Welcome!
Hello, Bob80q, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}}
before the question. Again, welcome!
Glad to see you got a user name Bob. Buffs (talk) 18:37, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Bob, you could use the Texas A&MorUSMA as a rough outline on how to improve The Citadel article. If there is anything I can do to help, let me know. Buffs (talk) 19:01, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, while the school may boast the "most" in terms of numbers, the Citadel only commissions approx 30% of its graduates each year.Eaglewar (talk) As an aside, I'm pretty sure A&M is WAY ahead of the other schools in total commissions. In WWII A&M commissioned more than the combined totals of West Point and Annapolis. It was also more than the combined totals of the 3 highest ROTC programs. I have access to those numbers if it helps your research. Let me know if you want 'em. Buffs (talk) 19:04, 27 February 2012 (UTC) --The Citadel commissions only about 30% of it's cadets each year. Not to mention the non-cadets who do not serve in the military. Taking ALL citadel students into account, your school commissions about 20%. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.1.22.120 (talk) 11:58, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for the additional pointers, I should be a real pro in a few more months. Note the change I made in the first section "...and annually ranks first or second in number of commissions among colleges with ROTC programs." I think this is a reasonable middle ground until we can find all the data to substantiate how many are commissioned by each school. There no doubt have been years recently when TAM had more that The Citadel but clearly we both run neck and neck each year, VMI is a distant third. Whats all this about being a sock puppeteer or some such thing? Must be because I have started using my user name not the anonymous number. How can I let this guy know I am on the level, he is the one who was giving me a lot of crap about some of my recent edits.Bob80q (talk) 02:14, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
you are really sick and pathetic dude. Dont waste your time with any more of these disgusting personal attacks, they will be immediately deleted.Bob80q (talk) 18:36, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
-- Way to remove edits so others can't read them and add your own BS comments Bob. Speaking of VMI trolling... please stick to edits on your own half-military college and leave VMI out of it... jealous much? Rest assured, VMI is the only school to fight as a unit in battle. Your school's name 'the citadel' didn't even exist during the civil war: it was actually 2 schools in columbia and charleston and the school had already ceased operations before the skirmishes you guys claim were battles. To be clear, 250 out of 280 VMI cadets marching to new market is due to the fact that 30 cadets were left to man and guard the school, which was later destroyed and rebuilt in one year... not like your school which was closed for 20 years... Following the citadel's example of self-grand-standing, Bob, why not give yourself another battle streamer for your "skirmishes" on Wikipedia or the other cites you've been banned from? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eaglewar (talk • contribs) 12:21, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
NAS you are a chickensh** who keeps repeating the same old false and slanderous messages, you obviously hate The Citadel for some reason. Do yourself and everybody else a favor and get some counseling for whatever it is that's bugging you.Bob80q (talk)
Bob, from my perspective doesn't seem like he's a citadel hater--seems like he's holding you to the facts. Dude, VMI definitely fought as a unit in battle--They lost like 50 cadets to injury or death in about 4 minutes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.225.144.115 (talk) 20:48, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If he doesnt sound like a Citadel hater you are pretty clueless. No one disputes that VMI fought as a unit, the issue is the falso claim that VMI is "the only college to have its ENTIRE student body fight in combat", this was the case for the SCMA corps at Tulifinny. VMI has propagated a false myth for decades and routinely embellished claims about its history, wake up and smell the coffeeBob80q (talk) 21:15, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Bob, to say that Tulifinny was a "battle" is a stretch... but you already knew that. How about another battle streamer? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eaglewar (talk • contribs) 00:41, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No thanks, already have one for that event but you knew that. And how many battles did VMIs corps fight in during the war? You are so sick you never pass up an opportunity to make some snarky, classless comment about everything. So just KMAMFBob80q (talk) 22:21, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wow Bob, looks like you've got issues... KMAMF, doesn't sound very civil, by the way... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.1.22.120 (talk) 22:39, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Bob, to answer your question, "And how many battles did VMIs corps fight in during the war?" The answer is 14. VMI was called to duty and mobilized on 14 different engagements. And while VMI could fly a battle streamer for each one of those occasions, VMI chose to fly one, which is the only time in U.S. history a corps of cadets fought as a unit in battle.... But you already knew that... VMI was completely destroyed as a result of being identified as the "West Point of the South," yet VMI was rebuilt and classes began again within one year of the school being leveled by union forces. Heck Bob, your fellow goofy grads try to use that title along with trying to convince folks that tullifiny was actually a battle instead of a series of skirmishes. Good try trying to re-write history...Eaglewar (talk)
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 21:14, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not add or significantly change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did with this edittoThe Citadel, The Military College of South Carolina. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. ISTB351 (talk) 00:21, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Lets not start this business again, I already discussed my editing with Buffs. I have continued to make edits in recent weeks without any interference or objection, removing or adding information is not "controversial". I have already made light of another editor who made questionable changes to the article, Buffs seems to have a fair and unbiased view of my editing so request he be the one to review this article. As I am the one designated to edit this article by the alumni group that wrote it my judgement in deciding what is and is not relevant and appropriate should be respected. Its my school not yours.
Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, it's important to be mindful of the feelings of your fellow editors, who may be frustrated by certain types of interaction. While you probably didn't intend any offense, please do remember that Wikipedia strives to be an inclusive atmosphere. In light of that, it would be greatly appreciated if you could moderate yourself so as not to offend. Thank you. - Purplewowies (talk) 03:06, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that you deleted entries from the talk page of The Citadel. Although there are specific instances where such an action is allowed - or even required - it is almost always inappropriate to delete other editor's comments on a talk page. TreacherousWays (talk) 15:27, 12 March 2012 (UTC) it wasnt an editor, it was some anonymous asshole making a slanderous personal attack. Editors should do their job better and police this kind of crap.Bob80q (talk) 11:34, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am restoring the summer camp section to the Citadel article. The section is important because the summer camp was reportedly eliminated due to a sexual misconduct scandal. I have posted a comment on the talk page of the article indicating that I intend to conduct a more-or-less comprehensive review of your edits because of what may be a conflict of interest. I am not trying to stop you from editing and I am not trying to cast the Citadel in a bad light. Your edfits are casting doubts on your ability to be neutral and unbiased about the school where you serve on the alumni history committee. TreacherousWays (talk) 15:41, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Bob, might I suggest you limit yourself to the pages related directly to the Citadel. You clearly have a lot of knowledge on the subject. I know VMI and The Citadel have a confrontational past, but that doesn't mean you can't be neutral about these subjects when writing on WP. If you stay off the page and build up the Citadel instead of tearing down VMI, WP and the world will be better for it. If you have a concern about the VMI article, drop me a line and I will happily address/discuss it. Buffs (talk) 23:10, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Bob, I left a note on The Citadel article talk page explaining my reasoning for edits to the info on the US News rankings. I personally think the way US News does their rankings is ridiculous. But, I've tried to convey as clearly as possible what their rankings say and what they don't say. Let me know what you think. Ocalafla (talk) 03:57, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:COI, WP:OWN and WP:NPOV. You saying things like "as we are the ones who wrote the article and are trying to tailor the article to be the best PR tool for the school we should be allowed to exercise our judgement on the best way to write it." as well as comments like "well of course I want to maintain an article that is a good PR piece for The Citadel" clearly demonstrates you have a bias. It is fine to have a bias by itself, but it isn't fine to let that bias come through when editing and discussing topics. I understand that you are new here, but there are well established methods for discussing and editing potentially contentious content. It takes a while to learn all of them, and I suggest you assume good faith of others while you learn them. I also suggest you never, ever again call anyone a Nazi, like you did on the talk page for the Citadel [1], as that will get you blocked for personal attacks and incivility. Dennis Brown (talk) 02:43, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
well yes of course I am biased, I'm a graduate and love my school so thats the only reason I am working to improve the article. You really cant be naive enough to think that other college articles on wiki arent being written by alums or PA officers who want to use it as a PR tool; total neutrality would eliminate anything remotely positive like rankings, merit scholars, etc. Everything I have done to the article is relevant and referenced. As for my reference, not in the best taste but dont shoot the messenger because of the message; some of the editors are obviously biased and heavy handed. Work with me dont bully me!!!!Bob80q (talk) 03:07, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you have a look at the examples of other battles and their articles (here) and see if you can improve your submission about the Battle of Tulifinny it a bit. Callanecc (talk) 03:39, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
rather than making me read between the lines I need some specific guidance on how it needs to be improved.Bob80q (talk) 15:35, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for your assistance, I welcome any input on how to improve it or ensure it meets guidelines. I have been writing articles since high school but dont claim to be the greatest author around. I have some good photos to add as well, can you give some tips on how to attach them?Bob80q (talk) 17:15, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Battle of Tulifinny, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you are more than welcome to continue submitting work to Articles for Creation.
Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!
Callanecc (talk) 02:13, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]Bob80q, You appear to have violated Wikipedia's three revert rule WP:3RR on the The Citadel, The Military College of South Carolina article:
The rule states: "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing other editors—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of the rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours."
I am not planning to report this violation because you might have been unaware of the rule. But, please be mindful going forward. Ocalafla (talk) 19:49, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! I've closed the case you've filed regarding alleged conflict of interest of Ocala (talk · contribs). Dispute resolution noticeboard was designed to handle content disputes, while the problem of COI editing is a behavior issue that is out of DRN's scope. Feel free to contact Conflict of interest/Noticeboard, which is specifically design to handle issues of this kind. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:53, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Talk:Virginia Military Institute. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:13, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
this is really old news and such outrageous, insulting and offensive comments have no place on wikipedia. Suggest you not stick up for such gutless, snide pricks; just wondering if the anonymous little bastard got any warning about his inappropriate remarks.Bob80q (talk) 20:08, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of alumni of The Citadel, The Military College of South Carolina, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page One Eyed Jacks (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:28, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Talk:Lockheed C-5 Galaxy. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Per WP:TPO it is not necessary to bring talk page comments by others to publishing standards. Assigning lvl2 as you have been advised against doing this before. ((((( ((( (In Stereo) ))) ))))) (talk) 20:56, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
afraid someone is confused, I did not remove any comments from that page just added one explaining why I had made a change in the main articleBob80q (talk) 00:46, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
sorry, unintentional. I added a new talk subsection with my comments23.24.109.165 (talk) 17:36, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I noticed that you made a change to an article, Lockheed C-5 Galaxy, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you have any questions, you can leave me a message here. Thank you. The text in the article being ref'd lists the crew appointment as it was originally. If you can find another reputable source that reflects the appointment you claim then please ref it in the article. Unless that is done your change is in contrast with the listed ref and isn't allowed per WP:CITEorWP:MOS. ((((( ((( (In Stereo) ))) ))))) (talk) 05:55, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done!Bob80q (talk) 15:29, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Battle of Tulifinny, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Citadel (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:49, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Bell Boeing V-22 Osprey, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal did not appear constructive and was reverted. Do not remove cited operating units without a clear explanation and supporting source. Thank you. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:23, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited John Thomas Kennedy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Citadel (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:48, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited United States service academies, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Citadel (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:52, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Douglas C-124 Globemaster II, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jackson. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:02, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Bigred.jpeg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Nick—Contact/Contribs 03:07, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Charles C. Tew, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Citadel. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:19, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Bigred.jpeg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 22:05, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Bob,
I'm not posting anything malicious or negative, and you know me personally even if its just in passing. I'm trying to make this article as accurate and complete as possible, just as you are. I'm trying to tackle some of the issues with the page one at a time, starting with the endowment number. US News cites $244 million as the endowment, using the same methodology they use for other schools. When I go to the Citadel Foundation's website and pull their 2014 Annual Report, it shows an endowment of $187 million (see hereorhere under Net Assets) which seems in line with my expectations since the last I knew The Citadel Trust had about $55 million in additional assets. You have yet to produce a single source that documents $278 million, especially one that would allow comparisons between schools easily like US News. Until you are able to do so, I will continue restoring the US News number. Once we agree on an endowment figure, we can tackle the enrollment numbers since those will be tougher. Billcasey905 (talk) 19:05, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was on campus for homecoming and attended a briefing, the endownment figure is straight from the mouth of The Citadel Foundation CEO, I wasnt just making up a figure. Will try to find an online reference. The enrollment figures I keep changing to are from The Citadels website, I can provide references. Bob80q (talk) 23:29, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Bill I will be happy to work with you on this and I appreciate your helpful and respectful approach. Unfortunately I have had several bad experiences with wiki editors who were snide, bossy and dictatorial about things; some folks tend to let a little power go to their head.Bob80q (talk) 13:36, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edittoLockheed Martin F-22 Raptor may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page(Click show ⇨) |
---|
|
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:50, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:16, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:37, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are clearly edit warring on Boeing VC-25 and Boeing E-4 articles, once your change has been challenged you need to raise at on the related talk page and gain a consensus rather than continue to change the article. If you continue you may be blocked for disruptive editing, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 17:48, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You need to stop, now, with the pejorative language toward other editors; as the WP:NPA policy says, "Comment on content, not on the contributor". Corky mentioned this to me, and I was going to just give you a quick reminder of WP:NPA, but while looking for a good place to put that reminder, I noticed two similar situations here on this page. There's no good reason to call other editors "gutless, snide pricks" or to say that someone "needs to stop being such a jerk", and unless you have proof of the editor's illegitimacy, calling another editor a bastard is a violation of, among other things, the WP:BLP policy, and outright defamatory.
I've written out a full message because you've been here a while, but you need to take this as a {{uw-npa3}}. Nyttend (talk) 04:03, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Read more carefully, most of the comments above were not directed at editors but at a certain anonymous poster who has repeatedly left insulting messages on my talk page and that of The Citadel. And editors would be wise to give explanation when they make changes as well as to also not insult people by stating that military rank is not important or that 'no one but Citadel graduates care about rank'. Been through a lot of heavy handed snarky editors, the civility cuts both ways.Bob80q (talk) 11:34, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:28, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Talk:The Citadel, The Military College of South Carolina, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 20:03, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Talk:The Citadel, The Military College of South Carolina, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Next time you will be reported. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 16:32, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do not add personal information about other contributors to Wikipedia, as you did at WP:Help desk. Wikipedia operates on the principle that every contributor has the right to remain completely anonymous. Posting personal information about a user is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's harassment policy. Wikipedia policy on this issue is strictly enforced and your edits have been reverted and/or suppressed, not least because such information can appear on web searches. Wikipedia's privacy policy is to protect the privacy of every user, including you. Persistently adding personal information about other contributors may result in you being blocked from editing. Please do not reveal personal details of editors. Please read WP:Outing. Lourdes 12:21, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Lourdes 12:28, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Bob80q. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Bob80q. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]Please start participating on the talk page or you may be blocked for edit warring. Also, using edit summaries would be helpful. --NeilN talk to me 14:21, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. NeilN talk to me 20:58, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]If you're not going to engage in civil discussion, expect your next block to be much longer. --NeilN talk to me 21:00, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is BS, and how am I not "engaging in civil discussion"?. These are not disruptive edits, they are reversions of others disruptive, misleading and false edits; of which many strgzr has admitted to. Read his comments, his snide tone comes through pretty clear and his comments are clearly biased and not backed up with fact, "civilian programs are clearly robust and growing", according to who?, where is the reference to prove this? Why is he so insistent on changing the article to suit his own opinions? **Not only not backed up with fact it violates the rules on neutral tone and exaggeration**. I know who this person is and he has a long history of trying to badmouth The Citadel, I will not engage in any discussion that involves him and based on the long history of dissension he has created he needs to recuse himself from any involvement with the article, if he thinks something is inappropriate or inaccurate let an unbiased third party decide. You clearly have taken his side and apparently are not able to be unbiased about this either. I will appeal the block and request that both of you be removed from any further involvement with the article, clearly others need to step in and look at the situation in a fair and impartial manner.Bob80q (talk) 22:36, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My comments may not be PC but they are accurate, and I know from experience there is no point in discussing anything with stargzr because he will continue his vandalism; again read the comments he makes, he tries to justify his edits with false information such as "some civilian students are taking ROTC", this is FALSE and he knows it. And this is not about my comments its about a string of inaccurate and unreferenced edits by strgzr which you choose to ignore, he has already claimed that the namesake of the Business SChool is a "graduate of the night school" but this is incorrect as he was a veteran day student and this can be verified on the school website. He repeatedly violates rules on verification and neutral tone but now you give him the benefit of the doubt because he is got himself appointed an editor, funny how you aren't concerned that he calls me "pathetic" and claims I have "ravings about VMI' and accuses me of bullying and vandalism. Please don't play into his sick game as others have, I know this person all to well since he has made a sport of attacking The Citadel on the United States of America Service Academy Forums for years. Kindly enforce the rules fairly or ask another administrator to review the situation. It took all of 2 minutes to deny my request to unblock, not what I would call a fair process.Bob80q (talk) 01:36, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Bob80q (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
not disruptive edits, they are reversions of disruptive edits made by editor strgzr1 who has a clear bias as a VMI grad and has not provided references for his changes, his comments clearly show a lack of partiality. Strgzr1 has apparently had himself made an editor for express purpose of changing my reversions and has convinced administrator than I not him am the badguy. Editor BillCasey can confirm many inappropriate changes made to the article, this person has long made a game out of bashing The Citadel on Wikipedia and other websites, if he is causing such dissension and making so many unreferenced changes he is the one who needs to be blocked from any further involvement with the article.
Decline reason:
See WP:NOTTHEM. This isn't about Strgzr1, it's about your own conduct. Huon (talk) 22:59, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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.
===obviously didn't put much thought into the situation if you came to such a quick decision, request that editorial board or others review the decision. How is it not about strgzrs conduct when I am reverting his false and unreferenced changes? I mean you really cant be serious. He claims he ha "no care about either school" so then why is he so intent on changing the article for his own purposes? So its ok for him to attack me and claim I am "raving" and call me "pathetic"????? So its OK for him to make changes that violate policy? Why? Look at the edit history and note all the changes he has made and the snide comments he slips in like under school motto stating "conspicuously similar to West Points" Editor Corkeythehornetfan claims strgzr is willing to discuss but I am not, if that's the case why does he routinely change the article without providing reference or edit summary and without contacting me to state why he is making edits. Strgzr only wants to discuss what he wants and cleverly diverts attention from himself by claiming he has no interest in the school and when called out starts making accusations like those noted above. If you cant see a problem with his actions and are apparently enforcing rules inconsistently that's clearly questionable judgement.Bob80q (talk) 23:24, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally I note that strgzr has quickly reinserted some inaccurate and unreferenced info, he states that the school commissioned 16% of its graduates but he includes civilians and graduate students who do not take ROTC and are ineligible for commissioning. He also states that Mr.Baker, the namesake of the Business School is "a graduate of the night school", this is false as he was a veteran student who attended when there was no night undergraduate program. Of course all consistent with his long history of misleading, false and derogatory edits which are not referenced or backed up with fact. Why do you think I asked for and was granted write protection for the article, its because of stuff like this. But obviously the editors and administrators have taken sides and aren't interested in fairness or accuracy, its very unfortunate this guy has conned all of you.Bob80q (talk) 23:49, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Bob80q (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
UTRS appeal #17706 was submitted on Mar 08, 2017 02:27:56. This review is now closed.
--UTRSBot (talk) 02:27, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Did nothing of the kind, I was using an analogy to strongly protest the inappropriateness of having a VMI grad editing and article on The Citadel, should have used a more PC comparison like "fox guarding the henhouse". Kindly do not twist my words as it apparently shows a bias.Bob80q (talk) 16:24, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Bob, do you have or do you know where we can find the enrollment numbers for the Citadel online distance-degree programs? Perhaps a point of contact there like Lawrence Hutto or someone in admissions... Might be good information to source in the article.Strgzr1 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:21, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I started a discussion here. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 21:20, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I do believe we already have a discussion going on your talkpage but based on your comments and lack of justification it would appear to be a waste of time.Bob80q (talk) 22:31, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
==Please look closer at the guidelines, a person requires SIGNIFICANT coverage over a LENGTH OF TIME. Also you are too late as the editors of the conflict page have sided with me on this one.Bob80q (talk) 01:04, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Bob80q, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 16:47, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply] |
Please do not remove a {{citation needed}} template – as you did in this edit – unless you add a reliable secondary source. This means the source does not come from The Citadel's website. Thanks, Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 18:22, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please see here. Thank you. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 17:10, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Byron Walker, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.
Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!
Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 02:59, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits to Military Classic of the South while logged out. Making edits while logged out reveals your IP address, which may allow others to determine your location and identity. Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow the use of both an account and an IP address by the same person in the same setting. If this was not your intention, please remember to log in when editing. Thank you. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 19:37, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Kenneth F. McKenzie, Jr.. Thanks! Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 09:00, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:General Glenn M. Walters, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.
If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.
You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.
If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.
Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:33, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. What is the relationship between you and User:Ruffnready?--jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 14:37, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 23:27, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply] |
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:George Bray McMillan, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.
If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.
You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.
If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.
Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:36, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Bob80q. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "General Glenn M. Walters".
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}
, {{db-draft}}
, or {{db-g13}}
code.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. TKK!bark with me! 15:49, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Bob80q. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "George Bray McMillan".
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}
, {{db-draft}}
, or {{db-g13}}
code.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. JMHamo (talk) 12:19, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Kenneth F. McKenzie, Jr., a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.
If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.
You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.
If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.
Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:34, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Bob80q. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Kenneth F. McKenzie".
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}
, {{db-draft}}
, or {{db-g13}}
code.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. HasteurBot (talk) 02:02, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Kenneth F. McKenzie, Jr., which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.
Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!
DGG ( talk ) 04:03, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Bob80q (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
UTRS appeal #22207 was submitted on Jul 29, 2018 14:17:49. This review is now closed.
--UTRSBot (talk) 14:17, 29 July 2018 (UTC) [reply]
Bob80q (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
UTRS appeal #24147 was submitted on Mar 02, 2019 17:35:50. This review is now closed.
--UTRSBot (talk) 17:35, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User:jpgordon might also have some input on this user. - BilCat (talk) 20:54, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
wondering why bilcat takes it upon himself to revert properly formatted and referenced unit listings, there is no stated format specifying only squadrons; there are numerous aircraft articles on wiki that include parent units and home bases. Yet another example of how some editors misuse their power.Bob80q (talk) 14:45, 16 April 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:149:8100:B951:9963:681A:552A:73A3 (talk) [reply]
Request unblock of account Bob80q. Original block was excessive and unwarranted; it resulted from edit warring over another poster, Stargzr who was carrying on a campaign of vandalism and disinformation on the page The Citadel, The Military College of South Carolina; while I understand and admit to the edit warring it appeared I had no choice to fight this inappropriate activity since editors and administrators did see what was going on and failed to stop the problem for some time, he was finally permanently blocked for inappropriate posts and reversions. As you do not have to be logged in I have been writing and editing articles without incident from my IP address 2601:149:8100:B951:9963:681A:552A:73A3 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:149:8100:B951:9963:681A:552A:73A3 (talk) 14:08, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]