User talk:BmikeSci

re:Thank you for your message.
As a new contributor, I appreciate your greeting. I've been really enjoying my time helping with articles. Has anyone ever suggested adding a "hits" counter to articles? It would be fun to see how many people read an article that one's written.

Cheers,

BmikeSci 08:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)BMIKESCI


 * Thanks for the nice response! Actually, a lot of people have asked that question. Rather than trying to seem really smart by copying and pasting it, I'll just show you this section to Wikipedia's Technical FAQ. Hope that helps! I have copied this message on both of our talk pages. It would be more convenient if you responded on mine. Regards, Alphachimp   talk  11:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Skull & Bones
Please gain some more experience in WIkipedia before you lecture on POV. "Factual" is not enough. Context is important. SO is presentation ("Bush won't tell the American people" is yellow journalism.) Read what I said in talk. -- Cecropia 21:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Calling my edit yellow journalism is argumentative. Please see the wikipedia tutorial on civility. It is a fact that GWB will not discuss S&Bs with the american people. This is a remarkable fact at the very least. If you have factual evidence that GWB will discuss S&Bs with the american people, please put it in the article. A wikipedia article is not a public relations vehicle. It should contain facts and facts should not be removed.

I will ask for a peer review. In the mean time, my edit should not be vandelized.

BmikeSci 22:03, 7 July 2006 (UTC)BMIKESCI


 * Removing POV material (and Wikipedia is not a soapbox) is not valdalism. That Bush won't discuss Skull & Bones is a fact. Your evaluation of that one fact is POV. And George H.W. Bush won't discuss it. And John Kerry won't discuss it. And Wiliiam F. Buckley won't discuss it. I am not unsympathetic to negative feelings toward secret societies (which, if they are not criminal organizations are Constitutionally protected in the U.S.) but this is for the S&B article, not the Bush aricle What part of that don't your understand? -- Cecropia 22:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying. I just don't think you are a cannonical source. I don't think that my single adjectival phrase is soapbox or POV. I do think that removing it over and over again is vandalism. Even if it were somewhat POV, once again, please read the NPOV tutorial. It clearly states that the way to make an article NPOV is to include all alternate POVs, not to remove the ones you don't like.

Nevertheless, I consider my edit to be merely factual. Please provide evidence to the contrary, and I will remove it. BmikeSci 22:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)BMIKESCI


 * BmikeSci, the NPOV tutorial is not policy. S&B is already described as secretive in the GWB article, and to add that Bush refuses to talk about a secretive society gives it undue weight. Even if you think the rest of us are being stubborn even bullying you, that is not vandalism, and saying that it is won't earn you any converts.--Kchase02 T 23:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Message posted on Sunday, May 20, 2007
Please do not post copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

Butseriouslyfolks 21:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Bay Valley foods
Regarding your additions to Bay Valley Foods from your IP  and this account which I have reverted, I have found no outside  reports that this plant has been associated with health risks. You've posted statistics and made assumptions about those statistics, and that is considered original research and is not allowed. I am not questioning if the statistics are true or not, I am saying that you can't do original research to connect any dots here - you need  to quote from reliable sources making  accusations against the plant if any exist. I could not find any and I believe the comments you added could be considered defamatory so without evidence, they are OR and not acceptable. Also, bringing this to Jimbo Wales and Mediation is rather premature - discussing it on the article's talk page is the appropriate action, which I have been trying to do since my first edit here. You can ask for comments from others if you like as well. Tvoz | talk 20:11, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Bay Valley Foods
A template has been added to the article Bay Valley Foods, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with db-author. -- Y not? 08:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Bay Valley Foods
WP:NPA. I have removed all of the non-sequitur comments you are making about various people who are editing the AfD. Your personal interpretations of people's political leanings have no bearing on the discussion, and the closing admin will address the arguments, not ad hominem attacks. Corvus cornix 20:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

If you are going to make personal attacks on people, please at least provide links which actually substantiate what you're claiming. Corvus cornix 23:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hi, there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot 23:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * By the way BmikeSci, the above comment, by "SineBot", was an automatic message from a computer program that runs around adding signatures to comments when they have been omitted.


 * Another common problem that the SineBot does not pick up is your location of new comments on a talk page. They should go at the bottom of a page (like this one), not at the top. See Talk page guidelines.


 * Additionally, you are currently canvasing. You should review the Wikipedia behavioral guideline on canvasing here: Canvassing. Personally, I am happy for as many people as possible to look at the Bay Valley Foods page and give it a fair evaluation; and I will have no problem abiding by whatever decision is reached by the administrators who will have to review the discussion and decide what to do. But if you are seen to be canvasing in conflict with behavioral guidelines, then this is likely to backfire.


 * You will find your Wikipedia experience is more productive if you keep up to date on the various guidelines. In particular, I think you should read and make sure you understand
 *  No personal attacks
 *  Notability (organizations and companies)
 *  No original research especially the section  primary, secondary, and tertiary sources
 *  Canvasing
 * Your only hope of saving the page at this point is actually to understand these guidelines and apply them. If you can do that, then I will have no objection to the page remaining. If you cannot, then I am pretty sure the page will be deleted. The decision is not actually up to me; but up to administrators, who will review arguments and who invariably are driven by well established guidelines such as those I am recommending to you, and not by other concerns.


 * I am not an American; and my concerns are exclusively with keeping Wikipedia encyclopedic as defined in the guidelines. Personal views of what an encyclopedia should contain are not going to matter; there is a well established set of guidelines for sorting out these matters, and you badly need to start working with the system. Best wishes &mdash;Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont)  00:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

"deletionists are after me"
Hehe... no, I wouldn't say so. It's pretty clear that you're here in bad faith. I think it's extremely unlikely that AfD is going to end in anything but a "delete". So I wouldn't spend any more time refining it until that closes. -- Y not? 00:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)