User talk:Bwithh/archive3

Public Access Television Help Needed
(You helped me out on my talk page with Mirko Norac. Can you please help me out with other adminstators in addressing the issue below?  Thanks.):

Can you please help me out with the Public Access television article. I'm the founder of Public Access in Evansvile, IN. Public Access isn't limited to the United States. Nor did it start in the United States. It's a global thing. Public Access started in Canada. They basically kept the idea and called it a Community Channel. Later, people from starting it in Canada and an American George C. Stoney invited to work on it in Canada started it in the United States.

Inbetween that transition Guerrilla Television was started by Michael Shamberg, who'd suggested that documentary film style be merged with Sony's porta-pac video system. These things happened. They're history. I didn't make them up. I think I'd helped play a role in getting the Wikipedia article to a good point. I'd added a History section, a Challenges of Public Access, & information regarding the current telecommunication deregluation rules associated with it in particular.

The history which was adapted from Bill Olsen's History of Public Access (Which is accepted by the credited Father of Public Access himself George C. Stoney) and put into my own words to avoid copyrights. The Challenges have been experienced by others and myself and were written neutral. The new rules are current topic for Public Access since it involves the Supreme Court.

--User:PeruvianLlama encouraged me to do the latter after I told him about it:

you seem like a very patient and well-informed individual, and Wikipedia is always in dire need of both those qualities. If you need any help feel free to get in touch again. Cheers! --User:PeruvianLlama (spit) 05:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I've tried contacting him before, since he was the Administrator that greeted me when I became a member, but lately he hasn't answered anyone. This needs to be checked into too.

Unfortunately, another known topic for sometime now among all the various Public Access Media groups, but unknown vitually to the layman, is to enforce a name change of Public Access to Community Media. The reason for this is that that would nicely incorporate all that Public Access involves. Another reason for this is that Public Access is often confussed with Public Broadcasting and they are two entirely different things.

Public Access, also called PEG Access (Public, Educational, and Government Access) is often called PEG Access by the producers associated with it, but that name isn't used as an article name because the layman wouldn't likely associate with it. The support of thus using Community Media or Civic Media has been suggested.

The Director of Operations of Cambridge, MA Public Access, and Wikipedia member, and a heavy contributor of the article, User:Seaneffel was the latest to suggest the idea on its discussion page. I decided to follow Wikipedia's suggestions to be bold with edits and to totally implement the Public Access article under the new Community Media name. Likewise I went and changed the name any where else linked to in the article and that I knew about. I didn't erase the history section or the discussion page in this transfer.

Yet, I did mess up in not using Move feature because of blindsight. Trying to remedy this I tried changing the name of the article again, but this time to Citizen Media, and to correctly do it by using the Move feature. Apparently, this is the point I think a random Wikipedia patroller named User:Ryulong assumed I was vandalizing the article and came in and started making numerous edits to in his mind try to remedy that. In the edit summary he left notes saying I shouldn't rewrite history, that my use of the image of the United States flag and the Canada flag for their respecitve history sections wasn't needed (he deleted them.), and etc.

Most comical of all he reverted the article of an earlier version by me and said so in the edit summary as if to say, "Leave it the way 'this' guy wrote it. He 'knew' what he was talking about." I tried to explain that the earlier edit "was" by me but he didn't seem to get it. Also, the earlier edit he reverted to had an image of an old t.v. set I'd put there, but later replaced with the moving globe image (with the line, Community Media belongs to everyone.). That image could be miscontrued to say Public Access is outdated. The moving globe and line was sought to tell the reader right off that Public Access isn't something old, but something done around the world and that like the world it's constantly changing. Besides that he wrote the following in my talk page:

Could you please discuss major changes like these before you perform them? Mind you, "Public access" is a culturally neutral name. Community Media/Citizen Media is a Canadian term for it, and now several pages are now back to before you changed them so drastically. Ryūlóng 05:15, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

What I find interesting is that well intended as he was trying to be he doesn't have his facts straight. Nor did his User page show that he was an Administrator, patroller, a Public Access Director or producer, or ect. that I could see. Public Access "is" a cultural neutral name as I've already said, but that wasn't the point. Community Media/Citizen Media 'isn't' a Canadian term for it, which was a problem that I'd fixed by explaining it was a Community Channel in Canada, had came first, but was sometime mistakenly called Public Access.

I admit I got a bit miffed but tried to keep myself composed in leaving him replys in the edit summaries when I tried to revert the edit to a comproise (to the version before I tried to first change the name to Community Media.) and tried to explain that to them, but they kept reverting to their edits, totally removing any eveidence that Canada is where Public Access started, removed the transition period of Guerrilla Television (which I'd put in because an administrator or someone on that article had put up a tag asking people to help link that Orphan article (which I'd started.) with other ones and to incorporate its mention into texts if possible.), and making it look like it started in the United States.

I admired his passion but finally told him on his talk page and or in a edit summary that I admired him, explained as I'd had again, and said if he'd vandalise again I'd get an Administrator. At this point Administrator User:Eagle left me the following message:

Block = I have blocked you for 3 hours, please read up on WP:OWN and other related policys before editing. Thanks! —— Eagle (ask me for help) 06:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

When I tried to edit before seeing this I got a message that explained I'd been blocked for I think mocking, reverting or drastically changing an article, and for accusing Ryulong in the edit summaries. I could understand what Ryulong had to say about WP:POV and what they both had to say about WP:OWN but I don't understand why an Administrator broke Wikipedia's own rules about using a step by step procedure before blocking me. The block is the last resort. The rules say it shouldn't be used first not even in extreme cases. I was cordial but stern.

I expected something like this and the above only strengthened my convictions. Some Wikipedia Administators abuse their power. I'm sorry if I accidentally broke any rules. I admit I'm still a Newbie to Wikipedia (another rule the Administrator didn't take into account. Also, if you look on my talk page or the article's disucssion page you'll see that I've messed up before but it has never been intentional and it's all been a learning process.) but I'm only trying to make Wikipedia be the best it can be. This is what our rules tell us to be: Be bold! If you're wrong it'll be changed and try again. So I am going to try again. But can you please help me and contact Ryulong and Eagle and help settle this matter once and for all. Thank you. Your Brother in Christ,

(Ok, I've seen during the preview that PeruvianLama and Eagle will not link. Sorry.  Can you figure out how to get to them from looking at my talk page or the article's discussion page?  Thanks.)  DavidWJohnson 16:52, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * On second look today at User:Ryulong's changes after having a good night's sleep I realized there was little I disagreed with. I did add "some" readditions and "some" images but that's all, which I described along with an apology in the edit summary.  I do still think that Administrator Eagle needs to be looked into simply to help him with future procedure with blocking people, and possible Administrator PeruvianLama if he isn't going to be understandably to honor his duties for the time being because of other business.  I still would like you also to keep Public Access on your watch list for a few days or a week to ensure that all goes well.  Thanks.  Your Brother in Christ,  DavidWJohnson 17:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I moved this article to the heading of "Public access television" please note the absence of the hyphen. This is what the US federal legislation calls this institution, parallel with educational and governmental access.  I reorganized data on Citizen media, note the lower case "m", to point to Public access television, Community channel, Community television and lots of other forms of Citizen media.  Heading of each article references back to the citizen media page where users can find references to other instititutions of similar mission and model.  Jobs yet to be done:  create articles for Educational access television and Government access television, parented by an article or category called PEG access in which there can be a greater documentation of legislation, history, policy, etc., separate from the implementation of these things in each municipality.  --Sean Effel 21:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Great, thanks... (I'm still trying to catch up as partially engaged neutral observer) Bwithh 21:43, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Principality of Vikesland
Author has requested delete, can you 'speedy delete under rule 7' ? Bo 01:39, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Um... technically I could, but I'd rather leave that to an admin. I do believe that is sufficient grounds for speedy delete. Thanks for the update Bwithh 19:29, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Deletion_review
I've also commented on this DRV in which I strong suggest against a blank and rebuild solution. If you could comment further, it would be great. - Hahnch e  n 15:43, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Articles_for_deletion/Sheila_Callaghan
Notability isn't determined by coverage in major papers? I'm new to Wikipedia stuff really - still learning the rules - I thought I should use Notability (people) and all it says on the subject of authors: "Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work." Maybe you could go edit that and put in your ideas of what makes encyclopedic notability for playwrights if that is not sufficient? Do playwrights need more because reviews are not of their work alone, but the combined work of the director, actors, and playwright together, not to mention lighting & props etc? Felisse 15:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

D-D-D-Deletion Review
I saw. I commented. Sigh! I think that some people will never get the point of verifiability. Robert A.West (Talk) 22:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh! How did the deleted article get recreated, and why wasn't it a Speedy? I know, just slipped through the cracks. Robert A.West (Talk) 22:24, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Space trade
Hi! By my request the article has been restored into my userspace (Nixer/Space trade). Though, I think it is better to be restored into the main namespace for other users to be able to contribute. I do not think Wilipedia should contain only completed articles. Anyway you're welcome to contribute to the article according to your responce.--Nixer 17:15, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your message, Nixer. Certainly Wikipedia does not contain just completed articles - in fact, most of its articles are incomplete. I'm happy to try to contribute to your article, though I expect it should return to the main wikipedia space shortly (emphasize the real world links a bit more and it should be pass muster... though I personally hope the article will give emphasis to the real world stuff and so not become so imbalanced like Artificial powered exoskeleton (which is 85% or more fiction to 15% reality). Bwithh 17:21, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

New York Times
''FYI, a New York Times columnist has now preserved your Wikipedia afd opinion about Garfield's teddy bear "Pooky" for all time. See http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/08/weekinreview/08word.html Bwithh 21:20, 8 October 2006 (UTC)''


 * Cool, albeit slightly strange. Hmmm:


 * Calton is an American Wikipedia editor known for his strong views on fictional teddy bears...


 * Thanks for the notification. I wonder where on my CV I can put it? --Calton | Talk 01:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Image:Abu Ghraib 70.jpg
I have contested your request for speedy deletion of Image:Abu Ghraib 70.jpg. --Descendall 01:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Something you might be interested in
Since you requested deletion for the One Peice attacks, I thought you could help out here: Articles for deletion/List of Dragon Ball special abilities. Hydromasta231 04:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

NYC plane crash article
First, a giant thank you for having the decency to let me know about your plans; common courtesy is in short supply around here these days. As for the article, my understanding of the rules is that if a nonadmin (like me) closes an AfD, anyone can open it back up if they really want to, so feel free to do so. Except that someone's put a link to the article on the front page, which means it can't be AfDed until it's taken off, probably in a day or two. In any case, I have no objections whatsoever to you relisting it, though I'll probably vote to keep, heh heh... --Aaron 22:19, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks to you too for your nice message! I'll be waiting until the article moves off the main page then Bwithh 00:28, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * FYI, I think it's off the front page now, if you want to give the AfD a go. (At least, I can't find it on the front page; you might want to double-check first.) --Aaron 01:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

AFD
Please read articles before you AFD. Also, be aware that Wikipedia records edit history's. So, its very easy to see when/where you learned information, and its easy to see you never read Tracy Williams until I told you a key detail about the article. I understand you may not have time to fully read every article, but if you haven't the time to read an article, you haven't the time to do AFDs. You admit to still not reading PYT in "detail", even now. Everybody is qualified to make judgements on AFD, but nobody is qualified to do so, without reading. --Rob 13:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Government access television
Can you check out the Government access organizations section of the Public access television article. In the past there had not been any organizations listed, but text stating that it was waiting for further contribution. Finally someone posted a Government access television show but under the wrong section. I thanked the individuals who had posted, moved them to the Government access organizations section, and told them to e-mail me if they had any questions. They e-maile me and said thanks.

Yesterday User:Seaneffel moved Fan Five (the Gov. show.) to the External Public access television section, and put his Gov. access tv channel under the Gov. access organizations. I moved Fan Five back to the Gov. access organizations section, clarified it 'was' Gov. access (before, I think Fan Five's wording of "...an example of Government access..." may have played a role in him choosing to make his changes.) thanked him in the edit summary, pointed out that Fan Five 'was' a Gov. access tv show, that a Gov. access show didn't 'have' to be gov. meetings, and said I was getting an Administrator to help (I'm including you to because you watch vandalisim.)

I'm not accusing Sean Effel of vandalisim. He and I make numerous contributions to the Public access tv article. He is a coordinator I think of Cambridge, MA Public access tv, and I was the founder of Public access tv in Evansville, IN. Nevertheless, and in all due respect, some of his ideas aren't perfect. But, neither are mine. We both make spelling mistakes for example. But, removing a Government access tv show from the Government access organizations section, putting it in the External public access section, and replacing Fan Five with his own Government access organization in the Government access organizations was wrong I think.

I'm not accusing him of foul play, but I think he just didn't realize what he was doing hopefully. Can you please check it out, make sure he doesn't revert it back to the way he had it, and explain to him your reasons for doing so. Thanks.

Also, do you think it was wise of him to change the Public access, Educational access, Government access, Local origination, & etc television links sections to 'organizations' instead? I know that they are usually organizations but wouldn't an encyclopedia have them listed as 'channels?' Again, not accusing him of foul play but just want a second opinion. Thanks again. DavidWJohnson 18:15, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Bat Bathing
Thanks for asking "LaEC, what are the Guatemalan terms for this activity? i.e. the non-English terms." But it looks like the page is being deleted. And I do not know the answer to your question. Thanks for asking though. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 05:42, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Chaplin Society
Thank you for escalating the deletion of the Chaplin Society entry. I have tried to give them a chance to verify it but enough is enough, really. Greycap 07:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Doxbridge Tournament???
What did you mean when you wrote: "Incidently - Doxbridge Tournament???" on the Oxbridge discussion page? Logica 00:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Seperate Wiki for Lists
Since you mentioned a desire for a Seperate Wiki for lists, I thought I might let you know about this proposal by another user: List Namespace proposal. May not be exactly what you wanted, but just felt you might want to know about it. FrozenPurpleCube 04:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the tip, Mr. Manticore ! Bwithh 03:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Your MathCOTW nomination won!

 * jolly good show ! Bwithh 03:06, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

GunBound
I've played a lot (kind of) and I'll do the rewrite.  Fr ed  il   02:28, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Kudos to you! Bwithh 06:03, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

"I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."
Love the Ripley quote. Very appropriate. Black-Velvet 08:13, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * thanks =) Bwithh 06:03, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:Nikkor lenses.jpg
I've closed the DRV of this image and opened a replaceability discussion on its talk page. --RobthTalk 22:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I removed speedy delete tag for Joe's Shanghai and responded to comments
Hello, i have responded to all comments. Also I removed the speedy delete tag because Joe's Shanghai is notable. Here are some sources: ,

This article has not be compromised by Word Weasels so it is not an advert.

Also can you do me a favor, Can you write on my page what you feel is the ultimate goal of Wikipedia, and what first attracted you to Wikipedia? For me, it is was a resourcefulness of wikipedia and the fact that it had "everything on it". As long as the information is verifable and has been cited by multiple indepedent sources it is only beneficial to keep on Wikipedia. I see no reason why cited information should be removed, hence my inclusionism. Valoem  talk  22:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Uh... thanks for the notification, but I'm too busy for homework assignments at the moment. Isn't the ultimate goal of Wikipedia plain? To create a high quality authoritative encyclopedia? That's why I'm a deletionist Bwithh 05:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * hey again, I am currently working on a new propose which is why I ask for this it is no problem if you are too busy with work (so am i). I am trying to give the inclusionist more power as I feel inclusionism is the reason why Wikipedia is growing at such a rapid rate. Many of my peers (myself included) believe that people use Wikipedia because because they can find "everything" on it not because of formal articles that they can find on any other encyclopedia. I started using WP when I found the game Zip Zap Boing which is a game we sometimes play. The resoursefulness of WP was astonishing. This is why the concept of deletionism is so foreign to me. I dont understand what the harm in is keeping articles that are more geared toward the gathering of truthful, unbias, and notable knowledge, hence why I feel that Chicken and Rice and such should be kept. This was my question for you, the deletionist: Why do you believe in the concept of deletionism? Wikipedia can still be encyclopedia and have inclusionist information. In fact this is what makes WP different from just "an encyclopedia". Also I dont think WP can ever be "authoritative encyclopedia" as long as anyone can edit it because the fear of vandalism always exists. My college like many others forbid citing WP as a direct reference. Just looking for your POV. Cheers :) Valoem   talk  09:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Shiny new buttons
(And that's the secret behind the Mike Hunter pictures...) In any case, on a personal note, if you have any use for the mighty buttons yourself, I'd be more than happy to nominate you. ~ trialsanderrors 06:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Hey, thanks for the suggestion - I'm very flattered, and I'll keep it in mind. Though I think I'll have to work on building contributions more on areas away from the afd frontline before I seriously consider such a step. Congratulations again! Bwithh 06:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't be too worried. I'm certain (actually I know) that most editors didn't look into my past all too carefully. But if you've never done speedy deletions, that's something worth doing, if just to see all the crap that gets flung at us on a daily basis. ~ trialsanderrors 09:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Rather than the recent changes patrol, I sometimes do the pushing-the-random-article-button-until-something-speedy-deletable-or-prodable-comes-up (mind you, arch-deletionist though I am, it took me a while to feel ok with the prodding concept... fair trial and all that, but needs must, I though in the end). I probably should catch up on my to-do list of creating /adding to articles though. Bwithh 10:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Playboy Cyber Club Undeletion attempt
Bwithh, I often argue about my vision of the way things should be because I can see my vision very clearly. In order to gain a proper perspective I have created my vision for you to more fairly assess the question of whether wikipedia would be better with separate Playboy Online and/or Playboy Cyber Club pages. See the template that is of the type I referenced above at Template:Playboy. I would appreciate your reconsideration of your delete/undelete opinion on this question in light of my creation. TonyTheTiger 17:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I see below in the next section you reconsidered your position. Note, I have created several pages to make the Template:Playboy viable (Playboy Publishing, Playboy Licensing, and Playboy Entertainment) I need you to reconsider so I can get some consensus and you are 1 of only 3 people who care enough to voice an opinion. TonyTheTiger 21:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Changed my vote in CfD and responded to your comment on the Chicken and Rice
Even those we are as different as black and white. I must say I respect you edits and contribution since you have created a good deal of notable articles. Anyways you are correct in the CfD of tourist dining.

Response from Chicken and Rice:
 * quote:As both a Wikipedia editor with a good history and a customer of Chicken and Rice, I can be a primary source to this event - you're welcome to start your own wiki based on this pioneering idea of reliable primary sources. but it's totally alien and unacceptable to this wiki encyclopedia Bwithh 17:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Response One can use a primary source to establish facts, just not for establishing notability. Many of the statement in that article can be sourced by simply going to Chicken and Rice. I was stating that I have been there and can confirm its accuracy (as can anyone) not that I was trying to create a new precedence. Much of the facts are cited on the homepage of the Chicken and Rice as well. Valoem   talk  18:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I am still hoping to change you mind as far as Chicken and Rice and Hallo Berlin go. In fact I recommend you try a platter (from the famous cart of course and see what you think guarantee the food is unlike anything you have had before) :). Valoem   talk  18:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I appreciate the pleasant message (though actually, I haven't created many articles at all; I'm more active editing and adding to existing articles) Bwithh 19:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

UK Collegiate Universities
Well 'Doxbridge' are the only three in which the colleges have legal status as independent institutions. But York, Lancaster and, most randomly, the University of Kent are all collegiate. Robdurbar 21:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Forgetting the largest university in Europe there, Rob! The University of London is collegiate.  University College and King's College are the 3rd and 4th oldest universities respectively after Oxford and Cambridge.  In addition to UCL and KCL, the University of London consists of another 20 colleges, 10 institutes and two foreign institutes.  The colleges are legally independent but under the University's federal constitution they may not award their own degrees to undergraduates.  Imperial, LSE, Royal Holloway, SOAS, Heythrop and Birkbeck are among the best known of the other colleges, as well as RVC and Queen Mary's.  On a non-London related note, Leeds also counts itself as collegiate.  Chrisfow 22:01, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah right, thanks to both! Bwithh 22:05, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

FrontPageMag.com's caveat
Just to answer your edit summary wondering, I felt it was appropriate to give some context for the FrontPageMag.com reference in Mostafa Tabatabainejad for the following reasons: 1) I hadn't seen anything else that referenced his being a Baha'i. 2) FrontPageMag.com, when I looked into it a bit, seemed to be only a step or so above a blog, having apparently previously been a printed magazine, but having devolved into an online-only incarnation (or at least, that was the impression I got from a quick investigation). 3) The article amounted to a right-wing POV opinion piece, a genre that I tend to be suspicious of, based on a history of encountering factually misleading spin (and I'm not trying to say that only right-wing outlets engage in factually misleading spin; just that as a genre, it seems particularly prone to it). But the referenced assertion itself is non-controversial. If, as you say, it has been widely reported, I think my concerns about FrontPageMag.com as a source could be better dealt with simply by sourcing the Baha'i faith thing to somewhere else. Can you tell me a better source where you've seen that mentioned? Thanks. -- John Callender 23:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Trinity Drinking Clubs
Hi Bwithh - I'd added the drinking clubs to the Trinity College article as it's an aspect of the college which doesn't tend to get recorded anywhere. I guess it may be of limited interest to historians but it is an aspect of college life (albeit occasionally unpleasant) which undergraduates are exposed to. It's the kind of trivia you won't find anywhere else! Alunwyn 14:48, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Aluwyn, thanks for the message. The problem with the drinking clubs are that you have to come up with reliable sources which meet Wikipedia verifiability criteria, and ideally, show that these clubs are substantively notable rather than mere social drinking groups. Bwithh 13:15, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Lesson learned - I'd hesitate to claim that they're substantively notable! Thanks, Alunwyn 09:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You're very welcome Bwithh 02:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Th-Th-Th-Thanks!
In the holiday rush, I might not have noticed that DRV. This is why I have proposed a separate listing (UfD) for verifiability issues, so that notability arguments can be more readily seen as irrelevant. Robert A.West (Talk) 11:58, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Intellectual property
I don't know if there's a guideline on this subject, but there certainly is a preponderance of precedent in AfD and DRV. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:21, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks! Bwithh 00:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: !vote
First, sorry for not responding to this sooner, as I somehow missed the existence of your talk message. Second, yes; in my eyes, "!vote" means "this isn't really a vote, but it kind of is a vote, but since we're actually discussing and making arguments, it's not actually a vote." I also use "!vote" so as to be able to use the perjorative "vote" (i.e. "I'm tired of these anons voting to keep this crappy article" or "Why do all of these school inclusionists vote without even reading the article in question?"). But really, I picked up "!vote" from other editors as a short-hand form of a complicated, somewhat nonsensical phrase. -- Kicking222 16:14, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info! Bwithh 22:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

AfD
Greetings. You may be interested in Articles for deletion/University of North Carolina Tower Chapel Hill, which I have just listed. I would appreciate your input. --Descendall 09:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Please would you email me on - Kittybrewster 07:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't do email through WP Bwithh 02:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Afd - Comedy related
Just curious - I noticed that you nominated The Comedian's Comedian for deletion, and it has since been deleted. You'd mentioned, among other things, "cheap-to-make TV clipshow", "random celebrity talking heads" and "that the list is heavily skewed in favour of UK comedians" - all of which may indeed be valid (though perhaps disputable, no?). Anyway, my question is this: would you consider http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100_Greatest_Stand-ups_of_All_Time to fall in the same category? Seems like it should, to me. Brokentooth 07:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

"bad faith edit"
I apologize for calling your addition of a tag a 'bad faith edit'. Another user is adding tags to all articles in a category and I mistakenly thought that your edit was also by that user. I do not think that your edit was in bad faith. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 18:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem - thanks very much for your message! Bwithh 00:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Article in need of cleanup - please assist if you can

 * Let me second the bot - please explain what needs cleanup.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:11, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I've made a start... Bwithh 20:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Haha! Excellent response to an AfD
And thank you for your support. I feel (though I am a newbie nominator) that I was somewhat vindicated by the seemingly well-spoken and informed commentaries of those who agreed with my position (and in a smaller way, vindicated by the boorish and repetitive cries of "Kepe teh artackle becaws I herd it on teh news nad its important too me!" against me, overwhelming as they were). I also feel like as I've begun to contribute more and more to a source that I have been a long-time user of, I can see more of its flaws. Oh well. It's still not bad to believe in Wikipedia even if it sometimes fails to live up to its ideal. Have a good night.

Mael-Num 23:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the note - the general feeling on afd is in favour of articles such of these, and there are many thoughtful editors who take that position in favour too. There should always be room for reasonable minority opinions however. Don't come away from the afd experienced feeling that its too much of antagonistic place though. Most afds are not like that . Bwithh 23:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations
to your 5000th mainspace edit! If you ever get tired of all those editorial contributions, my offer to nominate you for admin still stands. There is nothing like the mop and bucket to curb that mainspace habit and send your WP-space count into the stratosphere... ~ trialsanderrors 23:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Wow, thanks very much for noticing and the very nice message! I didn't realize myself. Once I'm more settled IRL, I will definitely consider going for adminship at some point. Thanks again for your offer of support =) Bwithh 23:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah I'm too lazy to put an edit counter on my own user page so I use yours and change the screen name. Not the most efficient way to do it but it keeps me from checking too frequently. It's also a bad habit. Just let me know whenever you think you want to do it. ~ trialsanderrors 00:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Afd for The_Adventures_of_Fatman
Sorry, the link I gave for AGS in the media at Articles_for_deletion/The_Adventures_of_Fatman was wrong, mea culpa. The correct link is no on the page: Adventure Game Studio wiki link. --Amaccormack 16:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Bwithh 19:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

AfD Taran Rampersad
"Taran seems pretty deft at building up his online profile through writing on various websites" is something you wrote in the AfD which I find offensive, and rightfully so. I didn't start the entry, and I didn't ask for that. I work on issues related to the digital divide. This requires writing. It is not 'self promotion' if I simply participate and try to work through real issues. You have no right to judge me that way, thank you very much. --TaranRampersad 20:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you found that phrasing is offensive but I though it appropriate for the context of the discussion. Good day to you. Bwithh 19:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * In future, you may choose to be more civil and also more accurate when attempting to be authorative on a subject - especially a living subject who can 'hear' you. Your apology isn't accepted because it it was an excuse - not an apology. Good day to you. --TaranRampersad 07:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Crossing guard
I'm glad you could use my image of Sheila Gallagher in the Crossing guard article. I was pleasantly surprised to find a lollipop lady in the City, and the photo opportunity, with St Pauls in the background, was irresistable. Sheila is a delightful lady to speak to, and I plan to look her up next time I'm in the vicinity, maybe get some more information for her article. --Pete 08:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * She actually helped me cross the road to school as a kid, so I was pleasantly surprised to find an article about her here. Thanks for your photo Bwithh 19:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

DRV comment
Thanks for your comment on the Doris Brougham DRV. I wonder if you would consider commenting on Srully Blotnick at that page as well? Thanks! Jokestress 19:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrocausality AfD comments
I think you should reconsider these comments. The original nomination was left totally without detail and then (inexplicably) replied to by 10 people and speedily closed; to require that the nomination be taken to DRV before discussion is reopened is a waste of time, because there was no real discussion in the first place. As a point of fact, since content is ultimately more important than process, the nominated article actually is original research. -- SCZenz 06:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Process is about trying to maintain fairness. You might think "no real discussion" took place in the first afd. The keep !voters probably believe that their assertions were totally reasonable and sufficient, and WP:SNOW is reasonable. In addition, it's also unfair to the closer - he/she should be given a chance that to explain their rationale rather than simply being overriden. I note that ScienceApologist hasn't even informed the closer yet about this situation. Bwithh 07:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Sometimes what you might consider a "simple solution" might not be simple once other things begin to happen. As it is right now, there is a second nomination listed whether rightly or wrongly. I don't see the issue with simply going forward with that. Why re-reinvent the wheel which will cause everyone headaches (meaning we'll have to go back and change the links already made to the second nomination and other issues). --ScienceApologist 07:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It's standard procedure on DRV that there shouldn't be parallel discussions with afd - since DRV is all about resolving disputes about the afd process, running a parallel discussion on afd just undercuts the whole point of DRV Bwithh 07:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The DRV is, in this case, a waste of time. You forced ScienceApologist into it by objecting to his (perfectly reasonable) second nomination. -- SCZenz 07:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't have the power to force anyone to do anything on Wikipedia Bwithh 07:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Can we start over?
Hi Bwithh,

I think you've gone a bit overboard on process, but perhaps I was too overzealous and pushy in my response. My response occured because it happens you've gone after a member of a WikiProject I work on, who I know is a good contributor, but that is not an excuse for me to take the situation personally, and I apologize for having done that. Can we stop and think about what the best thing to do now is? There's a second nomination, properly formatted, with a useful discussion. Why not just let it go forward?

SCZenz 07:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the message, SCZenz. I appreciate it. I think you and ScienceApologist should at least talk with the closer, User:Split Infinity either on his/her talk page or on DRV (part of the value of DRV is bringing closers to account for their actions - I personally think Split Infinity's decision was not a good one though well-intended, and ideally he/she should be brought into discussion about this so they can improve their closing decision-making in the future - or alternatively perhaps he/she has a really great reasoning which we haven't considered). If ScienceApologist can come to some agreement with Split Infinity (whether over reopening the first afd or keeping the second afd open) then great - in that case, no need for DRV, close that early. (the best and first thing to do with disputing afd closures is to try and talk it over with the closer). And of course, Split Infinity has more at stake then I do here - his reputation as a closer is affected. Of course, I'm just one person and not the ultimate decider in all this. Bwithh 07:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Split Infinity's account is nine days old. It's great to have new users contributing to Wikipedia process, and I mean no insult to him/her in any way, but I do not think that 9 days is a long time to accumulate experience in proper closing.  In this case, we can do the sensible thing without getting permission from the closer.  An AfD with insufficient information should have been suspended pending clarification, but since it was closed... well, common sense says that since the first nomination didn't discuss the issues, there's no reason to wait to have a second discussion.  -- SCZenz 07:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * User:Split Infinity's account may only be 9 days only, but looking at the account's edit history, he/she is clearly not a newbie (among other signs, first edits where to add lengthy javascript additions to their monobook space) Bwithh 08:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think he/she is cut/pasting from other pages. I'd also note that Split Infinity both voted in and closed the discussion in question, a sign of (I would assume) inexperience rather than impropriety. -- SCZenz 08:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well obviously he cut and pasted the javascript rather than creating from scratch. Just being aware of the monobook space and javascript modifications is a sign of not being a newbie. Bwithh 15:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Split of discusison
I am not being condescending, but rather trying to offer good advice, when I say that seem to have lost sight of what's good for Wikipedia's content by focusing on procedure. Yes, discussing with the closer is generally a good first step. Yes, immediately renominating things is usually bad&mdash;DRV is better in most such cases. But this case is unusual, and requires judgement, and Wikipedia policy explicitly allows that. -- SCZenz 07:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * There's a lot of unusual cases coming through DRV. I think the best solution is to resolve things with the closer, but I consider DRV the next best route otherwise Bwithh 08:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * In general, yes. In this case, the right thing to do was clear-cut and had already happened.  There really are no hard-and-fast rules against renominating for deletion based on previously-unconsidered evidence, and it was a good call in this case to do exactly that.  -- SCZenz 08:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree, but this is moot as events have moved on as I was sleeping. Bwithh 15:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I certainly don't expect you to change your mind today, or anytime soon, but I do invite you to reflect on this incident, and consider the difference between things that are almost always a good idea and procedures that ought to be required and insisted upon. I imagine that you think WP:IAR is mostly just an excuse for rouge admins to piss people off, and indeed it's sometimes used that way, but remember what it actually says: "If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore them" [emphasis mine].  The highest good here is the content of the encyclopedia.  In any case, happy editing! -- SCZenz 17:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks and happy editing to you too. I'm a long-time opponent of WP:IAR - I don't see abuse by admins to be the main problem with it but abuse by general users to circumvent process. If there's a problem with process, it should be fixed. I do see a place for WP:IAR for emergency use, but not as it is currently phrased. In my experience, people tend to ignore what "improving or maintaining Wikipedia" means in terms of the established goals of the project and take the phrase merely to further their own perspective of how to improve/maintain what they think Wikipedia should be. In addition, WP:IAR spreads a counterproductive and misleading image of Wikipedia as a free-for-all. As I've already said, I favour process as means of managing conflicting opinions and giving due consideration of multiple perspectives. WP:IAR is way of avoiding those tasks. I'm highly unlikely to change my mind about WP:IAR ever, unless the policy is given a comprehensive reworking. Bwithh 18:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you for moving to rid us of that foul Comedian's Comedian page. Any list with 33 out of 53 people from one country and without Lenny Bruce or George Carlin is laughable and non-noteworthy.Quadzilla99 02:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You're welcome... thanks for the note. Bwithh 05:29, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Tuba (mythology)
Did you see User talk:HawkerTyphoon ? My, you Cantabridgians sure can shame a person into repentance... and coughing up a hundred quid besides! I'm certainly impressed, also thanks, when I put that up for AfD I had no idea of the size of the hoax iceberg I'd banged into. Tubezone 02:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Gosh... I've never seen a reaction like that before. did he/she join the Foreign Legion too? Good on them, I suppose, in a way. Thanks very much for the nice note! Bwithh 05:29, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Izta and Popo
Thanks! I was just looking for some sources myself, but they were mostly of borderline reliability. —ShadowHalo 06:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You're welcome... thanks for the nice note Bwithh 06:29, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I've changed to keep already on the AFD page. Good rewrite, but hope you can expand further. Ter e nce Ong 06:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Your edit to the page (Popocatépetl and Iztaccíhuatl) restored an AfD notice. I had already speedily closed the AfD; since the page had been generally rewritten since being nominated, the content had been changed, and was no longer the AfD'd content.  The nominator at the AfD seems to have withdrawn it, and most of the "delete" opinions were changed to "keeps" after you rewrote it.  (Articles for deletion/Popocatépetl and Iztaccíhuatl).  Just wondering if you meant to continue the delete process here, in which case my closure probably ought to be noted as challenged in Deletion review.  - Smerdis of Tlön 16:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the note - I'm not sure what happened there... I was editing late at night and didnt notice I readded the tag. Obviously no point in afd continuing and I'm not contesting the early closure as I rewrote the article myself.... Anyway thanks and sorry for the glitch Bwithh 23:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)