Open main menu


Tom WesselmannEdit

seem ok? By the way, glad to see I'm not the only established editor who gets blocked around here ;) Ceoil 23:00, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Ceoil. Thanks, but I don't agree with the the whole found objects/found art terminology in relation to Tom Wesselmann. In my opinion it is unnecessary. Bus stop (talk) 03:43, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Inquiry on AfDsEdit

Hi Bus stop, I'm interestd in the AfDs process in Wikipedia and notice that you once involved in AfDs. I'm not sure whether you find that some discussers are admins while some are not. I'm just wondering whether you care about the adminships of the participants in deletion discussions. Does the referee's adminship affect your attitude towards the result of AfDs? Thanks. Bluesum (talk) 02:41, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Talk page guidelinesEdit

See here: Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:Bus_stop.

AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:03, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


Is basically hiding - I would remove the hatting completely - but if its there fopr a reason allow Andy to adding the post that he feels is misleading also. Off2riorob (talk) 18:19, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Tawana BrawleyEdit

Bus stop, it's nice to find myself in complete agreement with you for a change. :) Cheers, --JN466 12:17, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that expressed sentiment. : ) Bus stop (talk) 17:20, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

BLP stuffEdit

Hey :) I recall we may have disagreed on BLP topics before. Also (and how to put this delicately...) I have a recollection that some people on "my side" might not have treated you in the best way. However; I'm a big believer in taking two disparate view, clashing them together and turning them into a compromise.

With that in mind, I find your latest comment on WT:BLP very interesting and an area worth exploring.

ErrantX—Categories are often not a perfect fit. In some instances the decision could be made that a person be put in mutually exclusive Categories. In such instances, part of the procedure that should be followed is to put an "alert" next to their name's listing in each of the mutually exclusive Categories explaining the name's presence in the other Category.

When I read your first post r.e. this idea I wondered if this is what you meant - but assumed (rather stupidly) that it was not. I agree; this is a fantastic idea and would be a really interesting thing to explore.

Categorising people (and indeed most things) is sucky and hard - but with notations like those you propose we could make categorisation a lot less a binary option. As I sai in my comment - if you are viewing Cat X you are after a certain sort of individual - and such a notation system would be an interesting new level of meta-data.

The whole idea of disparate categories I agree with. After all, it does not say "Currentlty a LGBT person".

You raise the question as to how Categories are used. I think I generally first become aware of the existence of a Category by looking at the bottom of an article's page.

Yes, that makes sense. And I suspect my intro was the same. With that said we have to predict sensibly what readers are looking for. I suppose some subset are looking to find "Actors who are gay". And on the face of it I agree there is nothing wrong with wanting to explore that intersection.

On the other hand I argue that categorising definite intersections in themselves is non-optimal. We have Evans , categorised as a gay actor. But what if someone is looking for a gay, welsh, actor, born in the 70's. Our categories don't do much to help that. Instead our categories reflect a bias for what we consider "important" about a person (in this case sexuality).

And this is where the system is broken - categories are good for identifying notable intersections (i.e. "this guy is gay, and and actor, which is interesting because..."). But they are also used for metadata (this guy is gay, born in the 70's, and actor, etc.)

I suspect it is this ambiguity that causes so many problems.

You mention individuals getting annoyed by being in the wrong Category. That can serve as one of our considerations—categorization according to "fuzzy criteria" can be compliant with an individual's wishes I think

I argue, here, that it is unfair (somewhat) to say we will only respond to actual requests for category removal. The vast majority of people are confused on how WP works behind the scenes, and we are somewhat lucky, really, that Evans does not seem to be reading his WP biography. In all honesty I have had my neutrality tested by the pleas of some people to OTRS (and I am an editor who tends to favour personal requests :)), and I've only been on board there a little while.

I wonder if there is a new system we could employ - where metadata was more explicit (with the search improved to respond to that) and categories were less intersections and more tags. --Errant (chat!) 00:33, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

No misunderstandingEdit

It is a mark of civility that one can disagree with another over a topic, and still wish them good health. Thanks for kind thoughts - as you can see, I now have the use of both hands although one is still in a sling. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:38, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Great! My wording was a little weird. I should have just said something cliche-like, such as wishing you a speedy recovery. Anyway—those thoughts apply now. Bus stop (talk) 15:56, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Use of edit summariesEdit

It's generally a bad idea to use edit summaries as arguments in favor of your changes or as rebuttals to changes you are reverting, as you did here [1]. This creates an atmosphere where reverts are used in place of talk page discussion. See WP:REVTALK for more. Regards, causa sui (talk) 21:00, 16 August 2011 (UTC)


I don't know what choice I have. You are blocked for 31 hours for edit warring on Adam Levine. causa sui (talk) 18:21, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

How could one edit in 31 hours be problematic?
By the way I find at WP:BLP: "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion."
The statement, unsourced, about Adam Levine, that "He has rejected formal religion" should not be allowed to remain in the article for any length of time at all. No source is saying that, and it is defamatory, in the context of an individual who has in fact endorsed his being Jewish.
The cited source, which happens to be The Jewish Chronicle, says that, "Levine has rejected formal religious practice." Do you think The Jewish Chronicle is unaware that non-practicing Jews are Jews nevertheless?
There is a difference between rejecting religious practice and rejecting religion. He in fact does not reject his religion. He in fact asserts that he is a Jew.
The statement that "He has rejected formal religion" required removal. The source provided in support of that statement in no way supports it. And it happens to be a statement that directly contradicts Adam Levine's own statement in respect to that point. And WP:BLP clearly calls for the removal of material that is questionable in such ways.
But again: why, or how, is my edit a problem after the elapsed time of 31 hours? Bus stop (talk) 18:57, 25 August 2011 (UTC) Bus stop (talk) 18:40, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
There is no time limit on edit warring. This is a slower moving edit war, but it is an edit war. You may want to review Wikipedia:Edit warring with an eye to what it has to say about what you were doing. If you disagree with the block, you can appeal it using {{unblock}}. causa sui (talk) 19:46, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Causa sui—you Protected the article[2] with the language "He has no formal religion" in it. Now you are blocking me for removing what is essentially the same thing: "...has rejected formal religion."[3]
The language "has no formal religion/has rejected formal religion" is a WP:BLP violation. I waited 31 hours between edits; that language should have been removed sooner.
All sources say that Adam Levine is Jewish. How would you or anyone else arrive at the conclusion that he has no religion when he and others refer to him numerous times as a Jew?[4] [5] [6][7]
Did you look at the source for "He has no formal religion" before Protecting the article with the referred-to language in it? The source[8] says that "Levine has rejected formal religious practice". The source does not say that he has no religion. In point of fact he is Jewish. That he does not practice his religion in no way detracts from his being a Jew. It places him in crowded company—a large percentage of the Jews of the world are nonobservant. About a nonobservant Jew one does not say that they have no religion unless one wishes to offend them.
We do not have to support parochial views of Jews in our articles and we are unjustified in doing so when sources are not available in support of such views. Bus stop (talk) 17:30, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
I have no real opinion about which verbiage to use, and I won't debate it with you. The actual content dispute is very much a WP:SHED thing at this point. (As to which version I protected, I always take care to protect m:The Wrong Version.) I think you would do well to step away from this, frankly. The disruption caused by the edit warring vastly outweighs the significance of the thing being debated. All I have to say beyond that is that I hope you now understand what edit warring is, why edit warring is unacceptable, and why I have to block people who do it. Regards, causa sui (talk) 17:35, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Causa sui—you say "I hope you now understand what edit warring is, why edit warring is unacceptable, and why I have to block people who do it."
But in fact you have not blocked for the addition of the material that we are discussing: Example 1, Example 2 Bus stop (talk) 18:11, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
I can't make myself any more clear. I blocked you for edit warring after many warnings, not for introducing inappropriate content. I doubt continued conversation will be productive, and I feel that I've more than fully explained my rationale for the block. If you still disagree with it, please use {{unblock}}. causa sui (talk) 18:39, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

─────────────────────────Causa sui—I'm not sure how you are misunderstanding what I am saying, but you say that you did not block me for "introducing inappropriate content."[9]

I am fully aware that you did not block me for introducing inappropriate content. I have been arguing all along that other editors have introduced inappropriate content:

[10] "has no formal religion."

[11] "He has no formal religion."

[12] "He has no formal religion."

[13] "has rejected formal religion."

[14] "has rejected formal religion."

The above 5 instances are all inappropriate and problematic with regard to WP:BLP for the following reasons:

1. ) It is unsourced. In point of fact the source only refers to practicing the religion.

2. ) It is offensive. The individual as well as others refer to him as a Jew.

3. ) It is off-topic. The notability of the subject is that of a musician. All that is called for is a bare mention that he is Jewish. Certainly we should not be contradicting him with unsourced and gratuitously added material.

It would be my contention that there is justification for the edit I last made, but for which I was blocked. I read at WP:BLP:

"Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion."

The material I removed is a contradiction of what Adam Levine says about himself and most importantly it is not sourced.

Furthermore, 31 hours elapsed since my previous edit. During that time I made extensive use of a discussion that I initiated[15] at the WP:BLPN about Adam Levine.

I believe three four editors expressed some degree of support in that discussion for the removal of such extraneous material. Please see here, here, here, and here. By the way you had input into that discussion on the WP:BLPN, so were unlikely unaware that support was expressed for the trimming back of wording to little more than just a mention that Adam Levine is Jewish. Bus stop (talk) 20:45, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

causa sui - you really missed this one. bus stop simply said that people have been putting in bad material and he has removed it. it seems like they were taunting him. i don't care if he is blocked for 31 hours or not. i do care that you feel that his edits are incorrect (and not the way he did the editing). that is baffling. Soosim (talk) 18:20, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

What the heck are you playing at?Edit

Bus stop, you moved my post on Talk:Adam Levine. I moved it back, explaining why I put it there. Now you have moved it again. I suggest you (a) move it back before I complain about you edit-warring, and then (b) respond to my suggested text. I thought that we were actually getting nearer a resolution of this, and now you start playing silly games with my posts. Are you actually trying to sort this issue out? If so, you seem to be going about it in a strange way... AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:09, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Bus stop, we have a proposed text, based largely on your suggestions, awaiting your response. Will you please indicate whether you agree with it, and if not, then tell us why. This issue has dragged on far too long already, and I see no reason to wait for you if you are unwilling to respond. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:13, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Rabbi Matisyahu SalomonEdit

Thank you for correcting the spelling of his name, but Rabbi should not be part of the name of this article.Nerguy (talk) 21:08, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:02, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Same place - I suggest you respond this time. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:12, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Jim Gary - Sculpture articleEdit

Thanks for letting me know, I presume that I may join in if I feel it is needed. BTW I am posting today about the listing that Gary's fine art garnered for him in Who Was Who in American Art, 1564-1975. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 19:34, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

You clearly have no idea how ineffective and counterproductive your talk-page edits areEdit

Long-winded, overly repetitive comments put into sections where they will inevitably be considered a distraction -- yep, counterproductive. Just sayin'. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:15, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Modernist paintingEdit

Here's a link to Greenberg's essay - [16]...Modernist (talk) 19:38, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


thanks Modernist Bus stop (talk) 12:51, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

A toast - Bus stop - Happy Holidays, Happy Chanukah, Happy New Year, and lets hope it's a good one! and keep on keeping on...Modernist (talk) 13:28, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Wheelie bin urinal listed at Redirects for discussionEdit

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wheelie bin urinal. Since you had some involvement with the Wheelie bin urinal redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Beeblebrox (talk) 20:29, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


Giving me a bit of hope that wikipedia isn't over political after all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yisraeldov (talkcontribs) 10:46, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


I noted you are contributor of the article on Talmud so would like your advice. I wish to document the South Korean association with Talmud but am uncertain in which section to interpolate this material. Thanks
Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 22:45, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Your thoughts [17]
Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 00:04, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


If you need me to edit or need a clarification, feel free to put it on my talk page. This way we won't be obfuscating the primary WQA issue. Thanks! Gsonnenf (talk) 02:01, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Mona LisaEdit

Who "considers" the Mona Lisa to be famous? Which group of people consider that? Wikipedia? The sum total of millions of visitors to the work, reproductions, parodies, etc etc make it the "most famous", but who" can we say "considers" it the most famous"? Is it exactly the same group of people who know its fame, or a different group? If you are going to "considers"then tell us who does the considering.

And as for leaving leeway that there might be an equally famous picture: There is no equally famous painting. The Last Supper and Michelangelo's Creation of Adam come in behind it.

Amandajm (talk) 02:44, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

the exodusEdit

I noticed your comment on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Religion#Seven_Point_Counter_Proposal. There is currently a dispute on the exodus that we could use your assistance on. Please take a look, and comment on the talk page (Talk:The_Exodus#What_kind_of_.22Exodus.22_is_this.3F)Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 15:23, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Sandbox draft of the exodusEdit

I created a sandbox version of the exodus page at User:Quarkgluonsoup/The Exodus/Draft. Please come over and make what edits you think would improve the page.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 19:28, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

The sandbox version of the exodus article has been moved to Talk:The_Exodus/Draft.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 16:03, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

African-Americans and JewsEdit

BusStop: According to worldwide Jewry and the state of Israel, those of mostly African descent are not and cannot be considered as Jews. As much as you may want that to be the truth, if you are African American, or if you are mostly black (as in, your features identify you as Negroid), you cannot possibly be a Jew or a Jewish person as Jew and Jewish person are defined today.[dubious ]

Dispute resolution surveyEdit

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite

Hello Bus stop. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released.

Please click HERE to participate.
Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts.

You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 11:26, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Please vote/commentEdit


Hi Bus stop! Thanks for coming by and helping out at the Teahouse recently. Since it's a pilot project, we work a little differently than most help spaces. If you'd like to learn more about what we're about, how you as a valued experienced editor can lend a hand, and how we work a bit differently, then I'd like to invite you to read about us here. It talks about the methods we use, how to be a host, invitation, saying hello, and the answering process. I do hope you'll consider it, and regardless, thanks for popping in for a cup of tea :) Sarah (talk) 15:19, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

WP Visual Arts in the SignpostEdit

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Visual Arts for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 02:48, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Please fill out our brief Teahouse surveyEdit

Hello fellow Wikipedian, the hardworking hosts and staff at WP:Teahouse would like your feedback!

We have created a brief survey intended to help us understand the experiences and impressions of veteran editors who have participated on the Teahouse. You are being selected to participate in our survey because you edited the Teahouse Questions or Guests pages some time during the last few months.

Click here to be taken to the survey site.

The survey should take less than 15 minutes to complete. We really appreciate your feedback, and we look forward to your next vist to the Teahouse!

Happy editing,

J-Mo, Teahouse host

This message was sent via Global message delivery on 01:11, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Does this help?Edit

I need your feedback about a source. This article addresses the issue of Adam Yauch's religious adherence pretty explicitly. It stated, “The 27-year-old Jewish-born rapper wants to maintain his Jewish traditions and calls the conversion spiritual, rather than religious.

Does this mean something?  Brendon is here 10:47, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:CAT/R says, "For a dead person, there must be a verified consensus of reliable published sources that the description is appropriate" is it applicable in that RfC?  Brendon is here 11:40, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Leo Castelli seated, Jasper Johns standing.jpgEdit

Thanks for uploading File:Leo Castelli seated, Jasper Johns standing.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Fut.Perf. 10:03, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

It is probably best to upload a more recent image of Johns - per this discussion [18]...Modernist (talk) 20:34, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Not conducive to collaborative editingEdit

Thank you for the support on this fracas at the Freud page. I did submit this problem to "Editor assistance," but I have not gotten any responses. If I can be of help to restore a bit of neutrality to the Freud lead, I am happy to do it, and I know more than enough about Freud and all the related epistemic issues to be helpful, but I don't have time or energy to fight off an editor like Polisher of Cobwebs. Even if I did, I feel pessimistic that the restoration of balance would remain indefinitely on a page that treats such a divisive topic. The Freud page used to be "good" and is no longer--what would safeguard against it becoming bad again, even if I improve it? Certainly I cannot devote the same level of vigilance to it that Polisher of Cobwebs does. If you have further ideas for how to proceed or want further input from me, let me know, I guess at my Talk page? Will that generate an email alert to me?Hypoplectrus (talk) 21:38, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Hypoplectrus, it is not a good idea to suggest, even by implication, that other editors are insane. If you haven't gotten any responses at Editor assistance, then that's because you're going about things the wrong way - you're expecting other editors to automatically agree with you about quite controversial issues, and it just doesn't work that way, I'm afraid. That you talk about "fighting off" other editors shows that you are approaching disagreements in the wrong spirit, and that's a turn off for all concerned. (And incidentally, the Freud article was already deemed not 'good' when I started working on it). Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 22:25, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Disagreement is part and parcel of the activity of collaborative editing. It is how one goes about it that matters. While one should be clear on where one stands, one should attempt to be low key. As I pointed out in my post here, I find this type of post, reading: "If you cite Eric Kandel's views in the lead, I will remove them", to be unnecessarily provocative. (I changed the section title here on my Talk page. It used to read, "Insanity at the Freud Page.") Bus stop (talk) 02:15, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
I can understand why you might feel that way, Bus stop, but I wasn't trying to be provocative. Hypoplectrus made clear what material he wanted to add to the lead, and I made it clear that I didn't think that material was suitable for the lead. It might have come across the wrong way, but I was simply trying to be honest and direct. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 02:45, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Please see WP:OWN. Bus stop (talk) 04:16, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
It's quite clear to any rational observer which of the two users involved in this disagreement--myself, Hypoplectrus versus Polisher of Cobwebs--has expressed an openness to dialogue and which one has refused to and with remarkable hostility. You can see that on the Freud Talk pages, but you can also see Polisher of Cobwebs's harassment and intimidation tactics in action right here! Polisher of Cobwebs has not only reverted all my edits to the Freud lead without any willingness to compromise, he follows me to any Talk page I go to and attempts to interfere with my communications with other editors. If Polisher of Cobwebs is so confident that he is in the right regarding his conduct and I, Hypoplectrus, is in the wrong, and so confident that the system here at Wikipedia will bear that out, then why doesn't he just let the system take its course? Obviously, Polisher of Cobwebs is afraid that without managing the discussion anywhere and everywhere it arises, by what they seem to call here at Wikipedia harassment, hounding, uncivility, etc., he will not be able to retain exclusive control over the debate and over the Freud article lead. It seems that he is having great success with this approach (which he will contest in approximately 5 seconds, 4 3 2 1...) and that reflects the vulnerability of Wikipedia to abuses at the hands of the abusive. Polisher of Cobwebs, I am not at present making edits to the Freud page, because you have made it impossible for me to do so, will you kindly leave me alone?Hypoplectrus (talk) 14:58, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Bus stop, does it make sense at this point to request outside review of Polisher of Cobwebs's User conduct? You are more experienced editing Wikipedia than I am (yes, I know, Polisher of Cobwebs, you are more experienced with Wikipedia too, if not with common courtesy). Please advise.Hypoplectrus (talk) 15:03, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
In my humble opinion continued work on the article and its associated Talk page is the best course of action. That is purely my personal perspective. The downside is that it's a long slog. But in my opinion your best bet at improving the article is to present your case persuasively, including sources of course, on the Talk page, and then to introduce that material which relates to Talk page discussion, to article space. I think the aim is to let other editors know what prospective changes are being contemplated, and then to let other editors see the actual form that you envision that material to assume in the article. This approach involves other editors in an informed way as to the nature of the direction that the article may take. It is all about persuading other editors of the wisdom of the approach that you envision. But yes, it is time consuming. I'm just not a big fan of Wikipedia's drama classes. So I tend to avoid trying to prosecute people for conduct issues. I don't like to see one or a few editors maintain control over such an article as the one we are discussing. I find it refreshing to see new input and I don't like to see enthusiastic ideas squelched before they even get off the ground. But these are just personal opinions and you should just take them with a grain of salt. Bus stop (talk) 15:30, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Credo Reference Update & Survey (your opinion requested)Edit

Credo Reference, who generously donated 400 free Credo 250 research accounts to Wikipedia editors over the past two years, has offered to expand the program to include 100 additional reference resources. Credo wants Wikipedia editors to select which resources they want most. So, we put together a quick survey to do that:

It also asks some basic questions about what you like about the Credo program and what you might want to improve.

At this time only the initial 400 editors have accounts, but even if you do not have an account, you still might want to weigh in on which resources would be most valuable for the community (for example, through WikiProject Resource Exchange).

Also, if you have an account but no longer want to use it, please leave me a note so another editor can take your spot.

If you have any other questions or comments, drop by my talk page or email me at Cheers! Ocaasi t | c 17:10, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Marilyn DiptychEdit

What I meant is that I'm not sure which of the Tate buildings it is currently held in. Zagalejo^^^ 04:28, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I concluded that too late. Sorry to be testy. I also see you initiated and put a lot into that article. Good job. Bus stop (talk) 04:39, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I replied to you...Edit

Hello, Bus stop/Archive4. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived. Message added by Tlqk56 (talk) 00:02, 24 July 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template.

This is how the Talkback Template works. It makes it simple for people to see the answer to their question, doesn't it? Tlqk56 (talk) 00:02, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Good to know. Bus stop (talk) 18:44, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


You were tagged in this edit rather unkindly as an SPA which I decided was quite unfair and elected to remove. Ankh.Morpork 17:29, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Bus stop (talk) 18:43, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


Though you will likely see it anyway, please make sure you're aware of this. JN is perhaps expecting you to see it via participation in the earlier thread, but I think direct notification is better. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:42, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Bus stop (talk) 19:39, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, Nomo. I was just going to drop a courtesy message here in case Bus stop hadn't seen it. JN466 10:31, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

At this point, you're just being trolled. You should probably just take it off your watchlist and avoid it for now. They are clearly baiting you into behaving badly and then using it against you. Don't fall for it. Viriditas (talk) 09:22, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

You are probably right. By the way I want to say that I have appreciated your solidarity. That includes the reasoning that we both tried to engage in at the Talk page of the "British Jews" article. And of course I have appreciated your support at the AN/I attempting to prevent me from merely enforcing policy, as I think we both were trying to do at the "British Jews" Talk page recently. Bus stop (talk) 09:36, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

confusing postEdit

I received a new message notice for this It is really confusing to me. Seems that two unrelated articles are involved... Do not know what this could have to do with the Sarasota News Leader article, Can you please clarify? _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 15:24, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what you are referring to regarding the preceding edit, Revision as of 21:19, 25 August 2012 (edit) 83d40m (talk | contribs) (→‎Nomination of Sarasota News Leader for deletion: reply again) ← Previous edit, regarding a new article afd discussion... _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 18:40, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying the note to me.

I am aware that we disagree, I think that was explored in 2011. I rely upon the immediate international coverage of Gary's death to indicate his status as a sculptor and believe it qualifies him for recognition for our readers. He was memorialized by the NYT, Time, ABC-TV, and most other prominent media. The numbers of people who attended exhibitions of his work while he was alive, could exceed some of the sculptors you list readily. His fine art is privately held internationally and never is cast off and sent to auction.

Without a doubt, he is the best example I have seen for the use of diverse materials in his work, so I have placed him among those being discussed in that vein. I suspect that you focus too closely on his whimsical works for a value judgment that might just be very personal. That is like focusing on Calder's circus and disqualifying him from discussion as a serious sculptor. The subject matter of dinosaurs was followed by Calder when he created a Stegosaurus after he met Gary and saw his. Chamberlain worked with automobile parts. Picasso often chose animal subjects in his sculpture. Gary's works are a thousand times more complex than Picasso's Bull head, yet are easily as effective a use of unchanged existing materials to create another image and they are created with the highest of skills. Our readers deserve to see not merely academic judgments, but works identified as notable in their lifetimes by everyday sources. As a fellow editor here, I will persist in placing entries where I see this as fitting and I would hope that you do not take that personally, as I respect your skills even though we do disagree on this point. I would prefer that the entry not be deleted. Am posting this at the sculpture talk page also also. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 21:06, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)Edit

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow

In this issue:

  • Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
  • Research: The most recent DR data
  • Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
  • Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
  • DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
  • Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
  • Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?
Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->

--The Olive Branch 18:53, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your contribution @ LG WilliamsEdit

Hi Bus stop! Thanks for coming by and helping out at the LG Williams wiki page. I appreciate your edit and sound comment -- hopefully there will be more in the future. Respectfully --Hellartgirl (talk) 05:22, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

What's your point?Edit

I'm correcting the article due its Talmudist and Anti-Christian bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickidewbear (talkcontribs) 05:27, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussionEdit

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we request your participation in the discussion to help find a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Sigmund Freud#Science_section". Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 18:03, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Soft Power really does have something to do with what curators likeEdit

The point could be illustrated with art world infatuation with contemporary Chinese artist Ai Weiwei, or the widespread suspicion that the CIA used Abstract Expressionism to promote notions ao US mystique and sophistication. Matnatlak (talk) 02:00, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

RE:"Art nude"Edit

Now Nude (art); See my comments "What Now?" on my talk page. FigureArtist (talk) 03:58, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I have moved the comments to my main user page as an Editor's Statement, responses are welcome.FigureArtist (talk) 15:15, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

New jersey question rephrasedEdit

Is there any "safe area" parts of Irvington? I know that city/township has a high crime rate bu does it have any safe areas like parks, beaches, or neighborhoods or schools? Venustar84 (talk)` —Preceding undated comment added 00:50, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


Re this -- there's currently an RfC at the article talk page on this issue. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:23, 18 February 2013 (UTC)


This is not directly related, so I'll ask you here... Have you ever participated in the endless move-discussion at Genesis creation narrative? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 19:17, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

lol yup. Bus stop (talk) 19:19, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, see... the reason why that's at "narrative" is (we're told) because most people understand "myth" as lie, or at least false. Academically and by the dictionary, that's of course nonsense, but most people understand it that way. In the same way, most people understand "American" to mean citizen of the United States. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 19:23, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
This RfC is primarily concerning the term "Filipino-American" and only secondarily concerning the term "American". Bus stop (talk) 19:46, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
The same point holds true. Most people will understand citizen of the United States. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 20:11, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Don't beat a dead horseEdit

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Yworo (talk) 04:04, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussionEdit

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution.

Guide for participants

If you wish to open a DR/N filing, click the "Request dispute resolution" button below this guide or go to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/request for an easy to follow, step by step request form.

What this noticeboard is:
  • It is an early step to resolve content disputes after talk page discussions have stalled. If it's something we can't help you with, or is too complex to resolve here, our volunteers will point you in the right direction.
What this noticeboard is not:
  • It is not a place to deal with the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct.
  • It is not a place to discuss disputes that are already under discussion at other dispute resolution forums.
  • It is not a substitute for the talk pages: the dispute must have been discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) before resorting to DRN.
  • It is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and explanation of policy.
Things to remember:
  • Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, and objective. Comment only about the article's content, not the other editors. Participants who go off-topic or become uncivil may be asked to leave the discussion.
  • Let the other editors know about the discussion by posting {{subst:drn-notice}} on their user talk page.
  • Sign and date your posts with four tildes "~~~~".
  • If you ever need any help, ask one of our volunteers, who will help you as best as they can. You may also wish to read through the FAQ page located here and on the DR/N talkpage.

Please take a moment to review the simple guide and join the discussion. Thank you!

Formal mediation has been requestedEdit

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Jose Antonio Vargas". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 10 April 2013.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 00:40, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejectedEdit

The request for formal mediation concerning Jose Antonio Vargas, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, User:PhilKnight (talk) 19:10, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Thank you...Edit

...for watching out for me. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:20, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Nary a problem... Bus stop (talk) 14:19, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Need your opinion on a BLP matterEdit

Hi. Can you offer your thoughts in this discussion? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 15:12, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Whaam!/archive1Edit

Since you were a participant at Wikipedia:Peer review/Whaam!/archive1 and Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Whaam!‎, I am informing you that Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Whaam!/archive1 is now open.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:14, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

You seem to be wearing out everyone at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Whaam!/archive1. I don't know how to get your support, but am willing to listen to a brief summary of things that need to be added or deleted from the article.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 05:25, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
TonyTheTiger—you can feel free to weigh in at the link that you provide above or more specifically at this section. Bus stop (talk) 13:46, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


Thanks for the heads-up. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 21:17, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Whaam!/archive1Edit

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Whaam!/archive1 is now three weeks old and has now had over 250KB of discourse. I don't think I have ever been involved in an FAC like this. As I stated at the beginning of this FAC, Whaam! will experience the 50th anniversary of its first exhibition on September 28 that I hope can be celebrated at WP:TFAR. Before that, however, we must make a decision on the quality of this article here at WP:FAC. Please consider making a Support or Oppose decision some time soon.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 00:15, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Whaam!/archive2Edit

Since you were active at FAC1, I am notifying you of Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Whaam!/archive2.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 17:54, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Bus stop (talk) 10:58, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Whaam! editsEdit

Please stop editing Whaam! without consensus. I don't want this WP:FAC to fail due to it not being stable.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:57, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:TFAR nomination of Whaam!Edit

Given your active participation that resulted in the recent WP:FA promotion of Whaam!, I am informing you of a discussion that you may want to take part in at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests#Whaam.21.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:09, 9 September 2013 (UTC)


  The Content Review Medal of Merit  
Thank you for your attention to the Whaam! WP:FAC discussion. Although we mostly disagreed, all opinions are necessary for a great FAC.TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:30, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
That's big of you, or bigamy. We are both magnanimous. Bus stop (talk) 23:34, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Is being Jewish an ethnicityEdit

So if you think being Jewish is just a religion, then why would we categorize actors by it at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:50, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Re NFCC #1Edit

It may not seem like the same statement, but try and run some test cases and see if you can find a case where it doesn't hold true nonetheless. When it comes to NFCC #1, it is very difficult to prove that a non-free equivalent could be created unless the article subject is about the subject of the picture. In this case of Pakistani people, this is definitely true. There are free equivalents of Pakistani people available or they can certainly be created. The wording might not match, but 95% (number out of my butt) of cases it holds true.--v/r - TP 00:02, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

The wording you chose may be wording that should be found in policy. I'm objecting to statements that sound like they are extracts from policy when they are not. Bus stop (talk) 12:13, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
In practice, that's how it works. Run some test cases, set up some scenarios, and you'll see what I'm talking about.--v/r - TP 12:40, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
But the person complaining that their image was improperly removed should first be shown actual language in policy. The rewording of policy that you are presenting may be correct. But it should not be presented as if it was the actual language in policy. Bus stop (talk) 13:08, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
I disagree with you there. Explaining how the policy generally applies instead of using the confusing legal jargon and ambiguity is more often helpful. This particular user didn't WP:AGF of the user informing them and that's where the failure lies. That's a sign of a COI, honestly. When one person's personal goals override the goals of Wikipedia, they are in conflict with their interests and Wikipedia's interests. What we may need instead is an essay that explains what each of the general applications are for each criteria.--v/r - TP 14:08, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library NewsletterEdit

Books and Bytes

Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013


by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs)

Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved...

New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian

Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted.

New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis??

New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges

News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY

Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions

New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration

Read the full newsletter

Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 20:15, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

RfC request re:Peter Sellers articleEdit

Hi Bus stop. Requesting clarification from you on your preference as to the wording of the contested line in this article. Summary here. Want to ensure we're not misrepresenting your viewpoint. Thank you. --Oakshade (talk) 20:55, 9 November 2013 (UTC)


Could you please move (or copy) your suggested replacement text out of the now-hatted section and into the main part of the "Survey" section? All other suggestions were started and discussed there, so it is right yours should be too, rather than being in the "summary" section. I have hatted the summary section because it is a misguided, misleading and biased section that should not have been started by an involved editor. Your suggestion deserves examination away from such a biased and one-sided interpretation. - SchroCat (talk) 09:24, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Your opinion is welcomed!Edit

As I've seen you participate in discussion at WP:Judaism in the past, please weigh in at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#Category:European people by ethnic or national origin. Thank you! Liz Read! Talk! 19:07, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I will appreciate it if you comment concerning my remarks in the Arab Israeli 1948 war talk page.Edit


I will appreciate it if you comment concerning my remarks in the Arab Israeli 1948 war talk page.

I am an Israeli, but try to be objective. I am the only Israeli regular editor in these articles, and the other editors reactions are mostly negative , as expected. It is much better to hear your opinion as well. If you are not too busy, will it be possible for you to comment in the talk page.

thanks Ykantor (talk) 19:06, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

November 2013 FA ThanksEdit

 This user has written or significantly contributed to Whaam! Featured articles on Wikipedia.
Thank you for your editorial contributions to Whaam!, which recently was promoted to WP:FA.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:04, 26 November 2013 (UTC)


Hi Bus stop; Please add your input here: [19], thanks...Modernist (talk) 12:40, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library SurveyEdit

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi t | c 14:57, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


Dear Bus stop, thanks for helping to tidy up my recent edits at the Purim article [20]. I was tired and it was late and I honestly missed them, so I appreciate your good work. Thanks again, IZAK (talk) 01:04, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Happy HolidaysEdit

[21]...Modernist (talk) 03:16, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

A Tesla Roadster for you!Edit

  A Tesla Roadster for you!
Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia! Gg53000 (talk) 16:12, 8 January 2014 (UTC)


Bus Stop, as I read current Wikipedia policies and guidelines, a person can be described as a Jew based on religious belief, or instead based on ethnicity, or both. If Wikipedia's description of a person as a Jew is based on religious belief, then Wikipedia requires evidence of self-identification. We cannot say that a person's religion is Jewish unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief. However, evidence of self-identification is not required to say that a person's ethnicity is Jewish (i.e. ethnicity is different from religion or sexual orientation).

Do you disagree with any of that? Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:03, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Policy does not directly address the differences between religions. Are all religions the same? Obviously not. Do all religions have the same form with the only variation seen in their specific components? The net effect of policy in the area that we are discussing is a "leveling effect". If you encounter a cosmologist, what type of conversation would you have with him? Would you say "all that I know about cosmology is twinkle twinkle little star"? Of course not. You would try to muster up information of substance, even if it meant doing research. Let us put aside "sexual orientation" for a moment. Do you realize how ludicrous it is, for the purpose of policy, to not only lump together "religion" with "sexual orientation", but also to lump together all religions? This is one-size-fits-all policy. It can be improved. But it is apparently an uphill battle. Bus stop (talk) 01:50, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
My comment above did not address what the policies and guidelines at Wikipedia should be. Instead, my comment above addressed what the policies and guidelines currently are. All I'm asking is whether you agree about what the policies currently are. If you're not able to recognize what current policy is, and are unwilling to follow it even while you try to improve it, then,'s understandable why other editors might want to keep you from editing.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:55, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Where does policy distinguish between a Jew based on religious belief and a Jew based on ethnicity? Can you please cut and paste that area of policy to me? Bus stop (talk) 02:10, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Sure. The guideline about ethnicity and religion says:

Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:19, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Bus stop, your responses at ANI are not helping. Perhaps you should stay away from there for a bit? Viriditas (talk) 10:31, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Viriditas—OK. And thanks for your help, and kind words. Thanks. Bus stop (talk) 10:34, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Why the self-revert at ANI?Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:15, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't want to seem too mean-spirited. It is old—from 2012. Bus stop (talk) 21:19, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
That was probably wise for you to do. But, since it reflects an old but ongoing pattern, I feel it was appropriate for me to mention it (twice so far) at ANI. Thanks for the diff.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:23, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Take care, Bus stop. You did a classy thing at ANI. I hope the foreseeable future doesn't last too long, and that you will enjoy then having a clean slate. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:03, 1 February 2014 (UTC)


  You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jews_and_Communism_(2nd_nomination). Thanks. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:35, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Move review for Anti-Semitism:Requested moveEdit

Hi, I have asked for a move review, see Wikipedia:Move review#Anti-Semitism, pertaining to Anti-Semitism#Requested move. Because you were/are involved in the discussion/s for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page/topic, you might want to participate in the move review. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 08:52, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

ANB discussionEdit

There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive265#Move War at History of the Jews in Nepal, and RFC review that concerns you because you were recently involved with one or more of the related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of the Jews in Nepal, Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 June 30 (History of the Jews in Nepal), Talk:History of the Jews in Nepal#RfC: Should we change article name to 'Judaism in Nepal'?. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 07:50, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

September 2014Edit

  Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to 2014 in architecture 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:
  • *August 18 - [[Kurt Meyer (architect)]], (b. 1922, in Zurich, Switzerland, [

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:35, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Shabbos App for deletionEdit

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Shabbos App is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shabbos App (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Something beautiful for the holidaysEdit

Global accountEdit

Hi Bus stop! As a Steward I'm involved in the upcoming unification of all accounts organized by the Wikimedia Foundation (see m:Single User Login finalisation announcement). By looking at your account, I realized that you don't have a global account yet. In order to secure your name, I recommend you to create such account on your own by submitting your password on Special:MergeAccount and unifying your local accounts. If you have any problems with doing that or further questions, please don't hesitate to ping me with {{ping|DerHexer}}. Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 17:15, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!Edit

  The Special Barnstar
Years of good work by you have more than justified the faith showed in you in the distant past. You're a valued contributor. Well done. Dweller (talk) 13:37, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Thank you so much. My barn needed that. The chickens have been complaining that they feel like they are living in a barn. Bus stop (talk) 13:48, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Sadly, I'm all out of henhouses. --Dweller (talk) 13:59, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Somebody ought to design a henhouse-star, for use in minor situations in which the full barn-star is uncalled for. Bus stop (talk) 11:58, 22 February 2015 (UTC)


Thanks for the support at Wikipedia talk:Featured article criteria, as you will see from my last posting I see no point in continuing the conversation at this time, because there is no change of changing the text at the moment. -- PBS (talk) 12:45, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome. Thank you for initiating that discussion. Bus stop (talk) 16:55, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 8Edit

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sinking of the Dalniy Vostok, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page TASS. 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) 08:57, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Bob DylanEdit

Hi Bus stop, I noticed the point you added and then removed on the Dylan Talk page [24], and I have some sympathy with the issue you raised. I also though the removal of Category:American Jews, Category:Jewish American musicians, and Category:Jewish American songwriters, with the edit summary "Dylan converted to Christianity" was odd. If you wish to make this point again, I would support you. Best wishes, Mick gold (talk) 18:27, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I was just thinking of re-wording that post. I also don't relish the slugfest that could follow. It seems just self-evident that the Jewish/Christian thing is best accommodated by including both for Categorization purposes. But this issue is project-wide and I doubt anything I am going to say is going to sway a consensus of editors. Bus stop (talk) 22:29, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
I agree, Jewish-Christian thing is best accommodated by including both for Categorization purposes. I think majority of BD editors would support this position. Mick gold (talk) 00:15, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
I've posted this on Talk page. Mick gold (talk) 14:58, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Antisemism in UkraineEdit

ONe has to be careful with CFCA articles. The give URLs from which they took content, but these are often Russian , and unreliable in the extreme.--Lute88 (talk) 21:03, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Long overdueEdit

  The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
For all of your work on the visual arts; and elsewhere...Modernist (talk) 00:27, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you very much. I appreciate it. Bus stop (talk) 02:04, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank You Bus stop.Edit

Thank you, you were correct in what you wrote, and I was wrong in what I did. In his postings, Modernist has been calling me all sorts of names, and will not enter into a serious discussion about some aspects of the WIKIPEDIA Article on Abstract Expressionism. He asked me to do some reading, and when I did, he will not discuss some of the results of the research I accomplished. In a way, he acts as if he owns the Article. An example I can offer concerns this issue about which you chided me: In the Article there is a list of "Other artists" which is introduced with: "Significant artists whose mature work relates to the American Abstract Expressionist movement:" Note, it does not say they have to be American, only that their work relates to the AAE movement. Therefore Modernist is clearly incorrect in rejecting OlivianBRENDA inserting Romul Nuțiu into the “Other” list giving the reason “not an American abstract expressionist” when there are other non-Americans on that list, such as Wols, Kumi Sugai, Bram van Velde, Nína Tryggvadóttir, Antoni Tàpies, Nicolas de Staël and Zao Wou Ki. It does not take but a minute to read the article on Romul Nuțiu to understand why he is much like the other non-Americans in qualifying to be on that list. Thank you for listening to my wanting not to be rude, but Modernist seems to have brought out the devil in me. Please look the list and at the articles yourself, and tell me who is correct? Sirswindon (talk) 19:45, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Dear BusStop, please can you direct me to any "Fine Arts (Painting)" Editors, with whom I might be able to have an intelligent dialog regarding Abstract Expressionists (and not Modernist who only wants to call me names)? I need an objective Editor, who will be willing to enter into a constructive discussion. Thank you for suggesting someone. Sirswindon (talk) 22:50, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Bus StopEdit

I don't know your opinion on the article but a lot of people on here wouldn't have even pointed that out when it was an obvious mistake. I enjoyed looking at your artwork. Thank you for sharing them with everyone here. 2601:84:C801:6529:30DD:8C06:907E:A9EA (talk) 14:08, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Mattress affairEdit

I'm notifying you of sanctions related to Mattress Performance and Emma Sulkowicz. I do not believe you are responsible for any misconduct, but your differences in opinion with other editors have made progress difficult. I recognize we simply have a fundamental disagreement about the interpretation of policy and I do not mean to imply any tendentiousness on your part.

  This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
  This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to, (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

--Sammy1339 (talk) 17:35, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Bustop. I originally saw them unrelated as well. But there's at least one reliable source that explicitly links them. I think there's enough to position them as related. Pick your battles (as they say).Mattnad (talk) 16:08, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Religion in infoboxes of nationsEdit

There is an RfC that you may be interested in at Template talk:Infobox country#RfC: Religion in infoboxes of nations. Please join us and help us to determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:40, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Adam NagourneyEdit

[1]re removal of quote "fair game for a news story" being out of context. It's in the same paragraph and verbatim so I fail to see how it is out of context. Sorry I'm a newbee and may have ref or sined incorrectly Glasseye123 (talk) 11:16, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Mattress talkEdit

Bus stop, could you please quit. Two, now three editors disagree with you. Move on or I will bring sanctions against you for wasting everyone's time.--A21sauce (talk) 17:01, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

You didn't take my noticing of your ignoring of Wiki rules very seriously so I'm going ahead. thanks--A21sauce (talk) 21:32, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

License tagging for File:"Bull's Head", 1942 sculpture by Pablo Picasso, considered an example of "found object" artwork, constructed of a seat and the handlebars from a bicycle.jpgEdit

Thanks for uploading File:"Bull's Head", 1942 sculpture by Pablo Picasso, considered an example of "found object" artwork, constructed of a seat and the handlebars from a bicycle.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 19:05, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Another Tensing vidEdit

I can't put this in article talk per NOTFORUM, but I find this amazing. If you can find 17 free minutes, watch this and tell me if this isn't a remarkable video. By about 14:00, two guys from the hood have Tensing and his supervisor completely gabberflasted, and Tensing just stands there looking like a deer in the headlights. Am I crazy? ―Mandruss  19:14, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Mandruss: when is this video from? Bus stop (talk) 20:37, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't know any more than what is on that page. I just ran across that by accident as I was looking at our bodycam vids. It can't be too old, since he appears to be in UCPD uniform and he worked for UCPD for only a few years (our article doesn't say, exactly). ―Mandruss  20:42, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi @Mandruss: This indicates a little more about it. Bus stop (talk) 20:51, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Yeah. She says "last May", so I guess that means 2-3 months ago. But it's like this. A cop is either in the right or in the wrong, either supported by the law and department policy or not, and any competent cop should know which. If you're in the wrong, you smile and admit your mistake, back up and regroup. If you're in the right, you don't stand there and allow two people to talk you to death; you tell them to take it up with the judge. If you give them a lawful command and they fail to comply, you arrest them. If they resist arrest, you use physical force. If they endanger your life, you shoot them. Neither cop had control of this situation, which is precisely what they're trained to do. I've had my share of contact with cops (some would say more than my share), and I've never seen cops behave like that. ―Mandruss  21:08, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi @Mandruss: they're just human beings. They phase in and out of being competent. It's the deadly force part that is obviously critical. In the case of Tensing one can only wonder if oneself is capable of such an error. I'm sure if he had 60 seconds to think about what he was about to do, he wouldn't do it. But given two seconds or maybe one second, it becomes more likely that one can make the utterly wrong decision. Bus stop (talk) 13:55, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Yeah. I don't presume to judge Tensing, or Slager, or Wilson, since I could never be a cop in the first place. I also don't feel the need to choose one side over the other on these things; I have no difficulty feeling compassion for both, which is what places me center-left, I think; I get the sense you're the same in that way. ―Mandruss  14:08, 2 August 2015 (UTC)


I understand that you have strong feelings about the discussion of Camille Paglia, but it honestly it beyond the point of WP:BLUDGEON in my opinion. Can you please consider dialing it down a bit, or at least limiting threaded discussion to the discussion section and leaving the !votes alone? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:50, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi EvergreenFir—actually I don't have "strong feelings" about this. My position is that we let the pieces fall where they may. A variety of well-known and qualified people weigh in with commentary on a work of contemporary art. I would not argue that anything be suppressed. But others are basically saying that certain things said by Paglia should not simply be allowed to stand as is, yet when commentators lavish praise on the piece, that goes unchallenged. Bus stop (talk) 02:19, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

What you're doing in these edits (1, 2) seems a lot like bludgeoning. The questions you're asking have been answered, ad nauseum. I understand that you don't agree with what's being said, but its not adding anything to continually repeat yourself, especially when we're discussing a potential compromise. Nblund (talk) 02:48, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Nblund—you say that I "don't agree with what's being said". Can you be more specific? Bus stop (talk) 03:33, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Do I really need to explain that? I provided you with links to the differences, I don't think I can be any more specific than that. If you're still unclear on the problem, I urge you to check out the previously cited entries on bludgeoning and disruptive editing. If this continues, I think the next step is to request administrative help. Nblund (talk) 20:09, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Responses on Mattress Performance RfCEdit

Several or your responses, particularly this series of replies, seem to suggest you either aren't bothering to read what I'm suggesting or at least aren't attempting to make relevant points. Please try to read more closely, and stick to the topic when responding. If possible, it would be really helpful if you would stick to arguments that had some basis in existing Wikipedia policies or guidelines, rather than objecting solely based on personal preferences. Nblund (talk) 15:07, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Nblund—Roberta Smith, Jerry Saltz, Marina Abramović, artnet, and Camille Paglia are not in "heated dispute" with one another. They are not even in dialogue with one another. The reception section merely contains responses from notable people. I did not concoct this layout. But we use quotations in the cases of praise of the work. Why would Paglia's scathing criticism not be treated just as the praise is treated in our article? Bus stop (talk) 20:20, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
You're still not reading me: I suggested an alternate version that uses a direct quote rather than a paraphrase. This is now the third time i've pointed this out to you (see 1,2)
This may be an honest mistake on your part, but, whatever the intent, continually disregarding what is being said in the conversation is disruptive. See: WP:DISRUPTSIGNS. Nblund (talk) 21:40, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
OK, I stand corrected. Now please use the RfC to articulate your argument. Bus stop (talk) 22:49, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Changed your mind?Edit

What's up with this? --Sammy1339 (talk) 23:00, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Paul SignacEdit

Hi Bus Stop. I saw your comment on the Signac talk page today about my reverting to the Modern/Old count style. It appears you misunderstood why I did that. I was not at all making a judgment, as you thought, because I was not the one who created those count words. Those words were put there by another editor weeks before my arrival. I personally didn't care what words were used; I simply reverted to them because it would have created a lot of confusion since 15+ editors had already "voted", and all of them used either "Modern" or "Old" to cast their "ballot", not packed or non-packed. So those 2 words in the count would not have matched the words used in the "vote" by all the editors. So it was inappropriate for an editior to unilaterally change those terms long after the voting had commenced. By the way, I suspect that whomever decided on Modern and Old were simply referring to time e.g. which was the new layout and which was the layout that had been used for years. Lootbrewed (talk) 04:44, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Courts of Indicature and JudicatureEdit

Thanks for your deep researching of this. Although in this instance I tend to agree with the other help desk editors, I think it is still possible that this was a word used somewhere in English at some time. It sure sounds like a Latin-derived English word. However, what I think you most likely found here is the first case that I can ever remember of a pre-OCR era error that matches OCR errors in the present. That is, some soul made exactly the same mistake almost exactly a century ago that modern machines are still making, and probably a lot more often than humans ever did. I think it's amazing. Hamamelis (talk) 15:59, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Hamamelis—in a source such as this I find that "indicature" may make more sense than "judicature".
"Now, in this disease, if regard be had to the humours, and the indication occasioning them, it should seem at first view that the curative indicature should principally tend 1. to evacuate humours already generated, and 2. to strengthen the concoction, or digestive powers, so as to prevent the accumulation of other humours…"
Perhaps there is (or was) a legitimate use for "indicature" in some instances. Bus stop (talk) 17:56, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Well, you've found it! I've tried to find this word in old dictionaries at google books, but have yet to find success. But I basically think that anything said, that has a meaning that people mutually agree upon, is a "real" word. That's why they get coined. The author in your example may have been coining "indicature", which, if one follows the use of "indication" as it's used medically (see sense 1, b), and add the suffix "-ature" (the act, process, state, or system of...), one could understand that he, perhaps, meant a system of determining what is advisable in order to deal with ... humours. What do you think? Hamamelis (talk) 22:03, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of question on Humanities ref deskEdit

I believe you were correct to delete that question. (In any case, that was what I was advised to do in a similar case a few weeks ago). I've re-deleted it. Iapetus (talk) 10:00, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

...and it's back. I'll bring it up on the talk page. Iapetus (talk) 10:02, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Discretionary Sanctions AlertEdit

  This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
--Guy Macon (talk) 15:28, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Guy Macon's posts at the Bernie Sanders pageEdit

Relax! You are misunderstanding what Guy Macon is saying. He doesn't argue that Sanders has no religion, and he doesn't suggest removing the Religion parameter from the infobox. He is simply saying that "Religion: none" or "Religion: secular Jew" are not acceptable. You are being hypersensitive. Say you are sorry, you misunderstood, and give it a rest.

I know that this has been a trying discussion, that in general has been in very bad taste (I don't want to say it smacks of antisemitism, but there is that concern), but Guy Macon is certainly not a party to those who have questioned Sanders's Jewishness. He is not one of the bad guys. --Ravpapa (talk) 17:02, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ravpapa—as you said, "Religion: Jewish" is the more common usage. It is also what the sources say. Bus stop (talk) 00:24, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Bernie has stated that he's "Jewish," but "not particularly religious". That puts him in the same category as me, a nonreligious Jew. He's ethically Jewish, but he's not practicing. There's a specific term for that. @Ravpapa: it's not "anti-Semitism". Where would you even get that? If someone says, "I'm Baptist", and they're from Georgia, and they go to a Southern Baptist church, is it "anti-Christian" to accurately label them "Southern Baptist"? (The correct answer is: No.) Bernie, like me, is a non-religious Jew. I wasn't being "anti-Semetic" to change it to "Nonreligious Judaism", that's silly. Am I anti-Semetic against myself? Knowledge Battle 02:11, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Knowledgebattle—use the Talk page at the Bernie Sanders article. You have edited the religion parameter of the Infobox at the Bernie Sanders article here and here yet you have not participated in the discussion about that subject at that article's Talk page. Please post your thoughts at that article's Talk page. This is a collaborative project. I am asking you to engage in the discussion of this topic that is already underway at the Bernie Sanders Talk page. Bus stop (talk) 09:51, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

November 2015Edit

  Hello, I'm Winkelvi. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Warning is in regard to this comment. -- WV 23:32, 8 November 2015 (UTC) -- WV 23:32, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!Edit

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) 16:18, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Season's greetings!Edit

oh crap sorry thought this was an article.

JKshaw (talk) 23:30, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

guess i'll take a break then i'm getting a little jumpy

merry christmas

JKshaw (talk) 23:32, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy HolidaysEdit

Season's greetings!
I hope this holiday season is festive and fulfilling and filled with love and kindness, and that 2016 will be successful and rewarding...Modernist (talk) 23:37, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Modernist, Likewise. Bus stop (talk) 00:16, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

RfC announce: Religion in infoboxesEdit

There is an RfC at Template talk:Infobox#RfC: Religion in infoboxes concerning what What should be allowed in the religion entry in infoboxes. Please join the discussion and help us to arrive at a consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:18, 17 January 2016 (UTC)


For remembering... Still on wikibreak! Ty 07:31, 18 January 2016 (UTC)


If you could drop a comment regarding that edit into the talk page thread, it would be nice to make evaluating consensus easier. (Talk:Hillary_Clinton_email_controversy#Hacking_attempts Gaijin42 (talk) 18:07, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

You've got mail - below!Edit

Re: Email, I am already blocked and I am appealing at WP:AE but I'm just going to let it out regardless as per your email, anyway. I did read it, I just need to get a new Wiki email setup. Thanks. Sir Joseph (talk) 05:41, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

BTW, I am not sure if Encyclopedia Britannica is a RS but you should check out the free version online. It is accessible to all. Sir Joseph (talk) 16:38, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Sir Joseph BlockEdit

Sir Joseph has been blocked from editing Wikipedia, and it looks like when the block ends he will resume his behavior and end up the subject of an Arbcom case which will likely result in either a site ban or a topic ban on all pages related to Jews or Judaism. Word to the wise: you are likely to end up in the same Arbcom case and could face the same sanctions. If, however, you stop your disruptive behavior now, I will make a point of pointing this out at any Arbcom hearing and strongly recommending no sanctions. You should ask yourself; is getting your point across (a point you have made many times over already) on a couple of pages now worth the risk of being banned from Wikipedia later? --Guy Macon (talk) 00:22, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Deletion Discussion: Columbia University Rape ControversyEdit


I'm sending a notice because you previously participated in a move discussion on the page for Mattress Performance (Carry that weight). A new article was created Columbia University rape controversy as a spinout entry, and there is an ongoing discussion here regarding whether the article should be kept, moved, merged, or deleted. Letting you know in case you want to put your two cents in. Thanks. Nblund (talk) 23:07, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Religious category in infoboxesEdit

I was off-wiki when your ping came in, and I see the discussion on Jimbo's talk page is archived now. Rest assured that I share your concern, and feel free to ping me if the subject comes up again. Coretheapple (talk) 16:06, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Coretheapple—I was arguing that, in keeping with recent related discussions, "Religion: Jewish" should be removed from the Infobox at Bernard Madoff. Bus stop (talk) 19:58, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank youEdit

  gratitude for great title suggestion, excellent arguments at that fraught AFD. E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:58, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Thank you E.M.Gregory. Bus stop (talk) 13:57, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Ceci N'est Pas Un ViolEdit

Seems to be missing criticism. Sources such as this suggest it is not art and her continuation of her attack on an innocent victim. Does this represent feminism? Or just the view of an extremist? Valoem talk contrib 21:39, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Well saidEdit

I was on the fence for a minute after some of the recent arguments, but now I remember my original thought process. :) PermStrump(talk) 04:13, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

P.S. I don't know how this showed up in the yellow box. I started a new section. PermStrump(talk) 04:13, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, Permstrump. Sorry I didn't respond sooner. I can't figure out why the yellow box just goes on and on and on. I could try putting {{helpme}} on this page and see if anyone knowledgeable can figure it out. Bus stop (talk) 18:09, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
I fixed it per WP:TPOC. For every "{" there must be a matching "}". --Guy Macon (talk) 18:45, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks go out to Guy Macon for fixing the error of the creeping yellow box. Sincere thanks. Bus stop (talk) 18:49, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 20Edit

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gregory Alan Isakov, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page National Geographic. 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) 09:19, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

au contraireEdit

It's something like a Set phrase. A google ngram shows a spike around the 1930-1938 period, so I guess it was a phrase used in literature - I hazard a guess that it's a saying of Hercule Poirot and we can lay the blame on Agatha Christie --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:26, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. That is great. (I hope I haven't used a "set phrase".) Bus stop (talk) 23:37, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Wildfires projectEdit

Hello! You are getting this form message because I have noticed that you have been actively editing pages about wildfires in California. I am trying to recruit some people who might be interested in starting a new wildfire project that focuses on large and notable wildfires. Is this something you would have any interest in being part of? Obviously there is no firm commitment that needs to be made. At the moment, I'm just trying to get a dozen or so people to say they're interested. Please let me know if you have any interest. I have created a project proposal that I would love to hear your opinion of. Thanks!!! --Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:39, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Just a curious interloperEdit

I happened to notice your discussion on the Administrators' Noticeboard about disclosure of e-mails, and I am fascinated. If you don't mind me asking, what is the basis for your disagreement? You mentioned "real world" principles (or something of the sort), and I was wondering if you'd be willing to expand on that? If not, no worries. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 15:31, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Why not just weigh in at the discussion that is already taking place? Bus stop (talk) 15:34, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
I just felt like it would be a bit of a hijack, as my interest is very much academic (read: pointless) and has nothing to do with the underlying issue. Sorry to have bothered you! Dumuzid (talk) 15:40, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
You have not bothered me. I am not a busy or important person except in the usual existential ways. Bus stop (talk) 16:05, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

On purposeEdit

In this edit you removed both a comment of yours, as well as your vote. In later edits you re-added a comment, but not a vote. Is that on purpose? Debresser (talk) 18:30, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Debresser—First a question: why are we having this WP:RFC as Category:People of Middle Eastern descent is at present not found within Category:People of Jewish descent? You initiated this WP:RFC with "In 2014 there was a very long discussion on this same talkpage, should Category:People of Middle Eastern descent be added to this category." But Category:People of Middle Eastern descent is not in Category:People of Jewish descent. So, why would we be voting to remove Category:People of Middle Eastern descent from Category:People of Jewish descent? Bus stop (talk) 19:58, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
After that old discussion the category was not removed till I removed it recently, and after a bit of edit warring. The discussion, however, still uses the word "remove". Debresser (talk) 21:25, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
OK, Debresser, thanks for the explanation. I will be re-adding that commentary or related commentary. The RFC is confusing, isn't it? Bus stop (talk) 22:04, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
One editor posted very long posts, and I got a bit tired of him. Long posts also cause other editors to refrain from partaking in the discussion. I think that the discussion is going in the direction I hope for, and that is satisfying. Debresser (talk) 07:59, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Graph databaseEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Graph database. Legobot (talk) 04:45, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!Edit

 Hello, Bus stop. 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)

Category talk:People of Jewish descent voteEdit

Sorry about that, the vote's been going on for so long that for some reason I thought the first vote had concluded and this was a second one. McArthur Parkette (talk) 00:29, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Schneerson and Crown Height riotsEdit

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussionEdit

Hello, Bus stop. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. I have sought administrator input into the lack of mention in the article that an accident by a car in the police-led motorcade of Schneerson caused the death of a Black child, and triggered the riots, and that he had no comment on the events or the death of a Black child. I have faced recurrent deletion of well sourced material by Kemal Tebaast, Debresser, and Bus Stop. They do not seek to resolve the issue. This is due to a bias by these editors to delete mention of this events linked to Schneerson. Rococo1700 (talk) 03:49, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Sarah Jane BrownEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Sarah Jane Brown. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Happy HolidaysEdit

Season's greetings!
I hope this holiday season is festive and fulfilling and filled with love and kindness, and that 2017 will be successful and rewarding...Modernist (talk) 23:13, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Modernist. I wish all the same for you...Bus stop (talk) 00:08, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry, merry!Edit

From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:50, 25 December 2016 (UTC)  

Please do not vandalize the Bernie Madoff page againEdit

Please do not vandalise the Bernie Madoff page again by removing his religion from the information box. His religion was critical to his fraud because he recruited his victims basically from the Jewish community. It has been reported many many many time that Madoff committed what is known as an "Affinity Fraud". In fact, there is a Wikipedia page for it: and Madoff is mentioned on it. Thank you for your cooperation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Betathetapi545 (talkcontribs) 15:15, 30 December 2016 (UTC)


For some reason, your comments have got me laughing tonight. You know, not the basic lol, but the kind that keeps rolling. Love the point about the lean Pollock article. (Might be time to call it a night if I'm getting punchy, but this is always good to end the night.) Thanks!—CaroleHenson(talk) 08:30, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Discussion you may be interested in offering your two cents onEdit

Since Talk:Stanley Kubrick is such a mess with arguments over infoboxes, and has been that way for quite some time, I figured the issue should be taken to a sort of higher court. See Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Should biographical articles always include an infobox?. Hopefully less insults will occur over there. –Matthew - (talk) 14:48, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Album-oriented rockEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Album-oriented rock. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

REDACT, not.Edit

It's alright to add an image to one's post, as long as the word content hasn't been redacted. GoodDay (talk) 14:29, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, right—images don't matter (sarcasm). Bus stop (talk) 14:37, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Please stop deleting my Dr McCoy image. It doesn't in anyway alter the content of my post. GoodDay (talk) 18:47, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

calling awesomenessEdit

Prove ur a painter, bro! Gimme ur 3rd best painting, before I really get angry!! Adwctamia (talk) 05:32, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your attention, Adwctamia. I get so little attention. It really brightens my day when the rare person takes notice of my accomplishments. I take it you are a turpentine aficionado too? Bus stop (talk) 10:57, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
My favorite part of being a painter is you create stuff outta thin air, lol. I know it's obvious but I like the fact you create something new that didn't exist before you brought it into existence. Keep it up! Adwctamia (talk) 10:11, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Adwctamia—I thought this was great. Bus stop (talk) 16:49, 4 February 2017 (UTC)


decency art

Thank you for quality articles such as Table with Pink Tablecloth, for explaining the value of structured information, for mentioning on your beautiful user page decency and "rabbit in disguise", - abstract painter, repeating (18 May 2009): you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:15, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, Gerda Arendt, I am definitely flattered. It was a very satisfying experience working on that small article (Table with Pink Tablecloth). Bus stop (talk) 21:48, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
I like the title ;) - I better tell you right now (usually in a year) that Precious is the prize of the cabal of the outcasts to which you belong by what you do ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:55, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Infobox songEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Infobox song. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Request for Comment on the guidelines regarding "joke" categoriesEdit

This is a notice that a discussion you participated in, either at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents or at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 February 8 has resulted in a Request for comment at Wikipedia talk:User categories#Request for Comment on the guidelines regarding "joke" categories. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:37, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Your timely interventionEdit

...on Talk:List of Jewish feminists helped me reorient my thinking to streamline the eventual edits I made to the list. I appreciate your taking the time and contributing to the process. -- Cheers, Deborahjay (talk) 22:19, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for being welcoming, Deborahjay. I just wanted to weigh in with my thoughts. Bus stop (talk) 00:50, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Badgering on Albermarle gallery AfDEdit

Your edits ont the AFD are disruptive. See WP:BLUDGEON. You need to read about reliable sources, and also give poeple a chance to contribute rather than badgering them. If you continue I may have to report you to ANI. You have been blocked repeatedly; it would seem that bad conduct is a past habit. Why not try to let poeple get a word in edgewise on the Albermarle Afd, rather than badgering people with irrational arguments? (talk) 19:29, 10 March 2017 (UTC)


  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. (talk) 00:47, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Maryam RajaviEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Maryam Rajavi. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Best Regards from Berlin!Edit

Better help on this article than complain! Best! --Aquilinae (talk) 00:29, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/MOS:GENDERID for genderqueer peopleEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/MOS:GENDERID for genderqueer people. Legobot (talk) 04:33, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Columbia University rape controversyEdit

PeterTheFourth, a has been removing critical information of Emma Sulkowicz, can you please revert this edit if you feel he is violating NPOV. Valoem talk contrib 13:01, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "Bus stop/Archive4".