User talk:BlueSalix

I think you're absolutely correct. Your original post never should have been removed.

I think that CCA has paid minders watching and sanitizing the page, but I don't think COLLECT is one of them, since he's only posted one innocuous comment on the page before, going back 50 edits.

Thanks for your persistence. Activist (talk) 17:27, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please note my comments on the CCA Talk page regarding the removals of the Sayre and Crowley incidents. Thanks much. Activist (talk) 12:07, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A delayed reply, sorry, but I will check and thanks for the note, Activist! BlueSalix (talk) 06:11, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Innocence of Muslims is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Innocence of Muslims until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. KeptSouth (talk) 18:24, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating Syrian Emergency Task Force, BlueSalix!

Wikipedia editor Mike1901 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Beat me to creating this! Will help out where I can :-)

To reply, leave a comment on Mike1901's talk page.

Hey User:Mike1901, just a FYI, someone connected with the SETF has left a comment on the entry's talk page. I left a reply but I don't know if he's seen it. I just wanted to give you a heads-up in case you were still interested. (I've tried to look for RS to back-up his requests for correction but have been unable to find any so have kept the article as-is.) I believe this individual is the one who was previously blanking the page, though, I think he may just not have known better. BlueSalix (talk) 12:39, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Don Benton, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Olympia and Agua Dulce (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the modesty barnstar. Have a delicious day! |-) Wikibojopayne (talk) 06:13, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Jamie Pedersen may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• [[Yale]] (J.D.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:15, 19 November 2013 (UTC) Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Washington State Republican Party may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.[reply]

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• on-women-responsible-for-pay-reduction/ |work=The RAW Story |accessdate=24 November 2013}}</ref>[[[[File:Rossi_Sign.jpg|thumb|right|A campaign sign for Republican Dino Rossi's 2010 campaign for U.S.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 10:29, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Rob McKenna - candidate for governor.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:35, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sfan00 IMG - it looks like I used the wrong license. It is, in fact, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0 (see here). Can you update that for me? Thanks! BlueSalix (talk) 22:24, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia can't accept NC images. You couldn't ask the campaign for a CC-BY-SA image?Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:47, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, that makes sense - my mistake. I don't have any contact with the campaign, this is just a subject of interest to me. I'll look for an appropriately licensed image. Thanks for your direction and guidance, Sfan00 IMG! BlueSalix (talk) 12:34, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Jamie Pedersen (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Norwegian

Montgomery Johnson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Native American

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:31, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Uniforms of the United States Army, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 1st Cavalry Division (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Political debates about United States military bands, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sacred cow (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited United States military music customs, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Cadence, Blue Room and Retreat (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You went over WP:3RR at Ronan Farrow before I had a chance to warn you, though from your edit summaries you appear to have been aware. I began a discussion on the talk page about your edits, in which you did not participate before your fourth reversion, and you did not initiate discussion with IP editor 108 on the talk page at any time. You accuse 108 of being a sockpuppet, but that is not one of the IPs at the relevant SPI, as I noted in my talk-page post. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:33, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

oh lord BlueSalix (talk) 08:15, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Chicago Police.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 20:18, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Issues in reporting on North Korea (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Eccentricity, New Yorker and Bill O'Reilly

Police uniforms of the United States (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Menlo Park, Truncheon and Ascot

NK News (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to The Telegraph

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you friend ! --CultureEurope (talk) 20:21, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome and thank you for your very excellent contribution, CultureEurope! I look forward to seeing your other work! BlueSalix (talk) 00:11, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, BlueSalix. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PernixData (2nd nomination).
Message added 01:44, 24 January 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Cheers! —Unforgettableid (talk) 01:44, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:David Ogden Stiers. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Duke of Edinburgh's Award, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Prince Edward (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't sure it was settled and now a particular person claims that mentioning it is unaccredited is a "smear attempt." RobinBnn (talk) 17:22, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again for your support and suggestions. :) --CultureEurope (talk) 00:39, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:LGBT rights in Russia. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again, BlueSalix, for everything. --CultureEurope (talk) 12:20, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, saw you created Political positions of Brian Schweitzer. Was wondering why you created it as a separate article, and if you'd have concerns with a merge back to the main bio; it all seems relevant to be put there. Don't want to start an editing dispute over a merge, so thought I'd ask before tagging. Montanabw^(talk) 21:18, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you think it's best, I won't object, Montanabw. I created a separate article since adding such a large volume of text to the current Schweitzer article would, I thought, make it rather unwieldy. I normally wouldn't think the level of detail in a "political positions of ..." article is appropriate for an inactive politician, however, created it only because he is a speculated 2016 contender. If he formally announces in the next few months, won't we need to break that off into a separate article again, a la Political positions of Ron Paul, Political positions of Rudy Giuliani, etc.? Anyway, like I said, I'll defer to your good judgment on the question - whatever you think is best!~ BlueSalix (talk) 21:23, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My feeling is that the "political positions of" articles are kind of content forks unless an article is so long that it is at the level of Hillary Rodham Clinton, and even then her article contains a summary and section link to the "positions of" article. So, my take is that "old Gov B.S." (as some of us out here call him) could have the political positions at least summarized in his main article. I suppose if he really runs, then maybe a separate article is needed if it's going to become really long and involved, but do ALL candidates wind up with these? You did a great job sourcing, by the way. Montanabw^(talk) 21:56, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Montanabw, in answer to your question, over the last two elections all major candidates from the two institutional parties (Biden, Obama, Palin, McCain, Clinton, Romney, Guiliani, Paul, Kucinich, etc.) have had independent "Political positions of ..." articles created. That said, if you'd like to nominate this for speedy deletion I won't contest it; we can always revisit it later if he makes a formal announcement. BlueSalix (talk) 06:57, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I loathe the dramaboards, I think a merge and redirect is better, preserves the content and the title, can be re-spun out again if needed. OTOH, there is also the argument that Schweitzer's people regularly patrol his bio and have been busted in the past for editing it, so I don't know how the addition of political positions there would stack up. What do you think? Montanabw^(talk) 21:28, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Montanabw, I wasn't aware his bio was being patrolled; I can't stand that! I've been monitoring Don Benton and Ronan Farrow off and on due to similar and endemic issues with abusive editing by publicists and socks of publicists. You seem to have a better handle on Schweitzer vis a vis Wikipedia than I do, so I will support whatever you think is the best next step (merge, delete, leave, etc.). BlueSalix (talk) 00:23, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I might merge but leave the other file too, just to see if trouble erupts. His staff got busted while he was still governor, might not be watching so much now. But you never know. LOL! Montanabw^(talk) 02:10, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

These people are always watching, it's like the Eye of Sauron! BlueSalix (talk) 05:24, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Like and LOL! Or, as I like to say, SCOMN! (Snorted coffee out my nose)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Italian_geniuses_%282nd_nomination%29

I have done a great job on this wikipedia page. The article is perfect. Help me ! --CultureEurope (talk) 12:34, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Every day there are users who would like to cancel my wikipedia page. I feel sad and dejected. Anyway, thank you again ! --CultureEurope (talk) 15:12, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CultureEurope - don't be sad, I have had many of my articles nominated for deletion, too. However, I don't think you'll have any more problems - in bocca al lupo! BlueSalix (talk) 02:37, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is my hope - ¡¡¡ buena suerte !!! --CultureEurope (talk) 09:51, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I share some interests with you. Especially a dislike for PR editors, although my pet peeve is the medical PR types, who are pushing a point of view that is protective of the medical industry, which is not always honest or accurate. That is a far tougher fight than Ronan Farrow.

I also noticed a couple of things on your talk page.

http://www.worldmilitarybands.com/sousas-marches/

I dated Kieth Brion's daughter for many years, and marched with him in the Yale band at the Yale-Harvard game one year. No-one has done more for Military Music then he, and his love was John Philips Souza. Don't have much RS for you, as that was his passion, not mine.

I also know quite a bit about North Korea. I would probably have thought the bias article you created was a candidate for deletion, but I am not that interested in doing that kind of advocacy. I am interested in why you believe that North Korea is significantly more functional than the media impression. Having studied both in some detail, I think much of the basic premise of their reputation is well founded, but I do appreciate different opinions.Bob the goodwin (talk) 11:14, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you might wanna add media coverage of North Korean famine and cannibalism claims. I'd give you a "barnstar" for such awareness, but I don't wanna add too much space. --George Ho (talk) 07:25, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

--CultureEurope (talk) 10:09, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Perennial candidates from Washington state, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Pichpich (talk) 02:09, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am very sorry if I seemed bitey, my layman knowledge of American history is poor. Again, I am truly sorry that you withdrew this as it would have been a good nomination. Nom again at GA? Thanks, Matty.007 15:59, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We have two relatively new contributors participating in this article who share a very aggressive editing style. Care explaining what's up? Cwobeel (talk) 04:40, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You'll need to be more specific. BlueSalix (talk) 04:41, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you said the above, and I wanted to know how will your ground that assessment. Who are these "two relatively new contributors", and what was the "very aggressive editing style" that you observed? Cwobeel (talk) 15:34, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate it if you discuss my edits and not me. Also, your interpretation of WP:BLP is incorrect. The burden of proof means that the content needs to be verifiable, which in this case it is:

 The [[Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden of evidence|burden of evidence]] for any edit rests with the person who adds or restores material. 

Cwobeel (talk) 20:02, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have been discussing your edits. Which I shouldn't have to; we should be discussing the substance of your content, not your unusual editing pattern. BlueSalix (talk) 20:07, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are calling my editing "aggressive" (in several occasions already) and even maybe "relatively new contributor" from what I can gather. Discuss my edits, not your impression of my style, my persona, or my editcount. Thank you in advance. Cwobeel (talk) 20:17, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have been discussing your edits; specifically, their aggressive style. A violation of WP:TPOC is virtually unheard of ... further, your rather thinly veiled attempt to ape my comments to Michael with your "discuss my edits, not your impression of my style, my persona" will be unlikely to reflect well when the question of your behavior is brought up for review, as I have a feeling will inevitably occur if you continue along this path you seem determined to travel. BlueSalix (talk) 20:25, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that WP:TPOC applies here, as changing an RfC framing mid way it is not acceptable. As for the other comments, I hear you. Just please if you have any other comments about me, use my talk page. 21:08, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

"Displays of triumphalism" .. I must admit you made me laugh (in a good way). Thank you for your patience, and apologies for apparently rattling your cage with that sentence in the RFC. It was never my intention. Cwobeel (talk) 21:46, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please stop posting here? Thanks, Cwobeel! BlueSalix (talk) 21:56, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, will do, but not before I provide the definition of "rattle your cage," just in case it was misinterpreted. Cwobeel (talk) 22:41, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please stop posting here? Thanks, Cwobeel! BlueSalix (talk) 22:47, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know that many of the changes you are making really should be strikes, not deletions. If you change the tone or content of a comment that has already been seen, it is expected that you will not refactor it in a way that changes its meaning. Instead you strike through the text using <s>bad words</s>. The reasoning is that changing the meaning will often make the reply to your comment look odd, or even irresponsible. As an unrelated example: imagine if "Bob" called "Alice" a jerk in a comment, but then removed that portion after they replied. Of course Alice would complain that Bob was making a persona attack and call him out on it. But now that personal attack is removed instead of struck, so it looks like Alice is trying to pick a fight where there never was a problem. This is why policy says you shouldn't refactor at all once replied to. Correcting spelling or grammar is fine of course, but not content or tone, as it makes it a huge burden for anyone to go back and reassemble to see what really happened. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:52, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this direction, Dennis Brown, I will do this in the future. Up to the present I had made changes instead of strikethroughs if no one had yet replied (or if it was a grammar issue) as I was under the impression that was the policy. In the future I will use strikethroughs exclusively (except for grammar). BlueSalix (talk) 23:56, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. It was clear to me that you had no ill intent and I just guessed you weren't familiar with the method of striking. Lots of experienced editors aren't. I think changing something directly after you have written is ok, I will add a sentence sometimes if no has replied, but the rest of the time striking is best. Kind of like I did here :) Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:58, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Either way, thanks for bringing it to my attention, Dennis Brown. :) BlueSalix (talk) 23:59, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Ta-Nehisi Coates. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited International opinion on the South Atlantic sovereignty dispute, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages John Baird and Vatican (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:51, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe you wouldn't write a proper edit summary here. Of course an edit like that is going to be reverted and waste several people's time further. Bishonen | talk 14:08, 15 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]

I'm still waiting for the e-mail you promised to send me, that was going to clear everything up. Bishonen | talk 17:32, 16 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Sorry, catching up. Where do I send it? BlueSalix (talk) 05:37, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See below. Bishonen | talk 00:19, 22 August 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Hi, BlueSalix. It has become obvious that there was no substance in the allegations you made against another user. At this time, you haven't edited for a couple of days, nor sent me the promised e-mail. That's all right, everybody always has a right to disappear from Wikipedia, temporarily or permanently. Also I suppose real life may have intervened, so your absence isn't the main reason the facts have become obvious. Don't worry too much, I can understand how the situation arose — I mean, I understand how it became more and more difficult to retract. You certainly have a moral obligation to apologize (I think you know to whom), but I'll say no more about that. I won't try to impose any sanctions on you in absentia, that would be absurd. But you should be aware that if and when you return to Wikipedia, the matter may be raised again. So, you're not blocked, but if you start to edit again, I'll advise with ArbCom, and you may subsequently face sanctions.

Please feel free to blank this page. (I won't count a single edit blanking the page as "starting to edit again".) Or ask me by e-mail to courtesy blank it, if you prefer. Good luck. Bishonen | talk 15:01, 17 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]

I'm sorry, I've been out of the country for a few months and just returned. Can you kindly bring me up to speed on what I missed? BlueSalix (talk) 05:30, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't miss anything as far as I know. I'm still waiting for you to forward the emails "from Cwobeel" (or from Mosfetfaser..?) that you were complaining about here, with full headers, and to explain, if you can, what caused the appearance of evasiveness on your part. Note especially my post here, and the links in it to postsf by you. (These links: [1][2]. I believe those posts of yours had been removed from the thread before it was archived, but that doesn't mean you're not responsible for them.) (Correction: No, these posts, together with your original accusations and more over-the-top attacks against Cwobeel from you are still in the thread, please see the part that was collapsed by T.Paris, and you do indeed remain responsible for all of it. 08:23, 22 August 2014 (UTC).)

About e-mailing me: I'm sorry, but I don't want to put my e-mail address out in public on the site. To e-mail me, please enable wiki e-mail through your Preferences panel. As soon as you've done that, you will be able to see, and use, the "E-mail this user" function in the sidebar on my page, under "Tools". If you prefer not to have e-mail enabled, you can then disable yours again. It wouldn't have to be up more than a few minutes, if that's your preference. Alternatively, if you don't like that, you can forward the e-mails directly to ArbCom, at arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org. Please include the context, a link to the ANI thread, and explanations, if you have them.

You realize that I've already been waiting bootlessly, and without information that you intended to be away, for e-mail from you for a couple of months. Please inform me of your intentions this time, here on the page: should I expect your e-mail, or will you send it to ArbCom? In either case, I strongly recommend you not to edit Wikipedia until this is cleared up. It hasn't disappeared just because you've been away, and you may still face sanctions. Bishonen | talk 00:19, 22 August 2014 (UTC).[reply]

I'm happy to see if I still have this email and send it, but I would prefer not to be using my email address for the same reason you've indicated you'd prefer not to use yours. However, as per your request, I will happily email ArbCom (I will be able to do this before 2300 GMT on 22AUG2014) and tell them I will start looking for this email (I have a version I forwarded from my registered account to my spam account, but it does not contain headers - since it wasn't a big deal to me and I never filed an ANI about this I felt no need to keep a trail of evidence ... that said, I feel pretty confident I can retrieve the original from my hard-drive archived emails with only minor difficulty if this is something ArbCom has decided they want to pursue) and also provide them updates on my travel itinerary and schedule for the upcoming few weeks so they do not have to wait bootlessly and an assurance that I will not edit Wikipedia as I am currently facing sanctions. I believe this satisfies the three requests you've outlined (a- email; b- itinerary as to when I will be on WP; c- non-editing until clearance). Please let me know if that concludes our business or if there is something else. (Also, please note, I made two [2] edits to WP since returning but prior to reading your message that I should not make edits without consulting you. In both cases they were to undo IP edits on historically sanitized articles that are regularly maintained by myself and others through undo actions, and neither contained a positive addition of content. These can be viewed in my edit history. Unfortunately, I do not have a way to prove that I did not read your message prior to making those edits. However, I was with another person at the time and, if necessary, I can ask them to sign a testament of what they witnessed during my editing that could be notarized and forwarded to ArbCom. Please LMK if you need me to begin this process as it will take some time for me to accomplish given my current circumstances.) BlueSalix (talk) 01:36, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(Please note the addition to my earlier post that I just made above.) So after your entire song and dance about these abusive e-mails that you accused Cwobeel of sending, and the emphasis from me and other editors on the importance of sending the full headers to someone who could take stock of your claims (and indeed after your reluctant provision of partially X'd out headers, with fulsome promises of providing the rest privately to me or anyone who needed it "forthwith", here), you're now saying you felt no need to keep a trail of evidence and may only have a "version" without the full headers? I'm sorry if I sound incredulous. It's because I am. Please do your best to retrieve the original and forward it to ArbCom within the time you have specified (before 2300 GMT on 22AUG2014). (Or rather forward them. You were talking about several e-mails, I don't know why they have now shrunk to one.) It does not conclude our business, as, if ArbCom in turn refers the question of sanctions to me, I will still need to take stock of that. As indeed I will if you should fail to locate your "trail of evidence". But as for making a few edits before reading my messages above, never mind, they were harmless edits, don't worry about it. No need at all for witnesses etc. Bishonen | talk 08:43, 22 August 2014 (UTC).[reply]

I'm sorry, this just wasn't a very significant moment in my life that I felt necessary to build a forensic "trail of evidence." I very much enjoy and appreciate Wikipedia but it's nothing more than something I occasionally pop-in to edit or create an article occasionally. After reviewing your link, it appears my only contribution to this issue was a poorly thought-out side remark to an editor in an unrelated ANI a few months back. I never pursued the matter beyond that, nor did I file a complaint regarding the emails, nor did I even remember it occurred until I logged back on after a few months away to edit an article I'd previously written and found your many messages to me. Please understand:

• The "song and dance" is not a creature of my conjuring. I am only following up on this short exchange that I barely recall as you escalated the question and have pursued it over a period of several months. However, as I said, I am committed to doing my absolute best to accommodate your interest in this matter (in point of clarification to your above comment, I have to admit I am unaware of other third-party editors who expressed similar passion to you and seem to recall the others involved (IIRC User:NE Ent, User:Dennis Brown, User:TParis) were differently expressive, but if I am wrong then kindly accept that I should have said I am also trying to accommodate their interest as well). As far as I know, it is your interest in pursuing this I am accommodating and the characterization of a "song and dance" is not one I feel is appropriate to describe my total ambivalence to your inquiry (please understand - the preceding is not intended to be trite, I simply want to unambiguously communicate that the entire matter is one of no interest to me, so as to assuage any concerns of a "song and dance").
• I would like to personally apologize to you for not responding to your interrogatories "forthwith." I can only give you my personal assurance that I did not leave Wikipedia for two months as part of a scheme to evade your investigation. I know you've said you're incredulous to that notion, but I will offer you this personal assurance anyway.
• Kindly accept this post in the spirit in which it was intended - as a frank and direct response to concerns you are expressing - and not as a slight in any way. If I have failed to communicate something here with appropriate finesse, understand it is only because of serious IRL issues I currently face that limit the time I can commit to pursuing online intrigue, and absolutely not because I am trying to scandalize you.

If there is anything else I can help you with, please do not hesitate to let me know, however, in interests of wrapping this up in a succinct manner, I would like to suggest we terminate this back-and-forth and allow ArbCom to do whatever it is their role in this is supposed to be. Best - BlueSalix (talk) 10:48, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that's too vague, I can't wrap it up yet, much as I appreciate your interest in succinctness. Please be more precise: do you or do you not intend to forward some e-mails to ArbCom before 23:00 GMT today? Yes or no, if you don't mind. Because if you don't intend to do that, ArbCom has no reason to become involved. Indeed, I only suggested ArbCom as the addressee because you have gone back on your undertaking here to use wikimail to send it to me. ArbCom doesn't have any intrinsically necessary role; it is altogether within my admin remit to sanction you myself. Yes or no, please? If it's yes, I'll await developments; if it's no, or if you merely continue to deflect and obfuscate, I'll deal with it myself. Bishonen | talk 11:38, 22 August 2014 (UTC).[reply]

As per my message time-stamped 01:36 (above), "as per your request, I will happily email ArbCom (I will be able to do this before 2300 GMT on 22AUG2014) and tell them I will start looking for this email." (Also, I would kindly ask you not say I "gone back" on an "undertaking." The diff you provided is an affirmation by me that I would follow-up with you or ArbCom and I resumed dealing with this matter within 24 edit-hours of making that statement. That's the work schedule I can commit to right now in helping with your project.) Thank you - BlueSalix (talk) 12:11, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On a side note, I don't doubt that you've been away, and I certainly don't suppose you travelled abroad as "part of a scheme to evade my investigation" — please don't be so daft. When did I say that? That wasn't at all what I expressed incredulity about, if you'll be so good as to re-read my post timestamped 08:43 above. Bishonen | talk 13:19, 22 August 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Do not call me "daft." This tête-à-tête is done. Stop posting here and let ArbCom do whatever. BlueSalix (talk) 13:28, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi guys. I just read through this thread, and no bells are ringing in my head about what this is about and how I am involved. Can someone help me out here?--v/r - TP 16:54, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• What Tom said, and Blue S is more than welcome to email me at entofwikipedia at gmail dot com and I'll forward whatever to Bish. NE Ent 21:48, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind offers, NE Ent and P. However, it appears that the email may not have been the actual issue as I was issued a lifetime ban from Wikipedia after posting my 13:28 UTC 22AUG2014 message. I apologize for disturbing you with what appears to be an interpersonal dispute. Best - BlueSalix (talk) 22:47, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for personal attacks, calumny, and trollish evasion, see this ANI thread and the conversation above. Normally, I wouldn't block for abuse and character assassination two months after the fact, but this is a special case. You went on an unheralded two-month wikibreak on 15 June, immediately after assuring everybody that you would prove your accusations "forthwith", send me the supposed e-mails with full headers, etc, etc. And it's become clear that you will still, as of today, neither retract nor substantiate your injurious accusations against User:Cwobeel. You have also still, as of today, not clarified your confusing hints about User:Mosfetfaser. No amount of procrastination and empty promises will make these things go away, and it's become clear that the ArbCom diversion attempt was just more smoke and mirrors. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Bishonen | talk 12:26, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

BlueSalix (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

In this thread, Bishonen said I had to email ArbCom under threat of "sanctions." As seen in that thread, I acknowledged and responded to Bishonen's order by informing her I would do that. Subseqeuntly:

• (1) at 23:43 UTC on 22AUG2014 I emailed ArbCom
• (2) at 0112 UTC on 23AUG2014 I was notified by ArbCom that my message "is being held until the list moderator can review it for approval" Here is a copy of that message with full headers (personally identifiable information removed): [[3]]
• (3) At 1328 UTC on 23AUG2014, in response to a post by Bishonen on my Talk page, I replied: "Do not call me "daft." This tête-à-tête is done. Stop posting here and let ArbCom do whatever."
• (4) With no further posts by me since my 1328 one, at 1226 UTC on 24AUG2014, Bishonen abruptly blocked me indefinitely for "personal attacks" (citing the above referenced thread on my own Talk page [bullet 3], as well as an ANI I'd participated in during June 2014) and "procrastination."
• (5) During the entire period of this exchange, I made no content edits to Wikipedia. During the above discussion with Bishonen I repeatedly alerted her that my responses to her questions had, and would continue to be, delayed due to my IRL schedule.
• (6) As of the time stamp of this post, my message to ArbCom - which was the requirement Bishonen set for not blocking me - had still not been reviewed by the committee.
• (7) I am not the "typical" blocked user (IP vandal, serial aggressor, WP-hoaxer, flack, etc.). I have been on WP for 3 years - contributing 42 original articles and editing a number of others. In that time, I had a flawless disciplinary record, aside from a single 48-hour block imposed (also by Bishonen) [[4]] after I undid a revision by User:NazariyKaminski in violation of 3RR (who, himself, is currently under his third block for harassment and edit warring).

The application of a perma-block for "procrastination," particularly after I had met all of Bishonen's demands for avoiding such a block and by the deadlines she had issued, and in consideration that the matter is the subject of active inquiry by ArbCom (at her request) seems both capricious and peculiar. Further, I very respectfully question the notion that asking not to be personally attacked, itself, constitutes a personal attack. If you have additional questions, I will be happy to answer them, however, (and as I have repeatedly noted in my Talk page) I am not a full-time WP contributor and, due to my current schedule, my response may be delayed by as much several days to a week or more. Please do not construe such delays as procrastination by me or disinterest in what you have to say. Thank you. Best regards - BlueSalix (talk) 22:00, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I don't understand why you waited so long to email ArbCom. If you had emailed shortly after the discussion on the incident noticeboard, this could have all been resolved by now. I suggest you wait until there is a reply from ArbCom. PhilKnight (talk) 10:53, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

BlueSalix (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I erred by making an accusation without having, and providing, the necessary evidence. I therefore retract the accusation and will not make an issue of it again. Further, I declare my sorrow. BlueSalix (talk) 22:26, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

Right, BlueSalix, I'm going to unblock you. You have retracted the accusation, I'm pleased to hear that. There were many other reasons for the block, which all come down to "you're spending too much time trying to weasel out of the situation". We are trying to build an encyclopedia here and your evasiveness has wasted a good amount of volunteer time, if you'd been upfront and clear long ago, you'd have been unblocked long ago. Let this be a lesson. Now that you are unblocked, get on with something useful.

To those who are demanding an apology, that's not how things work on Wikipedia. We don't demand apologies - they're worthless unless unforced. I'm hoping this person has learned from his time out - if he hasn't, feel free to come back to me with evidence. Worm^TT(talk) 09:20, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Rebecca Bardoux. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:New Israel Fund. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Ed Miliband. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:07, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:America: Imagine the World Without Her. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Joni Ernst. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Iranian-led intervention in Iraq. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:06, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You recently took part in this RFC. You moved to support the RFC and you moved to merge it. You attributed your reasoning for this to me. The thing is though I have not offered an opinion or view for or against this measure. As such there is no clear reason for your position. I wonder if you might take a moment and go back and review your response?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 09:59, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Marital rape. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Nofel Izz. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Neil deGrasse Tyson. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Alex Jones (radio host). Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:George Clooney. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Tom Ridge. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Derek McCulloch. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Debito Arudou. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Steve Daines. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Joni Ernst. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:S. Truett Cathy. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Alan Chambers (Exodus International). Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you did to muck up the AfD formatting, but it was preventing other editors from signing their comments so I removed it. Did you follow the instructions for filing the AfD? Viriditas (talk) 22:15, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it was an anon IP, not you.[14] Sorry. Viriditas (talk) 22:25, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Paul LePage. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Anita Sarkeesian. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Gamergate controversy. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Mark Begich. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Orson Scott Card. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Robert Peter Gale. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Sigmund Freud. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

User:BlueSalix, I think you breached civility guidelines in discussing the deletion of the Boyd Bushman wiki entry.

Here are some examples of what you wrote:

"You keep repeating this Nick Cook bunk"

"still became the most brilliant scientist in American history before being assassinated by a Martian butt probe"

"that alien nutcase"

"He had a WP article that should have been purged long ago, but no one got around to it. Anyway, I don't care. This article is going in the trash bin where it belongs. C'est fin."

"he was a self-aggrandizing nutter." this was written repeatedly after being asked to be more civil by others.

"I didn't have time to go through the rest of this laundry list, but I feel it's safe to dismiss the rest of them if you weren't able to distinguish between RS and non RS in the first few instances."

"'I could call Bushman a pedophile if I wanted"

"'He had no career achievements" this is a blatant lie.

I didn't include the instances BlueSalix contradicted themselves. I didn't include the way BlueSalix pushed new editors around by posting several things for them to read while ridiculing the subject matter,, seemingly attempting to infer them to be ridiculous for their efforts in keeping this particular scientist's entry. Since Wikipedia is a public forum and this discussion is open to the public, I think BlueSalix was inconsiderate of the possibility that family members of the deceased could be reading such cold and heartless comments about their relative. He does not know if one of the editors is in fact a family member of Boyd Bushman. There is more vitriol at the page in question, this is merely a preview. Thank you for your help administrators! --HafizHanif (talk) 19:56, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

User:BlueSalix, I think you may have breached some civility guidelines in the manner in which you discussed the deletion of the Boyd Bushman wiki entry. I think you may have contradicted yourself, may have instigated others and also projected your own hysterics / frantic dialogue while pointing to others to have become hysterical and frantic. You seem to desire a speedy deletion process to an entry which had been on wiki for seven years without reading through the comments and concerns of editors, regardless of their tenure or lack thereof. Here are some examples:

"due to the increasingly hysterical/frantic tone being taken by the new editors, I think immediate closure is warranted to protect both the encyclopedia and our editors" The reading of the entire dialogue would reveal who was hysterical and frantic in their colorful use of words.

You wrote "You suppose wrong. Wikipedia is not a democracy" while you are counting votes to delete the entry.

You wrote "You keep repeating this Nick Cook bunk" This is one of the main sources written by a journalist who also made a documentary which was broadcasted worldwide. Why the need to call this man's work 'bunk' and yet fail to acknowledge it as RS?

You wrote "still became the most brilliant scientist in American history before being assassinated by a Martian butt probe" in speaking about someone. This is uncalled for and obvious incivility.

You wrote "that "alien nutcase" Bushman is a different man who simply shared a similar name and used it as part of his UFO con" in speaking to a real scientist, with real credentials, a real likeness to the name and the name matching a likeness. You seem to be the only one who disputes this man's existence, and believe a recently opened account on LinkedIn to be the 'real' Boyd Bushman. An account with no connections, a fuzzy picture and no business references. I don't think you are serious but this you use as argument.

You wrote "Bushman was not notable before this. He had a WP article that should have been purged long ago, but no one got around to it. Anyway, I don't care. This article is going in the trash bin where it belongs. C'est fin" I think you should care as to why the article was around for seven years and why it is under attack and scrutiny now. It passed guidelines with the same citations and independent sources for seven years.

You wrote: "Our guidelines establish that notability is not achieved by a single event." The single event you may be speaking about is the many recent news articles mentioning Boyd's testimonial this past summer. However, he had been mentioned in a book years prior, two documentary and several other places. The argument regarding his scientific work is debatable only because it isn't cited elsewhere, but his almost 30 patents are not in disrepute.

You wrote "If you can't find any reference to Boyd Bushman in any of these hundreds of thousands of places spanning hundreds of billions of pages of text, then he doesn't get in WP." I don't think you are the only person to choose what does qualify, but the Wikipedia guidelines. You mentioned certain news outlets besides the ones Boyd was featured in, but I don't think you get to choose which news articles to use if they are all legitimate.

You wrote the following phrase several times after being asked not to use such language "he was a self-aggrandizing nutter." This also seems to fall under incivility.

You wrote "The patents simply show he paid a $130 filing fee and establish absolutely nothing else." This is your opinion and not true. A filing fee is one thing, the process of citing sources, writing a claim and all the rest that goes into actually having a patent is more than a small filing fee. This seems to be another unfounded argument used to simply detract from constructive reasoning. None of the news outlets denied Boyd being who he and others said he was... they in fact wrote he was a scientist working for Lockheed Martin and the many patents are all assigned to Lockheed Martin. It is clear but you seem to desire to further instigate and argue against these facts.

You wrote ""Significant coverage" and "reliable sources" are not two separate standards that have to be met, they are the same standard: significant coverage in reliable sources." This scientist was written about in over ten newspapers worldwide recently, albeit for an unusual story. These newspapers were not yellow papers like tabloids, but actual news outlets that write about daily news events... yet you seem to ignore this fact. This recent notoriety shouldn't shadow his standing the his place for seven years in wikipedia.

You wrote "I didn't have time to go through the rest of this laundry list, but I feel it's safe to dismiss the rest of them if you weren't able to distinguish between RS and non RS in the first few instances." It seems you are quick to respond but not quick to read what others have to say. Here you seem to admit you ignore and quickly dismiss what the others are sharing with you.

You wrote "I could call Bushman a pedophile if I wanted." You seem to exercise your freedom of speech while disregarding guidelines and considering others in conducting a serious debate.

You wrote "This article could only serve as a magnet for UFO weirdos. It should be salted to prevent recreation" It seems you have a strong opinion about a niche interest, but this is no basis to support your arguments. You seem to have repeated this theme throughout your arguments / responses.

You wrote "He had no career achievements" in regards to the scientist in question. This seems to be either a blatant lie or your method of convincing others be speaking down about someone's career achievements.

You wrote "You can't slander a dead person under U.S. libel law, which is the jurisdiction that presumably applies to Boyd-O since that's supposedly the dirt in which he's buried (along with his B.A. from BYU [his highest educational credential]). And "slander" is a legal term; it has no colloquial use. Ergo, I have not slandered anyone." It seems here again you were fell into incivility. It seems your tasteless and uncivilized remarks about someone that contributed to U.S. defense systems, the several companies he worked for. The man had a family which most likely is reading along the discussion about their dearly departed relative. You may express a bit more concern to the public reader. I don't find any bit of consideration for the world audience. This brings a bad reputation onto Wikipedia and the many editors who do their best to make viable contributions and not be insulting. You seem to follow the letter of the law without having consideration for the spirit through which you speak and defend your manners and words. --HafizHanif (talk) 05:02, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

cool story, bro @HafizHanif: BlueSalix (talk) 05:37, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am responding here, for the record, to respond to your explanation at the other page:

• responding to respondent's response

Firstly, the "background" written by BlueSalix is categorically false and misleading. The scientist in question didn't make such bogus claims of "Martians" nor "death ray" nor "government infiltration" nor "enslave mankind" nor "space invasion." These are all false and instigating statements made by BlueSalix here and now. Please do a "control F" at the entry in question, talk page and deletion discussion and you will find no such foolishness. These seem to BlueSalix's attempt to draw attention away from his INCIVILITY and is yet another example, thus why I have requested a review. --HafizHanif (talk) 07:09, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey no offense but I'm not sure the eventually closer really needs your editorial on the status of the AfD [15]. Maybe with all the current drama you could step back a little. Anyway, Martian butt probe, that was brilliant.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:44, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No offense taken and you raise a good point, -Serialjoepsycho-. I'll disengage. BlueSalix (talk) 22:07, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No I wouldn't say you would have to disengage. It's more in the way you say things than what you are actually saying that seems to be what's up. But honestly when it comes to fringe (so I've seen) you are trying to "cencor" wikipedia if you don't support the fringe side.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:14, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be wise to disengage. Even though bait continues to be thrown in the water, there's no reason you have to snap at it, since at this point, the DRV is pretty much a SNOW, and additional beating of the horse comes off as unkind. - LuckyLouie (talk) 02:58, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Artw (talk) 22:55, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic. BlueSalix (talk) 23:02, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just meant anything about Artw being a crank, into woo-woo topics or whatever. It's a little ridicule-y. Andrevan@ 00:37, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. While I never used the word "crank" and, in the AfD, did not name-call Artw at all - simply noting the type of topics he typically edited - I will, in the future, endeavor to treat discussion about things like alien-hybrid colonization and pyramids in Bosnia built by ancient astronauts in a more serious, thoughtful, and reverential manner. I promise to do a better judge of not dismissing the sources that back them up just because they start with members.fortuncity.com/user/... or youtube.com/... . Thank you for addressing this, Andrevan. I guess we'll talk again in whatever ANI gets filed against me tomorrow. Until then - BlueSalix (talk) 00:47, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hahahah. Your comments about the sources are fine, but you can make that argument without accusing Artw of being especially interested in paranormal woo-woo topics. Generally you're fine, but in the interest of preventing more bullshit ANIs, you might want to be a little less blatant about accusing individual users of being in the Bosnian pyramid camp. Andrevan@ 00:50, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an accusation, it's a statement of fact, Andrevan. Should I have provided diffs of his edits at Bosnian Pyramids? BlueSalix (talk) 00:52, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've edited George Bush, doesn't make me a Republican. The point is you can be smoother with your interaction since you appear to be provoking some people into getting upset. No need to go out of your way to feed trolls or cranks, if that's what they are, and I'm not sure that they were in this case. Andrevan@ 03:01, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would say if you edited the George Bush article to insert a claim you found in the New York Times that George Bush is directly related to Jeb Bush that would be a little different than if you edited the George Bush article to insert a claim you found on Freakzill49.blogspot.com that said George Bush is directly related to Jesus Christ. If you had a history of doing the latter I'm certain it would be perfectly reasonable for me to raise issue with your ability to meaningfully contribute to WP.

We're not talking about routine edit discussions, we're talking about a tightly coordinated group of editors determined to insert information into WP that space aliens from 500 light years away are infiltrating humanity as part of a plan for global conquest. These editors are willing to take no prisoners in their single-minded drive to insert this insanity, including going through and editing/deleting the comments of other editors in Talk pages or block-shopping editors who cross them with ANI-cudgeling. Had it not been for me, the Boyd Bushman article would still be the cherry on this shit sandwich. I'm concerned by the total disinterest and lack of support for my commendable efforts to protect WP when I'm faced with aggressive stalking and kneecapping efforts by objectively unhinged people.

Anyway, obviously we have to agree to disagree. Thanks for your feedback and patience in discussing the situation, Andrevan. BlueSalix (talk) 03:17, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As a final note, I think your concerns about reliable sources are totally valid. I think that is an entirely different thing to say than something that more or less means, you're into crazy shit. So focus on your RS concerns and if you can produce recent diffs of refusal to follow RS, some action can certainly be taken against those users. Andrevan@ 03:32, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK. BlueSalix (talk) 03:36, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've got to say, I'm pretty unimpressed on this BlueSalix. You've spent a large portion of the year blocked for making accusations without evidence. It seems now that along with making ad hominem attacks at AfDs, you're accusing people of 1) pushing fringe topics and 2) conspiring against you. Neither of these accusations hold up to any scrutiny. Given that this is very similar to the previous behaviour - I'm going to ask you outright, is there any reason why I should not re-block you indefinitely? Worm^TT(talk) 15:21, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Worm, just to clarify, I was blocked for a single accusation (not accusations) for which I provided the apology demanded using the wording required whereupon I was immediately unblocked. (BTW, the other party in that dispute has, since that episode, continued to be blocked for combative editing [16].) In respect of the current issue, every uninvoled editor with an account older than 60 days at the AfD has proactively declared my comments were not ad hom. Still, I explained to Andrevan, Hell_in_a_Bucket, and others, I fully expected I would be blocked eventually as I realize that four ANIs in 24 hours becomes a numbers game, regardless of whether they are sustained or dismissed. This is why I was particularly desperate yesterday to seek some assistance or help, which, I was told was unnecessary as it "wasn't a huge deal" and I shouldn't panic. I was skeptical that WP:OTHERPARENT behavior was something I didn't need to worry about, which is why I tried to be exceedingly nice and offer fig leaves to the editors in question, though as you can see my overtures were rejected.

I'm certain I will be unable to offer any reason you should not block me indefinitely that would successfully avoid such a block and will accept this as fait accompli. The only thing I could say is what I have already pledged to the editors in question, that I will treat the topic at the heart of this dispute (shape-shifting Pleiadian space aliens infiltrating the U.S. government in coordination with the Illuminati) with greater seriousness and reverence than the flippant attitude I have been guilty of displaying toward it in the past. Further, I will stop my essentially single-handed efforts to try to get this information deleted from WP on non-RS grounds. Thank you. BlueSalix (talk) 15:36, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who has been around this fine encyclopedia much longer than he should have been, I will offer some unsolicited advice on playing the Wikipedia game. Whenever you get in a dispute you should be obsequiously, almost treacly polite. This denies the other parties an excuse to go after you, while internally you have the last laugh. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:33, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, good advice. I guess, after being block-shopped 3 times in 24 hours (all dismissed) by a group of editors with brand new accounts who are calling me "bozo" and "jihadist" and are deleting and editing my comments, I reacted like a human-being would be likely to act. While I'm unclear what I said that was not polite, and Stalwart111 and other editors editors have specifically rejected the claim by the involved editor that I was not polite, I've also been around long enough to know that editors who are too active in opposing fringe theories topics, like I have been on Boyd Bushman and claims that shape-shifting Pleiadian space aliens are infiltrating the US government, usually have a short life span on WP due to the intense passion the other viewpoint has for disseminating this information. I can't apologize for trying to hold the line of sanity but I do accept the reality of the situation. I appreciate your feedback, SBHB. (Sorry for the length of my reply.) BlueSalix (talk) 15:45, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Regarding your request for me to explain Artw's reference to your "little buddies", I have not much to say. I didn't write that, and consequently cannot be held accountable for it. I haven't seen any evidence of "buddies" of yours helping you here, no more than I have seen any evidence of Artw conspiring together with your other opponents at Afd. Susuman77 (talk) 20:11, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. I choose not to view fellow Wikipedia editors in terms of "opponents" and "conspirators," preferring instead to think of all of us as working together to encylcopedia-build. However, I respect others may not share my view and I respect your perspective on this. Thanks for your feedback. BlueSalix (talk) 20:16, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your deleting my comment above, it is your utmost right to do so on your talk page. I don't believe anything of what I just wrote can be construed as a personal attack (or as treating you as a sub-human - I very much respect your humanity), although I welcome review of it by outsiders. I still believe you are doing yourself a disservice by refusing to confront the main point: do you stand by your comments regarding Artw's editing history, or would you be willing to strike them and disengage? Susuman77 (talk) 20:18, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you're asking me to either (a) provide diffs supporting my comment regarding that editor's edit history, or, (b) declare that I lied. Please let me know if that's correct and I will be delighted to oblige. BlueSalix (talk) 20:22, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is correct. To make your job easier, I would appreciate, provided you choose (a), if you could support with diffs your following statements in particular:

• "A quick perusal seems to indicate that inserting fringe information into WP is an area of special interest for you" from [17]
• "It's not an accusation, it's a statement of fact, Andrevan. Should I have provided diffs of his edits at Bosnian Pyramids?" [18]

Thanks! Susuman77 (talk) 20:36, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to do that, Susuman77! How many diffs will be sufficient to establish "a special interest?" I can do 3-4 today; if you need 5-10 it will take me until tomorrow. More than that, let me know as I will have to budget my time accordingly before providing a turnaround estimate. BlueSalix (talk) 20:38, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there are only 4 diffs of Artw to Bosnian Pyramids: you could start by explaining which one if any you thought established a "special interest", or "inserted fringe information". If your opinion comes from Artw's work on another article, you could just point me to whatever diff, or discussion in general, made you infer that he was specially interested in inserting fringe information: where did you "quickly peruse" to form that opinion? Susuman77 (talk) 20:48, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]