User talk:Bongwarrior/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/What Men Know that Women Don't

Hi Bongwarrior. Would you keep an eye on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/What Men Know that Women Don't? This AfD is related to User talk:Bongwarrior/Archive 7#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rich Zubaty. See this and this for two examples of personal attacks from this user. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:18, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

uh hello Lerd here, I stupidly rollbacked an IP (i think it was our 72.234) who was inserting something with repeating characters comment there thinking he was being desruptive I reverted myself though (must remember to manual revert next time...), so who is the trouble maker here the IP 72.234?, I'll keep an eye on it--Lerdthenerd (talk) 09:22, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

They're probably one and the same. Thanks for letting me know, I'll try to monitor the discussion as well. --Bongwarrior (talk) 21:23, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

I know it was just a click, but I do appreciate the help. See ya 'round Tiderolls 23:04, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Hey

Hey! AJona1992 (talk) 06:36, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Bonjour. --Bongwarrior (talk) 06:37, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh I don't know Russian lolz AJona1992 (talk) 06:39, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

stop deleting spacerocktrading without a talk

stop deleting spacerocktrading without a talk —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spacerock99 (talk • contribs) 23:48, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Please look at the diff ([1]) of what you are adding. You are adding formatting that looks like a protection request, but it doesn't work that way: there is a central venue for all protection requests. Adding a request to the actual article does nothing but add clutter. As for the link, the onus is on you to explain what it adds to the article, preferably on the article's talk page. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:01, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Listen Bong, I edited the tags because my edit kept on getting deleted before I tagged it with vandalism. You didnt respond to my talk before you hit undo. Please remember the wiki doesnt belong to you bong. My post self explains. Its a not for profit forum. i am going to report you to arbitration, because you have lost the spirit of the wiki and WORSE that that you have lost the spirit of the free ideals of peace love and space rock. Thats right FREE. So keep on deleting me, because you can.Sounds like a great job you have there, do they pay you?????? hmmmmmmm no..... Sad... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.216.197.252 (talk) 00:21, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

You might wanna see this.

http://boards.4chan.org/v/res/75234153#75238529

They openly talk about which pages they're gonna vandalize next. Have fun with this info, Bong. Anonycanadian (talk) 07:22, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. --Bongwarrior (talk) 07:45, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

32.17x.xxx.xx

Zarapastroso methinks? Access Denied ^{[FATAL ERROR]} 06:32, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Maybe, maybe not. Doesn't really matter that much one way or the other. --Bongwarrior (talk) 06:36, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

constant vandalizing from 4.53.85.2

Hi, as you noted on User_talk:4.53.85.2, a person at that IP address has been chronically vandalizing.

I thought it perhaps worth bringing to your attention another example, where the person at that IP replaced all instances of "Sarah Page" name with a wrong name: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tulsa_race_riot&action=historysubmit&diff=384086651&oldid=383780408

In fact... now that I check... most of the edits (Special:Contributions/4.53.85.2) by this person appear to be vandalism to insert that same name into various inappropriate contexts. When it isn't that, it's some other random vandalizing, e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zygmunt_Wrzodak&diff=prev&oldid=380998025

Of the diffs from that IP address's contrib list that I've checked, all were examples of vandalism. As an admin, do you have any easy way to do a mass undo of all those, without reverting genuine contributions made by other people to those articles after the vandalism edits by 4.53.85.2 ?

It's unlikely that the person behind that IP will stop unless IP-banned, having already received eight warnings on his/her talk page to stop vandalizing, over a period of less than three months.

Thanks. --Undomelin (talk) 14:36, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure anything more needs to be done at this time. I gave the IP a long-term vandalism warning a little over a week ago, and it hasn't edited since. I don't think any of the IP's edits still need to be undone - most of the bad edits look like they've already been dealt with, although it's possible I may have overlooked some. This was a peculiar case: the wrong name that was spammed into Tulsa race riot was also spammed into several other articles by a few different IPs, with some of the edits remaining in the articles for a month or two, IIRC. Odd, but resolved for now. --Bongwarrior (talk) 06:39, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Johnny Knoxville vandalism

Bong, you instructed me to stop vandalizing an entry (as I supposedly had done at a Johnny Knoxville article). I did not vandalize any entry, nor would I. I suspect it was someone using a VPN supplied by one of the many VPN companies catering to users in China, Singapore and elsewhere in Asia where firewalls block content. Therefore, they obtained an IP address that was the same as my IP address in the past. Please rest assured that I would not vandalize any entry. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.115.160.193 (talk) 09:56, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I accept your explanation; your honorable intentions are noted (and appreciated). Take care. --Bongwarrior (talk) 18:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Barry Bonds

Thanks for your editorial contributions. You may want to post this on your user page.

This user helped promote Barry Bonds to good article status.

--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:26, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that's nice to know, but I can't take any credit. An overwhelming majority of my contributions were reverts, and those that weren't reverts were still pretty minor. But if I did help, I'm glad. As always, it's a privilege to be able to assist one of the world's greatest information resources. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:27, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

good work on blocking that vandal

I see you just blocked that IP vandal who was creating hate pages about administrators, good work! we could do better with out nasty editors like that who are not willing to co operate--Lerdthenerd (talk) 08:40, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

How do you know this vandal won't come back after 72 hours and do the same thing? Confession0791 ^talk 08:42, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

::I hope he doesn't but then again trolls never learn, its good that we have administrators like Bongwarrior here blocking those that misbehave--Lerdthenerd (talk) 08:44, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

scratch that you were right confessions he is back under anew IP address!!--Lerdthenerd (talk) 08:47, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Under control. I'm betting they will get bored before I will. --Bongwarrior (talk) 08:49, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

my page

why did you delete my page. it had no reason to be deleted —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rileyisthebest (talk • contribs) 09:19, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry I had to delete it, but Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. --Bongwarrior (talk) 09:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

2010 Copiapó mining accident

Hi, I tried to copy and mod the progress bars you used in the info box on the page back during the rescue but my weak attempt isn't very attractive. If you have time, can you pop over and do some table wizardry on it? It's down in this section.

I used the data from that section and it needs to be anchored some where nearby. I tried to make a table with three cells across to have the progress bars display in a horizontal row underneath the text above but couldn't make it work out.

I ended up cheating with an infobox but it aligns to the right and only lets me stack the bars vertically. The end result is kind of odd looking off to the side. I hope you have time. Thank you for the rescue! Veriss (talk) 03:36, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean like this?

Plan A, Strata 950  (85%)

702

598

Plan B, Schramm T130  (100%)

624

Plan C, RIG-421  (62%)

597

372

Personally I think it would look a little better off to the side like it is now, but there is probably a prettier way to do it than I've done. --Bongwarrior (talk) 07:20, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I think I agree. You made exactly what I asked for but I can see how it's not so obvious what is being displayed with them lined up horizontally. That sub-section grew a bit since I wrote you so my cobbled together thing matches up with the text now a lot better then it did before. Thanks for responding and taking a stab at it. I appreciate it. Ciao! Veriss (talk) 07:39, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

MacArthur Airport disaster

Thank you very much, I'm glad you enjoyed it :-) Wackywace ^{converse | contribs} 07:21, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I've suggested Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard for SP.

I think this guy's almost literaly too stupid to stop, so... HalfShadow 07:53, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd prefer to let this one play out a little longer, to see if he's tired himself out yet or not, but you're right that a short semiprotection is probably justified. --Bongwarrior (talk) 07:59, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Indefinite full protection of Man

There seems to be a consensus for reducing this article to semi-protection, combined with accept=reviewer pending changes protection, at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Suggest_reducing_protection_level. Peter Karlsen (talk) 01:01, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Is pending changes allowed to be applied to new articles right now, or is it still in limbo? I was under the impression that it wasn't supposed to be applied to articles while the trial was being sorted out. I obviously don't have a problem with reducing the protection at some point, although personally I would prefer to let the situation cool for a bit longer. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:09, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Per the relevant section of the protection policy, PC protection may be "added sparingly to pages where it has clear benefits." While "letting the situation cool for a bit longer" might be somewhat applicable to a genuine editorial dispute, since all of the registered accounts removing the image are blocked sockpuppets [2], semi-protection plus level-two pending changes protection should be adequate to keep most of them out, and render their activities useless even if they manage to edit, since none of the socks had reviewer rights. Peter Karlsen (talk) 01:17, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the link regarding pending changes, that's exactly what I was wondering about. To me, this looks like a legitimate editorial dispute, and I'm extremely reluctant to start choosing sides by lowering it to semiprotection right now, although it will have to happen eventually. Pending changes here, I think, would be superfluous - the same users who would be locked out by pending changes should be handled just fine by semiprotection alone. That would seem to be the least disruptive path going forward, but in fairness to both sides I'd prefer to leaves things as they are for the immediate future, just in case anyone has any solutions to offer other than brute force. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:51, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Exactly how does creating lots of (now blocked) sockpuppet accounts (Special:Contributions/We233ws Special:Contributions/Smzugzwangerq Special:Contributions/Itiiti2itiitiitiitiitiitiiti) constitute a legitimate editorial dispute? While there may be some legitimate discussion over the image, the one or two editors who oppose it, and aren't currently blocked, have never removed it from the article [3] [4]- the actual cause of the edit war (if it even deserves that terminology) is purely malicious multiple account creation. You'd be "choosing sides" only in the sense of supporting good-faith editors, and opposing the user who is willing to resort to abusive sockpuppetry to disrupt Wikipedia. If the sockpuppeteer is able to keep everyone locked out of the article, then his disruptive efforts will have succeeded. Fairness to the sockpuppeteer is blatantly unfair to all other editors -- that's why editors participating in the discussion at WP:AN/I have supported reducing the protection level. Furthermore, level two pending changes protection is not superfluous to semi-protection. Semi-protection prevents all accounts which aren't autoconfirmed from editing the article at all; pending changes protection at the accept=reviewer level will suspend the display of edits made by autoconfirmed accounts which don't have the reviewer permission until they are expressly approved by a reviewer. Combining both forms of protection will allow editing of the article to continue, while locking the sockpuppeteer out. Peter Karlsen (talk) 02:26, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore, as one of the few unblocked editors who opposes the inclusion of the image (but never edit warred it out) is about to be topic banned, the scope for genuine editorial disagreement (though this wasn't the cause of the repeated reversions of the article in any case) is quickly diminishing. Peter Karlsen (talk) 03:26, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

The disruption to the article has been caused by one or more edit-warring sockmasters and their socks, who refuse to abide by consensus and openly state their unilateral decisions to remove material from the article - most people would consider the repeated removal of content without consensus as vandalism, and a breach of a clear Wikipedia policy, WP:NOTCENSORED. The sockmaster and socks all are now blocked. No other editor has broken 3RR, and the image-removal socks have been reverted by multiple editors each time. There is indeed a content dispute, but other than the socks, everyone is trying to reach consensus (which seems to be much more strongly in favour of keeping the image than removing it). Also, the only current anti-image contributors to the discussion have not been edit-warring. Pending changes does seem to me to offer more than semi-protection, in that someone will have to review and accept any further changes, thus preventing any anti-consensus edits from affecting the publicly-seen article. Also, just about everyone agrees that some changes are needed, and it is currently impossible to make those without getting an admin to do it. So, in my opinion, Pending Changes does seem to be the best option now - and quite a few people on ANI/I agree. But having said all that, I can see the benefit in trying to let things cool down a bit more, so I would not object if we waited a little while longer - at least until the Topic Ban discussion reaches a conclusion. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:29, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I will watch the various discussions, and reduce the protection before too much longer. If another administrator believes I am taking too long, he or she has my blessing to reduce the protection level themselves, with no ill will on my part. --Bongwarrior (talk) 18:39, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi. The AN/I for Man appears to have reached the end of the line - socks have been blocked, and the one editor under the possibility of a ban has effectively let it drop now. So I think it would be safe to unprotect it - I'll keep it watched and will request protection if it kicks off again. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:42, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm uninvolved in this article, only going there from AN/i to see if I could help. The talk page is now quite calm so allowing editors active there to finish working on the article should be allowed. If the page breaks out into a heated problem it can easily be reprotected in necessary. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:23, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Done, sorry for the delay. --Bongwarrior (talk) 20:14, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Sock puppetry using botnet

These is a sock puppet investigation going on listing IP users you have been involved with. The IPs include 81.94.201.90 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and others. The edits have been hidden, so there is not much behavioral evidence publicly available.

You may wist to comment here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Marknutley.-- Petri Krohn (talk) 12:14, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

It's been two months since you

semi-protected Conan O'Brien, citing "Excessive vandalism." Since the protection prevented me from contributing details to the article from this reference:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704405704575596860479420010.html

I was hoping you would consider removing the protection on the grounds that a reasonable period has elapsed. Thanks for your consideration. 72.244.204.63 (talk) 10:17, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll have a look at this when I can. I seem to remember some pretty serious vandalism issues here, so no promises, but we'll see. --Bongwarrior (talk) 20:14, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. 72.244.204.65 (talk) 20:39, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I've unprotected it. There's no real reason not to give it a try, and it has been a few months. Thanks for your interest, and sorry for any inconvenience. --Bongwarrior (talk) 21:37, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again. I took advantage of the opportunity. 72.244.204.135 (talk) 11:18, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Pages to delete

I see you are currently active. Would you please review Special:Contributions/178.108.168.165 (has created two talk pages with offensive titles). I haven't warned them because it would just be silly for such obvious stuff. Johnuniq (talk) 10:09, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Done, thank you for bringing it to my attention. --Bongwarrior (talk) 10:16, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

deleted Michael Iuliano

hello, you deleted an article that I created...

while I fully understand how the individual that this page is written for may not be of elite social status, Mr. Iuliano is certainly a socialite in the New York scene, and one that I think does deserve a page. While he may not crave the attention that some socialites garner (ex. paris hilton), I do believe that this site should allow for an individual to continue his ascend to fame. It seems unjust that because Michael has not gotten into the public eye like others, this page get removed.

I did try to find any type of link where he may have been spotted at high-end clubs/restaurants etc., but unfortunately I could not. It appears that he has stayed away from newspapers/print media as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dave2130 (talk • contribs) 19:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but that is precisely why Wikipedia can't have an article on him at this time. All subjects of Wikipedia articles must be notable (i.e., mentioned by reliable news outlets, in books, magazines, and the like). If there is no such coverage, we have two problems: there is no way to verify any of the information, and it's highly probable that very few people would care to look up his entry in an encyclopedia. Because that's what we are, after all, not some tool to help someone ascend into fame or whatever. --Bongwarrior (talk) 19:43, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Hartford, Arkansas

Why is my addition to this page being deleted? I have lived here for 25 years and can assure you everything in it is true. I also believe this adds a little color to our page. We aren't huge town so these little things are what make our town what it is. ImaMakeRice (talk) 07:47, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but all Wikipedia content must be factual, verifiable and neutral. Personal observations of the town's residents are unneeded. --Bongwarrior (talk) 19:28, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Hey

How do you know that George W. Bush isn't a reptilian? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.155.77.60 (talk) 06:36, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

why

Why did you close the Christian/Newsom discussion so quick? It was open less than a day. Just curious, that's all. The "keep" makes sense. Is it if you feel certain that it is a keep, you can immediately close it? ஹெல்சின்கி FIN பின்லாந்து (talk) 18:53, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Not exactly. I became aware of the discussion via an ANI thread: after having some of his/her edits rejected, the nominator appeared to be trying to make a point by nominating the article for deletion, hence the early close. I apologize for the lack of a proper closing rationale - it was a little late, and I wasn't feeling very talkative at the time. Take care. --Bongwarrior (talk) 23:41, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Titan

Hi, look I'm not trying to stir up trouble or to vandalize in any way. But the page on greek mythology's Titans needs some help, particularly in the etymology of Titans. Hesiod, our primary and most ancient source on them, is adamant that the word comes from the greek word 'temno', which means 'I stretch'. The rest that's listed there is simply silly and filler. Oh well I hope it works out. Cheers.Mr.mobsta (talk) 11:07, 10 December 2010 (UTC) December 10, 2010 Mr. Mobsta

Hello

Dear Bong Warrior,

I hope that you are enjoying a pleasant evening. I was hoping that you may consider rescinding your sectioning re: M Hancock from approximately 5 minutes ago. Many people in out province , while not part of the predominant north american social scene are interested in researching this gentlemen. I am responding to a request on the part of our readers and I am not familiar completely with Wikipedia's program aside from my own experience reading documents. I hope you will reconsider after viewing these websites/ documents:

pick up podcast ( search on Google ) the Georgian - west coast NL newspaper ( thegeorgian.ca) The Toronto Star - ( "a player not to be hated") — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sexybabegirl (talk • contribs) 10:01, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't able to locate any of those. Can you please provide some direct links that mention the subject? --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:52, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

The Hidden Admin?

Hello, Bongwarrior … Just thought I'd ping you to mention that you are the first WP:Administrator I've encountered who doesn't advertise it with a userbox … as you can tell from my user page(s), I use them partly to attract, but mostly to avoid any confusion about "where I'm coming from" in terms of my predispositions, such as any arising from how old I am and what cultural phenomena I have experienced first-hand.

BTW, I stumbled across your block of User:68.3.128.105 while back-tracing vandalism to Grace Hopper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which led me to their talk page … OTOH, now that I look at the dates, I see the block was several months ago, so I guess they're back … I'll hang a {{uw-vandalism2}} on it as I had originally intended, just to document their behavior.

Anywho, I hope to run into you again, 'cause I'm sure I'll recognize yer handle. :-)

Happy Editing! — 70.21.16.94 (talk · contribs) _{02:57, 19 December 2010 (UTC)}

Well, I cleaned out my modest userbox collection a few weeks ago, but I always preferred to just use the unobtrusive {{Administrator topicon}} for identification purposes. I was always worried the admin userbox would seem too show-offy :) Thanks for the note, and happy editing to you as well. --Bongwarrior (talk) 04:35, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Ouch! Your user page's history shows an abnormal pattern of vandalism … good thing so many other editors seem to have your back … maybe a little advertising would make them think twice before trashing you? :-) — 70.21.16.94 (talk) 21:46, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, it comes and goes. I've seen other userpages that are hit a lot harder than mine usually is, so it's not too bad. All part of the fun, I guess. --Bongwarrior (talk) 02:34, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Rangeblock request

Sorry to disturb you. I don't know if you could rangeblocks, but if you could, can you block the 114.79.2.0/24 and 114.79.1.0/24 ranges? They were used by the notorious IP-hopping Indonesian misinformation vandal who deliberately introduces wrong info onto Digimon, telenovela, anime, Little League, and now NBC and CBS News related articles from different IP ranges. Below are the addresses he has used just from the past few weeks alone:

• 114.79.2.96 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 114.79.1.15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 114.79.1.20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 114.79.2.149 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Hoping for your quick and timely response to this message. Thanks in advance. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 09:59, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

PS: I've also put this request to two other admins who are familiar with this vandal, but they're out right now. I've also asked a third admin, but no response. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 09:59, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I'd like to help, but I don't usually do rangeblocks. I'm always too worried that I would accidentally block Canada or something, so I leave it to the pros. --Bongwarrior (talk) 10:04, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, for the moment, can you block 114.79.1.221 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)? It's the same guy and he has restarted. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 10:08, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

No problem there, done. --Bongwarrior (talk) 10:21, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Instead of playing whack-a-mole...

...why not try something a bit more proactive? Now, obviously he's using proxies, but are there no rangeblocks that might make his job harder? HalfShadow 03:10, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi, please see above :) --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:12, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Nah, I mean the other guy HalfShadow 03:14, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

He's blocked. If someone wants to run a checkuser, they will. I'm not really that worried about him. --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:18, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

your undoing of my edits

My edits on Skyview High School clubs page were legitimate. I am a student of the high school and am an officer in the three clubs I added and you erased. 24.20.105.127 (talk)wikipedia user

Don't waste our time: [5], [6]. Acroterion _(talk) 12:41, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Scott Van Pelt

I am sorry about the confusion with the article. After a closer look at the twitter account I do agree that a more credible source is needed before it is added to his page. CSLoomis ( talk | contribs ) 08:07, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for putting my mind at ease, no need to apologize. Happy new year to you. --Bongwarrior (talk) 08:10, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the revert on my talk. Elockid ^(Talk) 16:40, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome, happy to help. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:18, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of Aubrey Urban

Hey. I think we had a mid-air collision somehow with the deletion of Aubrey Urban. You deleted it as I tagged it for speedy with WP:TW and apparently that caused me to automatically recreate the article with just the deletion tag. Do you mind speedying it again? Thanks and sorry about this. I'll see if I can report it as a bug in the tool. Zachlipton (talk) 08:16, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

:) No worries, not your fault. I've seen this happen a few times before. --Bongwarrior (talk) 08:20, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Engineering science and mechanics

Hi, look what has been done here. I guess the ip address editor is not paying attention to the warnings . Shall I report it to WP:AIV ? *** in fact *** ( contact ) 09:57, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

No, I don't think so. I'm not sure what they're doing, but the content the IP is removing looks like it was added by the IP in the first place. I think they are trying to restructure or add to the article, or something. I didn't investigate all the intervening edits, but the article looked like this before they started editing. --Bongwarrior (talk) 10:06, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Protection

Could you protect Archaea, seems like proxies are here (again). Tbhotch^™ and © 04:46, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't want to protect it yet, but I'll keep an eye on it. --Bongwarrior (talk) 04:52, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Recend Edits, Talk

Hey I just made an edit to the Columbine Massacre heroes. The reason they're heroes is because they've made my life in high school a lot easier. Bullying is something that's not tolerated in schools anymore thanks to them. I don't understand why you removed my helpful contribution, I wasn't vandalizing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.219.12.133 (talk • contribs)

I'm glad that their mass murder has benefited you personally, but they most certainly are not heroes. --Bongwarrior (talk) 07:48, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Help on Survivor: Redemption Island

I don't know if Survivor is your cup of tea, but I need on a certain user Gbold1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and his edits on the article I mentioned. He was already warned about adding unsourced info into said article, but he seems to reinstate his edits. His latest now has a source, but I don't think it's reliable (and it's in the External Links section as well). Can you help on this guy. BTW, I gave him a level 3 warning, but afterwards, he "reverted" my revert after that. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 11:12, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

It looks like another user has already stopped by to give him some good advice. Let's see if he takes it. --Bongwarrior (talk) 20:04, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

User:ResidentAnthropologist

Ummm... his talk page could probably use protecting from "Mr. Conspiracy" as well. This is insane, to say the least. Jus' sayin'. Cheers :> Doc talk 07:26, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Good idea, thanks. --Bongwarrior (talk) 07:30, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

NP :> Hopefully that person will get the medical help they need. Doc talk 07:42, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanx

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Thank you for protection of my User and Talk pages in the Recent Vandalism Sprees over the last few Weeks The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 14:29, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Deleted article

alexandra demattia gave me permission to make her that page. wtf. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stacheattack (talk • contribs) 18:22, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

She isn't notable, and the article I deleted was entirely promotional. Whether or not she gave you permission is inconsequential. --Bongwarrior (talk) 18:37, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

FYI

Checked the deleted contributions of User:Benlloyd91. Thought you might find it funny. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 01:38, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll start repenting tomorrow. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:42, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Blocking 173.17.230.75

Could you please block 173.17.230.75? He has put tons of vandalism and cussing on the Fish Hooks page. No matter how many times we undo his revision, he keeps putting swearing and cussing again. Plaese block him!--72.209.226.146 (talk) 23:08, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, but there's no need. 173.17.230.75 (talk) has only made two edits since their block expired about ten days ago, and neither appeared to be malicious. IP addresses can be assigned to completely different users or households over time, so we usually don't block them for very long, unless it becomes a constant and ongoing source of disruption. So far, this IP hasn't done anything else to worry about. --Bongwarrior (talk) 06:05, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Nick's Boogie

The article Nick's Boogie has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Singles generally do not meet WP:V and WP:N, no mention of notability no references.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 16:35, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

You Deleted My Page

Hello, Could you please tell me why you deleted the "Yung Envy" Page. If you don't want me to make it, then is it possible for you to make it please? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yunghas (talk • contribs) 21:25, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry. It had almost no content at the time, so I thought it was just an editing experiment or something. If you are prepared to add sourced content explaining this person's notability, then feel free to do so with my blessing. Also, you are free to edit your userpage as you see fit, usually without any interference or risk of deletion. If you need help getting started, I'll be glad to assist. Take care. --Bongwarrior (talk) 21:49, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

The Wiki Page isnt For me, Its for an artist I know, And to be honest, he is quite big in atlanta. Im new at this, Since I dont have any experience, Could you please make the article Please? I know him, and you could get the sources from Myspace and Facebook. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yunghas (talk • contribs) 07:38, 8 February 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.252.10 (talk)

Myspace and Facebook aren't really useful as references. Has there been any press coverage you can direct me to? --Bongwarrior (talk) 08:08, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

He has been featured in Magazines, but Those were a long time ago, and he was signed to Island Def Jam in 2008, I have a video Proving, that he was signed by Jermiane Dupri. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yunghas (talk • contribs) 17:06, 8 February 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.252.10 (talk)

This Youtube Video proves that He was signed. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NP-pr9V1UX0 Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yunghas (talk • contribs) 11:41, 9 February 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.252.10 (talk)

Well, that's a start, I suppose, although Youtube videos aren't considered acceptable to use for sourcing. Can you provide me with something reliable that verifies his deal with Def Jam? Something like Rolling Stone or The Atlanta Journal-Constitution would be awesome, or something else along those lines. --Bongwarrior (talk) 08:08, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Go on This link, I know it talks about Roscoe Dash, but Envy has Collabed wid Roscoe (Yeh Roscoe is signed), Tha link says That envy is signed to Def Jam, An' its a source. http://keepittrill.com/online/2010/02/atls-roscoe-dash-keeping-trill-exposed-manager/ 94.192.66.235 (talk) 10:54, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Also- http://www.islanddefjam.com/artist/home.aspx?artistID=7375 94.192.66.235 (talk) 11:09, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Also 4SHO Magazine. It states that Envy Signed wid Def Jam- http://www.crushspot.com/4shoMagazine?met_origin=profile_friends. (But yu have to scroll down to find Him) 94.192.66.235 (talk) 11:23, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

This link shows that Envy did get that Deal wid Island def jam and He worked with Jermaine Dupri.- http://www.facebook.com/pages/Yung-Envy/171688276203989?v=photos&ref=ts#!/photo.php?fbid=171951229511027&set=a.171951186177698.31946.171688276203989&theater YungHaS (talk) 11:47, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Are these resources okay ^^ YungHaS (talk) 19:51, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Facebook does not demonstrate any kind of notability (anyone can make a facebook page that says almost anything). Crushspot appears to be another website that anyone can put anything on. The keepittrill.com article is not about him, it only mentions him in passing. Just being signed does not make him notable. The islanddefjam.com page is loading blank. You need magazine or news paper articles about him specifically, not just something that mentions him in passing. Just being signed to a record label does not qualify someone for an article. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:47, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I'll look for an article. How can you qualify for an article? 94.192.66.235 (talk) 12:04, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Have a look at WP:MUSICBIO. If he meets at least one of the criteria listed there, then we're in business. If not, then an article about him will have to wait. --Bongwarrior (talk) 18:56, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Has been the subject of a half-hour or longer broadcast across a national radio or TV network.- WELL HE HAS BEEN ON THE SO SO DEF RADIO, WHICH IS HOSTED BY JERMAINE DUPRI.94.192.66.235 (talk) 12:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Has performed music for a work of media that is notable- WELL HE HAS BEEN ASKED TO PERFORM WITH YOUNG JEEZY AT SUMMER JAM. 94.192.66.235 (talk) 12:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

"Has been asked to perform" is not "has performed" yet. While Jermaine Dupri is notable, I can't find evidence that the So So Def Radio show is notable. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:26, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I dont think Rappers put their Radio Shows onto Wikipedia, but this is the evidence. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ap_bAH3Dq2A YungHaS (talk) 14:19, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Just because a radio show exists does not make it notable. Anyone can create and submit youtube videos, they do not demonstrate notability. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:14, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

why was my page deleted

i started a page for my band " the screaming bansheies" and it was deleated ?! ! ! WHY — Preceding unsigned comment added by B3nifit (talk • contribs) 07:42, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but they do not appear to meet the general notability guideline. For notability information pertaining specifically to musical acts, please see WP:MUSIC. If I am mistaken, please accept my humble apologies. --Bongwarrior (talk) 07:49, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

FYI

[7] Dabomb87 (talk) 01:14, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I wouldn't have any objections. Although I don't think it would remain unprotected for very long, it's always worth a shot. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:28, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

my edit of Ryan Bader

jsut curious, i edited the page back to how it was supposed to be from a vandal, but it still came up with "Ryan the master Bader" ... could you possibly shed light on how this happened? Thanks --Eidetic Man (talk) 02:50, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

not to worry, i missed one line by the vandal, i just checked the revision. thanks. --Eidetic Man (talk) 02:53, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Look At This Link

Hey, Look at this link. It has no refrences. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lil%27playboy YungHaS (talk) 19:17, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

It's in userspace. Greater leeway is usually given, but it appears to be an abandoned draft or something. If you think it should be deleted, I agree, but Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion handles those sorts of requests. --Bongwarrior (talk) 02:16, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Whats Userspace? YungHaS (talk) 15:02, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

See WP:USERPAGE. --Bongwarrior (talk) 18:40, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay, you said to get an article, you need refrences. Then can you explain to me, why this article has not been deleted. It does have refrences but it doesn't fit in with the Article Text. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_Miller. YungHaS (talk) 12:33, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Probably because no one has gotten around to deleting it yet. I don't expect it to last very long. --Bongwarrior (talk) 19:39, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

My mistake, the subject of the article (Mac Miller) appears to be suitable for inclusion. For whatever reason, the page is attracting a lot of vandalism. I re-added one reference and was able to locate a few other decent ones. --Bongwarrior (talk) 08:57, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

WHY???

Why did you delete my page Daniel Friske???? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Friskeeee (talk • contribs) 22:21, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you aren't notable. If you'd like to write about yourself without it being deleted, try your userpage. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:37, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting the IP's "warning". – Novice7 (talk) 07:05, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hi! This IP seems to be this user blocked by you. If possible, please block 165.95.111.254 too. Thank you. Oda Mari (talk) 16:32, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Done, thanks. --Bongwarrior (talk) 16:54, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

No Refrences

Hello Please look at this Article, there is no Refrences which link to the Writing in this Article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DJ_Nasty_%26_LVM YungHaS (talk) 18:23, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

And this the "External Link" is faulty, and doesn't work. http://www.purecashmagazine.com/2008/07/16/nasty-beatmakers/. And how come this article hasnt been deleted, and this contains no refrences, but you Deleted my "Yung Envy" one? YungHaS (talk) 18:27, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The fact that other articles exist and have managed to not have their shortcomings noticed as yet does not justify a new article bypassing site inclusion criteria. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:31, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

What you mean YungHaS (talk) 20:42, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Hey

Thanks for the help with that user, and just to make sure you don't miss him, User:Fireburner04 is also one of his socks. Thanks, Passionless -Talk 07:08, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. --Bongwarrior (talk) 07:11, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Nableezy

Hi, could you possibly semi-protect (and maybe deleted last revisions) of the following talk pages (extreme, racist comments): User talk:Tiamut, User talk:Nableezy, User talk:Malik Shabazz‎. Thanks Yazan (talk) 07:21, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I've hidden the edits, and I'm watching the pages. I'd like to hold off protecting them for now, but I will be prepared to do so if it continues. --Bongwarrior (talk) 07:38, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Yazan (talk) 08:01, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

What?

For User:7tuwandee, I would want to see the evidence of mis-using accounts? Is there a SPI case or what? ~~Awsome EBE123~~(talk | Contribs) 21:20, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

There's no case that I am aware of, but the pattern[8] was pretty obvious. The original user Muntuwandi (talk · contribs) has since been unblocked. --Bongwarrior (talk) 07:56, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

4chan vandalism

Thank God for you. 43?9enter (talk) 07:00, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Alcoholic

Why did you delete my post about Alcoholism? These alcoholics are very famous in popular culture... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.180.34.88 (talk) 08:45, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll bet. Even if so, it wouldn't be the third sentence of the article. --Bongwarrior (talk) 09:15, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry. I am using Huggle for the first time and it is a little confusing. I am trying not to do anything too rash :). Thanks for catching me! Meisfunny Gab RETIRED 03:52, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

No problem, it happens. --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:53, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Warlock

Please discuss your reversion of the inclusion of Charlie Sheen in this article on it's talk page before reverting. It's a sourced piece of information.Beersaur (talk) 05:22, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

It's a piece of something, all right. --Bongwarrior (talk) 05:26, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Australian Aboriginees

Thank you for semiprotecting that page. Why is it that everyone seems to vandalize one page at the same time?Ryan Vesey (talk) 06:07, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

4chan, probably. --Bongwarrior (talk) 06:08, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Recent vandals

Here is their source, unsure what other pages they're doing. http://boards.4chan.org/v/res/89456822

--24.151.202.242 (talk) 23:08, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, wasn't logged in. --Gzalzi (talk) 23:08, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. --Bongwarrior (talk) 23:36, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I saw you were taking care of other vandals in a new thread too, good job. Lucasoutloud (talk) 06:07, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Name

what kinda name is bongwarrior it sound lik you pot head i apologize if i offended you but it sounds innappriote for a wiki admin nameRicBoom (talk) 05:12, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

No offense taken. I'm actually just a big fan of baseball player Bong Jung-Keun. --Bongwarrior (talk) 23:46, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I always thought it was a reference to your hometown! The Interior (Talk) 00:30, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

ClueBot

Hi

Just thought I'd drop by and say I'm glad that it's not just me now that's noticing something is wrong with ClueBot's warnings! I've reported this a few times now but I don't think anything has been done about it yet, mainly because Cobi isn't very active at the moment for one reason or another. Was starting to wonder if it was just me lol because I was the only one reporting it. It's weird, it's like the Bot is either reading blank pages when it comes to warn the user, hence why sometimes it resets the warnings to level 1, or it only recognises it's own warnings? Weird ain't it?!--5 albert square (talk) 00:25, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar!

		The Admin's Barnstar
		I award you this barnstar for protecting the page Sonic Colors. God I hate 4chan. Either way cheers! Bped1985 (talk) 04:51, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

reinstate deleted page

10:12, 3 December 2010 Bongwarrior (talk | contribs) deleted "Rahul Bhandari" ‎ (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement: http://www.parasventures.com/rahul.htm) If you require copyright permission provide email for it to be sent to. thx. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skhanna2 (talk • contribs) 06:05, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Contact us/Permit for some information, although the article would still need a substantial rewrite, at least. --Bongwarrior (talk) 06:17, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

That is not vandalism

the Blackberry edit was not vandalism. People searching for "Blackberry" are expecting the result for the phone, not the fruit. Change my edit back, now. 142.177.141.125 (talk) 12:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

If you thought it was an appropriate edit, you wouldn't have used a deceptive edit summary. --Bongwarrior (talk) 12:40, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

96.55.240.89

Just a heads-up, 96.55.240.89 (talk), whom you blocked last month, is back. He blanked his user page to hide prior warnings and has begun making vandalism-only edits, randomly adding a globalize hatnote to a dozen or so random articles. Not sure what the right course of action is. TJRC (talk) 22:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd wait for now, since there hasn't been any activity since being warned by you. If I thought it was the same vandal, I'd be happy to block now, but I think this might be a different vandal. Or possibly a sock of some kind, but the pattern doesn't immediately ring a bell with me. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:33, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Roger Friedman

Hi Bongwarrior. If you have a moment, can you check out this article: Roger Friedman. I am getting into a 3RR here and suspect some sockpuppetry. Thanks! Seaphoto^Talk 04:59, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I've left the user a note regarding 3RR. I agree that something hinky is afoot. --Bongwarrior (talk) 05:14, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Is this you?

http://vocaroo.com/?media=vRHmupk8Cx6xvsFYM

http://vocaroo.com/?media=v9s9mxyZFnjqi2yMf

http://vocaroo.com/?media=vr0hsnwlyDzDbt2vE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.100.215.20 (talk) 05:26, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

No, but it sounds like he may be a distant relative. --Bongwarrior (talk) 05:30, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Dude, you easily have the most vandalized page on my extensive watchlist. Ever. That means you're doing something right, I suppose! Cheers :> Doc talk 05:34, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Connor Wickham

The information added to Connor Wickham's Page is factually base an unless you have evidence to the contrary you should refrain from editing the passage in question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IangriffithsCS (talk • contribs) 06:43, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Pyfan has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Thanks for the revert on my talk page! — Oli ^OR Pyfan! 09:28, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Chris Woodhouse

I know this Hiphop artist called Chris Woodhouse, that is signed to Full Dekk Music Group which is founded by Chingy. Chris is featured on Chingy's new single, entitled Superhero (Chingy song). I was wondering if you could make a Wiki page for Chris Woodhouse please.

http://www.fulldekkmusicgroup.com/fr_about.cfm YungHaS (talk) 16:41, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe there are enough references available at this time to support an article. It may be best to wait for his career to progress a little more. --Bongwarrior (talk) 19:00, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh okay. Thanks YungHaS (talk) 19:58, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

what up?

yooo gangbanger. what you doing deleting my page you foool? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danpugh2310 (talk • contribs) 08:57, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Deleted

Hi,please can you tell me why you deleted the page 'Roshon Vercher'? the whole page was valid. i changed 1 tiny section for the better and you delete the whole page? reasons please you can't just do that. public site! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deadlyshroom93 (talk • contribs) 09:31, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I removed a chunk of text from the article because it was copied from another website, which means we can't use it. I've also nominated the article for deletion because I don't believe the subject meets Wikipedia's notability requirements. --Bongwarrior (talk) 09:40, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

yo you know what end of worlds coming i know when

in fact the worlds going to end in 2019 or 2030 jan 11 friday it is fully correct — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yusufkhan10 (talk • contribs) 03:38, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Supreme Overlord of Knowledge

Well now, you're no fun!  ;) Strikerforce (talk) 06:38, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry :( If it makes you feel any better, I let it stay up longer than I normally would have. --Bongwarrior (talk) 06:40, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Good point. All in good spirits and no hard feelings :) Strikerforce (talk) 06:41, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Ummm

Hey i was making a wiki on my band Rush time big and you deleted it. Um why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SavageJake (talk • contribs) 00:51, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but your band isn't notable. Also, it is a bad idea to write about yourself or projects that you are involved with. If your band becomes notable, someone else will probably write an article about them. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:55, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Oh sorry im new to wikipedia the for your help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by SavageJake (talk • contribs) 22:50, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

That was me who did the heading edits in the Penguins article. Don't know why I changed the losing one...ya...way too negative. Only thing is the Crosby Era thing...the whole paragraph starts off squarely on Malkin and seems to focus on his contributions...hmm Thanks though!142.27.101.13 (talk) 19:16, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

At one time, I think it said the Crosby/Malkin era, which may be a more descriptive heading. The rest of the headings seem to be a little unwieldy in my opinion, so some rewording or restructuring may be in order at some point. Take care. --Bongwarrior (talk) 19:26, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Removal of pages without enquiry.

Hi Could you explain why the page you have removed regarding my client Daniel robert mcculloch is not relevent. You have not deleted Wayne Rooneys page yet Daniel's career outstrips his so far and will continue to do so as he is a much smarter person more in the Sheringham mode.

I will make you a bet if you like that Daniel is playing Premier league football by 2020 and will have played for his country by 2021. Would you like to name a stake.

Bestregards

Stevejanechardan (talk) 11:44, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't know squat about soccer, but I do know that there is a big difference between playing for the Pannal Ash Juniors and playing for Manchester United. If he's playing in the Premier League in nine years as you believe he will, I'll gladly undelete the article. --Bongwarrior (talk) 21:29, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Martin Hardie

Its true — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbb933 (talk • contribs) 21:36, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

the drigers deletion

hello bongwarrior i made a page & you deleated it not to get personal but i need reasons why you deleated it i did nothing whong you just deleated it like it was a huge threat when i just made one page no unkind info just specific infomation — Preceding unsigned comment added by KieranKiwiNinja (talk • contribs) 11:42, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but please refer to CSD G10 and CSD A7, the relevant speedy deletion criteria. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:21, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

But i did not make a attack page or enything to do with CSD A7 i just made it cuz i know something called "the drigers" why is it to do with that explain to me why it is so bad — Preceding unsigned comment added by KieranKiwiNinja (talk • contribs) 17:50, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

It's not that bad, it just isn't notable. --Bongwarrior (talk) 21:29, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

That explains alot when you said "It's not that bad" but whats with you saying "NOTABLE!!!" — Preceding unsigned comment added by KieranKiwiNinja (talk • contribs) 13:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Jaleel White

Dear Bongwarrior, Thanks for protecting the page and reverting it back to a clean version. I was having a hard time keeping up with these vandals who are using different IPs and user names.

Xionbox^₪ 05:54, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

No problem, thanks to you as well. --Bongwarrior (talk) 05:57, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Im sorry

ok ill stop i was only havin a laugh calm down man :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.76.1.158 (talk) 21:45, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place to "have a laugh". pcuser42 (talk) 09:02, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

protected Death of Osama bin Laden

Absolutely crazy. There is NOT excessive vandalism. There's a hell of a lot of people, working hard on it - including a load of new users.

There is a tiny, tiny fraction of vandalism - all of which was quite happily being swiftly removed.

Please reconsider - quickly. Thanks,  Chzz  ►  04:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Now, instead of working on improving articles, we're arguing over prot, merge, AfD, article names, etc.

I see absolutely no justification in protection. It's a panic measure, just because the article is being edited lots. Isn't lots of edits a good thing? I've seen almost no vandalism.  Chzz  ►  04:27, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

In the three minutes before I protected it, it was vandalized four times by four different IPs, an amount I would consider excessive. I'm a strong believer in unprotection whenever possible, but I just don't think it's feasible in this situation. I fully expect the protection to be lengthened in the near future, although not by me. --Bongwarrior (talk) 04:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Please show me the evidence of vandalism; also, please consider it in percentage terms, not just time-wise. No, scratch that, let's not bother arguing. I don't want to bother discussing it; I want to help make the article better. Instead...

I'm sorry, but I feel very strongly about this. You're preventing lots of new users from helping improve Wikipedia, just because of a tiny, tiny number of vandals. And, all vandalism is being removed, within seconds. Please consider the bigger picture. If not...so be it. It's a great, great pity.  Chzz  ►  04:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

It's not workable. If you can find an admin willing to unprotect the article, they can do so with my blessing, but my prediction would be utter chaos and reprotection within the hour. This is a high-profile and high-activity article, and semiprotection is eminently justified. --Bongwarrior (talk) 04:54, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

It's perfectly 'workable' - there were hundreds of edits, and the vast majority were good. Lots of good users were working on the article - and, they still are. Sadly, later, it will be too late - the moment will have passed. Who knows how many new editors were put off Wikipedia because they couldn't edit the article? We cannot tell. But I can demonstrate that, if it had not been semi'd, any vandalism would've been gone in moments. It's a panic measure, and totally unnecessary. I won't go begging to other admins, because admins do not like to revert actions of other admins - which is quite reasonable. But, this is an argument for another time and place; it's too busy right now. Best,  Chzz  ►  05:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I highly value the contributions of new and anonymous editors, but not every article needs to be a new editor training ground. I am firmly convinced that semiprotection is in the best interests of both the article and the project as a whole, based on the observable evidence in the 23 minutes that the article was live and unprotected. I can assure you that I did not protect the article out of sheer panic - I very rarely panic while editing Wikipedia. Semiprotection is a necessary evil, and this is exactly the type of situation it was designed to handle. --Bongwarrior (talk) 06:31, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

A brief check shows;

7 good
2 vandalism (1 ip user; "ratemypoo")
Reverted within 1 minute
4 good
1 questionable "your welcome tania" (misplaced? others by ip seem good faith) (removed 1 min later)
9 good (some were re. PROD; but also an IP added cats)
1 vandalism (IP; "HE'S DEAD YO!!!! HE'S IN HELL!") 
Reverted within 1 minute
4 good
1 vandalism ("They touched his wiener for good measure")
Reverted within 1 minute
1 vandalism ("May he rot in Hell for Eternity.")
Reverted within 1 minute
3 good
1 dubious "Lasith Malinga clenaed him up"
- Protected -

So which part of the protection policy warrants protection? Is that "significant but temporary vandalism or disruption"? There is no evidence of IP-hopping.

So what was the benefit of this protection? It stopped the article saying "HE'S DEAD!!" for a few seconds.

We know that thousands of people looked at the article. We know that many have added comments on the talk page. What we don't know is, how many people might have edited the article if it had not been semi-protected.

Your comment that not every article needs to be a new editor training ground goes against the fundamental principle that "anyone can edit". Every article is a training ground - at least, every article is an opportunity to help, advise, guide and encourage editors.  Chzz  ►  07:29, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Your view is idealistic, but unrealistic. There is no chance of me unprotecting it. Article protection is an inexact science - it almost always requires some degree of admin discretion, as is the case here. If you honestly believe that my judgment is that far off the mark, perhaps you should seek some outside opinions on one of the noticeboards. As I've said before, any other admin is free to remove the protection with my blessing if they feel I have acted incorrectly or with undue haste. --Bongwarrior (talk) 07:47, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I think your judgement is in accord with current norms; so yes, I suppose I'm questioning those, really. So no - it's not you as such; you happened to act on this one, which is why I landed here to discuss it. I'm not suggesting you did anything way-off-base, no - and if you hadn't done it, I imagine someone else would have. At the specific time it happened, it frustrated me, but I knew it was inevitable.

I don't think I'm an idealist. My fear is, that the people who decide things such as this are the very people who are much more exposed to the nasty side of Wikipedia - and thus, it is quite natural to become jaded, and frustrated, and feel a need to lock things down. There is a balance between preventing vandalism and allowing anyone to edit; I think we're focusing too much on the negative, and sometimes forgetting all the positive side, the building of an Encyclopaedia.

It's a particular concern recently, with all the reports about the number of users (particularly new users) falling.

If you had not protected it - and (totally hypothetical) nobody else had... do you think that the article right now would be better, worse, or about the same? Unfortunately, we have no way to know; but I think it might've improved a little quicker. We'd not have had all those many requests for edits on the talk page (which took time away from editing the article), plus we might've had new editors.  Chzz  ►  09:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

A week on, do you still think it needs protection?  Chzz  ►  13:25, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

No. The article has remained pretty stable since the semiprotection expired. Although there is still some occasional vandalism, it hasn't been particularly problematic at all. --Bongwarrior (talk) 18:05, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Deleted article

Um hi. Could you give us a REASON, please? She WILL be famous someday, and recording her teenage life should NOT be considered vandalism. So.... WHY?! You hater. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diassie (talk • contribs) 08:31, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi. The exact reasoning is outlined here, but it's also important to keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. It's great that you want to contribute, but it's usually not a good idea to write about your friends. --Bongwarrior (talk) 08:38, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

ED edits

Dude, why you gotta revert perfectly accurate edits? Jamko31 (talk) 05:42, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Block

re your block of 125.162.150.88 - why no block of TreasuryTag?
Why is it considered appropriate to revert this user's edits? pablo 08:28, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

The IP user exceeded WP:3RR, TreasuryTag didn't. The three-revert rule is binding no matter which side is "right". --Bongwarrior (talk) 08:35, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Indeed it is, Your block is for "edit warring", however, which TreasuryTag clearly took part in. And reverting a user's edits for no reason surely deserves some sort of mention. But then again, maybe you don't consider that necessary. Just another anon, after all. pablo 08:39, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I didn't block the IP because I hate anons. I did it because this particular IP earned it. If I am wrong, then the user's unblock request will certainly be swiftly accepted. --Bongwarrior (talk) 08:46, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting that. Just that TT (and Dayewalker's reverts of the IP were groundless, and if not blockworthy, deserve at least a bollocking. pablo 09:15, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Netley Abbey

Thanks for your help with restoring the page on Netley Abbey, today's main page featured article. The page seems to be under concerted attacks by vandals. Is there anything that can be done to protect it? best wishes, Soph (talk) 21:31, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

No problem, thanks to you also. The vandalism is actually pretty light, for a TFA. I don't think it really needs any kind of protection, and its time on the main page is almost up. It should be fine. --Bongwarrior (talk) 21:36, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

me

dude i was just playing dont trip! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Isa bellness32 (talk • contribs) 07:42, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Reddit

Thanks for protecting Reddit article. I was just putting a protection request in myself! MikeyMoose (talk) 23:27, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

No problem, I just happened to stumble across it. --Bongwarrior (talk) 23:29, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Why not just SP your userpage?

You're a pretty constant target and generally nobody but you should be editing it anyway. HalfShadow 16:03, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, it comes and goes. I'd prefer to have my userpage vandalized rather than a real article. --Bongwarrior (talk) 16:09, 23 May 2011 (UTC)