User talk:Bblackmoor

You're welcome.

And thank you for noticing! ONUnicorn 13:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

ONUnicorn has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!

“Brevior vita est quam pro futumentibus negotium agendo”

Sorry, I ought to have thought about Googling the above phrase; it just seemed too long to exist anywhere else (I thought that you may have written it yourself; I assumed that you're a Classics scholar or something). Thanks for it - it is now my screensaver.

As for your "The Problem with Wikipedia" essay; though I've not been here for very long, I'd probably have to agree with a lot of what you said. However, despite Wikipedia's (and, with which I am more involved, Wiktionary's) numerous failings, it's still, overall - dare I utter the cliché - a force for good. It's a real shame that your experiences have embittered you so. I hope that you soon find something else worthwhile to which you can devote yourself. Doremítzwr 19:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I have no shortage of other things to do with my time. :) -- BBlackmoor ^(talk) 21:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, the Latin is from James Wallis, former head of Hogshead Publishing. It was the company motto: "Life is too short to do business with fuckwits". Me, bitter? Oh, a tad.... -- BBlackmoor ^(talk) 21:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't blame you. There are many things about Wikipedia which are liable to exasperate one. I am a former voluntary director (I resigned) of an organisation known as the WYFSD; my experiences therein are not overwhelmingly positive. I considered writing an entry for it, but I doubt that I could adhere to NPOV ;)

A question: If you no longer contribute to Wikipedia, why do you continue to keep check of your user and talk pages (if, of course, you don't mind me asking)? Doremítzwr 01:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I still keep an eye on one or two articles, but I am prepared to abandon them in a heartbeat if the lunatic fringe takes them over. It's just not worth the effort. -- BBlackmoor ^(talk) 02:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, you’re an internet gaming and Star Wars fan I see. What other articles do you tweak from time to time? Oh well, though you may not edit things in any great quantity, at least what you do is of high quality. :)

By the way, though I agree 100% that html smart quotes are horrible to read in the source code and thus ought not be used, it’s probably best that you don’t go removing them from the talk page of their chief proponent. Replacing them with unicode ones may have been tolerated, but changing them to " & ' is asking for trouble. It’s Wiketiquette that one does not change other users’ comments. I only make this comment in an attempt to prevent unnecessary and unproductive conflict. If you prefer, it’s OK with me if you edit what I write on your talk page in order to remove smart quotes. Doremítzwr 20:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Smartquotes

I thought you might have something to add to this on the administrators noticeboard. Tyrenius 23:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Signature

You need to copy that entire signature block in my monobook.js to yours. That will add a signature button above your edit box. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-01-04 13:58Z

• Make sure you use this block (copy the contents from the Edit page, not the contents below):

/* NEW CUSTOM SIGNATURE METHOD */
if (mwCustomEditButtons) {
  mwCustomEditButtons[mwCustomEditButtons.length] = {
    "imageFile": "http://en.wikipedia.org/skins-1.5/common/images/button_sig.png",
    "speedTip": "Signature",
    "tagOpen": "— <small>[[User:Brian0918|<b><font color=black>BRIAN</font></b>]][[User_talk:Brian0918|<font color=gray>0918</font>]] • {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}-{{subst:CURRENTMONTH}}-{{subst:CURRENTDAY2}} {{subst:CURRENTTIME}}Z</small>",
    "tagClose": "",
    "sampleText": ""};
};

Also, make sure you enclose the entire thing in <pre></pre> with each of the PRE tags commented out, as I have in my monobook.js — BRIAN0918 • 2007-01-06 23:30Z

Al Leong

Thank you. Do remember though, that the article is still in line for a change. And while I do recognize and respect the spirit of its current state, I agree with what a lot of the posters on that talk page say that it belongs on a fan site, not an encyclopedia. This is just to say that I may make another swipe, and condense some bits such as the larger dialogue pieces. After all, it's more funny when he only has one line rather than seven, no? JesseRafe 04:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

that was a pretty sweet al leong rendering Serpentes (talk) 09:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Consensus by dolts

....in which case, you're gonna love thisSupreme_Cmdr^(talk) 02:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Edit counts

Well, there are three ways to do it; one is to click on your contributions and spend the rest of your life going "1, 2, 3, 4, ... oh wait, I lost count better start over..." Don't laugh; when I first saw people referring to their edit counts that's what I thought they were doing.

The faster and easier way is to use one of the tools. Interiot's tool is the one most used in requests for adminship. [1] That link will give you your edit count, complete with nice little charts that compare how many edits you make in various months. At the top of the screen is a link that says, "Go Back" which you can click and enter in someone else's user name to see that person's edit count. It even works for the non-english Wikipedias. Sometimes it's kind of slow; and sometimes it breaks. There's another, less detailed one that's used when Interiot's is broken, but I don't know how to find it.

The third way; which I have done on occasion when I want to know just how accurate Interiot's tool is, is to copy your contribution list into Excel or some other spreadsheet. The number of rows is the number of edits; and you can then sort them however you want.

Hope that helps! ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 14:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Essjay, Flcelloguy and Kate all have edit counter tools as well. Interiot's tool was broken for a long time, I'm not sure if it is fixed yet.⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 18:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

For the record

For the record, the link to my blog is available at this site in case you're interested. You'll notice there's not a single vent about this on there. I hope you can understand my viewpoint on this case as well as Supreme Cmdrs, which you've mentioned you empathize with. I don't have any "axe to grind" on this article, if I did I'd have actually edited it (full disclosure: I made 1, maybe 2 reversions to the article, that's it). I came to this article as a mediator and when that failed, due to the edit warring and verbal sparring between Supreme Cmdr and Bill Huffman mainly, I filed the ArbCom case. If you'll go back, you'll notice that it was actually not my first choice to do to, and I only filed it at the repeated request of other editors as I felt there was no choice, and the issue would not have been properly resolved any other way. I apologize, by the way, for my "barb" comment, this case is stressing me out more than it should, and I've just lost a close member of my family and am on my way to the funeral while this is going on. I just want you to understand my reasoning for the case: My substantive issue with this case is 1) to get ArbCom to rule on the inclusibility of disputed links 2) to take action against the personal attacks and incivility on both sides 3) to enforce a cessation of the edit warring that is disrupting the page. The problem is, Supreme Cmdr does not have a full grasp of policy regarding things like NPOV, weasel words, and as mentioned before libel. A case in point is the Universal Combat article. His changing of "criticizing" to "noted" is a POV push, in an otherwise rather neutral article, and his claiming that it's a "weazel words" is incivil and inaccurate. He appears to be so strongly set in his beliefs that he will not allow any other opinion than his own to prevail, and he has mentioned this multiple times on the talk page (see ArbCom Evidence page WP:OWN related comments). I VERY strongly oppose behavior like that on wikipedia under all circumstances. THAT is my issue with this case, not the substantive content of the article, which I could care less about, other than the slightly interesting precedent of the inclusibility of UseNET articles by the article subject. I just want to make sure we're both clear on all this. I appreciate your input in the case, and invite further comment about it on my talk page if you'd like.⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 18:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

"My substantive issue with this case is 1) to get ArbCom to rule on the inclusibility of disputed links 2) to take action against the personal attacks and incivility on both sides 3) to enforce a cessation of the edit warring that is disrupting the page." I think these are laudable goals. For what it's worth, I am defending Supreme Cmdr (where such defense seems warranted) because it seems to me that almost no one else is. Supreme Cmdr is by no means blameless, and I know that, and I hope my comments have made that clear, but I do not think that justifies what I perceive to be a lynch mob mentality. As it happens, my grandfather, who was my second-closest relative after my mother, died on Sunday. I am not one for expressing sentiment to people (or about people) whom I do not know, but you do have my sympathy. -- BBlackmoor ^(talk) • 2007-01-12 19:05Z (copied from SWATJester's talk page)

I understand your comments and support of him, and I agree with you that a lynch mob is never a good thing....but in a case where there is clear cut violation of policy and clear cut contempt for the goals of the project by Supreme Cmdr, I don't view it as a lynch mob, I view it as several users correctly seeing his misbehavior and calling him out on it. Maybe it's semantics, but in my mind a lynch mob implies a lack of fairness, and Supreme Cmdr has been given every chance to have a fair say, as it were. The fact that ArbCom has unanimously approved the finding of fact that he engaged in personal attacks, and that he is a SPA that has been disruptive to the article, I believe tends to support my view. The fact that there was first a mediation, I believe an RFC as well, and finally an Arbcom request, and then hearing, as well as 3 seperate AN/I discussions, and several 3RR violation discussions, not to mention his talk page and the article talk page, shows there has been more than enough fairness and leeway given to Supreme Cmdr. 40 million elvis fans may be wrong, but when a vast majority of editors call him out on his public misbehavior, is it a "lynch mob" to assume that maybe they're correct? ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 18:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not saying that she does not deserve censure. I think she probably does. But I do not like to see anyone railroaded, and it seems to me that on at least one occasion, Supreme Cmdr has been treated unfairly by admins in a distinctly railroad-like manner, which has only exacerbated the problem. If I need to play devil's advocate to try and keep the wheels of justice on an even keel (mixing my metaphors), that seems like a small price to pay. -- BBlackmoor ^(talk) • 2007-01-12 19:05Z (copied from SWATJester's talk page)

Evidence of SC threats

Recently, you posted a statement that people have made accusations that "Supreme Cmdr has made threats (or legal threats) against other editors or against Wikipedia itself", but there's no evidence that he's done so. While I agree with you on the lack of a pure legal threat (the ones that other editors point to come very close and are unacceptable behavior, but don't cross the line as an actual legal threat), there is plenty of evidence that SC has made general threats. For example, this statement from a RfC filed against SC back in August indicates that he is going on a personal vendetta to bring down an admin. I should also point out that the admin's statement beforehand was not aggressive at all. Cardinal2 03:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

That's not a threat. He appears to think an admin used their power inappropriately or incompetently, or perhaps both, and he expressed an intention to work toward having that power removed. It could have been phrased less argumentatively (imagine my surprise), but it's not a threat. -- BBlackmoor ^(talk) • 2007-01-13 04:17Z (copied from Cardinal2's Talk page.

Internet Movie Database

I'll explain my stance when it comes to IMDb just to be clear. I think that there are pros and cons when it comes to IMDb's approach regarding upcoming films. The site seems to feel the need to mark film titles with a release year where a simple TBA would suffice. I point to Thor and The Shadow as examples. In addition, as far as I'm aware, IMDb is similar to Wikipedia in the sense that "anyone" can edit it. Registered users can submit information, but I think that at IMDb, there are gatekeepers that allow the information to be posted. I've seen an Aunt May/Carnage listing for Spider-Man 3 as well as Ed Norton listed as "John Bauer" for 24's Season 5 in an upcoming episode. However, I think IMDb is more authentic when it comes to crew information, as that doesn't seem to be as falsified by fanboyism as cast information is. I'm generally accepting of crew information during filming and beyond, but I tend to take cast information up to a film's release with a grain of salt. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:39, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Derek Smart

An arbitration case in which you were involved, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Derek Smart, has closed. For a period of six months, no single-purpose account may revert any edit made to the Derek Smart article. This article is referred to the Wikipedia editing community for clean-up, evaluation of sources, and adherence to NPOV. Any user may fully apply the principles of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons to this article. Supreme Cmdr is banned from Wikipedia for one year. Supreme Cmdr and other surrogates of Derek Smart are also banned from editing Derek Smart, but may edit the talkpage. This is a summary of the remedy provisions of the decision, and editors should review the complete text of the decision before taking any action. This notice is given by a Clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad 23:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Simpson's episode "yvan eht nioj

I agree with you on the IPA stuff. My browser doesn't show it correctly and I just don't want to bother. But to answer your question, it's pronounced "EE-vahn et NEE-ozh" (soft j sound like Dr. _Zh_ivago or _Zs_a _Zs_a Gabor)

RE: Squirrelly Quotes

Yeah I know, she's annoying. I tried to make her see that her efforts were both unnecessary and futile, but I think all I did was encourage her to continue doing it. I'm not going to argue with her anymore because it's equally futile, but if I catch her dumb quote marks I'll revert them where I can. Not worth really arguing about since Wikipedia has no policy on proper use of quotes. Hopefully she'll just give up and go away. Cyberia23 05:55, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

RfC about Felicity4711

Hey, would you be willing to participate in an RfC pertaining to Felicity4711's quote mark issue? It requires two people's consent to file one. What it does is opens a discussion about her activity. It's not a complaint, it's not an attack against her, it just addresses what she's doing and people will either approve or disprove of her cause, and whatever side gets more votes that's how it shall be.

If the vote agrees that she stop then she is to be notified of it and she's supposed to obey it. If she continues to change quotes after that then it's grounds for her getting banned. If consensus agrees with her, we'll have to give in and let her have her way. If we continue the reversion war against her, we'll could all get banned for it for violating the Three Revert Rule (3RR).

Let me know if you're willing to speak out about this so I can file the request. Thanks, Cyberia23 00:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, you're probably right. I think an RfC on the issue might even get rejected as soon as I submit it, since Wikipedia has no official stance on what quote marks to use. But starting edit wars over changing them can get us banned if she complains or a ban-happy admin sees what's going on. I think trying to solve the problem diplomatically is worth a try. As soon as I figure out the procedure for an RfC I'll file one and see what happens. Cyberia23 20:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I changed my mind about the RfC, because after reading more of Felicity's talk page and what Raifʻhār Doremítzwr said about the issue there is technically nothing we can do about it because consensus was reached already — although I can't find the article it was linked to.

In general, it was determined only a small number of users had display problems with directed quotes (my big reason for hating the goddamn things — See this link and prefer the default quotes) so they're not concerned about using them.

My other argument was from a standpoint on editing: when I edit with the browser as most users do, the default quotes are applied automatically. Felicity expects us to go to the bottom and click on the little direct quote insert characters like she takes the time to do. Call me lazy but screw that! Also, if someone edits the page later, who is lazy as I am, then mismatched quote marks will appear throughout the article and make it look like crap. But whatever, WIkipedia fails on so many levels anyway. Cyberia23 20:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:KolchakTheNightStalker.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:KolchakTheNightStalker.jpg. 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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 02:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)