Welcome!

Hello, Badmintonhist, andwelcome to Wikipedia! Thank you foryour contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being aWikipedian! Pleasesign your messages ondiscussion pages using fourtildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check outWikipedia:Questions, ask me onmy talk page, or ask your question and then place{{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!Sting_auTalk04:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Badmintonhist, glad to meet more people interested in developing badminton players articles. I have added some wikilinks and infoboxes in the articles you created. If you have any question, you can ask it to me. I hope to see you creating and expanding more badminton related articles!Walint (talk)16:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just a badminton enthusiastic, who played played some years ago. In Wikipedia I focus on badminton players' articles, but there are more people developing badminton-related articles, in tournaments, players, and organizations articles. Congratulations for your work!Walint (talk)13:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are correct. That is also unsourced POV.-Hal Raglan (talk)03:56, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a followup to your above conversation, the fact you are adding is true. However, the ratings of his competition are not relevant to theKeith Olbermann article. If you're saying the ratings are a factor (no pun intended) in the enmity between the two broadcasters, that has to bereliably sourced. Otherwise, it'soriginal research. Without explaining the significance of the fact, it doesn't belong on theKeith Olbermann page, as consensus has established. If you disagree, please take the matter up on the talk page. Thanks!Redrocket (talk)07:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Badmintonhist, I appreciate your willingness to go to the mat with a horde of Olbermann supporters who are happy to put every little remark Olbermann has ever made about O'Reilly up, yet consider a mention of their status as competitors "original research." Whenever participating in a discussion over an article about a political figure, "original research" is the euphemism leftists employ to throw out any bit of information they don't like. If that doesn't work, they bring out more rules like claiming simple statements of relevant facts aren't neutral simply because they don't favor who they like.

Keep up the good work and I'll try to throw in my two cents whenever I can.Drstrangelove57 (talk)19:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for correcting my piece on Olbermann's "Fox News Criticism."Mdriver1981 (talk)06:45, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I too wanted to thank you for putting up the good fight against the Olbermann employees on his blog, a.k.a. his article. You outwitted them at every turn, and although the result was set in stone before the argument even began, your comments showed just how biased to the left they really are. By forcing them to make arguments that were so dumb it is hard to believe that they came from a human mind, you showed everyone who might come accross the talk page that this site is an absolute joke. I would never have had the patience to keep coming back with the responses that you came back with. But rest assured, they matter. Like I said, they exposed the whackos for who they really are. Thank you, good sir. Thank you.66.184.134.26 (talk)03:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, adding content withoutciting areliable source, as you did toMargaret Boxall, is not consistent with our policy ofverifiability. This is especially important when dealing withbiographies of living people, but applies to all Wikipedia articles. Take a look at thewelcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are already familiar withWikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add your original reference to the article. Thank you.Tanthalas39 (talk)17:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For citing your references. I hate to be the bad guy, butverifiability is one of the sacred pillars of Wikipedia. If you have any questions or need any help, let me know, but it looks like you're off and running. Happy editing!Tanthalas39 (talk)18:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Badmintonhist, I've seen that you have a lot of information about former badminton players and their results in theThomas Cup competition. I would like to create all the articles about the Thomas Cup contests, but the only information I have found is at the BWF Official Website[1]. Have you got any further information about the Thomas Cup? I would appreciate it.

I have created the article of the1967 Thomas Cup. If you don't mind, could you read it and check that there isn't any grammar mistake, please? My english is not too good and I would like to use this article as template to create the next ones. Thank you very much!MontanNito (talk)15:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your explanation. According to internationalbadminton.org the Inter-Zone Ties & Challenge Round were held in Sinagpore[2], but sometimes there are mistakes there. According to theThomas Cup article in Wikipedia, the tournmanet was played in Jakarta, and that make sense, so I will change it in the1967 Thomas Cup article. Have you got the results of the matches? At least the Challange Round ones? And where have you found so much information? It's great! :-)MontanNito (talk)20:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have added to the article the information you have provided me. If you want to modify something or add more information, please do not hesitate to do it.MontanNito (talk)20:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much (again). I have already added it, if you want you can have a look at it. Any other information you would like to share will be welcome.MontanNito (talk)22:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unless Olbermann is making fun of Tony Snow's suffering, then this detail is indeed irrelevant, as another editor already noted. The fact that you are claiming that this description is important to show "the mentality of Olbermann" is simply another way of admitting that you want an anti-Olbermann POV sloppily inserted into the article.-Hal Raglan (talk)04:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• If you really want to leave it to "the reader to decide", as you claim, the descriptor should be removed. The reader can simply click the provided wikilink to Snow's article and find out for themselves that he has cancer. Your edit has been repeatedly reverted by other editors. If you wish to discuss the issue, please take it to the article's talk page before making the same edit once again. -Hal Raglan (talk)18:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Badmintonhist. I've seen that you have cited a book titled "The first Pan-American Championships" as a reference in the article aboutRoy Díaz González. In thePan Am Badminton Championships article there isn't this information, could you provide me (or directly to the article) all the champions of the first edition? Thank you.Walint (talk)16:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for copyediting the Thomas Cup article, you do very well. I'm expand the details, but my English is so poor, so thank you once again. --Aleenf104:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they are four venues in 1984 and 3 in 1986,this page can help you. BUT the problem is the team, team like Japan and Chinese Taipei play in Toronto in 1984 with other Americas team, so you must be careful. Yes, the table should modified, i count on you. Thank you. --Aleenf105:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry, i just renew the list of team appearances until 2008, it should be renew while ago, but i fail to do it. I inform you in case anything you might want to to change. Thank you. --Aleenf107:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		Congratulations for the hard work and the improvements you have made withThomas Cup articles!MontanNito (talk)19:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just stopping by with wikicookies for those editors who started new articles today. --Rosiestep (talk)07:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perthis request:

Avoid instructional and presumptuous language

Hope this helps. /Blaxthos(t /c )23:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding yourreply, yes... it is absolutely "instructional language", and it's presumptuous to tell readers what to read. You're welcome to ask for arequest for comment if you think otherwise, but I can assure you that inline "(seefoo below)" is unencyclopedic and generally discouraged on Wikipedia. Also, I don't really see the constructive value in comments like "you've got to be kidding" and thesnarky edit summary used when re-inserting it. Hope this helps. /Blaxthos(t /c )01:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The language "avoid instructional language" is pretty clear to me and others... despite what you may believe to be correct, you now have two long-established editors telling you what common Wikipedia style is. If you disagree, I assert consensus is not to include directives to readers. If you feel very strongly that we're incorrect, I encourage you toseek additional perspectives. Thanks for the reply. /Blaxthos(t /c )03:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		For your excellent NPOVcleanup ofCountdown with Keith Olbermann. /Blaxthos(t /c )01:05, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you can ascribe your work to a secondary source, it is entirelyoriginal research. Sourced description from the primary source isalways preferred over original research / editor's opinions. Thanks. /Blaxthos(t /c )20:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well hell, let's get to work fixing the rest of them too. I'll try to start whacking at it starting Friday evening. If you start at the earliest I'll start with the most recent and move backwards. Hopefully we'll meet in the middle by sunday.  :-) /Blaxthos(t /c )02:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your comments onTalk:MSNBC: Please see Wikipedia'sno personal attacks policy. Comment oncontent, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead toblocks for disruption. Pleasestay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. /Blaxthos(t /c )18:55, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you oppose movingThe Worst Person in the World (book) toThe Worst Person in the World (currently a redirect to the Countdown page)? The parenthetical disambiguation is really not needed, in my view, because there's no other article or dab page by that title. --Steven J. Anderson (talk)00:51, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes I wonder why they even bother using that word once it's so certain...Good catch. Regards,NcSchu_(Talk)04:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fascinated by the fact that youadded a {{fact}} tag dated November 2006, in July 2008. Why in the world did you do that? The content in question was added earlier this year, so the tag absolutely cannot represent something true.

Please,please do NOT engage in misrepresentation of this nature. Bots will take care of date-tagging, anyways; you don't need to specify the date yourself.

Oh, and a five-second Google search would've produced a source for the assertion you fact-tagged. Please help improve the encyclopedia by pursuing and adding sources, not just by adding fact tags. The former makes the encyclopedia look better; the latter makes it look sloppy.Warren-talk-23:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't make changes to the introduction ofFox News Channel that are clearly in violation of the consensus version. All of the issues you listed have been addressed by multiple project-widerequests for comment and are firmly grounded in policy. You may see theFNC FAQ for explainations and links to previous discussions. The inline edit tags, which you also removed, explain the same. Continued changes are certainly in bad faith and will be considereddisrupting Wikipedia to make a point. //Blaxthos(t /c )14:31, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! I have started a new section in the FNC talk page to address this issue. I think it is clear that nothing is "firmly grounded" in Wikipedia articles, when it is clear a substantial number of editors wish change. I would like to initiate a new objective look at the intro section so we may come to a new consensus, and not rely on outdated opinions. I look forward to your contribution!Wikiport (talk)19:49, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate it, it has been getting quite heated! I think some new voices would really improve the issue. Thanks again..!Wikiport (talk)21:08, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for being the voice of reason for the recent FNC RFC, although I would have liked to get more participation and let it stay alive a bit longer; your objectivity was excellent. You are a much needed voice here.Wikiport (talk)04:56, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Haha!! I already saw it. Ungh...Wikiport (talk)05:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could u pls explainthis phrase? :)Docku:“what up?”02:06, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You must love Badminton to be aware of players from all over the world. I am not so much into it. Thanks for the explanation.Docku:“what up?”03:36, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like the wayyou get your point across.Docku:“what up?”01:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ironic indeed, though I think it's a bit obtuse to always think of things in terms of "sides" and "colleagues" -- this isn't abattleground, and we're all here to contribute. Snarky language isn't verycivil, condescending comments (though I am guilty of at times as well) don't show muchgood faith and contribute nothing. At any rate, best course from here is to help explain thereasoning behind the wording. //Blaxthos(t /c )02:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind providing youropinion here? Thanks.Docku:“what up?”20:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. There was some kind of consensus to addthis to the article. ur op always welcome.Docku:“what up?”20:22, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're just plain wrong:

1. TheWashington Post piece is by "the editors", not by the author of the book, and it obviously passesWP:RS.
2. Aone word tweak that introduces bias doesn't really amount for much -- Wikipedia isn't going to be used to introduce doubt about a subject. If there are reliable sources that are critical of the work, you should place them in the article.
3. There's no question ofnotability, if that's what you were implying (otherwise why not just do a little legwork andfix the issue?). Just in case, I went ahead and added a few reviews in.

Hope this helps. //Blaxthos(t /c )17:49, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since you seem to be a pretty level-headed guy, would you mind taking a look that this AfD and giving an opinion?[3]. To me, this is nothing more than a fan piece for a minor candidate who doesn't come close to meeting notability requirements.Niteshift36 (talk)23:40, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Your comment on your delete vote nearly made me spit coffee out of my nose.Niteshift36 (talk)00:04, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your superb copy editing inWorld Badminton Federation. --Aleenf108:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After an initial read, the last couple of special comments are not neutrally paraphrased. They seem to be taking Olbermann's words as fact and that is misleading. I haven't read the full text of the special comments, so I don't have any suggestions, but I may revisit this again later tonight.Switzpaw (talk)18:23, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think one preacher of not using primary sources for analysis, interpretation, and conclusion should reallywatch his own edits.Switzpaw (talk)21:43, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm ducking out of this one. I think he's wrong with respect to his policy argument -- I've read through the policy and also draw on experiences of writing in college (with stellar marks). However, I don't have time to put together a cohesive argument, and I'll be taking that page off my watch list. I wasted a lot of time arguing on another page that Stephen Colbert jokes should not be weaseled into a paragraph, which created an impression that he's a reliable source for political commentary, and I don't want to repeat that futile experience. If you start an RFC, please let me know.Switzpaw (talk)17:16, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than blanking the article, please redirect it to the "existing correctly spelled version" that you mentioned. Thanks.GlassCobra00:27, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SeeWikipedia:Redirect#How to make a redirect (redirect command), or tell me the correct name and I'll do it.GlassCobra00:42, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think they're taking this too far. Now the entry is up to 3 negative sources that they keep beating into the ground. There was a good NPOV version we all liked and people keep coming and adding more negative. The source doesn't say "in his opinion", which is why I didn't put it in quotes. But I think it is important to point out that this is one Fox execs opinion. The network hasn't come out and issued some sort of mea culpa, which is the impression one could get just by reading what is there. I really don't see why it's an issue if it does get included. We could change it to "Shine believes..." or whatever. But why not make it clear that it is his opinion and his alone?Niteshift36 (talk)22:49, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, badmintonhist, my POV is they are different person, because i found this:[4][5][6][7]

DOB is different, BWF ID is different, and also for achievement, so i think is different. --Aleenf113:54, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Anyway, my name is Aleenf1, you miss the digit one behind, but you can call me Aleen, is same. --Aleenf116:04, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Colbert said Bill O'Reilly, host of Fox News' "The O'Reilly Factor," is the primary inspiration for his show.[8]—Precedingunsigned comment added by65.87.136.200 (talk)05:34, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Badmintonhist, just notification that Thomas Cup COULD BE unify with Uber Cup in 2010, approach in the latest BWF meetings. However, that still no final agreement, they will discuss again in another meetings. --Aleenf109:07, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Badmintonhist, i fail to find who is 2000 Singapore Open winners. --Aleenf108:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Research still going on, i maybe fail to give you answer. Soon. :) --Aleenf113:57, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Badmintonhist, sorry, i can't get the answers you want, maybe both of them just coincident to have same surname, i dunno. --Aleenf109:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wasthis an intentional attempt to be a douchebag by deleting something you know fully well belongs there (and leaving the article in a broken state as a result -- preview much?), or were you too lazy to take the 15 seconds to look up the description yourself, then take another 15 seconds to put it in the encyclopedia, thus improving the informative value of the article? Just curious.Warren-talk-07:11, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. I'm not going to bother refreshing you on the difference betweenprimary andsecondary sources, as it's well documented inWP:RS. I don't really see the point of including criticism directed at Clinton, because:

1. The is little, if anything, to distinguish it from any of the other criticisms he issues.
2. There is nosecondary source that establishes any sort of significance above and beyond the fact that it occurred.
3. There is a specific intent in some parts (seethis) to imply conclusion ("even though"), which absolutely violatesWP:OR andWP:SYN. Once you remove the conclusion, there is no compelling reason to include any of it at all.
4. This is abiography; if anything, it might be fodder forCountdown with Keith Olbermann, but detailing some criticisms is beyond the scope of a BLP (especially ones that aren't mentioned in secondary sources).

Hope this helps. //Blaxthos(t /c )22:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Badmintonhist.  :)Switzpaw (talk)01:18, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Badmintonhist, can you help me to copyeditingLee Chong Wei? I currently working on it. The career part is not yet done, so you can leave it out. Hopefully you can help me. Thanks! --Aleenf112:15, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All written is well source, i mean i do refer to other bio, and personally i think never wrong to have personal life of player. Okay, feel free to do it and thanks! --Aleenf105:51, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Badmintonhist, you can copyediting the 2008 section now, is well sourced, as usual feel free to do it. Also, i found another two dates Lee as WR1, you can help me to apply in the lead. Thanks! --Aleenf117:03, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Badmintonhist, sorry to say i have to took your time to help me, but i expand the article not to just prank, actually i want to promote it to "Good Article", do you heard it before? I need your POV, actually do i need to write the score in career section, or just summarize it? Thanks for your help. --Aleenf108:11, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the intent of the RFC is to get the input of outside editors, so I'll refrain from commenting. I countered Blaxthos' rebuttal and I still have not seen a solid case why your wording is "synthesis" or warrants an NPOV warning (which he is fond of giving without strong basis -- there are some golden examples of hypocrisy in his edit history). I'm tired of the double standards that go on in this website so I've taken the Olbermann page off my watchlist. I think many editors who are sick of being grilled to the letter of the law, while editors presenting material favorable to another side of the political spectrum are not, have done the same.Switzpaw (talk)01:11, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's fairly obvious that most articles about Olbermann point out his criticisms of O'Reilly and Bush. After reading those articles, I discovered that the criticisms of McCain may not be as notable as previously thought, though Olbermann's removal from covering political events following the RNC convention is notable (e.g. the LA Times found it newsworthy that Olbermann was covering Obama's inauguration). It's common knowledge that Olbermann criticized McCain heavily (imagine if Tom Brokaw called upon McCain to suspend his campaign -- that would definitely make news in the mainstream media), though I think that Olbermann's reputation as being highly critical of rightward leaning figures is so obvious (except to Wikipedia editors, apparently) that it's no longer newsworthy whenever Olbermann lashes out (except in maybe the Huffington Post).Switzpaw (talk)02:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Posting a baseless and unfounded rumor -- even on a talk page -- is a clear violation ofWP:BLP.

"Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion."WindyCityRider (talk)19:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to point out thatthis comment needs to be sourced, per ourpolicy on articles about living people, but I see that you have already been warned. So let me reiterate that statements like the ones you made theremust be supported with reliable sources. Do not post allegations like that again without supporting sources.Guettarda (talk)07:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have to wonder if Geuttarda did his legwork before censoring your comment. TheHitler salute fact was actually in the article at one point, and it was supported by sources. The "cold-blooded killers" controversy can be attributed to Laura Ingraham (which wouldn't fly as a WP:RS for stating it as fact in an article but it was a talk page comment, for christ's sake). Not familiar with the "dying man" Worst Person Award, though it seems kind of petty, true or not. Is it a new thing that talk page comments must carry citations? I didn't think either of the two allegations were notable enough to be considered due weight for the article, though if Guettarda thinks they are shocking enough to be worth censoring, maybe the trolls on the Olbermann talk page have a point..Switzpaw (talk)08:39, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll most likely be banned for not assuming good faith in someone who has never given that same respect to those who don't agree with him, so I thought I'd wish you good luck in adding some sense into the Olbermann article. Maybe some day the right people will happen to see their blatant agendas and legit criticism will actually be added to the Olbermann page. It's a shame that they're so dedicated to defending Olbermann that you even entertaining the thought of adding criticism makes you a member of the fringe in their eyes.--DystopiaSticker (talk)19:37, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is why I have mostly stopped editing on WP. Defenders of Olbermann and his ilk have far too much time on their hands to continually montitor articles and force their way. Everyone knows that Olbermann is a huge liberal that will bash any and all republicans or conservatives on a daily basis. The fact that his article here reads like his is neutral, or very much so, only illustrates that fact that WP in general has a greater liberal slant that the MSM in general. Until those hypcrites deal with this there is little chance of improving WP in general.Arzel (talk)19:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is theonly warning you will receive for your disruptive comments.
The next time you make apersonal attack as you did atUser Talk:Arzel, youwill beblocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. /Blaxthos(t /c )01:31, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regardingthis bait: If you think that going around accusing editors with whom you disagree of having mental defects then I suggest you re-read our core policies. I can assure you that continuing personal attacks will result in removal from Wikipedia, and it certainly shows a lack of maturity. Regarding your quantification question, I assure you that the important quantity is how many times one hasreceived a warning not to attack other editors, not how many times one has issued one for being attacked. It doesn't surprise me that when you run out of substance you switch to personal attacks, namecalling, and insults; probably why you've received a good number of those warnings over the years. Think about it. //Blaxthos(t /c )21:03, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm interested in describing people using reliable sources. That's why I dug into the press descriptions of O'Reilly and Olbermann as "conservative" and "liberal" respectively. I might be a raging lefty, but I don't see the sense in not reporting that the majority of the media see Olbermann as being liberal, and the same with O'Reilly and "conservative". The fact that I'm not in the US, so less exposed to the MSNBC/Fox feud probably contributes to me caring a lot less about the supposed pejorative connotations of these labels, and more about the fact that they're notable and reported in multiple mainstream reliable sources.I'm not on anyone's side, so a suggestion of betrayal of Blaxthos is wide of the mark. We should all read WP:ETIQUETTE and WP:CIVIL again (and WP:THELASTWORD), and I include myself in that.Fences and windows (talk)14:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think "tack to the left" is a bit vague, and could easily be lost on anyone not familiar with sailing. How about:

Olbermann is AWESOME. Billo is NOT.</sarcasm>

--Scjessey (talk)19:01, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Leaning" is better than "tacking", but I would prefer to see whatever word the chosen source uses. That would avoid any conflict over it. You're the first to note the Newman thing. I'm going to go and cry now. --Scjessey (talk)19:41, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does that mean I am also responsible for thedinosaurs getting out of the park? --Scjessey (talk)19:43, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's because somebody typoed on the router....--SarekOfVulcan (talk)21:05, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Badmintonhist. You have new messages atHappyme22's talk page.
You canremove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I've noticed that there is still no resolution over there but that your/Happyme22's version of the lead has garnered almost unanimous support from the persons involved in the discussion. I suggest that you guys be bold and add whatever the agreed version of the lead is into the article, for now. If the RfC ever gets off the ground, then you can tweak it if need be to add stuff about his "influence". I'm just about done checking in on articles of people that I think very little of, so consider this my parting thoughts and good luck. I don't think its right to let one holdout editor stop the progress made by the others.

Hello, Badmintonhist. You have new messages atLondonfifo's talk page.
You canremove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

//Blaxthos(t /c )02:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From one conservative to another, keep up the good fight to balance out Wikipedia.PokeHomsar (talk)03:13, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you gotten more reasonable lately, or is something wrong with my rose-tinted glasses?  ;-) //Blaxthos(t /c )20:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate it if you refrained from commenting on whether or not you feel I have become "overwrought" or not. I'm not "extremely or excessively excited or agitated" and trying to extrapolate that from a few lines in a discussion is a fools errand. I don't think that the comment was called for. Even if you weren't trying to be insulting (which I don't believe you were), it comes across that way.Niteshift36 (talk)14:01, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Like I said, I didn't believe you were trying to be insulting. No offense taken.Niteshift36 (talk)14:14, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I suspect MichaelLNorth is either someone who had an account before or came here for specific reasons. If you look at his edit history, it is almost exclusively conservative articles or talking to editors about conservative articles.Niteshift36 (talk)14:50, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've noted your usertalk assertions that you believe sockpuppetry is occurring but let it slide. Your too-cute-by-half attempt to make the accusation against me in a public forum is inappropriate and unappreciated. Please either strike it or open arequest for checkuser. I also recommend taking another glance atWP:AGF. Thanks. //Blaxthos(t /c )22:14, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Who says it was directed at you?Niteshift36 (talk)15:05, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "Blax????" was my first clue. Badmintonhist, you know that was a bullshit underhanded comment and I'm disappointed you have chosen to ignore my request rather than dealing with your actions. If you think I operate sockpuppets, I wholeheartedly welcome an inquiry (as I obviously do not). If you don't really think that, then making false accusations of bad faith really diminishes the respect I thought we had been building over the last bit or so. We don't have to always agree, but throwing out accusations like that when you don't really believe them is pretty shitty. //Blaxthos(t /c )04:52, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Asking you where Michael is translates to accusing you of sockpuppetry?Niteshift36 (talk)06:39, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Niteshift, kindly butt out -- this conversation doesn't really involve you, and any reasonable editor can plainly see what Badmintonhist's point was. Badmintonhist, regarding your "need to take lessons" comment... please read back through the conversations again and pay special attention to the numerous compromise offers and suggestions I've made towards a compliant and acceptable solution. I have sincerely been trying to move things forward, and just because I don't let Niteshift get away with his blatantownership attempts andagenda servicing doesn't mean I'm operating in bad faith. I will grant that perhaps I let it go on a little much, but I think that the reason why will become apparent in the next few weeks (stay tuned). You were right to kick me into gear, but I still take great offense at the other points I raised above. //Blaxthos(t /c )16:12, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• So now you can talk about me and make accusations (again), but I'm not allowed to respond? You are something else.Niteshift36 (talk)04:31, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bullshit, you butted in long before I mentioned you. Again, butt out -- this thread is about something else. Shoo. //Blaxthos(t /c )04:39, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't seem to get a straight answer due to all the discussion on the main page, but what sources are being used to show Fox's conservative bias?Soxwon (talk)01:41, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I was referring to the fact that it was being called biased b/c of its viewership at one point. I already added the mask part back in with proper citations (hopefully the AP and Guardian are good enough for Blax...)Soxwon (talk)16:15, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very well done. Short and full of clear data on frequency of wins. Much better than the vague "often".Martindo (talk)01:04, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I tortured the spelling of your name in my edit to FNC. Sorry about that.Arzel (talk)20:09, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is pathetic, childish behavior likethis really necessary? Do you really think that sort of immature baiting will serve to make you look like a more reasonable, informed editor? You've already been scolded multiple times for making hypocritical, unnecessary jabs at other editors... can you just not help yourself? Keep it up, and I'll see about getting you some help... otherwise I suggest you do your very best to stick to discussing content issues instead of trying to bait editors with whom you disagree. //Blaxthos(t /c )21:32, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Bad, Thanks for your note. I think I understand your point better. I agree that "maintains" alone is definately not appropriate. "Maintains that there is" is definately better language. "Points to" is also I feel bad language though and we should work to change this.NickCT (talk)14:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in anedit war according to the reverts you have made onCountdown with Keith Olbermann. Note that thethree-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate thethree-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try todiscuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains aconsensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seekdispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to requestpage protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwiseyou may beblocked from editing. /Blaxthos(t /c )00:16, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I havereported the 3RR violation to the noticeboard. //Blaxthos(t /c )00:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I havereported your repeated accusations and incivility toANI. //Blaxthos(t /c )21:23, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good for you, Blax.Badmintonhist (talk)21:34, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you learn something from the ANI thing Badmintonhist. You seem to be unwilling to engage in a rational discussion. I have made numerous points that you seem to ignore (like offering you a website to find my IP location, and even telling you my school's name). I have tried to be as helpful as possible in helping you understand your confusion, but you do not seem to want to listen or engage in a discussion. Rather, you resort to more accusations and insults. I do not think that Wikipedia is a good place for you, and maybe you just need to take a little break (or at least a little break from controversial topics, since you seem to do quite fine with your Badminton posts). Really though, Wikipedia functions through people working together and talking about things (like I tried to do with the Countdown article, in which you quickly stopped responding to my discussion over the content). I do not know what your problem is, and I am not going to be one to make assumptions, but you obviously need to chill out and stop treating people with such hostility, especially since it seems that you get into these types of problems quite often. I doubt you enjoy being stressed out, just as I do not particularly enjoy having to defend myself when I would rather be reading about random topics or trying to help make Wikipedia better. Whether or not you enjoy it though, it is certainly detrimental to the Wikipedia project, and for that reason it has no place anywhere on Wikipedia. Little progress is made through confrontation, especially bad faith accusations.

Also, I do not wish to continue posting all over Blaxthos' page. If you would like to continue this discussion with me, please come to my talk page or we can continue it here. Otherwise, please leave my IP out of your posts129.133.142.139 (talk)22:18, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Further to the above-linked ANI thread, unless you intend to file arequest for checkuser and/or produce diffs to substantiate your accusations, you need to stop making them. I see no reason to believe Blaxthos has been socking, and no apparent link between the IP editor and Blaxthos other than some cross-over article work (which means very little in itself). Where you find yourself in a content dispute please try to operate in good faith and, if necessary, pursue the measures listed atWP:DR. Further unsubstantiatedpersonal attacks against other editors will lead to administrative action being taken against your account.EyeSerene^talk10:45, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's up to you. As a gesture of good faith I'd imagine your note would be welcome wherever you choose to post. Thank you,EyeSerene^talk09:06, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Admitting that one is wrong after being quite sure that one was right is not an easy thing to do. In the case of my accusation that editor Blaxthos was employing a "sockpuppet" in the guise of an anonymous editor, however, I have to admit that I was mistaken and am sorry for it. I didn't give enough credence to the possibilities of coincidence and as a result said things to and about Blaxthos and the Anon (thinking that they were one and the same) that I shouldn't have said.

I am not going to to go into detail on the circumstances that led me to believe that sockpuppetry was involved in this instance. Someone who is interested can glean some of it by reading the back-and-forth between the parties. Blaxthos and I have had some rocky prior interactions and have said some less than kind things about each other. However, Ido dispute his equating of my characterization of him as a "piece of work" with the epithet "piece of s__t" in his ANI complaint. The former phrase basically means a curiosity, an odd duck, a strange fellow; the latter basically means a despicable person. Also, my use of the pretty mild "piece of work" came after he referred to me as "paranoid" and "desperate".

As for the anonymous editor located in central Connecticut, I apologize for involving him in a rash and, as it turned out, false accusation. I would advise him, however, to become a "name" editor on Wikipedia. Having an anonymous status with an IP address that continually changes lends itself to charges of "hit and run" and sockpuppetry, and, from what he has said, this is not the first time that he has been accused of it.Badmintonhist (talk)18:15, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Badmintonhist, I really appreciate your apology. Its not something easy to do, and it says a lot about the type of person you are. If we ever meet again, I look forward to the work we can do together. And trust me, once I am off a college campus and somewhere with a more secure network, I will certainly be registering for Wikipedia. Once again, thank you.129.133.142.139 (talk)18:32, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Badmintonhist. It would be most helpful if you would alsostrike any public accusations you made. Despite any impassioned disagreements we may have, you have my word that I do not (nor will ever) engage in unethical acts to obtain an advantage. As I know you're aware, I tend to take confrontations head on.  ;-) //Blaxthos(t /c )21:18, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. //Blaxthos(t /c )00:26, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thank Blaxthos and IP Editor 129.133.142.139 for their gracious responses.Badmintonhist (talk)04:55, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It has been quite some time. Although I wanted to stop in and let you know that I read your contributions regularly. Excellent work. -Wikiport (Jim)Wikiport (talk) 18:23, 21 April 2010 (UTC)—Precedingunsigned comment added byWikiport (talk •contribs)18:22, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Badmintonhist. I was wondering why you removed my material about MMfA using a Hillary Clinton campaign mailing list. The paragraph is about MMfA's partisanship and it seemed to fit there best. The material was sourced to 2 sources, including ABC News.--Drrll (talk)23:48, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I havereported your continuedattacks to toANI. //Blaxthos(t /c )18:58, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• You're quite welcome. BTW, how do you like this one?[9]Niteshift36 (talk)20:53, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Wouldn't be the first time.Niteshift36 (talk)04:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Badmintonhist. Could you do me a favor and give the full references to the four sources you found in relation to Hillary Clinton and MMfA (Chuck Todd, Game Change, WSJ, and Milwaukee paper). Could you put them with the three others athttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Media_Matters_for_America#Sources ? Thanks.--Drrll (talk)16:56, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for filing the mediation request. If all parties don't agree to the mediation, do you want me to try an RfC next?

Just checking back in, and came across the dust up. As a a veteran of the mediation process, I can tell you that I think it is a great idea to have a referee for these discussions. But just so you know, the mediator is only there to get you guys to meet in the middle and won't issue any kind of rulings, so be aware of that. Also I saw an editor thinking the next step could be arbitration-- Bad IDEA. Arbcom doesn't do content disputes, and if you guys do get before them based on your conduct, you all risk topic bans at best or suspension at worst. Good luck! (I am posting this identical message to Blaxthos, lest I get accused of taking sides).Ramsquire^{(throw me a line)}17:11, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I decided to drop in since I've had a lull in the private life. To answer your questions: Nope. ArbCom desperately tries to avoid settling content disputes. Mediation is the best way to bridge this impasse, but if the Mediator gets the impression that it's actually the conduct of the editors that is preventing consensus, then it will report you to ArbCom, and then everyone is under scrutiny. If you have a competent mediator, and everyone legitimately works in good faith, then there shouldn't be a problem. But if the talk page stuff continues, you guys may be in trouble.Ramsquire^{(throw me a line)}18:06, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Therequest for mediation concerning Media Matters for America, to which you were are a party, has been accepted. Pleasewatchlist thecase page (which is where the mediation will take place). For guidance on accepted cases, refer tothis resource. A mediator should be assigned to this dispute within two weeks. If you have any queries, please contact aCommittee member or themediation mailing list.

For the Mediation Committee,AGK14:50, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Message delivered byMediationBot, onbehalf of the Mediation Committee.

Fight the good fight buddy, good luck.Rapier (talk)15:24, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you have a nice trip. Although the decline in the Euro is not neccessarily a good thing in the long run, it certainly will help make your trip more affordable.  :)Arzel (talk)00:26, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This user supports the fight againstmental illness.

I realize you don't have any userboxes currently, but if ever you would like to start, please consider the one to your left. Until just a few minutes ago there was no support ribbon userboxes for the mentally ill, and, after having created this I am trying to spread it around. If you would not like to start posting userboxes at this time please consider helping spread this around through word of mouth. Thank you.Ink Falls06:05, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you toreview other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing atwo-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are notautoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to onlya small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located atSpecial:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obviousvandalism orBLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (seeWikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be foundhere.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.Courcelles (talk)05:11, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Undue woud be overly presenting significant views as reported in reliable sources. Frank has been praised repeatedly over the years. If there is credible, significant criticism please show the reliable source for it so we can possibly use it.Munijym (talk)22:14, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fine with me. --Kim van der Linde^{at venus}00:55, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Humm, if we followWP:BRD, you were bold (B) withchanging the initial "terrorized" to "harassed and threatened", and I could revert (R) that and you should take it to the talk (D) . But I am fine with the change in this case, was wondering myself about the wording which I thought was a bit strong. --Kim van der Linde^{at venus}01:00, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

True. I don't expect many problems, the case is still rather clear. --Kim van der Linde^{at venus}01:34, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Badmintonhist, I was the one who added the Washington Post description of the SPLC. I agree that it isn't the best fit under 'History,' but I didn't feel that it could be placed in the lead (without support in the main body) or in any other section. Also, I placed it there because of the mention of the 2008 National Geographic special that featured the SPLC & Dees. Do you have any ideas for how this could be still be incorporated?Drrll (talk)23:31, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is always unacceptable to marksignificant changes as "minor". If this becomes a pattern, you will be reported.DylanFlaherty00:50, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm under the impression that reverts are automatically marked as minor by wiki software?BE——Critical_{__Talk}20:44, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, the check box needs to be checked. Try it for yourself and see.DylanFlaherty20:47, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't used to be that way.BE——Critical_{__Talk}00:02, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you liked it, I consider it sort of an immunity building process. If the 1% of wikipedians who have a sense of humor didn't display it once in a while, the other 99% would forget how to edit AN/I.BE——Critical_{__Talk}20:44, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, I was going to say something about "also used for a knightspeculating about how the damsel abducted by the dragon looked under her dress," but I thought that was too much.BE——Critical_{__Talk}21:04, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In case you weren't aware of it, there is asection devoted to you at PrBeacon's user talk page.Drrll (talk)15:28, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in anedit war according to the reverts you have made onSouthern Poverty Law Center. Users are expected tocollaborate with others and avoid editingdisruptively.

In particular, thethree-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article'stalk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that representsconsensus among editors. You can post a request for help at anappropriate noticeboard or seekdispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporarypage protection. If you continue to edit war, youmay beblocked from editing without further notice.

Z'at so, Guvnah? A. I haven't reverted 3 edits in the article in question within a 24 hour period. Check the times. B. I've explained my reverts,substantively, when I've done so, either in my edit summaries or the Talk page or in both. C. You, on the other hand, either failed to see, or if you saw, engage in, a talk page discussion I had already opened with our colleague, the North Shoreman, prior to reverting my edit. D. Speaking of substance, Guvnah, you've offered none on themerits of the edits in question.I don't like your sassiness says nothing about the substance of the article.Badmintonhist (talk)18:22, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bullsh!t. We all know that your (slow)edit warring is contrary to the collaborative nature of this project. Your attempts at justifying your reverts seem borderline self-delusional, especially how you claim to be discussing the issue on the talkpage, along with your lame attempts at humor. Your snide and patronizing comments in edit summaries and at the article talkpage are more than 'sass'. They're disruptive and actionable. -PrBeacon(talk)21:24, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please accept thisinvite to join theConservatism WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to conservatism broadly construed. Lionel (talk)03:13, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content fromKeith Olbermann. When removing content, please specify a reason in theedit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article'stalk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the content has been restored, as you can see from thepage history. Take a look at thewelcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use thesandbox. Thank you.Scjessey (talk)20:15, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your excuse for edit warring the notable information out of the article doesn't cut it. If you really think it is a problem to have a paragraph about Keith Olbermann's own website on his biography page, then please discuss it properly on the article's talk page and try to win a consensus for your position. --Scjessey (talk)10:51, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you find time, could you please look at the Misbun Sidek page. Somebody added a lot of content, but with poor grammar. A native English speaking person is needed there. --Florentyna (talk)14:05, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In light of the seemingly endless disputes over their respective titles, a neutral mediator has crafted a proposal to rename the two major abortion articles (pro-life/anti-abortion movement, andpro-choice/abortion rights movement) tocompletely new names. The idea, which is locatedhere, is currently open for opinions. As you have been a contributor in the past to at least one of the articles, your thoughts on the matter would be appreciated.

The hope is that, if a consensus can be reached on the article titles, the energy that has been spent debating the titles of the articleshere andhere can be better spent giving both articles some much needed improvement to their content. Please take some time to read the proposal and weigh in on the matter.Even if your opinion is simpleindifference, that opinion would be valuable to have posted.

To avoid accusations that this posting violatesWP:CANVASS, this posting is being made toevery non-anon editor who has edited either page since 1 July 2010, irrespective of possible previous participation at the mediation page.HuskyHuskie (talk)19:46, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Badmintonhist. I hope all is well.

I had a couple of questions about your RfC response in that article. I don't understand your remark "Why should Wikipedia be drawing the conclusion that Totenberg's remarks were "inappropriate"?" Unless I'm missing something, the RfC that CWenger put forth doesn't suggest that we create a new section classifying Totoenberg's remarks as a controversy and it doesn't characterize the remarks as inappropriate. It merely adds the specific Totenberg quote to the existing text in the Williams section. The other thing I didn't understand in light of your vote was your remark "Include them in-line and allow the reader to draw his/her own conclusions." Were you talking about including them in-line in the NPR controversies article or the Totenberg article, as your caveat suggests?

Thanks,Drrll (talk)12:46, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pleasedo not use the talk pages of articles to attack other users.WP:No personal attacks. Discuss article content and improvement, not the alleged motives of other editors.Zodon (talk)21:54, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I noticed you deleted my edit on the Bill O'Reilly article. You referenced toWikipedia:Identifying reliable sources andWikipedia:Neutral point of view suggesting that you find my edit not based on reliable sources and not neutral. Could you please be more specific and maybe suggest an improvement of my edit?— Precedingunsigned comment added byAmphicoelias (talk •contribs)07:33, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently editedGreat American Songbook, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageI Have Dreamed (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles.Read theFAQ • Join us at theDPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow theseopt-out instructions. Thanks,DPL bot (talk)10:43, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in anedit war according to the reverts you have made onSusan B. Anthony abortion dispute. Users are expected tocollaborate with others, to avoid editingdisruptively, and totry to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware,Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article'stalk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that representsconsensus among editors. You can post a request for help at anappropriate noticeboard or seekdispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporarypage protection. If you engage in an edit war, youmay beblocked from editing.Note that the article is under 1RR editing limits. Twice in a 24 hour period you replaced "the recent pro-life narrative" with "a recent pro-life narrative". You might wish to revert yourself to avoid being blocked.Binksternet (talk)01:41, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be appearing overly reasonable due to your recent edits ofTalk:Southern Poverty Law Center. Users are expected todisregard objectivity when interacting on talk pages; your current behavior could escalate intoconsensus. Continued behavior such as this may bereported. Thanks. //Blaxthos(t /c )20:18, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems the discussion to add the hate speech designation controversey is going stale. I suspect that if the conversation were to continue we would simply get walls of text with some arguments buried inside. Any interest in crafting an RfC?   littlegreen rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 13:58, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I figured you would be back eventually. I suggest you (we) fill out your template, run the sources by RSN and then be bold and insert it. If and when it gets reverted, we can then run an RfC.  littlegreen rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 22:59, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since I'm weak with computer and at footnoting Wiki style (despite being a former teacher), I'd prefer that you handle it, green rosetta. I'll put my two cents worth of advice on going about it, though. The mention of criticisms of the SPLC's hate group list should beelaborately sourced with both prominent opinion pieces and hard news items. Go with the best known sources except, perhaps, in the case of Kenneth Jost's blog. Jost is a legal academic, generally liberal in outlook, and connected to CQ (The Congressional Quarterly). You may have trouble finding a good SPLC quote that defends its hate group listin general. Quotesspecifically defending itsanti-gay hate group list are easy enough to find here[10]. Good luck.Badmintonhist (talk)00:10, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. I'm in no rush, but will ping you when I have something or want to ask you a question.  littlegreen rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 00:18, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough.Badmintonhist (talk)00:22, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Before removing any more of other people's comments, I'd appreciate it if you readWP:TPG.I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk)21:36, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Small fixes like[11] are always welcome. Lot's of small edits add up.IRWolfie- (talk)21:43, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You cited sometimes from the International Handbook of the IBF from Scheele. Do you own one ore more of these handbooks or do you have access to them? If yes, would it be possible to you to make a scan of some pages from this book and send them to me? Best regards, --Florentyna (talk)19:24, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The greatest thing to me would be, if you could borrow me these books. I tried everything - ebay, abebooks, zvab.com, German badminton association - no way. There is officially registered one and only book of all the handbooks ever released in all German libraries (1967)! So I started to order copies of pages from this handbook (a maximum of 20 pages is allowed for each order, every order costs 1,50 Euro). But it is allowed to copy only 10 percent of a book or journal. Terrible! So, if you could borrow me the books it would a great benefit for my hobby work here. Off course I will pay for all postage and package you need, and send the books a.s.a.p. back to you. An access to my credit card details I could give to you to secure your financial claims. --Florentyna (talk)21:14, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is possible for you to send me an e-mail containing your e-mail-address via theE-mail this user function on my userpage (Special:EmailUser/Florentyna)? I will reply with my contact data. Thank you very much! (By the way, in the 1967 handbook there must be a photograph of our team Aktivist Tröbitz). --Florentyna (talk)06:24, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you editedGreat American Songbook, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageHeart and Soul (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles.Read theFAQ • Join us at theDPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow theseopt-out instructions. Thanks,DPL bot (talk)11:04, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Badmintonhist, thank you for your contributions on theMaafa 21 article. If you are interested, please see my effort to rewrite the Reception section, postedhere. Let me know what you think (good, bad or ugly), particularly if any of my rewrite could and should be used. Thanks again! --Beleg Strongbow (talk)17:09, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Badmintonhist, you've also violated 1RR at the article, which, as you should know, is under ArbCom sanction. Please don't do this again. –Roscelese (talk ⋅contribs)07:46, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please cite Badmintonhist's reverts. Out of curiosity, I went looking for them and couldn't find them. --Beleg Strongbow (talk)19:17, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the Purple Barnstar. :) --Beleg Strongbow (talk)20:31, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We miss you. Come on back. --Beleg Strongbow (talk)14:31, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Binksternet has a1RR opened against me, again. Feel free to comment, one way or the other. --Beleg Strongbow (talk)16:52, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've been meaning to ask you this for a while. Are you familiar with Chuck? While he is mostly focused towards table tennis, he did have a nice collection of badminton artifcats at one time or another.  littlegreen rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 00:50, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry LGR, I am not familiar with with the man.Badmintonhist (talk)01:12, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting guy[12]. Table tennis afficiando, avid racquet sports collector (he curates the ITTF museum in Switzerland), beatBobby Fischer at a game of chess. A friend of mine from years ago. His stories from being drafted into the Army during VN are amazing in the "you can't make this shit up" sort of fashion. I gotta bug him to write this stuff down.  littlegreen rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 01:24, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like an interesting fellow, but beating Bobby Fischer in chess? What was Fischer doing? Playing against 39 other guys at the same time? I am not really a badminton memorabilia collector though I wouldn't mind having a few of the kind of racquets I used when I started playing back in 1956/1957, when I was in the first grade. Curiously, the feathered badminton shuttle has hardly changed at all, but the racquets are vastly lighter.Badmintonhist (talk)02:06, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AtWikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Maafa_21 I have asked you to strike your belittling term "R&B". I consider it a violation ofWP:NPA. Thank you.Binksternet (talk)00:17, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are offended by initials? My oh my.  littlegreen rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 00:47, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am offended by a belittling name-calling attitude.Binksternet (talk)00:58, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I offer my apologies to you, Binksternet, and also to little green rosetta for referring to him as LGR in the Chuck Hoey section above. However, after long and agonizing consideration, I've decided NOT to strike those initials AS OF THE MOMENT. Now, Binksternet, if YOU (because she probably won't listen to me) can somehow use your influence to convince Roscelese to strike her phrases:"users edit-warring tendentiously in service of POV," "users whose love for the film seemingly outweigh their commitment to building an encyclopedia," "fans of the film" and any other such belittling references to LGR, BS, and BMTH, then I promise to reconsider.Badmintonhist (talk)01:24, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you atWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy onedit warring. Thank you. --Beleg Strongbow (talk)16:59, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please self-revert atMaafa 21 to comply with 1RR article restrictions.Binksternet (talk)16:28, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. There is currently a discussion atWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. –Roscelese (talk ⋅contribs)01:29, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to the editor who "habitually makes snarky, insulting comments" (such ashere), perhaps it's best to see them as a source of amusement and enjoy them. They reveal more about the insulter than about those she insults.Esoglou (talk)07:58, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And certainly as badges of honor; here are a few:1,2,3 (Edit summary),4 ("on your "side""),5 ("agenda-driven editors"),6("smaller words"),7 ("bad-faith editors"), etc., etc., etc. Hang in there, Badmintonhist, but tread carefully. --Beleg Strongbow (talk)13:55, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. There is currently a discussion atWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. –Roscelese (talk ⋅contribs)18:29, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see that we're both dealing with what appears to be a POV editor. This article was placed on the dispute resolution board due to some questionable edits by Roscelese.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#douglas_karpen

And now the article is up for deletion -- which could be a coincidence. I don't want to be too conspiratorial.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Douglas_Karpen

I've asked another editor for his thoughts and suggestions. Am I detecting a pattern of abuse? My initial complaint was that she made unilateral edits without seeking consensus, but I'm starting to wonder if she has an editorial agenda.Lordvolton (talk)09:18, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As a result of theWP:ANI discussion about your stalking of Roscelese's edits, consider this message your final warning before being blocked the next time you follow her to an article.Binksternet (talk)23:15, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is, of course, nonsense. Bink has no authority to issue such a warning, nor support for such.Arkon (talk)03:15, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The authority is theWP:ANI discussion, the same one you participated in without saying anything about Badmintonhist stalking Roscelese. How do you expect to have an influence on the outcome if you avoid the issue under discussion?Binksternet (talk)04:05, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say anything because I obviously disagree. You could try to be less transparent in your attempts to protect your friend, you know. Your first comment mentions the people that supported Rosco's first report, and lo and behold, who shows up to support yet again? The same people. Amazing, that.Arkon (talk)04:12, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, amazing that admins who readWP:ANI happen to notice a second posting about an issue they commented on last time. I don't think.Black Kite (talk)07:08, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To add to Binksternet's notice above, please note that youwill be blocked if you continue to dothis. This is irrelevant to the ANI above; simply following policy. I would suggest that youcompletely disengage from the other editor, now.Black Kite (talk)07:08, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Just to be clear, I am issuing afinal warning aboutWP:HOUNDINGUser:Roscelese based on the report atWP:ANI. Any continuation will be met with a block.--Bbb23 (talk)16:41, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please readmy warning.--Bbb23 (talk)17:00, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've read it and you should be ashamed of yourself.Badmintonhist (talk)15:22, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No kidding. Now Bbb23 has topic banned me for 3 months. FYI, I noted my displeasure with this censorship on hisTalk page.Memills (talk)01:41, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your recent comment on my Talk page. I've responded to your comment there.Memills (talk)05:32, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you foryour contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed is onprobation. Also note that the terms of somearticle probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is atemplated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you.--Cailil^talk23:35, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I've already warned you once about your conduct with respect to MRM pages. I've now closed the discussion that you should not have been pursuing at theMen's rights movement talk page. This is yourlast warning. Next time you may be sanctioned without notice.--Bbb23 (talk)20:56, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mathsci started that section. Why would you warn Badmintonhist for participating in that thread? Did you warn everyone who did?Arkon (talk)21:43, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to put this on Bbb23's Talk page but since Arkon has contributed here, what are the basis for these warnings concerning theMen's rights movement? I don't get it. People contributing to the discussion there are supposed to get warnings on what basis? Making well reasoned points about the article?Badmintonhist (talk)21:49, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yourunwillingness to grasp the basis for the warnings is in and of itself disturbing. I suggest you edit non-MRM articles because your denial of any misconduct signals to me that you don't have the judgment to determine what you are permitted to do and what you are not permitted to do. You are wasting the community's time. This has been a recurring theme in the MRM articles in which some editors with obvious agendas want to go over the same ground over and over again. At least, unlike some, you are not aWP:SPA, but that will not in and of itself immunize you from sanctions if you mimic their conduct, particularly after having been warned more than once.--Bbb23 (talk)22:02, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You could point to this supposed misconduct, and that might help, you know. Vagueness is not a virtue. Also, could you please respond to my question above?Arkon (talk)23:27, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please do notdelete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did atUser talk:Memills. Such edits are disruptive and appear to bevandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use thesandbox. Thank you.Bbb23 (talk)01:39, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Badmintonhist has stated that the removal of another editor's comment was inadvertent. Iaccept the explanation.--Bbb23 (talk)01:48, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have beenblocked from editing for a period of1 week for persistent harassment of other user after final warning by proxy withthis edit. Once the block has expired, you are welcome tomake useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you mayappeal this block by adding the following text below this notice:{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read theguide to appealing blocks first.  Black Kite (talk)23:10, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Badmintonhist. You have new messages atLordvolton's talk page.
You canremove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks for the heads up re this.Jimbo himself writes to Bbb23: "I think you need to resign your admin bit. Your actions are very very far outside the standard that I expect admins to follow.--Jimbo Wales" Direct link:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive810#Involved_actions_and_edit_warring_by_User:Bbb23_at_Talk:Asaram_BapuMemills (talk)00:08, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you editedGreat American Songbook, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageFor All We Know (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles.Read theFAQ • Join us at theDPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow theseopt-out instructions. Thanks,DPL bot (talk)12:26, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you editedTypes of abortion restrictions in the United States, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageMother Jones (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles.Read theFAQ • Join us at theDPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow theseopt-out instructions. Thanks,DPL bot (talk)11:59, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Given your previous block, can you explain these edits[13][14] to articles you have not previously edited?Black Kite (talk)19:31, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Blanking is not the answer here. I asked you to justify your edits given the situation. Please do so.Black Kite (talk)00:24, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The first edit more clearly differentiates Ruether's narrative from Wiikipedia's. The second edit corrects the implication that Guerra's bride was already active in the pro-life when he married her. Routine stuff. I notice that neither edit has been changed or challenged in the Talk pages of the articles.Badmintonhist (talk)04:55, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion atWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.EvergreenFir (talk)19:55, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'mBracketBot. I have automatically detected thatyour edit toWar on Women may have broken thesyntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: justedit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message onmy operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• more often promoted by [[Republican Party (United States)|Republicans]] than by [[Democratic Party(United States|Democrats]], as a wide-scale effort to restrict [[women's rights]], especially [[

Thanks,BracketBot (talk)06:06, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've just closed a thread atthe administrator's noticeboard for incidents concerning your participation inWar on Woman. While you were not topic banned, you should be aware that the thread was nearly evenly split with a slight majority in favor of a topic ban. You should take that as a definite sign that, at the very least, editors are seeing your participation there as disruptive. That's not to say that you cannot participate, but that you should make an effort to be make clear and concise arguments that refrain from making comments about others and are supported by strong sourcing. On the other subject of Roscelese, consensus is that you are banned from mentioning, replying to, discussing about or otherwise addressing Roscelese in any way. In addition, you may not revert or undo Roscelese's edits in any way. The usual caveats of dispute resolution on appropriate noticeboards apply.--v/r -TP14:41, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize to you, Badmintonhist, my traditionalist brother, for provoking them to drop you in it any deeper than you would have been otherwise. No need to respond to this with any specificity (tread lightly). Keep the faith. --71.178.50.222 (talk)17:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You've egregiously violated your interaction ban with Roscelese through your posthere. AsTParis wrote, just above, per community consensus"you are banned from mentioning, replying to, discussing about or otherwise addressing Roscelese in any way.". Is there something unclear about this? You are not to comment on her or follow her around, period.

I would have blocked you if I'd noticed your violation promptly; as I didn't notice it until well after the fact, I haven't blocked you since it would be entirely punitive at this point to do so. However, I'm worried that you'll interpret the lack of a block as some sort of validation for your post, so let me reiterate that your conduct was unacceptable. You've been told repeatedly that you need to stop following her around and commenting on her, and I don't understand whether you're simply not understanding, or whether you're incapable of the minimal amount of self-restraint that's being required of you.

As you've already gotten a number of "final warnings", and you've already been told repeatedly that you're skating on thin ice, I am considering whether a long-term block or other remedy, including referral back to the community atWP:AN for discussion, is appropriate here. If you have any comment to make, please do so.MastCell ^Talk20:03, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have beenblocked from editing for a period of2 weeks for violating your interaction ban with Roscelese yet again, despite innumerable warnings. Once the block has expired, you are welcome tomake useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you mayappeal this block by adding the following text below this notice:{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read theguide to appealing blocks first.  MastCell ^Talk00:02, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By previous community consensus, and as a result of your hounding of Roscelese, you are subject to an interaction ban:"you are banned from mentioning, replying to, discussing about or otherwise addressing Roscelese in any way. In addition, you may not revert or undo Roscelese's edits in any way." Despite a number of warnings, you continue to violate this ban and hound her, most recently today withthis revert of her edit toSusan B. Anthony, an article where you have not previously been active. Please take this as a final warning, as given your apparent inability to restrain yourself from hounding this editor (or your commitment to disregarding this sanction), the next violation will likely result in an indefinite block.MastCell ^Talk00:02, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by anadministrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see theblocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

I should not be blocked because my reversion was of an edit made byBinksternet rather than byRoscelese[15] though I realize that it is easy to confuse the two. Quite a proper reversion, by the way, since it was a clear case ofWP:OR. Also, Ihave previously edited articles related to Susan B. Anthony before; if not her bio, then articles such asSusan B. Anthony List andSusan B. Anthony abortion dispute. Regards.Badmintonhist (talk)00:53, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The material was originally added by Roscelesehere, you removed ithere. Regardless of the intervening edits, it should have been clear that this was a violation of the interaction ban.Black Kite (talk)01:21, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, pleaseread theguide to appealing blocks first, then use the{{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired.Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

• The edit in question wasoriginally made by Roscelese. It was then the subject of a minor edit-war, in which you participated by removing the material.MastCell ^Talk01:18, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by anadministrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see theblocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

No, the edit that I quite properly reverted was ORIGINALLY made byBinksternet and had been restored by Binksternet immediately prior to my reversion of it.Badmintonhist (talk)07:32, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Under the circumstances, it is highly implausible that you just happened along by chance, and didn't notice that Roscelese was involved.The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk)15:18, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, pleaseread theguide to appealing blocks first, then use the{{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired.Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Ahh, no. Though I only paid attention to Binksternet's immediately previous edit at the time, it was, in fact, first made by ol' Binksternet . . .[16]. Incidentally, my edit seems to have quelled the minor edit war that you speak of.Badmintonhist (talk)01:35, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my first version of that statement, cast as " No scholarly support exists for this notion", which is absolutely true. Badminstonhist's reversion of me and Roscelese did nothing to "quell" the edit war, there being no discussion of the issue. This, thefirst-ever appearance of Badmintonhist at the biography, jumping into an edit war in which Roscelese is taking part, showing up only five hours after Roscelese, is definitely a violation of the interaction ban.Binksternet (talk)04:16, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gee Bink, I have no doubt that that you think it's "absolutely true." However, as a grizzled veteran of over 100,000 edits I'm sure you know that reliable sourcing, not "truth," is the standard by which Wikipedia operates. The statement which I deleted,your statement, was not found in the cited source and was thus "original research." As for this being my first edit on the The Susan B. Anthony bio, I had on a number of previous occasions edited the main articles dealing with the dispute over her views on abortion (ex.Susan B. Anthony abortion dispute andSusan B. Anthony List) , the topic of the section of her bio where I corrected you.Badmintonhist (talk)07:32, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by anadministrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see theblocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

I should be unblocked. The bare fact that I had not previously edited theSusan B. Anthony bio isutterly misleading because I had verysubstantially edited theSusan B. Anthony abortion dispute article as shown here[17] and here[18].Thus my editing of a BRAND NEW section of the Anthony bio dealing with her views on abortion makes perfect sense. Moreover, I was responding to an edit by the ubiquitousBinksternet,a regular contributor to the Anthony bio.Roscelese is not. I should be able to respond to someone who exercises regular oversight over a topic I am interested in without worrying whether or not another editor suddenly jumps into the fray.Badmintonhist (talk)01:16, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining this because this is your third unblock request in less than a week, and you have yet to address or understand why you were blocked in the first place. I suggest not to file another unblock request for a week or so unless you want your talk page access revoked. I'd also recommend you to read theguide to appeal blocks before submitting any more unblock requests after a week had passed.→ Call meHahc2123:20, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, pleaseread theguide to appealing blocks first, then use the{{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired.Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Note for Hahc21: the process you recommend coincides with the natural expiration of the 2-week block.Binksternet (talk)23:43, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your reversion of my edit: Do you think it would be notable enough if I added the second incident in 2013 mentioned in the newspaper article and used another source? I could also include O'Reilly's responses to the two criticisms. Your swift response is appreciated, sincerely,PHENYLALANINE (talk)02:28, 8 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]

If you have found relatively unbiasedreliable sources that charge O'Reilly with something worse than nine-year-apart utterances that SOME might see as anti-semitic (while others wouldn't) then you might try again. If it's just a bee in your bonnet because you don't like the guy's politics, then I'd forget it.Badmintonhist (talk)02:40, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you editedDinah Washington, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageDick Lane (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles.Read theFAQ • Join us at theDPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow theseopt-out instructions. Thanks,DPL bot (talk)08:52, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Badmintonhist,I’ve noticed from editing with you on a few other articles you seem to have a knack for neutrality and an interest in abortion related pages. I recently created a new article for an anti-abortion group with this controversial name:Survivors of the Abortion Holocaust. If you have time, and are at all interested, could you look over the article to see if it has any NPOV issues or other issues? There haven’t been too many editors besides me on the page yet. --BoboMeowCat (talk)20:54, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please be aware that all abortion-related articles are subject to a 1-revert rule. This includesBecky Bell (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views), where you've gone over 1RR already. I'll assume that you were unaware of the restriction, but now you're aware, so please don't violate the 1RR again.MastCell ^Talk04:31, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We discuss things. Were you an uninvolved editor in that situation, discussing sources would have been the first move instead of removing sourced material. But you're not, and you have violated the interaction ban. Again. So I have blocked you for a month.Cas Liber (talk·contribs)05:30, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely for (again) violating your interaction ban. I'm not really second-guessing CasLiber's one-month block, above, as he commentedhere that "My only question is should it have been longer", andUser:MastCell, another respected admin, agreed that it should. So do I. For a more detailed rationale, seethis thread. For previous warnings and sanctions over the same issue, see this page, above, passim. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you mayappeal this block by adding below this notice the text{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read theguide to appealing blocks first.Bishonen |talk15:58, 20 August 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Hmhh . . . it seems to me that going from a one month block to an indefinite (forevermore??) block is a rathersevere increase, kind a' like telling a guy he's going from a month in the county jail to a life sentence in a federal penitentiary.Badmintonhist (talk)17:42, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm completely uninvolved with Badmintonhist and Roscelese as far as I can remember (except I think I may have upbraided R about edit warring once, if that counts), and if it turns out somebody thinks I'm wrong about that, we can all just enjoy some invigorating ANI/RFAR/desysopping drama. The IBan is completely clear:Consensus is that Badmintonhist is banned from mentioning, replying to, discussing about or otherwise addressing Roscelese in any way. In addition,they may not revert or undo Roscelese's edit in any way. My italics. There have been enough second chances IMO. I have blocked Badmintonhist indefinitely. Theoretically, I should have discussed with Cas before extending his block, but by his comment above, it doesn't look like it's necessary. Hope you don't mind,Casliber. Of course I'll retract my block if you wish.Bishonen |talk16:06, 20 August 2014 (UTC).[reply]

*I can't believe I'm hearing myself say this, but I think Badmintonhistory's point is well taken.Bishonen |talk13:10, 19 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Gee, Bishonen, I'd like to think that I've made some worthwhile points in the past that you might have agreed with. As for my suggested edit, it's certainly not one (twelve words) that would add a lot of volume to the lead, and it covers the fact that she is influenced by Ayn Rand ("Atlas Shrugged," for goodness sake) which I really think SHOULD be mentioned in the lead. The edit quickly gives the reader some context as to the kind of "right-winger" Geller is.Badmintonhist (talk)

I didn't mean to imply that I don't respect your editing, Badmintonhist. Merely that you and I are not in the same, uh, cloud, and won't often be found in agreement on any subject that has any sort of a political dimension. I think your suggested edit would provide a nice economic way of covering a good deal of ground while leaving the bulk of the lead dealing with the islamophopia the subject isnotorious notable for — just as it should. But since it's a bio, surely the lead can accommodate twelve words dedicated to the views she promulgates that arenot about Islam. It still won't be exactly fat.Bishonen |talk20:37, 19 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]

To Black Kite, Elizium23, Padresfan94 herself, and any other interested party, I state unequivocally thatI am not Padresfan94. I do appreciate Elizium's effort, however, inreminding us about the conditions that are supposed to attach to unwarranted stalking. I suspect that a lot of folks tend to keep track of Roscelese's edits on politically sensitive articles because they tend to be quite one-sided, combative, and laced with sarcastic editorial comment; and also, perhaps, because they feel that she has largely been supported and coddled by administrators with similar political views. I will say, however, that based on my occasional peaks, her editing lately has beensomewhat (I sure don't want to overstate the case) more reasonable and civil. Regards.Badmintonhist (talk)16:29, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since I just noticed thatPadresfan94 has made a very recent edit, I thought it might be a good time to reassert that she and I are most definitely NOT the same person, however similar our views onRoscelese may be. Of course, those views are pretty much shared by scores of editors of a slightly conservative bent. I must say that it is appalling that an administrator such asMastCell, for reasons that I can only assume have to do with ideological similarity, can only see her as a victim in the MANY, MANY run-ins she has had with fellow editors.Badmintonhist (talk)00:28, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by anadministrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see theblocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

I'm sorry about being too gung-ho in the past when countering what I believed to be biased editing on politically charged subjects. My edits to articles thatRoscelese was involved in editing were never motivated by a desire to annoy her, but rather to improve those articles which were often ones in which I also had strong interest. While I have sockpuppetted a bit since my banishment (well, more than just a bit, I suppose), I think you will find the substance of my edits to have been quite sound.Badmintonhist (talk)02:26, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

We cannot consider this unblock request. If you are the blocked user, please sign in with your account.Yamla (talk)18:56, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, pleaseread theguide to appealing blocks first, then use the{{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired.Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

It appears that the IP request above is from a Rhode Island location, known as the location of previous Badmintonhist socks. And the above IPSpecial:Contributions/70.181.40.210 has made hundreds of edits to badminton topics in the past few months, proving persistent block evasion.Binksternet (talk)19:14, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that Wikipedia's cross between Javert and Anthony Comstock has yet again revisited my Talk page. Gosh!! What an honor!!Badmintonhist (talk)16:07, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by anadministrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see theblocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

I had forgotten that I needed to log in asBadmintonhist before making my above appeal, but have done so now. My reasons for requesting to be unblocked are stated above.

Decline reason:

The fact that you were socking actively during the block (even if positively) would indicate that you couldn't be trusted to comply with partial sanctions (inc. IBANs) were you unblocked, if you felt there was good reason not to do so. Without this, an unblock can't be done. I suggest you cease socking and request an unblock in the future once you can demonstrate compliance on that aspect. Your request also doesn't explain how you wouldavoid interacting and causing annoyance to editors who have you had prior issues with - the prior motives alone wouldn't be enough.Nosebagbear (talk)19:16, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, pleaseread theguide to appealing blocks first, then use the{{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired.Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Kitty appreciates your past contributions in Wikipedia. :-)

Zoglophie18:34, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]