The right to vanish does not have a "I'm only here for one purpose" clause. If you are going to be editing with this account, for any reason, this page will be unprotected and the history restored. Please let me know on my talk page if you are going to continue using this account. - auburnpilottalk 17:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
History restored. Please realize RtV is not an excuse to disappear and reappear whenever you wish, with your history wiped away whenever you decide to vanish once again. See Wikipedia:Right to vanish. - auburnpilottalk 12:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
RtV
If I have to unvanish to oppose this candidate, that's fine. BobTheTomato (MrWhich) (talk) 11:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
The history of your talk page has been restored. - auburnpilottalk 12:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Please realize, people disappear for many good reasons. That I consider opposing this candidate worthy of "undisappearing" should tell you something about how strongly I feel. And I don't appreciate your insinuations at my talkpage about my reasons for disappearing. You have no idea (obviously) why I did so. Gwen played a part, but there were other concerns as well. In the future, please keep your speculations to yourself. BobTheTomato (MrWhich) (talk) 13:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I'll share my opinion whenever I feel the need, but thanks for your concern. - auburnpilottalk 13:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Your opinions are fine. Your insinuations about my motives are unnecessary and uncivil. And I'm asking you politely to stop doing so. BobTheTomato (MrWhich) (talk) 14:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Look, I've made no insinuations and merely stated fact. If you're reading more into my comments, that's something you shouldn't do, as my statements should be taken at face value and nothing more. I assure you, I'm not one to make snide remarks or insinuations, and will plainly state my opinions. There was nothing about my comments, other than their exact wording, that you should be concerned about. - auburnpilottalk 15:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
A quick question, then
...RtV is not an excuse to disappear and reappear whenever you wish, with your history wiped away whenever you decide to vanish once again...
Would you mind clarifying what you meant by the bolded portions? Those are the portions that I was concerned with, as they seem to assert your personal views as to why I vanished. BobTheTomato (MrWhich) (talk) 15:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
They mean exactly what they say, and I'm sorry, but you are taking this far too personally. Would it make you feel better if I change the wording to "RtV is not an excuse for anybody to disappear and reappear whenever anybody wishes, with that person's history wiped away whenever that person decides to vanish once again"? Seriously, don't read my comments for anything other than what they say. No hidden agenda. - auburnpilottalk 15:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Okay, then. You really don't understand the assumption that seems implicit in your wording. That assumption being that I disappeared only to have my "history wiped clean." This implies bad faith on my part. I can't prove what seems obvious from your words, though, and since you completely disavow that you intended any malice in your words, I guess Hanlon's razor applies. And by that, of course, I only mean the literal interpretation, which would be that my friend named Hanlon has a razor I think might apply here, since being a pilot you need to be clean-shaven. BobTheTomato (MrWhich) (talk) 17:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Again, I'm sorry if you are reading things that are not stated, but I can't change that. If you'd like to continue playing semantics, please play elsewhere. - auburnpilottalk 17:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I think you've made your intentions very clear with your insulting of me in your support vote. Thanks, and I've replied there. BobTheTomato (MrWhich) (talk) 17:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
My intentions? You mean my intention to support a good candidate? Where have I insulted you? You are an admitted sockpuppet, used to keep your new account clean from controversy, and frankly you should probably be blocked (and thus limited to one account). The right to vanish is not for people who are not leaving; switching accounts is not RtV. - auburnpilottalk 18:26, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Now you make a veiled block threat? There's not really much you won't do, is there? BobTheTomato (MrWhich) (talk) 18:28, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh, and you accused me of "disruption", simply for vigorously opposing an admin candidate. And your opinion that she's a good candidate, is just that: an opinion. Opposing -- even vigorously so -- is not "disruption", nor is it blockable, no matter how much you wish it were. If you think it is, block me. See how long it lasts. BobTheTomato (MrWhich) (talk) 18:30, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Wow, I've never dealt with somebody so unwilling to take comments at their face value. I did not threaten to block you, and I would never block you, as most would consider us involved in a dispute of some kind. Please only comment further if you can restrain yourself from twisting my words. - auburnpilottalk 18:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
There's no other way to read "you should probably be blocked", when it comes from a person with the ability to block, than as a veiled threat. Are you really this unable to see the implications of your words? BobTheTomato (MrWhich) (talk) 18:36, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Since you seem to have some desire to continue this, I'll make myself perfectly, unambiguously clear. I have no intentions of blocking you, and I never did. I believe you are using a second account improperly, and your request to vanish was equally improper. I will not play word games and semantics with you, but if you have actual concerns, feel free to reply. - auburnpilottalk 18:45, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
You've got no effin' idea why I vanished. None. Though I don't owe it to you, it was based almost wholly on RL concerns with my having used my RL name as my username, and the job I do. It was based a bit on my frustration in having to deal with GG's pettifoggery. It's as simple as that. I rarely oppose RfAs, and NEVER do so lightly, which you would have known had you bothered to check the history you restored. I simply find GG's brand of POV-pushing unsuitable for adminship. And I find hot-headed administrators like you incredibly difficult to deal with as well. BobTheTomato (MrWhich) (talk) 18:51, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Question
I noticed the peculiar situation that you seem to have returned from "vanishing" to oppose someone's RfA. My concern is, are you currently operating any other accounts other than "BobTheTomato"? (If so, you should only be participating in RfA discussions on your main account.) krimpet✽ 02:34, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Bob, my concern is firstly the same as those above. The RtV issue. Secondly, it's my experience in life that embittered grudge-holders are very often less reasonable than the people against whom they hold their grudges. Thus I began reviewing the situation with a slight bias. Upon reviewing the concerns, I did see problems with Gwen's editing. --JayHenry (talk) 18:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Quitting because of someone else and then watchlisting their next RFA to be sure to come back and oppose it is behavior that, on first glance, might give the impression of bitterness or grudge-holding. Please note that I nevertheless reviewed your concerns and agreed with them. --JayHenry (talk) 18:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not entirely sure what you want me to say. I'm sorry that I formed the initial impression that I did. Knowing that initial impressions are imperfect, I didn't base my decision on this initial impression. --JayHenry (talk) 18:39, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Revert question
Hi, I saw a redirect you tried to make to a user page and reverted it (since it didn't work and appeared to be vandalism). Now, reading some of your other posts, that seems to have been a former account of yours? If you need a hand with the redirect, please advise. DurovaCharge! 06:29, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Not a problem by me. It's just that 19 times out of 20, when a redlinked account name tries to redirect the user page of an account that has a track record, the edit is vandalism. After I reverted I looked into it a little more and realized this looks like an exception. My apologies for the inconvenience/confusion. DurovaCharge! 15:48, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
The May 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:45, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
The June 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 23:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
The July 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:58, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
a question and concern
I noted that early in the year, you removed an external link (The Diogenes Club) I added to the Sherlock Holmes wiki entry, citing external link concerns. I am not clear why you made that decision and respectfully request clarification. I can certainly understand such an action if the link contained only a repeat of the very same information you did not remove (two other websites that contain the entire canon). I am very familiar with both and consider them fine sites, and I would agree that it would not make sense to include "another" site with only the Canon as its "claim to fame"; however, the Diogenes Club contains a great deal more content than that. Among other things, you will find the Hoy Summaries of the Canon, the Inspection Reports of the Norwood Building Inspectors (writings of a Scion Society of the Baker Street Irregulars), Sherlock Holmes on the Stage (the plays), the Apocrypha and a rather extensive section on collecting Sherlockiana (books with pictures and descriptions of the volumes) AND a compilation of the library recommendations of many eminent Sherlockians (Morley, Baring-Gould, Murphy, Shaw and Penzler AND the Haycraft-Queen Cornerstones) just to name a few of the highlights. Of course, it also contains the entire Canon except those still under copyright in the United States (the Casebook) as well as the Poe Mysteries and other Sherlock Holmes related content. Very little of this content is available anywhere else and, whatever IS available is not 'under one roof' so to speak. By the account of many well-known Sherlockians (including Chris Redmond (Sherlockian.net), Rick Freeman (Yoxley Old Place), Bob Byrne (HolmesOnScreen), Jim Hawkins (WelcomeHolmes and the Nashville Pipers Scion Society), Mia Stampe (the Danish Baker Street Irregulars) and others), the Diogenes Club is one of the 'major Sherlock Holmes websites' on the internet. The site has been and remains so since it was put up almost 10 years ago. As such, I think the link is of value to wikipedia users and Sherlockians everywhere. I'd appreciate your thoughts on the matter and, if the above is compelling to you, reconsideration of your decision. Thanks.75.108.15.59 (talk) 04:17, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
WikiProject Films roll call and coordinator elections
Roll call and Coordinator nominations
It's that time of year again - we're wiping everyone's name off of the active members list and doing a project roll call. Your username is listed on the WikiProject Filmsparticipants list, but we are unsure as to which editors are still active on the project. If you still consider yourself an active WP:FILM editor, please add your name back to the Active Members list. You can also add your name to any of our many task forces!
It's also time to start the WikiProject Films coordinator selection process! We are aiming to elect seven coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on September 14!
The August 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Help us select good versions of WP:ROCK articles for inclusion on the Wikipedia 0.7 release! Find out more about Wikipedia 0.7 selection on the project talk page and add your thoughts to the discussion. If you are personally responsible for a Featured or Good Article listed here, please the select a version to include in Wikipedia 0.7 on that page if you haven't already. Page versions must be selected by October 20.
