User talk:Unbroken Chain/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Hello Hell

Hello amigo, yes I have enough now or I will need to create a separate page to store them, how are you doing? I have been keeping my eye out but you have appeared a bit quiet, which can be good. I created my first article tonight or I think I did I saved it really as it was deleted the mass deletion of blp's in the last couple of days, have you seen all the going on? Gabriel Mar Gregorios looks like a nice guy and seems a shame to delete him so I have for the time being at least saved him..Heres a list of some of the mass deleted blp articles if you want to have a look and see any worthy of saving. I was happy for Raymond, he made it in the end for perseverance. As usual, keep in touch, best regards. Off2riorob (talk) 02:56, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd be happy to take a look over the list. Yes Raymonds Perservance will improve not only our pedia, but the french one as well. You can always tell the ones that really care, they never give up. I've been in school lately so editing time hasn't been a high point. I'm also just trying to chill for the moment. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 02:59, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey, cool, I hope thing are going well for you at school and in life with you and your family, I am off to bed as it is three AM in central Europe. Off2riorob (talk) 03:14, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Markar Melkonian

Hi HiaB, the source was as below. I searched before deleting but could find little on this particular Markar Melkonian, as opposed to Professor Markar Melkonian (California State University) - Peripitus (Talk) 11:56, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

"Chimpcam" AFD

Since you withdrew your nomination at Grundle's talk page in regards of this Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chimpcam AFD I closed it as keep. If you change your mind feel free to re-nominate. Best, --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 19:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

No objections. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 19:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

And thanks for your "Practical joke". You got me there for a moment you, you, you... nevermind ;) The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 19:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

BTW; Is it "Hell in a bucket" or "devil in a (cyber) can"? :) --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 19:39, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Please see

BTW. I've responded to your post at my talk page. Usually I try to keep things together but in this case they've become two different thinks anyways, at least from my point of view. Cheers to the bucket and to the grateful, --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Hell in a Bucket

Listening to it now. I SAW that concert. lol (I'm old, very very old.) Oberonfitch (talk) 17:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

it's a awesome song. I'm in the process of trying to buy Furthur Tickets beggining of march! Hopefully I get the taxes back in time! Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Last concert, not the Dead, was David Byrne this summer at Red Rocks. t'was excellent. Oberonfitch (talk) 18:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Was at the Dead May 07th, was @ Red Rocks July 31st For Phish. [Runaway Jim] Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Missed both of those. But great venue, huh? Oberonfitch (talk) 19:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh yeayh. Bitch of a hike when you're fucked up. It's a deathtrap. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 19:06, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what is this "fucked up?" LOL. Call me for a ride home next time. ;-) Oberonfitch (talk) 21:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Even all the way to Pueblo. Oberonfitch (talk) 06:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Restored Headers

The link you sent only said it was discouraged. Similar to the long usernames with long html coding. I'll worry about taking it down if I ever run for admin. Until then do not remove things from my userpage again. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

No, sorry, that is not good enough. It is indeed strongly discouraged, and many Wikipedians find it disruptive. Now, I formally request that you remove this from your talk page. Thank you — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:40, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Do the words NO mean anything to you? I'll be back in a hour or so. If you want to bitch and moan furthur wait until then. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:48, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Martin, this has been discussed many times, and never with a consensus to take further action then to discourage it. You've asked, he said no, how about you now move on to something productive either building the encyclopedia or something in the real world.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:51, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I am back now. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:48, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

This may seem like a minor issue, but the fundamental issue is that if you're not willing to abide by the standards expected by the community, then I don't believe you should be allowed to edit here. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:15, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Yet in discussion after discussion there has been no consensus that this situation requires that remedy.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Cube lurker: I'm not sure what brings you to this talk page or why you feel a need to support this editor, but if you really wanted to help you would be encouraging him/her to conform to the expected standards of behaviour and not to cause disruption to make a point. Your comments aren't really helping. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:24, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm here because I have this page watchlisted due to a previous conversation. And I'm here to try to encourage you to move on to something productive. You may think he's being disruptive, however these discussions have already been held. Believe me or not but based on consensus you are the one in danger of sanctions for disruptive behaviour if you proceed down this path. I say this not to threaten, but to caution. You're an adult, you can ignore me. But don't say I didn't try to help you.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I still have this watchlisted for some reason, and I will support the words of Cube lurker. Drop it and leave it, it's not really worth the pathetic drama that will ensue. ninety:one (reply on my talk) 20:34, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Well bitch about it to someone who cares. I don't, the policy only discourages it. if you can show me where the consensus is that I can't do it.....I'll at that point consider it. If not troll on someone else, I am not interacting with you or indeed many others rightn ow because I'm in school. Feel free to file a report if your panties are that twisted about it. If not move on. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 22:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

• Per your request at my talkpage and upon review of the matter I have warned MSGJ (talk · contribs) regarding their improper removal of content from your userpage without your permission, contrary to WP:USER#OWN. As regards the fake message bar, and in respect of WP:USER#MPI, I would be grateful if you would choose to remove it; it isn't that funny (unlike you kidding about running for admin - that made me chuckle!) and is likely to create more discord among other editors... and think of the poor oranges being sacrificed to make the banner work!! Cheers, LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:01, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Bar joke

A man sat down at a bar and told the bartender, "I bet you three hundred dollars that I can piss into the cup all the way over there on the other side of the bar and not miss a single drop." The bartender said, "There is no way you can do that. Sure, I'll bet you three hundred dollars." The man then begins to undo his pants and begins pissing. He starts pissing all over the bar, spraying on the bottles and the bartender, not making a single drop in the cup. The bartender starts smiling and laughing and says, "That's it, you owe me three hundred dollars." The man then gets up and walks over to the pool table and starts laughing and shaking hands with the men standing there. He walks back to bar, sits down and starts laughing at the bartender and hands him the money. The bartender asks, "Why are you laughing? You just lost the bet." The man said, "I'm laughing because I bet those guys over there one thousand dollars that I could piss all over you and your bar and you would still be laughing when I was done." Off2riorob (talk) 22:14, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Blond joke

A young brunette goes into the doctor's office and says that her body hurts wherever she touches it. "Impossible," says the doctor. "Show me." She takes her finger and pushes her elbow and screams in agony. She pushes her knee and screams, pushes her ankle and screams and so on it goes. The doctor says, "You're not really a brunette are you?" She says, "No, I'm really a blonde."

"I thought so," he says. "Your finger is broken."

Verizoon

That "noob" you accused me of biting turned out to be a sock, as I implied, and was indef blocked. Maybe you should try some WP:AGF toward me.—Finell 00:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

So because in the end you were proved the person was a sock I should let you bit a noob? Nope I don't think so, no where in your attack did you mention anything about sockpuppets. It's hard to assume good faith in that case. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 01:08, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

The user obviously was not a noob because of the apparent familiarity with the background, and the post was a deliberate snark attack. As for intimating that the user was a sock, without going so far as to make a direct accusation based solely on suspicion, I said, "The backhanded congratulations above is the only contribution to Wikipedia from the Verizoon account, other than to create the account's user and talk pages. Everyone knows who Jimbo is. Who is Verizoon and why would he or she make a new user account just to post this tripe?" A checkuser on another account, which was already under investigation as a sock puppet master, showed that Verizoon was the other users sock; that validated my suspicion. That isn't bad faith on my part, Hell. Further, one need not assume good faith when the evidence points in the opposite direction. I bend over backwards to help new accounts become productive editors, I take other editors to task for biting or being difficult to newbies, and I've stepped in where IP or newbie edits are unjustifiably reverted solely on suspicion. So, I do resent you accusation of being a newbie biter.—Finell 19:56, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I guess you haven't read this WP:NOASSUMESOCK. Sorry no matter how you slice it you were biting a potential noob. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 21:23, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Snyder

(Yeah, very funny practical joke, I fell for it... anyways....)

The Snyder-stuff... I gave it a writer-stub, and writer-category.... but it appears to me that's not right now... right now, the emphasis seems more on "criminal" or whatnot... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm currently searching for more sources on him. If you think it violates WP:COATRACK think about some changes. Be bold if I don't like we can discuss. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 06:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Correction

Hello Hell in a Bucket, Can you correct me, please : In February 2010, her family filed a new claim for murder. The Bretnacher family lawyer is William Bourdon, (another great grand son of Edouard Michelin), and the lawyer of Transparency International.[16] [17] Thank you very much best regards --Raymondnivet (talk) 22:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not too sure what you want to state other then her parents are renewing their call for a charge of murder through their family attourney. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 04:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Kuh-blam!

		The Article Rescue Barnstar
		For saving Ophélie Bretnacher disappearance, which was by all counts dead to rights. --King Öomie 19:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Impressive work on that. --King Öomie 19:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much --Raymondnivet (talk) 20:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Well I don't know how much credit I'm due. I did very little other then point Raymond the right way. He did the work, but thanks. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 23:21, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Fringe theories or extremes

Jake, there's something in Wikipedia about extreme theories, fringe theories. Do you know the link for that, a few of the things on the JW page I feel fall into that category. Thanks.--Natural (talk) 01:09, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE Hell In A Bucket (talk) 01:28, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks much. --Natural (talk) 13:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

John Paul I

Thanks (belatedly!) for your response in good faith to this.
FWIW I do think it's more likely than not that the Vatican fudged the details of JPs death, though in the manner of, and for the reasons, given by Bp Magee. (I generally tend to the view that when shit happens, not to ascribe bad-mindedness when the answer could well be incompetence).
As for the Sr Vincenza page, I’d suggest, but haven’t carried out, a couple of changes.

• a) to lose the two sources I took out of the JP I page; the Baltimore reference is sufficient for the assertion she was the first to find him
• b) add some biographical detail; is there any? If she died in 1984 that should go in, and it’d help with the merge discussion
• c) clarify the Controversy bit. It says she was excluded from the official account, but doesn’t say what the official account is, for comparison; similarly it says what she told the French reporters (though that’s unsourced ; I presume it’s Yallop) but not what the Vatican said later, so it isn't clear what changes there were in the story or who made them.

I thought I'd check these with you first. Happy typing! Moonraker12 (talk) 16:13, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Both of your points are covered under the Reardon, Death of the Popes resources. That takes some of what Yallop says and is a book I have in hand. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

The block was increased a bit much, from 48hrs to indef, but there may be little support for a reduction, *uc*. Off2riorob (talk) 22:48, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Your user page

Please see WP:SMI with respect to the "you have new messages" banner. Thanks. Rodhullandemu 01:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I've actually seen that and no real consensus has ever eally been made to that exact policy hence why it is only strongly discouraged. I did remove it from my talkpage so as to not irritate visitors but the practical joke on the user page illustrates my character in a harmless way. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 02:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

But arguably wastes the time of those who take it on trust and click through. As an admin, I'm known for being available for those issues for which WP:AIV and WP:RFPP are too slow, so a fast response is the service I deliver. Up to you, however, if you wish to flout the expressed wishes of the community on this point. Rodhullandemu 02:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks...

...for reversing the vandalism on my user page. ttonyb (talk) 02:58, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Sure thing! Hell In A Bucket (talk) 03:03, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom

There was really no need to file an ArbCom case. If Proofreader77 wants to try to file one upon the block's expiration that's their prerogative, but there are really no outstanding issues beyond some disagreement in the ANI thread, which is par for the course. It might save time to just withdraw the request, but of course it's up to you. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Modification of Brews' sanctions

Thanks for your participation on amending my sanctions. Your eminently practical suggestion to "give me enough rope to hang myself" was ignored, possibly because the estimation was made that I would behave myself, and then no reason would exist to gag me.

I am quite sure that when sanctions expire, immediate action will be taken to re-institute them, because there is no reason involved here, just pique and petulance. Brews ohare (talk) 18:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Common Sense, practicality and reasonableness and most importantly competance would be a great thing to add to ArbCom, but as we see yet again it seems too much to hope for....Hell In A Bucket (talk) 01:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Calm down, dude

I think it is up to Proofreader77 to chart his own journey back to regaining editing privileges - should that be his intent. A definition of disruption is to keep doing the same things that annoy people - even when none of them are specifically fairly bad - when various people request that you don't, and disruption is a blockable offence. I understand that you feel that the sanctions are driven as much by personal pique as by policy, but in a community based collaborative editing environment other peoples perceptions - and unperturbed enjoyment of the site - are as important as removing the truly offensive remarks of vandals.
Anyhoo, if you wish to keep arguing P77's case then please tone down the rhetoric/language. I will do my best to ensure that there is no collateral damage to your account as regards P77's case, but you need to ensure you don't start tripping up of your own accord. Cheers, (Mark) LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:40, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah a step back is in MY best interests for the moment. Good thing I'm at work anyways, a mandatory break! Thanks Less, I appreciate the heads up. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 22:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Less's description also describes Brews' difficulties.—Finell 01:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

One of the main questions with that case Finell is when you will allow good faith to apply more? After a measure has been taken sometimes things can resolve themselves of their own accord. I've noticed Brews being attacked from all angles just because something might be Topic banned. I have to appluad him in the manner he has ben doing this recently. This alone should warrant a probationary period. If he fucks things up for himself again then yopu have a moral high ground. Right now it just looks punitive when it doesn't look preventative. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 01:45, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Tangentially related- your username makes this awesome --King Öomie 13:54, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

NOw i'm a devil, damn I can't move up here! Lol yes it does have the funny twist. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:42, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

• Proof has got a few issues but the person that originally got upset and added a deceased template to his talkpage due to the original incident should not IMO have used his tools to extend the block to indef with no talkpage access, this is a very poor administrative action. Off2riorob (talk) 16:33, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this. At that point, it seems personal and pedantic. Should have sought a second opinion, unless the editor was using his talkpage to attack people and needed to be shut up urgently. --King Öomie 16:38, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there was no big issue that really warranted it and looking at it, it appears indefensible, anyway, indefinite is not for ever and he has after a couple of comments from users replaced talkpage access, which is a start, I don't think the action needs escalated discussion for now but that we should allow proof to make his case and see where it goes. Off2riorob (talk) 16:44, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Finell

While I have been involved in disputes with Finell, I consider it a waste of time to think about the individual people here and their motives. I try to focus only on content. I appreciate your good intentions, but I think personal comments, even if they aren't attacks, aren't interesting.Likebox (talk) 16:42, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Good thinking and a enlightened viewpoint! Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Sea Shepherd Conservation Society

Hi -

If you are still up, would you look at Sea Shepherd Conservation Society which is being repeatedly vandalized? Thanks Oberonfitch (talk) 09:10, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Protection Requested Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:58, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks HIB, didn't know how to get that done. Oberonfitch (talk) 18:03, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

You should be able to enable Twinkle in your preferences. Handy little tool in vandal fighting, warning, afd, csd etc/ Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:04, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Will do. You coming up to Denver? Oberonfitch (talk) 18:27, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Daphne Caruana Galizia

• The sources in the Daphne Caruana Galizia article were very clearly there before they were deleted. They were from reputable national news organisations completely independent of the subject. You trust the news sources for Bill O'Reilly because they are American and you don't trust these ones because they are Maltese. This is just snobbery and cultural imperialism. Qattusu (talk) 19:00, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

For someone to ask for a couple sources doesn't give you license to come and berate me. I was suggesting a possible fix and help if you can point me to the sources. I can explain to you how they do or don't match the policy. If I agree I will then say so. Let's assume good faith here, it was only a question. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 19:03, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

• Except you were asking for sources which had already been clearly included but were deleted. Sorry if you felt berated but this is quite frustrating. I have included another reference in English which may help non-Maltese wikipedians understand the background to this case. The relevant part is at the bottom of the article. [1] That is 3 external, independent sources confirming a report of a criminal act that took place. No legal action has been taken against the people who published these articles and that the events took place are not in question. The subject in question is someone who will do anything to try to control what is written about her. It is frustrating that people on wikipedia are playing into her hands. Qattusu (talk) 19:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Take a step back. I've no differences with the Maltese and I did help get a French issue included here. See Ophélie Bretnacher disappearance, rants about how we are baised purely based on being American counts as beratement. We are all here for the encyclopedia, not to advance a position. Please explain to me what you are trying to accomplish, from what I've read some of the sources are not reliable. I repeat that I will help you get some answers though, I just need help. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 19:20, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

• Look, there are four referenced reports from different media agencies that a criminal act has taken place and been reported at a police station. Can you explain to me what your grounds are for saying that they are "not reliable". First you say the sources are not there and now when they are provided you say they are "not reliable". Based on what exactly? Why are Maltese news sources less reliable than, say, American ones? Qattusu (talk) 19:59, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to interfere, but the sources are not independent. They are partisan and agenda-driven. Maltastar is a news-gossip site owned and operated by the Malta Labour Party; L-Orizzont is a tabloid newspaper edited by an official of the Malta Labour Party; MalaToday is a taboid-style newspaper whose editor has a pique with the article's subject. And the YouTube video is cut from a broadcast by the Malta Labour Party's TV station. SlipperyMoney (talk) 19:40, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

You are just repeating the same incorrect argument from another page. The political leanings of these media organisations is irrelevant. We are not discussing a political viewpoint but reports of a criminal act being filed in a police station. Politics doesn't come into it.Qattusu (talk) 20:49, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Again I'm not saying anything about your sources. I'm just asking you to show them to me. Stop making this a American issue, it isn't. Consensus rules here. If you'd like to show me some of your sources, I'd be glad to help explain how they do or don't fix our policy. Getting upset that we don't accept maltese sources and assuming we are not folling the NPOV policy only hurts your arguemnt. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 22:58, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

You have declared that three of the main media organisations in Malta are "not reliable" without any basis or evidence whatsoever and you say that you are not saying anything about my sources? Being an American certainly has a lot to do with it. The marital problems of the golfer Tiger Woods - pure gossip, no criminal reports were made and no charges were filed - is allowed several paragraphs on wikipedia but more serious issues, involving the most prominent Maltese journalist and a serving magistrate are deleted because they are Maltese. This is cultural imperialism and racism at its very worst. Qattusu (talk) 07:24, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Where did I declare anything of the sort? You are new here why don't you take advice from somemore experienced editors or try writing the article in the maltese wiki first., then transplant it here. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

You declared that just above: you said some of the sources were "not reliable". I have bolded it. I just don't know how you are in a position to question the reliability of these organisations. Qattusu (talk) 17:18, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

They are not reliable in that they are connected to the subject of the article. See my comments on the deletion review page. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 17:23, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Your claim that the journalists at The Times of Malta are "connected" to the subject of the article is potentially libellous. That newspaper has been in the business of reporting accurate, objective, factual news reporting for 85 years. Which means it was reporting way back in the day when white Americans were lynching black men for whistling at white women. Here is another reference from The Times of Malta, including a statement about the case from George Abela, the President of Malta. The President of the country is moved to comment on the actions of this prominent figure who you so badly want mention of kept off wikipedia. I guess I should add it to the article but what`s the point? An American will just come on and remove it. You Americans are just so arrogant. You think that everything you do is important and that whatever goes on in other countries is irrelevant. Why not change the site name to call it ameripedia? I thought wikipedia was a place which could bring down some of the boundaries and barriers between people but now I can see what a joke it has become. At least Hell in a Bucket has been constructive even though he has directed several insults at me. The rest of you are just arrogant losers trying to make decisions on things you know nothing about. The rest of you are just arrogant white American racists to force their agenda through, deleting anything from countries they think beneath them.Qattusu (talk) 10:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I hotly reject this sort of discussion. Your own pejorative comments about individual human beings you know nothing about is prejudiced in itself, and serves to obfuscate any useful efforts you have made here. Furthermore, the English Wikipedia maintains stricter standards for notability of persons than do many other Wikipedia projects. The sources have published the subject's material more than once, which invokes suspicion as to their objectivity. Moreover, you have provided no presentations of the incident that represent another viewpoint or perception of the matter. Finally, a single incident does not make a person notable according to the English Wikipdia's notability standards. I don't know haw many other ways I can say this. I'm being as objective as I can about this, in spite of your uncivil discourse. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 17:03, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Sunday chill out

IMO it is not really much of an issue, hell, the article looks like its going to be deleted and he will vanish with the article, more attention is not required..imo. I would remove the section and enjoy sunday as I don't think there is a specific issue worthy of wider community action? Off2riorob (talk) 14:08, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not shooting for a block. Just as the thread says, have another editor preferably a admin from a non american country to explain things. Good faith way to help resolve, if after that point the issue escalates we can go from there. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:10, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Ignoring is often a good solution, OK, no worries. Off2riorob (talk) 14:13, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Good call, he's been given a warning by Guy, I have an inherent fear of ANI as when I was new and didn't know much I was taken there and blocked sometimes without chance to even comment. Off2riorob (talk) 15:20, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Outloud

i am not shure why you added the outloud article for delete, can you plz explane why and how i can backup the article more. --Firewindwik (talk) 15:17, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I've added a few refs try again, and if it is still not good enought let me know. --Firewindwik (talk) 16:13, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Man i just tried to help outloud get there word out there but delete it i will kook up a better version when they are better known and have there second album out. --Firewindwik (talk) 16:34, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you very much for the beautiful barnstar. It was an honour. Take care and keep up the great work. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 02:17, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Ignoratio elenchi

Hi H in a B: Ignoratio elenchi, eh? That's a new one for me. If you think there is anything I might do with profit, let me know. Brews ohare (talk) 06:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

RE: your comments at admin noticeboard

RE: this

Technically speaking, isn't the admins' job to determine where admin action is needed? Jus' sayin'. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 17:28, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Yup, it also points out that admin are human. I'm actually commenting on two situations in one on that. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

So if they are human, like you, perhaps comparable slack should be cut for them -- at least as much as for you? Maybe? (Also, patience is a virtue.) - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 17:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree to a point. I will explain my reasons and in good faith ussually come back and apoligize when I'm wrong. But when you can't get 90 percent of the admin or arbcom explain or justify themselves when they do something questionable. Everytime you raise concerns I or others like me never get the argument addressed and only get slammed in argumentum ad hominem attacks. The logic or policies aren't reviewed merely dismissed by trouble editors. I do quite a bit here, maybe not as much or to the quality of others but 70+ article authored and other help should at least merit my opinion to be heard. I had a very colorful beggining as you well know. I've been blocked once since then, and it was because I pointed out that arbcom was behaving in like fashion as the nazis or inquisition. How does this negate my logic or arguments? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I find reading policies and essays helpful to understand where other admins are coming from. Poke around and see which ideas are prevalent, and you'll at least have a clue as to why some admins may or may not choose to do something. And just to be clear, your logic and arguments are not what I was addressing; merely your approach and temperament. Letting "teh Intarwebz", including Wikipedia, upset you to the point of butt hurt is never ever worth it. Just say what you need to say and clarify as required. At some point the horse stops breathing. I'm simply suggesting a healthy poke or three, stopping long before it bleeds. Cheers! - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 18:31, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear lord, that's pretty funny there cobalt, it defintely made me smile. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:33, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

I sent a message to David Tombe here, but it's really to you all. Thank you for your support, not because I give a rip about being punished by a bunch of bottom-feeding wannabe politicians, but because you all see and recognize something that was totally wrong and against the spirit of Wikipedia, and you rose up and stated such long before I even thought about it. Trusilver 18:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

As one of the bottom-feeding wannabe politicians, could you point me towards the nearest pile of detritus, please? If you want to continue to be an admin, you'll have to stop making comments like that, friend. Jehochman ^Brrr

Very nice

This is a very nice statement. It should begin with Trusilver acknowledging the problem of their own actions. Next we can look at Sandstein's block, which might have been an over-reaction, and thus we can unpeel the onion layers. Brews could also help matters greatly by ceasing to battle. Be more like Gandhi than Che. Jehochman ^Brrr 02:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I can imagine how a leader of civil disobedience would be handled on WP. And Clarence Darrow of the Scopes Trial wouldn't fair better. Brews ohare (talk) 04:07, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

DJ Man

If it is, indeed, him, the account cannot be blocked for a username violation, since we always let people use their real names (like I do). It does, however, remain wide open for a COI-based block. Perhaps I should have recommended relocating the report there.

In any event, the article's getting deleted and I doubt he'll edit again. Daniel Case (talk) 05:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Alas, I see your point.The bureaucracy can be tedious. No worries, it isn't extreme. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 05:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Template

Please note this. Brews ohare (talk) 20:39, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Question

Hello, Hell in a Bucket. I am writing to ask you why you reverted my changes to article Operation Repo. I like this show, it's entertaining. I do agree that for most part, the show definitely indicates fakeness, but the section of that article with the claim of the show being scripted and ficticuous offered no sources, proof or evidence. I added a citation needed within the text and ultimately changed the text. You quickly reverted my change back to how it was previously. So, my question now is, does not WP work by providing sources? If I ask for sources, why am I being bit? If you are an experienced editor, why do you simply revert changes without so much as a note to the other party? I sure hope you have no admin desires, because actions like this will not get you there. Please, if I am wrong, do explain to me why my changes are wrong and yours right, and why it is ok for you to revert changes and not have the decency to inform the other party of this. Cheers. WildHorsesPulled (talk) 16:19, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Because you removed sourced material. You are removing material that has been contested and had to remain in place. BTW I am not required to alert you I have changed your edits. Please see the talkpage for furthur discussion, by reading the first source you could've avoided the entire thing. :)Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:23, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I apologize, I just saw the first source and you are entirely correct on all counts. Sorry also for harsh tone of my above question. Cheers. WildHorsesPulled (talk) 23:47, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

No worries. It happens. Nothing to do about it though. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 01:09, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

WildHorsesPulled has eaten your {{cookie}}! The cookie made them happy and they'd like to give you a great big hug for donating it. Spread the WikiLove by giving out more {{cookie}}s, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Thanks again!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat a cookie with {{subst:munch}}!

Welcome back

Hope you had a great time in the mountains. You might want to pull my email addy sometime, so you can call when you come through Denver. The big weekend story here was being able to move the rabbits out of the bathtub. I'm pretty sure you had more fun. Oberonfitch (talk) 02:45, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Well my big story of the wekend was stupid I-70. I had to take t5he scenic route home. I was in Glenwood Springs during the rockslide, Hell In A Bucket (talk) 10:20, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Good not to be under rock slide. Springs at night, wonderful.  :-) Oberonfitch (talk) 17:34, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Unbroken Chain. You have new messages at J.delanoy's talk page.
Message added 02:47, 12 March 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

NerdyScienceDude :) (✉ click to talk • my edits • sign) 02:47, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Messame dassy

I've expanded it and referenced it. If you feel that it is now notable, can you withdraw you AfD nomination? I would like to submit the article to DYK. :3 Silverseren^C 02:48, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Done Hell In A Bucket (talk) 02:50, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! ^_^ Silverseren^C 02:51, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Union Avenue Historic Commercial District

Hello! Your submission of Union Avenue Historic Commercial District at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 15:24, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify I think it's unsaveable as a nomination, so should be withdrawn, unless there's something I've completely overlooked like it's for a different article not obvious from the heading and hook (with no links I checked the page given by the heading).--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 15:27, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Why would the timing matter? I am the creator and it is a well written and sourced article. I didn't know how the DYK worked and just found out today. If it is a relatively new article and can add a unique fact there shouldn't be any problem. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:30, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Timing is that the article needs to be either created on the day in question or expanded 5x in the days before it. You put in in the 'March 19' section, but the article was not created on that day or expanded 5x on that day: from the history it was created in December, when most of the expansion was done also. An article can be older: up to 5 days old, i.e. as old as March 14 on today's page. But the above article is far too old for DYK. See WP:DYK#Selection criteria for a full rundown on the rules.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 15:40, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

That blows. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:42, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Natalee Holloway

Hello Hell in a Bucket,

Do you know that ? http://bumpshack.com/2010/03/20/natalee-holloway-body-possibly-found-by-the-muldowneys-pictures/

O Bretnacher is in DYK on simple, 10 march 2010 :http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Did_you_know/Archives

Best regards --Raymondnivet (talk) 12:51, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Motion

Hi Hell in a Bucket, this is to let you know that I have proposed a restriction on you commenting or advocating for Brews ohare, amongst other things. You may find the motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions#Motions regarding Speed of Light and Brews ohare. SirFozzie (talk) 00:05, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Only arbs can vote, I moved your comment to the talk page. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:29, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Warning

Your statement at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions is combative, attacking and uncivil. As a clerk of the Arbitration Committee, I've gone ahead and remove it. Feel free to replace it with a more civil statement, but if you simply replace the statement, or replace it with a very similar one it will once again be removed and you will be blocked. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 14:00, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Explain to me who it attacks? You were fine with it except the word pissed. I believe there is a way to accomplisyh what you want, ask. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:01, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I've noted to you that it was overly combative and uncivil, not merely attacking. But, the part that is attacking is as follows; "What the fuck is wrong with you people? Can you seriously spout bullshit like this and expect it will end drama?" - Knock it off please. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 14:03, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Knock off asking people to use common sense and good judgement? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:13, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I understand the time constraints. This would also be another diff [[2]] Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:48, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Blocked

As per the warning above, I've gone ahead and blocked you for 12 hours for making personal attack and your incivility on the motions page. The final straw was this diff, specifically; "Can you seriously spout non sensical drivel and expect it to fix your failings." - not acceptable. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 14:16, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

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

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

---

Request reason:

Asking a question at a Arbcom hearing is not a blockable offense. I refactored my comment to remove swear words but seriously a block over "Can you seriously spout non sensical drivel and expect it to fix your failings" I do not apolagize for asking this. There was even a review ordered by Wales in this case. I've tried to comment calmly [[3]]. This was shortly removed. I posted again with a litte more angst, it was refactored, without a by your leave or even a courtesy note. I reverted, I was threatened with a block if I reposted so I posted a toned down version. This resulted in a block. No attempts at contact were made other then threats. Where in Wikipedia does it give anyone the right to remove or refactor my comments? I call it nonsense and drivel because it is exactly that, you get a consensus by removing the editors that disagree. It's a very disturbing trend.

Decline reason:

Blocks are meant to prevent further disruption, and that is what you were doing, more than protesting apparent misconduct by others. While blocks are not meant to impose a cool-down period, the effect is identical, and I strongly suggest that you take this time to think about what you want to say, and type from your brain and not your emotions. Stop worrying and getting offended by others' (perceived) misdeeds and violations, and focus on your own contributions, and how you will benefit the project. This sort of behavior brings others down, and makes them not want to be here. And you'll never convince anyone of anything with that sort of emotional tirade. Seriously, has it ever worked? - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 15:57, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

---

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

I've thought about it and I still say the same things. It's a nonsense motion full of meaningless drivel of people who can't back up their own argument with anything less then force. If they don't like this perception they should change the way they handle arbcom or resign. They refuse to not only listen to calm arguments but then go out of the way to make sure one viewpoint is seen only, theirs. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:36, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

CobaltBlueTony gave you good advice above, and I suggest you take it. This is just a web site, and there's never any need to get as worked up and angry as you did, particularly over a motion like the Arbs are considering (which, in the grand scheme of things, is quite trivial). It might be good for you to take a break for awhile, or at least to take a break from anything relating to the Brews ohare affair and/or ArbCom. Go work on an article you've been meaning to fix up or create and don't even check back at the Arb page. If you persist in the kind of commentary that got you blocked you'll likely only bring more difficulty down on yourself. On Wikipedia as in life there are times when it's better to walk away from battles, even when one feels the outcome is unjust. Please note this comment is intended as friendly advice and I would hope that you would give it serious consideration. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:02, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, they can not like the perception and just ignore you. If this is the path you want to take, that of getting involved with disputes and other such trivialities and soul-sucking wikiventures, then you need to wikilawyer up and read up on EVERYTHING, including opinions, failed proposals, ad nauseum. However, I strongly disagree with this path for you; even I couldn't take the nonsense and aggravation that goes on in those back rooms. I've been through a lot with editors with whom I simply and unequivocally disagree, and even on banal operational procedures I so hotly reject their viewpoints that I can't see straight while trying to type up responses to them. So I stopped. Overt vandal fighting is much more fun, anyway. :-) - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 17:09, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

CobaltBlueTony™: Isn't your choice abandonment of WP to those who see no need to observe WP's goals at all, and are in process of assuming dictatorial prerogatives? Brews ohare (talk) 17:26, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that you had to stop, I believe in the end that is the goal. To either get people to give up in frustration or legislate from the bench and make it to where they have no choice to agree or be blocked. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:46, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

<outdent>
@Brews: I'm not sure what you're trying to say.
@Bucket: Wikipedia operates by consensus, and consensus is achieved by civil discourse. Anything outside of that is too disruptive. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 18:00, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Consensus is also maintained or gained by banning the people who disagree to speak. Amazing thing that Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:01, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

See, again you miss the point of your block. Civil discourse alone builds consensus. Being offensive to people with whom you may disagree is your problem. Dissenting opinions get well-reserved here and often serve as the foundation for later redresses. Epithet-laced commentary such as yours gets deleted, and the authors of them blocked.

Do try to comprehend the distinction, sir; or we'll be here again and again. Cheers. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 18:07, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I can see that this is indeed uncivil. [[4]]. We use rationale arguments and we get no responses. We ask for reasons there is never any presented. Maybe read a few of the diffs and get acquainted with the situation. I htink it's highly unlikely you'll do anything about it but you never know. People like Trusilver are out there. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:10, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

And how did you invoke this little gem, hm?

1) User:Count Iblis, User:David Tombe, User:Likebox, and User:Hell in a Bucket are indefinitely restricted from advocacy for or commenting on User:Brews ohare, broadly construed. Should one of these editors violate this restriction, they can be blocked for up to 24 hours by any uninvolved administrator. After five blocks, the maximum length rises to one week.

I predict my trek down this rabbit hole will find more and more evidence against you. Seriously, if you want to fight any perceived impropriety, don't give "them" obvious tools to exclude you from the process. Become a Vulcan if you insist on this path. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 18:24, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, I don't see any "rationale [sic] arguments" so far. Did you start with them, or did you lead in with the usual reactionary repertoire? I honestly want to know. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 18:31, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

We got that little gem for getting Jimbo to order a review on the sanctions against Brews. Shortly there after Arbcom decided Brews wasn't the problem and we were. This makes for a great sweeping generalization. Like I said do the research. Review the entire situation, watch the petty nitpicking over miniscule violations. It's rather disgusting. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:27, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I would propose that the onus in on you to do the foot work here. Because if I find that you trampled all over the place with your minuscule violations, baiting them, then I'm probably going to lose all hope for you. If you have a real case to pursue, it's on you. If it pans out, I'll actually support you on it. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 18:31, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Ironically I wasn't talking about myself. I was talking about Brews. My behavior isn't spotless in this, most of the people who know me knows I get hot headed. However when you look at the history of this dispute you will see that there are two groups here. Brews is constantly being brought before Arbcom for possible violitions of his topic ban. A specific example is the Multi-Vector math article. More recently he offered a general dispute resolution process at a ANI board. He appealed his week long block and this was ignored for 6 days. After this a uninvolved admin came and unblocked Brews and gave a great explanation why he did this. He was promptly desysop'd. I leave for work in 10 minutes so diffs for the last six months of Arb actions is a bit tough. If you care to concern yourself research the case, this is hardly the clear cut issue they want to make it out as. Either way they may be right that the same people come everytime to defend brews but the same people that try to get him blocked/ban are there every time too. So in removing the defenders they are preparing the path to least resistance. It's hard to have a real consensus when you take the other argument away, that's why invariably most governments have more then one major political party, it stops the "ruling class" from running roughshod with their agenda over everyone. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:42, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

There are uninvolved admins (such as myself) who would be willing to review evidence, but it would have to be an open process, of course. But digging for it is well out of my realm of scheduling. I'd have to be unemployed to even dream of accomplishing it. :-P - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 18:47, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

This was the first comment [[5]] Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:45, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

What I mean is, what advocacy actions of yours provoked them. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 18:49, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

CobaltBlueTony™: It is a mistake to see this situation as referring specifically to H in a B. H in a B is being attacked here not really for his individual actions, but as one of several editors that decided I was being harassed with Wikilawyering trivial AN/I actions stemming from Case: Speed of light. This particular block is a reprisal for that association, and incivility is only a pretext. Of course, H in a B could avoid the use of the word "you" in his statement and put it in the abstract. That is nitpicking. A recent part of the Case: Speed of light aftermath was the reversal by Trusilver of a block against me, which led to his peremptory desysopping based upon a ruling he was unaware of. The most recent episode is my attempt to repeal namespace sanctions implemented by Tznkai, which are the restrictions enabling unending Wikilawyering. H in a B has been vocal throughout, and this block is a reminder to him that he is on a shit list. Brews ohare (talk) 19:55, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

The discussion is based on H in a B's block, and whether it is appropriate on its own merits. As I indicated above, one shouldn't spoon-feed opponents with sysop rights blatant infractions. They're perfectly within their rights to use them, whether or not they stand on a side of another issue. Everything else is still outside my sphere of knowledge at thing time. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 20:12, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I thought you were interested on a broader basis. So far as the block is concerned, I repeat “Of course, H in a B could avoid the use of the word "you" in his statement and put it in the abstract. That is nitpicking: the word "you" refers to the Committee, and to no specific admin.” Brews ohare (talk) 20:16, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Nitpicking is part of Wikipedia! :-P Seriously, though, I am interested on a broader basis, but I'm trying to follow it all one piece at a time. The possibility of ArbCom being a problem itself is well out of my league. But I'd at least like to know for sure understand if the suggestion has real merit. Incidentally, insulting ArbCom would seem to me to be insulting each of them at once. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 20:26, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

CobaltBlueTony™: No, a complaint about an organization is not directed at individuals in that organization, but at the actions of the organization as an organization. Consequently, this statement of H in a B is not actionable. We all know the story of a camel being a horse designed by a committee. Speaking somewhat disingenuously, the failures of the committee could be due to its organization, the limitations of its charter, or whatever, and not attributable to the members per se. Brews ohare (talk) 20:40, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

His original statement was counterproductive and incendiary. As he pressed on, things got worse. Heck, most of the arguments by the so-called "Brews crew" seem to only amount to general malaise against ArbCom. I would like to see this summarized by someone who isn't involved, but even dipping my toe in these waters, I'm already overwhelmed by a general feeling of mental exhaustion. And since this isn't a democracy, any "organization" within the structure inherits some of the authority of the structure as a whole, including acting on fundamentally oppositional and unproductive discussion which clouds the issues. Blah, blah, blah... - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk

Hmm. I am inclined to think H in a B's statement “Kinda funny but one would assume that the Arbcom were here to enforce rules, not make their own at will.” may be incendiary, but that is because it is right on the money. This is what is at issue here in this arbitrary curtailment of editors' freedom based upon a supposition of what they might do in the future. This statement by H in a B is not counterproductive, but nonproductive because no-one gives a darn, and you have actually recommended such indifference yourself, eh? Brews ohare (talk) 20:54, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

As I said, this isn't a democracy, so "freedom" isn't something guaranteed to you. And it appears that you have a very long and muddied history of repeat infractions -- inadvertent or surreptitiously intentional, I can't say -- so the liklihood of you repeating this behavior is exceptionally high. Moreover, this isn't the first case of this type of blocking or banning I've heard of, and I've agreed with the ones I had become acquainted with. You're a scorpion; sorry. I do not recommend indifference, only civil discourse, and knowing when to stop flagellating the equine carcass. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 21:03, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

A scorpion, eh? Isn't that a violation of WP:NPA? Calm down a bit. I'm not after you. I'm just trying to explain things. Brews ohare (talk) 21:07, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

No, it's actually a good metaphor for your established record. And I am calm; I never attack.Aside from this diversionary reply, you've not really convinced me that you're in the right, much less why H in a B shouldn't be blocked. And it's time for to go home. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 21:12, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

CobaltBlueTony™: When you return, here are the arguments to consider:

1. Hell in a Bucket referred to the Committee as "you" and that cannot be taken as an attack on any specific individual, but only upon the actions of the Committee itself. Hence, no action can be taken on the basis that this is a personal attack.
2. Hell in a Bucket has observed that ArbCom exceeds their authority in inventing rules to enforce, an observation only inflammatory to those for whom the shoe fits. Hence, no action can be taken on the basis that he was inflammatory.

No argument advanced supports this block or addresses these points. The block should be lifted. Brews ohare (talk) 21:35, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Move along, a twelve hour block is given between amigos and is a simple tea break, take this discussion to your own talkpage. Off2riorob (talk) 21:53, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

• Hell, you are overly involved here in somebody else's s**t, your cool...some people are up to their knees in s**t, you are not...disengage and smell the fresh air. Off2riorob (talk) 20:21, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

My opinion is that this is a issue that will see much more disruption then what it is aimed to stop. I appreciate Brews defense but it is clear that unless it is stuffed under their nose as to the right and wrong we will be waiting a while for a admin like Trusilver. Interesting, but ultimately this confirms a large amount that has been discussed thus far, besides as Rob says this is a 12 hour block, I doubted any action on this unblock request anyways because I didn't grovel. That's the breaks for having a opinion. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 00:09, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

There are literally thousands of Wikipedians with opinions who do not get blocked. That's largely because they express their opinions with at least a modicum of civility and without showing contempt for others with whom they disagree. Another useful approach is to recognize that your opinion is indeed your opinion and not The Truth, which means that others can find your arguments unpersuasive and/or wrongheaded without being imbeciles or bad faith actors. You've apparently lost touch with these basic facts, and it's the main reason why you are finding yourself blocked and under discussion at an ArbCom page. It's sometimes difficult to admit that one is at least partially to blame for one's own predicaments, and it seems that is very much the case for you at the moment. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:37, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Well Bigtime you just revealed the depth of your negligence. Not only do you gloss over huge details, you completely ignore the ones in front of you, maybe read the whole thread and cross check your comments as to what I've done or said. You'll see what I mean. You can continue to say this is all me and David and whoever else you want but this problem isn't going away, Arb is jumping from the frying pan to the fire. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 04:20, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I did not say it was "all you" and did not mention David or anyone else. I referred, obviously alluding to you, to being "at least partially to blame for one's own predicaments." The fact is that, on Wikipedia as in life, you can only control your own behavior, not that of other people. Impossible as it may be for you to believe, your behavior is indeed part of the problem here, but you do have the power to change that, which is all I am getting at. When folks see you are acknowledging that you made some missteps and were getting too heated, they are much more likely to listen to what you have to say—that's only human nature.

For what it's worth I am familiar with the basic background, and simply because I don't see this small corner of the Wiki-world the way you do does not mean that I'm deeply negligent (obviously the part of my comment above suggesting that editors can disagree in good faith and without one being dumb (or careless) sailed right past you). I'm really trying to give you helpful advice here because I fear you are headed down a bad path, but unfortunatyely it seems that you're not interested in hearing from anyone who suggests that you are in the wrong in any way, or that you need to take a different approach. As such I don't think there's much point in further discussion at this time, but I'll conclude by reiterating the suggestion I made in my first comment here, namely that you work on some articles or otherwise take leave of this matter for awhile. It will help you in the long run, for reals. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

If you can't read the thread you're commenting on this does make you negligent. For example one of my comments say "My behavior isn't spotless in this, most of the people who know me knows I get hot headed." If you only read the entitre thread you may have caught that. As it is this was right under our nose and you choose to gloss over it. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:31, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

In this respect, the real question is, will you change your methods, or will you continue to issue your comments lacking "at least a modicum of civility and without showing contempt for others with whom [you] disagree"? That exclusively is the deciding factor between continuing a discussion on the subject at hand and being arbitrarily excluded because of incivility. If you continue to see agendas where there are none, and your fellow editors as co-conspirators, your reactions will always betray you. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 15:28, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not a fake person, they recieve my contempt because they have earned every bit of it. I don't coddle people just to make them feel good about themselves. What they need is a wakeup call, we are that wake up call. You can try to hit snooze on the Alarm but it will just keep coming back. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:31, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not about being fake. It's about using the same decorum you would in a room full of mature, professional, intelligent adults. Trust me, I am completely capable of expressing myself without a filter and with no regard for the feelings of others. I choose to conduct myself in a manner in which others become more disposed to listening to my thoughts and responding more favorably than if I just shouted epithets at them. I am no less "myself;" my thoughts about what goes on here at Wikipedia are projected into a community of other people with equally powerful opinions and thoughts, which may or may not completely contradict mine, not watered down, but respectfully. If you can't make that distinction, then I'm afraid you'll continue to suffer here. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 15:39, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Hell in a Bucket: For example, here is what Cobalt Blue Tony considers to be "respecful", "mature" "decorum". Just use “good metaphor”. Brews ohare (talk) 17:58, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

*yawn* Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass is commonly quoted Wikipedia essay, and it is quite pointed and valid. And maintains a modicum of civility. As for the scorpion comment... well, how is it uncivil? Next time I won't use any hyperbole or metaphor. I'll just come straight out and say it. Like this: Brews, do you intend on changing the way you edit so as not to violate a consensus ban? If so, I recommend an extended period, of a year or more without infraction, to prove that you want to, and can, change. Otherwise, you will continue to be viewed as a repeat offender in the eyes of the wikilaw, and I'll enforce all policies and deicsions regarding you... And H in a B, haven't I always said, 'it's not what you say but how you say it'? Continued incivility will result in ... well, you know the drill by now. I'll continue to enforce wikipolicy ... like I always do. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 18:24, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Whatever makes you feel better.....I might add if you think for yourself and not let others do it for you you might see what's actually going on Brews edits weren't the issue, never have been. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:33, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Job offer

Hey dude, I am also in need of getting back to wiki work, I can get cantankerous and short tempered when I have little productive work to do, if your are interested I have a small-ish task that is in need of completion, together in a couple of days we can clean it up. I will go get the details for you to see if your interested to help on it, I also could do with a little encouragement to get back to it.. Off2riorob (talk) 14:40, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Here it is Contributor copyright investigations/FlyingToaster , I have done a fair bit just needs a final push, it's quite easy work, just check the editors additions against the citations to make sure there is no copyright violations, very valued work. If there are any violations then a small rewrite or removal of the copy vio. Usual rewards for this valued wiki work, a colored barn-star and a couple of net-positive respected wiki-credits. Off2riorob (talk) 14:49, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll check it out. So basically just reading through the sources making sure it isn't copyrighted and when found rewrite or remove offending piece? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:12, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes that it, I just did three or four, I am working a system of choosing the easy ones first and saving the more details larger additions for later and if it is OK add a small comment regarding what you found and N so that is for ok and Y if it has violations. When a section of twenty are checked we get the added excitement of collapsing the section as complete. Off2riorob (talk) 15:25, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Twinkle access revoked

As you seem unable to use Twinkle correctly, I've revoked your access. It's completely inappropriate to be warning regular editors with templated messages when they haven't even done anything wrong [6][7][8][9][10]. You've also used it to revert edits without explanation (i.e. edit war) [11][12]. You can do things manually for a while and hopefully you'll take more care. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 14:22, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Twinkle access will not stop me from warning you or others. It may take a while longer but I don't give a shit if you are a arb or not. Policies are policies and you've ben breaking them. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Utter rubbish. I don't even know what this was apparently for. You don't seem to have reverted any of my edits and I don't even know where I've been refactoring other peoples comments! You seem to have chosen the path to self destruction - I advise you that if you want to stay on Wikipedia, you should change your behaviour considerably because the route you're taking presently is going to lead from one block to another. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 14:26, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

For asking you to follow policy?Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:29, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

For disruptive warnings. Now - could you enlighten me as to what the warning from today was for please? Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 14:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Read the diff I included. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:31, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

aND WHAT MAKES YOUR FAKE AFFRONTRY BETER IS THAT FACT THAT WP:DTTR IS A GUIDELINE AND NOT A POLICY. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:33, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:DTTR doesn't apply AT ALL, because none of the above warnings were deserved. You're lashing out at people over meaningless bullshit, and it's not going to end well for you. I see this happen to you more often than I'd like- some authority figure does something you don't like, and you go apeshit over it. All you're doing is extending your block log. --King Öomie 15:15, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

As a point of order, DTTR is actually an essay, not a guideline or policy. –xeno^talk 15:17, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

It may indeed be in my own best interests to step away for a few minutes. As far as Xeno comment see the reversed cap statement. I agree it's a policy and not a guideline. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:20, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

But I've no intention in getting dragged down; I've given my opinion, and those receptive to it will listen, and those not receptive to it won't. I doubt I'll post to that thread again. Still, even without treats of blocking, I think the idea of backing away from using templates so much is a good one for you to consider; it seldom helps, and it's only true effect is to piss the person off. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:37, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Unbroken Chain. You have new messages at Thesevenseas's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Set Sail For The Seven Seas 263° 24' 45" NET 17:33, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light

Per a motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment:

1. Brews ohare's topic ban is modified to expire in 90 days from the date that this motion passes. The supplementary restrictions of Brews ohare (namely, restrictions from posting on physics related disputes or the Wikipedia/Wikipedia talk namespaces) will also expire 90 days from the date that this motion passes. Brews ohare is instructed that continued violations of his existing restrictions will lead to the 90 day timer being reset in additional to any discretionary enforcement action taken.
2. Count Iblis, David Tombe, Likebox, and Hell in a Bucket are indefinitely restricted from advocacy for or commenting on Brews ohare, broadly construed. Should any of these editors violate this restriction, they may be blocked for up to 24 hours by any uninvolved administrator. After three blocks, the maximum block length shall rise to one week.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 20:32, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Discuss this

Ha ha, at least I am not being arbitrated, it never rains but it pours, ha ha, HIAB, good to see this issue resolved, move on, take those guys off your watchlist. This place is not perfect but we are all trying and that is what is the point, don't say..ow your not perfect, say, ow your trying, ha ha.. excuse me for frivolity, good your OK , I know we are here to write and work on the wiki articles but meeting people from around the world like you is worth any of the stress. Off2riorob (talk) 23:12, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Hell, please don't skirt around the fringes of your topic ban, it has been applied for a good reason and if you skirt around it you will be restricted, if that is what you want carry on, if you don't I suggest moving on and dropping the stick. Off2riorob (talk) 13:23, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Not trying to skirt around it. I've been very ambigous about this, I think if they can't see that I'm not re-litigating the old case, only advocating a position that will allow me more clarity as to my own sanctions. The problem is that technically mentioning I am under sanctions could be a broad construed breach of the ban. I'm hoping common sense shines through so my motives are clear. I have no interest in commenting on the situation about Arb reform. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:27, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Common sense is only to be referred to in emergencies. If you want clarification of your exact conditions then go back and ask arbcom, don't push until you find it, please take care. Off2riorob (talk) 13:31, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

New Articles

22 November 2024

• 18:1318:13, 22 November 2024 List of famines in the 21st Century (hist | edit) [4,621 bytes] Zlmark (talk | contribs) (Information selectively copied from the English Wikipedia article List of famines)
• 18:1318:13, 22 November 2024 Montricher railway station (hist | edit) [4,940 bytes] Swiss512 (talk | contribs) (save)
• 18:0618:06, 22 November 2024 William Gilligan (hist | edit) [2,239 bytes] Teckb (talk | contribs) (+)
• 18:0418:04, 22 November 2024 Public image of George Bush (hist | edit) [145 bytes] Tavix (talk | contribs) (←Created page with ''''Public image of George Bush''' may refer to: * Public image of George W. Bush * Public image of George H. W. Bush {{disambiguation}}')
• 18:0218:02, 22 November 2024 Santa Isabel massacre (hist | edit) [6,453 bytes] Atubofsilverware (talk | contribs) (Wrote this jawn) Tag: Visual edit

Right section?

Did you put this in the right section? [13]. The unblock discussion was a couple sections above, the section you put that in was on a set of restrictions.--Crossmr (talk) 01:11, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

{{helpme}} Why is my archive bot not working? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:55, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

There has to be a minimum of two threads for the bot to archive as you have specified in the template. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 15:16, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Boba Phat at AFD again

An AFD you participated in 6 months ago, is being done again. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Boba_Phat_(2nd_nomination) Dream Focus 08:25, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comment for Hell In A Bucket: Just letting you know that your vote for "Delete" on the AfD for Boba_Phat was not counted due to a possible formatting mishap? It is not in bold, and doesn't show up on the stat's page. It is located near the halfway point on the page, beginning with: "Delete. This should be a blurb in star wars conventions, not really worthy of a standalone article. He is consistently mentioned in connection..." Passing on this information to ensure that the community is heard either way. Thanks! Biohazard388 (talk) 20:41, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

ANI Notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Biting, assumptions of bad faith, and other assorted nonsense at AfD. Thank you. —Farix (t | c) 21:07, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Huh

So now you're calling me a communist? — Rlevse • Talk • 22:44, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Sweet god, I just pointed out that the arguement was weak. I didn't call anyone communist just noted the thought process and philosphy sure is similar. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 22:59, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I still object. Your argument is weak. The same group bitching about the desyssop would have bitched if we hadn't desyssoped; no matter what arbcom does, they bitch. That was my point. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:07, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

People in power seldom like to be told they are in the wrong....Hell In A Bucket (talk) 03:55, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay for him to insult me, but I can't respond similarly?

So, "Hell," are you saying that it's okay for "seb" to laugh rudely at me and say, rudely sarcastically, "It gets better every time" (referring to something that I said to or/and about him in the admin. board), but it's somehow "not okay" for me to respond with a similar rudeness back? How is that "fair"? Did you go to him with a similar kind of warning? If not, then why not?

MaxxFordham (talk) 18:57, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Did he call you a power hungry person or anything like that? Right now I'd suggest reading WP:STICK. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 23:59, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

wrong template

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Appeals_to_Jimbo its miscellaneous not article, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 15:03, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Pueblo Flood

Thanks for your nice note on the photo. I will look through pre 1923 magazines on books.google.com because they are copyright free and if a photo there can be helpful I add it to the article. Best to you! pmcyclist (talk) 15:24, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

How do you find out who added something to the page?

J.. I want to find out how do you know, if something is added to the page, who did it? So it can be undone? Thanks.Natural (talk) 21:52, 24 May 2010 (UTC)Natural

Snowing?

Wikipedia:Appeals_to_Jimbo Shall I close that discussion? it is looking pretty clear Off2riorob (talk) 22:02, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Closed as keep Off2riorob (talk) 22:48, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Rob, not the desired option but it does appear to be snowing in common-senseville. Either way no biggie the note from Jimbo pretty much defeats it's purpose anyways. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 00:50, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Personally I also didn't find it very humorous, no worries. Off2riorob (talk) 15:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Please discuss

After reverting my work with the comment "take it to the talk page" you continue to revert without bothering to discuss. If you feel so strongly about the wording of the article that you make such changes, please show the courtesy of explaining your actions like everyone else does. BlackCab (talk) 09:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey I though tit was pithy, consider your own reversions.....[[14]], [[15]]. Looks aq little like the pot calling the kettle black wouldn't you think? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:27, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Neither of the diffs you provided above were mine, so whatever point you're trying to make lacks any validity. Unlike you, I have spelt out my reasons for editing the article the way I have. If you're not prepared to discuss changes you make to articles, then don't make them. BlackCab (talk) 22:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Either you are a incompetant or are intentionally being obtuse. Your name is BlackCab no? [[16]] This is clearly you, you are on the lest undoing a revision without notice. Here is the link again [[17]], you are on the left this time you left a edit summary but I reverted as it was a good addition. Either way face up to what you're doing or stop your fucking games I don't have the inclination to play connect the dots for you. . Hell In A Bucket (talk) 23:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Complaint about your offensive behavior

Hello, Unbroken Chain. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic User:Hell in a Bucket. Thank you. BlackCab (talk) 05:06, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Epthitachyphtaliphtherdipthyclicstalacious

Dude, what does it mean, seriously? I want to know. Is it something about a long term pattern of abuse? I think it's funny you pasted that on my talk page without any investigation... You honestly made my day, man. Hilarious! Professor Chaos (talk) 06:24, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Apparently I made mine as well. I didn't look at the dates of some of your previous warnings. My apologies for the rather terse warning. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 06:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Haha... I have vandalized twice... I put "shit-ton" in the U.S. units of measure conversion units table, and it lasted an hour... then this, as part of a discussion on whether it was really a word. I'm not really after you, I figured it was a standard warning... the rest of my Wikipedia edits are all legit, haha. Professor Chaos (talk) 06:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

June 2010

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for disruptive incivility and personal attacks. Please stop. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.  Sandstein  19:06, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

In the future, please use civil and polite language at all times, especially when others tells you that your use of expletives bothers them. Directing profanities towards others and calling them incompetents is not compatible with Wikipedia's collaborative environment. Thanks,  Sandstein  19:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Can't really say I'm going to stop using the word fuck. Would you point out how mentioning [[incompetant]] is a violation of NPA? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 23:52, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

There's a difference between using the guideline WP:COMPETENCE as a reason for blocking and using the word as a breach of civility policy, and I note you're not asking for an unblock, which I might have declined anyway on the basis that if another editor is offended by the language you use, and asks you to stop using it, you should do so. This isn't a [den of pigs] where the lowest common denominator prevails; it is a collaborative environment in which competing interests and values should be mediated. If that has to be by blocking, so be it. Rodhullandemu 00:03, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

That was so far off base what happened here that's funny. I'm blocked for being direct and open. I started this by asking a SPA to explain why they were making a removal, above you will see that this was completely ignored and they wanted to play games. I responded, they bitched got someone gullible and block happy and I'm blocked for 24 hours. Whatever. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 00:11, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Er, no. I read WP:WQA, and checked all the links. You come across as arrogant and truculent; this isn't a personal attack because it's supported by your own edits. Some editors seem to have a "magic immunity" against being blocked for lengthy periods, or at all. My assessment is that you are some distance away from achieving that level of immunity, even if it is justifiable. My further opinion is that it is not. You're on thin ice as far as I'm concerned. Rodhullandemu 01:01, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

You are being dishonest. The sequence of events you depict is quite wrong. You reverted my edits and peremptorily suggested I discuss it on the talk page. The history of the Jehovah's Witnesses article and the discussion on the talk page make it plain that another user and I were prepared to discuss the disputed material. You didn't. In the end, that was irrelevant. My complaint about you was based not on that, but on your aggressive, belligerent and abusive responses. Wikipedia's policies on civility promote the establishment of an environment where editors collaborate peacefully. We may disagree, but there is no need for obscenity and abuse. BlackCab (talk) 00:30, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Really, would you care to point out where I was wrong with the timeline? You started with a no edit reversion, then a summary this is a wrong scripture, then accused me of not responding to the talkpage. Either way I really don't give a fuck, you can twist it as much as you want but it's only 24 hours and I can assure you this isn't going to magically change my vocabulary. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 02:23, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

If you legitimately cannot tell the difference between being "direct and open" versus "rude and hostile", or between "vocabulary" versus "treatment of others", I can assure you that you are going to run into problems again. You don't have to change your vocabulary. You don't even have to change your choice of interpersonal strategy - you just might find it very advantageous to your continued work here to do so. Your call in the end. Exercise the conscious choice to be civil or don't as you see fit, and deal with the consequences or lack thereof when they come around. - Vianello (Talk) 04:32, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I think this is pretty fucking lame. If you notice though I haven't requested a unblock, I have no intention of groveling and promising to do something I know I won't do. I stand behind every comment I made and have made during this incident. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 04:40, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Civil behavior is not an optional nicety. I'm not saying we don't all snap and rage. I've done it. We've ALL done it, on and off Wikipedia. That's human nature. But if you can't agree to just make a go of it, can't comprehend why it's a problem, and can't see doing that as anything but "grovelling", then I am afraid you simply lack a necessary quality of participation here. Forgive me if I've mischaracterized you in doing this, but this is all I am able to take from your comments. - Vianello (Talk) 04:51, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Its been noticed, I'm sure, and I'm going to second everyone who is telling you that you are coming across very poorly. Despite what you seem to think, since Wikipedia is a community, this actually is a problem for you. --Pstanton (talk) 04:44, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

If you really think it's a problem then you have a very very thin skin, even it were a personal attack this would be one of the most minor I've seen. Really, I don't think this is justified, it's pretty fucking stupid really and I'm only repeating myself, I'm not going to win sometimes a person doesn't. I'm not asking for anyone to show me the error of my ways so save yourselves sometime seriously Hell In A Bucket (talk) 04:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

We all have skins of differing thickness. One thing, though, is not negotiable: if others tell you that they consider your way of using profanities objectionable, you must stop. I agree with what Vianello says here and above; and I warn you that you may be blocked indefinitely (that is, until you agree to change your conduct) if you continue behaving this way once your block expires.  Sandstein  06:01, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

That's a pretty broad thing to put out there, I'm hypothetically offended by the word the does that mean everyone has to stop using that on my talkpage or in dealing with me (rhetorical)? You can throw the threats out there and have the button to back it up. All this has been is a red herring argument. The person claiming offense has continued the same overtly manipulative behavior to avoid responsibility over a absurdly simple issue and has turned this into a beard where the word fuck and incompetant shocked everyone so much that everyone has looked the other way to the issue behind it. Good job folks. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 06:12, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

User:BlackCab however, has comported himself with maturity throughout this issue, as far as I can see. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but you weren't banned because of some duplicity by Blackcab, you were banned because of your blatant contempt for other editors and lack of WP:CIVILITY on talk pages and in the Wikiquette alert. --Pstanton (talk) 06:24, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

When you say mature do you mean not answering the original very civil request to take his unexplained reversion to the talkpage? Maybe it's the twisting of events that have taken us to our current situation, I presented him with diffs that had his name on them and this resulted only in denials. I was then accused of doing the same thing I was asking him to do by him and denied he hadn't made the reversions. This account has a conflict of interest and has a de facto hate speech on his user page about the religion. The person he reverted is the exact opposite. This naturally makes for conflict. Hence the initial reference to the incompetance article. I couldn't find the stupid link on the first posting so I corrected on the second. At that point the word fuckbecame a issue. I have no qualms in admitting I have a temper but there are underlying issues beyond my own behavior. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 06:30, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

My point is that the main concern is not the right or wrong of your content dispute over the Jehovah's Witnesses, but rather your inability to handle it in a civil manner. And your use of profanity is always an issue. WP:PROFANE and WP:CIVILITY. --Pstanton (talk) 06:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

You're point is extremely off base. I'm not asking him to remove offensive from a article, just explain why he is reverting with no summary and then with a edit summary only that tge scripture is wrong. Fine if the scripture is wrong explain it but a blind revert isn't really great when you consider the fact that he was revewrting his opposite. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 06:41, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Do you understand that your block had nothing to do with what BlackCab did or did not do, and was entirely a result of your own conduct? --Pstanton (talk) 06:49, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Answer my question, I've been waiting for a day now. Question number one....Why was this nec? [[18]], Question number two.... Where was this addressed or explained? [[19]] Next maybe even confusing I'm accused of not putting my rationale on the talkpage although the user is removing sourced material. So I said the word fuck and I alluded to incompetance by conflict of interest. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 06:50, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

The answers to your questions are in Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses#Isaiah 43:10-12 Ye are my Witnesses saith Jehovah - Watchtower Reference and the edit history of Jehovah's Witnesses. As that talk page shows, the issue was, I thought, resolved two weeks earlier when User:Naturalpsychology accepted that the word "Jehovah" was never used in the Bible text cited when the religion changed its name in 1931. Several days ago he chose to ignore that and rewrite history. I reverted it and explained my reasons on the talk page. You began undoing my reverts without the courtesy of discussing your reasons. You never did discuss it and appeared to be treating it as a sport. When I asked you to discuss it, you began abusing me. I asked you to stop the abuse and you abused me further. I complained. Another editor ruled that your agressive, abusive behavior warranted a temporary block. You're correct that Naturalpsychology and I have disagreed on our edits. He is an ardent JW, I chose to leave the religion. Both have us have become frustrated at the other's stance and we have often clashed, but neither of us has resorted to swearing as part of our discussion. BlackCab (talk) 07:10, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree oil and water I'/ve said as much a few times in regards to your relationship. I reverted you and you then reverted back with a summary of the scripture is wrong my explanation stands. Nowhere in between that time did you discuss this. You did discuss a nathan knoww quote but nothing addressing the removal of sourced content. Also I didn't swear at you, I swore while talking to you. I said grow the fuck up and said that you were being obtuse or were incompetant. I clearly showed you references with your name on them with these issues and there was no attempt to explain, just denials. I'm not too sure where you were getting I was coming off as taking this as sport...maybe pithy? [[20]] Hell In A Bucket (talk) 07:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

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

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

---

Request reason:

The log says 24 hours block as of 13:05, June 3, 2010 Sandstein with an expiry time of 24 hours ‎ and the note on my page says a different time. Can someone clarify which time is correct?

Decline reason:

The user notes below that he doesn't wish to be unblocked and was merely asking a question. Accounting4Taste:talk 17:12, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

---

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

The block log is correct; 24 hours as of as of 13:05, June 3, 2010. Block messages are usually added after the fact. You don't seem to have provided a reason to consider unblocking you, so I'm assuming that the purpose of the unblock request was to ask that question. Should that not be the case, you can certainly provide more information and various administrators will continue to monitor this page while the unblock request remains open. Accounting4Taste:talk 17:07, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I have no problems waiting out the remaining time, I was only curious to see how long it had remaining as I was blovked while at work and the times were different. Thank you. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying this. On the basis of what you've said, I'm going to take the liberty of closing the deletion request so that administrators won't continue to respond to it; if this is not what you want, please do say so. Accounting4Taste:talk 17:11, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

No problems here, close away. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:12, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Title 15 Code of Federal Regulations

You are a participant in the AFD for the article Title 15 Code of Federal Regulations. After you expressed your opinion on the article, a new article, Title 15 of the Code of Federal Regulations, has been created. Please review the new article and, if you would like to change your opinion on the AFD in light of the article, revisit the discussion. Thanks. TJRC (talk) 23:19, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

'Sensitive'

Regarding this edit, it's not the point that you didn't say you were blocked by BlackCab. The point is that the editor who did block you, blocked you because they agreed that you breached the policy. You were blocked because of your actions, not because another editor is 'overly sensitive'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:39, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

no AS SAD BEFORE THE EDITOR IS OVERLY SENSITIVE AND FOUND A BLOCK HAPPY ADMIN. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:59, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome to your misguided opinion. The capslock key is located on the left side of your keyboard.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:53, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for that revolutionary information. I knew that when I pressed caps lock. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:06, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

My talk page

Yes, I consider being told my edits are "crap" to be offensive, but I suppose you are correct in that they are not technically vandalism. I will attempt to modify my behavior in the future. As for you, if you want us to stop speaking to you, and want the issue to be dropped, stop bringing it up. Also, please do not use the word "fuck" in my talk page edit summaries. --Pstanton (talk) 18:54, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I have no other problem or disagreements other then this issue. Technically I was warning another user that what he was doing, while mellow and in my opinion a non issue was actually a blockable offense. After this the litany of why I was blocked restarted, yes in all fairness that warning could be considered somewhat pointy, however I don't have to agree with a potential action to be able to warn someone else their own comments could result in the same result. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 05:28, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank spam!

Hello, Unbroken Chain. You have new messages at User:TFOWR/Thankspam.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

TFOWR 21:28, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay for him to insult me, but I can't respond similarly?

So, "Hell," are you saying that it's okay for "seb" to laugh rudely at me and say, rudely sarcastically, "It gets better every time" (referring to something that I said to or/and about him in the admin. board), but it's somehow "not okay" for me to respond with a similar rudeness back? How is that "fair"? Did you go to him with a similar kind of warning? If not, then why not?

MaxxFordham (talk) 18:57, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Did he call you a power hungry person or anything like that? Right now I'd suggest reading WP:STICK. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 23:59, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I already told you what he said. You go take your own "medicine" now and read that reference yourself. MaxxFordham (talk) 22:37, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Apparently you did NOT "drop your stick" at that time, because if you had, then you wouldn't have written your lame response that you did just now. No, you're the one who missed the point, because look--you just responded again. The only thing I was doing before was noticing that I had not completed a discussion that got left undone in May because I hadn't visited here for so long (I actually have a life outside the Wikiworld, unlike you).

MaxxFordham (talk) 22:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Everbread

The changes I have made to the Everbread page have been made to make the page factually correct. I hope that is ok. Putting a unverified list of only some of the directors would seem to be somewhat misleading

The problem I see is that we are also removing sourced material. What is your connection to the company out of curiosity? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 11:27, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

My name is Ian Swycher and I am a director and Chairman. I would like to ensure that what is on the page is factually correct. The question I would ask - is for the key people - where is this sourced from? I feel that if there is going to be a list of key people then this should be objective and nor a subjective list. the current list unfortunately falls into the latter category — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.237.238.126 (talk) 11:37, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the answer, please be aware that you are allowed to edit the article however please read the links on your talkpage I will leave so you can have a better result. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 11:40, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I have never edited a Wikipedia before and so I appreciate your comments and input. Apologies if I have caused you any inconvenience or extra work. Amy further hinst or tips you can give me on what I am allowed and not allowed to do would be much appreciatd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.237.238.126 (talk) 11:43, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

No worries, I understand the concerns you have we want the page to be factual too. I am looking for the correct sourcing now too just so have everything in order. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 11:45, 6 November 2013 (UTC)