User talk:Buckaboob Bonsai

Welcome

Welcome! (We can't say that loudly enough!)

Hello, Buckaboob Bonsai, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on my talk page. Or, please come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{Help me}} on your user talk page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Please sign your name on talk pages and votes by typing four tildes (~~~~); our software automatically converts it to your username and the date. We're so glad you're here! Meatsgains^(talk) 01:14, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the welcome -- I definitely like the place! - Buckaboob Bonsai (talk) 05:22, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tip of the day

Jacksonville Speedway

Who owns the Jacksonville speedway now. I live with walking distance and just bought a dirtbike!!?

It appears to be owned by the Casson family. - Buckaboob Bonsai (talk) 04:29, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ARCA RE/MAX PFG Lester 150 moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, ARCA RE/MAX PFG Lester 150, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Boleyn (talk) 19:22, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Boleyn:, did you think the content was damaging Wikipedia or harming readers, given that it was a multi-year sporting event, with nationally-known participants and winners? Seems kind of drastic to move it to Draft space, where sure, I can work on it... but nobody else will reasonably be likely to see it and help improve it. - Buckaboob Bonsai (talk) 21:13, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Buckaboob Bonsai, there is a basic level of referencing, clarity and accuracy needed for inclusion in an encyclopaedia - this has been pointed out to you before. It's no comment on whether it's notable, and I thank you for your work on it - it can be easily moved back when it's ready. I'm sorry to have moved it, and I really hope you continue with it. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 16:07, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

May 2020

Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Shooting of Ahmaud Arbery. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Please read the WP:BLP carefully. Barging into an article about a sensitive matter and dumping material that, as has been explained on the talk page, has been removed multiple times for violating the BLP, is quite careless. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 15:23, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New York Post is recognized as a reliable source. Graham Media Group (born of the Washington Post and Newsweek) is recognized as a reliable source. CNN is recognized as a reliable source. Why is information presented by these reliable sources not permitted to be re-presented in Wikipedia? Especially when a discussion about whether this content should be included in the article contains at least six other Wikipedia editors' support! But, whatever... I can see how this is being railroaded, and I know enough not to step in front of a fast-moving train with a maniacal crew. - Buckaboob Bonsai (talk) 21:01, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you think this is a "fast-moving train with a maniacal crew", maybe it's best to stay away from its services altogether. The warning I placed here is a standard template and actually not completely relevant: the sentence starting "Barging into an article", however, is completely relevant and I wrote it myself, especially for you. Now, this "at least six other Wikipedia editors' support" suggests that you did look at the talk page and...decided to ignore what was being said? That's not good. Drmies (talk) 21:43, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how bright you are, but I looked at the Talk page today after I noticed that what I had published yesterday in the article had been removed by someone, and after you wrote your specially-authored chastisement of me on my own Talk page. There's this thing called time, you know? Things happen, then time passes, and then other things happen. - Buckaboob Bonsai (talk) 21:56, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe next time look before you leap. Drmies (talk) 01:33, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: Could you explain why an editor dumped material about Caroline Small into this sensitive matter? Buckaboob Bonsai (talk) 21:24, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not really since I don't know what you are talking about. Drmies (talk) 21:44, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you could take some of that time that you certainly have (since you've been setting aside time to sweep through past edits of mine, completely unrelated to Ahmaud Arbery) and discover what is being added about Caroline Small (killed June 2010) to the article you're protecting? There's a neat trick, where you open the article and then type Ctrl+F in most browsers, and you can then search for the word "Caroline" or "Small", and the browser will illuminate the exact part of the article about Ahmaud Arbery that discusses Caroline Small as somehow being relevant to this particular shooting. - Buckaboob Bonsai (talk) 21:56, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You don't sound like you are interested in working on a collaborative project. What do you think patronizing and insulting me will achieve? Drmies (talk) 01:33, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you'll check since January, I was demonstrating quite a lot of interest in working on a collaborative project. My interest diminished about 85% at the very moment I read what you felt you needed to say to me on my Talk page. Think about that. I'm hoping other administrators maybe take you aside and say, "Look, you actually were being pretty nasty to that User", and that perhaps you'll listen to them, because I know you think my opinion is actually worthless. - Buckaboob Bonsai (talk) 01:45, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions alert

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

O3000 (talk) 02:26, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Objective3000, I appreciate this information. Just to clarify it for me, is it saying essentially that Drmies or other admin(s) or editor(s) were essentially justified in berating me for having overstepped in an editorial decision to add referenced content that was contentious to the article Shooting_of_Ahmaud_Arbery (which would be helpful to know, and make me more understanding that my feelings really shouldn't be hurt -- that I just walked into an unfriendly spot on an inopportune day)? Or, is it saying that I am hereby prohibited from editing articles or discussions about Ahmaud Arbery, may he rest in peace? - Buckaboob Bonsai (talk) 02:33, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's a standard message issued to anyone who engages on highly controversial pages. You can follow the links for more info. Jumping into the deep end of the pool (highly controversial articles) before you understand the numerous, arcane (but wonderfully thought out) policies and guidelines is challenging (assuming you are a new user). As for the good doctor, I suggest you take the advice given by those with far more experience. We were all new once. O3000 (talk) 02:49, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, believe me, I have learned a lot about Wikipedia in the past 48 hours. I don't feel so new any more. - Buckaboob Bonsai (talk) 02:58, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Shooting of Ahmaud Arbery

I have no idea whether you thought you were being amusing with those two postings on that page today, but on such a serious subject they weren't appropriate. I see you have said you aren't going to edit that article any more, and I have ensured that by partial blocking you from it. Black Kite (talk) 02:14, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And may I just say that Black Kite has done you an enormous favour here by only blocking you from that article. If you do anything similar in future you may expect to be banned form Wikipedia altogether. That was completely inappropriate. Guy (help!) 10:22, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both for your welcoming and instructive approach to educating newer members of the Wikipedia editing community. - Buckaboob Bonsai (talk) 13:08, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Buckaboob Bonsai, oh this was very welcoming, trust me. A lot of people would have been banned right off the bat. Guy (help!) 13:47, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You say that as if it reflects well on Wikipedia's standard of discussion of reliable sources. If the Atlanta Journal Constitution or CNN says something we don't want in an article, then ban anyone who mentions those sources! You may not be aware of what the outside-of-Wikipedia world thinks about the editorial culture here, but let me assure you, it's not a tiny minority of adults who look at how you're handling this article and see that its nothing more than social justice warrior-mode on overdrive. But anyway, I was trying to completely separate myself from your more nonsensical "current events" articles here, and yet you and Black Kite seem like you're following me, trying to trap me into doing something foolish, so that you can gun me down in broad daylight. I thought that's the sort of behavior you find reprehensible? - Buckaboob Bonsai (talk) 14:52, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to be reading up on WP:INVOLVED -- it's a fascinating corner of Wikipedia, where a policy is frequently ignored by those toward whom the policy is directed! - Buckaboob Bonsai (talk) 14:56, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that you stop posting on user talk pages about this subject as you did here, and here. Your block was not broadly construed. But, it could become so. O3000 (talk) 15:41, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The reach of the enforcement is amazing! Not only can we not talk about Mr. A's background on a page dedicated to Talk about the shooting of Mr. A, we are also prohibited from talking to other like-minded people about Mr. A's background! Chilling indeed -- and the message is fully received. I'm rushing back to my copy of Orwell's 1984 now. - Buckaboob Bonsai (talk) 15:44, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Simply put, sticking to a discussion solely on the merits of whether the victim's past was relevent for article inclusion was the only option. Diverging into antedotes and musings were not going to be taken well, hence the partial block. As a hopefully helpful comment, I too raised my eyebrows at your last two comments on that page, and am not surprised they were redacted. It seems pretty settled for now that the concensus of editors on that page do not want anything added about the victims past history, though I am sure that would change were the accused to be found not at fault as it seems implausible that history won't be part of the defense. You've shown skill at editing otherwise and hope that this episode won't deter you from continuing to create new articles as you did here. There are certain areas of the pedia that have to be treaded lightly and the recently deceased (especially those who many feel suffered a wrongful death) are heavily protected, sometimes overzealousy so.--MONGO (talk) 19:05, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will add that were I adminning this situation, I would have redacted your comments and issued a "final warning". I personally feel that the block was excessive since you stated that final comment was to be your last one. I have now closed that discussion altogether as it is going nowhere except to inflame tensions.--MONGO (talk) 19:30, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. SJW here (you know, I think that's the first time I've ever been called that in 13 years of adminning, I'm touched) has actually said on my talkpage that I'll remove the block if they don't edit the page again. Black Kite (talk) 19:59, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh how cute! Good to see you can adjust. Also nice to know you think it's all about you when generic comments are made. Keep up the good work! Hugs and kisses!--MONGO (talk) 21:00, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Buckaboob Bonsai, all you need do know is swear an oath to Black Kite that you understand you have been naughty and will comply with the his demands. Sounds reasonable enough. Soon you'll be fully on your way down the path of salvation!--MONGO (talk) 21:28, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: MAX PFG Lester 150 has been accepted

MAX PFG Lester 150, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Fiddle Faddle 17:59, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Price Benowitz for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Price Benowitz 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/Price Benowitz until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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. - Harsh (talk) 12:27, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]