User talk:Aatombomb

Archives

Archive 1

Hello, may I ask for your support in getting an RFC established for user Bluemarine/Matt Sanchez? Here are the guidelines. Here is the RFC/User page. It takes at least two to get it started and hopefully this will get some more or renewed attention from editors not currently involved in the discussion. Typing monkey 05:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Typing monkey's talk page -- to keep the RfC going, at least two users have to actually certify the RfC, which is to sign in a particular section of the RfC within 48 hours of the RfC being initiated, attesting that they attempted to but failed to resolve disputes with Bluemarine. This hasn't been done -- no one has certified. If you & Typing monkey can do that, you can still save this RfC from being deleted. (And then I will be glad to read the diffs & comment as an outsider to the dispute.) --Yksin 18:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good deal! Glad it got caught in time. I'll should be able to comment shortly. --Yksin 19:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Calling him Mateo is just baiting him, which is unkind at best... -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 06:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He calls himself Mateo. How can that be baiting? Wjhonson (talk) 07:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He complained that I and the other editors should not refer to him as Mateo as it went against his wishes. At least it isn't derogatory - you should see how he referred to me. Aatombomb (talk) 07:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that the matter of Bluemarine (talk · contribs) and Matt Sanchez now requires the involvement of the Arbitration Committee. Given your involvement in the matter, I have listed you as a party to the case. WjBscribe 04:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, John Vandenberg (talk) 22:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice 'cut through the dross" edit to Fiat currency. Applause. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Obviously it still needs a lot of work, but I think it's a start. Aatombomb (talk) 14:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please enable your email, so I can respond to your query. Lawrence Cohen 04:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm tossing in my hand on the RFAr. The block on Sanchez was it. I've expended a great deal of effort on that article, but to have him do something as manifestly stupid as to violate his clearly and narrowly tailored unblock to wade into the waterboarding debate during an arbitration case cannot be justified, defended, or excused. I will continue to watch the RFAr, and will respond if appropriate, but I will not be adding any more to it. Horologium (talk) 14:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a simple thanks for letting me know about the Bluemarine RFA.Typing Monkey - ^{(type to me)} 05:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Aatombomb (talk) 16:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Accepted, and I reciprocate. I am quick to anger, and have likely made a few comments outside the bounds of acceptability as well.

Please understand that my calling you out by name in the arbitration was not intended to brand you as something unspeakable, nor has my repeated discussion about SPAs been directed solely towards you. (One of the SPAs I listed was identified as a Sanchez sock, and I suspect there were others, but without a checkuser, it's not possible to verify. I asked, and was informed that checkuser generally doesn't work past two or three months.) I have also noted you have begun to work on other articles, something which I heartily endorse. Focusing on a single topic is not necessarily a bad thing, but if a case goes to arbitration, the weight of an argument is lessened if it is presented by someone who doesn't edit beyond that topic or a narrow group of topics. Horologium (talk) 17:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks you for your gracious response. Understood on the SPA thing. I am going to move on and see if I can contribute more to unrelated and less politically fraught articles. Aatombomb (talk) 17:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In line with policies on user pages, and speedy deletion of personal attacks, the revisions of this page where a banned user recently attempted to post personal attacks to another user have been deleted.

Wikipedia is not a battleground or a place for advocacy, and the subject is closed.

Thank you, and my apologies.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 05:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've initiated a request for amendment in an arbitration case where you were a named party. You may wish to comment. Best regards, Durova^Charge! 06:10, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Committee's decision in this case and the preexisting community ban of Bluemarine (talk · contribs) are modified solely to the extent that Bluemarine is unblocked for the limited purpose of his making contributions related to increasing the accessibility of Wikipedia to users with handicapping conditions. This includes uploading encyclopedic audio files, formatting audio file templates, and captioning those audio files, as well as editing his userpage and talkpage, all under the mentorship of Durova (talk · contribs). Except as expressly provided in this motion, the ban on editing by Bluemarine remains in effect. If Bluemarine violates the terms of his limited unblock, or makes any comment reasonably regarded as harassing or a personal attack, he may be reblocked for an appropriate period of time by any uninvolved administrator. If Bluemarine complies with these conditions for a period of 60 days, a request for further modification of his ban may be submitted.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Daniel (talk) 09:54, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Aatombomb, This is just a reminder that edits should only be marked minor if they don't change the content of a page - spelling and formatting type edits can be marked minor. Adding a review/reference is not a minor change. LadyofShalott 19:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]