User talk:Bulldog123

Hey Bulldog. In answer to your question about sourcing Sid Haig's ethnicity, I told you to go to his site and join and ask him yourself. It's also in interviews and his last name is "Mosesian". Some Nazi deleted it. Anyway, there's your answer, as best as I can see it. Cheers. 76.89.232.168 (talk) 06:55, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Re: removal of source material/restoration of unsourced material
The sourced material I removed was added by an anonymous IP who included two rather sneering messages with his edits. The source that user added was a fansite-hosted PDF file of collected quotations (the quotation in question wasn't very well-referenced within that file, only providing the title "10 Questions for Joss Whedon"). I responded to that user's "Absolutely nothing suggesting that" edit summary comment by restoring the previous phrasing but this time with a more thorough reference.

I admit that in the process of reverting the paragraph back to its previous phrasing, as a side-effect I also restored the the first, unsourced, part of the sentence (the "born Jewish" assertion with the tags). Yes, I should have been bold enough to go ahead and remove it myself - if I'd checked, I'd have realised that it was a very recent addition to the article added by this anon user who seems to specialise in claiming that various people are Jewish. If I'd realised that, I would have removed it. But in the end, mentioning the lack of references in my edit summary was as far as I went.

(Having said all that, looking at the article again just now, I realised that I'd been distracted by the recent edits' focus on the start of the article and had forgotten that there's a whole "Spiritual and philosophical beliefs" section discussing the whole thing more thoroughly. It was entirely unnecessary for beliefs to be mentioned and disputed in the "Early life" section in the first place!) -- Nick RTalk 00:32, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Neutral notice of an RfC
A Request for Comment has been posted for an article on which you have been an editor. If you wish to comment, go to Talk:List of African-American firsts. --Tenebrae (talk) 11:57, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)
Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page. In this issue: Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->
 * Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
 * Research: The most recent DR data
 * Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
 * Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
 * DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
 * Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
 * Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

--The Olive Branch 18:53, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 8
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Armenian Americans, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Republican and Notre Dame (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:03, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

disruptive edits
If you think that an article needs to be repurposed and the content substantially altered, you need to first try to obtain consensus from other interested editors or stop your edits. As it is, your edits are simply disruptive to the functioning of WP Hmains (talk) 05:45, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 27
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lev Nusberg, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Russian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:47, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

American sportspeople of [European] descent categories
Several categories that were deleted following this discussion have been re-formed. Would you care to re-nominate them or should I? Tewapack (talk) 16:15, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 1
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Igor Markevitch, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Ukrainian and Serbian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 19:54, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

January 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=590050033 your edit] to List of Armenian Americans may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 09:15, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CEUQ6AEwBw] " Armenian-American community... Yousuf Karsh 1908-"

Disambiguation link notification for January 11
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Armenian Americans, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Republican and Notre Dame (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

November 2016
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Richard B. Spencer, did not appear constructive and has been undone. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Grayfell (talk) 05:14, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:01, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:04, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:24, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

December 2016
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Katietalk 03:35, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Stop edit-warring against consensus
If you don't cease your disruptive edit-warring across an array of articles related to white supremacy, a Arbitration Enforcement action may become necessary. You have already been blocked twice for edit-warring related to this material, and it should be abundantly clear that editorial consensus disagrees with you. If you can't edit in keeping with that consensus, you need to find some other topic area to edit. Your personal beliefs in this matter do not supersede reliable sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:20, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia isn't run on consensus without sources. I already explained what the problem is. Conflating one thing and saying its the other doesn't work. You can continue to ignore it, but in that case I will engage in the slow edit war to protect the truth. Bull dog123  02:08, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * There are numerous sources, which you appear to be ignoring and then claiming they don't exist. Wikipedia isn't run on an editor claiming that "up is down" and "east is west". Rockypedia (talk) 02:36, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Rockypedia (talk) 03:16, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for edit warring. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Kuru  (talk)  03:44, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Since you've chosen to continue editing warring on the same article, I have blocked this account again. Unfortunately, since you have explicitly promised to continue violating our edit warring policy going forward, I have blocked this account indefinitely. Kuru   (talk)  03:44, 28 December 2016 (UTC)


 * This seems to be explained above; you have edited disruptively and you have been blocked for it. Since you've promised to continue the problematic behavior, you'll need to convince someone that the behavior will change. You will also need to stop evading your block and editing logged out, please. That does not help your case. Kuru   (talk)  00:56, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * This is why this your ban is hard to take seriously. .Firstly, you're asking me to get on my hands and knees and beg you for an unblock. I've been an editor on Wikipedia for a decade. I'm not going to kiss the ring of some dude who decided to be a hero. You full well know this ban is overkill and (possibly) politically-motivated. Secondly, you're now outright accusing me of evading a block by editing while logged out... with zero evidence. Please cite the examples of me editing while logged out since this block please. Back up what you claim. (I know you guys intentionally don't do that on articles you disagree with politically, but at least stick to your principles as administrators and don't hurl accusations you can't back up)  Bull dog123  13:20, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * To be perfectly clear, you have not been editing with an IP since your block? Kuru   (talk)  17:20, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Dude, I couldn't even edit with a naked IP address even if I wanted to since my block. I only have one IP address, it's not dynamic (or at least it doesn't seem to change much), and you blocked it. Whoever you think is me, isn't. Bull dog123  03:13, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * This IP wan't you? That seems unlikely. The same IP waited out the IP autoblock and continued the long-term edit war you've been playing with at Bulgarians‎ well after this account was blocked. Kuru   (talk)  06:24, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, obviously that was me. What's your point? I'm not purposely evading a ban there if I sign my name afterwards. And if I made some minor edits off an IP address before realizing I was perma-banned, that's not exactly "maliciously evading a ban" either. We don't always remember to sign in. And yes, I don't exclusively go online from my house, and I expect you don't either. I work at a school with wifi so obviously I'm using frequently-shared IP addresses. I'm sure hundreds of people edit Wikipedia from this school. But whatever --- if you want to pin some stuff from an old IP address to justify a ban, okay, do whatever you need. Bull dog123  12:47, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You've asked me to "back up my claim". I have provided you evidence of that claim. You have admitted to evading the block placed on the account. I asked you, above, to politely cease doing this. You can spin this into your persecution complex however you like. Good luck. Kuru   (talk)  14:21, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, it looks to me like the IP edit here was made before the block - Bulldog123 couldn't have added his sig to it immediately afterwards had he been blocked at the time. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:34, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The diff was to establish that it was his IP; the evasion was the three edits after that, which all occurred well after the block of the main account on 12/28. Kuru   (talk)  14:46, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah, understood. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:54, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * If you can look up "login times," you'll notice I didn't even realize I was spontaneously banned until after making those edits. User:Kuru is basically digging for reasons to justify his perma-ban. Bull dog123  03:02, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Look, 3 different admins have blocked you for edit warring - and 4 other different admins have tried to explain that your blocks are due to edit warring - and that's just recently. You have been repeatedly warned that this is where behavior of this sort will lead. Perhaps it's time to consider that this isn't just some massive politically motivated conspiracy, and maybe you're just breaking the rules here? SQL Query me!  03:59, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I've been editting Wikipedia for a decade and have engaged in many debates on controversial topics. Many of these debates included what you would consider "edit wars" because I refused to allow the dessimation of information that is patently false (especially on WP:BLP articles). Yet, I get a pre-emptive perma-ban the second I start challenging the blatant orthodoxy on display at the highly controversial and political Richard Spencer article. What a coincidence!
 * You're right hough. It's not a conspiracy, because conspiracies are not this transparent, but it is obviously political. The easiest thing would be to change the wording to more accurately reflect reliable sources. But, hey, that doesn't support the narrative Wikipedia wants to promulgate, so I guess permabans for anyone not towing the line are way easier than justifying the diction. Bull dog123  12:52, 1 January 2017 (UTC)