User talk:Backoffbugaloo

Hi/

Welcome!

Hello, Backoffbugaloo, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! The JPS ^{talk to me} 21:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Steinman[edit]

Hello! It's good to have another Steinman fan on here. I'm trying to improve related articles. The JPS ^{talk to me} 21:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Kay Hanley, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages The Craft and Scamper (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:06, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Hello, Backoffbugaloo. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Hello, Backoffbugaloo. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Hello, Backoffbugaloo. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

National varieties of English[edit]

Hello. In a recent edit to the page Graham Phillips (writer), you changed one or more words or styles from one national variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.

For a subject exclusively related to the United Kingdom (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to another English-speaking country, such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, India, or Pakistan, use the variety of English used there. For an international topic, use the form of English that the first author of the article used.

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to another, even if you don't normally use the version in which the article is written. Respect other people's versions of English. They, in turn, should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Manual of Style. If you have any questions about this, you can ask me on my talk page or visit the help desk. British author so uses British spellings Doug Weller talk 06:46, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This was an artifact of Grammarly doing its thing, and my not paying close attention. My apologies; will ignore its protestations on matters like this in the future. Backoffbugaloo (talk) 19:25, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, thanks for the explanation. Doug Weller talk 21:08, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't copy text from publishers, etc[edit]

As you did at Graham Phillips (writer). Not only is it a copyright violation, nothing Phillips has written is scientific. Doug Weller talk 06:47, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Any suggestions on restoring the material without outright copying it? Also, it's worth noting that you unnecessarily reverted several smaller changes in the process that didn't need to be, like noting the reissue of his first book. Please have a little more care the next time you revert the offending parts of someone's edit. Backoffbugaloo (talk) 16:56, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The reissue should not have been there. I restored a comma I shouldn’t have and have now deleted it. An/a historical, I’ve no opinion on them. The other changes I’ll stand by. It’d a bad article, and not only are there too many books that section’s in the wrong place. Doug Weller talk 19:02, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are four reissues on the page as it stands; are they only sticking around because of the different titles? I'm no particular fan of this guy's brand of "scholarship" either, but comparable authors have a bibliography (even a small one) on their pages -- see, for example, Hugh J. Schonfield -- and they don't catch the level of flak I seem to be getting for keeping the dude's page current. Backoffbugaloo (talk) 19:24, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that really is rubbish. No publishers etc. I’m not trying to give you flak, both articles have problems. Doug Weller talk 21:11, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so, what I'm picking up from this is, come up with better non-plagiarized (preferably one-line) summaries of the two new books and avoid the reissue on the first title. Fair? (The bigger issues with the entry itself can be someone else's problem.) Backoffbugaloo (talk) 21:14, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]