User talk:Bluee Mountain

Welcome!
I merged Residual sugar into the Sweetness of wine, as suggested. 1. How do I dismiss the article Residual sugar? 2. How do I add the word Residual sugar to Sweetness of wine, (to redirect to the new article)? Bluee Mountain (talk) 10:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Have you read Help:Merging_and_moving_pages? It goes into detail about this. Basically, replace the Residual sugar article with #REDIRECT Sweetness of wine Tombomp (talk/contribs) 10:35, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

-
 * Thanks for comment Bluee. Sorry about your illnesses. Hope your recoveries were complete and that you had fun at least until you got them!!

Calamitybrook (talk) 05:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. They are not pleasant, but I survived. Bluee Mountain (talk) 11:16, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Merge/etc
Trust you are not into banking or too close to NY :) - it seems if one puts some people behind a keyboard it gives them their collective angst which they need to spray or impose on unsuspecting victims - which is same as what giardia did for me (at the other end) way way back (in time that is) - trust you never got that - cheers SatuSuro 11:07, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

No, not into banking :) -

Cheers

Bluee Mountain (talk) 11:16, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Frédéric Chopin
I have responded to your concerns. Perhaps consider watchlisting that page, so that we won't have to remind you?

Sincerely,

La Pianista ( T • C • S ) 06:40, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Paella Article
Please put your divisions back in the paella article. I can see I have a friend in you. If Texas Pete reverts it then I'll revert it back. Thanks for your help. I appreciate it. LuisGomez111 (talk) 23:21, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Of course. I added the International Paella again. And moved one sentence to the Valencian Paella. Thank you. Bluee Mountain (talk) 11:13, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Paella Article RFC
I've placed a "Request For Comment" tag on the bottom of the discussion page for this article in an attempt to initiate dispute resolution. I noticed you, user:Mountolive and Texas Pete arguing a bit. Please participate. LuisGomez111 (talk) 18:48, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Not much, actually. The general problem is solved. (He wrote pitchers instead of pictures).

Bluee Mountain (talk) 19:06, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

October 2008
You have been accused of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Suspected sock puppets/LuisGomez111 (2nd nomination). Thank you. Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 15:18, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I have heard the story. Yes, 'user Warrington' is living with me. And yes we were talking about the article (paella). And why not? Wikipedia is not going to make the rules in my house.. It is a nice idea sharing all the knwledge, but the information on Wikipedia is often unprecise and unreliable, conflicts between editors are frekvent, some editors only spoil other peoples work, you are harrasing your users and the project is not worth the time and energy invested in it..

Bluee Mountain (talk) 20:19, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

See Warrington's talk page. Please email me.  — Rlevse • Talk  • 02:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi. OK. I believe you and will AGF here. I have unblocked Bluee. Let me offer some advice. What caused the person to file the SSP to be suspicious was that you two and Luis were all editing the same sets of articles, which in and of itself is okay, but they became suspicious because of the pattern of edits, supporting each other, etc. So, the filed the SSP. I came along and to sort it out ran a checkuser and someone else does an in depth sock analysis. This uncovers in rock solid form Luis’ socking so all 4 of his accounts are now blocked. But it also uncovers that three accounts on your end are coming from the same computer. I had another checkuser look at this and he agreed on the blocks, so I did them. In other words it had all the earmarks of socking. However, since you three don’t have it declared on  your user pages that you live in the same home, there is no way for us to know that. My wife has an account and you can clearly see we state this on our user pages, that we live in the same house. When you have people in the same house editing the same articles, these things happen sometimes, unfortunately. So my advice is to declare the connection/relationship on all three user pages and to not edit the same articles or if you do edit the same articles, to be careful about it so people don’t get suspicious again. I’m sorry for the trouble you’ve had here and hope you all return to wiki. If someone gets suspicious about this in the future, just ask me for help.  — Rlevse • Talk  • 12:09, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for unblocking me, but I was disappointed with several things about what happened.. I understand how you were thinking, but I'm not sure I feel the same way I did before for this project. It is a result of these unpleasant conflicts.

Thank you for your message.

Bluee Mountain (talk) 18:26, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Thomas Edison
Did you actually find the passage confusing, so you thought Engle was talking about his own mother? That is surprising, since Edison had been mentioned in the preceding sentence. Personally, I find pronouns useful and succinct rather than repeating the noun each time. Regards. Edison (talk) 18:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

X
After all this trouble, I made only one (considered uncontroversial, I hoped) edit, one single word, typing Edison instead of He, editing a meaning about him. And I already run into a new conflict. This is not my cup of tea, being forced to quarrel about every little edit, every common sense small changes with stubborn editors, being pulled into meaningless controversies. Editing Wikipedia is a complete waste of time.

Bluee Mountain (talk) 21:10, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)