed my page to be more universalist (which still conforms with my personal beliefs) and removed the majority of information regarding my conversion to Islam in favor of a section on my philosophy (as well as yours if you desire). Now, I'm looking for your feedback on what you think of the redesign of the page and whether it is sufficient in quelling the March controversy over the page as well as solving the issue about possible inability to maintain a neutral point of view, especially in religion-related articles. For what it's worth, the reason I kept a condensed version of the timeline was because there were, and still are, many people who find it interesting instead of a form of proselytization. Many people have also given me positive feedback on my talk page regarding the look of the page. I personally believe that it is okay to insert individuality onto user pages, especially if it still promotes a sense of community. That is what I was going for with this current version of my user page.

Please make comments regarding the user page on my editor review page. Thanks in advance. joturn e r 15:20, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:Money-US
I gather that you no longer edit here, but I imagine that I ought in any event to write you to apprise you of my having removed from this template a fraudulent use advisory you added eleven months hither. I've explained such removal at the template's talk page, and I should very much appreciate your input. Joe 22:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Redirect listed at Redirects for discussion
I have listed List of fags at the Redirects for discussion, as it uses an offensive term to refer to the subject of the list. Dave 6  talk  09:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

AfD
Please see: Articles for deletion/Adam and Steve. Northwestgnome (talk) 07:13, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)