User talk:Boothy443/Archive 4

Boothy443, thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! In addition, thanks for your interest in Wikipedia:Requests for adminship. However, in WP:RfA, we usually place a reason for voting oppose to a user. Otherwise, the vote may not be taken seriously by the Wiki-munity (is that a word?). Would you mind either placing a reason for your opposition for every RfA or withdrawing your votes? Thanks very much! Flcelloguy Give me a note! ^Desk 21:17, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My apologies, Boothy443, I see you've already expressed your opinions regarding this matter in your archived talk pages. Flcelloguy Give me a note! Desk 22:50, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I believe Dittoboy isn't really JoeM for the following reasons:

1. Dittoboy seems to be trying to get himself blocked. JoeM is working hard on trying to get himself unblocked.
2. Dittoboy does his work from Bar Ilan University, at IP address 132.70.50.117. (This I know because he keeps getting it blocked.) JoeM's record DOES have an IP address - 4.247.194.236.
3. I don't think JoeM knows anything about Pokemon; Dittoboy shows some knowledge in the matter.
4. JoeM only has one sockpuppet going at a time; Dittoboy did his vandalism both before and after the sockpuppet We want FREEDOM.
5. Most of Dittoboy's vandalism had nothing to do with JoeM's POV edits or with him trying to get unblocked. Dittoboy has been trying a few methids of getting blocked, and he finally found one which will work indefinitely.
6. If Dittoboy already had a blocked account, he wouldn't have needed do vandalise from his Dittoboy account. JoeM has several.

User142 23:42, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please refrain from referring to your fellow editors as "morons" and other such forms of incivility in your edit summaries. Thank you. Kelly Martin 03:23, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

What ever, So now that someone confronts the establisment, we are going to repremand him for stuf that he said in the past, yet daily, the "gestapo" let incivilty run rampid with narry a word, unless it effects them or the establishment, welcome to the double standard. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 03:27, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not realise I had posted on your archive page, untill I re-read it this morning. Must have been half asleep last night. Giano | talk 07:15, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• whatever. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 07:24, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Giano has drawn it to my attention that my contribution to your talk page may have seemed like bullying. Please be assured that my intent was to help you mitigate the general hostility that I thought I saw. I hope that I have not increased your discomfort and I regret my involvement. It is no accident that "well-meaning" has become a deprecation!—Theo (Talk) 07:43, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Uh, Boothy443, would it be okay if I copy your toolbox tables so I can create my own?- B-101 13:34, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think there should be a box on the article saying what station is next and one before like the one you put on the Trenton Station article.

It's an ongoing project, i'll get to them as a find them. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 00:13, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I realise you want us to leave you alone about this, but be aware that as you have not explained why you are voting against all admin candidates (no matter who they are), I would suggest to you that you don't act suprised when people a) message you about it, b) find that your vote is being discounted, and c) feel that perhaps you are disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. In your archives, I also notice that you wrote:

Why is is that you, adminstrators specificaly and other useres, only confront users that vote in oppsition, i see a majority of votes for support with no explnation what so ever, yet no one questions them why they voted in support, and when most resons for support are give they are things like "i think he will do a good job", or "i have had no problems with the user in the past", or "because so and so voted oppose". yet an oppsition supporter basiclay is forced to write war and peace to explain why they voted no or else they are basisicaly left to felt like their vote is discounted. So no you dont need to know why i voted oppose, only that i voted oppose.

Sorry, but we do in fact need to know why you voted to oppose. Voting to oppose implies that you have a problem with that editor's behaviour, or some aspect of his/her actions on this website. If that is the case, then we need to know why this is. Supporting, on the other hand, implies by its very nature that the person voting has no issues with the editor and feel that they would make a fine candidate. This also means that they don't have to justify why they are voting to support! - Ta bu shi da yu 03:05, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• First, i never said that i wanted to be left alone on the subject, i juest perfer that if you are going to you the talk page for may account that you use it to address me and not other useres, and that if you feel the need to convers with other useres that you take it to your or their or a corsponding article talk page, and not converse on the talk page for my account.

Second, no i would not be and i was not supprised that i was being msg on account of my votes, or find that my vote is being discounted as it seems to be a valid and established, and very much disappointing and disconcering pratice no matter what level of user that one is,

Third,"perhaps you are disrupting Wikipedia to make a point", so apprently this afferms the ideal of the admins that if you go aginst the grain, no matter how you do it, you are being distrupting, so a simple vote in oppose is distruptive then, well then thats sad that one can not oppose something in a civil way and be labled as distruptive, and as for making a point, what was the point being made other then i opposed their nominations, which seems to be a frowned upon practice, espicaly if i am being lectured by many "admins, without them saying it directly, that it's a bad and fround upon ideal to oppose a "admin" nomination, i find that more distruptive then my actions to express my idea of a canadite "admin". Since i doubt that any person on here can state what point, if any, i am trying to make make, your asseration in a subtle way is no more then with basis and without truth or fact, and i find this "accusation" highly offencive. And considering that daily users, both registered and un-regestered including many "admins", use this system as a way to express their political, religious, social, and other beliefs with little or no action taken aginst them is really the issue that you should focous on, rather then how someone has chose to vote for proposed "admins".

Fourth, and no i do not need to give a reason, their is no policy that forces me to givae a reason for a vote, and if their is, or ever would be, i would recomend that all users stop voting on everything. They only person i have to justifiy my position towards is myself, if a canidate wishes to query me on my vote then only they should, as i see no need to explain my vote to any other users other then the ones it is directed towards, and even if they query me i still have every right and reson not to explain to them either. In the same way i dont need to explain how i vote to election authorities or the canidates after voting for my goverment respresenatives unless i feel so. How would you like it if in the next election, assuming that he runs, that John Howard or represenatives of the Labor Party were co call you up and demand or ask that you give a reason to why you vote for or aginst their goverment in the next elections, i dont know about you but i dont know if i would be to happy about it. And to say is that the RFA, among other things is anything less then an "election", though to even call it that is a stretch, is basicaly a joke. Also, assuming only makes an ass out of both u and me, the only thing that you infer is that i oppose a users apointment, and to infer any reasons why would just be useless and insulting to the canidate, to yourself, and me. It could mean that i dont approve of their behaviour, or that i dont belive they would be good as an admin, or that they dont have the skills, or they are not ready, or that they dont have ample expericne, or that i just dint like them, or i am voting because some one voted for, (a system that seems to be wildely employed and tolaratd/accepted in the RFA from both approve and oppose sides), or for some other various reason, and to assume the same from those that approve is just as useless.

I plan no change in my system of how i vote, let alone if i vote for an "admin". No will i cave into this "bully" tatic that is being imposed aginst persons that act differently to the "admins". I m starting to wonder if wikipedia is communisum is correct, and that this system is not run like a communist/socialist, adbet modified, state in the form of it's governance or shal i say non-governance. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 07:10, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi Jason: Having looked at your edit history I think I understand why you voted oppose on all those candidates at once. I also think that you did so in response to what you consider to be failings by an individual admin and the administrators in general. Would you like me to elaborate my reasoning? This is not a rhetorical question.

Making your point in that way has distracted a significant number of editors from other aspects of improving the encyclopedia so it seems reasonable for TBSDY and others to deduce that you were disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. They may be mistaken but I do not think that they are being unreasonable. Similarly, it seems to me that by voting against so many RFAs simultaneously without explanation, you create the impression that you are expressing opposition to the process or the role rather than to individual candidates. This is akin to writing "none of the above" on your ballot slip—a spoilt ballot that would be disregarded in the kind of election to which you also allude. In this case, however, the process is not intended as a democratic vote (although the addition of tallies and the simplification of the format makes it look so—and what looks so becomes so) but is intended to be a debate to form consensus. I risk making donkeys of us both (smile) by assuming that you understand consensus. So here is the difficulty: Some people (including you it seems) perceive the process to be a democratic vote whilst others see it as a debate that uses a polling mechanism. The former requires no explanation and most democracies regard secrecy as a key element; the latter requires explanations of oppositions to the proposal so that the proposal can be modified or explained to increase consensus. The argument becomes:

"Contribute to the debate."

"I need not reveal my secret ballot."

So, it is no longer a conversation about the same thing.

I think that you do us all a disservice when you characterise this as a conflict between the admins and the rest of us. There is an existing process here. You chose to use it in an unusual way. A significant number of people asked for an explanation of this apparent anomaly with varying degrees of tact. Some of us have come to see that the initial volume of repeated questions could be seen as bullying even if that was not the intent. Nobody (and I repeat: nobody) has suggested that it is a bad thing to oppose RFAs. Reasoned opposition is to be encouraged because it helps other editors to look at the candidate more closely and enables the candidates to modify behaviours that are seen to be inappropriate. Support votes warm me but each comment and reasoned opposition would cause me to evaluate my behaviour and to seek to modify it. Many past candidates have stated how useful it was to receive criticism from their peers. In my opinion, an unexplained 'oppose' should attract questions; to do otherwise is to ignore that person's discomfort unless the candidature fails.

How, specifically, would you like to see Wikipedia changed?—Theo (Talk) 11:00, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your support. JoJan 14:31, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I guess it's time to scoop the Litterbox and deposit some of the pertinent contents elsewhere. But the most appropriate place? Well, first I'll add your breaking news. The socks are probably all in a twist over Roger Moss. --Mothperson 13:57, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What about a speedy delete for Roger Moss (sculptor)? This guy is such a nut! He's throwing in Boeing stubs again I see. Yeah, that builds credibility. I haven't checked on Coney's stubs lately. I might go have a look. --Mothperson 20:39, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

omg - for a small chortle, go see Coney's article Frank Field (meteorologist). Mothperson 20:49, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Boothy regarding your RFA votes both positive and negative, I've read your archives and I know how you feel and I feel the same way some days however I think you've made your point and am hoping that you will rethink your choice of not leaving reasons for votes both positive and negative. Leaving explanations helps nominated users see what they have to improve on to become a ""better editor"" {for lack of a more appropriate term of the top of my head) and may help other users in their decision whether to vote for or against the adminship of a user. I can perfectly understand if you disagree with. Jtkiefer 23:02, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

• If it takes a RFA to improve or crtiique a users edits, then everyone should automaticlay been given a nomination, so that way we can critique each other, but since it is a "vote" to determin if a user is qualified to be an admin, in which many are not, then i am no more compelled to gave a reson now then what i have been before. And i am not out to sway other users opinions in how they decide on if they belive if a person id deserving an "approval" of their nomination, in the same way i would hope, but seriously doubt is the case, that each user conduct their own research into a useres and not entierly rely on the "opnions" of a few users, lest we all are lemmings. So no i will not change my voting, nor will this constant naging of me to will change my opinion, other then it reenforces some of the many problems. As for proving my point, would you like to explain what the oint is that i am trying to make, becaus everyone says i am but no one can say what it is, and why it is such a problem, not that it would change my mind or anything. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 02:30, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong of course but as far as I can tell the point you are trying to make or seem to be trying to make is that you are pissed off at the RFA process and it seems that you are particularly annoyed at the fact that only negative votes are critizized and questioned while positive votes for the most part are not. Jtkiefer 02:36, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

• • No the "demand" for explination just pisses me off, and it goes much further then the rfa. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 02:45, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough, and since you have a long list of edits and are obviously not a spammer or a troll, unless you take a troll transformation spell... You have every right not to give a reason, I just think it surprised a lot of people when you suddenly voted oppose on every rfa without an explanation and that's why everyone including myself reacted the way they did. Jtkiefer 02:49, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

• Well maybe their needs to be more feathers ruffled. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 02:53, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't personally care how you vote or if you leave an explanation which you are by no means obligated to do, as long as you have a reason. You don't have to justify it to us but I do still believe you have an obligation to justify it to yourself same as everyone else who votes. Jtkiefer 02:56, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

• Then if thats what you belive, then why are you addressing me on this issue anyway. By the way you address your first post, you put your self in the hands of the "establisment".--Boothy443 | comhrÚ 02:59, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

you know, I honestly don't remember anymore. Jtkiefer 03:02, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

• Maybe your reading to much of what they have to say, and how it such a bad idea and aginst policy, of which anyone has yet to show me how. Propaganda is a powerful tool. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 03:05, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't know about that, I've never believed it violated any policies Jtkiefer 03:11, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

You might want to read the comments on Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship#Weyes:_The_Fat_Lady_Sang then. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 03:18, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, well that whole nomination was wrought with controversy, you should be flattered though that you were mentioned by name on such a heavily trafficked page :) Jtkiefer 03:22, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

• I am not flattered, more like dismayed by the accusation, which is unfounded, espically by some one who has "privildges" such as reopining a sham "election". --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 03:27, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

For the life of me after reading everything on the relevent mainspace pages, talk pages, and user talk pages still can't entirely understand what went on with that vote other than the fact that it was a very unusual vote. Jtkiefer 03:30, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

• They way i see it, their trying to force threw his promotion. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 03:33, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm abstaining from the revote that they started for Weyes because I've stopped caring at the moment whether he gets elected or not and if he gets elected whether or not users succeed in getting his nomination nullifed. Jtkiefer 03:39, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

• I belive that it's situations like Weyes rfa, that are a small part of a larger problem, that being partly the adminstration of this site. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 03:46, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I would but seeing I've been involved in the reversion, I don't think it is a good idea for me to protect the page. Evil Monkey∴Hello 04:18, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

I still don't like to protect pages that I've been involved with. And the vandalism on this page although more than most pages hasn't been a continous attack for hours like I've seen on other pages. Evil Monkey∴Hello 04:34, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

I know you have some qualms, if i am not mistaken, about the adminstration here, and if i am not correct you are or were an admin, just wondering what those qualms are if any. Just curious, in reading some of your posts, if we might not be thinking on similar lines. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 02:36, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The only qualm I have is with the arrogance and lack of humility of some admins. It's probably a minority, but a vocal one. For them, adminship has become a privileged class, no matter what the protestations to the contrary by this group. They tend to use phrases like "mop and bucket" and "no big deal", but balk at most discussion of any sort of adminship review (including full de-adminship). There is a double-standard which also applies to this group -- an unchecked laissez-faire attitude which unfairly elevates them. I've never used the phrase cabal, since I doubt this is a coordinated organizatio -- I just think that circumstances have put us into this situation over time.

Adminship (a bad name for the status, don't you think?) should be more freely given. There are a lot of admins that work very hard, and do some humbly. These are the ideal admins, and I'm sure there are more out there. I also think that an adminship review procedure is necessary for keeping that group's members humble. -- Netoholic @ 06:05, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)

Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. -- Spotteddogsdotorg 07:25, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No see i am not the one removing artile links, how about we pointout all your sockpupptt and anaon valdaism? But you know it helps when you use both caviler and comcast to cover your tracks. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 07:27, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What are you talking about? The article was deleted. End of story. I am just going to ignore you and your ramblings. Spotteddogsdotorg 07:39, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nope--Boothy443 | comhrÚ 07:40, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I see you have a thing for this Vince DeMentri guy. Why the hell didn't you put the damn article up in the first place before you started all this nonsense? Spotteddogsdotorg 07:44, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Because i like pissing off biased vandals that dont play by the rules like you. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 07:45, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I am starting to think you created these alleged sock puppets to discredit me because I called for Vince DeMentri to be deleted in the first place. 07:51, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • right thats why i voted to delete the article, thats usuing your doggie brain. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 07:52, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You should not ignore the procedure of a VFU that you started yourself. Please stop adding material to Wikipedia that was removed by consensus. This is a subtle form of vandalism, and may lead to your account being blocked. If you must save the content, do so in your userspace. The page has now been moved there, User:Boothy443/Vince DeMentri/temp. Finally, stop falsely accuse people of abuse. WP:CIV, WP:FAITH, WP:NPA. Radiant_>|< 09:03, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

• Hey retard this is not the sam article that was deleted,, unless some one went into the future and copied my txt word for word. And you are abusive and a liar to, so i am only calling a spade a spade.--Boothy443 | comhrÚ 09:05, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • You have been blocked for 24 hours for persistently recreating material deleted by VFD process. The VFU is in progress, wait for its results. Radiant_>|< 09:16, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

I assume that you didn't wish for your pages to be blanked and replaced with a leaving Wikipedia page? One of the users you've previously caught vandalising make this change to Talk, and this change to your user page. I assume that this was without your permission. Once your block is over, please feel free to correct me. - Estel ^(talk). 11:37, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye out on the gang. --Mothperson 12:52, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Boothy? Come talk to me when you have a moment. Puh-leeeeze. Seriously. --Mothperson 20:17, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC) You haven't left for good,have you? We need you. Well, I do. I've lost it with the entity, and I've gone into battle. I may need some advice and scouting, if you can stand it. --Mothperson 20:37, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I don't have any right to nag you, but you were one of the bright spots that emerged unexpectedly, and I do not want you to leave. Yes, the creeps have vaulted the walls and are eating up all the teacakes. But that's no reason to let them. There is still a lot of potential here. Please think about this for a few days. You are obviously extraordinarily smart, and refuse to suffer fools gladly. Been there, still am, and always will be. I'm not claiming to be extraordinarily smart, just smart enough to recognize fools, and mean enough not to put up with them past a certain point. I have to damp down my vicious tongue terribly here. I wish you would consider e-mailing me through here. I'll try you, and if it works, you can ignore me if you like. --Mothperson 21:04, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Okay - doesn't work that way. But I think it does this way. Mothperson

Thanks for participating in my RfA. Cheers, -Willmcw 20:26, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

I don't believe you're gone for good. I know you can't stay away. Besides, you've been a fixture since I've gotten involved... Don't let em all get to you and don't take things personal. Life is too short. ℬastique▼^talk 02:20, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I know you don't like people giving you advice and telling you what to do, but for what it's worth: I think you've has a tough time here recently, and certainly here [1] were the victim of undue massed pressure, which must have been very unpleasant indeed. I do think they were just all jumping over a rock like daft goats rather than mounting a co-ordinated campaign to harass you, and I do believe User:TheoClarke is basically well meaning. User:Radiant! (not, I know, at the moment your favourite person) is fair, and does do an awful lot of hard and valuable work about the site, and he did warn you, you would be banned. Trouble is, I know, when one's blood's up its not always easy to do the sensible, wise thing. You are right the admin. system here is not the best, there are too many of them, all back slapping and some being terribly important and thus deeply irritating, but someone has to do the boring maintenance stuff I suppose - if that's what they enjoy doing , let them! But let me give you some free advice "what can't be cured, must be endured" so unless you think someone really would be an outstanding admin. just stay away from the page - it's less stressful that way. I hope when you've had time to reflect you will feel able to return. Giano | talk 08:17, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hello, Boothy. I got your messages. Sorry for the delay: I just moved to another state. I would be very happy to discuss with you the concerns that you have. Of course we may not agree on all matters, but I am certain that we can discuss matters rationally. I hope you are taking a Wikibreak (sometimes it does help to get away from Wikipedia for a bit) and have not left permanently. Please leave me a message on my talk page or e-mail me, all right? — Knowledge Seeker দ 02:28, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi Boothy: I appreciate you taking the time to vote on my RFA. Thank you. Since it was an oppose vote, I was wondering if you have any problems with me personally, or with the WP:RFA system in general, as indicated my your general pattern of voting. If your concerns are indeed with my positions or actions, I'd appreciate knowing them, since maybe I could try to address and fix any issues. It's kind of an opportunity for me to grow as a Wikipedian. Thanks for your time. Regards, Bratsche^{talk 5 pillars} June 29, 2005 19:38 (UTC)

While I was disappointed that you provided no explanation as to your reason for opposing my nomination, I wish to thank you for voting. If there is anything I can do to change your mind on my qualifications for adminship, please let me know. --Allen3 ^talk July 1, 2005 14:32 (UTC)

Hi, I've decided to ask here anyway, since one of the goals of the project is to have talk pages where issues can be discussed. Can you explain why you have voted oppose for every current admin nomination except one? I have read your talk page archives, and I have never seen a response that actually addressed any of the issues involved. Given that the goal of RFAdminship is building and determining community consensus, I would like specific reasons for each. If you would like to know why other users have voted either support or oppose with no explanation ask them as you wish. - Taxman ^Talk 22:24, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Is there a problem with how you're feeling right now? You've left several oppose votes on WP:RFA without any reasons. Denelson83 23:21, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed u seem to be in a longstanding standoff with the wikiadministrators. would u consider a nomination? I checked Kate's tool and u have over 8,000 edits which well exceeds most administrators. As they say "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em." Best regards, freestylefrappe 22:38, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

I've noticed that you've managed to find county seal images for the counties of Maryland. I'm curious if your source might also have these images for other states? Thanks! Sarge Baldy 00:54, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

I have taken steps to indicate that the current UMBC article has a dispute over the location. Please provide evidence to support your claim that UMBC is located in Catonsville on the talk page. - Gauge 02:37, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know that I deleted that sheep vote and told the person who created it that I was incredibly disappointed that he/she created it in the first place. Talrias (t | e | c) 13:25, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I do not feel that your edit summary, "rv/v by a lemming user, User:Ardonik, if you gonna say it to me then say it to all the admins that seem to be above policy, as long as i am be defamed then this is what you gonna get" was appropriate. User:Ardonik's edit certainly was not vandalism; it was a polite comment left on your talk page. This is what talk pages are for: it is not vandalism to leave people comments on their talk pages. Boothy, are you sure you don't want to discuss the difficulties you've been having on Wikipedia? It seems lately all you are interested in is quarrelling with other users. You indicated to me once before that you were willing to discuss your concerns, but you never responded to my reply. I am still available, if you are still interested. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:52, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm just doing the rounds after my successful adminship promotion. But for you I've got something more involved than a cut-n-paste thank-you note. I have not seen an admin nomination yet that you did not oppose, and very few that you did not vote on at all.

I am unclear as to what your motive is by doing this, but it certainly does not make your votes seem to be very important if you do not even express a reason for why no-one meets your expectations.

If you are going to oppose all you see, please have the decency to at least explain your evidently strict criteria to them. Thank you for your time. :) Garrett^Talk 11:03, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Boothy443. Hedley 16:10, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, i completely spaced out when i uploaded that image. It needs to be deleted or moved, what should I do? Thoth

Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Boothy443. One day maybe you can be even higher than an admin. I see them abuse their power constantly. My description also gives some more reasons. DyslexicEditor 22:16, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Boothy - People tend to emphasize the conflicts, and overlook the vast amount of good that a particular user does. I'd just like to let you know that your good work does not go unappreciated. →Raul654 02:01, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

I agree. You do a ton of editing man. :) --Phroziac (talk) 18:01, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A word to let you know that WNJS and WNJT should be together as they are both one in the same (New Jersey Network), so PLEASE leave it alone, okay? Thanks. NoseNuggets August 9 2005 7:55 AM US EDT

Hi! I was a little disappointed that you didn't comment on my RFA. Were you on vacation? kmccoy (talk) 00:16, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop changing the consensus made by WP:CFD. This is not a "secret decision". Any further removal, may be treated as vandalism. Please read: Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 August 3#Category:Delaware River crossings K1Bond007 20:15, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

• As creator of the category ii was never notified of the consideration of deletion or the decision to delete that category from any person, their for i have no other reason to believe that the decision was delibertly made to conduct a secret vote to it's deletion without the input or reasoning from the person that created it. So i will not encnoledge the validity of the derision and i will consider it vandalism my self and will continue to revert. Admin pridvilidges do not prevent you from vandalising pages. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 20:30, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you continue to revert you will be blocked for 3RR and vandalism yourself. Please stop. K1Bond007 was not vandalising the page. There was a consensus to merge the articles. --Kbdank71 20:56, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Once again, they just hide behind their "consensus", when it's really not it's a vot in which a undefined percentage of useres who decide to visit that page to hid behind their poor decisions and policies. So i will contiune to revert as i dont not acepte this seceret vote, and will contiune do do so as i see fit. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 21:02, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • You have been blocked for 24 hours for 3RR and vandalism. --Kbdank71 21:05, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Your comments are interesting, Boothy (tho' I'm not going to get invvolved!). I recently nominated Template:Areas of Edinburgh for deletion. However, I had the courtesy in letting not only its creator know about the TFD, but also those who had contributed to the template. The more people that knew about it, the more meaningful "the consensus of the community" becomes, rather than an in-group. The JPS 11:31, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You realise you actually voted for BaronLarf's rfa? Was that a typo? Slac speak up! 21:40, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Boothy443, I want to thank you for supporting my recent adminship vote, it was very much appreciated! :)

We appear to be from the same neck of the woods, Philly. :) I've lived in the Manayunk/Roxborough section most of my life, and I keep meaning to make contributions to those articles, but somehow I haven't really done much yet.

I've noticed you making a lot of great edits in Philadelphia-related articles. Please let me know if I can assist you in this area :)

Please never hesitate to let me know if you have concerns with any administrative action I may make.

Func( t, c, e,  ) 18:54, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you keep deleting pictures I took with my camera? They are not violations. See Yuengling talk

This will be the only note I leave here. Good day Scott

Hi - I was actually kind of curious if I'd be an exception to your nearly universal NO vote. Would you find it amusing if I added "clearly a sheep vote" following your vote? I'm not entirely sure how you feel about what goes on around here, but I'm guessing (hoping, actually) that you are at least occasionally amused by some of the more flagrant absurdities. In any event, thanks for voting and I appreciate the support. -- Rick Block (talk) 14:39, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry you find so little humor here. Just to be clear, 1) I did not mean to imply I think your NO votes are not well reasoned. I have seen you in the past say the reasons for your votes are not anyone's business but your own and I completely respect this view, and 2) I think it's entirely obvious that your vote in this case is one of perhaps not very many that is clearly NOT a sheep vote, since many folks seem to think you automatically vote no. I'm not quite sure how to read your response ("sickened and disappointed" in general? or by my specific suggestion?), but in any event I interpret your response to mean you wish me not to add anything (so, of course, I won't). It appears that barring a major fluke I will be made an admin. If there's ever anything you need admin assistance with, please don't hesitate to ask. -- Rick Block (talk) 23:18, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

Your templates seem a little cleaner and more professional than the existing one. Before you make any changes, I'd mention it at Wikipedia:WikiProject British TV channels. It might seem academic as there are only two members of the project (one of them being me!), but the other user created the project to get the existing template on every channel article. I think he's done a lot of mop and bucket work with it, so might be a bit resistant at having to start again (although you do seem to have done much of the work already)!

In light of present circumstances, then, I'd at least mention it there before making mass changes to the articles. I'd support you. The JPS 21:03, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, there are so many projects/policies/votes for consensus, etc, I feel as if I'm always in breach of something!! The JPS 21:29, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Boothy, the convential wisdom that you vote 'oppose' on each and every RfA has been sunk recently by your 'support' votes for some candidates. I have no idea what your criteria for support is, but I'm sorry that I didn't meet them. Feel free to leave me some critiques and let me know how you think I'm doing as an admin if the opportunity ever presents itself. Fernando Rizo T/C 19:31, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

response to User_talk:Fernando_Rizo#RfA:

Boothy, believe it or not, that makes a lot of sense to me. Feel free to keep tabs on me and give my any constructive criticism that you feel is needed. Fernando Rizo T/C 09:06, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No offense taken at all. I'll see you around, Boothy. Fernando Rizo T/C 09:11, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you've also ran into Dittoboy—he's the first and only time that I've had any of my user pages vandalized. As for Ronald20, there is some more info and some speculation at User:BlankVerse/RonaldWatch if you are interested.

As for my User page: There are several things that need to be done to help improve the health of the Wikipedia and the suggestion on that page is just one of them. Another thing that should be implemented is my Merge WikiProject idea. On the other hand, I have neither the time nor stamina to fight the good fight. I'll put my ideas out there and if anyone else wants to run with them I will enthusiastically support them from the sidelines, but I will not be a major participant. As it is, I see myself cutting way back on any participation in the bureaucracy and backstage machinations of the Wikipedia. I even see a drop in the amount of article writing that I will do.

Also, if you are interested, I've also written up some more of my musings at BlankVerse's ever-lengthening Wikipedia rants.

As for your copyright concern: If you don't want to discuss things on Talk pages, my email is enabled so you can contact me that way. BlankVerse ∅ 06:10, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reply posted. BlankVerse ∅ 07:28, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Helvetica, yes it seems to be a favorite of transit agencies in the 1970s, and SEPTA hasn't really changed much since then. --Luciuskwok 07:13, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would be interested in this. I live in North Philly and am acquainted with the area, but we'll need to find others to do in depth work on the rest of the city.

I see the "Rivalries Fairy" has struck again. Presumably all 30 teams are infected. Ann Nonymous doesn't seem to take hints very well. >:( Wahkeenah 11:58, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was thoroughly amused by the "black eye" story. Just think of it: An autograph session gone bad, the worst tragedy in the entire 122 year history of the Phillies. Worse than the fatal bleacher collapse in 1903. Worse than the team collapse in 1964. Worse than being the worst team, year in and year out, in the history of major league baseball. Any bets on whether the writer was the recipient of those obscenities? Would that qualify as "original research"? >:) Wahkeenah 02:41, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]