User talk:Badgerpatrol/archive1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Welcome!

Hello Badgerpatrol/archive1, 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 have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  Deckiller 03:56, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• What are you doing on Bengal famine of 1943? That reader beware is not allowed - if you want to propose a change, please do it on the talk page. Izehar (talk) 15:29, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

• Are you going to tell me? Izehar (talk) 18:42, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

• Hello, I was objecting to your edits, because they seemed to discredit the article. That reader beware which you added made it look like a hoax. I have no objection to a neutral informative disclaimer; something like:

Caution: this article was published in "The Revisionist", a journal which primarily publishes material relating to the Holocaust from a Historical revisionist point of view.

If you don't like that, they you can delete the link outright if you want. No one will object (I don't think). It is Wikipedia policy not to include biased information (see WP:NPOV). Izehar (talk) 23:21, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

• Don't bother, I have deleted the link. Izehar (talk) 23:24, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

• Look, I didn't delete the link after all, when I tried to, my browser failed. As you're going to be a regular contributer, do what you see appropriate. I was merely on RC patrol whan I saw your edits. Take our standard welcome notice - I see you haven't got one yet. Welcome to Wikipedia Izehar (talk) 10:33, 9 December 2005 (UTC) Feel free to ask me any questions you may have on my talk page. By the way, you should sign your name to your posts and comments with ~~~~. Izehar (talk) 10:33, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

We hope you enjoy your time here on Wikipedia and that you choose to become a Wikipedian by creating an account. Feel free to ask me any questions you may have on my talk page. By the way, you should sign your name to your posts and comments with ~~~~. Extraordinary Machine 18:53, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Extraordinary Machine 18:53, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

• I'm not the one who decides which votes count and which votes don't, but I'd encourage you to create an account nonetheless for the reasons above, and also because you seem to be a very good editor, as you are commenting on the article's content and not its editors. I still think in hindsight that while the article was a little too detailed at the time it appeared on the Main Page (though I think it is much better now), I don't think there were any POV problems, or at least nowhere near as serious as they are being made out to be. That's just my personal opinion, though. It's a pity, as I want to be seen as a good editor who writes great articles about a variety of subjects, and not the editor who unintentionally and in good faith managed to spawn one of the most controversial featured articles in recent memory. Anyway, I hope that you create an account, as we need more editors like you. Please, just consider it. Extraordinary Machine 23:22, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

• What the hell do you think you're playing at? REMOVE that statement from the page immediately! Lion King 20:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I demand that you retract this accusation forthwith. Lion King 21:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

It is not an accusation, it is a suspicion, given voice. I am not retracting it because it still remains my suspicion. However, I certainly apologise for any offence caused, assuming I am incorrect. Cheers, Badgerpatrol 22:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

You most certainly are incorrect, if you'd bothered to check the history, the IP that left this comment, is in LEEDS. Leave any messages on MY PAGE, I HAVE BETTER THINGS TO DO THAN PISS ABOUT WITH MISCHIEF MAKERS LIKE YOU. Lion King 00:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

See my comments here. I did check the history, and I have now done so again. I am not able to view users' IP addresses since I do not have developers' privileges- I assume that you do, or is there some other method of viewing and geolocating IP's, or something that I have otherwise missed? I would be grateful if you could point out how it is done or where I made the mistake, as it is a potentially useful tool. The only unsigned and unencrypted IP I could find belongs to a user in Gravesend, according to my software, and is in any case not the user in question. Since you have advanced privileges, I assume that you can tell that I am of course not a sockpuppet for any other user, so I would be grateful if you could ascertain this and then remove the accusation (unless you feel you can state, as I have, an objective basis for your suspicions). Apologies for not laying out an evidentiary argument sooner, this was because I have only a general suspicion that you are employing a sockpuppet (rather than hard evidence) and did not wish to kick up a fuss over what I felt (and still feel) to be a relatively minor issue (even a brief investigation is enough to satisfy that you are not generating sockpuppets on a regular basis). As I state, the evidence is circumstantial, but I feel quite compelling. However, if I have unfairly maligned you I can only apologise. I would prefer to continue the discussion here, by the way, rather than moving from page to page- if you are subsequently vindicated in the future however and (in that case understandably) wish to copy and paste this discussion in-full and unedited onto your own discussion page then please do so, provided that you act in good faith. Thanks for your comments (although there is no need to swear!) and thanks in advance for your help over the IP address locator issue. Cheers, Badgerpatrol 01:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I apologise for sweaing at you, I was very angry. All the rubbish from the "Charlton" Fan, comes from a user in Leeds, it was located for me by a friend who is the top IT man at one of the biggest corporations in the world. I can assure you I am NOT this Redageeze. Best Wishes Lion King 02:30, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

You know a lot of important people! OK, I accept your word in good faith (although it's maybe slightly troubling that you are finding out other wikipedians' locations and violating anonymity, but that's not the issue here I guess!). Thanks for the apology, I also apologise for any offence caused- none was intended, all just a storm-in-a-teacup. I still intend to edit the MFC page btw as discussed previously, hopefully we can come to some kind of consensus...! Believe me, I have nothing against you personally or against your club. (PS- Who are 'The Haddocks'? West Ham?) Cheers and apologies again, Badgerpatrol 03:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

The Haddocks are the "addicks," this all started when a local fishmonger in Charlton used to nail a haddock to a pole, take it to games and hold it up in the air when they scored! which was'nt very often against us! West Ham are politely known as "that shower from over the other side". I have no objection to you editing the Millwall page, all I ask is that you make a clear distinction between Millwall supporters as opposed to Millwall hooligans. Best wishes Lion King 03:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

No problem, it goes without saying that I will do my best. I won't be getting around to it for at least another few days at any rate. Cheers, Badgerpatrol 04:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I'll try to remedy it. SteveO 13:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

ok, no problem! Cheers, Badgerpatrol 14:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I refer you to the following source, and specifically this paragraph: "In the most recent national research assessment in the UK (2001), LSE came second after Cambridge for the quality of its research - and top if only the social sciences are taken into account. In the THES's 2004 world ratings, LSE was top of the UK institutions and second in the world, behind Harvard." General Information About LSE

Hope that clears up the confusion!

-Sam [See my response on LSE Talk Page] Badgerpatrol 17:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the revert! And you are absolutely right, I misspelled Tolkein, which I have a habit of doing. But since I rarely read my own userpage, I guess I missed this a long time ago. Thanks again, and for the quick responses!--naryathegreat | (talk) 04:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey! I saw your edit on Douglas Adams, and thought I might be able to help with the wording. Why was the previous wording misleading? Was the M.A. an honorary degree? EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 02:45, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. Looking into it further, I think this link fully supports the idea that he earned his BA and then had no further contact with the college academically. Thanks for your edit, and keep up the good work! EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 03:17, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think it matters enough to worry about too much. However, the point I was trying to make by that link is that it only mentions his B.A.. If he went back and earned an M.A. (at any of the colleges in the system), you'd imagine it would mention that in the description of the prize in his honor. Either way, thanks again for all your help. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 03:33, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Um, if you don't mind me asking, why have you moved your discussion to my talk page? Whilst I sympathise with many of your sentiments and ideas, I don't think as a third-party it is right for me to be hosting a conversation you began with another individual. I am supportive of your response to what was obviously a silly comment (although my advice is not to rise to them in future, there is no reasoning with these people), but I don't think I should be interfering between you and him/her (I presume him). I'd be grateful if you could move his comment and your response either to your own talk page, his talk page, or back to the Dresden bombing page. Cheers, Badgerpatrol 03:45, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, thought it was your comment as yours was the only signature. When there is an unsigned comment you can mark it with {{unsigned|username}} to avoid misunderstandings like this in the future. Get-back-world-respect 03:49, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, no problem

My comment was actually a response to his- I thought that was fairly clear, although I shall take your advice in future to avoid getting an earful when I view my talk page!! Cheers and no harm done, Badgerpatrol 03:53, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, I was a bit dumb not to see this myself. Only recently learned how to use this unsigned template myself. Thank you for teaching me a new expression, get an earful, really like this one 8^p In German we say "talk someone a meatball to someone's ear". I have a language learning project running, just in case you are interested. Get-back-world-respect 03:58, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

That's funny, just as you added that citation needed tag, I added it.--naryathegreat | (talk) 00:52, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

BTW, would you like to vote in the Education in the United States FAC?--naryathegreat | (talk) 04:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Badger, good comments you put on the doctorate talk page! Are you going to integrate some of that into the article?--PaulWicks 19:41, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll agree with you in your assessment that you don't understand what's going on. I wish you a nice day. Karmafist 21:28, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

No, but my inability to properly elucidate an objective analysis of an equally objective vote of opposition from one of my former best wiki-friends set me off, and your comment, inadvertent or not, I saw as instigation. Karmafist 04:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi - I noted your POV there, and have tried to improve the article a bit. If you could point out further POV issues there, please let me know. I am not finished with the article yet, but my lunchbreak is over now. Andreas 13:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi! I've seen you around on The Beatles' articles... Would you consider becoming a member of WikiProject The Beatles, a WikiProject which aims to expand and improve coverage of The Beatles on Wikipedia? Please feel free to join us.

Abbey Road... You're not in this picture... yet! Todo: To-do list for User:Badgerpatrol/archive1: A list of articles needing cleanup associated with this project is available. See also the tool's wiki page and the index of WikiProjects. Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Articles on each Beatle tour (Category:The Beatles concert tours). See: Missing articles. Expand : The Lost Lennon Tapes, notable radio series which has spawned many bootlegs. Apple Records See also: Adopt an article Stubs : See: Category:The Beatles song stubs Update : Pics/Graphics wanted: Kenwood. Verify : Beatle wives Other : Project: Add {{WikiProject The Beatles}} to the talk pages of all Beatles-related articles. Send a newsletter to members, canvas for new members and coordinate tasks. Enter articles assessed as stubs onto this list, also list articles needing cleanup and other work here. If you complete one of these tasks, please remove it from the list and add your achievement to the project log.

(I saw your comment at Talk:The Decca audition, and what to do about the Beatles history and forked article is something that's up for discussion at the project). --kingboyk 12:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I've expanded the article a little, so that instead of saying charges were dropped, it has details of the charges themselves. I've also added some background info about the Dr. --Oscarthecat 09:33, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, just to let you know that after you removed POV from this article, I reverted back past the earlier edits as well. That anon editor, as well as adding POV, has been breaking up a number of articles into long series of single-sentence paragraphs, rendering them hard to read, as well as making it difficult to see what other changes crept in at the same time. --BillC 18:03, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

FYI, it is a real word; it's listed in Black's Law Dictionary, 7th ed. But I won't revert your edit because I agree that it's unnecessary jargon in the context of the law school article. --Coolcaesar 01:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I know- you may notice that I didn't alter the second use of the word in a succeeding sentence. The reason for the change was stylistic (to avoid the same term being used twice in a paragraph; I usually feel repetition is a bit jarring, although I realise it's just a matter of taste). Revert away however if you wish, this is a wiki! All the best, Badgerpatrol 10:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Badgerpatrol, I've responded to your comments about the last paragraph in the Balkans section via the Talk area for that article.

I've pulled my opinion since you've committed to rewriting the article and sourcing it. Kudos for finding some real sourcing.--Isotope23 14:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I changed my opinion on the article too and found some further mentions, but it's up to you to put the references in since you said you'd do it. Esquizombi 14:51, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Also I wonder if a Wikiproject on paraphilias, sex acts, etc. might help. There are a lot of articles on such topics on WP that all suffer from problems similar to (or worse than) this article. In the state that they are I'd usually be inclined to recommend delete on them on AFD (I think you'd agree that some or many of them are made up, or are real but contain a lot that is made up), but some of them probably merit keeping in some manner if they were improved. Esquizombi 15:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

What exactly does The Poisoned Bowl: Sex and the Public School say about the SB? Is it actually a reference for the claims that it is "not necessarily associated with homosexuality" and "in keeping with the spirit of adolescent sexual exploration"? Esquizombi 14:07, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

If the book doesn't mention the SB, then saying it is "in keeping with the spirit of adolescent sexual exploration" seems like original research. Perhaps you could merely mention some of the things that book mentions and let the readers make the association if they choose to do so. Oh, also it looks like deletes and keeps are about even so probably it will be kept by reason of no consensus at least. Esquizombi 14:31, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

When I mentioned "public schools" I didn't have in mind public/private schools but merely that I was around other boys so if the term was in currency I would potentially have learned of it. If the use in the UK is limited more to public schools in the sense of fee-based independent schools then that should perhaps be specified. Redundancy like that (i.e. having something that already appears in the public school article) isn't a bad sort of redundancy, especially since the SB article is short. Esquizombi 17:09, 7 April 2006 (UTC) Also, regarding the hidden tags in the article, it might not be bad to have such things mentioned on the talk page also since people unfamiliar with such tags or WP newbies might not go further than reading what appears on the article and talk pages. Unless there's something wrong with posing open questions on talk pages? I'm not sure what the policy is about hidden tags, never having used them myself. Esquizombi 17:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Badger! As far as I know, the history of UDSC/Queen's Campus is...

• 1992: Formed jointly by University of Durham, University of Teesside and the Teesside Development Corporation. Offers joint qualifications.
• 1994: Approved as a residential and teaching college of the University of Durham.
• 1996: Students begin studying for Durham degrees.
• 2001: John Snow and George Stephenson colleges founded.
• 2002: The Queen gives permission to rename UDSC 'Queen's Campus' on occasion of her Golden Jubilee.

The demographics and entrance requirements have always been markedly different between the old University and UDSC. This has been a source of friction between students since members of UDSC have been entitled to an identical Durham degree and to append 'Dunelm' to their title since 1996. Until recently these were conferred at Stockton Parish Church, but are now awarded in Durham Cathedral with the rest of the university. The one exception is the medical school at Stockton which awards University of Newcastle (upon Tyne) degrees since the clinical part of the course is taught there. I've also heard rumours that some departments are currently considering relocating from Durham City to Stockton (Durham is very crowded with little room for expansion).

Hope this helps! - Yellowspacehopper 19:56, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Do you want me simply to copy the relevant elements from the English law page by way of verification? David91 03:20, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for removing that "swede" reference, it had been bugging me. I mean, there's not even much good evidence that she and Dunst are still good friends. I think americans can be a bit zealous when it comes to nationality. Bless... Amo 15:29, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

You have contributed to the Rosalind Franklin article. It has recently had a rewrite and been had a request for peer review. Your comments would be appreciated. Alun 14:09, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I know about talk pages and the circumstances when it may be appropriate to remove comments from them, and I certainly don't find it offensive if people are aggrieved that I've done this. The point is that whatever the truth about Moira Stewart, the message on the talk page is irrelevant and a piece of possibly somewhat defamatory speculation. If that comment had been added to the article it would have been removed as uncited rumour. I know the talk page is not an encyclopaedia article and not subject to the same rigorous scholarly standards that are invariably applied on Wikipedia (forgive me for being a bit facetious here), but it's still visible to the reader, who can think to themselves, "Moira Stewart's a lesbian, and I know because I read it somewhere on Wikipedia", despite the person who added that statement offering no evidence, and you restoring it to the talk page because, in your words: "I have also heard that rumour- I believe it's quite a widely disseminated urban legend." As it is, that talk page is essentially a platform being offered by Wikipedia for some childish person to call someone a lesbian, and cast aspersions about her sexuality in a disparaging way. There's absolutely nothing wrong with being a lesbian of course, but I think Moira Stewart has a right not to have her sexual preferences speculated about in a public forum by some giggling adolescent who finds it amusing to call someone a lesbian, effectively as a piece of abuse. The talk page serves no purpose and doesn't help us to write an accurate and comprehensive encyclopaedia. Just delete it mate. 86.136.6.123 15:28, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Badgerpatrol. As refreshing as it is to see some new ideas about naming articles on Wikipedia, I hardly think "Haugie" would sound appropriate, as in "That's Our Haugie!". As some sandwiches are pronounced roughly the same (i.e. the "Hoagie" sandwich), the title would be misleading, or I dare say, even deceitful. On the other hand, however, I can definitely see the underlying quality in "Hangin' with Mr. Haug", though I might further suggest giving the show a more traditional feel by adding a second title, I think. something to the tune of "Hangin' with Mr. Haug, or, Mr. Haug and the College of Cardinals". Just let me know! Kuzaar 14:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

"Hangin' with the Haugmeister." I love it. To be completely honest, here, if we don't get sued, I think that we've got a big hit on our hands. Now all we have to do is pitch it as our own idea and we might be the next "Charles in Charge" or "Who's the Boss"! Kuzaar 19:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

(So this is how terrible sitcoms witness their inception.)

Hello again, Badgerpatrol. I noticed a couple of your votes on AFD earlier this evening and glanced at your edit history, and noticed your question on Brian G. Crawford's user talk page. Since it didn't seem he responded, I might as well answer some of his questions by proxy. I consider myself to be philosophically more toward the deletionist side of the spectrum. For me, at least, it's a kind of neatness that I find unique to wikipedia that I find myself striving for. I see hundreds of little articles and bits and pieces of detritus floating around in the wikipedia and I think to myself (alternately), "That doesn't belong here." or "That's worth keeping, but there has to be a better home for it."

In the past couple days I've been very active myself at the AFD project page, and I think of the deletionist movement as a kind of tribulatory process for potential articles, one that has the ability to refine the raw ore of information and get it down to its most valuable and encyclopedic precious metal. Sort of a literary crucible, if you will. The AFD people are, in their way, like the janitorial staff or maids of Wikipedia, cleaning up the constant accumulation of trash and other assorted things, and sending appropriate & valuable things to where they belong. If you have any further questions regarding that kind of a philosophy, I'd be glad to answer any questions that you have. Kuzaar 03:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

(P.S. Ordinarily I wouldn't have looked at your edits but your name stuck out to me from the humorous comments on the That's Our Haug!!! article.)

Additionally, while I'm still thinking of it, I today found a supreme quote to sum up my philosophy (It was stolen from Calton, by the way.) It's clean-up duty, mopping up after the dishonest, incompetent, and fanatical. Can't imagine why you'd have a problem with that.. Cheers, Kuzaar 03:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Just to clear up your puzzlement; the edit that I reverted didn't correct the errrors that you found and cleaned up, but it did include the sentence: "The minimum duration of a Ph.D. programme is two years, but such a deadline is quite unrealistic, therefore usually requiring an average of three to four years for completion" (making it look as though the deadline required four years rather than the doctorate). Your clean-up is excellent, though. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Badgerpatrol. I think I can explain why User:172.150.22.239 reverted Ardenn's votes: Ardenn has a serious stick up his butt with admins (just look at his Mediation request against me). He opposed 9 RfAs in the span of 7 minutes, clearing without considering each individual. I personally agree with the anon that Ardenn was disrupting the RfAs to make a WP:POINT (see the anon's edit summaries). ~MDD4696 04:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

You were very vocal in your opposition and I felt I had to defend myself:

1. Strong Oppose, per the diffs ([[1], [2], [3])and explanation in my comment below and ESPECIALLY this diff [4] from less than a month ago. That is not the kind of behaviour that I associate with an admin. He may be a decent contributor to the project, but he is definitely NOT responsible enough to be entrusted with admin powers. Badgerpatrol 04:30, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm very sad that you feel this way. The edits from Yoghurt (and Gasoline, where I was much better) were from nearly a year ago and were well inside of my first 1,500 edits. I've pointed below that it was me acting at my worse, plus I've learned a lot since then, and I certainly no longer engage in flame wars. The comment on Terry Goodkind's page was retracted immediately and with an apology to Alianus. Bastique 05:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind honesty. I will point out that I've been an admin at Commons for about 5 months, with absolutely no controversy. While things do tend to be more quiet there, they're not completely without heated debate--usually among admins. Like I said in one response, I learned from the early examples; and I don't involve myself other than to make the occasional non-recriminating remark (see Village Pump for examples). Also, I have very little interest in involving myself with user blocks or interaction. Most of what have to constantly ask other admins to do involves page deletions, image deletions, deletions history—only the occasional unblocking. More research and restoration than anything else. ℬastique▼^parℓer♥^voir♑ 13:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello Badgerpatrol. Perhaps I am being to give too detailed an explanation of the notability of cricket in the US, but, I'm guessing that as there are only about 10 cricket pitches, the rest of the expats from cricketing countries will be playing on concrete somewhere. I'm also guessing that most pitches in cricketing countries are concrete anyway - street cricket, and the fact that there are probably more public parks, cricket nets and primary schools (which tend to have concrete) than high schools and cricket clubs (which have tend to have one grass pitch in addition to 4 or 5 synthetic astroturf pitches). Regards, ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 00:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Do you ever participate in the Cricket quiz at WP:CRIC?? :) .Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 07:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

thanks. i mustve misunderstood it - i thought if you removed the message the article needed to go to afd. if it doesnt then i dont mind (it saves work if i remove a prod template :) BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 05:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

an even larger portion was blanked. the section "== Isotelus & Ceraurus - Sockpuppetry Confirmed ==" was removed. I don't know if it belongs in the talk page though since it is not about RM, but it hints at who is doing the other blanking. Geedubber 21:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

There are serious vandal problems here again ([5])- I believe the same user or group of users is attacking the page. It might need reprotecting. Thanks, Badgerpatrol 17:32, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Reprotected. If you find that someone's disruptively edit-warring you can report it at WP:ANI, and if they make excessive reverts you can also post at WP:AN3. Stifle (talk) 22:48, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! Thank you for your comments and suggestions in my recent Request for Adminstration. Please bear in mind that I am taking all comments and suggestions to heart. It's wonderful that we all have opinions here. If you feel I've done something wrong, in my opposition to User:Buchanan-Hermit, well, you are entitled to your opinion. If you're trying to press a point, you made it during your opposition to me--no need to continue. Thanks! Bastique▼parler voir 23:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

The count is in, and now I join the crew who wield the mops and pails. Thanks for your support! I pledge to serve both you and Jimbo Wales. If you have anything you need, then please don't think to hesitate. For I am the very model of a grateful admin designate! ♫Bucketsofg✐♪

Hi there. Thanks for being calm in your note about Talk:Main Page, since, yes, they were great swathes of text. The banned user is User:Amorrow who openly edits from various 71.*.*.* IP addresses. He has stalked Wikipedia participants both on the Internet and in real life, and he is as banned as banned can be. His contributions are not welcome, whatever they are. (In fact, some people hold to this so strongly that they revert all his edits, even spelling fixes!) I'm not sure if there's a central link I can give you that summarizes all the reasons why he is unwelcome, but stalking and death threats are a major part of it. I am disappointed that his comments on Talk:Main Page lasted as long as they did and drew other people to respond. The people who responded to his comments are not under ban, and perhaps ideally their comments should stay, but they don't really make much sense without the bulk of the thread. There's no problem with the topics under discussion - if anyone else wants to reopen them in good faith, that's fine. But it's been agreed by "the community" as well as Jimbo that his contributions are to be reverted on sight: [6] Thanks again for checking with me and for being patient about it. Best, FreplySpang 16:51, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Badgerpatrol/archive1! Thank you for voting for my recent RfA, which passed (to my extreme surprise and shock) with a total tally of 66/15/2. For that, I would like to thank you and offer a helping hand in any admin-related tasks that may be required -- it's as simple as leaving a message on my talkpage. Thanks again! -→Buchanan-Hermit™/!? 22:20, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Then change it to the nextworld cup, Jean-Paul 07:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC) Talk to me P.S. click on the link above and leave a message on MY TALK PAGE

Hi David- I noticed that you returned the ice hockey and basketball items to ITN- I support this, although I have to point out that if you choose to include national-level champions in North America then the same should apply elsewhere in the world for national-level championships where the result is of general interest and where the situation is otherwise in conformity with the ITN guidelines. I hope you will enforce this. Badgerpatrol 13:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. If the ITN criteria are met, the geographic location should have no bearing. —David Levy 17:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, Badgerpatrol. I'm sorry for being rude, but I couldn't stand some users stupidity mixed with anti-italian racism. I appreciated your balanced attitude.

212.162.105.251 14:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC) Marco from Roma, Italy

I concur. I've already given my reasons on the user's talk page.

And thankfully I don't believe in omens. But on the other hand... SteveO 01:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Badgerpatrol, I really don't know if I am somehow being unreasonable on the RF talk page. Obviously I don't think I am, and I make no bones about the fact that I have an antagonistic attitude to Martin. I'd like to get your opinion about my edits/posts, should I try to be more tolerant? I certainly don't want to come accross as authoritarian or bullying, but I often feel that I am being attacked and feel the need to defend myself. I'm struggling to know how to respond in this situation. Alun 11:01, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I added a comment supporting some of your points on London talk page. Cordless Larry 18:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Responding to the comment in the summary of your edit (which was not, by the way, a minor one), I would contend that it's quite possible for Romania not to have been anti-US/UK while actively supporting Germany, and here's why. Romania's chief enemy was the USSR, and Germany was a vital ally in attempting to reconquer Romania's lost territory. However, Romania was also in a difficult position because there were many thousands of German troops on her territory, so refusing to supply them with the supplies they demanded wasn't a very realistic option. That was done out of military necessity with the overarching objective of defeating the Soviet Union in mind; its effect was anti-US/UK, but not its intent. However, your actual edit was more balanced, so we can let it stand for now. Biruitorul 04:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

You might like to take a look at Criticism of Tony Blair. BlueValour 02:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Badgerpatrol!

First of all, let me thank you for the great job you're doing reverting. I do have to tell you, however, that you should refrain from calling people "simpletons" in edit summaries (see WP:NPA). The user (who I just reverted again) may not be familiar with our policies, and even if s/he is a vandal, it's inappropriate to start calling him/her names. Try using edit summaries like "revert vandalism" or "revert" instead of "revert simpleton", just to avoid hurting the feelings of what could be confused newcomers who may decide to learn Wikipedia policies and become valuable contributors. Thanks, and happy editing! :) Srose (talk) 13:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Quite so, it's best to be civil whenever possible. Nonetheless, I think in a case like this- where the offence was blatant- fairly short shrift is merited. I note that the individual concerned has gone on to subsequently repeatedly vandalise the article. I didn't really think it was a case of pejorative name-calling- rather a simple and apt description. It is not a question of familiarity with Wikipedia policy- it is a question of common sense. However, thanks for your advice, I shall take it on board, although hopefully I already have a fairly good idea what I'm doing. Badgerpatrol 14:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I have no doubt that you know what you're doing! I only meant to let you know that it could be seen as a personal attack. It appears, however, that you're right: this individual has no intention whatsoever of contributing in a helpful manner. Have a good day! :) Srose (talk) 20:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Badger. I'm not sure if you're aware, but Ceraurus (or his latest personality) has filed an arb comm about the Rachel Marsden page. You might have something relevant to add to the evidence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Rachel_Marsden/Evidence or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Rachel_Marsden/Workshop. Cheers. Bucketsofg✐ 21:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello. I confess to not understanding what I said wrong at the Donkey punch AfD. I thought I was very polite, and yet in your edit summary, you say that I'm being "naughty" and "shouting people down". I don't actually agree that it's a good idea to use the word "vote" at all in connection with AfDs, for the reason that I have seen many, many people get very wrong ideas about those discussions, and I know the power of innocently chosen words to carry unintended connotations. Still, I think I presented that idea very civilly, and I don't understand your apparent umbrage. I didn't tell you what to do, and I heged my feelings about the word "vote" with "IMO" so as not to come across too stridently. If I'm was rude to you, please tell me where and how, so I may apologize. My intention is not to be "naughty", so if I'm being naughty, I've failed, and would like to improve. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:37, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I dunno, man. If you found my edit summary (which came after you accused me of "naughtiness") patronising or glib... I didn't try to put that into it. I tried to express myself as clearly and politely and sincerely as I could without betraying too much that I was hurt by your comments. I know that hurtness leads to lashing out, and I don't want to do that. I was upset when I wrote that, and I guess I could have left off the words "kind" and "sir", but I was choking down the word "dickhead". (No, I don't condiser you a dickhead, but that's how I was feeling, right then.) Until then, I'd treated you fully respectfully, and you chose to use an edit summary to lash out at me. I was (and still am) genuinely hurt by that. If you find it surprising that people might mistake AfDs for majority votes, then you haven't seen as many AfDs as I have, because I find it completely normal and expected, and necessary to work against, by choosing one's words carefully. I wasn't trying to mischaracterize your statement; I was suggesting, as I still believe, that choosing to use the word "vote" misleads people, however clever you suppose everyone is. Why did you choose to read bad intentions into my polite statement? Besides, never having interacted with you in an AfD, how do I know that you know that they aren't majority votes, until we've talked about it? Plenty of people make that mistake, and I don't hold it against them, but they should be told what's really happening, at some point, and being the one to tell them doesn't make me an asshole. Furthermore, I don't consider using the word "recommendation" to be obfuscation, but simply choosing a synonym that doesn't carry connotations that I know all too well will be read into the word by too many people. Why not give people a little more benefit of the doubt before you decide they're being "naughty"? I certainly never supposed that about you; I still haven't. I'd appreciate your apologising for reading bad intentions into my statements, frankly. It was unnecessary and hurtful. Check the chronology - you assumed I was being "naughty" before I was "glib". I had only been polite and respectful to you, until then, even if I betrayed my umbrage afterwards by calling you "kind sir". -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:45, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Are you British, by chance? I've noticed a couple of English contributors using the word "naughty". When I (an American) hear it, I hear it as an accusation of not only bad behavior, but childishness. I wouldn't call an adult naughty, unless I was trying to insult them. Who knew? I'm glad to know you didn't intend it the way I read it. We live and learn. I hope it's clear by now that I wasn't being deliberately contrarian, or reversing my position. In fact, you're the first person in my 4 years here who's suggested to me that "vote" wouldn't be understood by the average reader as "majority vote". If you read my comments realizing that I consider the primary connotation of "vote" to include some idea of deciding "by the numbers", then you'll realize I've been consistent, though you might suggest that I'm misusing vocabulary to do so. I do understand what you're saying about our "votes", and frankly, it's a common bit of miscommunication that we (Wikipedia) could do more to obviate. Ideally, we would have an essay explaining what so many people mean when they say "AfD isn't a vote", which I've read hundreds of times (the mantra, which works for some, and seems to just irritate others). You are correct that the intended meaning is much more subtle than the words "not a vote" manage to convey. Lately I've noticed people referring to the opinions they express at AfDs and RfAs as "!votes", using the computer science symbol for "not". I saw a good half dozen of those before I realized what people were trying to express. Anyway, I hope we have a chance to work together with less misunderstanding in the future. Cheers. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I left a response to your remark on the relevant talk page; but in case you are not back in the vicinity for a while I would like to make it clear that the first paragraph of my remarks was not intended for you. I thought this would be clear from the context, but I apologise if I inadvertently caused offence. White Guard 23:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for you response and the information. I am still fairly new, as you may have gathered. Anyway, I've now arranged my remarks in the above to make it absolutely clear to whom the were addressed. Best wishes. White Guard

rotfl -- But Bob Dole does like blocking vandals! Loved the comment on your recent revert. Peace. SkerHawx 16:30, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Just realised I removed your reference in the Trial of Saddam Hussein here. I hope you don't mind. There was an edit conflict and I didn't quite look properly. There doesn't seem to be any need to re-add your reference as they're both from the BBC. Nil Einne 04:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I have thought about it, and decided that it would be better to put my answers on your talk page and vice-versa, if that is acceptable to you.

First of all, concerning the WMDs which Iraq is supposed to have/ have had. It is clearly fact, 100% undisputed that Iraq had at least chemical weapons, during the past, Chemical Ali after all, is not a name given to that person because he had a tendency to look in his friend's medicine cabinets. If Saddam had WMD in 2003 remains an open question, certainly not a "proven" fact, especially since they could have been moved to Iran or Syria (probably Syria) or simply have been buried in the vast empty spaces of Iraq. They might even be in the hidden hands of either millitants (unlikely to be sure), Syrians, Iranians or one of the numerous Iraqi millitias (especially the Kurdish Peshmerga). Suffice to say, I consider myself a relatively rational right-winger, but the case has not been proven in either direction.

That said, my primary rebuttal is that Saddam, even if he did not possess Chemical weapons (a fact unproven) clearly possesed them during the Iran-Iraq war and in the aftermath of Gulf War I, when he used them agaisnt Kurdish citizens of Iraq. I agree, however, that WMD was a mistaken basis for the conflict, I would have simply waited until the next time the Iraqis shot at either a Coaliton aircraft (happened periodically) or attacked a Kuwaiti patrol boat or some such... either of which is an act of war (not the war was ever exactly over, since maintaining an air embargo is a de facto act of war.)

About the 100%, I can only say, it is never better to wait until Pearl Harbor to intercept the Japanese Navy (for example), since it would have been awful to try to remove Saddam after he had done something like a Mustard attack on Kuwait City or a similar sized city in Saudi Arabia (killing tens of thousands, if not millions) as it would have been vastly easier for the USN to subdue Japan with all of those battleships remaining in the arsenal (and of course, they could've been used agaisnt land targets in occupied Europe as well), as opposed to removing an army spraying around chemical attacks throughout that part of the middle east.

Concerning the U.N.... I have long been a proponent of the United States and the U.K. (and Australia, Japan, China, and eventually India) forming an Anglo-Sphere as a counter weight to the PROC, and to provide assistance agaisnt the threat of millitant Islam. English language wouldn't be the primary link, but rather Democracy (whether constitutional or parliamentary) and eventually Turkey and Israel would also be brought in as junior partners. Mark Steyn has been the primary booster of that idea. France and the other European states would not be brought in, because its about time that the EU paid for its own defence. The U.N. is and remains a place for places like the United States and Japan to pay for the anti-US, anti-zionist (sometimes outright anti-semitic) and extremely corrupt U.N. The main beneficiary of the U.N. remains European countries, particularly France, who can check what they see (with some justification) as excessive U.S. influence and power, and the various Arab states who can use it as a platform to attack Israel (since they have failed so spectatularly on many occasions to disloge Israel millitarily). Cheers V. Joe 20:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

The WMD issue is as much of a proven fact as anything of this nature can be. There were no WMD at the time of the invasion; of course they existed previously and were used in the Iran-Iraq war and elsewhere. I believe I'm right in saying that even George Bush now admits this. The possibility that Iraq would transfer its most potent weapons to a hostile neighbour (I have lived in Iran; they utterly despise the Iraqis and are just about the only ones who have gained anything from the current situation, ironically enough) is ludicrous. It is far less likely than, for example, the United States volunteering to donate its nuclear arsenal to Mexico (a strong ally by comparison), no strings attached, which we surely both agree is not going to happen any time soon. It is telling in that regard that the portion of the Iraqi airforce that managed to flee to Iran in 1991 was never returned! Once bitten, twice shy as they say, and I doubt if they'd fall for the same trick twice. The "Iraqi WMD" might be in the hands of militants or whomever, but then again they might be in the hands of space aliens from the planet Zargon. There is an equal weight of evidence for both propositions. So, the case for war based on the ongoing threat of WMD was false. So you offer two alternative possibilities: a) punishment for attacking coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zone, which was regularly done anyway whenever an Iraqi battery attacked or made threatening moves toward a coalition aircraft; b) as a pre-emptive measure, which basically is a rehash of the WMD case that we now know is fundamentally invalid. It's also morally wrong; you are essentially arguing in favour of convicting a criminal before the crime has been committed. That's a very dangerous game. To employ your Pearl Harbour analogy; it is one thing to ambush the Japanese in December 1941 when they are approaching the target, adopting an offensive posture, and where intelligence reliably suggests that an attack is inevitable. That is self-defence. It is quite another to pre-emptively destroy it in 1935, just on the off-chance that it might be used aggressively- in actual fact, that's not a long way away from the kind of thinking that was actually behind the Japanese attack on PH anyway. One wonders if the Second World War would now be remembered as quite such a heroic struggle if the European allies or the US had struck first against Germany and Japan. For a more everyday example, consider that I believe I'm correct in saying that a disproportionate number of crimes are committed by economically poor individuals who are male members of ethnic minorities. Should we therefore lock up every black kid from a poor area because statistics suggest that one day he might commit a crime? No right-thinking person would support that.

There is in other words a big moral difference between a war of agression and a war of defence. Put simply, one is right, and one is wrong. In modern societies, citizens do not contribute to their armies for the sake of conquest.

As for your idea- I myself am a long-standing proponent of the idea that the EU should form a Euro-Sphere as a counterweight (and note I use the term counterweight, not rival) to the United States and China. I presume you are aware that the UK is a full member of the European Union (it seems from your comment that you might not be)? I'm not certain that China or India (do you consider China to be a functioning democracy??) are going to be too thrilled at the prospect of joining an "Anglo-Sphere", not least because they would outnumber the "Anglo-Saxon" population of such an alliance (not a description I'm comfortable with) by a factor of about 10 to 1 . I wonder if what you are really advocating is a new US-dominated pan-national organisation, a la NATO, adjusted to account for the current geopolitical situation? I struggle to envisage a situation where the US, China and perhaps even India are ever going to agree to co-operate in any organisation where one of them alone is not the dominant party. I strongly agree that a more robust EU defence mechanism is warranted, although I can only point out that the current US govt has been (to speak euphemistcally) less than enthusiastic regarding the prospect of, for example, the EU Rapid Reaction force and similar suggestions. On occasions where international forces have been offered to relieve the perceived burden on the US (I'm thinking particularly of NATO's invocation of Article 5 during the Afghanistan campaign) the response has again been met somewhat unenthusiastically, at least initially). Thanks for your comments, Badgerpatrol 03:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)