User talk:Blaxthos/Archive 3

This is the talk page for Wikipedia user, Blaxthos.
If you leave a message, I'll respond on your talk page. Please sign and date your posts using four tildes (~~~~). New discussion topics go at the bottom of the page; click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Frequently asked questions.	Talk page guidelines Be polite Always assume good faith Do not make personal attacks Don't bite the newcomers; we were all new at some point!

/2004-2007 2008

Transzap

I've updated the Transzap article with recent, notable events. Created internal linking from pages CDEX, Crude Oil Data Exchange, & ePayables. And I've updated the neutrality of the article. Because of these changes, I have removed the article issue info box placed by you to the page. Thanks much, and please let me know if you have any questions. CLB Courtney L Brewer 18:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by CourtneyLBrewer (talk • contribs)

Checkuser

Despite the "not related" result from that new guy, I'm convinced he's the same guy, so we'll just have to keep an eye on him. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:20, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News

I have found over 30 reliable sources with significant coverage. Schuym1 (talk) 20:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Over 30 was only from the first few pages. There are many more and there is also more in Google Books and Google Scholar. Schuym1 (talk) 21:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

On IBM's dubious patents

Hi Blaxthos,

On slashdot: "Proper sourcing always depends on context; common sense and editorial judgment are an indispensable part of the process."

In any case, there is plenty of material concerning IBM's dubious patents:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/08/06/ibm_paper_or_plastic_patent/ http://www.thestandard.com/news/2009/03/30/ibm-applies-patent-offshoring-math http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/2008/12/ibm_patents_sys.html;jsessionid=4BEPM0NZUXQDAQSNDLRSKH0CJUNN2JVN http://ipbiz.blogspot.com/2006/10/ibm-patent-policy-apparent.html http://joi.ito.com/weblog/2002/10/13/ibm-eliminates.html http://www.halfsigma.com/2009/03/ibm-makes-more-money-by-destorying-value.html

I've assembled them all here: http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1227341&cid=27885503

But I don't think that a larger number of dubious patents is needed to make the case. I think one is enough. I am not biased against IBM, but I am biased against claims to have record number of patents and no wishes to see the highly dubious exposed in a NPOV. (My opinion: Society is not being improved by these patents, neither IBM.)

˜˜˜˜ Linhares (talk) 04:50, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

removal of my edit

Hi Blaxthos,

I have read a number of Wikipedia articles about various political commentators, and took note that only conservative commentators have the term "conservative" in front of "political commentators."

In an attempt to make Wikipedia more consistent (and I hope more unbiased), I added "liberal" in front of "political commentators" in a format consistent with what was done to those on the other side of the political spectrum. Anyone who watches Rachel Maddow like I do, knows that she is a liberal commentator, but that is not allowed to be revealed on Wikipedia?

No offense, but your editing reveals YOUR own bias and is not becoming of the Wikipedia community. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eobrock (talk • contribs) 04:41, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

That topic was pretty much handled on the talk page itself

Hey you just sent me a message regarding the Bill O'Reilly controversy page. Like I said in the section header that topic was pretty much handled on the talk page itself. You should check it out. That is before I put that tag on. Lighthead ^þ 02:27, 20 January 2009

Keith Olbermann RFC

Thanks for taking the time to open an RfC -- and the notice about it. Hopefully we can find a resolution to this issue -- there's probably "better" wording waiting to be discovered that will satisfy all involved parties. Warren -talk- 20:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to be cute and I wasn't trying to be snarky. I used the level 1 because it assumes good faith, not because I made any assumption about you. I see my error now and I apologize for the edit as well as the warning. Since you are someone who has recently cited Wikipedia's core policies, I would appreciate it if you would assume good faith on my part as well. You have had no interaction with me until now; therefore there was no reason for the harsh tone of your comment on my page. It was, as you say, inappropriate. Henrymrx (talk) 16:02, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Blaxthos, I got your message to me at my talk page. No offense taken. But I feel really bad about what you said, because I can see that, for perfectly understandable reasons, you completely misunderstood what I meant, and what you took from it was actually the complete opposite of what I intended. I was not referring to your placing the RfC at all. Rather, I was referring to the comments of Badmintonhist that were directly above my second comment, and to which I was directly responding. Thus, when I said "personal arguments among other editors," I was talking about when Badmintonhist had said "Blaxthos!! Good to see you come out of your "I don't like it – the other guys are insane" defensive shell..." and I was not talking about anything that you had said. What Badmintonhist said there to you sure sounded personal to me, without any assumptions about good or bad faith on my part, just taking the words at face value. And you yourself said on the talk page, after I had already made my second comment, that Badmintonhist's comments were "baiting" and "snarky." And when I said that the RFC is "being used by editors already in the dispute to keep re-arguing their same arguments" I was, again, referring to the fact that Badmintonhist had made those comments after already arguing the same things pre-RfC on the talk page. (You, in contrast, had simply and neutrally stated the basis for the RfC.) If you look at the substance of what I said in both my comments (the correct logic of your argument about synthesis, the low relevance of the others' source materials), I was arguing in defense of your position. So, let's file this under no good deed goes unpunished. You misread my comments supporting you as, instead, finding fault with you, and so I unintentionally made you feel bad when I intended the opposite. I came to the page in response to the RfC and was just trying to help, and now I feel sorry for having made you feel that way. Let me close by repeating what I said at the beginning of my first comment at the RfC: that the differences between those two versions are ultimately pretty small and not worth anyone getting too concerned about. Please understand that I mean well and I think that you do too. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:39, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply! I'm glad we got that worked out. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

I see that you removed a SPA template on the Olberman talk page. Thank you. I am definately not a SPA. Regards, --72.221.70.224 (talk) 21:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Dude.

You should archive this page! Timneu22 (talk) 20:34, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Merge: POS and HPOSS

I suggested that hospitality point of sale systems be merged with point of sale. I remember seeing you on these articles from time to time so I thought I'd bring this to your attention. Timneu22 (talk) 20:35, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

NTSC

Could you have a look at NTSC again and see what might need to be done so as to remove the copyedit tag? Your specific recommendations would be helpful. Thanks, --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the NTSC critiques - nw I have a better idea of what attracted the cleanup tag. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:27, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

CU

You might want to ask User:Raul654 if he thinks there's grounds to pursue a checkuser request. My guess though is that thing kinda thing brings the Coulter fans out of the woodwork. By now just about everyone has a Wikipedia account... On the other hand, it might be a useful way to ferret out socks. Guettarda (talk) 02:34, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Unarchiving

The discussion has nothing to do with improving the article. That's not the place for general rants against "liberals in Wikipedia". And it's a magnet for unsourced smears. Archiving discussions like that is pretty normal on controversial articles, in my experience. Guettarda (talk) 23:12, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the term you're looking for is tendentious editing Guettarda (talk) 23:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Smile

Rsrikanth05 (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend, Go on smile! Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Seriously?

I didn't bother to reply to Switzpaw's comment because, although s/he was totally on the wrong track, it just wasn't worth arguing about. But seriously...while I appreciate what you're trying to do on the Olbermann article, you really should familiarise yourself with policy before choosing to lecture people about it.

To begin with, policy trumps "convention". An argument based on convention is always weaker than an argument based on policy. If you bothered to read Johno7777's assertion, it was obviously untrue. So there's no need to make the far weaker argument based on "convention". The first requirement is that you pass WP:V. Only after you've gotten past that burden do you bother to talk about other policies like WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, WP:BLP, and then you move onto guidelines like the WP:MOS and then onto unwritten conventions. Don't start with your weakest argument. Start with your strongest. Guettarda (talk) 21:49, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

He said "not the Ivy league Cornell". Quick-fail on any RS. No reliable source would repeat that nonsense. Guettarda (talk) 22:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

BTW, I'm not new to this. I've dealt with every sort of specious argument you can imagine over the last 4 years at the intelligent design article. You don't win against True Believers by pointing them to convention - you point to policy first, and you shut them down when they start repeating arguments that have been settled. To say that "we don't do that anywhere else" invited "othersuffexists". Saying 'give a good reason why we should deviate from the norm' is a more powerful argument, but it it's an invitation to argue more.

When it comes down to it, disruption at articles like these (or the recent on at the Obama article) can easily be orchestrated outside of Wikipedia - and often are. If you tell people "no", they cry "censorship". If you tell people "provide sources", the average person comeing from outside, with no real clue about the arguments they are repeating, will stop. Granted, there are people (as we say at the KO article) who will misrepresent sources and argue the same thing over and over. But appealing to 'convention' is no better than appealing to policy with people like that (which reminds me...I don't know how many times I've seen an editor, when stymied by policy, start editing the policy page...) But my experience has been that you're best off starting with policies. Even the Cornell issue, when it comes down to it, is more hangs more heavily on WP:UNDUE than on 'convention'...because talking about the college rather than the university gives undue weight to the college, and is likely to leave readers with a false impression. Guettarda (talk) 22:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Praise Olbermann

Hey. I've noticed that you're more biased, annoying and stubborn than most trolls and that you have a clear agenda when editing but still take yourself seriously and present yourself as unbiased. How is possible that you have not been banned and that you're allowed to edit articles?

Thanks for reading.--DystopiaSticker (talk) 03:00, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

You may find my response here. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:16, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Taking this elsewhere

I'm making a distinction between making a point, and disrupting wikipedia to make a point that's apparently being lost.

I will not answer any more of your accusations of bad faith, as I feel they are unproductive. SDY (talk) 20:24, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Your input is requested here. SDY (talk) 23:12, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Dude...

I have no idea wtf you're talking about. Read my comment before posting crap like like this. You know what - if you can't be bothered to figure out what I'm saying, find somewhere else to post. Guettarda (talk) 12:22, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

You're right, I think I misunderstood what you were saying. Withdrawn. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 12:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

DystopiaSticker

I saw your ANI report. You might be in his most recent bullshit here. Ward3001 (talk) 20:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I removed his comment per WP:BLP. Here it is in the edit history, along with my comments. Ward3001 (talk) 20:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

The only BULLSHIT on Olbermann's article comes from Blaxthos himself. Dude, quit trying to make wikipedia a platform for spouting your far left viewpoints and censoring anything that doesn't comport. 68.40.123.217 (talk) 10:46, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't around for a bit, missed all the fun. I see that Dave has blocked the anon. I don't know if a CU request would be taken up though - while the anon has commented on DystopiaSticker's user page, there's no evidence of ban evasion or troublesome socking. If DystopiaSticker were to edit while the anon was banned (or the other way around), there's be justification for an RFCU. As is though, I suspect that the request would be declined. Guettarda (talk) 05:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

FYI: Criticism of Bill O'Reilly

Heads up. A new editor (new to the page) is butchering entire, longstanding sections of the article.Jimintheatl (talk) 17:20, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Pace. Understand that I have been/can be a loose cannon, and appreciate your tolerance...Jimintheatl (talk) 01:49, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Dermatology

Do you have a specific interest in dermatology? If so, I am always looking for more help ;) ---kilbad (talk) 23:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

• I did not realize it had been listed at DKY. Perhaps you could direct me to the article entry at DKY with a specific link? Thanks in again! kilbad (talk) 23:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

lable[sic]

Do you try to act like an ass or does it just come naturally? Arzel (talk) 14:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Just Curious

Blax, have you ever calculated the number of these "personal attack" warnings you've issued during the course of your Wikipedia career? It must be one hell of an impressive number, kiddo! Between these and other kinds of warnings you issued, and actions you've taken against other users, you've built up quite a portfolio of litigiousness. All to good effect I'm sure. By the way, I've never issued a single one since I started editing in 2007. Have never felt the need. Regards. Badmintonhist (talk) 06:15, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Bill O'Reilly

I answered you already. "Feel free" not to be patronising. Regarding #1, I agreed with you, but also pointed out your inconsistency in arguing between the two pages. I don't grant your #6, you're just trying to make a point. Fences and windows (talk) 14:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Removing the "instead" from my edit of May 5 is fine. As for the other comment on the O'Reilly talk page, I expected as much. As you've noticed, however, I'm far from the only editor who has been unfavorably impressed by your inconsistent argumentation. Badmintonhist (talk) 05:41, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Olbermann

Let’s be honest, it not a personal view: Olbermann is a liberal. Your argument doesn't make sense. It's like saying Bill O'Reilly isn't a conservative, O'Reilly is a conservative. B64 (talk) 04:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

It not what I believe, it what is true. He is a liberal. Just like you belive he isn't your Injecting your believes in wiki. B64 (talk) 02:05, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

The truly verifiable was just an extra. Olbermann's interview with a college newspaper is not the strongest evidence that he actually was rejected by Harvard but offered a full scholarship to B.U. However, the main reason for the deletion is that the info is gratuitous. Who cares if he was rejected by one college, or given a scholarship to another, or put on the waiting list for a third? Including it makes the article look silly. Wiki bios rarely detail a middle aged man's college application record. Badmintonhist (talk) 22:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

With regards to SPA...

Is there someone in particular on the Bill O'reily page you were referring to? Soxwon (talk) 21:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Nope; if I had any idea who I would have approached it differently. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Just a quick note

No offense taken, even before your explanation. Yes, we've had some pretty harsh words, but I've never doubted that you've been sincere (maybe sometimes too sincere) in your efforts. By that I mean that you approach this unpaid job very intensely and meticulously. I can get intense myself when it comes ideas I feel strongly about. Perhaps both of us should keep this in mind as we go forward. Regards. Badmintonhist (talk) 02:54, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Blah, Blah, Blah

1. Don't template the regulars
2. Check the warning given on the user's talk page. It was about adding unsourced info, not vandalism.
3. Twinkly adds the edit summary about vandalism.
4. Any person who automatically assumes good faith is too naive to survive in 2009

Blah, blah, blah. --WebHamster 10:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Better late than never

I've left a reply to your query at Template talk:See also#Section link. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 11:46, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

RE:DemocraplypseNow

The feeling is mutual my wikiquaintance, I look forward to misrepresenting your arguments extensively in a vain effort to bring my credibility down to that of NewsBusters.org. Take care boss. --DemocraplypseNow (talk) 01:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Kiss my ass

What the hell? I asked for one WP:RS, and you two gave me a hell of a time trying to get it. I looked through that list, thoroughly. And you know what, the UPI link wasn't in the top 50 for that particular G-news search, and after 50 or so, I guess I wasn't paying as close attention. Sorry, I'm human. So instead of a condescending, accusatory post like this one, you consider that I might actually be here to help the project. Throughout the entire discussion on both pages you made at least 8 accusations of either bad faith or me completely disregarding Wikipedia policy. So instead of an intelligent, beneficial argument, we had a heated discussion that accomplished little. Maybe if you weren't such an asshole more might actually be accomplished. Soxwon (talk) 04:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Considering your experience with me is limited at best, I'd love to see what these "established users" had to say. Soxwon (talk) 05:17, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I wanted to apologize for this little episode. I honestly did miss that source, and I was probably more than a bit unreasonable for sources. I hope we can edit in a way that doesn't resort to this kind of disagreement again. :) Soxwon (talk) 21:56, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Frank Schaeffer and Blaxthos

Since this is only tangentially related to your recently proposed O'Reilly edit, I'm putting it on your talk page. Frank Schaeffer is most certainly neither a "conservative" nor an "anti-abortion activist" as those terms are currently understood. He hasn't been for a long time. He is utterly disaffected from both the religious right and from the Republican party. He and Keith Olbermann would probably be near soul-mates at this point in time. Though Schaeffer claimed to be "pro-life" in the title of a fairly recent Huffington Post article, when one reads the article it is quite clear that he is not. He asserts that abortions "are not only inevitable but logical" in contemporary American society, and that "hearts but not the law" concerning abortion need to be changed.

Why do I bring this up? Because I have no doubt that you basically already know this, and I want to point out to you the ill-will that disingenuous, polemical "offhand" remarks such as the ones you made about Schaeffer engender. They don't help the process, Blax. They do help to drive good editors such as Ramsquire and Switzpaw into hiding. They get tired of the nonsense. I think you really need to decide whether your role in Wikipedia is that of an encyclopedia editor or that of a liberal polemicist. The two roles are not compatible. Badmintonhist (talk) 22:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

My usual reasonable self

I was thinking of saying something like "Much as I hate to do so ...I have to go with Blax and Croc on this one" but decided that the preliminary wouldn't make me look very objective. Actually, the debate at the Criticisms of O'Reilly talk page pretty much seemed identical to the earlier debates about accusations of bias against MSNBC, so consistency dictated my position. Speaking of being reasonable, however, what the hell was up with your attempt to pass off Frank Schaeffer as a conservative? That's like calling David Brock a conservative because he used to be one. I realize that it was just an extra comment on a talk page, but still ...! Badmintonhist (talk) 22:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

June 2009

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at User talk:Eckstasy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. [1] [2] Thank you. Tothwolf (talk) 03:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Enough

Really, now, enough of your bullshit... When someone I know from outside wikipedia, who hasn't made a substantial contributions in two years (save a 3 day period in 2008), who has a personal animus towards being fired from bash.org, shows up out of nowhere to participate in an AfD discussion the canvassing is pretty obvious. Couple that with several other IRC-focused editors who all show up to give no other rationalization than a faux ad hominem appeal, and your repeated anachronously incongruous misrepresentation of fact smacks of bad faith and more of a concern for your interest in IRC than it does with following policy. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:09, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

• I'm thinking you're talking about DigDug, FYI he found the deletion article himself. and then he said, and I quote: "I'm surprised Blaxthos is still going on with his shit, even after several years", You're now making it worse by accusing me of canvassing and badfaith. This whole nomination is just bad faith. Eckstasy (talk) 06:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
• Also, thanks for sending a massive amount of Spambots out to Quotebucket, It's like I have nothing better to do than edit the .htaccess Eckstasy (talk) 07:08, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

• The nomination of List of quote databases was a good reasoned nomination. Ignore bad faith claims when they are flawed. Keep up the good work. Duffbeerforme (talk) 16:33, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:WQA

Please note, I have brought our little discussion] to Wikiquette. Soxwon (talk) 03:35, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

JkDefrag

You reverted my changes in the article of JkDefrag [3] as spam. Why? For me it is an important information that JkDefrag (which is open source) is discontinued and that its successor is continued as a closed source product. --Dwi Secundus (talk) 13:36, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Reply here. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 13:40, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

ANI

I have opened this discussion regarding your conduct. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• Regarding MY conduct? I believe you were the one accusing people of canvassing [4]. we have every right to accuse you of bad faith, You only have to take a look at this or this to notice. and what Tothwolf said about Bash.org here is in my opinion 100% correct. Thanks. Eckstasy (talk) 09:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Glenn Close in "The Shield"

Glenn Close was billed before the opening title all throughout Season 4, along with all the other main characters. While her stay may have only been for one season, it's only an opinion that she shouldn't be included in the infobox. It's a fact she was credited in top billing (unlike two-season character Forrest Whitaker, from Season 5-6). Unless you can direct me to a discussion about which actors from the show should be included in the infobox, I'm reverting Glenn Close back into the infobox. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Geeky Randy (talk • contribs) 06:33, 13 July 2009 (UTC)