User talk:Badger Drink

I added the citations to the page. Is it acceptable now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by HerzanLLC (talk • contribs) 01:10, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What you wrote looks fine to me. I agree it's 'weasly' and technically needs attribution, but I think Wikipedia:Ignore all rules applies here: If someone is reading about Cobb for the first time, they should know his claim to fame: He is widely considered, among those who know enough to know who he is, to be one of the greatest ever. It's probably the most important thing about Cobb. It's a fact, it's just hard to cite (surveys? of who?) and hard to be specific (how many say that? who are they?). So the weasel words seem to be the best solution. Guanxi 18:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, not at all, anyone at all can tag for CSD. I appreciate your work; I removed the tags because I thought that if the articles were undergoing discussion, then they shouldn't be tagged in case they were deleted in the middle of the discussion, if someone had a valid keep rationale. I was, however, definitely in error, and I'm sorry for causing you trouble. I was wrong, and will definitely be more careful about articles tagged for CSD that are in AFD; thanks for bringing the matter to my attention. Regards, Keilana_(recall) 19:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is wrong with my english? (on my RFA) Ohmpandya (Talk) 02:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for correcting that, and for your explanation of why the weird phrasing is consistent with DeNameland's character. Have a great day, and watch out for the yellow snow! RomaC (talk) 02:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please be more specific about what areas you still feel are a copyvio? I'm seeing a large difference between the current article and the source document. Shell ^babelfish 04:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see that he just re-added the old article in there at first, but by the time we got to the end, it was significantly changed. Can you take a quick look at User:Shell_Kinney/Sandbox and see if you think that version has the same problems? Shell ^babelfish 04:32, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all, if I hadn't happened to look at the right time, I wouldn't have caught it either because the first recreation was definitely a copyvio again. I've gone ahead and restored any revisions of the new article without the copyvio. Thanks for taking a look to confirm! Shell ^(babelfish) 05:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A midget is more properly proportioned, while a dwarf has proportionately short arms and legs. Eddie Gaedel was a midget, as can be seen from his photo. Adult midgets tend to look like children, whereas adult dwarfs tend to look like "normal" adults only with shorter legs and arms. I don't necessarily agree that either term is "better" than "little person", but only that they are more factually descriptive. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.

I (somewhat) disagree with your assessment of the paragraph I removed, however, I feel that a discussion will be of more value than a revert war, since I'm a bit frustrated with Wikipedia at the moment and may not be seeing things clearly. If I may be a bit pretentious/patronizing for a moment, the history behind the article is that I started it from scratch, sent it through a peer review, sent it WP:GAR and, after some tweaks, got it passed. So I'm pretty happy with that GA version, although I do agree that the sentence that removed is not really necessary. So I do admit a little bit of WP:OWNish bias. My big thing is, as you correctly pointed out, sourcing this has proved be extremely difficult; as you can imagine, there's even less in non-online soures than online ones. Given the efforts I expended to get everything cited, I'm just a bit uncomfortable with inserting a whole uncited paragraph smack-dab in the middle, particularly one on a bug. Gameplay is gameplay, and there's general agreement that it does not need to be cited, but I feel that bugs are a bit different. For starters, I played this game all the time as a kid, and I certainly didn't see the second bug. Obviously that's not the least bit conclusive, but it does get to the issue at hand: WP:V (which is probably more accurate than what I mentioned in my edit - WP:OR). The "gameplay" section of any video game can be verified by playing the game whereas a bug, I feel, cannot, unless there's a guaranteed method that can be used to recreate the bug, which I don't believe that there is (am I wrong on this?). So that's where I was coming from with the edit.

Having said all that, I'm not entirely opposed to keeping the material, but I do feel that a good compromise would be to integrate it better in the article. I am pretty convinced that it sticks out like a sore thumb in its present state, even if it is technically in the correction section. Sorry for the long ramble. Cheers, CP 02:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, I can accept that argument. Would you mind if I tried to integrate the information better into the article? The only problem that I could see would that it would integrate the information in the middle of cited paragraphs, which would (falsely) imply that said references cited that material as well. Cheers, CP 15:46, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Badger_Drink Bovlb (talk) 19:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Badger Drink...Thank you for participating in my nomination for adminship. Your comments have shown me those areas in which I need improve my understanding. I hope that my future endevors on Wikipedia will lead to an even greater understanding of it. If you wish to further discuss the nomination, please use its talk page. Stop by my talk page anytime, even if it is just to say hello. Have a wonderful day! - LA @ 05:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You lamented in the article's AfD that the preponderance of Star Wars fans means that trying to get the article deleted is irrelevant. You should be happy to know that I've seen at least one 3-to-1 !vote decided in the latter's favor, and the decision upheld in DRV, because the minority had the rules on its side.

However, I also assure you that the attitude in your post is needlessly grim, and ask you to reconsider or at least quiet down. In your statement you assume that editors who are also Star Wars fans will disregard the principles of the encyclopedia they're here to build in favor of having more stuff on the Force. This is not so. Fiction has its raving fanboy quotinent, but this is exactly the kind of people whose posts have to be disregarded in AfDs, and we also have a lot of fiction experts who are willing to work within the rules to improve our coverage - but we are far from guaranteed to retain them, volunteers all, if both kinds are treated as the same. In my - let's face it - considerable experience, assuming a debate or a segment of our editors to be beneath rational cooperation is an excellent self-fulfilling prophecy.

And this is just personal opinion, but to paraphrase someone smarter than me: "To be honest, I think the thing that makes Wikipedia a "laughing stock" is not many articles on the minutia of television or other fiction, but the seriousness with which we take ourselves." HTH, cheers, Kizor 00:21, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and greetings to you. You have been one of the only uninvolved editors to comment to the Arb Committee[1]. I certainly realize that there are a lot of editors who truly hate homeopathy, and therefore, don't like me. This is why I am interested in hearing whatever thoughts you, as an uninvolved editor, have on my participation on wikipedia. Although there are many more voices against homeopathy and me at the Arb committee hearing, I hope that you are reading some of the responses from the editors who support my efforts. You can comment here or at my user-page or via email. If you have any personal thoughts about homeopathy (pro or con), I'm open to hearing whatever is. DanaUllman^Talk 05:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss in the talk page before removing referenced material. Imad marie (talk) 08:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How is John Colman's opinion to have a debate and Al Gore's comment about the debate being closed my POV?Wotring3 (talk) 12:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...has been putting lists of pennants on a lot of players' bios. Good luck tracking those down. I don't have the energy for it just now. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, apparently this guy doesn't have the sense to at least spell my screen name right, but I digress. As far as your problem with me putting pennant info on Hall-of-Famers' talk pages, I believe that it's the players' contributions that win pennants. Even though not every Hall-of-Famer has played in a World Series, helping a team win a pennant is alone a significant achievement. Look at what the Tigers did in 2006, three years after losing 119 games.

For the moment, I've placed the information back on the Ty Cobb page, but you'll have a hard time convincing me that helping a team win a pennant is not an accomplishment. I think we're all better off assuming good faith. Thanks. Mdb1370 (talk) 22:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the heading. I don't buy the argument, but the consensus on the project page seems to support your take on it; in fact, I was going to revert Badger's change "pending project discussion", but you beat me to it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you opposed my last RFA at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Gary King a few weeks ago. I have decided to open an Editor Review at Wikipedia:Editor review/Gary King so I could receive a new assessment for my recent activity on Wikipedia. I would greatly appreciate it if you could take the time to look over my recent contributions and point out areas where I could improve. Thanks in advance! Gary King (talk) 05:20, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your revert on the Frank Zappa article. I think the person has "simply" saved an old version of the page. The changes were not put in there individually, I think. Good catch! Cheers.--HJensen, talk 22:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. What is genero-cruft?! Thanks. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 08:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(copied over from my talk page:) Heh. Some people tell me there's not enough in it, and others such as yourself that it's bloated. I'm half-tempted to cut even more from the biographical stuff. But out of interest: which bits would you cut? --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 09:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(copied over from my talk page:) Ah, OK. I understand what you're saying better now. I do rely on quotations a lot. In part, that's my style (sorry!); though I feel it's fairly justified when the subject is a BLP. On the other hand, I do believe that we should try to make our articles interesting and engaging. That's probably just a different philosophy as to "encyclopedic" tone. I may not get it completely right, but I'd like to be able to write entertainingly, while sticking to NPOV. Peter Wall is clearly an interesting and colourful character; I wanted to get some sense of that across. NB I don't think that that means it's a puff piece. I've very much tried to ensure that it steers a careful line between BLP concerns on the one hand, and spam on the other. FWIW, there is one rather negative newspaper piece out there; I've linked to it (it's the Adele Weder one), but not used it very much. In any case, if one were to be negative about Wall, I don't think his personality is the deal, but rather the effect on people who can no longer afford to buy a house in Vancouver, while a few profit from this extraordinary boom. Again, I added a brief comment and footnote about that, but didn't feel it worth going into at length.

Anyhow, thanks for your comments. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 10:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I.DRINK.YOUR.BADGER. I.....DRINK IT UP. Tool2Die4 (talk) 18:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is the real reason why you are defending to keep that image on the article, it doesn't really need to be in that section. You are probably well aware of images not being allowed of the prophet, which is the reason why I have removed it, plus it doesn't really seem necessary at all to be present there. My edits are not seen as vandalism, it's my point of view and action of whether or not the image should be allowed. Your point of view of having the image on the article is not greater than my point of view, so it gives you no right. Thankyou! May peace and blessings of Islam be with you! Please understand. Moshin (talk) 21:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. I totally missed that. F'ing amazing lack of introspection. Guettarda (talk) 23:07, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very good joke on the arbitration case. I didn't even relaize that until you pointed it out. hbdragon88 (talk) 01:18, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per ruling of the arbcom here: Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Orangemarlin#Arbitrator_views_and_discussion an RFAR on Orangemarlin has been opend here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#User:Orangemarlin. You are invited to submit your evidence and statements.. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:53, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe not really that high on the friendliness, but by god we're civil, or at least we are as civil as an individual admin's interpretation of CIVIL for a given day, in a given hour, dependant on how they are feeling, is ... :-). Shot info (talk) 02:43, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I moved the Soundtrack listings into Cultural References is because a powermad editor, L0b0t is going around to all the episodes arbitrarily deleting info. He had deleted the entire Soundtrack section (see history) saying it was unnecessary, I put it all in C.R. in the argument that its a standard category in Simpsons Episodes (since he argued Soundtracks is not). I have no problem myself with a "soundtrack" category, but you may have to contend with him deleting your entire section again and again. He seemed ok with leaving it in C.R. (he didn't delete it again, anyway.)71.100.0.107 (talk) 20:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, like I say, I don't care either way, I just thought the section had merit and wanted to preserve it, and if moving it to CR would keep him from deleting it, I didn't care what the "heading" was. Anyway, when he logs on later don't be surprise if he deletes it again.71.100.0.107 (talk) 21:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, it was Martarius, not L0b0t http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Little_Big_Girl&diff=224327312&oldid=224316561 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.0.107 (talk) 21:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I guess my problem is with the word dubious. I'll try to think of an alternative/rephrase, but it isn't really a big problem. --SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 22:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not use unnecessary profanity in your edit summaries, like this. It may be interpreted as incivil. Just a request. -kotra (talk) 02:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ohai there. I see you do a lot of vandalism work, and I must say, I'm impressed. May I interest you in the rollback feature? It makes it faster to revert vandalism than using Twinkle. You can request rollback at WP:RfR. But rollback should only be used to revert vandalism, and not good faith edits. You are allowed to revert your own edits though. If you are interested and you do want to request for it, then I suggest you read WP:VANDALISM, Wikipedia:Rollback feature, and Wikipedia:Rollback policy first just so you know when and when not to use it before requesting at WP:RFR. -- RyRy (talk) 01:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate it if you would consider deleting this quote from AN/I. I'm thinking of a case that was on the news in which a teenager told people on the Internet he was going to commit suicide; people replied with comments like "It's about time", and he did actually commit suicide. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 15:54, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment here was completely unacceptable, thus I have blocked you for 24 hours. Please don't resort to name-calling again, you should know better. Al Tally ^talk 19:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock|terrible block by an involved admin. Even if we throw out his tiresome and consistent oppose-badgering and the light in which my comment was intended in, this is just as bad as Tango's block of MONGO.}}

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): Pedro has unblocked you, as per the ANI discussion. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 21:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply] Request handled by: weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 21:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will talk to Alex about this block. Please have patience. east718 // talk // email // 20:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shall do! --Badger Drink (talk) 20:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While you have been unblocked, I'd just like to recommend you refrain from comments like you made at the RFA, especially when they have nothing to do with the RFA at hand. I don't know what your motivation was, but there is no reason to go into a seemingly random RFA to attack another user. If you have an issue with another editor, go to that user's talk page and discuss it without A. disrupting non-related natters and B. name-calling. Just a bit of advice for the future, Metros (talk) 21:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Responded on your talk page. Short answer: it had everything to do with the RFA at hand. --Badger Drink (talk) 00:38, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per discussion, I have unblocked your account and make no further comment on the merits or otherwise of the original block. Pedro :  Chat  21:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Request for a block review You can find your name there.--Caspian blue (talk) 21:32, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OOps! Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 16:34, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please refactor your claim in the RfC that Elonka is "callous, impulsive, and mercenary"? That seems really excessive, it's very impolite and frankly I think it will only serve to discredit your other comments on the matter. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:35, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Long reply on your talk page, short version: No, but I understand where you're coming from. --Badger Drink (talk) 20:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're veering awfully close to a WP:3RR violation. Note that your three reverts have been of three different editors. Sometimes, we have to accept that we don't like the consensus and move on. Oren0 (talk) 17:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Badger, I suggest you chill a bit. Whether this article is labelled "Denialism" or "Expose" has not the slightest importance to anybody except the people who are arguing about it. Looie496 (talk) 18:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I take note of the edit summaries at: [2] and [3]. Neither of these is in line with WP:CIV, IMHO.

On the issue of the reversion you have made, please justify your actions on the talk page as is customary. There is extensive discussion on this edit there and I have provided more than sufficient justification for my edits. In this respect, please answer the following:

(1) Do you deny that the reference I used provided a statement from Durkin wherein he denied misrepresenting Wunsch?

(2) Do you deny that the reference I used for the ofcom report explicitly confirms that they felt the program had NOT misrepresented Wunsch on his statements regarding the relationship between CO2 the oceans and rising temperatures (see direct quotes provided in the article history and on the talk page)?

--GoRight (talk) 01:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I consider this post on my talk page, [4], to be a violation of WP:NPA. Per WP:NPA#Initial_options I am contacting you on your talk page as part of the dispute resolution process. I would ask you to refrain from making any further personal attacks or I shall be forced to proceed as described in WP:NPA#Recurring_attacks. I also consider this to be a second example of your NOT being WP:CIV. Perhaps a brief review of WP:Wikiquette will help you avoid future violations of wikipedia policies.

I will be most happy not to post anything on your talk page, per your request, however I must reserve the right to post applicable notices here when directed to do so as part of the dispute resolution process or to place applicable notices of violations of wikipedia policies. Avoiding future transgressions will remove any necessity on my part to post here.

Have a nice day! --GoRight (talk) 15:34, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At Scetoaux's RfA you opposed based on the user's response to the third oppose. That response is not Scetoaux, but another editor. In light of this, it would probably be appropriate for you to reconsider your position (or at least your rationale for your oppose). Thanks, Metros (talk) 18:46, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about it, mistakes happen. Thanks for taking a second look. Tan ǀ 39 20:01, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. fyi I left a question on your Oppose comment for JamieS93. Take care, HG | Talk 13:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"...!vote-counting, without taking into account the rationales given on each side (Esperenza 2 being the most obvious example here)".

I'm particularly interested to hear you elaborate on the above point. - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 16:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. Yes, I think it would definitely help loads in the self-improvement of the candidate by providing a bit more in the RfA on Esperenza 2. - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 11:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, please don't mark removal of unsourced content as minor. Many people have their watchlists set up to avoid seeing minor edits. So minor edits should really be restricted to only minor things like grammar and spelling. Oh, and can you please get a userpage? I'm tired of seeing a big red spot all the time. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:41, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(x-posted to your talk) Apologies for both. In the case of the former, I always looked (and still look) at clearly uncontroversial removals (in this case, removing complete OR that implied that information about STDs led to adolescent turmoil and a negation of one of the most landmark studies in psychology) as minor edits, only a small step above removing outright vandalism in terms of "majorness". In the case of the latter - while I understand how others can see it as "ugly", tastes vary. I'm uncomfortable with the "politely worded demand" to create a user page. I'm here to work on an encyclopedia and to offer my views towards furthering a better "working environment", not to make friends or talk about myself. I actually prefer the red-link somewhat, as it stands out on wikilink-filled talk pages, without calling unnecessary attention to itself like many sigs do. Thanks for your requests Badger Drink (talk) 22:35, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. It is not OR the company it self even promotes the fact in several TV spots

2. It is extremely relevent because to not say so your allowing to the reader to come to the erronious conclusion that the company does not take any enviromental responibility at all (yes you can question why they would fund sceptics to say that is all they fund is 100% inaccurate and paints a picture that is not NPOV)

3. If you have a problem with the grammar please fix it (I am not the best in this area)

Someone's probably gonna slap you for that one, but it's about the funniest thing I've seen round here in a while :-)  Frank  |  talk  19:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please reconsider the value of your words at RFA, where you made an allegation that a candidate's behavior was akin to a disgusting act of racism, and also (for no apparent reason) appended an utterly irrelevant screed on his aesthetic judgment. I'm sure you're familiar with WP:NPA; an RFA vote is no excuse to ignore it. If you can't find a productive way to express your view, you will probably find you're better off not expressing it. -Pete (talk) 07:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. In case it wasn't clear, I removed your !vote. If you can think of a better way to recast it, please do so. -Pete (talk) 07:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on your talk page. Short version: Read. Comprehend. Act. Thank you for your time. Badger Drink (talk) 08:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I am going to change the article a bit coz it does seem a bit like a story. I am going to make everything past-tense. Do you think that will be enough? InternetHero (talk) 13:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, I don't have any problem with the animal, or the word badger when it's used in it's correct term (actual "badgering" of people, rather than polite discussion). :D I can also assure you that you're not being used to end discussions. :) Thanks for lightening the mood. Acalamari 18:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, thanks for your note and for clarifying your stance on the issue. I think it would make more sense to move this discussion to Talk:Dubai where other users will also have the opportunity to express their opinion. I have brought back the original text into the article, and hope that we can work out a compromise through discussions on the article's "talk" page. Thanks AreJay (talk) 14:53, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, we haven't met, but I'm a big fan of badgers and once was one in the scouts. Can I ask you as a former badger to a current one, please reread this and see if you can rephrase it in a more friendly way. Note I'm not suggesting you change your vote, merely to find ways of expressing it that doesn't include dump, crap and "out to lunch". ϢereSpielChequers 18:53, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Regional differences and dialects in Indian English (AfD discussion)

Uncle G (talk) 17:31, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you kidding? No. Clouds consist of liquid and solid water, not gaseous water (vapor). - Atmoz (talk) 19:49, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In this AfD, I changed your use of the  tags to <small> </small> because the text in "sub" format was hard to read. I hope this is fine with you. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:16, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was going to suggest death by marooning them on an island populated entirely by rabid Conservapedia editors (if only for the rather unimaginative vandalism), but I suppose that there are laws against cruel and unusual punishment for a reason... (seriously, happy to help though) Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:44, 12 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Ack, I didn't think that it would do that, although thinking about it now, it seems logical. Be assured that I will do the appropriate penance for this latest sacrilege. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:58, 30 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Aahhh... good to know. I noticed he was in the habit of blanking his talk page, but must have missed the final warning. I suppose he will probably be blocked soon, unless he changes his tune. Thanks for your message. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 14:22, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sorry. I realised just after I copied and pasted in a hurry. More haste, less ... The Land Surveyor (talk) 08:07, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a new business structure that has never been publicised before, and the article explains the methodology behind the concept. It has nothing to do with making the company famous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimkoras (talk • contribs) 05:27, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In order to remove the spam accusation, and the possible advertising benefit from this article, we have removed the reference to the company name who first established the bifranchise concept. Should you feel the mention of the company as the inventor of the business concept is acceptable to be mentioned in the history section please let me know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimkoras (talk • contribs) 06:53, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had no idea... Leave it in, then. (Refreshing, an IP not vandalizing. ;D) TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 12:20, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Colin Fry styles hmself, and is styled by his peers, as a medium. as such, to call him a cold reader is extremely POV The kayfabe is, admittedly debateable, although it could be argued that he has given an explanation for this, so any opinions should be kept out of the article Phallicmonkey (talk) 21:00, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In regard to your revert, do you have a reliable source stating that Fiasco was an active member on the forum, and cite that really is him? The forum itself isn't reliable. DiverseMentality 22:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I forgot about your questions (sorry 'bout that) - this is a bit of a diplomatic tightrope, and I am trying to AGF on the there's-a-whole-bunch-of-stuff-on-arb-evidence-I-don't-know happening. I hadn't read the Matthew Hoffman case when I got your question and did ruminate about it at a later question. I am having trouble in that case with the cannot-confirm-sock to no-evidence-of-sock. I can't see what has been done to rule out a planned entrapment of hot-blooded admin with a sock, which was my first impression (but then as a science editor I wonder if I am biased...). Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the change of heart. I didn't expect it, I figured messing it up at first would've been a deal breaker even despite clarification for most. :) Wizardman 19:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know you used me as "question" for Arbcom candidates (I really only read a couple of questions, using them as the baseline for every candidate). I'm revisiting my votes now. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:42, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Check out the log - apparently G8 now applies to user talk pages :/ Majorly talk 16:28, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome work as always. — neuro^(talk) 16:31, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. That was a misconfiguration of WP:TW. It also automatically deleted the talk page after I deleted User:Badger Drink per G3. I've switched that off now.  Sandstein  16:36, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 00:59, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the personal attacks and civility issues (personal attacks are not civil) are demonstrated by the links, the pattern is there. I'm off to bed. I was surprised that he was blocked, and more so that he remains so. Not because I think the block is meritless or with merit, but that this user seems to be able to do whatever he likes, push any boundary and there is always some admin willing to support him. I certainly don't want to antagonize you. Chalk it up to a long night, and please accept my apologies. I did edit my comment, so it perhaps makes less/ more sense. Anyhoo, happy editing.Die4Dixie (talk) 10:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did go through and follow your links before bed. They are quite clever. You are welcome to nominate my name again, as consensus can change. I live some 40 miles from Dixie County, Florida, and 35 miles from Dixie, Georgia. If you are trying to say that I am a proponent of black slavery with your cute links, I'd suggest you not. Feel free to look up the discussion about it on my user talkpage. It's been blanked a few times. You'll find the links towards the beginning. Atempts to discredit me because I'm from the South are a tad trite, no?Die4Dixie (talk) 10:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Badger Drink,

Wishing you a happy new year, and very best wishes for 2009. Whether we were friends or not in the past year, I hope 2009 will be better for us both.

Kind regards,

Majorly talk 21:12, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had this link dubaijobsnetwork.com added for people who are looking for jobs in Dubai. This is a networking site to help people connect. This site has no content that would voilate Wiki's guidelines.

If you like, you may take a look at the site and see if it's approperiate to add at the bottom of the page in the external links.

Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.229.208.149 (talk) 03:47, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Badger Drink, could you please explain what you meant by tinfoil woo-woo? In my forty-plus years of extensive reading, I have never come across that phrase. Congratulations, I give you a gold star for originality. In point of fact, it could be used as a title for a song.--jeanne (talk) 08:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you have a userpage?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 09:19, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you deleted some externals links on the Carroll Quigley page, saying that "wiki is not google". What do you mean by that? Thank you. Ah Poh (talk) 03:34, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi thanks for the source. But I understand that the article is not a mere collection of external links. It is a brief bio article with links to Carroll Quigley's works. Thanks. Ah Poh (talk) 04:04, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bagder Drink, can you give a reply to my above post? Thanks. Carroll Quigley article is clearly not just a collection of links. I don't see anything is violated, but you deleted the external links. Thanks. Ah Poh (talk) 04:16, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Calton seems to be trying to get around the WP:BLP situation on his front page by now linking to an edit summary where the RL names of the individuals are stated. I reverted it back to the version before, but you should check it out anyway. 78.102.139.109 (talk) 11:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are receiving this message because you have previously posted at a Ireland naming related discussion. Per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names#Back-up procedure, a procedure has been developed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration, and the project is now taking statements. Before creating or replying to a statement please consider the statement process, the problems and current statements. GnevinAWB (talk) 17:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Benevolent? Can I get a {{cn}}? - Eldereft (cont.) 15:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment at RFArb got well-deserved special recognition from an arbitrator. ;) Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:51, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How dare you leave sarcastic remarks on my arbitration request. [slap] As penance, I command you to review at least one article at WP:FAC. Jehochman ^Talk 21:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*applause* Tony Fox (arf!) 22:21, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That made me laugh, thank you for a rare bit of light relief. Guy (Help!) 22:51, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Abd and JzG/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Abd and JzG/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:17, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, it wasn't me. You might want to direct that message to the right person.--Jiang (talk) 18:47, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Badger, I see you were taking this article to AfD, but I've gone ahead and deleted under speedy deletion criteria G11. Thanks, Marasmusine (talk) 10:58, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hope I have fixed it so that it reads in an encyclopedic way. Gran² 10:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since I'm here, Tor Books is most decidedly not a vanity press. It was long the SF imprint of Macmillan Publishers, until it was sold to Holtzbrink. It's one of the largest SF publishers worldwide, something which is more obvious from their business site than their community site. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 10:03, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I assume this was meant to be sarcastic? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:54, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I lol'd. Although, I didn't catch the sarcasm. I think that was totally literal. Crocodile tears, I'm sure. Lara 05:54, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability and fiction (shortcut WP:NAF) has been drafted per the general consensus at the recent RFC to which you contributed. You are invited to review the essay and to edit it in an attempt to generate a consensus regarding the issue. Hiding T 10:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I am in the process of sourcing and adding out of universe information cited in published books and therefore hope you might reconsider your stance. Thanks! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 23:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The Barnstar of Good Humour
		Sir, I had an audible chuckle. “ How about a userbox? {{user-encyclopedia|-1}} This user is not here to build an encyclopedia, and wishes more Wikipedians had secret pages to discover. Badger Drink (talk) 18:20, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] ” Link it to me if you create it. –xenotalk 18:27, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since the title of the article is Oakland Athletics, it's at best confusing to the reader to have these categories. Is there any consensus to add this?--Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:32, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In reference to this edit summary, now you really are making your edits seem pointy by putting the categories back when multiple people have asked you to explain what's going on. --Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop making disrupting edits to make a point, as you did to Minnesota Twins, to Texas Rangers (baseball), to Atlanta Braves, to San Francisco Giants, and to Los Angeles Dodgers. The appropriate place to discuss the issues regarding the categorization of the Montreal Expos article is on Talk:Montreal Expos, where a discussion has been opened. Please keep in mind that Wikipedia is guided by consensus. BRMo (talk) 22:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Badger, if you're looking to get blocked for disruption, you're making good progress. You're labeling current teams as "defunct", which is patently absurd, and since you've already been warned about this, I intend to regard it as vandalism and revert you ASAP. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have reported your activities to WP:ANI. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:58, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked your account for three hours. You can't edit war over stuff like this, it serves no purpose. Yes, there are inconsistencies in the way baseball teams are covered. There are also inconsistencies in the way electoral politics, rivers, historic districts, and small mammals are covered. We have a lot of work to do. That work is best done through calm discourse and creative thinking, not through making pointy reversions on a variety of articles. -Pete (talk) 03:49, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"we need creative thinking" *blocks user for thinking creatively* Badger Drink (talk) 04:49, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Labeling active franchises as "defunct" hardly constitutes "creative thinking". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Figuring out a way to keep consistency with articles like Montreal Expos is certainly creative. But, please, keep on throwing those chin-ticklers, Doc. Badger Drink (talk) 05:02, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then take your complaints to the Expos page and stop screwing around with other articles, unless you have a desire to hang 'em up and move on to citizendium. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 05:10, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For whatever it's worth, I've taken a look at this page a couple times since issuing the block, and see nothing here to make me question that decision. -Pete (talk) 05:28, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BadgerDrink, you're claiming on my talk page that you have consensus for repeatedly adding the defunct team cat to the Giants, A's, Braves etc, when this whole talk page section should make it abundantly clear that no such consensus exists. There currently is no baseball team named the "Montreal Expos", so it's entirely appropriate to have the cat there. There are currently teams named the Oakland Athletics, Minnesota Twins, Texas Rangers, Atlanta Braves, San Francisco Giants, and Los Angeles Dodgers, so putting a category saying the teams are defunct on those pages confuses the casual reader. The situations are not at all comparable.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He does have one point, though - the franchise formerly known as the Montreal Expos is not defunct. It lives today as the Washington Nationals. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:56, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really fine either way on the Expos, as long as it's hashed out by the community. (MLB has made the whole Expos / Nationals thing annoyingly murky, and dope slaps to those MLB people involved are in order.) My main point is that the tag is not at all appropriate on articles where a team currently exists with that name. Continuing to re-add the tags there, especially when multiple editors are objecting, is either pointy or vandalism, take your pick.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've raised this question on the Expos page. To call them a defunct Canadian franchise is fair. To call them a defunct major league franchise would seem to be incorrect or misleading. There is nothing defunct in any way shape or form about the A's, Giants, Braves, Twins, etc. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:18, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are suspected of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ron liebman. Thank you. NW (Talk) 11:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for participating in WP:Requests for adminship/Kww 3
Sometimes, being turned back at the door isn't such a bad thing

—Kww(talk) 18:25, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A request for comment that may interest you is currently in progress at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee 2. If you have already participated, then please disregard this notice and my apologies. Manning (talk) 08:19, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You received this message because you participated in the earlier ArbCom secret ballot RFC.

As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (talk) 08:01, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Damn, that was funny. You must have really struck a nerve because he told you to go away when usually he loves nothing more than to argue on and on and on and on. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 06:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From doing this. I'm the one that opened that section, and I meant it to be under the first, as it is a related issue, and in regard to the first. It was not meant to be separate. Headings like this are typically used in such a manner.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 23:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You asked me, "Did you even read WP:BLP1E?": Not thoroughly, but enough to know that I disagree with it. Deletion debates are not my cup of tea for this reason, but ultimately I don't care much about that article so it's not a big deal. Best wishes. --Spangineer^ws (háblame) 04:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[5] I know it can be frustrating but try to take it easy on the edit summaries. - Schrandit (talk) 08:41, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right. I checked Watson on page 26. You're right. Apologies left on anon talk page. DVdm (talk) 09:20, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, seems we were both wrong after all. DVdm (talk) 21:17, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stomach churning academia? :) believe me as an academic who has published several times the parody in that video is so spot on it is unreal. Polargeo (talk) 11:46, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, could you please re-register your vote at the Chernobyl page? We have restarted the process, and with the name change, your particular vote wasn't clear in the new context. Thanks!

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chernobyl_disaster

Fell Gleaming^(talk) 14:29, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per your edit [6], (→History: what a dumbass thing to say.)

Awesome! Made me laugh at this otherwise shitty afternoon. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:06, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please quantify your shitty afternoon, preferably in terms of "rate"? Thanks in advance! Badger Drink (talk) 21:47, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My shitty afternoon was not because of Wikipedia. Your edit summary certainly lightened the mood! Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:16, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=360551209

I've undone this edit. You seem to have removed someone else's comment, and one that didn't violate any discussion rules as far as I can tell. Equazcion ^(talk) 17:12, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The comment I removed was drama-mongering, pure and simple. If you're unable to see that, I fear this may be a case of being blinded by good faith. Badger Drink (talk) 18:52, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see how that could be one way of looking at the comment due to the emotional tone, but that's not traditionally seen as grounds to remove a comment. The user seems to be expressing a genuine opinion on a comment's appropriateness, which is on-topic for that thread. Equazcion ^(talk) 18:59, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing out the implication with that statement. When I wrote it, I did not think of the accusatory nature of the statement nor the implication that no thought was put into the votes. I have struck through the word 'blanket' and replaced it with 'target', as it reflects my intent and removes the unintended implication. Movementarian (Talk) 04:40, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! Nice comments on Jclemens' RfA, Badger... I think that summed up the situation at ARS quite succinctly. SnottyWong talk 04:57, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a 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 at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

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]

Thank you very much for your contribution to my Rfa. I have made a comment about it at User talk:JamesBWatson#Your Request for Adminship which you are, of course, very welcome to read if you wish to. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Jimmy Wales, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. -- Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 21:07, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a second -- you're not an admin, according to this. I don't want you as a non-admin responding to my requests at WP:ANI. What are you doing, doing that? It is annoying and not helpful. Herostratus (talk) 03:02, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have now made 4 reverts to Modern liberalism in the United States within 24 hours which is edit-warring. If you make any further reverts to this article it will be reported to the appropriate noticeboard and you may be blocked for editing. TFD (talk) 19:09, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are entitled to your opinion of what constitutes vandalism, but it is up to the administrators to decide whether you are reverting vandalism. When you do revert vandalism you should identify it as such in the edit summary and provide a warning to the person whose edit is reversed. If they do not follow the warning then you should report it to the appropriate notice board. However, I do not consider the edits you reversed to be vandalism, but see this as a content dispute. TFD (talk) 20:30, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted because it was a large section removed w/o consensus. When an editor reverts and ask you to use talk, it is polite not to revert again with an edit summary of "...please let's not play the filibuster game. ...". Your removal the second time was exactly that.

Personally, I won't contest it. Filibustering over cultural ref section for Zima is beneath all of us. Also, Zima sucks. Happy edititng. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:10, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You remind me of a German I once knew. Dlohcierekim 15:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You seem like you need a cupcake and I'm happy to oblige. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:47, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Typically, when an editor is bold but is reverted, the next step is to discuss the issue, not to immediately make the same edit again. Bold, revert, discuss is a good idea because it balances boldness with discussion and communication instead of encouraging editors to edit war. Please think about trying it next time you're reverted. ElKevbo (talk) 13:54, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Badger Drink. Thanks for correcting my inaccurate nomination. I'll remember {{g6}}. Sometimes I'm lost in this ocean of rules and templates :) --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 07:49, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I reverted your deletion of sourced material, which looked relevant to me, at Stradivarius. Why did you remove that? (I couldn't understand your edit summary either—what in the article is not open to debate, what corresponds to saying water is dry, and what do those have to do with studies of the wood and varnish of these violins?) —JerryFriedman (Talk) 15:54, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. I get it now. However, the material on the blind tests (which I added to the article) doesn't really prove that no one can tell Strads from other violins. It does strongly suggest that only a few people, if any, can. Whatever the answer to that is, there have undoubtedly been a lot of studies of the supposed differences, many of them reported in the media, and I think the article can contain them while reminding the reader that the differences are probably not real.

I don't have a lot of time for this at the moment, so if you reply, my reply may be slow. I'll have more time in a couple weeks. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 15:27, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from personal attacks, and explain your reasons for revision in Talk:United_States_and_state_terrorism

Scaleshombre (talk) 21:12, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What specific content are you referring to? V7-sport (talk) 13:32, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So deleting the legal definition of "terrorism" by US law from an article on US terrorism and then stating you "aren't sure why US law should be singled out" is good faith? Well at least you aren't making the nod to "diligent process wonk". V7-sport (talk) 02:39, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edit summaries are not only unnecessary and uncivil, they are also unhelpful. Attacking other editors, even if you are not in discussion with them or saying their name in your insulting summaries, will not be tolerated. Please make edit summaries that do exactly what they are supposed to do: Summarizing your edits. What may or may not have been done before and your personal opinion of what may or may not have been done before does not belong in an edit summary. The³5₉ (Talk) 10:48, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's cute, simply repeating what I said. I should have expected a response similar to that of a child. Now since you want to throw around nice little anecdotes to try and excuse your behaviour, here's one to explain why you are being told to stop: Grow the fuck up. I mean seriously, who do you think you're fooling with thinking these edit summaries are in any way allowable or in any way helpful to Wikipedia? One would think that if the only problems you have been dealing with have been correcting grammar and wording, that it can be done simply without attacking someone else or requiring smartass comments. And hell, you seem to have said a comment on my talk page about suggesting someone edit a Wiki in their own language without having it be harsh or attacking, so clearly there is some intelligence over there capable of handling things like an adult, so how about you try sticking with that instead. The³5₉ (Talk) 18:51, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't see that you've ever edited the article Chinese room before today, at least not with this account, I do see that you have a long edit history, so I am sure you are aware that insulting personal comments in edit summaries are unwelcome. I fail to see the sense behind your comment that using the word person (rather than human, which is used over 30 times in the article) makes it seem to personalized. Would the word illegible make the article unreadble by its mere presence? Thanks for pointing out the extra enn. I will delete it.μηδείς (talk) 06:18, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To quote your edit summary, "seriously?" μηδείς (talk) 22:25, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To repeat my quote of your edit summary, "seriously?" μηδείς (talk) 22:25, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your condescension from the beginning and your continued rude language on my talk page are not welcome. I see from the above sections that rude edit summaries are not a new thing with you. I am neither going to lower myself to your level nor explain myself further. Stop putting tit for tat comments on my talk page. I have nothing more to say and will respond to further comments from you as harassment. μηδείς (talk) 04:35, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will however state that your comments are attacks and that if you continue this further, after you have previously been warned, this will be brought to administrator attention. You were clearly capable of keeping your edit summaries concise and to the point without having to add unnecessary and unwanted opinions about a user's errors. Further, your increasingly insulting replies on Medeis' talk page, including claiming that someone is incapable of understanding a personal attack because they lack your apparent grasp of English, are not even remotely kosher. And I'm sure you know damn well that they are over the line. The³5₉ (Talk) 20:22, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Look, it's one thing to have a disagreement of an article but it's another thing when you make rude comments, and post a personal attack on a work project talk page. If you want to continue editing, I would suggest that you knock off the funny business. Otherwise I will be forced to report you. Rest assured, this is no idle comment. Thank you. Sarujo (talk) 01:27, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this was a misunderstanding, I deleted an copyvio article in the cs.wiki and then I just removed the corresponding interwiki. I think it was completely OK. Regards.--Jieκeren (talk) 20:50, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Badger Drink . I've noticed that although you contributed a few times to WT:RfA discussion, your last post was on 29 December 2009 so you may not be completely up to date with some of the most recent discussion. The current topics are about the severely diminishing number of candidates willing to come forward. Some on and off Wiki polling has revealed that this is mainly due to the unsavoury environment most RfA have become, due to inappropriate questions, and civility issues. As you are a regular !voter at RfA, I would like to heartily invite you to join in with the discussions, in a drive to make RfA a more encouraging prospect for our editors who would probably pass with flying colours. You might also find this may provide some additional interesting background. Regards, --Kudpung (talk) 03:33, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want you to think I'm getting on your nerves, 'coz it's none of my business really and I'm not even an admin, but please have a look now at my post above. Cheers, --Kudpung (talk) 05:36, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I neither have the time nor the inclination to answer your lengthy point by point diatribe that you felt needed to be posted separate from the issue of record. Needless to say, I agree with little (if ANY) of it, nor do I understand your schizophrenic "have a nice day" post script at the end of it after you reamed me from top to bottom just previously to that. There will be no further communications to any postings on my user page. But at least I have one. --Mactographer (talk) 08:01, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

...is that the majority of Wikipedians are delicate souls. They've never been, shall we say, robustly treated. They may have been bullied, of course. And if so, tis even worse, as sadly they will confuse the two. To be honest my friend, you're fucked. Better hope that some other bogeyman distracts their attention. Egg Centric (talk) 23:06, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your latest comments on ANI demonstrate a misunderstanding of civility and its importance on Wikipedia. Please take a moment out of your busy day to read and understand WP:CIV. Thank you for your attention. Viriditas (talk) 23:17, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You stated that your response "adequately covers all matters raised" - it hasn't (in fact, it's raised more) and I suggest you return to WP:ANI to answer some of the criticisms. Regards, GiantSnowman 23:40, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite what I was expecting, but whatever; let's all just move on and concentrate on more important things like actually improving this nice little encyclopedia of ours. Regards, GiantSnowman 02:22, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

		The Surreal Barnstar
		For your exceptional use of edit summaries and intolerance for B---S---. Qrsdogg (talk) 05:41, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please participate in further discussion about WLRoss here: [7] Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 20:21, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You do not have consensus for removal. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:21, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. Thank you. [8] ╟─TreasuryTag►Regional Counting Officer─╢ 17:35, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This coming from one who labels my request for elucidation as "long, dull tirade(s)" and demands that others not template his talk page. Do onto others... or at least stop trolling. Badger Drink (talk) 17:42, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question – could you quote to me the "improper humour" which you say I used? Thanks in advance. ╟─TreasuryTag►consulate─╢ 17:43, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Answer - this entire trolling nonsense on my talk page. I'm sure you find it very funny. Cheers. Badger Drink (talk) 19:17, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"TrolleryTag" – well-crafted. However, you said that I used "improper humour" at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Gr8opinionater/Userboxes/Strasserist. Please could you do one of the following: (a) provide evidence of this by quoting it, (b) apologise for making a false allegation, or (c) prepare for me to seek dispute resolution. Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTag►Speaker─╢ 19:21, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Over on the MfD debate, there is much to comment on, but I think the humor which stood out the most was your continued insistence that your and my opinions didn't actually matter, when in fact we were the only two commenters on the MfD in question, and the entire system of XfD itself hinges upon community consensus. Have to credit you, it was a brilliant bit of surrealism, it wouldn't at all be out of place in a Monty Python sketch. "What we think isn't important, we're here to find the consensus!" - classic, though sadly out of place in a serious discussion. Badger Drink (talk) 21:51, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm vaguely flattered that you considered that material humourous, but you'll be pleased to hear that I've turned this whole issue – as well as your general history of incivility stretching back several years – over to WP:WQA, so feel free to comment there. ╟─TreasuryTag►assemblyman─╢ 22:16, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your condescending swarm has not gone without notice. Badger Drink (talk) 22:27, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Based on this WQA report, and particularly your response there, I've blocked your account for 48 hours. Regardless of your opinion of another editor as a troll, you cannot take this out in the form of aggression against them. Prodego ^talk 22:57, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How in the world is that statement worthy of a two day block? TreasuryTag files a misleading, half-complete WQA (after a day's worth of baiting and smiling incivility) and when I respond, I get blocked? Do you even know what trolling is? To paraphrase Devo here, are you kidding me? You must be kidding me... Badger Drink (talk) 23:02, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to act on the unblock request as I've had extensive negative interaction with TreasuryTag, but I am not convinced this is a good block and hope it will be reviewed quickly. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:11, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm minded to unblock here. Looks like a poor block. However, I can see tempers are flared, and an unblock might simply unleash the dogs of war. Badger Drink, were you to be unblocked right now, do you think you might totally avoid any interaction with Treasury Tag (or any commentary on him) for say 48 hours, and after that either continue in the same vein, or use the usual dispute resolution mechanisms?--Scott Mac 23:25, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scott, this is a sytemic problem - see User:TehGrauniad/Sandbox1 and Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct/Assistance#Help_with_RfC which should go live soon. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:53, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem accepting your request, Scott. The "dogs of war" - or, to do away with the metaphor, my own emotions - only reached what could be considered a "peak" when I found myself blocked for what seemed (and still seems) to be no other reason than not crying "uncle". Until I am told otherwise, I will also refrain from commenting on the recent AN/I (see below), other than to confirm I was made aware of it. Badger Drink (talk) 00:09, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's wise. NB I've not examined who is in the wrong or right here.--Scott Mac 00:15, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Prodego ^talk 00:03, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case you haven't seen it, I have closed the MfD on the Stasserist userbox and deleted the userbox. Please see my rationale there if you are interested. Newyorkbrad (talk) 07:17, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand. What is 'nationalist' about my edits? The change to the bit on British people was following comments on the talk page and is removing nationalistic stuff! The other change was to get detail more true to original Acts of Union. What is either nationalist pov, and if either is, could you tell me which nationalism is being pushed? English nationalism perhaps? Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 01:12, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I quite agree. The issue on that page is whether an article about the island of Great Britain needs to refer to matters relating to the island of Ireland. There is no reason why it should, as discussed on the article talk page. Please take more care over your edit summaries. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:05, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see your comment as a personal attack.

I didn't want to close, because I'm not an admin, and I don't want to cause controversy. It was 2 or 3 days past the 7 day limit. Matthew Thompson ^{talk to me bro!} 08:04, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Me? Sensitive? Impossible (sobs). Matthew Thompson ^{talk to me bro!} 08:09, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I got an admin to close it. Hopefully we can put this incivility behind us. Matthew Thompson ^{talk to me bro!} 09:00, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good it worked out. At least we do not have to solve it like school children (running to get the teachers) xD Matthew Thompson ^{talk to me bro!} 04:43, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See my talk p. No offense at all, just curiosity. You did perfectly OK to ask me--when I don;t want to deal with something for some reason, I just say so--I never mind that I've been asked. DGG ( talk ) 22:29, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote

" The RfA-deformers have gone bananas because Badger Drink opposed Zhang's RfA. Somebody cried at ANI, and was told by many administrators that Badger Drink had responded to a string of objectionable remarks, and that it civility was expected of everybody, not to be used as a hypocrite's club to beat RfA opposers; see in particular the remark by CasLiber. The RfA deformers went back and found apparently uncivil edit summaries, which in every case express appropriate indignation at defective and embarrassing writing. Granted, Badger Drink could have written "defective and embarrassing" rather than "shitty" (my original choice) or "fucking shitty" (not the way I was raised, alas), but in every case Badger Drink improved Wikipedia by removing defective and embarrassing material. The RfA-deform mob needs to be concerned with writing an encyclopedia, instead of enforcing its vision of charm school on writers, particularly when it doesn't police itself. (The hypocrisy in SW's view was especially nauseating.)

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:51, 18 November 2011 (UTC)"

I updated my AC guide

• Panyd

  Cliche-ridden hysteria at Badger Drink's RfC, with no evidence that BD had chased away anybody. (Good contributions on DYK, etc.)

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 03:41, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am blocking you for 24 hours for this. I don't think we've interacted much, the only time I recall was when I recently supported your unblocking for a WQA block. However, this is over the line. We can argue about the grey areas of civility, and I'm no civility enforcer, but this is not acceptable and you know it. I'll consider unblocking only if you can indicate you've got the message.--Scott Mac 20:20, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Mac shows himself to misunderstand and misapply a cool-down block for incivility.

He should resign to save himself and Wikipedia further embarrassment from one-sided partisan administrators who violate blocking policy and civility policy.

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 07:00, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have absolutely no quarrel with you, and if you think I'm one to worry about "process reasons", then you know nothing about me whatsoever. That ranting attack is so far off the mark, I won't bother defending against it. I've not being "itching to block you" at all, you flatter yourself if you think I know who the fuck you are, or remember you at all. I couldn't for the life of me remember why you were on my watchlist - and I still can't. I seldom care about civility, not being that civil myself: however, the idiocy of trying to defend the obvious piece of abuse edit summary you used with a rant blaming me and wikipedia for being somehow the problem, shows just how far of the planet you actually are. I quite sure, you've done enough to ensure no sane admin will unblock you. As for "indef" - if you want to leave, go ahead - you don't need a block. That's just a bit of obvious drama stirring.--Scott Mac 22:47, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scott, if I tell you to kiss my ass again, will you please indef me? I could even say "kiss my fucking ass", in bold and everything, just to be that much more offensive to various quaint, ladylike sensibilities. How about if I promise to make all my future edit summaries "Fuck off, Pesky" - then an indef block could actually be preventing further "abuse"! Wikipedia isn't the problem, it's the mental defecates on it that are the problem - but thanks for oversimplifying my argument. Badger Drink (talk) 22:56, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly couldn't give a shit what you do.--Scott Mac 22:57, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's cool, and basically likewise. So could you do the indef? Badger Drink (talk) 22:59, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's obvious that Scott Macdonald doesn't give a shit about driving off a writer from Wikipedia. Maybe Macdonald and similar administrators should have trophy heads, of the writers they've driven off Wikipedia, the way writers have DYK, GA, and FA stars?

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 07:04, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When a user is upset by a disputed block, we do not increase the punishment if they vent on their own talk page. Nobody needs to come here and read this content. If you are offended by it, go some place else. A far better path is to let the user calm down, and then politely ask them to remove the offensive content. This situation has been mismanaged, and I hope that Scott and DragonFly will go do something else, rather than adding more fuel to the bonfire. Jehochman ^Talk 11:59, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given the declining numbers of core contributors, I'm interested in this as a case study of whether Badger might have been coaxed out of the objectionable outbursts. We need to get smarter about changing editors' interactions, particularly newbies with promise. I haven't even looked at her/his contributions, but this doesn't seem to have been handled well. Did someone try to engage with Badger at a personal level? Tony (talk) 12:24, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given that Badger cannot comment here at the moment, I think that discussing him as "a case study" would be highly inappropriate - and especially not at this venue. I agree that the handling of the situation has been less than perfect on all sides - as is often the way of the world. Worm^TT · (talk) 12:32, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"When a user is upset by a disputed block, we do not increase the punishment if they vent on their own talk page."

We clearly do, we just did. We "don't do" punitive blocks or cooldown blocks either. We not only block, we also instantly withdraw talk page and email access too. We do have a long-established essay on WP:Don't poke badgers with spoons, but as Pesky is so polite about it, we chose not to worry about that one. Way to go... 8-(

BadgerDrink would have been treated better if he'd been a serial vandal - we bend over backwards to give them chance after chance. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:44, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jehochman, your comment is offensive. I had no hand in the indef block and don't attempt to defend it. However, the allegation that giving a user a short block for a way over the top abusive edit summary, is "adding fuel to the fire" is outrageous. There was no excuse for that edit summary, and even a new user would know that. Short blocks ought to demonstrate that this is never justifiable interaction. It is people like you making such things contentious - and throwing insinuations at fellow admins - that leads to the escalation of the battlefield atmosphere of conflict and confrontation, that means users can play us off, play the victim, and think they can behave how they like - you then create the monsters that lead to the type of atmosphere where people don't want to edit. You want a constructive, positive, editing environment? We need to agree that some outbursts are never tolerated - and not blur that message by undermining fellow admins. You are throwing the fuel on this fire.--Scott Mac 12:39, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scott, you placed the block without being aware that there was an ongoing AN/I. That was just a plain reactionary thing to do and has undoubtedly made matters worse. We were within one confirmatory edit from Pesky that she would leave BD alone and not be seen to be hounding him when you came along with your ill-timed and ill-judged, uninformed intervention. You've created more heat than light here and I suggest you do a bit of research before pressing that block key in future. There was a better remedy within close reach and you kicked it into touch. Leaky Caldron 12:47, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. When someone makes an outrageous edit-summary like he did, they know what they are doing - and they face a block. If we want a civil atmosphere, then we need at least to jump on over the top remarks like that - and it was way over the line. There is no plea in mitigation, there is no childish defence of "hey, but he called me a shit first". There is no obligation on the blocking admin to investigate and review the conduct of all other users. (Such a demand makes it effectively unenforceable.) When the speeding cop gives you a ticket, you get a ticket, there is no inquest, investigation, trial or plea bargaining (sure you can appeal if there's a mistake, or in the unlikely event your pregnant wife needed immediate life-saving surgery). If BD has issues with other users, he can ask other admins to look into that - but that's a separate issue.--Scott Mac 12:56, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No mitigation? Whatsoever? So if I had responded to any of these edit summaries on my talk page [9] with "fuck the hell off, you horrifyingly creepy obsessed individual", you would have blocked me? Leaky Caldron 13:09, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While we are at it Scott, here is a recent talk page comment from a sitting Arbcom member to an Admin., "...it appears that like everyone ele who runs bots (remember I'm on a committee with Xeno and Coren) you are an anal retentive with OCD on the autism spectrum. Or at the very least, you can't figure why what you do is annoying people." Put you words into action and block them for it, or is it only the little guys you hunt down? Leaky Caldron 13:55, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scott,

That was a horrible block, because of the policy against civility/pre-emptive blocks, etc.

Most importantly, you failed to read the ANI discussion, which was productive, and you disrupted the community mediation.

At least Scott honestly acknowledged his ignorance of the ANI discussion and his contempt for the community's mediation process.

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:07, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm disappointed in this, and would value contributions above a bit of swearing. While looking into it, I clumsily clicked the touchpad and without intending to reiterated the block by DragonflySixtyseven at 23:11, 4 December 2011. To get that on record I redid the process to note that in the block summary, without comment. My error. I'm not undoing the indef block by DragonflySixtyseven as I've not considered this properly or carried out the required discussions, but will be glad if the block is reduced or lifted. . dave souza, talk 13:37, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

	Driving a writer off Wikipedia
	For driving the productive writer Badger Drink off Wikipedia, Scott MacDonald and ThatPeskyCommoner earned this Barnstar of Decapitation.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 07:36, 5 December 2011 (UTC) William M. Connolley (talk) 14:41, 5 December 2011 (UTC)  BarkingFish  03:33, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, this may not have been the most productive barnstar.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:53, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most if not all of your recent comments regarding Badger Drink's incivility have been non-productive at best; counter-productive at worst. —SW— ^yak 19:28, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hit the road, Snotty Wong.

Nobody here cares about your opinion.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:11, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Badger,

Many people have expressed appreciation for you in the large and in the small, pointing out that had discovered apparent plagiarism and removed purple prose in your latest editing, for example.

When you come back to editing, you should be able to breath freely, without worrying about wikihounding, etc.

Please email me, as another person sometimes too prone to issue Black Bolt-style whispers, if I may be of help. You are too valuable to the project to get into fights with administrators. You are allowed the occasional mistakes that we all make, of course.

I shall aspire to make editing summaries with your style and wit in the future.

Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:53, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just seen KW's comment at AN/I. Your value is greater than the sum of most of the politically correct surface advocates of civility that have chimed in for the last 4 weeks. If someone had left me the condescending talk-page thoughtless twaddle such as Pesky's last night, following on from the RfA, AN/I and RFC/U bollocks, I would have reacted in the same way. The 2 admins. have no reason to be proud of their actions either and neither of them need to apply for promotion any time soon. Leaky Caldron 17:28, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While I realize you are pretty upset and have requested a self block, and your wishes have been followed, if you think better of it and would like an unblock please feel free to contact me via email to discuss, my contact details are on my user page. You can also contact Arbcom as outlined to have it discussed. Take care. --WGFinley (talk) 16:48, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, since you are not banned, you can

• contact the unblock mailing list at unblock-en-llists.wikimedia.org
• contact Wgfinley at the email on his talk page
• contact the arbcom ban appeals sub committee as above which is arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org - though Wgfinley failed to link to a page that provided that email address.

Hope that helps. Hipocrite (talk) 17:01, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I provided the link that goes to the process on how it is done, it's not just by sending an email although that is ultimately what you do. The link explains the process for appealing bans and indefinite blocks. Whatever the case I have restored email and edit talk page privileges and left the indefinite block in place as he has requested. I think that should clear everything up. --WGFinley (talk) 17:07, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Badger has requested a self-block, it has been granted, talk and email access remain. Further inquiries should be directed to me as last blocking admin and not a blocked user's talk page. --WGFinley (talk) 20:00, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Is Badger yet unblocked from writing on this page, and from receiving emails? It might be productive to move the debate forward. I'd like to see whether the whole situation can be resolved with his/her involvement. A bit of personal contact might go a long way, although I do acknowledge it fails more than half the time. Worth a try? Tony (talk) 03:42, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] Yes, Tony; the user is blocked, but email and talk page access are available to them now.[10].  Chzz  ►  04:39, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] @Tony. It's entirely up to you of course, but my view is that Badger will return when he's good and ready and the matter of reinstating his full editing rights should be routine. After all, he had done nothing to be even mildly reproached for in the weeks leading up to his block. He made 2 perfectly accurate edit summaries when Pesky proceeded to pour a massive jug of sickly condescending, well-intentioned advice on top of Badger, provoking him into the comment that resulted in his block by a drive-by Admin. who had not bothered to read the on-going mediation at AN/I. If Pesky sticks by the assurance she has been given to stop hammering on BD's door with a battering ram of nagging annoyance I'm sure that he will return sooner or later. In reality he's probably wishing that we stay off his talk page! Leaky Caldron 11:24, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] "...he had done nothing to be even mildly reproached for in the weeks leading up to his block." Perhaps you missed Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Badger Drink, with the (almost certainly incomplete) list of diffs which show an example of an uncivil comment or edit summary from nearly every month for the last 2 years? Yours and Kiefer's defense of Badger would carry more weight if it were based on fact and not always wildly exaggerated. —SW— chat 15:18, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] And let's be fair to Badger here, there had been a marked improvement in edit summaries in the past two weeks. The edits that Pesky picked up were minor violations of WP:CIVIL though whether they were uncivil is a different question. Leaky's opinion of Pesky's actions seem wide of the mark, but hey ho, we're never all going to agree on this. Can we just drop the matter, give both editors a bit of time and hope they return? WormTT · (talk) 15:24, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] (edit conflict)@SW. And perhaps you should read more carefully what I actually said instead of interpreting my words in a selective and totally incorrect way. For the avoidance of doubt, here is a list of Badger's mainspace [11] and user talk [12] edit summaries between the AN/I & RFC/U and Pesky's Coup de grâce. That would be the 5-6 "weeks leading up to his block". Tell me which one's fail any reasonable standard of civility? As I said, he had done nothing to be reproached for in the "weeks leading up to his block". Speaking for myself, the "facts" appear to be that Badger had either intentionally, or due to the absence of whatever motivates him railing against certain situations, kept a clean sheet for well over a month. The RFC/U had run its course and, assuming good faith, I had no reason to believe that the stable situation would not continue. Leaky Caldron 15:56, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] I will freely admit that I'd been keeping an 'off-and-on' eye on Badger Drink after my sanctimonious needling and hadn't seen any edits which I felt were worth mentioning, let alone actionable. That doesn't mean that they didn't violate WP:CIVIL as Pesky pointed out to you at ANI - specifically the "use of judgmental edit summaries" part of WP:CIVIL. WormTT · (talk) 16:14, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] @Leaky: I was merely commenting on your implied assertion that it's ok if a user is uncivil as long as he sufficiently spaces out his bursts of incivility over time. You seem to imply that it's ok to say "fuck the hell off, you horrifyingly creepy obsessed individual" to a well-meaning editor, as long as their last outburst was more than 6 weeks prior, despite a long and well-established history of uncivil outbursts. That Badger didn't have any particularly bad outbursts during the RfC/U tells me only that he was aware that his contributions were being closely monitored by multiple editors. I didn't see any evidence that Badger intended to make a permanent behavior change which would last any longer than the spike in drama caused by the RfC/U. You say that "I had no reason to believe that the stable situation would not continue". Well, now you do have a reason. Badger's reasoning and his decision to ask Pesky to stop pestering him was warranted and unproblematic; the fact that he had to be uncivil about it was problematic. A simple edit summary of "please stay off my talk page" while deleting Pesky's post would have sufficed and solved the problem diplomatically, but Badger instead chose to say "fuck the hell off, you horrifyingly creepy obsessed individual". You can blame it on other editors as much as you want, but the bottom line is that no one forced Badger to deal with the situation in that way. Call it the "civility police" or whatever, but civilized organizations just don't accept that kind of behavior. Imagine if you were volunteering at a local animal shelter and you told another volunteer to "fuck the hell off, you horrifyingly creepy obsessed individual". You would be asked to leave immediately, regardless of how good you are at cleaning up dog shit. That we're internet-based volunteers vs. brick-and-mortar-based volunteers makes no difference. —SW— speak 17:48, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, WGFinley, since you left talk page access open, if I want to talk to the user, shouldn't I be able to leave a message here for them?  BarkingFish  13:25, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well,I think that Badger Drink has also been doing sockpuppetry, not just requesting a self block. He may indeed be a massive sockpuppeteer, with at least 800+ sockpuppets. Can any CheckUser confirm this? Kolano123 (talk) 21:08, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It has been suggested that the previous section may be an unwelcome discussion, hosted as it is on BD's talk page. I have no insight into DB's opinion on the matter. I have said all I wish to having answered Tony's question and responded to other's concerns. Happy to close. Leaky Caldron 19:27, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Knight tyme attribute clash.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:32, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Eating babies. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 1#Eating babies until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hog Farm (talk) 00:17, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]