Welcome!

Hello, BlueonGray, 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:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! —C.Fred (talk) 23:18, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi C. Fred. How do you flag an entry for removal on the grounds that it is about a junior prof with no accomplishments worth mentioning and was clearly created by himself for self-promotion?--BlueonGray (talk) 23:23, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Make sure all those allegations hold water, then you'll want to follow the instructions at WP:Proposed deletion or WP:Articles for deletion.

You could also tag the page for speedy deletion. However, I'm looking at the page right now, and if it meets those criteria, I'll delete it. If it doesn't as an administrator, I'd decline the deletion, and you'd have to go one of the other two routes anyway. —C.Fred (talk) 23:29, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that the page was created by the subject to self-promote. However, I do agree that the article had no clear assertion of significance or importance, so it was deleted under speedy deletion criterion A7. Had you wanted to tag the article—or if you need to tag a similar article in the future—the tag is {{db-bio}}. —C.Fred (talk) 23:34, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Fred. This is good to know. I appreciate the tips.--BlueonGray (talk) 23:53, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, there is a thread at the BLP noticeboard here about a couple of detrimental edits you have made to the Ricardo Duchesne BLP. Feel free to comment there explaining your position or not as you feel but please don't add opinions and suchlike to the article. We will discuss and help you in all policy matters but you do yourself no favors by violating policies and guidelines, There are hundreds of thousand other articles you can enjoy improving and I hope you will stay and do that, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 20:56, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are again disruptive on the article. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 08:43, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. There is an incident in which you may have been involved: click. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 09:01, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia entry for Ricardo Duchesne has no justification for its existence. There is good reason to believe that it was created by Duchesne himself. I have therefore nominated it for deletion. If you can provide any evidence that Duchesne meets the criteria of a notable scholar, then please do so.--BlueonGray (talk) 18:45, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Battleground

It is plainly obvious that you know Duchesne and have only come to WP to disrupt the article because the two of you have had an argument in a Canadian newspaper this February: This BlueonGray is you (navigate to Comments on this Article: Posted by Blue on Gray, Feb 12, 2011 5:28 PM and Apr 24, 2011 10:55 PM) and soon after the incident you registered here. Since then you have only edited the article on Duchesne, invariably in a negative manner. What you do here is a personal crusade, which is against the spirit and policy of WP. WP:Battleground: Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges, import personal conflicts, carry on ideological battles. Way to go my friend, way to go, you do all of this. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:19, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does Duchesne meet the criteria in WP:ACADEMIC of noteworthiness? That is the only issue here. There is no evidence that he does. I could speculate as to who would create a Wikipedia entry for an academic non-entity, but that would be counterproductive. If you have evidence of Duchesne's noteworthiness and influence as a scholar, why not just produce it rather than resorting to ad hominem attacks?--BlueonGray (talk) 22:24, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he does, absolutely. There are over 30 citations by international scholars listed in Google Scholar alone, from many of the most important authorities in the field, if not close to all. He is not just noteworthy, he is even clearly above the average noteworthy. With this settled, the question mark is now behind your motives and why you have come to Wikipedia after staging repeatedly ad hominem attacks on Duchesne at this Canadian newspaper: For the record, if anyone is turned off by Western civilization, it is because of the arrogance and tastelessness of its self-appointed representatives like Ricardo Duchesne. Posted by Blue on Gray, Feb 12, 2011 5:28 PM. So you are here on WP:battlegrounds, because of a personal feud. Pity for you. Greetings to Toronto. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 00:40, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

30 citations in total for a full professor is surprisingly low. A serious scholar with serious scholarly contributions to knowledge and a serious influence upon scholarship would have hundreds, if not thousands, of citations. 30 citations spread out over many articles is very, very unimpressive. There is nothing exceptional or outstanding here. Incidentally, are you Ricardo Duchesne?--BlueonGray (talk) 03:40, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am not Duchesne. Unlike you I don't need to remain silent on my identity, I have nothing to hide. :-) 30 citations in peer-reviewed journals by many of the leading authorities is quite good actually. What you fail to see (or acknowledge) is that the field of historical sociology is not that big as, say, that of the history of communism. Therefore, asking for "thousands" of citations is quite pompous and misses completely about what limited field of history we are talking. Greetings to 98.142.247.157 Gun Powder Ma (talk) 06:22, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't have anything to hide, then why not come out and say who you are? Who, other than Ricardo Duchesne, would go out of his way to defend and exaggerate a record of total and utter mediocrity other than Duchesne himself? Actually, there are quite a few historical sociologists who have been cited thousands of times. Charles Tilly, Randall Collins, Orlando Patterson, Theda Skocpol, and the late Giovanni Arrighi are all historical sociologists whose work has been cited thousands of times. Duchesne's paltry 35 citations just doesn't compare. What is pompous is to claim that some mediocrity with 35 citations has somehow influenced scholarly giants at leading universities.--BlueonGray (talk) 13:29, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gun Powder Ma's comments here can be considered a form of personal attack or harrasment. He just gave away your location "toronto" and said "Pity for you". He's been blocked multiple times for attacks like these, if you need help, contact an admin or go to WP:ANI to file a complaint against GPM if he keeps baiting you like this.DÜNGÁNÈ (talk) 17:39, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the suggestion. If he persists, I will indeed report it to an admin.--BlueonGray (talk) 17:45, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

actually I'm going to file this at ANI myself, since he has done this before (reporting other user's real life locations and insult them). He did this to User:Intranetusa, He has gotten away with this for too long.DÜNGÁNÈ (talk) 17:54, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 12:23, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. There is an incident where you have been involved in- see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents.DÜNGÁNÈ (talk) 18:06, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

calm down on the caps.(all capital letters are discouraged at ANI since it resembles shouting) And also choice of vocabulary can be significant, since some may interpret "mediocrity" as an attack on the subject, its better to use words like "unimportant", or "little known", since some editors will use that as an excuse to impose blocks.DÜNGÁNÈ (talk) 22:51, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am on your side and agree about Ricardo Duchense's article, but we may all get blocked if admins perceive any editor to be engaged in personal attacks. If you keep your cool then you will see this through, if all capital letters are used and attacks are thrown around, admins will get tired of reading the massive blocks of texts and block us all (GPM and us). I've seen this happen before.DÜNGÁNÈ (talk) 00:12, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for the advice. I'm new to all this, so this is very good to know.--BlueonGray (talk) 00:40, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I would request you to say for the record whether you have a conflict of interest in the AfD on Ricardo Duchesne per WP:COI. Background information with relevant links for third-party users can be found here. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 13:20, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure! No, I do not have a conflict of interest. But, I did want to ask you about these revelations. Can you declare whether you have a conflict of interest in the AfD for Ricardo Duchesne in light of these revelations?--BlueonGray (talk) 16:08, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good to know. May become relevant at a later date. No, I don't have no conflict of interest, either. Not a trace element of it. No idea what "relevantions" you are talking about. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:01, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A few questions for you: How do you know that Duchesne was born in Puerto Rico? How do you know when he was promoted to full professor? How do you know that he is on the doctoral selection committee for SSHRC? Is this information publicly available? Please do state how you were able to gather this information.--BlueonGray (talk) 21:14, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A few questions for you: Are you identical with the BlueonGray who debated - rather agressively - Ricardo Duchesne? Are you are incidentally an academic from Canada, possibly one with a multicultural teaching and research agenda? Please answer these questions to allow us to determine whether you have a COI or not. Answer these, and I will glady answer you questions. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:13, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You asked me above if I have a conflict of interest as per WP:COI and I stated quite explicitly that I do not. Nothing has changed between then and now. Now, kindly explain how exactly you know Duchesne's birthplace, the year in which he was promoted to full professor, and his membership on the doctoral selection committee for SSHRC. I was unable to locate any of this information online.--BlueonGray (talk) 22:36, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I stated the very same explicitly and nothing has changed between then and now. But you certainly understand that COI cannot be solely determined by assertions, but just as much by evidence, so how do explain two BlueOnGray having a go at Duchesne within a week? I mean, if this BlueonGray in the Canadian forum with foam before his mouth is not identical with you, then you can certainly offer at least your personal opinion on the great coincidence of having the two of you the same name and the same target? Huge coincidence considering that Google only has 280 hits for "BlueonGray", most of it dead hits or incoherent gibberish (including these comments in the forum, I guess). Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:59, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't ask you, in my last couple of comments, to state if you had a conflict of interest. I asked you how you were able to obtain information about Duchesne that isn't publicly available. You see, there is no evidence of any breach on my part; just speculation on yours. However, we do have prima facie evidence that you posted information about Duchesne that isn't publicly available. If you cannot furnish your sources, then it would seem that you are, in fact, in violation of WP:COI. If you cannot produce those sources, then I will initiate a discussion at WP:COIN. This is your last chance.--BlueonGray (talk) 00:30, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let's briefly summarize: I have stated that I have no COI, and so you have. I have categorically stated that I am not Ricardo Duchesne (and I do this again), but you have refused to say whether you are this BlueonGray on the Canadian forum or not. Don't you think that your refusal to do has made our discssion a bit asymmetric? You write on your WP page that you have joined for contributing to integrity, so why don't you start showing a bit of it yourself and demonstrate that you are able to answer a simple question with yes or no. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 01:03, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very well, then. You've been warned.--BlueonGray (talk) 01:35, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Possible COI: BlueonGray

The only possible COI I can see is this:

1. 03-01-2011: Ricardo Duchesne (RD) writes an article about the "racism industry" of Canada's academia in a national newspaper
2. 12-02-2011 5:28 PM: On a comments page a user named "Blue on Gray" gets pretty agitated about Duchesne article. Quotes:

For the record, if anyone is turned off by Western civilization, it is because of the arrogance and tastelessness of its self-appointed representatives like Ricardo Duchesne. (Feb 12, 2011 5:28 PM)

And, why not do this all *without* the resentment and foaming at the mouth? That would be a genuinely interesting research project. For that, of course, you would actually need to think and speak like a mature, civil, and intellectually responsible social scientist. (Apr 24, 2011 10:55 PM)

1. 21-02-2011: BlueonGray registered on Wikipedia and...
2. became until August 2011 a WP:single-purpose account (1) only devoted
3. ...to vandalize the article on RD repeatedly: 1, 2 and...
4. ...initiated two AfDs misusing WP as his personal battleground and...
5. refuses to answer a simple question whether he is identical with this BlueonGray even though I was gracious enough to tell him that I am not RD (I am not)...

So, if someone misuses WP as a platform for his/her personal antipathy, then it is BlueonGray who comes here to wage his personal crusade. I am concerned that User:BlueonGray may have an undisclosed connection to one of the Canadian academics mentioned less flatteringly in RD's article. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:32, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're repeating yourself. I will, too: if you are accusing me of a COI, please make that explicit and start an investigation. I will happily cooperate. Thank you.--BlueonGray (talk) 22:33, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But you know that there is already an investigation on you at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard, where you are, however, still not cooperating, much less happily so. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:38, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, there is no investigation about me at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. However, you are encouraged to initiate one if you suspect me of a COI.--BlueonGray (talk) 22:42, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are on three reverts on Ricardo Duchesne, please be careful. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:43, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Three reverts for one and the same action. There is an ongoing discussion at WP:COIN. So long as that discussion continues, the tag remains. If you disagree, please do speak to an admin.--BlueonGray (talk) 22:45, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you revert again you will be reported and blocked. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:47, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See here Darkness Shines (talk) 22:58, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Ricardo Duchesne, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Vandalism: adding absurd material to a BLP, for the apparent purpose of making the person look ridiculous. Clear bad faith pointy edits. DGG ( talk ) 04:52, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring by violation of the three-revert rule at Ricardo Duchesne. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 07:16, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Z10