User talk:BruceJohnson

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:


 * To sign your posts (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type &#126;&#126;&#126; (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; (4 tildes).
 * Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
 * If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
 * Follow the Simplified Ruleset
 * Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
 * Remember Neutral point of view
 * Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck!

self-inflicted
Alright, we'll talk about that then. Lord knows, that's an easy one to knock out of the park. Been looking forward to using the "Me and Jim aren't the brightest, but we can count to three" quote. But, I'm going to go have a couple beers first and mellow out. Best not to edit when irritated.


 * Sorry I got short-tempered earlier. Having a bad day, so retreated to cool off a bit.  Anyways, I wrote up what I know about the "self-inflicted" thing. Wolfman 06:54, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

O'Neill repeat
In your comment you said: O'Neill "not involved" already clear from earlier in article; why repeat, except to imply "he doesn't know anything about it"?

Relax, Bruce. The earlier reference to O'Neill is actually the more recent one, and obviously the one you removed hadn't been edited out at the same time. This is more a case of edits not catching up to each other rather than deliberate spin. Good catch, though. -khaosworks 15:21, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Well it's not spin. But it's also not edits failing to catch up.  Yeah, it is mentioned much farther up in the article that O'Neill's service didn't overlap Kerry's.  But that's not really sufficient for two reasons.  (a) It presumes the reader has examined every bit of the article.  We have a TOC precisely so readers can jump to interesting parts (b) Readers have finite ability to recall detail after that much intervening text.  -- Now, I'm not trying to spin it.  But I think it important that it somehow be noted that O'Neill's is not 1st-hand testimony.  It would be fine, for example, if you want to mention that is the characterization from the book (I'm not sure it is btw, I think it came from the talk shows).  I already changed it to 'not involved' rather than 'not a witness' to try to make it neutral.  But, the fact that his description is not first hand is an important fact and a neutral one; it really needs to be mentioned. What neutral way would you suggest? Wolfman 16:04, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * I misread then. But let's deal with whether we can phrase it in a neutral way. Where does O'Neill make this charge? If it's in the book perhaps we can attribute it to the book or SBVT rather than O'Neill, which dampens the implication that it is from first-hand knowledge. -khaosworks 18:17, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

List of English words without rhymes
Another editor has added the "prod" template to the article List of English words without rhymes, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also What Wikipedia is not and Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the prod template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 15:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:49, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:26, 29 November 2022 (UTC)