User talk:Bomberswarm2

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Bomberswarm2! Thank you for your contributions. I am Dismas and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Dismas|^(talk) 10:31, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Gino and Mark Stocco

The article Gino and Mark Stocco has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Article fails WP:NOTNEWS

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. AussieLegend (✉) 05:45, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Gino and Mark Stocco for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Gino and Mark Stocco 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/Gino and Mark Stocco 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 notice from the top of the article. AussieLegend (✉) 14:22, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

November 2015

Hello, I'm Doniago. I noticed that you made a change to an article, American Dad!, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. DonIago (talk) 16:41, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Who is Mike Shennan?

Open Mike is not a Wikipedia page. Xx236 (talk) 10:44, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bomberswarm2, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

Grayfell (talk) 07:09, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

December 2016

You are suspected of sock puppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then, if you wish to do so, respond to the evidence at [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/{{{1}}}]]. The sock account has been blocked per the evidence at SPI. Future puppetry will result in this account being blocked. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:20, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted edit on First inauguration of Lyndon B. Johnson

I removed this statement from the article, which I later found you had added: "As of 2017, it is also the last official inaugration (sic) to take place on a day other than January 20th." That is plainly incorrect because the inauguration of Gerald Ford occurred on August 9, 1974. (Others might also count Reagan's second inauguration and either or both of Obama's, but I wouldn't.) I didn't flag it as vandalism because it seems to have been a mere factual error, quite possibly because LBJ was the last President to be sworn in due to the death of his predecessor (Ford's predecessor Nixon resigned), as well as the last President sworn in by anyone other than a Chief Justice. --RBBrittain (talk) 07:56, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Conflict of Interest regarding User:Bomberswarm2. Thank you. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 16:09, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cheeseburgers were first popularized in the United States during the 1920s and 30s.

I think this user is pretty alright. Bit odd, but totally cool. They are an equal peer and try to stay NPOV. I'm personally glad they are on Wikipedia. Hopefully, this post doesn't bother them. If it does, they can just remove it. XD Endercase (talk) 18:48, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

May 2017

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors. Rather than calling someone lazy, perhaps read what I actually wrote. I said it's too difficult to go through history to find exactly the most recent occurrence, not finding a reference too difficult; I said the record is too difficult unless ref explicitly states so. Your initial edit of adding the note was incorrect by stating it was the first time in VFL/AFL history and you made an unwarranted assumption, I corrected it by removing it and saying it wasn't true. Please remember before adding information on Wikipedia that everything needs to be cited and please avoid adding incorrect information based on an assumption in the future. Flickerd (talk) 14:12, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

YES

its good to meet someone here! have you heard of PINGAS?75.171.21.21 (talk) 00:39, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Bomberswarm2. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alert

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

— Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 12:58, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bomberswarm2! Questions about the above “Alert”? I wrote a quick & dirty FAQ—check it out here. If you have any questions about policies or editing or anything else just ask me on my talk page :-) – Lionel^(talk) 05:07, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

you should not be allowed to edit this website

you have a long history of breaking wiki rules and to show how much your actively trying to make Wikipedia worse 1.the 1972 New York edit clearly trying to make nixon look good 2.the bellwether edit once again trying to make the republicans look good backing it up with an unrelated source 3.Massachusetts once again trying to make the republicans look good oh yippee the states former governor won one percent more than the guy that lost Indiana super 4.1948 polls showed Clinton leading by just 6 electoral votes hardly a landslide 5.home states thats still his home state 6.d.c 72 how is winning 22% notable 7.ingratiation come on 8.that time you just used a sock puppet to vandalize the birther page and then claimed discrimination classy

and those are just the ones i've found so do us all a favour just stop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drowningseagull (talk • contribs) 09:43, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Error in 1992 Montana Presidential Election Map

In the 1992 Montana election map you produced, there is an error for one county: Hill County was actually won by Clinton with ~45% of the vote, whereas the map shows it being won by Bush instead. 47.19.33.202 (talk) 16:27, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Bomberswarm2. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

December 2018

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. 331dot (talk) 09:54, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Bomberswarm2 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Blocked for what? What is this garbage about me using an account called Drowning seagull? Several months ago this troll started reverting my edits and leaving messages like the one a few posts above this on my talk page (and look back in my talk page history, there were several more that I deleted because they were just baseless attacks and threats). I searched in the Wikipedia WP:xxx pages for a way to report DrowningSeagull as harrassing me, but I couldn't find a simple page to post a link to my talk page to, so I decided to ignore what he was doing. And now months later you ban me for no reason? Where is this so called admission of "having used User:Drowningseagall to vandalize"? Because I would to see it, since DrowningSeagull is an account that is not mine, rather someone who has harassed me for months. Nevermind, I just found this pathetic "confession" on Drowningseagull's talk page, which I went to to try to find out what this had to do with me; "plz unblock i wont vandalized i performed constructive edits on me Bomberswarm2 account Yes, there is no doubt, this is defiantly a confession, a horrendously misspelled line of zero effort garbage. Let me guess, if he had of written 331dot instead of bomberswarm2 you would be banned, right? So If insead of this, I wrote "me sorry, I am good edir on account named xxxxx" any random account name I typed there would be banned? Edit: After looking at that 'guide to appealing blocks', apparently I should post evidence here. So here's two I quickly found on my talk page history, telling me never to edit wikipedia again, following which he would revert dozens of my edits I made on various political articles, on the claim of 'bias', and every few days, revert another one of my edits. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bomberswarm2&diff=863686734&oldid=845953120 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bomberswarm2&diff=839115894&oldid=821930937

Accept reason:

After looking into this, I'm pretty certain this is a frame-up job by Drowningseagull. I am removing the block, with apologies to Bomberswarm2. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:55, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To another reviewer, I must leave my computer and cannot look at this closely for a bit, if I made a gross error feel free to unblock. 331dot (talk) 10:27, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Although I saw the comment by Drowningseagall (talk · contribs) claiming to be Bomberswarm2, as see no evidence that this is correct. Unless there's an good hand/bad hand issue here (and I see no evidence of that either) I feel the block is unjustified. I will raise at WP:AN for more opinions. O Still Small Voice of Clam (formerly Optimist on the run) 10:51, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for my error in blocking you and the problems it caused you. I would understand you not forgiving this- I can only say that I have learned from this and will work to be different in the future. Please accept my apologies. Thank you. 331dot (talk) 22:33, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Joo Molotov attempted to frame you again. --Yamla (talk) 11:04, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Big chungas

I hate cats — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joo Molotov (talk • contribs) 23:16, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An invitation to discussion

I kindly invite you to the discussion on Template talk:Infobox election#The Bolding issue to decide whether to bold the winner in the election infobox. Lmmnhn (talk) 19:17, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to the final vote on the bolding issue

Thank you for participating in the bolding issue of the election infobox earlier. We are now holding a final vote in order to reach a clear and final consensus. Please take a moment to review our discussion and vote in Template talk:Infobox election#Final voting. Lmmnhn (talk) 14:52, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:14, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Other account

Can you explain this? User talk:DrowningSeagull is based Acroterion (talk) 12:06, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Acroterion, Look at this. Megan☺️ ^{Talk to the monster} 12:22, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Acroterion, And this, i think its proper to revoke TPA Megan☺️ ^{Talk to the monster} 12:23, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I already looked at that and at Bomberswarm (talk · contribs) Acroterion (talk) 12:24, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How about looking at the section above labeled "December 2018" or ask @331dot: . Doing this would of been far more useful than wasting my time with this obvious well known troll again. Bomberswarm2 (talk) 01:58, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Burn for a flock of live baby seagulls

Hi, Bomberswarm2! Re. Burn for You not being on Live Baby Live, are you thinking of the DVD movie rather than the audio CD?

Side note: DrowningSeagull is back under a couple of new names and still claiming to be you. He won’t last long though.

Cheers! Pelagic ( messages ) – (13:57 Sat 07, AEST) 03:57, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:28, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:30, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:08, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:40, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

January 2024

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making personal attacks towards other editors.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. – bradv 15:20, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

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

Bomberswarm2 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I apologise for my immature postings and attack directed at Hilo48. When I first read his reply, I believed they were saying no matter what evidence was provided, they would never make that edit to the article no matter what evidence was provided, and unfortuantly I didn't re-read what they haad written or re-evaluate the value of what I was asking to be added, or the consequences of what I wrote. When I discovered I had been banned and understood what Hilo was saying, I decided it would be inappropriate to request an unblock immediately, and that I should stay away for some time. If I am unblocked, I will make sure to check my posts and edits are appropiate and be sure to not attack users again. Bomberswarm2 (talk) 2:23 am, 31 October 2024, Thursday (1 month, 17 days ago) (UTC−8)

Accept reason:

I hope we can take it as understood that if you make any of those sorts of edits again, you will be reblocked and you will find it much more difficult to ever be unblocked. Welcome back. El Beeblerino ^{if you're not into the whole brevity thing} 19:39, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No technical evidence of block evasion. I personally don't tolerate behaviour like this user exhibited so won't lift the block myself. It's up to others to determine whether this is an excusable one-time event or indicative of WP:0T behaviour. --Yamla (talk) 10:31, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am inclined to trust that this incident will not recur – it was a one-time lapse, even if egregious. Additionally, it has also been more than six months since the block, so we are in standard offer territory. Therefore, I think a WP:ROPE unblock is a good way forward. @Bradv: Do you have thoughts? House Blaster (talk • he/they) 16:52, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to hear more about the logic behind this edit, particularly on how it relates to our WP:BLP policy. – bradv 17:22, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree that the edit is highly problematic (and we need to hear a good explanation to proceed with unblocking), Stephen Hawking had been dead for almost six years at that point – calling it a BLP issue is a bit of a stretch. House Blaster (talk • he/they) 22:06, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That edit was done after I heard about the Epstein list released that day or the day earlier and Steven Hawking being one of the people involved. When I heard this I went to his wikipedia page to see if any mention of it had been made. It hadn't and I assumed it was being censored by exclusion. I made the suggestion based on what I had read on the talk page not editing the article as I knew it would be controversial and wouldn't last. Wikipedia is not censored so I posted what the edit should be based on what the news articles I had read implied. Since then it's been cleared that there's no evidence or suggestion he was involved. Bomberswarm2 (talk) 19:49, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given your current understanding of how Wikipedia works, what are your current opinions regarding that edit? Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 01:54, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It shouldn't have been made, all it could do was aggravate the situation. I didn't bother to look into what I had heard. You'd need very high proof to put a statement like that in an article, clearly that didn't happen. Bomberswarm2 (talk) 06:01, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Significa liberdade: Adequate? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:32, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 19:40, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bradv: What are your thoughts? Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 02:12, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not prepared to unblock here, but if someone else thinks that this is sufficient I won't argue. Frankly, I don't think that I didn't bother to look into what I had heard is an adequate defence when writing an encyclopedia. – bradv 14:10, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]