User talk:Bulbous

Flight 93
Hi, please excuse me for rehashing such old ground, but I have been reading the entry concerning Flight 93. Your input on the discussion page seems unbiased so you seem a likely person to ask for clarification on several points. I am startled by the absence of information concerning anomalies in the story. For example, how truly remarkable it seems that passports of 2 of the hijackers and one of their cigarette-lighter knives should have been recovered. Presumably these items were with the hijackers in the cockpit, or very close to it, since they were seated in 1st class and therefore hit the ground first. By all accounts there was precious little left of the entire plane, virtually nothing of the passengers. There is no mention of whether any other passports were recovered, so it is virtually impossible to form a realistic opinion on the subject. 3) The discrepancy between 'official' and 'unofficial' crash times. 4) Reports of a 2nd smaller aircraft in the immediate vicinity just after the crash.

To present a rounded picture of the crash, surely the anomalies should be presented alongside the basic story? I appreciate that Wiki suffers from occasional vandalism, but if someone consistently removes valid material, surely that fact itself becomes relevant to the entry. I take it that Wiki has the ability to have text permanently and unremovably installed? If a line is not drawn, history becomes vulnerable to being re-written. Published books do have the advantage of being uneditable, shouldn't Wiki draw the line when clearly unbiased content is repeatedly sabotaged? Mygodfrey (talk) 09:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem lies not with Wikipedia or the editors, but with the lack of reliable sources. Particularly with this issue, you will find very few sources to confirm the points that you want to include. If you find something and can source it well, you can include it, and there is very little that someone can do to rebut it. But finding the source is the difficulty. Bulbous (talk) 16:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, but to my mind, the anomalies themselves (of course there are more than the few I have mentioned) are worthy of inclusion, since they form part of the story. Doubt and controversy over the official stories of all three 9/11 events are going to play and play, just as they have over JFK's assassination. Surely the Flight 93 entry is incomplete without a paragraph concerning these controversies? Mygodfrey (talk) 13:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with you, but in order to include *anything* it has to be reliably sourced. Bulbous (talk) 14:00, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Bender21435
I do not want to start an arguement but i did not edit the Rastafari movement i edited Haile Selassie I of Ethiopia. just want you to know that.
 * My fault entirely. Sorry! Bulbous (talk) 22:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Trolling
Do not accuse other editors of criminal activity based on entirely on your own borish stupidity. Take this as a last warning, you will not be tolerated thus. The next time you try this kind of bullshhit I'll make sure you get indef blocked. Thanks, SqueakBox 13:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Please provide a diff of where I "accuse(d) other editors of criminal activity", and I will gladly apologize. Otherwise, please don't fill my talk page with badly spelled insults. This careless kind of editing is why your contributions to Wikipedia are useless. Why don't you ever try a little proofreading? Bulbous (talk) 15:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You accused me of editing under the influence (of pot). If this is your way of dealing with disagreements you should find a new hobby. It is important we can all edit in a peaceful atmosphere and with your resentful and false accusations this is clearly impossible. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I did not say "pot". Anyone can edit under the influence. This is not illegal, it's just bad form. Bulbous (talk) 00:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC


 * Under the influence of what, pray? Let me assure you for the record I do not edit under the influence of anything more than coffee, and for you to make insinuations is indeed bad form. Just restrain yourself in future. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:12, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I have no idea. Only you can answer that. If you were not "under the influence of anything more than coffee", then how do you explain yourself? On 28 March 2008, you (or someone using your account) vandalized the Haile Selassie I of Ethiopia article, removing the administrator's warning and the mediated edit, and your explanation was completely incomprehensible |diff. This edit was preceeded and succeeded by other similar nonsense. I'm still waiting for a proper explanation. Until then, please refrain from involving yourself with the Rastafari subject matter. Bulbous (talk) 18:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Stop trolling me, please, you are cl;early only here to make trouble and will end up being blocked if you continue to make such false and uncivil accusations, as I have never vandalized wiokip[edia and your drug accusations reveal you to be a complete jerk. I suggets you sdstop stalking me or this will go much further. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:24, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Your edit clearly stands as vandalism. What right did you have to remove the comment placed by an administrator? Answer: none whatsoever. And your refusal to even attempt to justify your edit proves that you know what you did was wrong. Bulbous (talk) 23:43, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I keep asking you to stop trolling and you keep refusing, you are out of line, please consider another hobby other than wikipedia and harassing its editors08:48, 24 August 2008 (UTC). Thanks, SqueakBox

Miami Vice
Please make yourself aware of WP:BURDEN and WP:Citing Sources. Writing the source of your post in the summary bar is not acceptable. El Greco(talk) 21:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I happened to come by that edit which was rudely reverted by yourself. I went out and properly sourced it AS YOU SHOULD HAVE DONE, instead of being a hardass. I've been watching this article for a long time, and you have been "ruling it with an iron fist". Enough is enough. You requested proper sourcing from the original editor, which I went out of my way to provide, and then you reverted the edit anyway. That is prima facie evidence of bad faith. Bulbous (talk) 01:20, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Please read WP:BURDEN, the user making the edit must provide the source and referenced information. I'm not anybody's secretary that should go and look up the source. And further more please explain your revert of my edit. What did I revert, huh? Tell me? Because the only thing I did was copyedit his post. It doesn't need to state the price of the device, that's unnecessary detail, and made it much more readable. El Greco(talk) 21:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Go read WP:BURDEN yourself! It pretty much shoots down your actions. In particular, note that "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation". Are you suggesting that a short blurb about some grooming equipment was "likely to be challenged"? If not, that edit may not have even required a citation. In addition, note "Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed, but editors may object if you remove material without giving them sufficient time to provide references. If you want to request a source for an unsourced statement, consider tagging a sentence by adding the template". Bulbous (talk) 04:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I questioned it. El Greco(talk) 22:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Good faith
Good faith edits are never vandalism whereas false claims of vandalism are invariably not made in good faith. We are trying to build a neutral article on Selassie and your POV warrioring is seriously hampering this. Not to speak of your personal trolling of me. You may not give a flying xxxx for your reputation but I do for mine and your trolling of my it is based entirely on your own ignorance is entirely unacceptable, I do not edit as a volunteer here merely to be trolled by you. Thanks, SqueakBox 03:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems that you are unclear on who is, and who is not, a troll. Please see WP:Don't call editors trolls. Then count how many times you have used that phrase on this page alone. Then count how many times you have used that term on your talk page, both currently, and in the archives. Also check the history for the edit summaries of your talk page. Then ask yourself, "Why do I call everyone ELSE trolls? As far as your reputation goes, how many times have you been blocked for editing or otherwise censured? How many content disputes are you currently involved in? In my experience, you have nothing to contribute except disruption. Bulbous (talk) 14:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Q.E.D., that is, proof that you are indeed trolling comes out of your own logical sophistry. Now please consider stopping your incivility against long-term, good faith productive users or go and find another hobby. There are millions of websites out there where people insulting each other is positively encouraged. Your claim that because I have a block record you can accuse me of being a criminal is precisely the worst problem we face at wikipedia. Thanks, SqueakBox 02:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That you have a block record and continuous problems with administration is not evidence that you are a criminal - it is evidence that you are a force for disruption. Your own recorded comments indicate that spent time "under the influence as a youth", so I don't think it's a stretch to suggest that the aforementioned verbal nonsense was born of the same parent. Still, I can see no statement that you engaged in criminal activity. That inference is your own. Bulbous (talk) 00:22, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

3RR Warning
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. 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. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:40, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I hadn't realized that I was making a fourth revert, and undid my own change. Thanks for the heads-up. Bulbous (talk) 13:44, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Your demands for discussion
This has all been discussed already ad nauseam. Your demand for more discussion on the same page is merely an attempt to get a rise for your own jollies because you know you are being provocative, offensive, and bigoted by enforcing your own unilateral views against consensus. Among all wikipedians, I notice you especially seem to relish fighting on wikipedia, simply for the sake of fighting and being confrontational, and this will very likely head to a RFC on you in the near future. Being confrontational and provoking quarrels for kicks, because of your religious prejudices, is NOT the purpose of this project. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:45, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you show me where this has been discussed AT ALL? I must have missed something, because this material absolutely, blatantly does NOT belong in the lead section. I have referred you to several other articles for reference. But none of that seems to matter. What we have here are editors using WP as a promotional tool. The only religious prejudices here are demonstrated by the people fighting to keep this material in this article, when other spiritual articles do NOT have such material. That is placing this figure above all the others, and that is prejudicial. Bulbous (talk) 13:51, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * A parallel argument to yours would be claiming that it is irrelevant to mention the full significance of Christianity in the article Jesus Christ, or irrelevant to mention the full significance of Buddhism in the article Buddha. Get serious. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:54, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That is EXACTLY the argument I am trying to make! Please refer to both of those articles, and also Confucius and Muhammad if you would like. NONE of those articles go into detail about their respective religions/movements in the lead of the article! Bob Marley is mentioned only in passing the the Selassie I article. He has nothing to do with HIM at all. We've already established that a picture of Marley is not appropriate for the article, so please explain how he merits mention in the lead section of the article? Bulbous (talk) 14:01, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It would be one thing if you merely trimmed the mention of Marley (who actually has plenty to do with HIM, amazed how you could miss that) but you have also trimmed all the references down to the barest minimum. The articles on Jesus, Buddha, Muhammad are all very good examples of how much to explain the significance of the religions that follow their teachings in the lead.   Why do you always go so far out of your way to muzzle as much mention of the religion that follows Haile Selassie as you possibly can, including referenced facts,  and scream about "promotion"? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:07, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Look at it this way: That the Rastafari movement started in Jamaica is an indisputable FACT. No question there! But it is certainly a fact about the Rastafari movement - it is not at all a fact about HIM, and as such does not belong in the lead paragraph in that article, does it? I'm certainly not objecting to this material being in the article at all. But putting it up in the lead section is giving it undue weight, and seems to be evidence of someone pushing an agenda. Bulbous (talk) 14:13, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

LOL!
Your comment on my edit summary was a real day-brightener (and would have been even had you rv it!) Thanks! Sensei48 (talk) 14:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Troyster87
An article that you have been involved in editing, Troyster87, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/J Stalin (3rd nomination). Thank you.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Troyster87 (talk) 08:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Clarification motion
A case (September 11 conspiracy theories) in which you were involved has been modified by which changed the wording  of the discretionary sanctions section to clarify that the scope applies to pages, not just articles. For the arbitration committee -- S Philbrick (Talk)  19:19, 27 October 2014 (UTC)