User talk:BuboTitan

Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-11-29 Enhanced interrogation techniques
I've taken this case. There's an area of the case page where you can summarise your stance - please use this to briefly summarise what you think is going on. Cheers, Dihydrogen Monoxide  ♫ 03:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Three-revert rule
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Stifle (talk) 15:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Hamid Dabashi mediation cabal case
Hi BuboTitan, I'm going to be the mediator for the Hamid Dabashi case. The mediation is going to take place on the talk page. Also, I've modified the Hamid Dabashi article to a suggested compromise version. Accordingly, I would be grateful if you don't revert to your preferred version. Thanks! Addhoc (talk) 19:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Little Green Footballs
Assigning a political affiliation to the blog is necessarily going to be somewhat subjective, and "independent" may indeed be the best choice. But let's build consensus, please. Mark Shaw (talk) 12:38, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Olbermann
Olbermann attended Cornell University. Wikipedia doesn't distinguish individual colleges awarding degrees -- we identify the University. This has been discussed to death, including RFC's and PUMP discussions. There is no support in policy or en masse to make the singular distinction in this particular article. The only impetus for doing so is to try and give credibility to the idea that Mr. Olbermann's degree is somehow "different" or "not real" -- it's wrong, it's against policy, and it's clearly against consensus. Continuing to bring it up won't change anything, and will get you blocked or banned for disruption. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 13:51, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

ANI notice
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 22:53, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


 * BuboTitan, please desist from your efforts in relation to the issue of the agricultural college at Cornell being mentioned in the Olbermann article. Your behaviour is pointy and verging on disruptive. I appreciate that it does not appear that you have made any actual article edits but requiring other editors to keep on discussing the same issue repeatedly and at length, contrary to clear consensus, on a matter for which no sensible source, guideline or policy supports your position, is not constructive. Fainites barley scribs 15:32, 5 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Fainites, I appreciate that you have not resorted to personal attacks, but please desist in your efforts to unless you can show me where this "clear consensus" exists. Simple enough? BuboTitan (talk) 15:41, 5 November 2010 (UTC)


 * There is clear consensus and it's obvious from the sources produced that the original arguments that Ag was different to Cornell proper are wrong. Subsequent arguments along the line of - why not include it anyway because it's true, and now, why not include the "controversy", are really just sophistry in my view. There isn't really a controversy. Fainites barley scribs 15:49, 5 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I never claimed that the Ag College was better/worse than Cornell proper, only that it was founded in an agreement with NY state. Like Steven Anderson, you are confusing me with someone else. Anyway, if it's not a controversy, then why did Olbermann himself (remember - the guy that the article is about?) address it on the air? And since it looks like you can't even provide any evidence of this "clear consensus", this conversation is pointless. BuboTitan (talk) 16:43, 5 November 2010 (UTC)


 * a) I didn't say you did. Yours is simply the last in a line of arguments designed to reach the same end.
 * b) I don't accept the premise of your argument about "controversy".
 * c) I think this discussion is at an end in the sense that I am not going to rescind my warning and if you object to my actions you must take it elsewhere. Fainites barley scribs 17:23, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * a) That doesn't make any sense. If I didn't make that claim, then how could I be "last in a line of arguments designed to reach the same end". And what "end" is that? There is no conspiracy here against you.
 * b) You may not accept the premise about the "controversy", but Olbermann sure did (since he publicly addressed it on his show), and the article is about him, not you.
 * c) I am also not rescinding my warning. Stop attributing to me statements or arguments I did not make, or you can be damned sure I will take it elsewhere. Maybe you had a traumatic experience arguing with other users - I don't know. I am not responsible for anything they did, only myself. BuboTitan (talk) 23:11, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

November 2010
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 16:49, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If you are going to accuse me of being in an "edit war", don't you think it would help if you indicated which article it is that I am supposedly edit warring? BuboTitan (talk) 23:38, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You know perfectly well it was as Talk:Keith Olbermann. Edit warring is not limited to article space, but covers the entirety of the project. Anyway, the issue seems to be dealt with now, I guess. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 14:25, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * LOL! It certainly has not been "dealt with", at least not in the way you intended. It has completely fizzled out, because, in spite of all the threats to me, I haven't done anything against Wiki policy. In fact, it fizzled out so badly that the admins even put "hats" on the discussion because even they could see the whole thing was a personal attack and a huge waste of time. Have a good day. BuboTitan (talk) 19:05, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Admin incompetence/apathy does not make you "right". One of us needs to dunk his head in a bucket of ice water and it ain't me. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 20:59, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm trying not to gloat too much over "winning" here; I suggest you get over it. In fact, you are still pushing your luck - what you and a few other editors, acting in concert, have done on my talk page and elsewhere, is not just uncivil. Falsely reporting me, accusing me of things I didn't do and edits I never made actually constitutes wikibullying. I suggest you move on. BuboTitan (talk) 22:09, 8 November 2010 (UTC)


 * BuboTitan was warned for pointy disruptions. It appears he was then warned again for what must be the lamest edit war in wiki history. Apart from that he hasn't done anything since. Fainites barley scribs 21:06, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * LOL, I was "warned" only by you and a couple of your friends. But I certainly agree it was a lame "edit war". The next time you accuse me of something, I suggest you find something I actually did first. And see my note above about wikibullying. BuboTitan (talk) 22:09, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If you have any serious complaints, by all means make them at the appropriate place. I'm done here. Fainites barley scribs 22:52, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

ANI
I've opened a discussion at ANI regarding your recent edit warring and pointy disruptions. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:14, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Blaxthos, I also suggest you see the note about wikibullying above. BuboTitan (talk) 22:11, 8 November 2010 (UTC)