Bsrboy

Further to extensive and exhaustive discussion on IRC, I'm going to throw the AGF lifeline as far out as it goes here, and lift the block. This is an absolute-last chance: best behaviour, please. Your contributions are ultimately welcome, but only if your presense does not disrupt the project or its contributors.

As something of a 'binding contact', here is Bsr's relevant agreement in irc:wikipedia-en-unblock:

"I agree"; please remember what you've agreed to when editing. Good luck.

Anthøny 00:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hello Bsrboy,

I'm glad to hear of your interest to contribute constructively to Wikipedia. Please understand that your prior actions with the featured article pirate template usage did impact my time and divert me from other "more useful" contributions. Perhaps you can imagine how I felt when trying to clean up the home page vandalism your anon IP created when your sock puppet (then unknown) reported me to administrators for 3RR? I hope you can understand my perspective and move beyond this since you would probably not want to be treated that way either.

I expect you have a lot of useful work to contribute here and by extension to the world.

Thanks for reading and happy editing!

WilliamKF (talk) 22:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your offer of help. Perhaps you can help clean up this article a bit. It is presently marked as "Conflict of Interest" due to my username being similar to the title. If you are willing, please take a look and see if you feel the "Conflict of Interest" is warranted and if not remove it. I feel that I should not remove it since it was in reference to me, so perhaps you can serve as a more neutral party to assess. If there is any question in your mind, please do not remove it, only if you feel it is right should you do so. While there, you could weigh in on the notability issue too if you have an opinion one way or the other. Thanks! WilliamKF (talk) 22:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your edits! WilliamKF (talk) 00:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

No I'm not him, but I did track down his email address and sent him an email, hopefully it is still good and he responds. Apparently he lives in Louisiana. WilliamKF (talk) 18:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi there,

I see that you are working on the London article for FAC. Therefore, If you can, please help out at the [[FAC]], located [[here]]. If you can, help out with the latest comments, which is the "Oppose" by a user.

Thanks in advance, The Helpful One ^(Review) 14:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Will do! P.S some minor formatting errors on the comment above. bsrboy (talk) 14:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Heh, Thanks for that! The Helpful One ^(Review) 14:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'm going to not edit the article for about 30 mins to ensure that we don't edit conflict. Is that OK with you, as I see you are doing some work right now. Thanks. The Helpful One ^(Review) 14:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

That would be great, thanks. My internet is really slow, so if I'm taking for ever it's because of that. bsrboy (talk) 14:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

No problem. I'm not going to be editing the article for probably more than an hour now - other things to do - so you should have plenty of time. Don't worry, you're not taking forever, finding those references can be hard work, trust me, I've spent a long time finding over 100 references for London! The Helpful One ^(Review) 14:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

You can continue editing by the way, I just looked at the article and saw a problem with the formatting of one reference. Still doing other things! :D The Helpful One ^(Review) 15:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Sorry about my recent abscense from editing. I had to switch my internet off, because of a thunderstorm. I will see what else I can do to help! bsrboy (talk) 16:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

A thunderstorm? At least you are okay! I've managed to find one of the unreliable references in your absence, couldn't find one for http://www.krysstal.com/londname.html however - perhaps you will have better luck? The Helpful One ^(Review) 16:41, 7 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

If you want to find anymore references, I'm still looking, but the London#Roads section needs a reference for each of the ((fact)) tags. You can use the same reference twice, as the lost reference was a broken link. I removed this with the link checker tool yesterday, and the same reference was used for all 3 ^{[citation needed]} tags. The Helpful One ^(Review) 17:03, 7 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Heya Bsrboy. Just checking in with you, to check that everything is going okay post-unblock. No problems thus far? Anthøny 18:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Nope, everything's great. Thanks for checking in! bsrboy (talk) 18:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi, thanks for letting me know. I have already e-mailed the appropiate infomation and am awaiting the appropiate licensing to be fixed as I have sent the permission content off. Thanks anyway, Thenthornthing (talk) 15:00, 14 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hello there, and welcome back! It is good to see you back around.

Sorry for the delay, I've been struggling juggling my time here and time in real life. I think Plymouth could use either, effectively. I have a personal preference for Template:Infobox UK place as I was involved with its development, but Template:Infobox settlement also has its place. I think the question here is which infobox would help our readers most? Certainly it meets the criteria for either per WP:UKCITIES. Do you have a preference? --Jza84 |  Talk  10:46, 20 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Bsrboy - you referred to the continued reappearance of certain items on the Plymouth page. I have a 'shrine' on my talk page to the person who keeps adding this stuff. They've been editing for about 9 months. I don't particularly want to block or limit them in any way, as I regard them as merely a nuisance, and at times they do make a number of useful contributions, but currently I am thinking of linking their various IP and named talk pages together, so people can see how they've been editing all this time, and be informed. They have been warned about various infringements of policy over their time here, including some more serious ones, and generally they just keep onside. For my part, it has been a rather wearing experience, and so I've tended to be pessimistic about the Plymouth page - hence my perception that things were going to the dogs - and then realising things weren't so bad. I see from your talk page that you've had a block yourself, and I do think that people should get a second (or third or whatever) chance - however the person involved on the Plymouth page never seems to take any notice of anything. Again, let me say that I don't want to block them, even if they've left me fuming at times - however, I would like to flag the user and IP pages for that person, so their editing patterns become more obvious. However I'm not sure of the right procedure for doing so - so I am researching the area and I will likely raise it with more experienced editors at some point in the near or not-so-near future. If you have a particular problem with that user's edits it might be worth drawing my attention to them, as I have been following their activity in a general sense for some time. Unless you are aware of the best way to procede I would advise against trying to confront them, as it doesn't seem to achieve anything, and will only harm your position, and cause you annoyance. I know of more robust editors I can enlist to help me in an appropriate way. Cheers. Stevebritgimp (talk) 18:54, 22 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

This was the original RfC mentioned by Nilf, effectively as a threat. [1]. Interesting that Plymouth Airport was on the agenda then, and that was October 2007. So far it would appear this is someone with close links to, or is an old boy of, Plymouth College.Stevebritgimp (talk) 19:17, 22 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

I reckon I've got all the IPs (19 different pages) seeing as they don't overlap, and the user continually edits without breaks of more than a couple of days. Also edit patterns are very, very consistent, with edits only on a few different pages. I'm very confident that the IPs I've listed are the same guy, and I've been careful to discount any IPs I was unsure of. I would put a sockpuppet template on, but that comes with the implication that the person is a vandal, and unless the person is currently being problematical I wouldn't be comfortable that is correct. Is there a simple way these talk pages can be tagged? Stevebritgimp (talk) 19:33, 22 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

If you look at the foot of the website you found, you will see it says 'this article is provided by wikipedia'. This means the information on it originated on wikipedia in the first place, and is exactly why people putting neologisms onto wikipedia is so dangerous - and also why Whiteworks is so keen to do it. This can happen quite a lot, and pages sometimes have external mirrors as sources - which I tend to remove with glee. I did the Google search this morning, and found only 7 mentions, 5 were mirrors of wikipedia and 2 were just notice board comments. Stevebritgimp (talk) 19:39, 22 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

I think you or I should add the first template you added - the general sockpuppet one - to each of the IP addresses, with reference to username Whiteworks3. Stevebritgimp (talk) 19:52, 22 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Whiteworks is the earliest one, but Whiteworks3 carries warnings, as the Whiteworks account didn't last very long - I'm good with whichever. One snag with the template is it refers to the user page, and in all cases there is no userpage, although there is a talk page - is it possible to create a userpage for another user?? Stevebritgimp (talk) 20:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your help and encouragement, bud - I've added templates to the remaining pages - that's 21 other pages. Hopefully this will make future reference easier. Cheers Stevebritgimp (talk) 20:46, 22 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Well, well, well my mouth hit the floor when I just saw you editing again. I was going to rush to WP:AN to report this as sock but it seems from your talk page that the community actually wants you back.

After getting two blocks because of your racism towards me, afer calling me a nigger, a black bastard and asking for me to be lynched, its safe to say that I dont like you. I was very hurt that you pretended to be my friend on one account while abusing me with another. It was a very hurtful expercience and I actually cried over it.

It still affects me now, it has caused me a lot of embarrasement and pain, I haven't been myself on wikipedia since it occured. I nearly left the project because of your actions, I still dont even know why you did it or what I did to you? Still I have learnt a lot from that experience and I am somewhat stronger.

As editors we are going to bump into eachother at times, I will not hassle you so long as you treat me like other editors, regardless of my skin colour. I hope one day you will understand what you did was not only wrong but .... cruel. — Realist² (Who's Bad?) 20:49, 25 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

It might be an idea to check discussions before editing. Scotland was discussing which of two maps to use, one of just the UK or one with a part of Northern Europe. Wales has two, previously agreed but I think most would go to one, but will wait for the Scottish discussion to conclude. In any event you were a bit deceptive. You edited the Scotland page to say that you were conforming it with England and Northern Ireland. You then edited the Wales page to say that you were conforming it with England, Scotland and Northern Ireland, when it was you who made the change to Scotland. --Snowded (talk) 23:22, 29 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I had no idea of the situation. I just thought they hadn't been updated yet. In my opinion it's just painting the shed, so I won't waste my time with it. bsrboy (talk) 23:28, 29 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi, when you nominate a DYK with an image, please refrain from removing other nomination's images; that is not how the DYK with picture nomination works. Thank you, Arsenikk ^(talk) 15:17, 5 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 16:05, 5 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

I know you're just getting used to it at the moment, but please remember AWB's Rules of use - specifically, don't use it to make insignificant or inconsequential edits (like this and this). Enjoy using this fine tool wisely!  —SMALLJIM  16:24, 18 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the heads up. This sure is a fine tool. Actualy, just a small query, is this type of edit okay? bsrboy (talk) 16:31, 18 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

No. That's just "removing underscores from links", as disapproved in the Rules of use. One could run AWB over the whole of Wikipedia and run up thousands of technically correct but unimportant edits a day using it like that. But as responsible editors we have to balance the minimal benefit that making those tiny changes would represent against the nuisance value of clogging up edit histories with unimportant stuff and the unnecessary load that it would place on Wikipedia's servers.

The idea behind AWB is to use it to automate repetitive tasks, like adding those assessment tags you mentioned. Its ability to remove white space, move tags around etc. is only meant to be used when there is something more important that needs doing to the article. Just because the program says that it can make a change to a particular article is not a reason to tell it to do so. Hope this helps,  —SMALLJIM  18:01, 18 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

I would love to know how I could use it in connection with assessing articles for WikiProject Devon, but I don't have a clue. If you could find a link to somewhere to ask or even if you know how to any help would be very greatly appreciated. bsrboy (talk) 18:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Surely you considered this before you requested the tool for this very purpose? If not, I suggest you ask at the AWB discussion page.  —SMALLJIM  18:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

I've asked on the talk page. Thanks for all of your help. bsrboy (talk) 19:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

I am curious about an edit you made [2] to the Minneapolis page stating you were trying to make it not sound too POV. That the City is the largest city, is a fact of population size and economic status. Hardly a challenged fact when it counts numbers and businesses. And in moving it out of the first sentence, I'm not sure how this would solve a POV issue. The reason we incorporated into the first sentence is to have the introduction be as tight as possible. Perhaps you meant a different reasoning or could you just elaborate? It's fine as it is I was just wondering what you meant. Thanks. .:davumaya:. 04:37, 20 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, it's quite hard to describe. I tried to put something about "jumping" straight into it in the edit summary. I like settlement articles to not have this - it may be a peronal thing or others may like it too. I'll give an example below.

• Plymouth is the largest city in Devon, England. It is a unitary authority blah blah blah.  N
• Plymouth is a city and unitary authority in Devon, England. It is the largest city in Devon blah blah blah.  Y

Hope that helps. bsrboy (talk) 11:05, 20 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Whoops! Sorry about deleting this - guess I just wasn't concentrating! Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:59, 20 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Okay :) I have no opin either way. .:davumaya:. 20:07, 20 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

More of a request really, as I see you have taken an interest in developing and maintaining the map used in the school leaving age article. Just wondering what your thoughts are on creating an additional map to show the school leaving age/employment age synchronisation (using the existing colours) to compliment the existing map? I plan on doing some work on getting references and tidying it up relatively soon, but I would imagine most of those figures are reasonably accurate. Do you think that would be worthwhile? Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:42, 20 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

this has been transfered to Talk:School leaving age#New map

Hi, please review T:TDYK for my comment on your submission. Renata (talk) 19:04, 20 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

  Done bsrboy (talk) 19:15, 20 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I know -- the main article has so many edits that it would crash the system if I deleted it. Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 14:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Because recent checkuser indicates that you vandalised different Wikimedia Foundation wikis, I've blocked you indefinitely. Although you're clean here on en:, your vandalism for example on fr: and commons: obviously violates the conditions of your unblock here. I'm not going to wait for you to vandalise the English Wikipedia, too. There are two ways people here behave: some write an encyclopedia, some disrupt the former. You chose the way of disruption. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 05:21, 28 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Fair enough, but I will return one day and Plymouth will become a good article. bsrboy (talk) 12:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

For the record the vandalism continued here.[3] -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

O RLY? bsrboy (talk) 23:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Not impressive, Bsrboy: I unblocked you under an assumption of good faith, and you've thrown that back, it seems. Ah well... Anthøny 14:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Sorry. bsrboy (talk) 15:03, 1 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Note to AGK I still want to have my emailuser rights encase I need to contact you or any one else. NawlinWiki blocked email function on all of my sockpuppets and locked all their talk pages without giving any reason. bsrboy (talk) 14:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Understood, Bsrboy; I have already restored your ability to use the Special:Emailuser function. Please don't misuse it, as you (reportedly) did during your last block. If word reaches me, that you have been disruptively using the email interface (including sending out large volumes of emails to any administrator you can get your hands on), I will have no qualms in adjusting the block to re-cover access to Emailuser. AGK ^{(talk ◊ contact)} 23:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

--Wafulz (talk) 13:05, 31 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

General we'd delete user pages (but not talk) on request. However yours contains information that may be useful. So, I don't see a good reason to delete it. Friday (talk) 14:20, 6 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Per Wikipedia:Banning policy "Wikipedia's hope for banned users is that they will leave Wikipedia with their pride and dignity intact". I think that the personal details included on the page history of my userpage would jepordise that. bsrboy (talk) 14:29, 6 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Well, OK then.. I deleted the history and left only the last version. Friday (talk) 14:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thank you very much. Could you do the same with User:Meaty Weenies, too. bsrboy (talk) 14:46, 6 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

  Done, for the page User:Meaty Weenies. AGK ^{(talk ◊ contact)} 23:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. bsrboy (talk) 23:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for uploading File:Ivybridge Community College logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:11, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply