User talk:Flipandflopped

Disambiguation link notification for March 29
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited APEX Youth Center, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Young adult (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) 08:51, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Hunter Bryce
Since you contributed to or were otherwise involved in the above discussion, you may or may not wish to comment on the following discussion Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_April_2 which concerns a redirect created immediately after the discussion. I am leaving the same neutral note to everyone who edited the above AFD. Thank you. Spartaz Humbug! 13:57, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 15
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Puce, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page French (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) 08:54, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

5/5/2014
"Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist. Atheism is contrasted with theism, which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists." - Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism). According to the Wikipedia definition of Atheism the change I made to Pauline Marois Page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauline_Marois) was correct.
 * Atheism is the rejection of the belief in the existence of deities. I did not object to this. There is a difference between "having no religious beliefs" and "atheist" > atheism is the rejection of the existence of a deity, not all religious concepts. (Example: A buddhist, although non-theistic, is still a religious person, and technically an atheist). "None" as a religious description is not equivalent to "atheist", as an atheist could still be a religious person. If you can provide a source that states she has no sorts of religious beliefs whatsoever, then what you put would be acceptable.


 * She could have any sort of non-theistic religious views. ''' Flipandflopped   (Discuss,   Contribs)  00:11, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Talkback
♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ Talk ♪  ߷  ♀ Contribs ♀ 01:02, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

IP Socks
There's a whole bunch in the history of Kidsongs. They haven't been active this month so investigators probably won't be interested unless the IPs return. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 03:41, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * They might also be related to 172.254.36.151 and a series of 2600:1001 socks but none of them are active so it's hard to tell. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 04:26, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed. NONE of them seem to be replying to my queries on their talk pages, or even taking an interest in the investigation. You'd think if they weren't sock puppets, or if at least one of them wasn't a sock puppet, they'd have at least attempted to say so.. perhaps one of the biggest sock puppet rings I've seen. At this point I'm listing any contributors who behave in the same way as Mkrgolf/Komatchigirl and only contribute to lists and things related to Children's TV/Music.. because there seems to be dozens of them in that same field. ''' Flipandflopped  (Discuss,   Contribs)  14:38, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Writes like a kid. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 15:00, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh gosh. I'd never considered before that the user in question could be a small child. Although, that would make sense, considering that all they edit are things related to children's TV shows.. what is the standard procedure if the user is a child, I wonder? How do we go with dealing with it? ''' Flipandflopped  (Discuss,   Contribs)  15:18, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm no admin but I don't think the procedures are any different. One possibility that I just thought of is a concentrated effort by a group working out of some elementary school. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 15:29, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Hopefully an admin will hop on this soon. ''' Flipandflopped  (Discuss,   Contribs)  16:41, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Admin Discospinster is looking into a range block. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 16:29, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Sit tight
Sit tight on the California Chrome article until I fix the mess AlphaKate made of it. Montanabw (talk) 01:08, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, understood. In any case, you should really report her at the Administrator's Noticeboard if she refuses to stop, as I said on her talk page ;) ''' Flipandflopped  (Discuss,   Contribs)  01:10, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Haha. We're talking to each other but going back and forth through user pages. I'll hold off until she calms down. ''' Flipandflopped  (Discuss,   Contribs)  01:11, 18 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Heh, one drama at a time, but thanks for your help. It's all good!   Montanabw (talk) 01:14, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

By the way, noticed the "stable colors" - are you now a #Chromie too? ;-)  Montanabw (talk) 01:14, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I am a Chromie, (although the colours are just coincidental, they do fit quite well!) I nearly kept from my chair whilst watching the Preakness, and I anticipate seeing him win at the Belmont (if I'm not jinxing myself) Then I can go and revert more silly edits as the rush of users come in and try to add more content to Chrome's article after he wins the crown (hopefully). Haha! ''' Flipandflopped  (Discuss,   Contribs)  01:20, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * We had some doozy vandals after the Derby, one idiot said the horse died, so definitely need all eyes on deck! Got 25,000 hits the 24 hours after the Derby, will be fun to see how many hits it gets now...35K already - WHOA! Montanabw (talk) 01:49, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Imagine how many that will be if he does win the crown! I can already imagine the stream of odd edits and vandals coming in as we speak. ''' Flipandflopped  (Discuss,   Contribs)  01:54, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Your efforts are valued but sit tight for another 10-15 minutes and let me finish my cleanup. Also, if you add any new sources, be aware that this is a GA-class article that I intend to take to FAC, and so use the citation templates. Also be a little careful about breathless sportswriter prose, we'll get smacked for it later! ;-) (FWIW, I took Oxbow (horse) to FA, which you may have noticed was TFA today... ;-)  Montanabw (talk) 01:44, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure thing! Just ping me when you're done, so if I see any typos or the likes in the meantime, I'll know it's ok to edit. ''' Flipandflopped  (Discuss,   Contribs)  01:47, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I think I'm done. Let's not change the lead until we have material in the body text vis-a-vis the Belmont.   Montanabw (talk) 02:14, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * When do you think we'll be ready to add a Belmont Section to the article entirely? Of course, right now there isn't quite enough information yet, but surely in the next few days with all the "Triple crown" hype from the media there will be some reporting on California Chrome's possible performance in the Belmont, no? ''' Flipandflopped  (Discuss,   Contribs)  02:35, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * What I was doing with the Derby and the Preakness was skimming Blood-Horse and then other news outlets, picking the best source and adding small updates every couple days as they seemed relevant. Sometimes, as the story played out, I also chopped some stuff.  At some point today or tomorrow, I'll (or you, if you want to take a whack at it and have me whack back some... ) probably add a recap with some of the interviews and quotes about the race, then let it simmer until there is "official" word that he's heading to the Belmont, and then probably just surf the news for anything that would be part of the article even a year from now...in the meantime, I will probably look over the Derby and Preakness sections and see if they can be slimmed down a little.  Take a look at what I did with Mucho Macho Man, another race horse article I took to FA status, he now has 23 races (or thereabouts) under his belt.  While you are at it, may want to take a peek at Art Sherman and if there ever was a jockey article in desperate need of expansion and improvement, Victor Espinoza is it!  Montanabw (talk) 03:20, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I think I might expand the Victor Espinoza article, but I was also considering expanding/updating the Palace Malice article. In the mean time, I'll be working for the next few hours. :) ''' Flipandflopped  (Discuss,   Contribs)  13:24, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Work? What's that?  LOL!  I had some of the techie folks help me improve the infobox layout when I worked on Rosie Napravnik and took it to GA< you may want to swipe some of the syntax and layout formatting from there, feel free!  And yes, Palace Malice is going to be an interesting horse to watch this year.   Montanabw (talk)  17:44, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

{[od}}Hey, would you care to take a glance at the article again for me? I just added more material and am at that too-bleary-eyed-to-see-my own typos stage. Feel free to make any minor tweaks, post any comments about bigger stuff on the article talk page, and if you move anything, be SUPER careful that the source goes with it, this is a GA. Many thanks! Montanabw (talk) 21:36, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

May 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=609381189 your edit] to California Chrome 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]. It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:49, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Concerning your comments on USChick's talk page regarding a Discrimination Taskforce
Hey Flip, I initially left this response on USChicks talk page, but decided it was better suited here since it is quite lengthy and directed primarily at you:


 * I really couldn't agree more, Flip; what I saw at the end of that process -- as a few members from the anti-Director camp seemed to become increasingly convinced that their lofty goal of removing racist content freed them from all restraints of policy and empowered them to make any comment they liked -- began to trouble me every bit as much as the situation which spawned that response in the first place. If I can borrow a simile from a bona fide social genius, it reminded me very much of an auto-immune condition, where a response that might usually be useful and necessary to repel a parasitical influence (here, racist content),  was itself operating in a way that was becoming just as harmful to the host (project), if not more so.   Some of those parties would definitely be incapable of contributing in such an area without quickly running afoul of civility standards and fellow editors, and would likely to more harm to the cause of keeping objectionable material of the site as they muddied the waters and allowed civility to become an issue which the other parties could point to in order to distract from the content itself.  The irony is, a number of members of the more strident group of editors involved in that debate are now complaining that admins failed to exercise authority that they might have at points in that whole brujaja, and apparently in so-doing failing to appreciate that a couple of their number benefited as much as any from that laisez-faire approach.


 * To a certain extent this poor behaviour can be explained (if not at all excused), by the fact that the pressure had slowly been building surrounding that situation for months and once the referenced parties finally got the validation and community support they needed to remove the content itself, the combination of their success, along with the support of the community (regarding the content itself), put together with their already superior numbers, led them to become quite suddenly emboldened and to perceive that they had a right and a mandate to after those they deemed responsible for the content using whatever tactics (and commentary) they deemed appropriate. And I'm not belaboring this point at length just to voice the fact that I found some of those tactics and comments distasteful and concerning; rather I think we might be getting a preview of a certain personality type could be strongly drawn to such a taskforce, and that's a problem.  Usually I presume the average editor to be too aware (and respectful) of policy than to believe they can, for example, engage in character attacks so long as they are really, really sure the other side are bad guys (or idiots), but both sides of that debate give me cause to wonder if this is an area where that rule of thumb cannot be trusted.   Certain editors clearly viewed disruption and a complete disregard for civility as a viable response in those circumstances.  I'm not sure if you saw it, but one editor who engaged in prolific, blunt, and caustic character attacks also vandalized the project by adding an illustration to commons which portrayed blackface and contained racist language, just to score points in the argument via a "if what he did wasn't racist, neither is this" tactic.  Both actions were clearly meant to bait administrative action as a means of making a social statement, as he had been blocked some six weeks earlier for making the same kinds of personal attacks against the same editor (Director) over the same issues.  The image, aside from being wildly offensive on racial grounds, also broadly denigrated any member of the community exercising the principle of "assume good faith" in this case.   Again, I'd like to believe the situation is altogether atypical for Wikipedia in terms of severity, but it's jsut as possible that any such project as that proposed is going to have a few recruits like this, owing to the emotional nature of the subject being addressed.


 * All of that said, if you need any help, I'm at your disposal. Frankly, I think we have the tools to handle situations like this already; they simply were not applied as they might have been.   As one contributor pointed out on that talk page, the only thing which made this case exceptional was the scale and vitriolic nature of the discussion surrounding it; the core issue of confronting extreme bias, even of the racist variety, is a daily process for Wikipedia and many policies and processes already reflect this.  Still, as a number of participants in this fiasco, including some such as yourself who were nothing but good-faith in their behaviour, feel that our procedural response to such circumstances could stand to be a little bit more robust and clearly-defined, I do have one suggestion to make, which indeed I pointed out several times in the AN discussion, though it seemed to go fairly unnoticed:  try WP:Discretionary sanctions.   Arbcom just updated and streamlined that process and given the nature of the topic, I think it's entirely possible that, if this and similar situations were presented to them, that they would agree to add articles concerning the Jewish people to their list of topics to which the discretionary sanctions apply.   This would free the hands a little of any admin getting involved who might otherwise be concerned about the quagmire they are stepping into, would allow for specialized postings on the talk pages of involved editors that might sooner restrain editors inclined to edit-war objectionable material in, and would provide for a degree of immediate visibility to Arbcom in cases of rapid and massive escalation of conflict and disruptive editing in this area.  I strongly suggest that this approach is considered before anyone goes trying to re-invent the wheel for just this one subject matter.  Unless I miss my guess, any proposals a Village Pump or elsewhere for new policy or a new task force are likely to prompt others to suggest this course of action anyway.  But as I said, whatever route you might personally choose, please do feel inclined to ping me and I'll give what support and insight I can.   S n o w  talk 13:17, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks for your response, . I feel as if we may be the only two users who are on the same page about what to do next. Just as I feel that there was some inappropriate behaviour on the side of the defenders of the article, the actions and vitriolic nature of the entire fiasco existed on the other side too. If we truly want to solve this issue, we can't just lay blame on Director and start a committee that will repeat the same persecutive methodology of dealing with the situation again. Proposing a topic ban for Director and Potocnik was originally an understandable course of action based on the mindset that the nominator had at the time. It was only after the topic ban was proposed that I realized that such a variety of editors involved had such ferocious attachments to what happened - some even so much that their sentiment against a link between Jews and Communism was just as biased as Producer's sentiment that they were heavily linked. We need to avoid the pressure cooker that in it's essence was this entire afD nomination. I think more effort should have been focused on repairing the article and mending the relationships that Director and Potocnik shared with the likes of Atlanticire before we nominated the afD - in this case, all that happened was that the afD process made an already tense situation explode into a battleground and an overall lack of consensus. We should have a team ready - whether it's just a collaborative group of peacekeepers or something like ArbCom - to diffuse articles and situations like so, not to just battle and edit war with mistaken editors like Director as they seemingly did on this occasion. ''' Flipandflopped   (Discuss,   Contribs)  14:29, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * There's one distinction I'd add to that: the AfD itself was conducted in a pretty straightforward and routine manner; it was the AfD talk page which became the problem; in my opinion, the activity that took root there was completely inappropriate from beginning to end.  As you know, as it became obvious that the AfD was almost certain to conclude with a delete, a number of editors who had been at odds with Director and Producer started using it as a staging area to decide how best to contain the pair, bandying about the idea of the topic ban and sock-puppet investigations.  At the time I was unaware of it, but I'll be honest in saying that, had I been, I'm not sure how I would have felt about it; on the one hand, Director had already reversed his position on the revelation of the origins of the content and, obstinate and problematic though I observed him to be on the article talk page,  this was narrowly enough for me feel that he ought to be given the benefit of the doubt as to his his ability to reform his approach to collaboration -- mind you, I had been following the situation since the second ANI and had kept my hands clean of the article itself so that I could speak as neutral voice concerning the systemic lack of civility attached to the article and its talk page and so that I could go to an admin or Arbcom as a neutral figure if Director continued to launch personal attacks (little could I imagine that he would shortly be outdone in that arena).   On the other hand, up until that point, I had viewed Director as one of the main causes of the antagonism attached to the article, so it's possible I would not have been, even internally, all that critical of those who thought a topic ban was warranted, even if I personally felt it was time, especially in light of Director's reversal of position, to try conciliation, as best it could be achieved, between all parties.


 * But certainly in retrospect, hosting that brainstorming session there to find ways to get two editors sanctioned was an entirely inappropriate course of action. For one, that's not the purpose of an AfD talk space, which should have been used solely for discussion about content and not a drawn out discussion on behavioural matters.  Second, and more crucially, there's really no space on Wikipedia where a strategy session like that is appropriate.  If they felt that there was cause for administrative review (and certainly enough context did exist to make a case for such), then one of them should have taken the initiative to file the AN/ANI posting immediately and let the community discuss the matter together from the start.   Instead, they used that space to share and confirm with one-another their perspectives on the matter (becoming more set in the perspectives as a result of that feedback loop, I daresay), to affirm their mutual commitment to stopping the faction of two (Producer and Director, with whom they had been in a prolongued and very personalized battle concerning the content), and explore several different avenues of attack to this end.  By the time the AN posting was made, they were already galvanized into a voting block.  This is very clearly a violation of WP:Canvas -- again, in retrospect.  And to be clear, I don't think these actions were undertaken in bad faith for the most part and I don't think these contributors realized what they were doing was inappropriate (as I'm sure they mostly still don't); I think probably each action seemed like the logical and reasonable one at the time, but the collective result result was canvasing and the organization of their little group into a machine for implementing the topic ban and other type of restraining sanction they could get imposed. *   And you'll note that the more experienced and neutral administrators and contributors at AN caught on to this immediately; literally the very first post in AN thread by an uninvolved editor contained mention of this behaviour, and each AN regular followed suit in noting that canvasing seemed to be at work.  I don't think any of them knew about the activity on the AfD talk page, but experience in these sorts of matters told them exactly what they were looking at.


 * The situation got even worse after the AfD officially closed in a delete, emboldening that camp further, but the topic ban was instituted for Producer alone, with Director avoiding the same sanction.  I think this made victory a little bitter-sweet for some parties, who clearly were unable to let the matter go and at this point, the outright character attacks began to proliferate against Director on the talk page.   Atlanticire in particular clearly had an axe to grind with Director who, he made it clear in a number of edits on his own talk page and elsewhere, upon whom Atlanticire placed the blame for his (Atlanticire's) block. I think he carried a fair bit of animosity for the community as whole for not having sided with him in his earlier heating exchanges over the article, and failing to defend him from the block he earned for himself through repeated uncivil comments, as reflected in his many comments denigrating the community's commitment to AGF.  Regardless of his motivation, he went way over the line, resuming his personal attacks (as much as accusing Director of being a neo-nazi, and certainly a racist, and implying that he had an antisocial personality disorder, before graduating to vandalizing the project with racist imagery and hate speech).   While USChick exchanged semi-lighthearted broadsides with Director that I think eventually served to allow them to dissipate some tension and bury the hatchet, and Mark and Smeat satisfied themselves with simply questioning the sincerity and sufficiency of Director's mea culpa,  Atlanticire's behaviour was quite simply the very worst in the entire history of the whole sordid affair -- vitriolic and disruptive in the extreme and completely counter-productive to any efforts to resolve any of the outstanding issues (one-way or another).   He's very lucky no admin happened upon (or was brought into) those discussions or he certainly would have been blocked, probably indefinitely this time.  And then of course there was the whole matter of celebrating the sanctions, which was itself and act indicative of the lack of perspective reigning in that space by that point and how misappropriated it had become.


 * * On a side note, I know you commented briefly a couple of times in those discussions, but A) you were the one party in the discussion who was new and had no previous involvement, B) you've been markedly neutral throughout all proceedings since joining the discussion, and C), your contributions to that discussion were in responding to suggested courses of action rather than instigating them, discussing the content itself, and trying to find ways to avoid similar acrimony in the future.  These are all positive contributions, and I don't view you as having been out of line in participation, even if I view the sum of the discussion as a questionable activity.


 * I know, the above is a whole lot of wasted effort on an issue that is hopefully done and best forgotten except for the lessons we can learn from it, and i hope you'll forgive me cluterring your talk page with it.  But, overlong as the treatment may be, I wanted to state, for the record, where I thought the real problems began to arise in the late discussion, which was not, to my thinking, the AfD itself.   Besides, though I sincerely hope otherwise, I can't help but wonder if we've seen the last of these personal grudges.  Two weeks from now or two years, I suspect at some point ArbCom will be familiar with some of the names on that page, in conjunction with one-another, probably, and it will help for us all to be clear about transpired in this ugly matter of that article and the half dozen caustic pages attached to it.  Or maybe with a little luck these facts can make a slight contribution to the case to ArbCom for why the subject of the Jewish people out to be protected under the auspices of the discretionary sanctions system.   S n o w  talk 18:09, 22 May 2014 (UTC)


 * What's up ladies and/or gents. Definitely set up whatever group you're planning without me. As I've said already, policing internet antisemitism is really not something I'm interested in.--Atlantictire (talk) 19:56, 22 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I find this to be a very peculiar statement given that A) you repeatedly leveraged the idea that Wikipedia was bureaucratically unresponsive to antisemitism as justification for your sustained character attacks against those you perceived as spreading it and B) surely it was clear from both of our comments that not only did neither of us consider you a good candidate for this manner of work, but indeed that we (or at least I) view you as the very last person who should be engaged in this manner of contribution.  I'll be blunt with you, Atlantictire; I find it to be not the least bit hyperbolic to say that the only reason you aren't blocked right now is that the rest of us have collectively been too lazy, preoccupied, or unwilling to stoke the embers under this situation again to make sure that your actions got the appropriate level of administrative/community oversight that they surely deserved.  But if you fail to let this drop -- if you denigrate Director or otherwise harass any other editor further, or further engage in what appears to be baiting or trolling of individuals or the community at large, I'll make the time write up the ANI posting myself. And trust me, I'm very methodical in this kind of work -- I'll make sure the complete story of your incivility, your utter disregard for pillar policies and the community's ideals at large and your general (and clearly intentional) disruption is all laid out for every admin who contributes at the noticeboards.   Or, put more succinctly: Quite while you are ahead.   S n o w  talk 22:35, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * What I said was the internet is rife with people whose hobby is internet antisemitism, and efforts by individual editors, or even a self-appointed group of editors, to try to fend them off on Wikipedia would likely come at considerable expense to IRL productivity and emotional well-being. I personally think the already considerable body of admins should be able to do this without help, and I personally think it's worth an ARB:COM to sort out why they didn't. You don't have to agree.


 * Go right ahead and report me. I won't defend myself. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be saying that you think my incivility is more egregious than Director's three month marathon defense of a line of reasoning quite literally used by Hitler to | justify the Holocaust ("In the East, Jews were supposedly responsible for the communism (“Judeobolshevism”) of the Soviet Union"). I see this as a problem, and don't worry... you're not alone in your views.--Atlantictire (talk) 23:05, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Director apologized for his behaviour, and I believe his apology. I, personally, do not think that Director is actually a Nazi Sympathizer, but rather someone who was extremely mislead and had a tough time admitting so. And as long as you and Mark still hold this attitude, the conflict has not really ended. I don't believe Director is an idiot, and he wants to stay on wikipedia, so the likely to not do it again - and if he does, then well, we can topic ban him! Director seems to want to get past this, but certain individuals seem to want it to drag on and on and on and on and on (and so forth). All I'm asking everyone to do is get past this so that we can focus on more relevant things - like preventing it from happening in a different scenario! And speaking of which, since we're regrettably talking about him, I think I should notify, just for his knowledge (it would be best to NOT get into a war with Atlantic on my talk page, contrarily, Director). ;)''' Flipandflopped  (Discuss,   Contribs)  23:18, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok this is why I'm having a hard time believing Director: that piece from the New York Review of Books that I just linked to... that's exactly the kind of evidence people spent weeks piling in front of him and he spent weeks furiously scorning and dismissing. "Forgive and forget" or Never Forget?--Atlantictire (talk) 23:30, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Anyway, just came here to say yeah, this group you're worried I might not be a "good fit" for... no worries. Not interested. Sorry if my saying so upset anyone.--Atlantictire (talk) 00:45, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Atlantic, I am not upset, and I did not mean to offend - and nor did I say that you weren't a good fit for the group, I merely was providing constructive criticism in the essence that I think you should not become emotionally/adamantly attached to things like this if you are going to combat them. ''' Flipandflopped  (Discuss,   Contribs)  00:51, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

UTC)
 * I agree. All the best.--Atlantictire (talk) 01:16, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Chrome
Just pinging those who have helped with California Chrome that it's Belmont Stakes day and the race is going at about 6:30 pm EST, (I think that's -5 GMT) I anticipate most vandal problems for about two hours on either side. I did a "clean" edit for a baseline to go back to if someone messes things up beyond belief. All eyes appreciated Montanabw (talk)  07:14, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm going to be out for a few hours prior to the race, but I'll try and help with any post-race cleanup. ''' Flipandflopped  (Discuss,   Contribs)  13:47, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Terrific! The worst vandals usually hit right after the race anyway.  May want to also watchlist 2014 Belmont Stakes while you're at it.  All help appreciated!   Montanabw (talk)  16:27, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Try to resist the urge to copyedit until after the race - we are about to get hit by a lot of traffic. In a few minutes, it wil be history!   Montanabw (talk)  22:50, 7 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Good to go, now time to discuss what to keep and what can be cut now that we know the rest of the story... Montanabw (talk)  06:56, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

PONY!
  Pony!

Congratulations! For your help with California Chrome, you have received a pony! Ponies are cute, intelligent, cuddly, friendly (most of the time, though with notable exceptions), promote good will, encourage patience, and enjoy carrots. Treat your pony with respect and he will be your faithful friend! Montanabw (talk) 06:52, 8 June 2014 (UTC) To send a pony or a treat to other wonderful and responsible editors, click here.


 * I will treat my pony as an honoured and respectable companion for all to admire ;) ''' Flipandflopped   (Discuss,   Contribs)  17:31, 8 July 2014 (UTC)


 * LOL! Say, I am going to be nominating 'Chrome for FAC pretty soon, folks are doing final copyedits and letting me know if I'm going the wrong directon; feel free to pop over there and comment.  Montanabw (talk)  04:57, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I did what I could, a lot of it was just cosmetic re-wordings of things. The article is in great shape! You've done a great job on it! A few more rounds of this minor copyediting type thing and in my opinion you'll be able to nominate it for FA status - I'd be glad to help with other things like this in the future, if you ever need help to take care of small things during the FA process, I could probably jump on it (unfortunately, I am somewhat of a WikiOgre, so I might not go much further than that lest I go overboard, Lol) ''' Flipandflopped  (Discuss,   Contribs)  19:06, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Chrome
Nominated Chrome for FAC today, FYI: Featured article candidates/California Chrome/archive1. Grab your popcorn and watch the show. Montanabw (talk) 22:57, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

You got me wrong
Hi, you were polite in your accusation, and I responded to the investigation with honesty, open about my hatred toward Wikipedia, but respectful to the process you initiated.

I did want to take issue with multiple presumptions on your part, which I think were immature, anti intellectual, and feeds into the bad behavior which is driving away people like me who came to help.

Words like odd grudge, obvious meat puppet, inappropriate ANI, are not only factually incorrect but show your inability to objectively measure a situation, inability to do basic research, willingness to publish unresearched and incorrect information, and an inflated sense of yourself. And while I appreciate your willingness to contribute to the project, how can you expect to raise the quality of the encyclopedia if you are that shoddy with basic, and trivial research, and so willing to jump to conclusions that seem to fill the opinion that you had already formed? I have not researched recent events with Carrie, but I thought she was maligned at the time I overlapped with her, and I think I am being maligned by you in carelessness, but perhaps not intent. Reach out to me. I will be polite, even if you have retriggered the anger that I had put away months ago. You will find that I am a passionate researcher of information that is not prone to push an agenda.

Bob the goodwin (talk) 03:48, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * My criticism of said behaviour at the ANI was not that your ANI report against Hullaballoo was misguided, but rather that you and the user Carriearchdale - the accounts in question - were some of the only, if any, users in adamant support of it, thus making it notable in regard to the investigation. If you truly hate wikipedia and no longer care to contribute here, and are not a sock, feel free to return to the way you were before, and let the SPI follow through - no harm done. As I said before, this whole SPI is precautionary. Your edits relating to Lyme disease and other topics, while eager and admirable, are not really what is being discussed in the investigation; rather, it's your account's mutualized behaviour with the account Carriearchdale at ANI in the past which is relevant to the investigation. I would also appreciate it if you could remain civil - see the link in my signature. I have tried to remain polite with you, but your attacks on my character are not appreciated, nor does the pairing of the words "odd" and "grudge" reflect an inner personality flaw within my character. The words "meat puppet" are not mentioned once throughout the whole investigation section of the SPI, you are referring to comments made by, although it does surprise me that you are shocked that that terminology would be used in a sentence when the investigation itself is labelled a "sock puppet investigation". All in all,  I have no personal malice against you, whether you are a persona or a person, only skepticisms of your similarities to Carrie.


 * If you are going to continue to address me in this manner on my talk page, please do not further contribute to this talk page in the future. Good luck, and I hope you are not what I suspect you may be. Flipand Flopped <b style="color:grey"> ツ</b> 05:35, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, Bob the goodwin, now that I have reflected on all you have posted, if and only if you are telling the truth, I would concede that it is very possible if not likely you are not the same person - but that says nothing to your actions. I'm sorry for your experiences with past users. Sorry for my somewhat aggravated response, as I think I may be guilty of responding the same way you initially did. I now understand more clearly what you claim your motive was for assisting Carrie - that in itself is easy to misinterpret. You must understand that no matter the issue, continuously supporting a user in every situation possible (and vice versa from her to you) just to stand up against abusers can send a red flag, and is still unacceptable - people other than me thought these things, too (they noted it at the API), I just took it to SPI because I was afraid of Carriearchdale coming back through what appeared to be an involved account to someone without the deep understanding of your relationship you possessed. You are right in the fact that my recent experiences with Carrie somewhat clouded my judgement when regarding your previous experiences with her, as it has now pretty much been exposed that she is a troll, I have made appropriate comments on the SPI page, but I still stand by making it in the first place, as it would prove very difficult to read these ANI's and not become suspicious afterwards, as OccultZone and others seemingly did as well. I wish you luck. <b style="color:Teal;">Flip</b><sup style="color:purple">and <b style="color:lime">Flopped</b> <b style="color:grey"> ツ</b> 06:47, 12 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Well written rebuttal, and you should equally understand how easy it is for me to misunderstand your motivations as you were working in a mutualized behavior with the account OccultZone. You and he bombarded Carrie with ANI and hounded her across Wikipedia and savaged her on Jimbos talk page.  As a result a person with 12,000 edits in six months is now banned from Wikipedia and you guys accomplished this within 24 hours while she had never had any actions taken against her before.  The two of you then turned and hounded me because I ONE time backed her up when the two of us had simultaneous ANIs against the same troll.  I agree she then started to back me up at every turn after that.  I do not hate Wikipedia, I hate paid editors, and I hate hounding trolls who follow people onto Jimbo's page.  But we can both now agree that we are both acting in good faith and it was easy to misunderstand the situation.  I hope we both can come back to Wikipedia and help the project and not get into endless challenges. Good luck friend. Bob the goodwin (talk) 00:20, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Changes to WP:QC
You are receiving this message because you are listed in the active members list of WikiProject Quebec.

I have made a number of drastic changes to the project in an effort to bring some more life to it. I would appreciate hearing your feedback on these changes here. Thanks! - Sweet Nightmares  19:57, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

New 10,000 Challenge for Canada
Hi, WikiProject Canada/The 10,000 Challenge is up and running based on The 10,000 Challenge for the UK which has currently produced over 2300 article improvements and creations. If you'd like to see large scale quality improvements happening for Canada like The Africa Destubathon, which has produced over 1600 articles in 5 weeks, sign up on the page. The idea will be an ongoing national editathon/challenge for Canada but fuelled by a contest such as The North America Destubathon to really get articles on every province and subject mass improved. I would like some support from Canadian wikipedians here to get the Challenge off to a start with some articles to make doing a Destubathon worthwhile! Cheers. --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:55, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Pillus
Maybe you missed it – I pinged you a few days ago on Articles for deletion/Pillus. By the way, your "short wikibreak" notice has been up since 2014. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 13:22, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, sorry, I saw it on the run and had made a mental note to myself to change it, but forgot. Looks fine to me now; I'll go do that. And, the "short wikibreak" has been removed and finally come to its end, lol. ;) <b style="color:Teal;">Flip</b><sup style="color:purple">and <b style="color:lime">Flopped</b> <b style="color:grey"> ツ</b> 19:34, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It hasn't come to an end on this page! <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 19:54, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #AAA; background-color: ivory; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; "> 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) 01:27, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #AAA; background-color: ivory; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; "> Hello! Voting in the 2023 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 2023 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) 00:44, 28 November 2023 (UTC)