Welcome!

Hello, Bob80q, 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 talk 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!

Glad to see you got a user name Bob. Buffs (talk) 18:37, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bob, you could use the Texas A&M or USMA as a rough outline on how to improve The Citadel article. If there is anything I can do to help, let me know. Buffs (talk) 19:01, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, while the school may boast the "most" in terms of numbers, the Citadel only commissions approx 30% of its graduates each year.Eaglewar (talk) As an aside, I'm pretty sure A&M is WAY ahead of the other schools in total commissions. In WWII A&M commissioned more than the combined totals of West Point and Annapolis. It was also more than the combined totals of the 3 highest ROTC programs. I have access to those numbers if it helps your research. Let me know if you want 'em. Buffs (talk) 19:04, 27 February 2012 (UTC) --The Citadel commissions only about 30% of it's cadets each year. Not to mention the non-cadets who do not serve in the military. Taking ALL citadel students into account, your school commissions about 20%. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.1.22.120 (talk) 11:58, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I had one for a while, I was just rather lazy about logging in when doing edits to the articles. I appreciate your input and suggestion, this is a work in progress. I dont know who initially wrote the articles on The Citadel and Notable Alumni of The Citadel but I have spent several months trying to update and improve them; being a bit computer challenged and unfamiliar with the wikipedia way of doing things it also took me a while to get the gist of how to properly reference the changes I was making. I will study the other articles and confer with the others members of our alumni history committee on how we can improve the article, the changes I made today were based on input from some of my comrades. Yes, I do believe you are right about the total commissions all time mostly of course because El Cid is much smaller than TAM or the FSAs and because in wartime a large percentage from TAM entered military service out of a student body considerably larger than the academies and SMCs; however based on the info I found for the most recent school year ('11) is does appear that we are slightly ahead of TAM for current yearly commissions and have been for a while. This would also be consistent with the fact that The Citadels Cadet Corps is larger than TAM (2150 vs 1880); we have the largest AROTC detachment in the country (1300) and rank in the top 3 or 4 for AF and NROTC so that of course translates to a large number of commissioning slots. We commissioned 191 in May,2011 and routinely have a least 12-15 more who commission at summer commencement or through OCS, OTS, AOCS and PLC (as does TAM and VMI). Could not find a definitive number for TAM, just the "more than 180" statement; perhaps you can provide a link to some reference that has the accurate info and I can check with the folks at The Citadel to see if they have an accurate number of total commissions recently. Guess we need to get the straight dope to settle this one, obviously a big source of positive PR and whoever is right should claim it. Thanks, Bob

You can sign your comments with 4 tildes ( 4 x ~ ) and it will autopopulate your signature.

It may simply be better/easier to rephrase slightly e.g. "Texas A&M regularly commissions more than any other..." and "The Citadel commissioned the most in 2011 and regularly commissions in the top 2." or something like that once we can get accurate numbers.

You may want to look at WP:Talk. By indenting your comments, you can make the flow of the conversation easier to ascertain.

Have a good day and I'll buzz my TAMU contacts and see what I can find. Buffs (talk) 21:15, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the additional pointers, I should be a real pro in a few more months. Note the change I made in the first section "...and annually ranks first or second in number of commissions among colleges with ROTC programs." I think this is a reasonable middle ground until we can find all the data to substantiate how many are commissioned by each school. There no doubt have been years recently when TAM had more that The Citadel but clearly we both run neck and neck each year, VMI is a distant third. Whats all this about being a sock puppeteer or some such thing? Must be because I have started using my user name not the anonymous number. How can I let this guy know I am on the level, he is the one who was giving me a lot of crap about some of my recent edits.Bob80q (talk) 02:14, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bob, no, this isn't acceptable in accordance with WP:RS. You have no source to back up the actual numbers; you only have vague references about a single year. Let's go over each phrasing and how they are backed up by reliable sources:

Current: "It provides more commissioned officers to the United States Armed Forces than any other school outside of the service academies." The source states "[Texas A&M has a tradition of] commissioning more military officers than any university other than the service academies". This doesn't mean that they do so every single year, but they do as an aggregate. If school A graduates 500 people a year and School B graduates 200 people a year (except one year when 501 graduate), it is fair (and accurate) to say that school A graduates more people than school B even with a single year exception. This does not state "Every year, Texas A&M commissions more than all non-service academies" and it shouldn't.

Your version: "...it annually ranks first or second in the number of military officers commissioned", but you provide only the same source for your a claim...only it doesn't back your claim. As a Featured Article the standards for this page are higher than that of the rest of Wikipedia. This is not an acceptable alternative as it basically presents "facts not in evidence" (to borrow a legal phrase).

Now, I do admire your tenacity and your attention to detail, but the rules of WP require more than vague numbers to override a reliable source. Again, I'll take a US president quoted in a reliable paper over some WPian synthesizing incomplete information from various, less-reliable sources. Don't let your pride get the better of you. I too am proud of my alma mater and I make lots of edits in that realm, but the rules of WP supersede .

Read the following for more information.

• Verifiability, and not truth, is one of the fundamental requirements for inclusion in Wikipedia
• Wikipedia:V#Burden_of_evidence
• Wikipedia:V#Original_research
• WP:RS
• WP:SYN

Buffs (talk) 06:02, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

you are really sick and pathetic dude. Dont waste your time with any more of these disgusting personal attacks, they will be immediately deleted.Bob80q (talk) 18:36, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

-- Way to remove edits so others can't read them and add your own BS comments Bob. Speaking of VMI trolling... please stick to edits on your own half-military college and leave VMI out of it... jealous much? Rest assured, VMI is the only school to fight as a unit in battle. Your school's name 'the citadel' didn't even exist during the civil war: it was actually 2 schools in columbia and charleston and the school had already ceased operations before the skirmishes you guys claim were battles. To be clear, 250 out of 280 VMI cadets marching to new market is due to the fact that 30 cadets were left to man and guard the school, which was later destroyed and rebuilt in one year... not like your school which was closed for 20 years... Following the citadel's example of self-grand-standing, Bob, why not give yourself another battle streamer for your "skirmishes" on Wikipedia or the other cites you've been banned from? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eaglewar (talk • contribs) 12:21, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NAS you are a chickensh** who keeps repeating the same old false and slanderous messages, you obviously hate The Citadel for some reason. Do yourself and everybody else a favor and get some counseling for whatever it is that's bugging you.Bob80q (talk)

Bob, from my perspective doesn't seem like he's a citadel hater--seems like he's holding you to the facts. Dude, VMI definitely fought as a unit in battle--They lost like 50 cadets to injury or death in about 4 minutes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.225.144.115 (talk) 20:48, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If he doesnt sound like a Citadel hater you are pretty clueless. No one disputes that VMI fought as a unit, the issue is the falso claim that VMI is "the only college to have its ENTIRE student body fight in combat", this was the case for the SCMA corps at Tulifinny. VMI has propagated a false myth for decades and routinely embellished claims about its history, wake up and smell the coffeeBob80q (talk) 21:15, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Bob, to say that Tulifinny was a "battle" is a stretch... but you already knew that. How about another battle streamer? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eaglewar (talk • contribs) 00:41, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No thanks, already have one for that event but you knew that.  And how many battles did VMIs corps fight in during the war?  You are so sick you never pass up an opportunity to make some snarky, classless comment about everything. So just KMAMFBob80q (talk) 22:21, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wow Bob, looks like you've got issues... KMAMF, doesn't sound very civil, by the way... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.1.22.120 (talk) 22:39, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bob, to answer your question, "And how many battles did VMIs corps fight in during the war?" The answer is 14. VMI was called to duty and mobilized on 14 different engagements. And while VMI could fly a battle streamer for each one of those occasions, VMI chose to fly one, which is the only time in U.S. history a corps of cadets fought as a unit in battle.... But you already knew that... VMI was completely destroyed as a result of being identified as the "West Point of the South," yet VMI was rebuilt and classes began again within one year of the school being leveled by union forces. Heck Bob, your fellow goofy grads try to use that title along with trying to convince folks that tullifiny was actually a battle instead of a series of skirmishes. Good try trying to re-write history...Eaglewar (talk)

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 or 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 they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 21:14, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or significantly change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did with this edit to The Citadel, The Military College of South Carolina. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. ISTB351 (talk) 00:21, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lets not start this business again, I already discussed my editing with Buffs. I have continued to make edits in recent weeks without any interference or objection, removing or adding information is not "controversial". I have already made light of another editor who made questionable changes to the article, Buffs seems to have a fair and unbiased view of my editing so request he be the one to review this article. As I am the one designated to edit this article by the alumni group that wrote it my judgement in deciding what is and is not relevant and appropriate should be respected. Its my school not yours.

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, it's important to be mindful of the feelings of your fellow editors, who may be frustrated by certain types of interaction. While you probably didn't intend any offense, please do remember that Wikipedia strives to be an inclusive atmosphere. In light of that, it would be greatly appreciated if you could moderate yourself so as not to offend. Thank you. - Purplewowies (talk) 03:06, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you deleted entries from the talk page of The Citadel. Although there are specific instances where such an action is allowed - or even required - it is almost always inappropriate to delete other editor's comments on a talk page. TreacherousWays (talk) 15:27, 12 March 2012 (UTC) it wasnt an editor, it was some anonymous asshole making a slanderous personal attack. Editors should do their job better and police this kind of crap.Bob80q (talk) 11:34, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am restoring the summer camp section to the Citadel article. The section is important because the summer camp was reportedly eliminated due to a sexual misconduct scandal. I have posted a comment on the talk page of the article indicating that I intend to conduct a more-or-less comprehensive review of your edits because of what may be a conflict of interest. I am not trying to stop you from editing and I am not trying to cast the Citadel in a bad light. Your edfits are casting doubts on your ability to be neutral and unbiased about the school where you serve on the alumni history committee. TreacherousWays (talk) 15:41, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

actually I have not deleted that section recently, I did more than a month ago. I recently deleted sections of the "no lock policy" and the JROTC leadership program as I do not consider them to be relevant. Some editors seem to be acting more as censors and only allowing the content that THEY want, as we are the ones who wrote the article and are trying to tailor the article to be the best PR tool for the school we should be allowed to exercise our judgement on the best way to write it. Question is why should we be forced to keep something that is negative and not even relevant since it no longer exists? For all I know that section was put in by some outsider trying to make us look bad. Its our school not yours, it our article not yours. As for neutral, seems like a double standard; VMI people show bias by posting info that is patently false so looks like you are barking up the wrong tree. I Question YOUR ability to be fair and unbiased and seems to be a problem with many of the editors, if you want to do a review make darn sure its done by a large group chosen at random.Bob80q (talk) 13:19, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Bob, it's most emphatically not a PR tool for your school nor is it your article. If you would like to host a website touting the benefits of attending the Citadel, you are more than welcome to do so. But this is an encyclopedia article, written by volunteers, hosted by wikipedia, and following their rules not yours or even mine. People come to this space for an honest, neutral, factual description of your alma mater, warts and all. When you delete factual information, you are not improving the reputation of the school or its graduates, you are lowering the credibility of the article. If readers become aware of ONE omission, they are then forced to ask how many OTHER omissions there are. I am certain that as a veteran you feel nothing but contempt for politicians who have engaged in cover-ups; don't allow yourself to be tempted by the argument that it is for the "greater good". How the institution responds to adversity is extremely relevent, wouldn't you agree? Don't deny the institution the opportunity to stand on its own feet. Watch the article, boldly remove untruths, and honestly document responses to shortcomings. But stop trying to use this article as advertisement for your school. TreacherousWays (talk) 20:18, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bob, might I suggest you limit yourself to the pages related directly to the Citadel. You clearly have a lot of knowledge on the subject. I know VMI and The Citadel have a confrontational past, but that doesn't mean you can't be neutral about these subjects when writing on WP. If you stay off the page and build up the Citadel instead of tearing down VMI, WP and the world will be better for it. If you have a concern about the VMI article, drop me a line and I will happily address/discuss it. Buffs (talk) 23:10, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Buffs - no we are not in a confrontational situation, I object to anyone who posts anything that is grossly inaccurate. Other editors are slamming me for what they claim is bias, well of course I want to maintain an article that is a good PR piece for The Citadel just as you want the TAMU article to reflect well on your school. Writers should be given the benefit of the doubt about how articles are tailored, seems like some of the editors are a little paranoic and act more like censors. As for removing the comments of the anonymous VMI supporter; they were so snide, nasty and so patently false as to be laughable. No place for stuff like that so if folks are worried about neutrality and civility make sure it cuts both ways. Regarding the discussion about commissioning numbers we already had that discussion, I provided a reference showing that the Cid commissioned 191 last year, TAMU had "more that 180", seems to suggest we had the most. VMI was a distant third with 122; TAMU and Cid run close for being the most so obviously we are indeed either first or second each year, case closed. As for the claims on the VMI page, they state they are the only student body in the country to have fought in battle and received a battle streamer, this is UNTRUE and I have provided references. These claims are a long standing myth so they try to shoot the messenger when they dont like the message. Some of your comrades have deleted my edits because they didnt think it was "neutral" or "unbiased", making false claims falls in the same boat. I politely request that the claims made in the article on VMI and the Battle of New Market be removed for inaccuracy, and thats all I got to say about that!Bob80q (talk) 13:28, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is an article on WP. The goal of such an article is "contain a readable summary of everything within the scope, given due weight, based on what reliable sources say". Its goal is not to be a PR arm of an organization. While I want the TAMU article to be a positive influence on the worldwide perception of Texas A&M, I try to make my edits in line with WP:RS, WP:COI and other guidelines/policies. This was a friendly bit of advice from someone who has been there. There is a vast difference between wanting a quality article and wanting one that boosts your school. As for VMI's claim, I've already sided with you on most occasions, but VMI is also right to point out that "The Citadel" didn't do these things: it's predecessor(s) did. I'm not saying either side is correct (though VMI seems to be splitting hairs), but realize your goals don't line up with that of WP. If you persist in edits that run counter to our guidelines, you will be blocked. I would consider that a heavy loss to WP because you have a lot to offer. Don't be so combative and realize there are other views out there. Realize your personal PR goals and that of WP are not in alignment right now and until you acquiesce to WP, you're gonna face problems. Buffs (talk) 04:50, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bob, I left a note on The Citadel article talk page explaining my reasoning for edits to the info on the US News rankings. I personally think the way US News does their rankings is ridiculous. But, I've tried to convey as clearly as possible what their rankings say and what they don't say. Let me know what you think. Ocalafla (talk) 03:57, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:COI, WP:OWN and WP:NPOV. You saying things like "as we are the ones who wrote the article and are trying to tailor the article to be the best PR tool for the school we should be allowed to exercise our judgement on the best way to write it." as well as comments like "well of course I want to maintain an article that is a good PR piece for The Citadel" clearly demonstrates you have a bias. It is fine to have a bias by itself, but it isn't fine to let that bias come through when editing and discussing topics. I understand that you are new here, but there are well established methods for discussing and editing potentially contentious content. It takes a while to learn all of them, and I suggest you assume good faith of others while you learn them. I also suggest you never, ever again call anyone a Nazi, like you did on the talk page for the Citadel [1], as that will get you blocked for personal attacks and incivility. Dennis Brown (talk) 02:43, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

well yes of course I am biased, I'm a graduate and love my school so thats the only reason I am working to improve the article. You really cant be naive enough to think that other college articles on wiki arent being written by alums or PA officers who want to use it as a PR tool; total neutrality would eliminate anything remotely positive like rankings, merit scholars, etc. Everything I have done to the article is relevant and referenced. As for my reference, not in the best taste but dont shoot the messenger because of the message; some of the editors are obviously biased and heavy handed. Work with me dont bully me!!!!Bob80q (talk) 03:07, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bob80q,WP:COI, WP:OWN and WP:NPOV are the rules of Wikipedia. It would be naive of us to claim that they are complied with 100%, but they are the goals towards which all Wikipedia users should strive. Nothing wrong with loving one's school, particularly when it is The Citadel, which is IMHO an outstanding institution. But, as you have stated, you were appointed by your alumni association to work on The Citadel article and thus may have a conflict of interest WP:COI. Given this apparent conflict of interest, if you are going to continue to make edits to The Citadel article it really is important to strive hard to follow the rules. Another one of these rules does require civility. In addition to the Nazi reference, your edit comments on your The Citadel article edit of 17:02, 12 April 2012‎ also seem to violate the civility rule. Ocalafla (talk) 11:13, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ocalafla is correct. What you are claiming is bullying was actually me doing you a favor and explaining what you were doing wrong, rather than seeking formal action against you. I cut you some slack since you are new, but others may not. Dennis Brown (talk) 11:17, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bob80q, I've made a few edits to The Citadel page and noted my reasons on the talk page. Mostly to do with appropriate sourcing. I also chimed in on the talk page on the "No lock" issue. Ocalafla (talk) 20:39, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you have a look at the examples of other battles and their articles (here) and see if you can improve your submission about the Battle of Tulifinny it a bit. Callanecc (talk) 03:39, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

rather than making me read between the lines I need some specific guidance on how it needs to be improved.Bob80q (talk) 15:35, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I've accepted the submission, moved it into main space and done a little work on it. I've also added some maintanence tags to it to give you some guidiance as to what to do. Feel free to leave me a message of my talk page if you want any help. Callanecc (talk) 02:35, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for your assistance, I welcome any input on how to improve it or ensure it meets guidelines. I have been writing articles since high school but dont claim to be the greatest author around. I have some good photos to add as well, can you give some tips on how to attach them?Bob80q (talk) 17:15, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.

Battle of Tulifinny, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you are more than welcome to continue submitting work to Articles for Creation.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Callanecc (talk) 02:13, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bob80q, You appear to have violated Wikipedia's three revert rule WP:3RR on the The Citadel, The Military College of South Carolina‎ article:

1. Your edit at 22:26 EST, August 14, 2012
2. Your edit at 13:30 EST, August 15, 2012
3. Your edit at 14:01 EST, August 15, 2012

The rule states: "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing other editors—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of the rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours."

I am not planning to report this violation because you might have been unaware of the rule. But, please be mindful going forward. Ocalafla (talk) 19:49, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bob, you are continuing to make edits in contravention with WP policy. As such, I've reverted your last change to the Citadel. You seem to genuinely want to help WP improve its subject material. I'd really hate to have you blocked for such a simple thing. Please take the time to review WP:RS. If you continue to deceptively place things into the Citadel article by falsely claiming there is a source when there isn't, you will be eventually blocked. If you do so in an edit war, it will lead to swift blocks. Just find a source and re-add it. Buffs (talk) 02:00, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, your edits under an IP (possibly to avoid WP:3RR) are highly frowned upon and count towards WP:3RR. This is your warning regarding edit warring as well. Buffs (talk) 02:04, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bob80q, Buffs has correctly pointed out to me that the 3RR actually is "more than" 3 reverts. I apologize for my error.. Ocalafla (talk) 11:38, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I've closed the case you've filed regarding alleged conflict of interest of Ocala (talk · contribs). Dispute resolution noticeboard was designed to handle content disputes, while the problem of COI editing is a behavior issue that is out of DRN's scope. Feel free to contact Conflict of interest/Noticeboard, which is specifically design to handle issues of this kind. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:53, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Talk:Virginia Military Institute. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:13, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

this is really old news and such outrageous, insulting and offensive comments have no place on wikipedia. Suggest you not stick up for such gutless, snide pricks; just wondering if the anonymous little bastard got any warning about his inappropriate remarks.Bob80q (talk) 20:08, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of alumni of The Citadel, The Military College of South Carolina, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page One Eyed Jacks (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) 11:28, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Talk:Lockheed C-5 Galaxy. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Per WP:TPO it is not necessary to bring talk page comments by others to publishing standards. Assigning lvl2 as you have been advised against doing this before. ((((( ((( (In Stereo) ))) ))))) (talk) 20:56, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

afraid someone is confused, I did not remove any comments from that page just added one explaining why I had made a change in the main articleBob80q (talk) 00:46, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You modified an IP user's post here before your later posts there. That looked like you posted the original message without logging in (as the IP user) though. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:32, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, unintentional. I added a new talk subsection with my comments23.24.109.165 (talk) 17:36, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I noticed that you made a change to an article, Lockheed C-5 Galaxy, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you have any questions, you can leave me a message here. Thank you. The text in the article being ref'd lists the crew appointment as it was originally. If you can find another reputable source that reflects the appointment you claim then please ref it in the article. Unless that is done your change is in contrast with the listed ref and isn't allowed per WP:CITE or WP:MOS. ((((( ((( (In Stereo) ))) ))))) (talk) 05:55, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done!Bob80q (talk) 15:29, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Battle of Tulifinny, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Citadel (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) 10:49, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Bell Boeing V-22 Osprey, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal did not appear constructive and was reverted. Do not remove cited operating units without a clear explanation and supporting source. Thank you. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:23, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are a little slow on the draw pilgrim, I added 2 units that were omitted and provided references. Its a list of SQUADRONS so I changed the 352d SOG to 7th SOS because that is the specific unit that flies the aircraft, the reference does verify this information.

You provided another wiki page as a source, which are not reliable since they are user editable. It would have been clear if you had stated something like that in your edit summaries. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:02, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited John Thomas Kennedy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Citadel (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) 08:48, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited United States service academies, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Citadel (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) 08:52, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Douglas C-124 Globemaster II, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jackson. 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) 10:02, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Bigred.jpeg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Nick⁠—⁠^Contact/_Contribs 03:07, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Charles C. Tew, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Citadel. 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) 11:19, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Bigred.jpeg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 22:05, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bob,

I'm not posting anything malicious or negative, and you know me personally even if its just in passing. I'm trying to make this article as accurate and complete as possible, just as you are. I'm trying to tackle some of the issues with the page one at a time, starting with the endowment number. US News cites $244 million as the endowment, using the same methodology they use for other schools. When I go to the Citadel Foundation's website and pull their 2014 Annual Report, it shows an endowment of $187 million (see here or here under Net Assets) which seems in line with my expectations since the last I knew The Citadel Trust had about $55 million in additional assets. You have yet to produce a single source that documents $278 million, especially one that would allow comparisons between schools easily like US News. Until you are able to do so, I will continue restoring the US News number. Once we agree on an endowment figure, we can tackle the enrollment numbers since those will be tougher. Billcasey905 (talk) 19:05, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bill I wasnt referring to you or any othe editor; if you look at the edit history you can see that some unknown person has been changing the page about every 3-4 days and they seem to just make up numbers; I requested write protection but was told "it has to be a daily problem". I actually know who is doing it, some dipshit VMI grad who seems to hate The Citadel, goes by the moniker NAS on another website I frequent; he has frequently posted insulting and snarkey comments on my talk page and that of The Citadel.

I was on campus for homecoming and attended a briefing, the endownment figure is straight from the mouth of The Citadel Foundation CEO, I wasnt just making up a figure. Will try to find an online reference. The enrollment figures I keep changing to are from The Citadels website, I can provide references. Bob80q (talk) 23:29, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. When we get into these things, the best way to put them to rest is to provide a specific citation to an independent source. Someone removing independently verified data is much more likely to be reverted automatically, sometimes even by an automated bot, which will save us all a lot of work. If the information or number isn't cited, we have a much harder time defending it. Billcasey905 (talk) 19:07, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bill I will be happy to work with you on this and I appreciate your helpful and respectful approach. Unfortunately I have had several bad experiences with wiki editors who were snide, bossy and dictatorial about things; some folks tend to let a little power go to their head.Bob80q (talk) 13:36, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:50, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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) 14:16, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Aeromedical Evacuation

added links pointing to Jackson, Washington, Martinsburg, New Castle and Georgia

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:37, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are clearly edit warring on Boeing VC-25 and Boeing E-4 articles, once your change has been challenged you need to raise at on the related talk page and gain a consensus rather than continue to change the article. If you continue you may be blocked for disruptive editing, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 17:48, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think its more a matter that BillCat is being obnoxious and reverts just about every change people make to articles he has authority over, he needs to stop being such a jerk.Bob80q (talk) 20:19, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You need to stop, now, with the pejorative language toward other editors; as the WP:NPA policy says, "Comment on content, not on the contributor". Corky mentioned this to me, and I was going to just give you a quick reminder of WP:NPA, but while looking for a good place to put that reminder, I noticed two similar situations here on this page. There's no good reason to call other editors "gutless, snide pricks" or to say that someone "needs to stop being such a jerk", and unless you have proof of the editor's illegitimacy, calling another editor a bastard is a violation of, among other things, the WP:BLP policy, and outright defamatory.

I've written out a full message because you've been here a while, but you need to take this as a {{uw-npa3}}. Nyttend (talk) 04:03, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Read more carefully, most of the comments above were not directed at editors but at a certain anonymous poster who has repeatedly left insulting messages on my talk page and that of The Citadel. And editors would be wise to give explanation when they make changes as well as to also not insult people by stating that military rank is not important or that 'no one but Citadel graduates care about rank'. Been through a lot of heavy handed snarky editors, the civility cuts both ways.Bob80q (talk) 11:34, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Boeing C-17 Globemaster III

added links pointing to Jackson, Washington, Martinsburg and AFB

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:28, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Talk:The Citadel, The Military College of South Carolina, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 20:03, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Talk:The Citadel, The Military College of South Carolina, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Next time you will be reported. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 16:32, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do not add personal information about other contributors to Wikipedia, as you did at WP:Help desk. Wikipedia operates on the principle that every contributor has the right to remain completely anonymous. Posting personal information about a user is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's harassment policy. Wikipedia policy on this issue is strictly enforced and your edits have been reverted and/or suppressed, not least because such information can appear on web searches. Wikipedia's privacy policy is to protect the privacy of every user, including you. Persistently adding personal information about other contributors may result in you being blocked from editing. Please do not reveal personal details of editors. Please read WP:Outing. Lourdes 12:21, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Lourdes 12:28, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bob80q. 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]

Hello, Bob80q. 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]

Please start participating on the talk page or you may be blocked for edit warring. Also, using edit summaries would be helpful. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:21, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neil there is no point using the talk page, already tried that and note too from previous posts that even editor BillCasey could not get him to cooperate; Strgzr1 is not going to stop his vandalism and his mind is closed because he has been waging a war against The Citadel on several internet pages. I am not edit warring, I am reverting his vandalism and that's exactly what it is since he is making changes that he knows are misleading, inaccurate or just plain demeaning. Based on his editing and history of antagonistic actions and comments as well as being a VMI grad its a clear conflict of interest for him to have anything to do with the article, ban him and I guarantee this problem will stop. Bob80q (talk) 16:31, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have a clear conflict of interest here as well. Please clearly explain how the material you removed here is vandalism. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:48, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, my interest is in protecting the article from somebody with a vendetta who wants to make changes that suit his own warped agenda. Its vandalism when comments or changes are made that are false, misleading or demeaning as well as totally unnecessary; to wit: comment on the school motto – “strikingly similar to West Point”, under overview – ‘robust and growing civilian program” which he finally changed to “rapidly expanding civilian programs”, not true and in keeping with his long standing hangup about the fact that The Citadel has a grad school and some civilian undergrads, also no doubt due to the fact that The Citadel keeps beating VMI in football partly because we have fifth year seniors who have graduated and can use remaining eligibility by becoming grad students. Under Corps of Cadets – ‘cadets who complete 4 years may choose to live off campus”, FALSE. Under overview – “commissioned 16% of its graduates”, irrelevant what the percentage is, just reporting the raw number (151) and also misleading since it includes civilian grads who don’t take ROTC and aren’t eligible for commissioning; but again all part of his agenda of saying anything remotely negative and implying that “it isn’t a real military college”. And now he apparently has had himself made an editor, clearly for the express purpose of being able to revert any changes I make to his false narrative. I notice he has not given an explanation for his reversion because he knows I know why, I would also bet he hasn’t done an edit summary explaining the changes and comments he makes. I know exactly who this person is and what his sick game is, for years he has been making false and insulting comments about The Citadel on another board (United States of America Service Academy Forums) for which he has been banned several times; he has also made frequent insulting comments on other wiki articles. Look at some of the old comments on the talk page, any attempt to reason with him is typically met with snide comments and putdowns, his comments and tone are unmistakeable, at least twice his comments on the talk page were verbatim from post on the USASAF page. He needs to be cut off at the knees, PLEASE do not allow him to continue this charade and play into his sick game. If he feels the article is in need of enhancement or correction let some unbiased 3d party editor decide what is appropriate, I helped write the article and have been maintaining and updating it for years, nobody had a problem with its content until he came along. (Redacted) Bob80q (talk) 03:17, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I came this close to blocking you for a good long while for that last sentence. Write anything like that again on Wikipedia and you will be. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:23, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

this is a private page not viewed by the public. Sorry if you did not like my choice of words but I am not PC; if you are so easily offended perhaps I should ask for another editor to step in.Bob80q (talk) 13:47, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this page is viewable by anyone. And I gave you that warning as an administrator, not an editor. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:27, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neil, thanks for your efforts on this. Although it might be a lost cause with Bob involved, I will continue to try and work with others to make this article factual and unbiased. Bob has managed to attack and alienate virtually anyone who disagrees with him on this board and his ravings about VMI are ridiculous and honestly, pathetic. Sounds like he's got some VMI envy issues... I don't have a care about either school honestly, but know a great deal about both and understand they are very different. Looking back at the history, Bob has often utilized the tactics of bullying and ranting in order to perpetuate false info. Truth: the civilian programs at the Citadel are robust and rapidly growing. I will continue to work consultatively with others such as Billcasey, etc. on this article, but will revert Bob's targeted vandalism and repeated deletion of cited, truthful, referenced facts about the missions of the Citadel. Best Regards and thanks again for your help on this, Neil!Strgzr1 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:20, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:58, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you're not going to engage in civil discussion, expect your next block to be much longer. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:00, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is BS, and how am I not "engaging in civil discussion"?. These are not disruptive edits, they are reversions of others disruptive, misleading and false edits; of which many strgzr has admitted to. Read his comments, his snide tone comes through pretty clear and his comments are clearly biased and not backed up with fact, "civilian programs are clearly robust and growing", according to who?, where is the reference to prove this? Why is he so insistent on changing the article to suit his own opinions? **Not only not backed up with fact it violates the rules on neutral tone and exaggeration**. I know who this person is and he has a long history of trying to badmouth The Citadel, I will not engage in any discussion that involves him and based on the long history of dissension he has created he needs to recuse himself from any involvement with the article, if he thinks something is inappropriate or inaccurate let an unbiased third party decide. You clearly have taken his side and apparently are not able to be unbiased about this either. I will appeal the block and request that both of you be removed from any further involvement with the article, clearly others need to step in and look at the situation in a fair and impartial manner.Bob80q (talk) 22:36, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your last comments here included a disgraceful, uncivil comparison and after that it's been radio silence on the talk page. Talk:The_Citadel,_The_Military_College_of_South_Carolina#Recent_edits_2 --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:35, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My comments may not be PC but they are accurate, and I know from experience there is no point in discussing anything with stargzr because he will continue his vandalism; again read the comments he makes, he tries to justify his edits with false information such as "some civilian students are taking ROTC", this is FALSE and he knows it. And this is not about my comments its about a string of inaccurate and unreferenced edits by strgzr which you choose to ignore, he has already claimed that the namesake of the Business SChool is a "graduate of the night school" but this is incorrect as he was a veteran day student and this can be verified on the school website. He repeatedly violates rules on verification and neutral tone but now you give him the benefit of the doubt because he is got himself appointed an editor, funny how you aren't concerned that he calls me "pathetic" and claims I have "ravings about VMI' and accuses me of bullying and vandalism. Please don't play into his sick game as others have, I know this person all to well since he has made a sport of attacking The Citadel on the United States of America Service Academy Forums for years. Kindly enforce the rules fairly or ask another administrator to review the situation. It took all of 2 minutes to deny my request to unblock, not what I would call a fair process.Bob80q (talk) 01:36, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Bob80q (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

not disruptive edits, they are reversions of disruptive edits made by editor strgzr1 who has a clear bias as a VMI grad and has not provided references for his changes, his comments clearly show a lack of partiality. Strgzr1 has apparently had himself made an editor for express purpose of changing my reversions and has convinced administrator than I not him am the badguy. Editor BillCasey can confirm many inappropriate changes made to the article, this person has long made a game out of bashing The Citadel on Wikipedia and other websites, if he is causing such dissension and making so many unreferenced changes he is the one who needs to be blocked from any further involvement with the article.

Decline reason:

See WP:NOTTHEM. This isn't about Strgzr1, it's about your own conduct. Huon (talk) 22:59, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

===obviously didn't put much thought into the situation if you came to such a quick decision, request that editorial board or others review the decision. How is it not about strgzrs conduct when I am reverting his false and unreferenced changes? I mean you really cant be serious. He claims he ha "no care about either school" so then why is he so intent on changing the article for his own purposes? So its ok for him to attack me and claim I am "raving" and call me "pathetic"????? So its OK for him to make changes that violate policy? Why? Look at the edit history and note all the changes he has made and the snide comments he slips in like under school motto stating "conspicuously similar to West Points" Editor Corkeythehornetfan claims strgzr is willing to discuss but I am not, if that's the case why does he routinely change the article without providing reference or edit summary and without contacting me to state why he is making edits. Strgzr only wants to discuss what he wants and cleverly diverts attention from himself by claiming he has no interest in the school and when called out starts making accusations like those noted above. If you cant see a problem with his actions and are apparently enforcing rules inconsistently that's clearly questionable judgement.Bob80q (talk) 23:24, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally I note that strgzr has quickly reinserted some inaccurate and unreferenced info, he states that the school commissioned 16% of its graduates but he includes civilians and graduate students who do not take ROTC and are ineligible for commissioning. He also states that Mr.Baker, the namesake of the Business School is "a graduate of the night school", this is false as he was a veteran student who attended when there was no night undergraduate program. Of course all consistent with his long history of misleading, false and derogatory edits which are not referenced or backed up with fact. Why do you think I asked for and was granted write protection for the article, its because of stuff like this. But obviously the editors and administrators have taken sides and aren't interested in fairness or accuracy, its very unfortunate this guy has conned all of you.Bob80q (talk) 23:49, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Again, see WP:NOTTHEM and realize your block won't be lifted early unless you address your own conduct, especially as you continue to defend your comparison of an editor and a pedophile as "accurate". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:41, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Bob80q (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

UTRS appeal #17706 was submitted on Mar 08, 2017 02:27:56. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 02:27, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Did nothing of the kind, I was using an analogy to strongly protest the inappropriateness of having a VMI grad editing and article on The Citadel, should have used a more PC comparison like "fox guarding the henhouse". Kindly do not twist my words as it apparently shows a bias.Bob80q (talk) 16:24, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bob, do you have or do you know where we can find the enrollment numbers for the Citadel online distance-degree programs? Perhaps a point of contact there like Lawrence Hutto or someone in admissions... Might be good information to source in the article.Strgzr1 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:21, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I started a discussion here. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 21:20, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do believe we already have a discussion going on your talkpage but based on your comments and lack of justification it would appear to be a waste of time.Bob80q (talk) 22:31, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An anonymous editor who I believe might have been you, said he was trying to make this list a good PR tool for The CItadel. We call that promotional editing, and it will get an editor blocked. This list should be a simple listing of the notable persons as Wikipedia defines notability who attended The Citadel, whether they graduated or not. Nobody who is not notable enough to have an article about them goes on the list; nobody who is notable, and who attended the school, should be excluded because you don't approve of them or what they did. My alma mater's list includes a Prime Minister, a President who was thrown out of office, and a leader of the American Nazi Party; all three belong there because they are notable, not because I approve or disapprove of them. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:51, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

==Please look closer at the guidelines, a person requires SIGNIFICANT coverage over a LENGTH OF TIME. Also you are too late as the editors of the conflict page have sided with me on this one.Bob80q (talk) 01:04, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you have finally learned teh difference between alumnus and alumni. Now learn to indent. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 14:31, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Bob, before you cast dispersions, slander someone, or make threats, please take a look at your very long discussion page. It is obvious that you have many previous "issues" with others here. In fact, looking at other member's user pages, it is clear that you've got a history of threats and uncivil behavior. Administrators and others don't have to look far to see your trends of harassment and abusive behavior... Your most recent false claims, threats, and slander on my talk page has been recorded and printed (prior to deletion) and I'm officially requesting you cease and desist. Your claims are 100% false. Others have had the same problems with you... Also request you not place anymore false claims/false info on other members user pages. You have been repeatedly warned for attacking others on wiki, etc., and I once again request you cease and desist.Strgzr1 (talk) 15:36, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

yeah we have heard this all before, you conveniently ignore your own inappropriate conduct and vandalism by just pointing fingers at everybody else. I request you cease and desist with your campaign of disinformation, its a clear conflict of interest for you to be editing the page of someone elses collegeBob80q (talk) 14:11, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Curb Safe Charmer was:

Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at Glenn M. Walters instead.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:General Glenn M. Walters and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 16:47, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Bob80q, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 16:47, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove a {{citation needed}} template – as you did in this edit – unless you add a reliable secondary source. This means the source does not come from The Citadel's website. Thanks, Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 18:22, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Seraphim System was:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

This article needs more sources to establish notability

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:George Bray McMillan and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Seraphim System ^(talk) 11:40, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Gbawden was:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of people and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Fails WP:NSOLDIER and WP:NOTMEMORIAL

He would be notable as an air ace if he had 5 kills.

you have to have 5 kills to even be designated an "ace", McMillan had 8.5; its hard to understand how a member of the Flying Tigers, a combat ace and a fighter squadron commander isn't considered 'notable' when several other AVG pilots have wiki articles including at least 2 who weren't aces and had no other significant achievements - Charles Bond, Robert T. Smith, Bert Christman, Ken Jernstadt, Robert Little, Robert Neale and John Newkirk. I provided 5 references from 5 different sources verifying this person accomplishments; the Flying Tigers Association and a college alumni association are not 'reliable' references???Bob80q (talk) 21:08, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not resubmit

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:George Bray McMillan and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Gbawden (talk) 13:23, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please see here. Thank you. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 17:10, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Byron Walker, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 02:59, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits to Military Classic of the South while logged out. Making edits while logged out reveals your IP address, which may allow others to determine your location and identity. Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow the use of both an account and an IP address by the same person in the same setting. If this was not your intention, please remember to log in when editing. Thank you. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 19:37, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Kenneth F. McKenzie, Jr.. Thanks! Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  09:00, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Dodger67 was:

The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes. For instructions on how to do this, please see Referencing for beginners. Thank you.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Kenneth F. McKenzie, Jr. and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:54, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:General Glenn M. Walters, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:33, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. What is the relationship between you and User:Ruffnready? --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 14:37, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:George Bray McMillan, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:36, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by ProgrammingGeek was:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage (not just mere mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of people, the golden rule and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners and Help:Introduction to referencing/1), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Kenneth F. McKenzie, Jr. and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

ProgrammingGeek ^talktome 15:28, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bob80q. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "General Glenn M. Walters".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. TKK! bark with me! 15:49, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bob80q. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "George Bray McMillan".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. JMHamo (talk) 12:19, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Kenneth F. McKenzie, Jr., a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:34, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bob80q. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Kenneth F. McKenzie".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. HasteurBot (talk) 02:02, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth F. McKenzie, Jr., which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

DGG ( talk ) 04:03, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Bob80q (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

UTRS appeal #22207 was submitted on Jul 29, 2018 14:17:49. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 14:17, 29 July 2018 (UTC) [reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Bob80q (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

UTRS appeal #24147 was submitted on Mar 02, 2019 17:35:50. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 17:35, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• To any admin checking the UTRS ticket, please note that this user has continued to be active on Wikipedia using IP addresses, primarily at Special:Contributions/2601:149:8100:B951:9963:681A:552A:73A3, among others. I haven't filed a sock report recently, but may soon in light of the AN3 report the IP filed against me today. The UTRS ticket unblock request followed soon after the request was denied as no violation for reverting apparent socks. - BilCat (talk) 19:30, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:jpgordon might also have some input on this user. - BilCat (talk) 20:54, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

wondering why bilcat takes it upon himself to revert properly formatted and referenced unit listings, there is no stated format specifying only squadrons; there are numerous aircraft articles on wiki that include parent units and home bases. Yet another example of how some editors misuse their power.Bob80q (talk) 14:45, 16 April 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:149:8100:B951:9963:681A:552A:73A3 (talk) [reply]

Bob, before you were blocked, we had a content dispute. But once you were blocked, you are no longer allowed to edit, even from IPs. That's why you're being reverted now, even on biography pages, which have nothing to do with our content dispute. As it stands right now, you'll probably never be allowed back, but with a year or two of absolutely no socking (IP editing included), perhaps you will. Then we can discuss the formatting issue man-to-man, and try to work out a solution. Until then, you have no say in the issue. You would do well to find another venue for your hobby. Wikia has many aircraft related projects, and you're not blocked there, as far as I know. You can even start your own project there if you want. - BilCat (talk) 21:33, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request unblock of account Bob80q. Original block was excessive and unwarranted; it resulted from edit warring over another poster, Stargzr who was carrying on a campaign of vandalism and disinformation on the page The Citadel, The Military College of South Carolina; while I understand and admit to the edit warring it appeared I had no choice to fight this inappropriate activity since editors and administrators did see what was going on and failed to stop the problem for some time, he was finally permanently blocked for inappropriate posts and reversions. As you do not have to be logged in I have been writing and editing articles without incident from my IP address 2601:149:8100:B951:9963:681A:552A:73A3 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:149:8100:B951:9963:681A:552A:73A3 (talk) 14:08, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For your appeal to be considered you need to use the appeal template that can be found at WP:GAB. Just Chilling (talk) 14:27, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The request to be unblocked needs to come from your account while logged in. Further, I note that your indefinite block is for abuse of multiple accounts—something you just admitted that you are still doing. As a rule, people only get unblocked when they admit they were violating policy but both cease violating it and pledge not to violate it in the future. A user who makes a statement like yours above—admitting they were edit warring but excusing it because they were "right" and admitting to ongoing block evasion—will not get their sanctions lifted. Further, the IP you have been using is now blocked for one month.

Be also advised that there is now an interpretation of the blocking policy that when a user has three sockpuppet accounts or IPs blocked for block evasion, they are de facto community banned. —C.Fred (talk) 14:29, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bob80q/Archive, he already has 2 blocked registered usernames, User:Ruffnready and User:Pignetti, and has had several IPs blocked before this. - BilCat (talk) 21:39, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]