User talk:BorgHunter/Archive 2

This is an archive of my talk page from January to February 2006. I don't keep any sort of eye on this page, so if you want to get in touch, try my talk page. Thank you! —BorgHunter

Archives: Greeting | 2005 | Jan–Feb 2006 | Mar–Apr 2006 | May 2006 | May 2006–Nov 2015

Wikipedia:Proposed policy on userboxes

Would you consider supporting 1a? It was at least in part based on your comments about points 3 and 4 of 1 that I presented it. Thanks! (alternatively do you think some sort of step back and agreement on underlying principles is a better approach? I sort of had not envisioned all these proposals yet, I figured getting to agreed on principles was the way to go) ++Lar: t/c 02:01, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

anon IP block

OK, I see. Unfortunately, I reblocked it just before reading your message, go ahead and unblock if you wish. -- Curps 16:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

My Request for Adminship

Greetings, BorgHunter! I wanted to sincerely thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with a final result of 55/14/3. Your support means a lot to me! If you have any questions or input regarding my activities, be they adminly or just a "normal" user's, or if you just want to chat about anything at all, feel free to drop me a line. Cheers! —Nightstallion (?) 07:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Alpha Phi Alpha

the Notable Alphas paragraph that everyone seems to want to change was originally a simple parpagraph about 5 alpha were honored with a commemortive postal stamp. now this fact is a simple footnote at the end of the paragraph. The category Alpha Phi Alpha brothers contains the names of all members with articles on this website. Please put the parargraph back to the original which would be Saturday's verstion. thanks Ccson 15:25, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Approval

For all your hard work and willingness to do something you loathed, I give you approval!

I'm Jokermage and I approve this Wikipedian! Paid for by the Jokermage for Chief Librarian Campaign.

Jokermage ^{"Timor Mentum Occidit"} 03:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Yay! ::pins userbox on shirt and beams:: —BorgHunter (talk) 03:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Baseball

Here is baseball-reference.com's wiki. Also excellent. I've worked on it a bit. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 14:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Baseball Wikicity

Hi BorgHunter, As you can see, I'm telling baseball fans on Wikipedia about the baseball Wikicity you started. I certainly hope you'll start contributing to it again! Also, I see from your user page that you also live in St. Petersburg! You should come to the Wikipedia meetup that will be at the Panera Bread on 4th St. N. on January 14th. I'm not sure what time it will start yet, but if you're interested in coming, be sure to let me know and I'll tell you what time it starts once I know. Jimbo will be there, along with many other long time Wikipedians, so a good time should be had by all. Thanks BorgHunter, and keep in touch. Googie Man 14:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC).

I've been considering the meetup. I don't know if I have to work on that Saturday or not—I'll find out. —BorgHunter (talk) 15:34, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Regarding NeoWin

Hinotori has left a comment regarding it on the talk page; it's worth a look. My opinion is thus: Anons and new user sockpuppets were attacking the page and erasing NoneLoud, Hinotori and other people's contribs... so, given that, instead of full protection, why not instead try putting NeoWin into Semi-Protection? It would allow reg users to edit the page, while keeping out sockpuppets. Daniel Davis 23:30, 7 January 2006 (UTC) (Doom127)

Semi-protection would be horridly unfair. This is a dispute, not simple vandalism. Unless you have evidence to the contrary. —BorgHunter (talk) 23:36, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's on the page, as I note in the comment below posted within seconds of Doom127's. -- Hinotori^{(talk)|(ctrb)} 23:40, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

That's attacking the editor. I'm asking how the edits are vandalism. They do not seem to subvert the article or the normal functioning of Wikipedia in any way. Again, if you have evidence to the contrary, I'm open to it. —BorgHunter (talk) 23:43, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

He's not supposed to be editting AT ALL. That's the whole point. As for evidence of vandalism, blanking lots of text is pretty damn close to vandalism to me. -- Hinotori^{(talk)|(ctrb)} 23:48, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

If I were involved in the editing, I'd get rid of the "list of admins and mods" too, myself. That doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Oh, and I don't deal with accusations of sockpuppeting and evading blocks; that's not my speciality. It's too complicated, and you need to get a checkuser from one who has those privileges to be absolutely sure. If you do have a sockpuppeting complaint, try WP:AN. My stance is based entirely on content and not editor context. —BorgHunter (talk) 23:51, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your contribution to the discussion on the page. I put a response regarding it on that page (concerning the content of the mentioned users reversions). As for a checkuser, I requested one regarding User:Microsoft Fanboy and the suspicious nature of his edits a while back, but I guess it kinda got lost in the shuffle. Daniel Davis 23:58, 7 January 2006 (UTC) (Doom127)

On the Neowin Talk Page you said you would give the user time to justify his actions. He has not done so in the alloted time, nor has he ever done so in all of the time he has been blanking and reverting the page. The Neowin article is far from finished, but the more recent article that was produced by the community had far more structure and far less POV to it than the one that it keeps being reverted to. The edits by the anonymous editors that seem to originate from Brazil4linux (and Microsoft Fanboy) have done nothing but set the article back by removing hard work that everyone but him thinks is appropriate for the subject. The problem is that new IP addresses will just continue to blank or revert the article recklessly. That is why I am asking you personally to please put the article under semi-protection for the time being until the user gets bored with vandalizing the article. That way others can continue to develop the article and fix things (such as the listing of administrators) while users who want to vandalize the article can be kept under check.

I hope you agree that this would be the best action for the time being.

-Noneloud 00:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: Neowin

Just wanted to let you know that I posted the reason why Doom127 and I are reverting his edits on the Talk:Neowin page. He uses sockpuppets, is a known vandal, and has already been blocked from editting, but is trying to evade that. If he wants to discuss his changes, I'm more than willing to do so, but I think a look at previous attempts to do so, most notably on the Talk:Ken Kutaragi page, will show that that is unlikely at best.

-- Hinotori^{(talk)|(ctrb)} 23:31, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Responded to you

I responded to your comments on my talk page, on my talk page. --Durin 03:13, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Grammar

(continuation from User talk:Kelly Martin#Grammar fascist)

You seem to be forgetting that there are some people for whom English is not your first language (in fact, I'd guess it's really common on the Internet). For a humorous take on the situation from the POV of a non-native English speaker, see m:Guerilla non-eEnglish spelling and grammar campaign. --cesarb 16:07, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for your support! I have decided to withdraw my nomination, due to growing oppose votes due to my lack of experence (and because I have userboxes on my page?). I will now aim to continue, and broadern my scope from userboxes. I will accept a nomination, should one be made, in 1–2 months. Ian¹³_ID:540053 18:18, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Need you to look over something

Hi,

I'm taking steps to lodge a formal complaint against User:Theodore7 due to various reasons that I'm sure that you are aware of, or have experienced by now. Right now I have a rough draft of the complaint that I would like to have some people look over, add to, correct, and sign if they agree with it. I've never had to do anything like this before, so if you would please take some time to take a look at it and give me some feedback, suggestions, support, etc., then I would really appreciate it. It can be found here: [1] Thank you. --Chris Brennan 06:25, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

RFC/KM

You commented on Kelly Martin's second RfC. it is up for archival. you may vote at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Kelly_Martin#Archiving_this_RfC. CastAStone|^(talk) 03:47, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Fair use image

If it is against the rules to have that on my page, then why do you not care about the other people who have it? User:Redvers gave it to me as a 'Thank You' for participating in the Esperanza Elections! So why now? Wikizach 22:31, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I didn't check to see if other user pages were using it. Thank you for pointing that out. I'm pretty laissez-faire in my opinions of what should go in the User namespace, but fair use images absolutely don't belong there. Thanks for being patient with me while I go uglifying your user page. :-P —BorgHunter ^alt (talk) 22:33, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

User Gallery

Oh, would that be a violation? I had no idea. I try to stay out of copyright-related stuff...it just makes my head hurt. Naturally, that results in me occasionally accidentally breaking the rules. Anyways, it's gone now. Thanks for the tip =) ♠PMC♠ 00:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

No problem. It's always good to be on the safe side. —BorgHunter ^alt (talk) 00:17, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

It's time!

Hi BorgHunter. Thank you for nominating me for adminship, I have responded to your questions at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Can't sleep, clown will eat me. If there is anything else I can or should do, please let me know. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:37, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

RFA voting

Hey there, thanks for letting me know about the voting, but I don't think you looked into it well enough! Yes I started editing in 04, but I had very few edits! about 480 of my edits have come in the last week, as I've been becoming extremely active on the CVU. That's why I hadn't voted, since all my edits came in the last week, but thanks for letting me know! --Lightdarkness 03:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikifun round 12

This is to invite you to participate in the next game of Wikifun.
Round 12 will begin at 11:00 UTC on Friday January 20. 2006.
-- Ravn 17:08, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Protection of Khreschatyk

The edit conflict there was rather slow going and there were no wild revert wars. As such, there is no need to keep the article locked. That's just my opinion of course. --Irpen 16:22, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I haven't realized that you have been promoted to adminship relatively recently. I am sorry that you fell into this typical trap that troll users set for unsuspecting admins to get them involved and in order get an upper hand is the content dispute where they find their position otherwsie indefencible. See this for more. --Irpen 18:43, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how anyone's getting any upper hand here. Though I do see your point, and the article is unprotected. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 19:43, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Candidacy of User: Can't sleep, clown will eat me

Just an observation, I have heard it said that too much defense by the nominator can turn some voters off. I have no idea if it's really true or not. This one looks close, I'd hate to see it fail, even for a stupid reason like that. (I am one of the "support" voters) All the best. ++Lar: t/c 13:52, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

My nomination has apparently sparked some sort of larger debate amongst current administrators, which would probably best be discussed on the Village Pump or perhaps WP:AN, I'm not sure. In any case I just wanted to thank you both for supporting me, and if things do not work out this time that's no big deal either, I'll still be glad to help to the best of my abilities. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 14:16, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

IMHO, the debate has been simmering for some time, as far back as November I saw signs of concern about RfAs, and maybe even farther back, and had already been getting started (with the userbox issue, and other things, bringing things to a head) before your nomination happened. If you hadn't been nominated now, but some other candidate with a short history had, they'd be getting the scrutiny you are... (this from someone with more time here, but less edits, than you... take it for what it's worth). Hope that helps, don't despair, hang in there, etc... ++Lar: t/c 08:25, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

84.231.242.141 vandalism

Sorry to bother you, but about 20 minutes ago or so I reported 84.231.242.141 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) to WP:AIV due to high speed page blanking. Could you please block this address? It's still going. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 14:14, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

RfA nomination

As you're active on WP:RFA, I thought you might be able to provide comment on this. I've been nominated for admin by User:The Neokid, however I strongly suspect that I have not got enough edits or fully active months behind me to succeed in a vote. Do you agree? Any insight appreciated :) Petros471 19:29, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I would tend to agree. Another month or two of good, solid editing should be enough. Should you go for it, I'd predict around 65% support...and 75% is generally the minimum for consensus. You're close, just be patient a bit. For what it's worth, I'd vote support at this point, but many of my peers would disagree. 1500 edits is a good minimum to shoot for. (I passed around 1000, but I had been here for almost a year.) —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 19:44, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks for your advice and support. What's the procedure for turning down for now?- is there some way that I need to officially decline the nomination or do I leave is at it is for a while then accept it at a later date? Petros471 20:12, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Just say you decline on the RfA page and let your nominator know. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 17:04, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Dont be a dick? SO why are you one?

SO you put the dont be a dick thing on you user page then go aginst it by being a dick, [2]. Considering that you have never question me directly on the subject, your comments are more then likely based on your observations on those dicks like yourself who also have also never addressed me directly on the question, but seem to know what i think, and what my motives are, which i can assure you they dont. SO basicaly becides the gay question, you seem to be narow minded on the expression of opinions that go aginst that of the majority. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 08:12, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

It's a testament to your legendary voting pattern, I suppose. Incidentally, why do you think saying that Masssiveego is like you is a personal attack? It's a statement of fact; your voting patterns are quite similar. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 16:55, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Can't Sleep, Clown will... RfA

Howdy,

What can I say: you got me? :) That was extremely observant on your part, and I am impressed. Truth is, if I had noticed Izehar's short tenure at the time of the RfA, I very well might have passed it over as one I could neither support nor oppose -- I just missed that detail. Still, I admire your recall! Amazed, Xoloz 16:54, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

It's less amazing than merely observant. I noticed Izehar's RfA in the comments section and skimmed through all the supports, and just happened to notice your name there. For what it's worth, I don't want you to change your vote or anything, I was just pointing out an interesting anomaly. I replied to BD2412's Neutral vote the same way. In any case, based on some advice I've received, I am going to cease replying to oppose votes on the RfA, even though I'm an opinionated bastard with too much time on his hands. That can be a dangerous combination, I think. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 17:08, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I, personally, welcome any comments regarding my oppose votes, especially genuinely interesting ones like yours. I knew you were being friendly rather than snarky -- emoticons are great for that ;) -- and I can't imagine anyone disliking a comment like the one you gave me. Some people are touchy, though...

FWIW, RfA voting is more an art than exercise in strict rules -- I waived my normal concerns over tenure-length and voted for you out of a Trek-solidarity, after all. ;) If the editor in question had been named "Can't sleep, Q will eat me", who knows? :) More seriously, I do wonder how many of the supports are motivated solely by the editor's stupendous username, whether merely having a clever name is an asset in RfA's, and whether (if that is so) this fact of RfA life is a good thing. Best wishes, Xoloz 17:26, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Heads up

Just letting you know I found this comment on Wikipedia:Requests for Adminship/CCan't Sleep, Clown will eat me (or however it's spelt/capitalised):

#Can not support nominations brought by users like BorgHunter (talk • contribs) who attack other users for no reason, see. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 08:17, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Wait a second, so you're opposing because he was nominated by BorgHunter? Please see WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA yourself. Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 02:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

And by the way, your comment was nothing like a personal attack. Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 02:10, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

NoSeptember's RfA

Thank you, BorgHunter, for your support of my RfA. If you ever need for anything, please contact me. I will do my best in my new role and welcome your feedback. NoSeptember ^talk 13:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

UDUIW

I, Shell (DotShell), would like to personally invite you to join the UDUIW. You can do this by adding our userbox or simply adding yourself to our category. Thank you for your time. --Shell 03:04, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

WP:ANOT

Bwahahahaha! Fantastic! Needs a category or two, and WP:RFA needs to link to it. Nicely done! --Durin 20:28, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

He's back again.

Just thought you should know that banned user B4L is back to his old tactics at Neowin. That is, he's using his User:Microsoft Fanboy sock and his traced 201.29.xx addresses (right back to his old veloxzone.br) address to continually revert the page back to the same old thing that he was pushing over a month ago.

That is... his version, which he's reverted to at least twice today today, happens to be the same one that his sockpuppet was forcing onto the page way back on the 1st, which of course is the same one that Brazil's sock has been forcing since Christmas.

Now, whether or not you and I agree on whether a staff list (which is an edit by a different, noninvolved user) should be in there, I think you would agree that B4L's edits that erase everything and put the page back to a state it was in over a month ago must be halted. I would recommend (since we have legit editors who still want to work on it) that we semi-protect the page. That would prevent his socks from damaging it.

What is your opinion on this matter? Daniel Davis 01:53, 26 January 2006 (UTC) (Doom127)

Classic Rock

Hello. I was wondering if you would like to participate in my classic rock survey. I'm trying to find the most like classic rock song. There is more information on my user page. Hope you participate! RENTA^{FOR LET?} 02:30, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[3] ;) —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 02:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Theodore7

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Theodore7. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Theodore7/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Theodore7/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 20:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

eMail

I may have lost your eMail Fred Bauder 13:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Nooooo! I spent a really long time working on it, too! And I didn't save it anywhere else! —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 22:25, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Commons: Mac Logo Grey

Hey BorgHunter,

You have, understandably, put a copyright violation tag on an image I uploaded on commons named Mac Logo Grey. Here's a copy of the justification I just added after your comment:

---

Copyvio

I don't think that a remade Apple logo is relicensable. I think it is fair use regardless of who made it, and it doesn't belong on the Commons. BorgHunter 00:53, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Free Use of Mac Logo Grey

The reason why I believe I am allowed to publish this as my own work - and therefore GPL - is that it is based on a character provided by default in about just any font that comes with an Apple computer (I haven't checked the others). Therefore when I use it to stylise something out of it, I believe it is as legitimate as if I was stylising say the letter "A". I do understand that this is subject to interpretation since it is artwork that could be confused with the official logo, but I don't think this should fall under "fair use" because it is original artwork. Still, I will leave this to the admin's decision.

---

I am at your disposal should you want to discuss this interpretation but I will understand if it is removed. I think it would be sad because why provide tools if it is illegal to use them, but since I'm not a jurist...

Ciao,
Stéphane Thibault 12:52, 5 February 2006 (UTC) ^Talk

Template Pedophile

I didn't blank it, I deleted it as an attack template then recreated it blank. That is NOT listed under 'simple vandalism'. Hope this satisfies the urge for process, and thanks for your concern - David Gerard 23:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and userbox templates (particularly trolling ones) are not "Wikipedia content" either. Whoops, two strikes! - David Gerard 23:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Your last undeletion of the template was just undone by Jimbo. I eagerly await you placing the blanking warning on his page, to demonstrate your evenhandedness and lack of any personal view of the conflict - David Gerard 23:49, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Desysopping

Jimbo Wales has temporarily desysopped several administrators involved in the pedophilia userbox wheel war, yourself included, until such time as the Arbitration Committee can sort the matter out. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Desysoppings Raul654 07:00, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) Yes, you are no longer an admin, check WP:AN. I have to say that I am shocked. I am sure that this is only temporary.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 07:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Inappropriate behavior

I find your behavior and comments tonight unbecoming and inappropriate for an administrator. Your comments on User talk:David Gerard are uncivil at best. Using a blanking warning template for an administrator who had deleted a page is patronizing and provocative, as if it were a new user "testing" Wikipedia out instead of an experienced Wikipedian and former arbitrator. What made you feel this would be an appropriate comment? Nor could his comment be construed as a personal attack, since not only does it not refer to anyone in particular, it does not state that they possess those qualities rather (and in fact, he expects them not to have them). Why use vandalism templates and threats of blocking rather than discussion? Especially with a fellow administrator? Do you really feel that this sort of behavior is constructive? Fortunately, David Gerard did not rise to the repeated provocation, but with a less-mature editor, this could have gotten messy. I know one user's opinion probably matters little, but I am quite disappointed to see this response from you; it is not in character. I regretted not getting around to vote in your request for adminship before it closed, but had I seen evidence of this behavior beforehand, I would have certainly opposed the request. I ask you to rethink your approach to resolving/provoking conflict. — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Um. I'm not entirely sure how to respond to this. Calling people "jawdroppingly stupid" is not a personal attack? Warning an administrator for blanking a page which was at the time up for TfD is inappropriate? I was trying, to the best of my ability, to uphold process, and be as dispassionate about it as possible. No one is immune to the rules. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 13:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Upon further review, the ruling on the field is overturned. The vandalism template was indeed in poor taste. It got my point across, but it was in poor taste. I withdraw it. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 14:11, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration

A request for arbitration where you have been listed as a party has been opened by Raul654 (per Jimbo Wales). Please see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pedophilia userbox wheel war, as well as provide evidence at /Evidence and comment on proposals at /Workshop. —Locke Cole • t • c 13:59, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Goooooooooooooaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaalllll

Hi, just wanted to thank you for voting on my RFA, which went through with a count of (58/0/1), far better than I'd expected. I intend to take things slowly and start using the extra abilities gradually, but if there's anything I can do just leave a message. Cheers, CTOAGN (talk) 13:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Re: BorgHunter

I don't believe that I accused you of wheel warring, and I apologize if I seemed to imply it. My complaint was specifically in reference to your conduct at User talk:David Gerard. I too have very little tolerance for personal attacks, but I think that threatening after one personal attack to block a user for the next personal attack is a little extreme, especially when the other is an experienced Wikipedia user and not a newcomer; Wikipedia:Blocking policy states "Sysops may block IP addresses or usernames that...[make] excessive personal attacks." While I agree that we must use our judgment and not blindly follow process, I doubt anything positive would have come out of a block; it would serve to inflame, would likely be overturned in minutes, and would likely lead to negative consequences for you as well. Especially since no one else but you seems to consider it a personal attack. It is hard for me to see how it could be construed as one, especially in the absence of a defined recipient and the lack of clear insult (saying "I expect TfD voters not to be stupid" isn't really a personal attack). For that matter, to me, your "And finally...drop the sarcasm, don't be a m:dick" is more of a personal attack, although I certainly wouldn't block you over it. However, I consider this matter resolved, and I appreciate your response to this matter; I wish more users were as reasonable as you. The apology certainly will help to calm matters and demonstrates your good sense as well (and the Arbitration Committee obviously agrees [4], [5]). I look forward to working with you in more productive venues. — Knowledge Seeker দ 22:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Leaving Wikipedia: Apologies to BorgHunter:

NOTE: From Theodore7: My experience as a newcomer to Wikipedia has been horrible. Recently, I lost a good friend in a car accident and had to bury him. My heart is broken. That is why I was away. When I returned, I was surprised to find out that I had been blocked for a week. I did not know this, so had to wait until today to write. After careful consideration due to the bad experiences I've had since joining Wikipedia in December: I am leaving Wikipedia. I apologize to all who have had to spend considerable time on what I believe has been attempts at censorship and a witch-hunt. I also apologize to anyone who has taken offense to me. I did not join Wikipedia to be mean, spiteful, nor to fight with anyone. However, I apologize for my mistakes, and for my comments. They were not meant to do harm to anyone. I thought with my experience, and knowledge that I could be a positive member of the Wikipedia community. I cannot say my experience as a newcomer has been positive, it has not. I don't know why I was attacked, but having seen a good friend suddenly lose his life so horribly, I'm sorry, my heart is just so broken. Please forgive me. I am an experienced journalist & editor, and above all, a kind human being. I do know, however, when I am not wanted. So, I will leave Wikipedia. I am sorry for taking the time of others who have had to spend so much time on the RFC and Arbitration. I did not intend to be such trouble for anyone. I am so sorry.Theo 06:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

His Site

In what way? ElectricRay 14:57, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

He owns it... —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 15:34, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

This project relies on considerable charitable donations and immense, incalculably large charitable contributions, among other things of time and intellectual capital - yours, and mine, and everyone else's. These must give people other than Jimbo - you and me - a stake in the project. I think if it were made clear that Wikipedia was operated on the basis of a dictatorship (in five months editing I have not been aware of this until now), contributions would disappear very quickly. This high-falluting talk of "the Wikimedia Foundation" is basically a sham - what you are suggesting is that this is a one man vanity project. If that is so, I want no part of it, and I don't think i'd be the only one. ElectricRay 17:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. Spread the word far and wide. If you don't want to accept the fact that *somebody* has to manage the servers and public relations, etc., you're not suited for Wikipedia anywhow. I think there's an Anarchopedia or something like that where nobody runs the site. People who won't accept the authority of the people who own the property used to host Wikipedia really don't have any business here. Charitable donations are made with the understanding that there are no strings attached -- people are expecting Jimbo and the Foundation Board to spend the money wisely. So far, there's no reason to doubt their judgement except "OMG WIKIPEDIA'S NOT A DEMOCRACY, WTF???" which really has no bearing on the Board's or Jimbo's competency in managing our affairs. Johnleemk | Talk 17:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Managing the servers requires no more control or power than managing content - there is no implication of any need for autocratic control. Look, I don't have any problem with this world view, as long as it is explicit. I'm just disappointed that I've been hoodwinked for 5 months. But I think that you will find when Wikipedia is reduced to a mixture of (i) the devoted congregation of unquestioning acolytes and (ii) a large number of unregistered vandals, it will lose much of its current attraction. My suspicion is that, therefore, this proposal will be vehemently opposed. Let's see. ElectricRay 18:06, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

It's not a proposal. This is how Wikipedia has been run since its inception; if anything, the process is a bit fairer now, since last time we had two dictators (Jimbo and Larry Sanger) whereas now the Board can step in and tell Jimbo to shut it if he really blows it (an unlikely occurrence). And in case you forgot, somebody has to pay for the servers, manage the accounts, buy new servers, maintain them, talk to the media with some authority (honestly, can you imagine an ordinary Wikipedian spreading his personal idea of what Wikipedia should be among the media?), etc. You tell me how the wiki can do all this. Wikipedia has been run as an autocracy since its founding. So far, there is nothing to indicate this should be changed except the paranoia of some people who can't accept a benevolent dictatorship (but have zero problems whatsoever with private organisations and businesses that, just incidentally, happen to have one CEO/Chairman of the Board/whatever). Johnleemk | Talk 18:12, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Removing remainder of discussion to John's talk page - Borghunter feel free to join if you wish. ElectricRay 18:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

HELP!!!

Please see the Jesus page and block User:Robsteadman for completely destroying the 3RR rule with now more than 7 or 8 reverts. Thanks.Gator (talk) 15:50, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd love to, but I don't have my sysop privileges for a couple days. Try a note on WP:AN/3RR or ask someone else. Sorry. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 16:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Final decision

The arbitration committee has reached a final decision in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pedophilia userbox wheel war case Raul654 23:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Ye Gods! You are fast!

You keep track of a million discussions, etc. with such speed! Are you a robot? How are them amphetamines working? --PistolPower 16:21, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

::grins:: Judicious refreshes of my watchlist helps. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 16:23, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Sure... say, I have some high quality, laboratory grade speed, you interested? Call: 1-800-DEA1 ex. 9411 and ask for Special Age... errr, Special Dealer Miller. --PistolPower 16:27, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

You asked, why am I here? If you disagree with me fine. State your objections. I cannot weed out what you are aluding to. However, keep in mind that you are all of 17. Not to say that age brings superiority, especially not the intellectual kind, but take care not to grow too big for your britches, boy. After all, you are just a nerdy geek who is glued to his computer many hours a day. --PistolPower 21:36, 11 February 2006 (UTC) P.S.: No offense in any way. OK?

Re User:PistolPower, I think he has good intentions, but he has a tendency to communicate by hurling insults at those who he sees himself at odds with (regardless of whether they objectively are). I've been trying to guide him towards a productive outlet for his outrage, but he could use some additional help. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 02:29, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Could you kill some drones for me?

Could you take a look at User:64.194.44.220, User:Science3456, User:Fargo3455 and maybe the other voters at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Other names of large numbers, I suspect they are sock puppets and they/it seem(s) to be disrupting the some other AfD's. Cheers, —Ruud 03:57, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Not trying to be difficult

I stripped off the name because I don't want to slander anyone. Is this admin being grumpy, or am I really out of line?evrik 20:08, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

He has a point, though he could have been a bit nicer about it. It's not aganst policy and it's certainly not a blockable offense, but it's generally a bad idea. A form of historical revisionism. The best thing to do is indeed to apologize to the editor(s) involved, and leave your mistakes be. We are, after all, human, and make mistakes. Leave the ill-conceived comments alone, and instead make amends with the editors involved. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 20:16, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The other issue

I am in the middle of an edit war with another user. The details can be found here. If you poke around and look at the histories, you'll see that it has been going back and forth for about three and a half months. I really don't care about the edits as much as the fact as the other user is being a bully, and has treated me poorly on other pages. I decided to draw the line in the sand just because I refuse to be bullied. The problem is the more I stand up for myself, the worse it gets. By capitulating I feel that the bully wins.evrik 20:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

• Boothy has historically been somewhat...problematic. I would advise not to push it, as it's not about "winning" or "losing," and your honor isn't at stake. We're building an encyclopedia here. If you don't care about the edits, why push it and generate more disruption? —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 20:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • For the record, Boothy struck out my peace overture and made this comment in the edit summery, "burn the olive brach offered in bad faith by a bad faith user" [6]evrik 21:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I want to take a deep breath. This back and forth with Boothy really bothers me, and I’m trying not to take it personally – but I feel, that he is really trying to beat me into some ort of submission to his perspective – as he has on other pages. His statement on another users talk page, about a completely unrelated issue really bothers me. My computer is not accepting cookies this morning, or something is wrong with me logging in. --evrik 15:24, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Re: You!

Copied from: User talk:Knowledge Seeker#You!: Oh, you two. I'm trying to be healthy and it won't help if my head keeps gaining weight. But seriously, BorgHunter, that's extremely kind of you! Is there something specific to which I owe this honor? I very much appreciate hearing that from you. Especially since we didn't meet under the best circumstances. But comments such as this as well as your taking responsibility for your actions show why you were elected to adminship in the first place. You have my full support. I'll definitely be adding this to my "awards" section once I restore it. Encephalon, I value your comments as always. When are you going to go up for adminship?—I've been trying to nominate this guy forever...I think he'd been here less then a month when I first told him I wanted to nominate him once he'd been here longer, but he's been refusing so far.—You now, 'Ceph, you should give Star Trek a chance. The price of seasons 1–3 of The Next Generation just dropped and I bought them—they're on their way to me right now! And don't look to BorgHunter for support—his username's an explicit Star Trek reference. We're everywhere! And I'll have you know that the ships and REU and such are referring to the U.S. Navy and have nothing to do with Star Trek. Jerk! — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:37, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Greetings from the United Federation of Planets

Exterminated that vandal/blocked IP/drone? --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 17:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Not sure who you're talking about, or if you're just being silly. In any case, yes, as a rogue hunter of Borg, I have indeed eliminated many drones. Alas, they have now targeted me as well. :( —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 17:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Proposed policy

As the founder of CVU, I thought you might be interested in the amendment to the blocking policy I proposed. Check it out! —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 19:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Sadly I am not entrusted with admin privilages, however I am investigating your idea. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 23:03, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

Hi BorgHunter,

Thanks for supporting my RfA - hopefully some others will agree! As you will notice - the "image" has been removed from my name... would you suggest altering my posts on the RfA?

Thanks again, Deano (Talk) 00:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Nah, that's not worth the effort. I was just concerned about it per WP:SIG. Thanks for being so responsive! —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 00:54, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok cool - I've never noticed WP:SIG before. I have commented on my RfA page regarding your last comment - hopefully I have explained myself thoroughly enough. Thanks again for your support. DJR (Talk) 14:44, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Just thought I'd add my additional thanks for your change of vote to Strong Support. I'm thoroughly overwhelmed! Hopefully my candidacy should pass - it is at around 83% now - but one must never rest on their laurels! Thanks once again, DJR (Talk) 17:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Re: User:168.213.1.134

Sorry I caught you like that. My block length was ill-considered. I had quickly logged onto Wikipedia to check something, saw the vandalism to your page, saw the other vandalism, and was disturbed enough to institute the long block. I acted hastily as I was in a hurry, but I should have reviewed the block log at a minimum before blocking. I'll be more careful next time. Thanks for letting me know about it! — Knowledge Seeker দ 08:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Re: Annette Steigerwald

I'll leave it be, then... --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:29, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Theodore7

This arbitration case has closed. Theodore7 is banned for six months from editing astrology- or astronomy-related articles. He is also placed on personal attack parole for a year, and is required to use edit summaries for the next six months. These remedies will be enforced by blocking. For further details, please see the case. On behalf of the arbitration committee, Johnleemk | Talk 09:31, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Good articles

Hi - I just made two articles GAs which you'd removed from the self nominations page - Terik and Defaka. You'd said you didn't think there was enough in them to make them good articles, but length isn't really one of the GA criteria and in my opinion these are exactly the kind of article we should be listing on the GA page, as they are broad, well written, and referenced. They're probably too short to be FAs, but I think excellent short articles are one of the main things we should be identifying with GAs.

By the way have you see the wikiproject: Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles? Would be great if you consider signing up as you've done lots of work on GAs. Thanks! Worldtraveller 17:03, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

*shrug* I didn't feel strongly about either; in fact, they were pretty borderline to me. As for the WikiProject, I tend to not sign up for such things anymore. Thanks for the note, though. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 20:06, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

GA established articles

Minor edits are often-overlooked, but essential, contributions to the Wikipedia. The Minor Barnstar is awarded for making minor edits of the utmost quality.

Hello Borghunter. I've seen your hardwork regarding the critiquing and aquisition of {{GA}} templates to the requests on the Self-nominations page.. I wanted to give an gracious thanks and let you know your actions were appreciated. -Zero^Talk 21:47, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Yay! My first true barnstar! Thank ye kindly, Sir Zero. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 04:13, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Adminship

Hey, thanks for the offer! I don't think I'm quite ready yet. I agree that I have to work on my edit summaries, but I think another week or two and I'd be ready. Thanks for the support! Deckiller 16:13, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Your self-nom for Model M Keyboard

Hi, Hunter. I've noticed there is no reference section in Model M Keyboard, which you self-nominated for GA. As far as I know, having references is mandatory for GA. External links can't be substitutes since it is not explicitly mentioned the links are used as references. Care to add the section? --BorgQueen 15:39, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the note, Queen. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 21:48, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

What was wrong the Muhammad cartoons article? :/

I didn't see any comments at the bottom of the talk page, what was wrong with it? Homestarmy 23:27, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Ah, that's because I left the note in the edit summary. Sorry. Anywho, it's far from stable at this point, though once it settles down it would certainly qualify. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 23:34, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Michael Martinez

To be fair, that bit on his talk page from me that he removed wasn't so much a warning since I had already made the complaint at WP:AN3 at the time. It was a reply to this post on my talk page. (I was a bit miffed that he removed it, mind you...) TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:29, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Martinez

So, now that you have made his acquaintance, any suggestions on how I could better approach the situation? Before you again say, 'discuss on talk pages' and 'try for neutral wording' please note that I have. That's the most insignificant of the numerous points on which we disagree, but indicative of the overall problem. In this and other cases I have provided citations of primary sources directly stating my position... and despite that tried to use neutral wording in the article. I think that's pretty reasonable. I can 'prove' my preference by the usual standards employed on Wikipedia, but am willing to go with non-commital language anyway. If that is unacceptable it leaves only allowing information which is at best POV and unverifiable (but seems to me simply 'false') to remain in the articles or some form of dispute resolution. Or is there some other option which I have not considered? --CBDunkerson 14:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

If talk pages have failed, move on to the next step in the dispute resolution process. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 14:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Could I get a few sockchecks?

I'd put this on the appropriate page, but there's a backlog back to the last sockcheck I put on there weeks (month+) ago, and this is quite urgent. Could you please check:

• User:Anderson12 as possible sock of User:Lightbringer
• User:WMMrgn as possible socks of User:Lightbringer

(From tone and type of edits, I'm pretty convinced of this already. Why this is important is: if they are Lightbringer socks, they are to be indef blocked due to the ruling by Arbcom that Lightbringer is not permitted ot edit on Freemasonry-related articles. I would bet the IP is on an open proxy, as well.)

• User:Book Mouse as possible sock of User:Imacomp or User:Lightbringer - not sure which, but for him to jump right on a minor issue, rack up 50 contribs related to it and then say he's not interested is pretty suspicious.

Thanks! MSJapan 15:59, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I, uh, don't have CheckUser. Try someone on the ArbCom, or wander into IRC and announce that you need someone with CheckUser. Sorry. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 16:26, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I see. I thought it was a standard admin priv. Will do. MSJapan 20:15, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah...my page...

This is about my page, Types of Vandalism. This is not an essay, as far as I can tell...it's a prime Wiki article, not meandering, it's linked to by Vandalism. So there; it's tagged for no reason; it looks really, really bad. Please do something about it. Close the MfD page or untag it, or something. The tag must go.

Uh, no it mustn't, and it's not tagged for no reason. I really don't appreciate your insinuation that I'm a big asshole tagging inappropriate things, incidentally. (See m:dick.) If you would like to know my reasoning, you can ask me politely and I will answer. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 03:00, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Unblock User:BBIH,

I will stop trolling with other accounts if you unblock this one. Pmauliveh!Power dvd paddy wesr 01:28, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

No thanks. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 03:00, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

templates substituted by a bot as per Wikipedia:Template substitution Pegasusbot 07:59, 26 March 2006 (UTC)