User talk:BorgHunter/Archive 1

Welcome to my talk page. Please leave your comments at the bottom of the page. Note that if you leave a comment here, I will reply to it here, so if you want to keep track of my replies to you, you should place this page on your watchlist. Thank you! —BorgHunter

Archived: Greeting

Freestylefrappe RFA

Thanks for your support. freestylefrappe 02:01, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Possible copyvio

Borghunter,

I received your message about the article "Bouncing back" that I posted. However, it shouldn't be a copyright violation, as I'm the same person who wrote the Amazon review -- I wanted to create a page for Bouncing Back but didn't have time to write another piece all over again, so I simply posted my own review of it on Wikipedia. (I credited myself for it too, so it wouldn't look like I just stole a random person's review.) How do you take the copyright stuff away and put the original article back? If it's a problem leaving the article as is, I'm happy to change it to a more encyclopedic-style piece.

thanks, Shane Stein

Please follow the instructions on the copyright notice, specifically: "If you hold the copyright to this material, or if you have permission to use this material under the terms of our license, please indicate so on this page's talk page and under the article's listing on Wikipedia:Copyright problems." But yes, the entry is definitely less than encyclopedic as it stands, and it could stand to be NPOVed a bit. But thanks for your contributions! Regardless of the copyright mess that's there now, they're appreciated. --BorgHunter (talk) 12:13, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Welcoming message

Thanks for the welcoming message on my talk page, I'll be sure to check as much as I can about the rules and all of this stuff as I spend some more time here. Optimager 15:58, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Airespace

Well, when going through dozens of CSDs, with more being added by the second, it's hard to give too much attention to any of them, if your goal is to actually process all that are listed, so, no, I didn't check the talk page. It was a borderline case, certainly, but a really bad article. If you or anyone else wants to write a half decent stub on it, it shouldn't be speedied. -R. fiend 06:30, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kohan

Well I wasn't actually bold, I was just curious what would happen, since I knew something would, so here the reasons why to use Kohan instead:

Article names should not include undertitles, since they are usually not used when you talk about the games. In this case it could help to differ between the meanings of Kohan, but it would be inconsistent and Kohan (computer game) is also a choice.
It is a series, Kohan: Ahriman's Gift is actually an Add-On to Kohan, but can be played without it (just like Serious Sam TFE and TSE) and there is a real successor, Kohan II.

The second is the reason why I would propose Kohan for the article page instead of the disambig page. The Kohan series doesn't warrant several articles for the two (or three) titles (and likely the series will continue). Listing all the titles in the disambig page is not a solution, either we leave Kohan: Immortal Sovereigns as is and link to it in the series article Kohan (computer game) or change the disambig to the series page and put a "if you were searching for the priest, see Kohen" on top. The latter is what I would prefer because the game series is more important in my eyes than an almost never used singular of Kohanim. Actually as I understood it, Kohan is plain wrong and Kohen is the correct singular of Kohanim.

Also, I don't see what's wrong with moving the content if you state where it came from (as I did). The history is not lost, everyone who wants to look at it can just go to Kohan: Immortal Sovereigns. I don't like putting this up for WP:RM, but I will at least copy the content back from Kohan to Kohan: Immortal Sovereigns because your revert "deleted" the changes I made to it. -- Darklock 10:33, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To tell you the truth, your proposal does sound good to me. I'll go ahead and list it on WP:RM.

Also, you do need to use the move function when moving a page. See here. It's difficult to keep track of histories otherwise. --BorgHunter (talk) 15:40, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pharmacology

I'm sorry, your right I've been acting like and arse but i'm just a little frustrated. I've been been spending alot of time working on several pharm pages which I will be adding once they are unto scratch and the last thing I need is people for people to merge articles on me. This is no excuse however for my behaviour, please accept my applogies. Bartimaeus 22:02, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Featured article for December 25th

I noticed you have listed yourself in Category:Atheist Wikipedians. That said, you will probably be interested in my suggested featured article for December 25th: Omnipotence paradox. The other suggestion being supported by others for that date is Christmas, although Raul654 has historically been against featuring articles on the same day as their anniversary/holiday. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-28 08:06

Hillary Clinton

Why did you remove the information on ghostwriters on the Hillary article? —preceding unsigned comment by 24.87.210.3 (talk • contribs)

You firstly provided no sources, and secondly the wording of your claim is derogatory and further inconsistent with the Wikipedia Manual of Style. As others have suggested, if you want to add the information, "Controversies" would be a good location. —BorgHunter (talk) 17:11, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How is it derogatory to mention the fact that Clinton uses ghostwriters and then, breaking with tradition, refuses to credit them? --SpinyNorman 17:13, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't merely "mentioned." If you look at the diff, the word "wrote" was replaced with "put her name on." That's inherently POV. The proper place to mention the ghostwriters controversy is, indeed, under "Controversies." —BorgHunter (talk) 17:16, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's an accurate description of what she did - she put her name on a book that was written by someone else. Whether it was ghostwritten in whole or in part is beside the point. Clinton didn't write it. She isn't an author and the original article section described her inaccurately as a "prolific author". She isn't an author, prolific or otherwise. She is a famous politician who sells books because of who she is, not how she writes. There's nothing wrong with that and she certainly isn't the only one to do it, but it is noteworthy and it certainly isn't derogatory to point it out - along with her break from custom with regard to crediting ghostwriters. It isn't controversial, it is simply an observation of factual events. --SpinyNorman 21:31, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What book are you talking about? What you edited referred to a newspaper column. And, incidentally, whether this is proper or no, no matter who actually wrote a work, proper English says that whoever's name on the cover is the author, and, ergo, "wrote" that work. Thus, it is proper to call the book "hers," no matter who actually wrote it. —BorgHunter (talk) 00:51, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm talking about all her books. To the best of my knowledge, she hasn't yet written one of her own. Again, that isn't unusual for politicians, but what is unusual is that she doesn't credit her ghostwriters properly. You can say that 'Living History' is "her book" in the sense that he is credited to her on the cover, but you can't accurately say that she actually wrote it or that she is a "prolific author". --SpinyNorman 06:49, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I still would like some sort of explanation on the discrepancy between book and column. Just because her books were ghostwritten does not necessarily indicate that her column was. —BorgHunter (talk) 13:43, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't reasonable to assume that she uses a ghostwriter for one and not for the other. In the absense of concrete evidence that she wrote her columns herself without any help from ghosts, it would be unreasonable to assume that she did. --SpinyNorman 17:28, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, what's unreasonable is assuming something without evidence. Until you provide a source that says her column is ghostwritten, the article should say she wrote it. Innocent until proven guilty. You need a source for those accusations, especially considering this is an encyclopedia which should maintain a NPOV. —BorgHunter (talk) 23:51, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have to apologize for starting the controversy yesterday, reverting 'vandalism' on the Hillary article. I did that by mistake: I thought I was undoing changes by IP user 137.113.48.2. Sorry for causing any difficulties. --Marcusscotus1 06:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nope

No, if they block the IP and its the same as yours then you will be blocked as collateral damage. Best thing I can say is, find out who it is and have them kicked out of study hall. :/ --Syrthiss 14:22, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We already know who it is, and there's no way our teacher will do anything about it except give the entire class detentions. 'but he's vandalizing the wikipedia' = 'you guys weren't working?' --SirMaur 18:18, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Meh. Well the advice I have at the moment is if you find yourself blocked with an IP block is to request an unblock or wait until you get home. I think the admins would unblock the ip for a registered user there, and could reblock when you were done. The problem is the folks doing the vandalism are pretty prolific (if I remember this mornings fun correctly) so that's potentially a ton of work for those of us on RC patrol if they notice they are unblocked.

FWIW the block this morning was only 15 minutes, and I didn't see any continued vandalism after that...tho I also didn't check if BorgHunter made any edits after the block wore off either. --Syrthiss 23:32, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

also reverted a change to BorgHunter's userpage by anon. I don't know if that was one of you not logged in or not, but considering his babel is Libertarian and LGBT friendly I suspect Rush Limbaugh isn't one of his favorite people. ;) --Syrthiss 14:24, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My failed RFA :)

Dear BorgHunter,

I would like to thank you for supporting me on my RfA. Even though it failed with a with the final tally of 55/22/6, I want to thank you anyways. I don't want to be one a admin anymore until I reach 10,000 edits now that it's over with. Thanks --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 03:04, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My RFA

Thanks for your support. I appreciate it and won't forget it now that the support votes seem fewer and further between, unfortunately. —the preceding unsigned comment is by Gator1 (talk • contribs)

Jiminy Crow! I just voted! That was quick. In any case, you're welcome, and I hope you do make it—though, yeah, it doesn't look too good right now. Drop me a line if you're ever nominated again in the future (assuming, of course, this one fails)—I'd be glad to vote for you again. —BorgHunter (talk) 16:58, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nostradamus

Borg, thank you for your help with the Nostradamus article. That page is a damn mess. I'm obviously on the skeptical side, but I think that both sides are crossing NPOV (although not to an equal degree). I've been kind of trying to think like a lawyer in how I've handled the situation. I've been trying to edit as little as possible, proposing solutions (reserving the Nostradamus page for biography and splitting the debate into a separate page a la validity of astrology, let me know what you think), and thinking about how what I say would look in the context of mediation or arbitration.

As an expert on Nostradamus, I don't think that the "quality" of the page article is anywhere near balanced. The page is a mess - with references to Jews as "Swine" and the obvious POV. Also, I would appreciate it if those with knowledge of astrology have their revisions added - rather than by those claiming POV of others, while clearly blind to their own POV. Being a skeptic is good - that's where I started, but being clearly POV and biased is not. And that is certainly not NPOV.Theo 17:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, I'm new here and you seem experienced and involved, so I wanted your opinion as to the best strategy for handling this dispute and disputes in general. Thanks and Happy Holidays.--Tar Heel 04:25, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely agree. And I think you're doing a great job trying to head off a bad edit war at the pass, which is what I've been after as well. I'm not sure I'd support a split—but it's an idea. I think all users right now have agreed to quit editing the page and discuss the issue for a bit, which is a step in the right direction. I might go so far as to say that Theodore is in grave danger of violating WP:POINT (or has already) if he continues with his edits the way he has, but at least he's not doing so at the moment. BorgQueen (another Borg!) has him up on the 3RR reporting page for a WP:3RR violation on another article, so an admin may step in and tell him to cool his jets. He violated it on the Nostradamus article too, but I gave him the benefit of the doubt and assumed good WP:FAITH and mere ignorance of the policy, and didn't report him. We'll see how the situation turns out.

It's also too early to be looking at arbitration, as that is a last resort only. A RfC or RfM is a distinct possibility if we can't work it out, but I think it would be in the best interests of Wikipedia if we steered away from engaging too many people on the issue. I can forsee a nasty edit war culminating in protection of the page, and I don't want that. If we can work it out without a Rf*, then that'd be the ideal solution.

Good work so far, Mr. Heel. See you around. (P.S. Could you create a user page for yourself, please? Redlinks are a pet peeve of mine.) —BorgHunter (talk) 04:59, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Model M Keyboard

As a newly created admin, I have fulfilled your (rather old) request at the Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen and merged the histories of both pages to Model M Keyboard, since it is unambiguous even without "IBM" preceding. IBM Model M Keyboard remains as a redirect with a single-edit history. Alert me if you find more cases like this. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 15:24, Dec. 17, 2005

Bah, if I pass my RfA, that was going to be the first thing I'd have done. But thanks for actually doing it. There's a serious backlog over there. —BorgHunter (talk) 21:20, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Headline text

Borghunter - appreciate you first asking if mistakes are made rather than accusing newbies of vandalism. That would be proper considering the role of fighting vandalism you've taken upon yourself. Would appreciate you checking things out first by being honest in your "investigations" and stop leaving rude, accusary messages on Talk Pages. Thanks. Theo 12:12, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Thanks for your welcome and info, BorgHunter! --PL 16:54, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Orlando (disambiguation) award

St. Pete? Close enough. I hereby award you the duty of keeping Orlando disambiguated. It is completely clean at the moment (except for some user/talk/project page links, and some intentional links. Your job is to check here every few days and fix any new links that are made to this disambiguation page (it usually picks up 2-3 a day, and every once in a while one of those is a nonsense article to be speedied or AfD'd). Cheers! BDAbramson T 03:02, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Award! Yay! I have an award! Waitaminute...this award seems suspiciously like work. Hmmmmmm. >_> —BorgHunter (talk) 03:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, now that I'm an admin, I no longer seem to have time to keep up the 15 disambig pages I adopted, so I'm passing them on to those who I trust to handle them! BDAbramson T 04:08, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You are now an administrator

Congrats! Your request for adminship passed with 23 supports to 6 opposes, which is equal to a 79.3% support to oppose ratio. This was a close RfA, but but after considering all arguments, I have promoted you to administrator, which means you now have access to several neat administrative, cleanup and upkeep tools at your disposal.

As a new administrator, you should read relevant policies and pages linked to the administrators' reading list before you carry out tasks such as blocking users, deleting and protecting pages, and editing protected pages such as the Main Page. Remember that most of what you will be doing will be easily reverted by other admins, apart from page moves and image deletion. I personally suggest reading the administrators' how-to guide in order to learn some of the ropes. If you have any questions at all, please feel free to ask me for help. Welcome to adminship! Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 04:00, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Alex! And, incidentally, congrats on your recent promotion to bureaucrat. I would have voted, but it was such a landslide I didn't quite see the point. I shall try to use my admin powers responsibly...::accidentally blocks user Linuxbeak with expiry time of indefinite::...ack! —BorgHunter (talk) 04:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you'll get the hang of that... congrats!!! BDAbramson T 04:09, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Florida

I noticed from Category:Wikipedians in Florida that you are a floridian and I have created a state wikiproject, Wikipedia:WikiProject Florida. So far is it very small but it could be expanded later. Join it if you want and help make it grow, set tasks etc. And also congrats in your RFA. Thanks. --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 04:22, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RfA

Thank you. I humbly accept the nomination. --BorgQueen 06:19, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're quite welcome! I nearly nominated you sooner, but I thought it in better taste to wait until my own RfA was over before starting any new ones. Good luck! —BorgHunter (talk) 06:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Apology

Okay, I apologize for creation of Template:Example. I wanted to find out what happens if a page includes itself. - Mike Rosoft 17:36, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all! In the future, however, it'd be best to use the sandbox for any test edits you want to make. —BorgHunter (talk) 17:43, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

==User:67.161.198.239==

Blocked You have been blocked for a period of one hour due to extensive spamming of external links in Wikipedia articles. Once your block has expired, please feel free to return and make constructive edits to Wikipedia. Thank you! —BorgHunter (talk) 19:37, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for blocking this spammer, I just rolled back all of their linkspam. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 19:40, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was probably too lenient on the block; he'll probably be back right after his block expires. Oh well, live and learn. All part of a day's work, ma'am. ::tips hat:: —BorgHunter (talk) 19:46, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Movement

What do you think of the movement? Reply here. Thanks. --Kin Khan 03:06, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

But I don't think of it. —BorgHunter (talk) 17:00, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RFA

Will you nominate me for admin? I read your standards, and I fit them. I would make a good adminastrator because I am a good contributer to Wikipedia and enjoy cracking down on vandals and reverting/nominating for deletion vandalism.--Anti-Anonymex2 ^{Come to my page! I've gone caliente loco!} 18:52, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there,

I've been looking through your contribs, and no, I shan't nominate you for adminship. You can always nominate yourself, if you wish. The reasons I have for declining to nominate you are:

Low use of edit summaries. You should always use edit summaries. No exceptions.
These diffs [1] [2] [3] demonstrate a lack of some knowledge of Wikipedia, especially what the User: space is. This diff [4] indicates a temper which would not especially suit an admin.
Lack of edits in the Talk: space.

I'd be happy to offer any advice you want, however. If you're looking to become an admin, I'd advise that it's generally impossible without 2–3 months of good, solid editing with at least 1000 edits. My own RfA barely passed, and I had about 1000 edits worth of activity when I put it in. Your working on AfD is a good step in the direction of adminship. RC patrol is something else you could try doing (if you aren't already, that is).

If you have any more questions, be sure to let me know. See you around the 'pedia, and Merry Christmas! —BorgHunter (talk) 19:32, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

3RR block on User:Mistress Selina Kyle

I just went to look at her talk page and noticed your block. I had a look at the evidence and its pretty conclusive. Good job! I think that she can get a little hot headed sometimes. For what its worth, I think that she was right, but she went about it the wrong way. Should go through talk pages and such, and put in little dispute stickers rather than just revert a lot of the time. Anyway, hopefully she'll learn after having 24 hours to think it over. Good job. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 20:59, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

Where's the 3rr block template you are using? I like it. --Phroziac _. o º^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 01:27, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:BorgHunter/3RR, and I use User:BorgHunter/Blocked for all other blocks. —BorgHunter (talk) 01:46, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

W.marsh's RfA

Thank you for your support on my RfA. The final outcome was (30/2/0). I will do my best at the position I now am in. Thanks again! --W.marsh 03:03, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Izehar's RfA

Hi BorgHunter,

I would like to thank you for your kind support on my RfA. I'll do my best to be a good administrator. If you need anything or if I ever do something I shouldn't have, please, don't hesitate to drop me a line. Izehar 16:28, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:GMB's block

G'day BorgHunter,

there's more detail now in the thread at AN/I. I have never indef blocked an apparently GF user before, so I welcome any review. Re: second chances, any second thoughts I had were immediately quelled by GMB's response to the block; some of it is documented on his own talkpage, and he has sent me two emails, one of which is quoted in AN/I. The other email was much calmer, but he did describe it as "dishonourable" to be blocked for "in part" "pointing out an act of holocaust denial". fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 13:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks

Hey, many thanks for fixing the cut and pastes for the FBLA-PBL article. Very much appreciated by myself and a few others who were looking for the change to be carried out.--Metros232 14:13, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]