User talk:Bigtimepeace

Archives

1751—April 2008

In the interest of keeping conversations in one place, if you leave me a message here I will reply here (and possibly on your page as well if it's an urgent matter). Likewise if I have left a message on your talk page, I will check back for a reply.

Upstairs Recordings page deletion.

Hi, The Upstairs Recordings page was deleted by you. How do I get it back to revise it? Thanks. Buzz Rozwell (talk) 18:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Buzz, I'm pasting the entire text from the deleted article Upstairs Recordings onto your talk page. I would ask you though not to simply re-create the article. Wikipedia has certain standards for inclusion, and we do not have articles for every musical act, album, record label, etc. The article on UR did not give any indication that the company passed our notability bar which is why it was tagged for speedy deletion and then deleted. You are going to need multiple reliable sources discussing Upstairs Recordings in order for it to be a viable Wikipedia article. Again the full text is below, but please consider whether this label really warrants inclusion on Wikipedia, and if you think it does at least gather some sources before re-creating it. Thanks.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

IP Warnings

I noticed some threatening remarks on my IP talk page. Didn't even know I had one of those. But, in short... I've never heard of Tippiecanoe High School, much less been to the page, much less "vandalized" it. I would appreciate it if you would direct any comments to the appropriate person(s). This is your first and final warning. Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.105.128.37 (talk • contribs)

My apologies if you were offended by seeing various warnings as "new messages." Presumably you are looking at Wikipedia from a shared IP address, and someone else who uses or has used that IP address has in the past "vandalized" Wikipedia - that is they have deleted information, inserted nonsense, etc. It is standard to warn such users to stop their behavior and then, if they do not stop, to block them from editing briefly. In the case of shared IP addresses, folks who did nothing wrong will sometimes see these warnings but I'm afraid there's nothing we can do about that. You'll notice that below the messages I left (several weeks ago) there followed the phrase "If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make any unconstructive edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant warnings." Sorry if this caused you can stress, but leaving messages like this is one of the main tools we have to cut down on vandalism to the encyclopedia. Best, Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giovanni33

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giovanni33/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giovanni33/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Anthøny 23:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Congrats

On you successful RfA Britishrailclass91 (talk) 18:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Redirects

Hey there BTP, congrats on becoming an admin! (I think I supported you, actually...I'll be right back...) Ah, yes, #37! Anywho, on to business. I noticed that you closed the debate for Simsbury Public Library as merge and redirect (which is the right close BTW, nice work). If you'd take a look at this diff, you'll see that I made the redirect more specific, both by redirecting to a section of a parent article directly instead of to the top of the article, and by categorizing it as a "redirect to section". It's the preferred method of redirecting (or so I was told when I started closing AfDs. :-) Anywho, just pointing it out to you. Thanks for your hard work, hope you're enjoying your shiny new buttons! Wear the letters off 'em! Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Keeper for taking care of that, I actually had thought about redirecting it to the section but did not, I'll make a rule of doing this in future AfD closes.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Summer's here

So I expanded the Kool Herc article. That's about all I know, short of the Chang book which is on my shelf, but which I haven't consulted, since refs to chang were already in there. I skimped on brilliant prose :P but it's a decent article now, with refs. i dunno if there should be more on the economic background or the various subtleties of the relationship with disco or what have you. i stuck with kool herc, pretty much. take a look at it. 86.44.28.186 (talk) 22:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Nice work! That looks a lot better. I'm still a ways away from being able to work on this as I'm finishing the semester, but I think I'll be able to add some more detail. The Chang book is actually very good for that and I'm very familiar with it. I'll drop you a line on your talk page when I start in on it.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. I bookmark my contribs, so if my IP changes, rest assured I'll be looking in on my talk from time to time (that's my SOP as an IP editor). I don't think I'll be of much help, but if you do decide to try for GA I'll be there for any discussions that may crop up (for instance, if it is unclear what is sourced to what, or what source to use when Chang contradicts Toop, Ogg, or Shapiro etc.) 86.44.28.186 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 16:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

In case you are looking for more ever: Black noise: rap music and black culture in contemporary America By Tricia Rose p35 Published 1994 Wesleyan University Press 0819562750

• p35 - DJ Kool Herc attended Alfred E. Smith auto mechanic school - Graf writer and dancer before DJ -
• p51 - credited with innovation of using large speaker systems - Named his stereo system speaker Herculords - Made b-beats out of New Orleans Jazz, Isaac Hayes, Bob James, Rare Earth among others
• p195 - Herc's style heavily influenced by Jamaican sound systems - Herc claims he could not get the crowd to respond to Jamaican music - Left hip hop after being stabbed multiple times during one of his shows

Reggae Routes: The Story of Jamaican Music By Kevin O'Brien Chang, Wayne Chen

• p72' - Herculord speaker name - crowd did not react to Reggae music -Herc began to focus on mixing and left DJ'ing to Coke La Rock - Herc would soak his records in water to remove the labels

Enjoy, and thank you for your defense. I just wish others would see all of us New Yorkers were not the same person. Perhaps I will see you at the Wikimeetup. I think you might be humored by my job, and the similarities I share with some. User:Gr0ff being one. - IWritePrettyMuchEverything =)

Heheh, I'm currently reading the Rose book! And was intrigued by the reference to his speakers as Herculords, I'd never heard that before. Must mention that the Rose book should be of some interest to bigtimepeace, btw, an academic work with a little bit on hip hop coming out of a response to post-industrialisation (the context in which she mentions the auto-mechanic training mentioned above). 86.44.28.186 (talk) 14:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Come join the party

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Allegations_of_state_terrorism_by_the_United_States Inclusionist (talk) 05:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Mulholland Dr.

Hello again! I would like to thank you once more for your assistance and support in writing this article, and I'd like to let you know that I nominated it for Featured Article. If you haven't read it in a while, please do so. I would also appreciate your comments in the FAC process. You can find the nomination here. Thanks again. --Moni3 (talk) 13:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey Moni, other things have distracted me, but I'll definitely take a look at the article again when I get a chance and try to comment during the FAC process (though I'm new to that). I still would like to add some new interpretive stuff at some point, but it probably makes sense to let it go through the FA process first. Good luck!--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Are you serious

You said you deleted the bio (Rotton) that I created because, it was not important enough? Am I confused, or what? I even put links in that bio, and was not fineshed. Will you please explained to me what I should do about that. You seem to be good at editing pages, maybe you can help me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rotton (talk • contribs) 22:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Rotton, I'll try to explain the situation here. Wikipedia does not include every possible article on every possible subject. We have certain standards for inclusion, key aspects of which are described at our notability policy. In order for a person, group, organization, thing, event, etc. to be notable, it must have received coverage in third party reliable sources. The article you started (which I assume is about yourself) did not give any indication that the subject was notable or had been covered in reliable sources. You seem to be an aspiring rap artist (and for that I give you props, I'm a big hip-hop fan myself) but there was no indication you have achieved any notability yet or been covered in secondary sources (simply having a web site or starting a company does not make one notable). If that's wrong then perhaps you could have an article, but you also might want to take a look at WP:FIRST and specifically the section on things to avoid, one of which is starting articles about yourself.

I hope that helps a bit, but if you have any questions don't hesitate to ask here.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Recognition

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		For your outstanding feature film project, as described on your user page. I certainly plan on checking it out on opening weekend (especially if you can offer free tickets, if you have that kind of influence). Additionally, I find your cool and—dare I say it?—peaceful demeanor on Wikipedia inspiring. All the best. --Midnightdreary (talk) 04:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so much! I'm glad I'm not the only one who found that film treatment mildly amusing. It's funny because when I first saw your message and read it too quickly I missed the "as described on your user page" phrase and saw only "outstanding feature film project" which led me to think "shit, they left this message on the wrong user talk page." So the joke was almost on me! Anyhow, thanks for the barnstar, and thanks again for your work on that "minor Poe" page. I love it on Wikipedia when I think, "it'd be nice if someone here could fix up such and such an article" and then after one talk page note and less than 24 hours later it's done. Oh and you'll definitely have free tickets when the film opens, which it undoubtedly will someday—at a theater near you. Best, Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

RFA Thanks

Thanks for your support at my recent Request for adminship. I hope you find I live up to your expectations. Best, Risker (talk) 16:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

NYC Meetup: June 1, 2008

New York City Meetup Next: Sunday June 1st, Columbia University area Last: 3/16/2008

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, elect a board of directors, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the last meeting's minutes).

We'll also review our recent Wikipedia Takes Manhattan event, and make preparations for our exciting successor Wiki Week bonanza, being planned with Columbia University students for September or October.

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and (weather permitting) hold a late-night astronomy event at Columbia's telescopes.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

Also, check out our regional US Wikimedia chapters blog Wiki Northeast (and we're open to guest posts).
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks so much for your support in myRfA, which closed successfully this morning. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 17:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Communication

Hiya, just checking, do you ever use IMs? If so, feel free to drop me a line. I do a lot of work on history articles too, and love to have Wikipedia contacts that I can bounce ideas off of.  :) --Elonka 23:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey Elonka, I am one of those strange creatures who is under 35 yet never uses IM (or IRC, the existence of which I only learned about in the last 6 months or so). I don't know why, that's just how it is! However I'd be happy to try to help on history related stuff if you wanted a second or third pair of eyes. You can always feel free to drop me a line on my talk page or send me an e-mail, which is enabled on my user page (e-mail I can handle). Sorry that I haven't taken the leap into the 21st century yet! --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I envy how much more peaceful your surfing must be, without IMs.  :) No problem, but I may take you up on that email offer!  :) --Elonka 23:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Apologies

Hi. As per Talk:Elderly_Instruments#Some_remaining_issues, apologies for any snappiness at my part. I don't want to discourage you at all. I was reacting probably in too much haste (I have in fact been trying not to contribute to WP during the week) to some part of the barrage that has afflicted that article over the last day or two. Again, personally I think it'd be best if everyone laid off the article for now, at least until Laser has returned. In the meantime, I think it would be truly excellent if you were able to spare some time at FAC and FAR. I think that the defensive reaction on the part of people such as SandyG and myself honestly comes from a sense that we do want more people to be involved in those processes. I'd be very sorry if I had inadvertently put you off. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 23:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your note, and no worries, it's all water under the bridge. I can certainly understand your frustration with some of the previous comments on that article. I'll definitely make a point of commenting at FAC or FAR in the near future. Like I said it's something I've been meaning to do and I've even dropped in and read some of the discussions, but felt like I needed to read a bit more about the standards. Actually I fully intended on commenting on this offering from Moni3 (I did a small amount of work on that awhile ago) but let too much time go by before it was promoted (as well it should have been). Anyway you can expect me to turn up over on the FA pages sometime soon. Best, Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I think I was mostly a little fired up by the claims that the subject of the article wasn't "notable." But there are so many different arguments swilling around following this particular article's unfortunate day on the main page, that everything gets confused. I've been trying to clarify over on Wikipedia_talk:Today's_featured_article, but to little avail, I feel. I'm actually quite sympathetic with many of the complaints made, not especially about this particular article, but in general about articles like it. I've expressed them myself at FAC. But it really does seem to me that FAC is the place to make (most of) those arguments. Anyhow, again, apologies; I didn't want to turn you off at all. There's nothing particularly magic or special about FAC, but it is the place where people try to hash out the standards for Wikipedia's best articles, and so (at least at present) to figure out which deserve to be on the main page, and which not. There's certainly no reason not to take part, beyond that is the inevitable pressures of time that we all feel. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 07:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

BigTime, thanks for your calm voice throughout, and my apologies also for any ungraciousness on my part. In terms of getting involved at FAC or FAR, here's a User's guide; hope to see you there! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:43, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, sorry

It seemed centralizing the discussion made sense. My pet peeve, per WP:BURO, is deciding the fate of the content one article on the talk page of another article. As I had said, centralizing it seems like a good excuse to start the WP:CENTER page, even though I was wary that might look a little like I was forum shopping myself. I would have left you a note, but I just assumed you would notice pretty quickly. -- Kendrick7^talk 07:53, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Like I said it was a mistake on my part to not place notes on the other two article talk pages, but that was just an unintentional oversight and could have been fixed in about 3 minutes. Anyhow thanks for moving it back, and apologies if my tone was a bit snappy. It's just that editing that "Allegations" page is so unbelievably tedious and I was dismayed to see that a lengthy talk page comment I had left was somewhere I most certainly did not want it to be. Now we'll see if either of these two discussions get us anywhere.  :) --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:17, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Not a problem. Killing two birds with one stone tends to annoy the birds so I knew that going in. Anyway, nothing else can phase me this weekend, because it just occurred to me that I could do this.[1] There's a year I'll never get back, so I'm not too keen to be sucked into WP:CENTER regardless. --- 08:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Your talkpage has become apology central. You should rent out the space.  ;) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 08:20, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Ha! That's really funny because I was just thinking the exact same thing and chuckling about it. People who stop by here are really going to feel bad for me and the obviously shabby treatment I receive on Wikipedia. Why is it that I am constantly being wronged? What have I done to deserve this infamy? I am indignant! Indignant I say! I shall compose an ode to self-pity and post it post-haste. Actually it's probably just some strange karmic shift which portends a future in which I will be the one apologizing on user talk pages.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:29, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

My apologies

I just wanted to stop by to say sorry, too. I'm not sure why yet, but I'm sure I'll think of a reason someday. :)Giovanni33 (talk) 21:11, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for this

[2]. Saying it is deletionist v. inclusionist makes the protest against WMC make more sense to me and I can see that is a kind of content dispute. I struggle though with the rigth approach on the huge numbers of socks. On articles I watch closely I can and do spot obvious socks and indef block them. I don't think I am involved in a content dispute on those articles but it could always be argued that I am anywhere that I edit. But if I try to do this via ANI it takes me ten times longer putting together the historic diffs and getting pulled into a tar baby of an argument than it does for the sock master to create another account which seems disproportionate good faith. Plus no one has complained and many are confirmed weeks later when checkuser does another batch of them. So why not the same with WMC at allegations? Personally, I have to say I would run many of the edits I have seen the other way, but WMC is a consistent deletionist and there are lots of people's "pet" articles where his presence is needed. Also he seems to me to be pretty fair in general (again, he has unblocked an account I blocked correctly once). So lots of shades of grey in my view. --BozMo talk 20:41, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

It's fine by me if admins block folks on articles they have watchlisted and even make some edits on. But the block policy is fairly clear about not blocking folks with whom you are disputing. The article in question is one of the most contentious on the encyclopedia, and WMC has firmly allied himself with one camp. As far as I know he has only blocked users on the opposite side of dispute, though editors on his side have edit warred as well. Posting to ANI or the 3RR board might take a bit longer but is the way to go here. The fact is that editors on the other side of the dispute (many of whom are neither socks nor disruptive) do not view WMC as remotely impartial. The easy thing for him to do, and what he has been asked to do, is to lay off using the tools and let uninvolved admins take care of it. I would point out that there have been admins involved with this article in the past and they have generally refrained from using the tools. User:Tom harrison contributed regularly (coming from the deletionist camp) but I don't believe he ever took admin actions, at least since I first noticed the article almost a year ago. User:John (coming from the other side) has done the same. I've only been an admin for about a month but I would never dream of using the tools on this article (had I said I would I never would have passed RfA, with good reason). WMC's behavior is thus exceptional and I don't find it helpful in the slightest. I've expressed that and he rejects that view so if and when he employs the tools again I'll bring it up at ANI where I highly doubt that his behavior will be ratified. I don't want WMC to be sanctioned or anything like that (up until this point I'd only known him as someone who seems to do good work on the global warming articles), I just want him to let a neutral admin take care of any blocks, protections, etc. There's really nothing particularly difficult about that in my view and no one has offered any argument to the contrary which I find remotely convincing.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

"I highly doubt that his behavior will be ratified". Hmm. I think this issue even on this article as far as I can tell has been to ANI, RFC and Arbcom and he has had majority support from other admins each time, but always with a few outraged on the other side. Partly as a long standing bureaucrat he has a lot of community respect. Partly a lot of the time he is victim of many spurious timewasting allegations. Partly no one else has the appetite to take on the challenges in his place. But whatever the reasons I think if there is a need for him to change another tack is needed, however you choose your path :). --BozMo talk 07:25, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I guess we'll see, ideally WMC decides not to use the tools any more at that article and then there's no problem. He has already had a couple of blocks reversed.. See this ANI thread where one admin unblocked because of WMC's involvement, and then another re-blocked saying "Wrong person, good block" (I think two admins disagreed with WMC being the blocking admin and one agreed, another admin complained about his editing over protection). Just a few days ago another block was reversed with this note. If it happens again I think it will be difficult for folks at ANI to deny that future blocks/edits over protection are not kosher. Some will of course, but this is pretty clear cut. Anyhow WMC recently reported an editor for a perceived violation rather than blocking himself which is good. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Yep I saw those. Anyway I think if there are other admins around helping with the socks it will improve. --BozMo talk 09:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

JzG RFAR merged with Cla68-FM-SV case

Per the arb vote here the RFAR on User:JzG is now merged with this case and he is a named party. Also see my case disposition notes there. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:29, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Notification

As one of the people who do like me (I think), I promised to invite two that do and two that do not, I am informing you of my appeal: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Request_for_appeal:_Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration.2FSevenOfDiamonds. Your comments, negative or positive are welcome. - I Write Stuff / SevenOfDiamonds

I've commented. I would be fine with an unblock but I think you will have to agree to some conditions, and even with that there might still be some who oppose an unblock. We'll see though.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:00, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Apparently it is not allowed to be discussed.[3] I hope you do not become overwhelmed by me posting articles here. I will try to keep them clean and behind a "hide" tag and in "nowiki" form, so you can just copy and paste. Odd, Merzbow says I am the one with a vedetta against WMC ... -SevenOfDiamonds/I Write Stuff/The Exiled —Preceding unsigned comment added by JessicaRamos2 (talk • contribs) 23:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

HG2TG

Funny, I was musing earlier today about this edit[4] and wishing I had added "almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea" to the list of possible definitions. I didn't know if anyone would get it though. -- Kendrick7^talk 21:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Just FYI

Follow the edits in case you weren't aware. Not cool and he may listen to you. --DHeyward (talk) 23:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that Giovanni should stay away from that article since you've edited there for quite awhile and I'll leave him a note to that effect. However this was not particularly helpful on your part. I don't know how you would expect Giovanni to be aware of previous oversighted edits and whatever harassment was going on (since they were oversighted I obviously don't know what happened either). The content over which you are disputing is rather innocuous and certainly has nothing to do with harassment or the BLP policy (I understand some other content did, but that was not what Giovanni was talking about). Rather than insinuating on his talk page that G33 was taking sides with an editor who has harassed you or Scarborough or whomever you might have just said "I've been editing this article for a long time, we don't get along so please don't follow me there." Bringing up the oversighted edits only escalated the dispute when it could have been fairly easy for you to defuse the issue. One of the reasons I de-watchlisted the "Allegations" article is that too many folks on both sides are trying to escalate disputes, report for 3RR, start AN/I threads, etc. rather than just talking to one another (and obviously this spills over into other articles and parts of the encyclopedia). It's quite depressing. Anyhow I'll leave G33 a note and suggest he avoid the Joe Scarborough page.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I didn't expect him to know about anything. That's why I left the note. It's the third time he's claimed ignorance about harassment and for someone who obviously follows my edits quite closely, I find it hard to believe he was unaware considering he picked that article to revert me on and support that editors edits. Nor did I believe that he was simply trying to end an edit war by reverting me without an edit summary. Nor was it coincidence that after I explained the situation that he immediately filed a 3RR. I rarely edit the state terrorism article nor have I watched it for quite a while. Giovanni is well on his way to being banned for reasons such as this. He creates and escalates conflict. Before he arrived at Scarborough article, this was low-level BLP violations that were being handled by rollbacks. He escalated it to full protection which seems to be what he's best at. I don't think I've ever filed a 3RR on Giovanni or even an ANI. He seems to find me though. He harbors an animosity that is inconsistent with our interaction which is why I think he has many sockpuppets. At the very least, Giovanni3 should have assumed that I was using rollback appropriately and asked what was up if he had issues with the content on the Scarborough page. Since he didn't made any content arguments (just took a position opposite to mine), his real purpose is painfully clear. --DHeyward (talk) 07:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

G33 was not supporting the editor against you DHeyward, he was supporting the inclusion of the content itself - which is the way things are supposed to work. There is no BLP violation here as several editors have pointed out to you. If you had used the article talk page in the first place to explain your rationale for removing longstanding material - none of this would have escalated as it has into an unnecessary edit war. I don't think this was personal at all - originally. 72.92.4.157 (talk) 10:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh I forgot, G33 has a history of editing Joe Scarborough and has a history of supporting your edits. Oh wait. he doesn't He has a history of harassment and wikistalking my edits though. I wonder what motivated him then to show up and revert me .... --DHeyward (talk) 22:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any such history.Giovanni33 (talk) 23:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I pretty much took Nov, Dec, Jan, Feb amd Mar off so after 4 months of being off, heres what I returned to:

• Stalking
• Mistaking me for someone else with a threat
• Fishing for a block, sound familiar? BTW, that fishing excercise is what brought WMC to the State terrorism article. Law of unintended consequences.
• Forgets to apologize to me after his fishing excercise shows that he's wrong
• Mystery puppet restores invalid warning even after dismissed by WMC. Still no sign of Giovanni33 to correct his mistake.
• Right after admin semi-protects page to stop IP editor warring, giovanni33 jumps in to revert me and continue the edit war.] Literally the first edit after protection to stop the edits he reverted to.
• More defamation and policy violations. Didn't Gio just claim last week that he knew nothing about this. Hmmm.
• fixes the lie but keeps the polciy vio. and then repeats polivy vio and repeats the lie about my block log and makes up other nonsense about blogs (hint: ED has an account with my name, not me though).
• Immediately after posting that nonsense at Arbcom, the Scarborough IP (formerly known as Kek15) starts posting information about my email address and other info in edit summaries and other nonsense. And lo and behold, Gio show up at Scarborough to support the editor that propagates his nonsense once again claiming ignorance and innocence. There's more but it's late. --DHeyward (talk) 05:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh I'm sure there's "more" diffs into which you could read some sort of nefariousness on Giovanni's part, but for god's sake don't post them here. Perhaps you find this utterly fascinating and a good use of your encyclopedia writing time, but I am not interested in your catalogue of perceived slights from Giovanni (though I do find "forgets to apologize to me" - is that in our civility policy? - mildly hilarious). You asked me to say something to Giovanni about the Scarborough article and I did and now it's done. DHeyward, G33, and IP 72.92.4.157 can all consider this thread closed. Argue somewhere else if you must, or better yet quit sniping at one another, stay the hell away from each other, and go work on an article or something. This talk page is no more a battleground than any other page of this encyclopedia.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Like I said elsewhere you have an amazing ability to see bad faith conspiracies, and a strange way to spin each of these differences in a quite misleading way. Here is my account of your differences:

• You seemed to be harassing this editor by edit warring on his own talk page. I was standing up for the guy and telling you to leave him alone. His talk page is his own. If he reverted your warning then we can assume that he read it. Restoring is just harassment in my book. Also, I was not following you but watching that editor since he was making good contributions on the article, and agreeing with me. Naturally I am interested in following his other edits.
• Not mistaking you for someone else. You were blocked for making more than one revert and are on some kind of 1 revert parole. I just did not know it was only for some subjects in particular. Instead of explaining this to me, you simply reverted my message to you under the very uncivil edit summary "removing trolling.' I'm no troll.
• Since you didn't have the civility or courtesy to explain anything to me, I logically asked someone else about your restriction because if you are violating it, stopping you would be good for the article since your very disruptive there in my view. Unfortunately your 1 revert parole was not for all articles.
• Why should I leave another message on your talk page to apologize to you after you called me a troll and reverted my message? That is not logical that you expected me to leave you another message! hehe If you acted like a decent fellow then I would assume you would be open to more messages from me. Why would I give you another reason to call me a troll again?
• Nothing mysterious here, and nothing to do with me. You were reverting this editors talk page, after he has reverted. I guess you taught him that bad lesson since he did the exact same thing you did to him. Again, nothing to do with me.
• This is a simple content dispute on an article I’m much more active on than you are. Calling this harassing or stalking is absurdly ridiculous.
• No defamation at all. These are facts and I saw nothing wrong here. No, I never claim last week that he knew nothing about this. I‘ve always said I did know, but I never know anything about privacy issues. You stated that you changed your user name to your real name. So, again, how am I supposed to know this is a privacy issue? More bad faith violations, and twisting fo the truth.
• I adjust my comment but there is no policy violation and never any lie.again, this is not a policy violation. and You do have a block log that is cleared. There is no lie. No basis to continue to allege I know all these things of which you speak, the contradict what you yourself said about your account before. You never mentioned it to be before, either. Also, I know nothing about ED, either. Sometimes the non-conspiratorial, simpler, explanation is the true one. Sorry to disappoint you.Giovanni33 (talk) 06:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Bigtimepeace, I only now saw your message. I consider this closed, as well. It is truly nonsense, however funny in perverse way. heheGiovanni33 (talk) 06:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ali Faik Zaghloul

It appears that I misread the last section. I was going through May 29 and misread your relist and comment as June 3 rather than June 8. I thought no one new commented in 5 days so I closed it. I'll reopen it. Wizardman 19:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Barack Obama

Thank you for making a commitment to preserving order and stability at the Barack Obama article.

I would like a commitment from the involved administrators that they are going to monitor the conduct of a small but determined group of exclusionists on these articles.

User:Life.temp gutted the article, removing a total of 732 words in two consecutive edits: [5][6] I placed the following warning on his/her Talk page and on the article Talk page: [7] He/she removed the warning from the user Talk page with a personal attack in the edit summary [8] and discussed this warning in two edits on the article Talk page,[9][10] proving that he/she had seen the warning and was aware of increased concerns about edit warring. Nevertheless, last night Life.temp again gutted the article, ripping out nearly 1,000 words this time: [11] None of these edits were accompanied by anything resembling consensus.

Now, everyone is signing up for Wikidemo's offer of a truce. [12]

Except Life.temp. [13]

It is obvious that Life.temp's goal is to expunge any controversy from the article. I request a block of at least 24 hours for Life.temp, plus a topic ban. Kossack4Truth (talk) 00:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Kossack, I agree that Life.temp's recent conduct has not been particularly edifying. I do not see a need for a block at this point but I directed a comment toward that editor on the article talk page laying out some concerns. However I don't see the problem as "one group of editors," and you yourself need to check some of your recent comments and behavior. Talk page sections headed "Massive POV push by a handful of exclusionists" are never going to be constructive, and there is almost never any benefit in commenting on the supposed motivations of other editors (about which, for the most part, you are just guessing). You say "Life.temp's goal is to expunge any controversy from the article" and that editor says "Certain editors are attempting to wage a political campaign in this article." What good does it do to hurl accusations of nefarious intent at one another? In the end neither of you come out looking very good. Please focus on edits, not the "goal" of other editors as you see it. I will try to keep an eye on Life.temp and future problematic behavior will likely result in a block, but I'd like you to alter your approach as well (and I'm not singling you out, there seem to be a lot of problems over there, but you just happened over to my talk page so I'm letting you know my view).--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

BTP, I would again like to thank you for stepping in on that article over there. I have discussed this via email with WorkerBee74, who agrees that your presence is needed and asked me to pass along WB74 gratitude as well. JJB said something over there that I think cuts right to the core of this matter: Of course, the Ronpaulicans capitulated for quite a bit more space being devoted to the controversy than the Obamanators are doing. The Obamanators simply refuse to compromise.

This refusal to compromise is essential to the edit war, and "the removal of the refusal" is what needs to happen here, in order for the edit war to end. The only tool that WB74 and I have had at our disposal is the revert. Now that you have stepped into this article with your admin tools, you have far greater ability to deal with what I see as the problem. This means that WB74 and I will feel no need to revert.

In particular, the Rezko matter needs to be sprinkled through the article, like the Ron Paul newsletter stuff needs to be sprinkled through the article. I know about the newsletter stuff and in the end, I can see that it was well handled. Jimbo said in one of the many essays that were cited at Talk:Barack Obama is that the goal is not to remove the criticism. The goal is to spread it evenly and proportionately through the article. It must be proportionate to its presence in the mainstream news media and other neutral, reliable sources, but we got plenty of that to support our debate in favor of inclusion of Ayers etc.

WB74 also offers his/her comparison with the other Wikipedia biographies of major politicians such as George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Hillary Clinton and John McCain. WB74 zeroed in on this major point:

:We should follow a format established in other Wikipedia articles about similar people: George W. Bush, Hillary Clinton, John McCain, John Kerry and Tony Blair, for example. When I review those articles, I am impressed by the broad and diverse array of names and political expressions I see in the Talk pages and histories of article edits. They form a very broad consensus of editors. Their consensus is as follows: critics of the politician who is the subject of the biography should be quoted and cited frequently in the biography. Controversies regarding the politician should be described in substantial detail in the biography, including bold headlines that clearly identify the controversy, such as "Whitewater," "Keating Five" and "Iran-Contra Scandal."

In those articles "summary style" hasn't been used to hide controversy elsewhere and make the politician look perfect. The opposite in fact. Controversy is dwelt upon at length. Critics are named and their criticisms are extensively blockquoted. Summary style is being used as camouflage here for an agenda: to systematically expunge any mention of any controversy from this article.

WB74 says that the biography style has been established in other biographies. He/she pointed out that until just a few short days ago, Hillary Clinton was involved in an active political campaign just like Barack Obama; and that throughout the primary campaign season, her Wikipedia biography contained entire sections that had the section headers, "The Lewinsky scandal" and "Whitewater and other investigations." Obamanators claim that those controversies were more important or more damaging to Hillary, and I would respond that this sounds like WP:OR to me. It is evident that the expert political commentary on the Wright and Rezko matters finds them to be potentially very damaging to Obama. These are reliable, neutral, solid gold sources available that say these controversies are notable. Kossack4Truth (talk) 11:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Erosion of neutrality

When the "edit war" blew up on this article recently, I was the first editor to volunteer to avoid Obama-related articles in an attempt to diffuse the argument. Although I had not, strictly-speaking, participated in edit warring (as my record shows), I was accused of "contributing to the poor atmosphere." Evidently, my strict interpretation of WP:BLP was viewed by some as a hostile position.

I have chosen to post this message here because you, like Josiah Rowe before you, are one of the few administrators who have taken a refreshingly-neutral and active role in the "stewardship" and development of Barack Obama. The noticeboard farce still leaves matters unresolved, with certain administrators apparently caught up in the nuances of process instead of solving the problem.

I've been happy to step back, but after a short wikibreak I have returned to discover that editors from the "other side" of the argument, particularly the single-purpose account "WorkerBee74", continue their activities relatively unchecked. They did not see fit to take voluntary breaks, and so it appears they are using their greater number to push their skewed point-of-view. If proposals like this, which clearly violate WP:BLP by using guilt-by-association to give undue weight, are accepted by the current editors then I will feel compelled to return from my self-imposed exile to try to redress the balance. I would appreciate you thoughts on this. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:54, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Scjessey, thanks for your note. I'm going to jump back over to the talk page and review what's going on there, but WorkerBee 74's proposal to which you linked still seems problematic to me, though the discussion has gone further since then. The good thing is that there is discussion happening. I definitely don't want to see anything pushed through without a rough consensus and will work to prevent that from happening. Personally I feel some of the criticism of Obama can be expanded a bit, but not to the point that WorkerBee74 is proposing. I think the real issue here relates not so much to the BLP policy, but rather to NPOV and the notion of undue weight. We can and should talk about Rezko, for example, but it can't take up a disproportionate amount of the article. I'm also aware that WB74 may indeed be a single purpose account, but for now I'm trying to assume good faith of everyone there, regardless of past behavior, so long as they are working constructively.

I appreciate your willingness to take a break from the article, though at least recently I did not really see a problem with your editing (I haven't looked into anyone's history too much, so aside from warning a few people about recent edit warring I don't really have any comment on past activities). The fact that you were willing to leave off editing for awhile actually stands you in good stead (at least in my book) so I would recommend you continue to avoid the articles for a little while (I think you said a couple of weeks). I don't think anything too drastic will happen there, and while I can't be watching the article all or most of the time, I will be checking in at least a couple of times every day in an effort to help us get to some form of consensus on various issues, and to make sure that radically new stuff is not being added without discussion. Not sure if that's reassuring or not, but I will do my best to keep the article NPOV.

I know the editing over there has been frustrating, but when you come back do your best to keep your cool (not that you were not before as far as I know, though you should avoid unnecessarily inflammatory language like "skewed point-of-view" above) and work with the editors with whom you disagree. Again, I view it as a very positive thing that you were willing to step away from the article for awhile.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry by User:Fovean Author

FYI, User:Fovean Author from Talk:Barack Obama has edit-warred with you in the past under an IP address identity. Please see Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Fovean_Author for more information. Shem^(talk) 02:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks like it was taken care of with a six-month block. Fovean Author has been mostly disruptive from what I've seen, so I'm not surprised it came to this.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Barack Obama - again

I would like to request your assistance at Talk:Barack Obama. After a good start, the conversation has once again deteriorated into petty bickering. There has also been an unwelcome influx of single-purpose accounts (some of which may or may not be sock puppets) to add to the hostility. I beg you to intervene with some form of mediation, or perhaps some guidance as to how we can move forward constructively. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:27, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I've been a bit absent, I'm teaching an intensive summer class and have been busy with various social commitments as well (the fun kind, not the annoying kind). I'm taking a look at the talk page now. The conversation moved so quickly I could not keep up with it given the small amount of time I've been on Wikipedia the last few days. Anyhow I'll weigh in over there - it does look as though things have got a bit out of control which I suppose is unsurprising. Hopefully we'll be able to get things back on track.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:07, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, please - if you could. A couple editors, including a new IP editor who we strongly suspect is a sock of a banned user, are filling the Obama talk page with argumentation. I can't promise that our responses have always been the most diplomatic, but it is hard. I am going to caution one or both of them to stop because I do not know what else to do, but they have turned this around to make this an issue about me, so my ability to make peace here is quite limited. I appreciate all your efforts to date; if this is too much for you maybe we should appeal for some additional help as well. Thanks, Wikidemo (talk) 15:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully by tomorrow night I can weigh in in more detail on the Rezko issue and other problems on the talk page as well. Luckily the heated talk page rhetoric has not yet migrated to edit warring on the article which is a good thing (which is not to say that the talk page discussion is not a problem in and of itself). I see that one or two RFCU's have been filed on the new IP (who certainly does seem problematic) so let's see what comes of that. Anyhow I'll try to offer some help in the next 24 hours or so.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Your help is still needed at Barack Obama

Please take a look. Scjessey broke his word: his two-week voluntary topic ban lasted only four days. He constantly misrepresents the facts and Wikipedia policy, and when called on it, he complains about "personal attacks." In general, they're trying to shove through a watered down version of the Rezko matter before Andy and I return. Noroton, WorkerBee74 and a few others are arguing in favor of more criticism in the article. WB74 makes an excellent point about WP:WEIGHT here: [14] The prevalance of criticism against Obama for his involvement with Rezko is overwhelming, as Noroton has proven with exhaustive research. WB74 also makes a good point here [15] about the Tony Blair biography containing a very large amount of criticism the day it became a Featured Article. As he pointed out a bit earlier: "The evidence shows that an extensive coverage of controversy is not inconsistent with FA status." Kossack4Truth (talk) 12:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Could you lend a hand?

Hi, could you take a look at this and lend a hand, or offer your opinion. I'm pretty sure something is messed up with this. Thanks so much. ^^James^^ (talk) 19:43, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Happy Independence Day!

As you are a nice Wikipedian, I just wanted to wish you a happy Independence Day! And if you are not an American, then have a happy day and a wonderful weekend anyway!  :) Your friend and colleague, --Happy Independence Day! Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:24, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Please look over the current options for Rezko language and pick one to help us get to consensus

This is a form notice, not a personal message. I'm sending it out to the most recent contributors to the Rezko discussion at Talk:Barack Obama. Sorry if this is inconvenient, but we may be close to consensus if we can get your help.

Hi, I've noticed you've been a part of the Rezko discussion but haven't said which of the options now on the table you'd prefer. It would really help us to get to consensus if we could get your input on that. There's been plenty of discussion, but if you have questions, I'm sure other editors would answer them. The four options now on the table are the three in Talk:Barack Obama#Straw poll and Talk:Barack Obama#Scjessey-preferred version (which doesn't contain the word "criticism"). So far, the two most popular versions seem to be Clubjuggle's Version 3 and Scjessey's. Please help us try to wrap this up. Noroton (talk) 17:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

your view

If you have time, I would appreciate your view here, as i'm unhappy at the small number of us commenting so far. Thank you. 86.44.17.205 (talk) 18:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to comment when I get a chance, I've been busy and my Wiki-motivation has been low as of late.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Learned Hand peer review

Bigtimepeace, Slp1 and I have put Learned Hand up for peer review, prior to a submission for FAC. I know you were one of the editors who were keen on the idea of bringing this article to FA as a tribute to Newyorkbrad, and so I hope you'll be pleased we've come this far. We'd very much welcome a peer review from you to help us iron out any problems before going to FAC in the near future, all else being equal. All the best. qp10qp (talk) 22:43, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd noticed some of the work on that in the past and am glad it's being prepared for FAC - I'll try to head over and take a look at some point but my Wiki-activity level is very low right now.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Park Slope Food Coop

Hi, GJ. Check out my work. I look forward to your thoughts.Dave Golland (talk) 03:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Jheri Curls

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Jheri Curls, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached.

By the way, I did not propose to delete the article, Mynameisstanley did, but he did not have the courtesy to give notice to you. - Mafia Expert (talk) 22:28, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Request for your comment

Here.  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 23:11, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Second Annual WikiNYC Picnic

Greetings! You are invited to attend the second annual New York picnic on August 24! This year, it will be taking place in the Long Meadow of Prospect Park in Brooklyn. If you plan on coming, please sign up and be sure to bring something! Please be sure to come!
You have received this automated delivery because your name was on the invite list. BrownBot (talk) 19:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Conflict resolution

A user has asked for some help in a dispute resolution situation [16] which is clearly out of my realm. Would you be able to provide some advice for them in this situation? See also Talk:Kathleen Battle and the associated archive and the referenced discussion on the BLP notice board. Thank you! -- The Red Pen of Doom 02:11, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm inviting your comment

Here (and also, if possible, here?)  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 05:45, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

recovering a page?

Hi I understand you're willing to help recover a page? If so, I'm trying to restore and/or recreate (or do what is appropriate) a page on the pioneering punk band, The Consumers.

I was a bit surprised and taken aback when the page received rapid removal. I don't think there will be much question about the historic nature of the band, despite the fact that they are currently fairly undocumented on the net. Such noted rock critics as Greil Marcus, Bart Bull, Brendan Mullan, Kickboy Face (Claude Bessy) have acknowledged them to be notable and influential, as well as essentially culture pioneers. Rather, however, than making these arguments, I'd just like some help understanding what is necessary to create a proper page for them.

Thanks, Ta —Preceding unsigned comment added by Taratata (talk • contribs) 12:34, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikis Take Manhattan

Wikis Take Manhattan Next: Saturday September 27

WHAT Wikis Take Manhattan is a scavenger hunt and free content photography contest aimed at illustrating Wikipedia and StreetsWiki articles covering sites and street features in Manhattan and across the five boroughs of New York City. The event is based on last year's Wikipedia Takes Manhattan, and has evolved to include StreetsWiki this year as well.

LAST YEAR'S EVENT

• Wikipedia:Wikipedia Takes Manhattan/Spring 2008 (a description of the results, and the uploading party)
• Commons:Wikipedia Takes Manhattan/Gallery (our cool gallery)

WINNINGS? Prizes include a dinner for three with Wikipedia creator Jimmy Wales at Pure Food & Wine, gift certificates to Bicycle Habitiat and the LimeWire Store, and more!

WHEN The hunt will take place Saturday, September 27th from 1:00pm to 6:30pm, followed by prizes and celebration.

WHO All Wikipedians and non-Wikipedians are invited to participate in team of up to three (no special knowledge is required at all, just a digital camera and a love of the city). Bring a friend (or two)!

REGISTER The proper place to register your team is here. It's also perfectly possible to register on the day of when you get there, but it will be slightly easier for us if you register beforehand.

WHERE Participants can begin the hunt from either of two locations: one at Columbia University (at the sundial on college walk) and one at The Open Planning Project's West Village office. Everyone will end at The Open Planning Project:

• Wikis Take Manhattan page at The Open Planning Project

349 W. 12th St. #3

Between Greenwich & Washington Streets

By the 14th St./8th Ave. ACE/L stop

FOR UPDATES

Check out:

• Wikis Take Manhattan main website

This will have a posting if the event is delayed due to weather or other exigency.

Thanks,

Pharos

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:53, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

A newbie request.

My friends and I were trying to learn to wiki, and we were making a fun little page using material that's just fictional...and I didn't realize that it would REALLY go up on Wiki...and then get deleted, before we even got started with our fictional wiki page.

We were just trying to toss some content up there wo we could check out the features. I guess we should have been using the sandbox? If it's in the sandbox, though, can multiple people work on the page?

Anyway, can we get the page back and then we can play with it in the sandbox?

The page is called suedressel. (It was rejected as unintelligible...which it may be to you, but it isn't to us.)

And if I get it back, how will I know that? I guess I will check this page.

Sorry to bug you, but all I got was a link to a page of admin names. I had to pick one, with nothing really to go on.

Kemscm (talk) 04:45, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Neverrrrrmind. Kemscm (talk) 14:31, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Copy Requested of Speedy Deleted Article on The Grooveblaster

Hello. I just started a page today for the musician, The Grooveblaster, who released his second album this week. Its come to my attention that music sites, such as lala.com, link directly to Wikipedia for the band bios. As The Grooveblaster has 2 albums on lala, it would seem necessary to have a Wiki entry. However, within the hour, some guy speedy deleted it! His comment said I could request a copy of the deleted article from a list of users which you were on. I looked at several users and you seemed like one of the cooler ones. I hope you can help me sort this out. I know i am still pretty n00b, but I am really trying to learn the ins-and-outs of the rather snobbish society of WikiPedia. :(

Chillcuts (talk) 18:40, 27 October 2008 (UTC)User:Chillcuts (talk) 11:33, 27, October 2008