User talk:Bondegezou

Welcome!

Hello, Bondegezou, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  -- Longhair | Talk 21:38, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia survey

Hi. I'm doing a survey of Wikipedia editors as part of a class research project. It's quick, anonymous, and the data will be made available to the Wikipedia community later this month. Would you like to take part? More info here. Thanks! Nonplus 01:11, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

John Sinclair

I added to your information about John Sinclair at Jill Sinclair. His bio often includes a reference to the fact that he 'is the producer of "The Rocky Horror Picture Show" and "Queen - Bohemian Rhapsody".' [1] Do you know anything about that? Rabbi-m 02:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid not. He played on the second Buggles album, Adventures in Modern Recording,[2] but I don't know much more about him. Bondegezou 11:46, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes

Can you put in a comment/citation about Yes´ number ones on the Bill Bruford page? Thanks. andreasegde 00:00, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not certain it's particularly relevant on the Bruford page, but the band's UK and US chart history is recorded on their Wikipedia page: Tales from Topographic Oceans and Going for the One were both UK #1s. Bondegezou 11:44, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Canterbury Sound

Would you consider a category "Canterbury sound" useful? Best regards, --BNutzer 21:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that would be a very good idea, yes! Bondegezou 16:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

So be it: Category:Canterbury sound! Cheers, --BNutzer 23:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Update

In the description of the Category:Canterbury sound, I would like to see mentioned that quite a few of the bands/musicians are still active today, but I am not sure how to put that into english words properly, maybe you could add a (sub-)sentence saying so? Cheers, BNutzer 12:22, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Caravan of Dreams (band)

Maybe you can add some info (like the first line-up with Mark Hewins)? Cheers, --BNutzer 16:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I got a bit carried away and added a whole section on predecessor band Going Going (and created a re-direct from Going Going)! Thanks for your work on some of the other Canterbury scene articles. Bondegezou 10:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

John Etheridge

Hi, I have just added him (and a few basic sources links) to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Jazz#Requested_articles, so, if you're interested, hurry up before someone else does it ;) Cheers, BNutzer 20:13, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

FYI: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Jazz#Category:Jazz_fusion_groups_has_been_created

BNutzer 07:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Susanne Lewis

A tag has been placed on Susanne Lewis, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable (see the guidelines for notability here). If you can indicate why the subject of this article is notable, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please write {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself.

Please read the criteria for speedy deletion (specifically, articles #7) and our general biography criteria. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Missvain 05:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Mark Foley Scandal

Please note that I have just nominated Mark Foley Scandal for Featured Article status. You can find comments about its nomination here. I am leaving this message because you have significantly contributed to the article. Thesmothete 02:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Current Events Barnstar
		With thanks for your many contributions to Liberal Democrats leadership election, 2006 at the start of the year. Timrollpickering 19:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

see what talk page?

You wrote in your edit summary - [3] - see Talk page but you did not write anything in Talk:Serbian parliamentary election, 2007 were you referring to another talk page? Thanks. // Laughing Man 15:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I was referring to the discussion there under the subheading "Voting in Kosovo?" Bondegezou 15:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I still do not see any comments by you there in that section. What is the basis for your edits? // Laughing Man 16:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I was referring to other people's comments there; not my own. This does not seem like a contentious issue to me, but I'll look for some good citations in due course. You can also try asking the discussants on the Talk page for some citations. In the mean time, I've inserted a "citation needed" tag, which seems the best way forward. Bondegezou 16:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

My issue is that I feel like adding this, without giving the background on to why the voters are not registered is also misleading, and should be noted. In any case, I will try to find some time to work on the article and find sources and expand upon what you have added. Thanks. // Laughing Man 16:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Ian Wallace (drummer)

Without wanting to revert to and fro, isn't reputable ("having a good reputation; "a reputable business"; "a reputable scientist"; "a reputable wine" [4]) more appropriate than reputed (commonly put forth or accepted as true on inconclusive grounds; "the foundling's putative father"; "the reputed (or purported) author of the book"; "the supposed date of birth" [5]) to describe Wallace's substantial and substantiated career as a session musician? AllyD 23:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

"Reputable" sounds very odd to me in this context (it feels as if it is contrast to "disreputable", which seems the wrong point to be making). "Reputed" can be a near synonym of "reputable" or "respectable"[6] and sounds better to me. Arguably, either word falls foul of Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words. The list of people with whom he worked speaks for itself, so I'm going to remove "reputed" and leave it bare, but feel free to change it as you wish. Bondegezou 10:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Tireless Contributor Barnstar

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		I bestow upon you this "Tireless Contributor Barnstar" for your edits in articles about progressive rock Quoth nevermore 13:29, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Invite

Hello. You may be interested in joining WikiProject King Crimson, covering articles related to the music group King Crimson. Please visit the project page.

--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 18:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

FTAB

The reference you stated did not support the claim, certainly does. If you will look on the right side of the page in the caption, you will note it states, "Some of the Aggie band's maneuvers are so complex that some drill-charting software says that the drills are impossible because they require multiple people to be in the same place at the same time." As such, I have added it back. — BQZip01 — ^talk 20:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, mea culpa—I missed the picture caption. Bondegezou 20:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Del Palmer

An article that you have been involved in editing, Del Palmer, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Del Palmer (second nomination). Thank you. -- WebHamster 10:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

UK Centre for Excellence

I'd be all for you adding that article, and then we create the disambig. But disambig pages are only for when we have more than one article that can point to the same title. It doesn't include external link disambigs - we aren't a web directory, after all. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Biota (band)

Thank you for the compliment! I'll certainly have a look at Biota. --Bruce1ee 15:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Great start you've made on the article. I've made a few adjustments myself and added a little, but there's not much info that I can find on them. Please check the members in the infobox, I'm not sure if I've got that right. --Bruce1ee 08:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Privacy policy

Do not identify editors' real life identities. Ever. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 16:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Your identity is already identified on Wikipedia; that's how I figured it out. I did not identify you in my comments. I did give some details about you that seemed pertinent: I apologise if these are too revealing of your identity -- I didn't think they would be. Bondegezou 16:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

It is a fairly obvious case of harassment using my real life identity, bogus application of irrelevant policies, and rehashing dead and unconnected issues to try to cause harm to me. I am under no editing sanction. You should not have done it and you should apologise. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 10:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I wish you no harm and continue to have great respect for your psephological knowledge, but I feel the edits you made were inappropriate and, in some cases, raise concern under the policies stated (WP:BLP, WP:ATTACKPAGE, WP:AGF, WP:COI, WP:TE). I can live with the current state of Miranda Grell, Maurice Burgess and Bermondsey by-election, 1983. If no-one agrees with my concerns over your edits, then I have nothing further to say on the matter. If you wish to discuss this further, I am happy to do so. Otherwise, I refer you to my earlier comments. Bondegezou 12:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:BLP applies only where material is not adequately sourced, so that's irrelevant. You were blatantly infringing WP:AGF on my edits. You raised an irrelevant case that is now long over just to blacken my name, and then you linked it to my real life identity in blatant violation of WP:HARASS. As far as the rest, I'd like to know how you can make a case that you didn't create Miranda Grell as an attack page, with a blatant conflict of interest, and as part of a campaign of tendentious editing. Sadly there is no WP:HYPOCRISY policy under which you can be blocked. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 14:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

To respond to your comments in order... I can but refer you to my earlier comments on WP:AGF. The case you consider irrelevant seems relevant to me as it is about a similar pattern of behaviour concerning related pages (Peter Tatchell rather than Bermondsey by-election, 1983), but I did go out of my way to say "Fys' past behaviour should not be held against him". I did not identify you. I'm sorry you feel I am harassing you; clearly I disagree, but you are of course at liberty to take that complaint to the appropriate place. I created Miranda Grell because I had seen news coverage of her, had come to Wikipedia for more information, found that no page existed and, thus, created one. I note that your proposal that Miranda Grell be deleted was unanimously rejected. I have described my slight WP:COI elsewhere; if you are going to talk about conflicts of interest, perhaps you should mention your own greater conflict of interest. Bondegezou 15:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Miranda Grell has nothing whatsoever to do with Bermondsey; they're entirely different cases. The arb case had nothing to do with POV editing and is merely coincidental here anyway. You can't have it both ways: either it's relevant or it isn't, and your attempt to sidestep that looks like a flimsy excuse. The fact is that individual local councillors are, by long precedent, not considered notable by themselves.

But then we come to your whopping great big mistake. How on earth do I have any conflict of interest at all? Only in the sense that I happen to support a particular political party. So do you! Where is the conflict of interest? There is no "close personal connection". There is no personal connection at all (never met her). There is absolutely no rule that prohibits an editor from editing something on which they are known or suspected of having an opinion; it would rule you out from all British politics articles for a start. So I repudiate the suggestion that I have any conflict of interest at all. And I'm not going to have all my edits viewed through the prism of the worst-case scenario reading that they must be all politically-motivated. That is intense harassment of the most despicable kind. It poisons the whole atmosphere. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 15:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I do not understand the case you are making in your first paragraph. As for your second paragraph, having a conflict of interest is, indeed, not a reason for someone not to edit a page, but it is a reason for them to be careful in editing pages, for example taking greater note of other editors' views and using talk pages more. In the case of Miranda Grell, saying you "happen to support a particular political party" understates your potential for conflicted interest and it seems to me disingenuous to pretend otherwise. I am a member of a UK political party, yes, and have declared that. I do not view all your edits "through the prism of the worst-case scenario reading that they must be all politically-motivated". That said, I have explained why I was concerned about the particular edits I highlighted. Bondegezou 16:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

ID

Hi, I note your edit on the basis that IDers believe the designer to be the Christian God. Amongst the leaders, at least one is supposed to be Jewish, and there's a Turkish creationist who goes around promoting ID as supporting Islam. Hope that explains why we didn't specify Christian. Thanks, .. dave souza, talk 15:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Sure, fair enough. Perhaps one could explicitly say "Abrahamic God" then? If the link is to a particular conception of God (and the reference specifies the Christian God), it would seem useful to spell that out. Bondegezou 16:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Asia (band)

If you think you're going to make progress with this IP then you can delete the request from WP:RFPP and reinstate it there later if talks break down. My opinion, looking at him, is that this isn't likely to happen. I'll take a look at this later. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 14:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

"...is a loosely-defined term describing a rock era" - From the opening sentence of the Arena Rock article :-) Hope that clears things up! Scarian^Talk 00:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, ASIA fan pees here. Can you reinstate my link ... you have them dead to right. They have not responded to you. It may look better if you did so. If you do please put The authorized ASIA Fan Club. Thank you for all your help.

I think at this time it is better to continue to try to find consensus on the Talk page before re-instating the link. Let's see how things unfold. Bondegezou (talk) 10:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

ASIA pres.... thanks...they are not responding to you because you broke it down and explained the policy in legal terms. They will only respond when I re-add the link, they will remove it again, but that may bring it back to the discussion page again. They're just going to ignore it and let it alone until they see the link back up. As said, this isn't a show of hands. He has a few people go one there to try to show a vote, I have 2 thousand newsletter members if they want a show of hands I'm game, but I didn't do that, we were there to talk about the legal aspect of it, and again they did not and will not respond because you're right. So I just went there and asked if we're all set? The site is in the official biography, that in itself is enough to show relavant status. What really happened was I was mad that they moved my link to the bottom, so I moved it back to the #2 slot and did not remove any link there, then for the first hour of the war, (sure you can see the history of this) they removed my link only, after about the first hour of the edit war, they removed the ASIA my space page, as an attempt to show it's not just you. Thank you once again for your help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.188.184.84 (talk) 10:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there's any great urgency here, so I am happy to leave the situation for a few more days to give everyone possible an opportunity to input. If there is no further development in the discussion, then I am happy to return the link or support someone else doing that. Bondegezou (talk) 11:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Can you please remove asiafanclub.com from the blacklist I don't know how to do it, once again they have not respoded and barek agreed that the link should be reinserted. Please help, thank you, Asia pres. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.238.124.219 (talk) 04:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

It is my intention to work on getting the link removed from the blacklist. It's not something I can do, but I can help persuade an administrator that that is appropriate. However, this is not going to happen over night, so I recommend patience for now! Bondegezou (talk) 18:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)Asia pres here, just to let you know that AP banned me from posting till the the 23rd for sock puppet being modrago and through wikis investigation I was cleared of being modrago so it is proven I was falsly accused. I can't post there anymore. Btw someone just posted a link on my forum under the thread Yes 40 anniversary that seems to have your name on it. AP I can't believe this, I can't add my comments to the ASIA page anymore, please don't give up the fight, write more moderators to get involved, this was not right70.167.100.82 (talk) 18:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)AP

RU-486 History BioScience info

Thanks for the input and advise. I appreciate it. If you're interested, give me your FAX number and I send it to you. Thanks again! Dr. B. R. Lang (talk) 03:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

My mistake

My bad on the Mike Gravel article. I wasn't paying attention and thought you had added all those "senators" instead of removing them. Mea culpa. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Request for mediation accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/New antisemitism. For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 18:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

positioning of the maps

Because there is so little text before the chart begins, the maps bleed into the chart. To avoid this, I have put the maps in between two {{-}} signs and I have centered the two maps onto one plane. Please understand that not all monitors see what you see and that some monitors saw an ugly overlapping bleed between the maps and the charts. Kingturtle (talk) 03:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I created a temporary image to show you what the article looked like prior to my edit tonight: Image:Map-chart-bleed.PNG . Kingturtle (talk) 03:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michelle Leonard

Rescue From Deletion Award Awarded to Bondegezou for his marvelous effort to save Michelle Leonard from deletion (AfD Discussion)

-- RoninBK _{T C} 01:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Transmural care

Another editor has added the {{prod}} template to the article Transmural care, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 18:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Transmural care

An editor has nominated Transmural care, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transmural care and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 15:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

John Payne (singer)

Thanks for understanding the BLP issue I pointed out. Regarding your statement that you "tried establishing communication through edit summaries and the user's talk page, but to no avail", yeah that sucks. But I think that anon IPs don't always see the "You have new messages" banner. Not sure though, that might be fixed by now. Oh, and sorry for accidentally removing that {{cn}} tag.

Regarding your statement "I'll look out for appropriate citations," just keep in mind that the anon removing the birth date might be Payne himself removing it for privacy reasons. I don't think he is high-profile enough not to have any expectation of privacy. Even if you find a good source, consider maybe just using the birth year, as WP:BLP suggests. Thanks, Mike R (talk) 20:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure. And thanks again for the input. Bondegezou (talk) 21:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

RE: Asia

Thanks. But be careful, some might more off at that as canvassing. CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 17:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I contacted everybody who had been part of the discussion, regardless of whether their views were supportive or not, so I feel confident that it does not constitute canvassing. Bondegezou (talk) 21:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Signature

You forgot to sign your comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Savannah Shane. It will look better if you fix it as oppose to a bot or another user :-) Thanks and have a great day! TheProf | Talk 16:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Guy Manning

Because it hadn't gone through PROD or AFD and had only been previously speedied, I've gone ahead and unprotected it from re-creation. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Neville Whitehead (bassist)

Hi. long time no interference ;) I thought you might be interested in creating an article about Neville Whitehead, see http://www.google.com/search?q=%22neville+whitehead%22+site:calyx.club.fr. Regards, BNutzer (talk) 03:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the fast response! Greetings, BNutzer (talk) 08:52, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Jon Courtney

Hi. I'm just dropping by to let you know that I have moved your note about Jon Courtney on BLPN. This won't be an issue if you look it up by name, obviously, but if you had remembered its order I didn't want you wondering where it had gone. :) Since Justpassinby opened a new BLPN ticket, I wanted to put the two sections together. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:17, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Pure Reason Revolution

Hi. With regards to your note on my talk page, good luck; I hope that you get a helpful response at the administrator's noticeboard, but don't be too surprised if you don't. Generally, cases I see there don't raise much response until they are blatant. When dealing with tendentious editors, and this kind of edit cannot be perceived as anything but, you may find that the best response is to create an article that cannot be subverted without obvious disruption. Impeccable sourcing and strict adherence to policy & guideline help in that. But you do need to be careful that efforts to deal with the situation don't lead you into trouble with policy yourself. I note from your edit summary that you're aware that WP:3RR prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period, and I'm glad to see that you self-corrected there. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Your best bet is probably to pursue dispute resolution. In your place, I would head over to the third opinion board to request a neutral opinion on the passages being reverted/inserted. Please phrase your request carefully to remain neutral in presentation, or no one will respond. I will warn Justpassinby of WP:3RR as well. If, as he seems to self-profess, he is the IP editor editing the page, he has gone over 3RR already today and needs to be made aware of the potential consequence. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

ANI

Hello, Bondegezou. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion can be found under the topic User:Justpassinby. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Just in regards to all this, I wanted to thank you for continuing your efforts to work within policy at various points in handling this disruptive editing. I know it can be frustrating, particularly when your request for assistance meets no response. Many editors would either give up in frustration or worse, step outside policy themselves. You handled it with admirable patience and restraint. :) I'm keeping both of these articles under my watchlist and will do what I can to help prevent additional disruptive editing from this particular source, though otherwise I expect I'll probably not have much if any more content building to contribute there. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

New antisemitism mediation

Heya Bondegezou.

I would first like to apologise on behalf of the Mediation Committee for the delay in this case being dealt with, which is due to a shortage of available mediators. I have expressed interest in taking this case to help with the backlog and to assess my nomination to join the committee. As i am not currently a member it is common practice to for the involved parties to consent to mediation of an RfM from a non-committee member. To give your consent for me to act as mediator for this case please sign as you have for the acceptance of the case on the case page. I look forward to working with you and finding a solution to the dispute.

Seddon69 (talk) 16:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes + GPS

Hi! I'm currently working on Yes in the Hungarian Wikipedia (it's going to be a featured article), and your Alt.music.yes site is a very good place to find references. Thank you!:) Diaby ^talk 17:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

And something else. I wrote a relatively good article about Window to the Soul in the huwiki. If you want to, I can translate it, but if not, I've better things to do in my mother language:) Diaby ^talk 17:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, when I will have enough time, I will write it! Diaby ^talk 21:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Lindsey German

Thanks for your recent edit. You will have seen that a little edit war was building up. I think your form of words is fair to both sides. --Duncan (talk) 08:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Mediation Update

Just to let you all know, the case has been started. I have created a little navbox for you to navigate between pages and will be expanded as the case goes on so that its easier for you to navigate. The first page you need to visit in this case is here so you can give youre opening statement. There i have left a few questions for you all to answer. For those that have been busy and unable to confirm their participation in the mediation, they are welcome to join the mediation at any stage.

I can be contacted in several ways in the event you need to. I am normally present on the wikipedia-en, wikipedia-medcab and wiki-hurricanes IRC channels at some point between 15:00 UTC and as late 02:00 UTC depending on college and real life commitments. To find these channels and instructions on how to access IRC go to WP:IRC. Throughout the day, even when i am in college, feel free to email me using the email tool or by emailing the email address on my user page or both to make sure. You can also leave a message on my talk page which again ill do my upmost to reply to as soon as i can. Seddon69 (talk) 20:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

User blocking vs. content blacklisting issue

Hi Bondegezou. In regard to the "Asia Fan Club" link issue, that may be a lost cause at this point, but in a larger sense, I'm concerned about the precedent this issue sets, as it seems administrators involved can't separate the idea of "punishing" the user from arguments surrounding the value of the link itself. If we're really building an encyclopedia here, we all need to be objective, especially the administrators, and I fear that this could lead down a dangerous road. Would you mind to chime on this issue? Thanks! --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 15:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey, me again. It seems we've both now been suggested as cohorts in "meatpuppetry". Despite a desire to revisit my CD collection to find this album... :) I've responded on Hu12's talk page, and it's interesting. I'm amazed how he/she keeps cutting off discussion after a couple of hours, even the ones that I've tried to make about general policy, for which he's now accused me of "pushing an agenda". If you wish to respond, that thread is here. Thanks. --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 14:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I have responded there. I understand your outrage and was shocked too, but can I suggest you take care to remain as civil as possible in discussion with Hu12 (or anyone else)? We all need to calm down if any discourse is to make progress. That said, I feel I remain in agreement with you on the substantive issues. Bondegezou (talk) 15:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Advice heard, and taken. I need to cool down for a bit... maybe check back tomorrow :) Thanks --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 15:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I've added a relevant question to the spam-blacklist page here. I welcome your input or feedback. --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 04:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

While I agree with you on the principle you raise there, and I feel Hu12 is mistaken in his/her approach, I do not think continuing with the matter will achieve anything useful. Rightly or wrongly, there is a broad consensus against returning the link in question. That should be respected and, given that, arguing over the details is pointless. While it is disheartening when something like this happens, I feel one can but chalk it up to experience and endeavour to find a better outcome the next time there is an editing dispute. Bondegezou (talk) 08:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, it seems you're making the same mistake that Hu12 is making... assuming that I'm somehow "campaigning" for the Asia link... I'm clearly not asking about that! (have I not made that overwhelmingly clear??). That's a done deal, obviously. But having gone through that, it brings up a broader question about WP policy, that I need to understand in order to make appropriate edits on future occasions. In other articles. That aren't about Asia. :) --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 15:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

But asking about the broader question by making reference to the Asia case drags things back to that discussion. I think it is unlikely that you'll make progress if people are still thinking in the context of the Asia case. Look, I think you're right on the broader question, you think you're right on the broader question and Hu12 isn't addressing the broader question. So, everyone who's expressing an opinion agrees on the broader question! :-) WP policy is not determined by one case, but by a developing consensus. So, as I said, we go on and endeavour to find a better outcome in the next editing dispute. Bondegezou (talk) 22:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I can't control what other people are thinking about. What I can do is to ask legitimate questions and expect reasonable answers. I'd like to be able to do as you say, and prepare for the next potential editing dispute by better understanding policy and how it is enforced. That is exactly my motivation for asking questions like the one I asked on the Blacklist page. It appears to be the case, that, contrary to my previous assumptions, content is not considered from a completely neutral stance in every case, and in cases like the Asia fan link thing (as an example - it apparently must be said for clarity that I'm not "campaigning") there is a legitimate policy reason for including reasons of user behavior in support against inclusion of the content, and to include within reasons for reaching consensus. While I very much disagree with this in principle, policy is policy, and if that's the way it's gotta be, I'll just have to deal with it. --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 02:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Policy is not what one administrator, or even several administrators, say in a discussion. It is what's on policy pages. I think we have to deal with the consensus in this particular case (which had many complications and areas of interpretation), but I don't feel that my understanding of Wikipedia's general policies has altered. Bondegezou (talk) 14:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I can't find the answer to this on any policy page, so the comments of administrators are the only resource for this issue. It comes down to a question of whether content is considered (and consensus is reached) from a standpoint of considering only its relevance and appropriateness for a particular article. This was my original assertion, but it seems that this is not the case after all, and that in some cases, an editor's behavior is considered as part of a decision whether or not to add the content which they had originally requested. If that editor violates too many rules, then their requested content can be barred from inclusion. Is this not your interpretation? --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 15:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

New AntiSemitism Mediation

Heya. I noticed that you hadn't left your statement here regarding the New Antisemitism case. Its important for the success of this mediation that you stay involved in this otherwise i cannot guarantee that your views will be taken into consensus agreed upon by the parties. I hope that you will be able to participate soon. Seddon69 (talk) 23:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The mediation im getting rolling as its been a long time waiting so i think its best to get moving. Most of the mediation will be on the talk (discussion) page. so make sure its in your watchlist. Seddon69 (talk)

Pure Reason Revolution

You may be interested to know that Justpassinby seems to have resurfaced in connection with Pure Reason Revolution.Thedarkfourth (talk) 09:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

WikiCookie

Just stopping by with wikicookies for those editors who started new articles today. --Rosiestep (talk) 07:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

New Antisemitism Mediation

I think thats its time we got moving. A couple of the points have been raised before and felt they were the foundations to the dispute:

• Firstly whether the picture can be confirmed to have been taken in the rally in San Fransisco.
• Secondly to come to an agreement on what new antisemitism is and then to decide what the image is depicting and whether it purely illustrates New Antisemitism or whether it also addresses other issues which could be confused with new antisemitism by new readers.
• If we cant confirm the those then we need to find a viable alternative.

A point i would like to raise is that at some point a lead image might need to be found if this article got to FA. The image in question is not free and couldn't be put on the main page with this article as todays FA. Although not an immediate point a long term solution might wish to be found so that this article could feature on the main page with a viable alternative.

Does anyone have access to Lexis Nexis? It might help as a search on the network could uncover something not readily available on the internet. Reliable sources that use the image would be helpful. Do you reckon that there would anyway of finding third party images that might possibly contain the poster/placard? Also i would be grateful if images of other placards at that rally could be found to find whether this was a small minority at this rally or perhaps a larger group.

Whilst that is being done i wanted to find out on what the consensus view is on what New Antisemitism is? I have read the article and the previous discussion and attempted to get a proper understanding but i wanted to ensure that this was current.

PS any sources you find can you please post in the section at the top of the mediation talk page. Seddon69 (talk) 16:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Cautionary Tales for the Brave

According to my watchlist you edited this article, yet i cant seem to find any changes :S. care to help me out? ta. Ironholds 18:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

It was about the most minor edit possible: I moved one period and deleted another. Bondegezou (talk) 19:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

U.K.

In the article on UKZ, the bot incorrectly changed "U.K." (here, a reference to a specific band who use that form of punctuation and not to the country) to "UK". Bondegezou (talk) 08:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I've added an exception to my bot so it'll leave U.K. alone in that article in future. Cheers, CmdrObot (talk) 22:43, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Shan Oakes

Yes, I'd spotted the AfD, but thanks for pointing it out anyway! PamD (talk) 16:14, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Allegations of apartheid deletion notification

Some time ago, you participated in a deletion discussion concerning Allegations of Israeli apartheid. I thought you might like to know that the parent article, Allegations of apartheid, was recently nominated for deletion. Given that many of the issues that have been raised are essentially the same as those on the article on which you commented earlier, you may have a view on whether Allegations of apartheid should be kept or deleted. If you wish to contribute to the discussion, please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of apartheid (fifth nomination). -- ChrisO (talk) 18:11, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of New prog

An article that you have been involved in editing, New prog, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New prog. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? DeletionAccount (talk) 15:56, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

external link in new prog

Your edit summary here is confusing - the thing you added is not a reference, it's in the external links section. But it doesn't have an external link, only an internal link. If it's meant to be a reference, it should be in the references section, I would think. Viz. WP:LAYOUT#External links. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:11, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Robert Fripp and King Crimson

Heh, I didn't know that about Fripp. How amusing that the hallmark of the genre dissociates himself from it. Guess it just goes to show you how loathed the "prog" label is. 81.51.89.187 (talk) 16:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

PRR attacks

Do you think that we could ask for a checkuser on this account? Ironholds 17:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Lee Jackson (bassist)

OK, I'll admit he belongs in the "English male singers" category. However, can we at least say in the article that his singing has often drawn negative criticism? --The guy with the axe - aaaaaaargh!!! (talk) 20:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Left Alternative

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Left Alternative, and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: Left List. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 15:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

When creating a new title for an article, please do not simply copy and paste the content into a new article; this is a violation of the GNU Free Documentation License, which states that the history of all the page's contributors must be preserved. Instead, simply move the page to its new title using the move tab at the top of the page. This will make the old title into a redirect to the new article while simultaneously preserving the page's history. I made the move for you, feel free to go and change the page as needed. GlassCobra 16:02, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Lee Jackson (2)

I have added a bit about the negative criticism of his singing to the article, with a reference. On a different, though related, note: What do YOU think of Lee Jackson's voice? --The guy with the axe - aaaaaaargh!!! (talk) 16:37, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

PRR images

Good places to add them; maybe they'd work better with the borders cropped. Your thoughts?

Yeah, might work better. I just did something fairly quickly, so no objections to anyone else improving on the situation. Bondegezou (talk) 09:20, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I can't see any image there, where it says image...maybe it's just my internet/computer...Thedarkfourth (talk) 05:55, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Life on Earth

I have revereted your revert of the redirect Life on earth to Organism and restored the hat-text. Life on Earth (with a capital letter) has for over two years redirected to Organism, with hundreds of uses. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 01:49, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Edit to Staci Flood's page

Staci Flood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I note you restored an external link to a MySpace page, claiming it was allowed per WP:ELNO. There is an exception to the explicit blanket ban on MySpace in point 10, where the page is "the official website for a business, organization, or person". Staci Flood's "official website" is linked separately, thus her MySpace page is not her "official website" and is inappropriate. I also took a look at the page; I see nothing there that strengthens the case for inclusion of this link. --Rogerb67 (talk) 17:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Many acts/people/organisations have more than one official site. I see nothing in Wikipedia policy that says an individual can only have one official website. (In fact, WP:ELYES implies one should link to multiple sites if there are multiple sites.) If Staci Flood has two official sites, then she has two official sites. It is routine on Wikipedia pages to include links to more than one official site, and it is routine to include links to an act's MySpace page along side other official sites. Bondegezou (talk) 18:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed it is possible that an article's subject may have more than one official website; however, when an official website for a person exists and that person's MySpace page does not look like, nor claim to be, an official website, I don't think it's appropriate to link it. If it's currently routine, that's just more external links to check and remove if necessary. --Rogerb67 (talk) 19:03, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, if the MySpace page is not official, then it shouldn't be included. If the MySpace page is official (that is, it is run by the artist him or herself, or by the artist's official representation), then I feel WP:ELYES implies it should be included. (If it was official, but is clearly derelict now, then it would seem appropriate to exclude it.) You've done more work on Staci Flood so you're probably better placed to make those judgements. Bondegezou (talk) 17:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Good rescue

		The Article Rescue Barnstar
		For excellent work improving the article and establishing the notability of Deborah Anderson. Rogerb67 (talk) 18:58, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Michel Delville

Hello there -- as somebody who knows about "prog rock", could you please take a look at this? Thanks. -- Hoary (talk) 01:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Threshold knowledge

Have a look at WP:GNG and come back to me if you still think the topic is notable. Deb (talk) 17:24, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

So why didn't you include adequate references? If I restore the article and you don't do any more work on it, I will have to delete it again - and if you don't think it qualifies as non-notable, I can assure you there are other speedy categories under which it does qualify. Deb (talk) 19:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm continuing our discussion here rather than jumping between two Talk pages: I hope that's OK with you. I have reviewed WP:SPEEDY and cannot myself see any other criterion there under which this article should be speedily deleted. If you can, please do explain your reasoning -- thanks. If you remain of the opinion that A7 does apply, it would be helpful if you could explain why. I would also point out that WP:SPEEDY makes clear in its introduction that, "Where reasonable doubt exists [about whether an article meets a criterion], discussion using another method under the deletion policy should occur instead."

The article was created as a stub with one unimpeachably reliable source reference. Clearly, it would be good for the article to be expanded with more content and more references. However, a fundamental policy of Wikipedia is to be bold, so I took that advice. Better to create a stub with one reference than do nothing at all.

WP:SPEEDY goes on: "Before nominating an article for speedy deletion, consider whether it could be improved, [...] If this is possible, speedy deletion is probably inappropriate." In other words, speedy deletion is not a tool to be used against an article just because it is a stub. WP:PROD and WP:AFD of course remain if you have concerns.

In conclusion, I remain puzzled as to your decision to apply a speedy deletion. The article needs expanding, but no-one can do more work on the article at present. I feel the article qualifies under WP:GNG given there is plenty of "significant coverage in reliable sources", but, as I said previously, we can go to an AfD to debate that issue if you so want. Bondegezou (talk) 20:19, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion the article is short enough and uninformative enough to be speedy deleted as lacking context. Alternatively, it would be reasonable to tag it as a dictionary definition, which would result in it being moved to Wiktionary - but again, it lacks sources. I don't agree that there is "significant" coverage - the article doesn't indicate this. Deb (talk) 20:28, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I struggle to see how A1 "No context" applies: the subject of the article is described and referenced. This is a theoretical concept in the study of higher education, so I don't see that transwikification to Wikitionary is appropriate. However, if you believe that to be the case, then you should un-speedily delete the article and tag it for transwikification. A5 under WP:SPEEDY only applies for articles that have already been transwikied. If you disagree about the presence of significant coverage, then WP:SPEEDY does not apply (and I quote, "Failure to assert importance but not an A7 or A9 category. There is no consensus to speedily delete articles of types not specifically listed in A7 or A9 under those criteria."), so as I understand policy, you should un-speedily delete the page and go to an AfD. If you wish to see some significant coverage, then here is a basic Google Scholar search on the term. Some of these do not reference the theory in question, but Hay (2007) and Heirdsfield (2001) on page 1 and Martino & Beckett (2004) and Martino et al. (2005) on page 2 are examples, I would have thought. I can find more when I have a quiet day at work with better access to the academic literature. Bondegezou (talk) 20:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I don't mean to be rude, but I don't see any reason to give priority to this discussion. It seems to me that you have created an article on a non-notable subject and you expect other people to do the work necessary to bring it up to standard. If you feel strongly, I suggest you call for a deletion review at which I will be prepared to defend my position. Deb (talk) 17:47, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

As per your suggestion, I've now taken this to deletion review. Bondegezou (talk) 16:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

where, of course, it is getting snow overturn.,is getting a snow overturn. See my comments there.DGG (talk) 03:51, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Threshold knowledge

I have nominated Threshold knowledge, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Threshold knowledge. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Guy (Help!) 23:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

words to avoid

good faith and bad faith. she did not say she thought you were doing it in bad faith, she said you were doing it in a more complicated way than necessary You might want to modify your comment there. DGG (talk) 20:06, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Have done so. Bondegezou (talk) 21:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia assignments chat time

Please take a look at the proposed time for the chat on Wikipedia classroom assignments works for you, or propose another one.--ragesoss (talk) 04:32, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Heyoo

Thanks for your work shinying up Pure Reason Revolution and reverting IPs. this might be of interest, if you are in the area at the time. Ironholds (talk) 11:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Guy Manning

Yes the COI suggests that GM himself is responsible for the content of his own article. That does not change the fact that he is responsible for writing his own WP article. Fact supports fact. truth has not been changed. Duffbeerforme (talk) 21:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

As WP:V says, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". While I believe Guy Manning is largely responsible for the content of the Guy Manning article, that is not verifiable under Wikipedia policy. Meanwhile, Wikipedia has policy for handling conflicts of interest. Let's follow that. Bondegezou (talk) 21:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Hugh Hopper

Hello, do you have any reference regarding Hugh Hopper's death?--Doktor Who (talk) 11:57, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I haven't seen any newspaper obituaries yet. His death was announced on a mailing list by Leonardo Pavkovic of Moonjune Records and has been mentioned online, e.g. here. Bondegezou (talk) 13:16, 8 June 2009 (UTC)