how yo doin', cobra? remember me? heh. 89.32.1.82 19:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Hello, how are you doing? -- OuroborosCobra 19:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC) reply

As you have recently contributed to the blink-182 article you might be interested in casting your vote towards reaching a final consensus on the bands genre, Pop Punk or Punk Rock, votes can be cast here. cheers mate -- Dan027 06:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Hey Cobra, sorry I missed your message on #wookieepedia...yep, I'm the same person here and there! Cheers :) -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 18:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi, I made a user box that turns out to already exist. Could you please delete User:OuroborosCobra/UserboxAFauxo3 for me? -- OuroborosCobra 00:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Now done. Ian Cairns 08:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi. I noticed your signature is one of those normal signatures. Do you want a 2 colored signature instead? I can make one for you. RuneWiki ⁷⁷⁷ 15:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the reversion. ;) - Enzo Aquarius 01:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC) reply

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Lee Arenberg Wilhelmina of the Netherlands Frank Church The Basketball Diaries (film) Alyssa Ogawa USS Lexington (Star Trek) Ian Petrella MQV Lingerie USS Yorktown (CV-5) Red Service Meet the Barkers Dr. Selar Lily Sloane Rizgar Mohammed Amin Munich Agreement Hollywood Palladium William Jackson (Victoria Cross) Oak Ridge National Laboratory

Cleanup RAID D. C. Fontana Dan Schneider (TV producer) Merge Geosynchronous satellite T'plana-hath Semi-trailer Add Sources Walt Disney Pictures I.K.S. Gorkon Leila Khaled Wikify Jesus Singson List of alumni of Jesuit educational institutions Iraqi Police Expand Gaston Glock Space pirate Janice Dickinson

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 05:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Hello, and I both thank you and apologize. The experiment was to see how long it would take for somebody to come along and correct an error, you have proven me right when I (and many others) have said that Wikipedia (and other wiki's) can be and are reliable sources of information. Thank you again.

-CyberPrime Http://www.thecompgeek.info/geekipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by CyberPrime ( talk • contribs) 05:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC) reply

OC, There was a particular reason for having the GREEN click to enlarge on the JPG... because a casual reader with a "casual" glance at the drawing would not notice that the first model was straight wing... not swepted back, and had 6 engines. It wasn't till after I became an editor that I noticed that clicking on a pic would enlarge it. Out of the hundreds of articles I've edited and few dozen I've created, there was on 2 occasions that a ref to the casual reader to "click to enlarge" was benificial. Please revert your edit. A dozen other aviation editors have read and seen my style and have not complained nor deleted my "click to enlarge"...on either article... if it doesn't both any or all of them , it shouldn't bother you. Thank you for understanding. Lance... LanceBarber 06:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC) reply

I don't understand the problem. Looking at the thumbnail without clicking, I see the straight wing and six engines just fine. All pictures on this site are in that thumbnail format, and none of them have "click to enlarge", so I don't see the reason to have it here. -- OuroborosCobra 07:18, 23 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Hey, I've had Golbez sort everything out. Its back at Civil Air Patrol. This was a mess and a half. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 10:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Okay, since you're a member a CAP, maybe you can help me understand CAP by answering a couple of questions. :-)

1. is CAP a reserve component of the U.S. Air Force?
2. if so, do you hold a commissioned rank and have the same pay and grade as other uniformed services?
3. if not, does the Air Force have and other venture with CAP other than via ROTC education and do you receive funding from the Air Force?
4. Lastly why is it that CAP has U.S. Air Force Auxiliary on it's coat-of-arms if it's not part of CAP's official title?

Neovu79 ( talk) 00:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC) reply

As for the first question, no, we are not a reserve component of the Air Force, we are strictly civilian and voluntary, and receive no pay.

Second question, we don't receive pay at all, and do not technically receive a commission.

Third, yes we receive funding from the Air Force. I'm not sure what you mean by your ROTC question. Are you asking whether we receive our commissions based on ROTC education? If so, no we do not. ROTC has no place in CAP with exception for aid that some of our pilots give to ROTC students by providing training flights for them. There is no ROTC requirement to be a CAP officer.

Fourth, probably for the same reason that the USMC title isn't "Department of the Navy United States Marine Corps", despite their seal. -- OuroborosCobra ( talk) 00:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC) reply

• OuroborosCobra, I would like to invite you to come on a fun trip with me as I write, hopefully together with a few "friend Wikipedians", some future (?) WikiEssays. All in good fun, and I think it'd be a great outlet for some of the recent nervous energy and excessive typing some of us have done on recent debates. I have some formatting laid out and invite you to Be Very Bold in contributing to the articles if you feel so led. It's all meant to be in the spirit of good fun and collaboration, kinda like a mini-WikiProject or something. Check the "proposed" essay topics out here. You can also add your name to the "contributors" or even "planned contributors" (if you can't add now but plan to soon/eventually) list at the essay talk page. You'll see it's all laid out pretty simply. Yes, drop-down... just like an Advent Calendar... I know... I Hope to See You There!!! VigilancePrime ( talk) 05:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC) :-) reply

Civil Air Patrol has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.

I'm new to Wikipedia, so if I was wrong to write what I am telling you here, I apologize. This is the only way I figured out how to respond to what you told me. On the stuff about about Saddam, I am not trying to be a vandal. I am erasing some egregious untruth. The rules here say that a source has to have a neutral point of view and a reputation for accuracy. I submit that the New York Times, the main citation for the section in question, HAS NEITHER. The NYT is frequently shown to have shoddy journalism from the days of Walter Duranty down to Jayson Blair and the recent flap with McCain.

And saying that Saddam Hussein was some kind of bulwark against Communism is ludicrous, the man was a Soviet client. All of Iraq's weaponry was SOVIET, excepting some planes from France. Soviet advisors were present in Iraq from the '60s until the Fall of the Wall.

The "sources" are making their stuff up out of whole cloth. That's a fact and the material must be deleted if this is to be a site of accuracy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CatoUticensis ( talk • contribs) 21:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC) reply

That's just it, Iraq was NEVER a US ally. Between 1973 and 2003 the US and Iraq did not even have diplomatic relations, excepting between 1984 and 1988. Yes, we gave some aid to Iraq in that time in order to prevent the Ayatollahs from taking over that country. It didn't make us bosom buddies. Remember, during this period of "alliance", Iraqi Mirage jets bombed the USS Stark in an "accident." I read a book by one of Reagan's Defense Department Analysts written early in 1987 BEFORE the Stark got hit and he pretty much predicted the First Gulf War.

Except for the Mirage jets, the Iraqi Military used entirely Soviet weaponry (I know, I studied it all when I was in the Army), it's Army trained in Soviet doctrine and was indeed a miniature Soviet Army. The Ba'ath Party was Socialistic and Pan-Arabist, totally Anti-American. The only thing we ever had in common with them was the crazy mullahs of Iran were high priority enemies for a brief time.

The Saddam-as-ally thing is a fiction by the political Left. He has NEVER been America's friend.

And I must disagree about NYT, I think they have many longstanding problems with the truth and they are certainly not neutral, as wikipedia's policy states they should be. Pinchy Sulzburger was asked if he saw an American soldier and a North Vietnamese soldier grappling for their lives, who would he want to win? He replied that it was the stupidest question he had ever been asked, of course he'd want the North Vietnamese soldier to win. A real dirtbag. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CatoUticensis ( talk • contribs) 07:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC) reply

That would be excellent. I'm about to go on Wikibreak, but that would definitely be welcome.

Also, I didn't know you were a Spaatzen. That's awesome. —   scetoaux ( T| C) 04:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the revert on my talk page. It is greatly appreciated. --- RepublicanJacobite _{The'FortyFive'} 18:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Cool name. :) Glass Cobra 20:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks. Cheers! --- RepublicanJacobite _{The'FortyFive'} 22:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC) reply

My comment was directed towards the other Cobra, but your name is nice as well, RJ. Apologies for the misunderstanding. Glass Cobra 22:32, 9 July 2008 (UTC) reply

I realize you've significantly reduced your editing, but did you manage to get any photographs of the L-Per? I can't really do any more work on that article (that I can think of) besides those photographs. They would really help.

If you didn't get them, then don't worry about it. I'll take care of it (eventually). Thanks, though, if you have. —   scetoaux ( T| C) 06:37, 23 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Good work on silencing that anti-socialist reactionary gorilla on the ACLU page. Wikipedia should have no tolerance for anti-democratic or anti-socialist bigots. However, I also believe a little more "progressive repression" is called for here--is it possible for this antisocialist slimeball's IP address to be blacklisted and banned? Thank God for the ACLU to uphold the rights of the victims of and fighters against Christianist tyranny.

Keep up the good work. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.76.20.136 ( talk) 03:48, 27 September 2008 (UTC) reply

In case you haven't noticed, I've also been silencing you and your vandalism. You are as much part of the problem, if not more so. At least the right wing IP posting is trying to do so within the established rules of Wikipedia, you are just plain a vandal and a discredit to your political belief system. Rare is it that I run into a "progressive" that actually wants to oppress the free and legal rights of anyone who disagrees with his political viewpoint. -- OuroborosCobra ( talk) 04:44, 27 September 2008 (UTC) reply

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Civil_Air_Patrol_Patches I thought you might enjoy this page. 68.187.89.72 ( talk) 18:14, 25 December 2008 (UTC) reply

• this anon, who I suspect might be a sock of user:Cadet Programs, has been given a 3RR warning. -- rogerd ( talk) 21:30, 25 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Wow--how did we come to this is such a short time? Stress of the season?? You know, we actually have a lot in common. You like Monty Python, Star Trek, Star Wars, and have served the Homeland as a Cadet and Senior Member of Civil Air Patrol. I love BritComs and Sci-Fi! I was never a Cadet but joined when I was 20...back in the 1980's....and YES, there is a silver star on my Cadet Programs Specialty Badge. As I have been in Specialty Track 215 for over twenty years it is NOT that amazing to reach that level. And, although I am not Jewish, my wife and children are. You were right about the CP pic on the CAP article...but then you continued to attack me on every front. True, I bit back---but---you definitely took it WAY more seriously than deserved. So, in the spirit of the Festival of Lights, I offer you an opportunity to take a step back, realize that YOU won the point about the pic, and move forward with less stress, aggression, and anger in your life. I can certainly tell you that stress is the invisible killer. Being right means nothing if you have a stroke. I will confine my pics to the Wikimedia Commons Gallery that I have created and encourage you to add some images soon. Surely, you must have picked up some activity patches during your time in CAP....let the World see them!! שָׁלוֹם עֲלֵיכֶם Cadet Programs ( talk) 17:25, 26 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Funny, this individual sounds really familiar. Take a look at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Braaad and the exchange at Talk:Civil_Air_Patrol/Mitchell_vs._Spaatz_vs._Eagle_Scout and tell me that what you think. McNeight ( talk) 14:11, 29 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Hey Cobra! The reason I am writing is to let you know that there will be no more United States edits from me!!
Thanks for the entertainment, buddy. I will now try to find something else to do. Have you any positive suggestions? B. Fairbairn  Talk  20:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC) reply

FYI, there's a discussion concerning you on the administrators' noticeboard - WP:AN#civility. Mr. Z-man 05:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply

A digusting comment has been placed on the Metrication in the United States talk page. Can you remove it?

There are two principal reasons why the United States of North America has been unable to change to a sensible measurement system that 200 / 203 countries use.

1. The financial cost of such a change would probably cripple a weakening economy.
2. The average American lacks the intellect necessary to be able to handle such a change.

ILuvAmerica ( talk) 11:06, 27 June 2009 (UTC) reply

What does this have to do with me? -- OuroborosCobra ( talk) 17:13, 27 June 2009 (UTC) reply

(S)he wrote the same thing at my talk page. Seems spammy. President Lethe ( talk) 19:40, 27 June 2009 (UTC) reply

This edit [1] is unduly combative and dismissive. If an editor's editing restrictions are finished, best to welcome them back and encourage them to edit productively. Telling them they are unfit to edit a page takes things in the opposite direction, and only encourages trouble. If there is anything wrong with Scjessey's announcement and Sceptre's silly reply it is WP:NOT#FORUM, i.e. we are not a social network and not here to chat. But assuming good faith, that is all he is doing, saying he is back and would like to return to editing. From experience on this page, it is better to politely remind people to stay on subject, and if necessary, collapse discussions when done with the "hat" template, than to delete them outright. Trust me, that keeps things a lot more cheerful. - Wikidemon ( talk) 22:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC) reply

It's okay. OuroborosCobra doesn't know me, and is probably unaware of my sense of humor. No offense taken. -- Scjessey ( talk) 23:00, 21 December 2009 (UTC) reply

never mind, then. - Wikidemon ( talk) 06:25, 22 December 2009 (UTC) (if you're under 40 you probably won't get that) reply

I am not being "snarky." As a parent, I have a genuine concern about how CAP will deal with cadets exposed to "alternative lifestyles" among senior members. Quit throwing false accusations around, and questioning other people's integrity and professionalism. ColDickPeters ( talk) 19:34, 10 March 2010 (UTC) reply

False accusations? You did not for a second express concern of cadet exposure. You used it as an opportunity to spread homophobic and anti-transexual/transgender jokes about clothing, nothing more! I will happily show you your old trolling if that will prove a point to you, like your comments about "wannabes," or calling CAP a "bunch of women" on the WASP talk page. What professionalism? What integrity? -- OuroborosCobra ( talk) 19:45, 10 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Wow, I must have struck a nerve. I can see now why you are in CAP. ColDickPeters ( talk) 19:47, 10 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Adding attacks based on trying ti insinuate things about my own sexual orientation will not help you either. -- OuroborosCobra ( talk) 20:26, 10 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Uncle Dick ( talk) 20:03, 10 March 2010 (UTC) reply

He needs ti stop removing warnings from his own talk page, especially while throwing in personal attacks while doing so. -- OuroborosCobra ( talk) 20:18, 10 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Reported. Uncle Dick ( talk) 20:27, 10 March 2010 (UTC) reply

You are allowed to remove warnings from you own talk page, and you're usually not allowed to restore warnings to someone else's talk page. If you understand this now, I don't have to block you.-- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 20:33, 10 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Your reason for reverting my revert was incorrect and had no basis in wikipedia policy. Looks to me like you are just overly sensitive about a contentious article. If you want the sockpuppet's edit to remain then I suggest you remove the duplication - I have no intention of getting involved further. Goodbye Oncenawhile ( talk) 23:48, 26 February 2011 (UTC) reply

You never made the claim that the edits were about a sockpuppet until after I reverted your vast blanking of article content, and then when you made the claim you needed to be prompted to back it up. If you have no intention of getting involved further (second time you've said that), then stop getting involved further. -- OuroborosCobra ( talk) 23:57, 26 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the feedback, OuroborosCobra. I struggled with how best to organize the awards. I realize that the cadet and senior awards are sort of different sides of the same coin, but they are almost more like totally different awards schemes. Rather than trying to fit them together, I've chosen to organize them in the way that the regulations organize them. It is seems to give precedence to senior awards and then lists the cadet program after. I haven't actually started on fixing up the cadet awards yet. As I have them, I've only gotten to the Garber award. I'm going through each one and revising/citing. Let me know if you think of anything else.-- dave-- 11:51, 7 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Yeah, I thought it was funny. I should express thanks for handling it affably. Cheers, thanks! -- Inetpuppy ( talk) 04:08, 11 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Hey OC, I'm hoping you can help me out. If you are unaware, it was determined a while ago that the CAP license for images on Commons (and here) is invalid as CAP is now a private incorporated entity, and they'll have to be deleted. However, especially for the seals and such, I'm having trouble figuring out when certain designs were released...it makes a huge difference because designs dating from January 1942 until June 1964 were created by the Institute of Heraldry and thus still PD. This means the corporate seal, amongst others, is not PD and will have to be transferred back here under fair use (note also that any text in articles that came from CAP sources is also not PD...oi). If you happen to have the book Civil Air Patrol Uniform Insignia Since 1941, I know it contains lots of information. Any help you can give me would be appreciated. — Huntster ( t @ c) 06:44, 22 July 2011 (UTC) reply

I'm going to restore the talk page comment you deleted here: [2]. There are few reasons for deleting talk page comments. See WP:TPG. Pretty much the only reasons are gross personal attacks or egregiously off-topic comments. The posting in question is neither.   Will Beback  talk  05:03, 8 October 2011 (UTC) reply

I'd argue that it is, and violates the "be polite" policy stated at the top of the talk page. There is nothing constructive either intended or achieved by Hcobb's talk page comment. His random slinging of slurs with no real aim or direction, such as "anchor baby" make that plainly clear. "Farmworker" for people working illegally? Hcobb isn't suggesting any actual change or constructive discussion, he's mudslinging, plain and simple. -- OuroborosCobra ( talk) 05:06, 8 October 2011 (UTC) reply

Did you read the guideline? It says that one of the reasons for editing comments is:

• Removing harmful posts, including personal attacks, trolling and vandalism. This generally does not extend to messages that are merely uncivil; deletions of simple invective are controversial. Posts that may be considered disruptive in various ways are another borderline case and are usually best left as-is or archived.' [emphasis added]

If you disagree with his views then simply post your own views in response.   Will Beback  talk  05:18, 8 October 2011 (UTC) reply

As I said, I feel his post amounts to being egregiously off topic, especially since it in no way attempts to make a constructive edit suggestion, and instead is just a platform for ethnic slurs. I have seen posts suggesting that Bush be classified as a "living monkey removed for just this reason. -- OuroborosCobra ( talk) 05:22, 8 October 2011 (UTC) reply

Nobody has been called a "living monkey" (which is a BLP violation) on that page. I don't see any slurs. " Anchor baby" is a term in use regarding immigration. While it is regarded as a pejorative, that doesn't mean we should delete any posting which uses the term. Discussing the scope of an article, which is the purpose of the thread, is very relevant.   Will Beback  talk  05:39, 8 October 2011 (UTC) reply

I didn't say "any" post. I said that his post makes no attempt at constructive suggestion, and is only being used as a platform for slurs. Call it "pejorative statements" if you want, but it doesn't make it any more constructive. Others have pointed out problems with his very topic title. -- OuroborosCobra ( talk) 05:43, 8 October 2011 (UTC) reply

Thanks for challenging Hcobb in the aviation articles. He has a poor understanding of WP policies re: what is relevant on WP, thinking it is a repository of news snippets and "he said" quotes. His sense of "humor" and tendency to editoriazle in text and edit summaries is also problematic. It gets tiring challenging him on my own, so it's good to see someone else taking him on. He can be a good editor when he tries to follow policy. Thanks again. - BilCat ( talk) 08:45, 1 November 2011 (UTC) reply

It looks likes he's not even trying to write neutrally anymore, per this commentary he added. - BilCat ( talk) 17:42, 22 November 2011 (UTC) reply

I reverted you on that edit Hcobb made to the F-22 Talk page. Not because I agree, but because Hcobb should be banned and stuff like that is clear evidence. That being said, I'm a little new on the forums. How do I initiate an admin request to ban him? Thanks, Lostromantic ( talk) 13:04, 16 January 2013 (UTC) reply

Hi, I notice that you closed my post on the Obama talk page because it's "canvassing" and "not relevant". While I do explain what the purpose of the template is, which does in retrospect sound like canvassing, the relevancy is that it affects that talk page. I put the template on the talk page specifically with the thought that that article was an important article for a stable version. My post was to explain what I did, and to give people the option to discuss it. I could see the argument that such a prominent page is not the place for a new template, as well as the argument that with the risk of vandalism, etc, it is a good candidate. I was trying to let people have the chance to decide. I won't reopen the discussion, but I thought I'd just explain my thinking on the matter. Cheers, Falconus ^{p t c} 23:12, 11 December 2011 (UTC) reply

The sources are public domain. Look at the DATE, some are over ONE HUNDRED YEARS OLD. thank you, and please do not revert and assume its automatically copyvio. Zidanne ( talk) 23:29, 19 December 2011 (UTC) reply

for example "Islam in China: a neglected problem" is in public domain. thats why google books allows you to download it in pdf and see the entire text, rather than a partial preview for the copyrighted books. It was published in 1910. Zidanne ( talk) 23:32, 19 December 2011 (UTC) reply

The account is a sock of a banned user. [3] -- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 14:26, 9 April 2012 (UTC) reply

I find it remarkable that you complain about what you view as my breaking certain policies. Yet you do not support me in cases where my opponents are breaking those policies. For example, in the re-revert you just did on the Obama article, you did not complain that the previous editor claimed that "sources don't support" my edits. Yet the sources do support my edits quite exactly. Meanwhile, as you must have noticed, I have done plenty of discussing on the talk page. Yet you are requesting that I discuss on the talk page. Well I did. That is trying my assumption of good faith. William Jockusch ( talk) 15:14, 13 May 2012 (UTC) reply

The thing is dead. There has been no news on it for years and no "death" article about it. In the talk it is shown that even the company is not around. The article needs to show it is in the past! ( America789 ( talk) 00:59, 18 May 2012 (UTC)) reply

Read WP:Verifiability. If we cannot verify it with a source, we cannot say it. -- OuroborosCobra ( talk) 01:11, 18 May 2012 (UTC) reply

Well the thing is obviously cancelled, so what should we write in it? ( America789 ( talk) 18:58, 18 May 2012 (UTC)) reply

Hey OuroborosCobra, there's a debate here on the Talk:Chengdu J-20 page as to whether or not it is a 'purported' or actual 5th-generation stealth fighter. The citation numerous authors have used seems to be unclear on this and I'm concerned 'purported' is a weasel word. I don't want to run afoul of 3RR, so please check in, thanks. If you find purported to be a weasel word, feel free to edit it out of the first sentence on the Chengdu J-20 page.

Lostromantic ( talk) 07:34, 9 January 2013 (UTC) reply

I know. I disagree with it being in the article, as images are one thing, but links to song players outside of the article on that song seem a bit much. I said I "agreed with him on including the anthem," meaning I agreed with his position on inclusion, which was to say I'm against inclusion. I admit it is a bit awkward. :) -- Golbez ( talk) 16:39, 26 June 2013 (UTC) reply

While they were less insulting, the behavior of posting something inflammatory and then never rejoining the conversation is still an issue. I certainly won't revert you, but the fact that he did it again after saying he'd stop being immature is telling. But, since it wasn't an insult to everyone who read it, it wasn't otherwise actionable. -- Golbez ( talk) 14:29, 23 July 2013 (UTC) reply

	The Original Barnstar
	For your scrutiny of articles for the betterment of Wikipedia, I award you this barnstar. Cheers, Kierzek ( talk) 01:54, 23 August 2013 (UTC) reply

The toppic on Talk:Barack Obama#User affiliated to Barack Obama was closed on the talk page before I was finished writing my answer to you. So here it is:

"...making edits with which they do not actually agree, for the deliberate purpose of drawing attention and provoking opposition in the hopes of making other editors see their 'point'." is not sutable for my situation. Right now I'm making edits in the George W. Bush article with which I do not actually agree. I change "%" to "percent" per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers. I don't like that way of writing percent. I always prefer % sign. However, I have taken the consequence of User:Theroadislong's edits the same way that I have taken the consequence of the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers. These edits with which I do not actually agree are of course not making a point per WP:POINT but taken the consequence of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers.

And the phrase "for the deliberate purpose of drawing attention and provoking opposition in the hopes of making other editors see their 'point'." is wrong because I wrote to you that I took the consequence of User:Theroadislong's edits the same way that I have taken the consequence of the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers regarding "percent" and not "%". I understand that the {{ connected contributor}} and my recent edits in the George W. Bush article have captured your attention but that doesn't mean that these edits are "the deliberate purpose of drawing attention and provoking opposition in the hopes of making other editors see their 'point'."

Yes, User:Theroadislong's {{ connected contributor}} tag on Talk:Steinway & Sons is maybe a violation of WP:AGF but the {{ connected contributor}} tag is still on the Talk:Steinway & Sons. Please, notice that since yesterday I haven't added the {{ connected contributor}} tag on the Talk:Barack Obama. I hope that you will show the "good will and support" that you mentioned in your comment above. -- Oldnewnew ( talk) 17:53, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Hey buddy, I'm on your side now.
I was tired of seeing the same presidents on different country pages and in the folly of my youth attempted to remove perceived bias with limited success. Now after witnessing the most powerful person in the world visit my hometown I have switched allegiance; my new favorites should adorn every relevant page.
Cease reverting my appropriate additions. B. Fairbairn ( talk) 17:56, 13 June 2015 (UTC) reply

I meant the Israel talk page. The page linked shows that those in the West Bank or Gaza can't vote, and suffrage is just a fancy word for voting. Scientus ( talk) 16:57, 8 July 2015 (UTC) reply

The Israel talk page very clearly shows that you had not established consensus for your edits, and that your very premises (with regards to West Bank and Gaza) were soundly rejected. The last discussion on that took place at the end of June, I suggest you go back there and try your case again if you are not satisfied. Suffrage may be a fancy word for voting, but "universal suffrage" means the universal right of citizens to vote. Those living in Gaza and the West Bank who cannot vote in Israeli elections are not Israeli citizens. These areas have never been formally annexed into Israel. As long as the right to vote is universal among Israeli citizens, there is universal suffrage. Furthermore, though not often held, those residing in West Bank and Gaza can vote in Palestinian elections. -- OuroborosCobra ( talk) 17:32, 9 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Hey Cob, you still around or have you retired from editing? B. Fairbairn ( talk) 16:38, 22 August 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) 13:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Here's where folks can find a better smirk image - https://memegenerator.net/Bill-Clinton-Smirk

Thought you had retired...
B. Fairbairn ( talk) 01:43, 27 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Not buying it. You didn't blank my page, you blanked some conversations involving you, and you blanked one that you had nothing to do with. You shouldn't be blanking my talk page to begin with, but your justification doesn't match your actions. Additionally, you could have seen from my contributions that I have recently made edits. -- OuroborosCobra ( talk) 01:56, 27 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Boring B. Fairbairn ( talk) 02:01, 27 February 2017 (UTC) reply

You've initiated this action. If you find it boring, leave. -- OuroborosCobra ( talk) 02:02, 27 February 2017 (UTC) reply

All items removed were items I had added B. Fairbairn ( talk) 02:04, 27 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Every single one Buddy. You can check. B. Fairbairn ( talk) 02:07, 27 February 2017 (UTC) reply

You are not User:ILuvAmerica and you did not leave a comment on my page about "Metrication in the United States," but you deleted it. You deleted a comment and discussion you were not involved in. Check for yourself. Additionally, blanking content on someone else's talk page is a violation of WP:TPG. -- OuroborosCobra ( talk) 02:20, 27 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Are you sure? I could have sworn I did the metrication edit. If I'm wrong, I apologize. Promise I will not touch your talk page again even when you do not contribute to it for a substantial period. B. Fairbairn ( talk) 02:25, 27 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{ NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 00:07, 19 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Hi @ OuroborosCobra:. Referring to the talk here on the use of ballistic missiles against Azerbaijan. Thanks again for your thorough analyses of the sources, but as I added there based on your work, there is not a single piece of evidence that ballistic missiles have been used by Armenia. These missiles are basically guided. There use, which the article unambiguously states, is a serious topic (as it implies one side deliberately and accurately targeting civilians) and therefore needs to be backed up by evidence of actual use (not only possession as some of the sources do) and this is demonstrably not the case looking at the sources
The term is used very liberally both in the main article, and in related ones like this and this. What are your thoughts? I and quite a few of the participants in the thread are of the view that these reference should be removed, especially that most sources don't even mention them, but happy to hear your feedback. Thanks-- Sataralynd ( talk) 00:10, 1 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{ NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 01:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC) reply

You added a comment on Talk:Joe Biden with my name as author, not your own name. Please do not re-add this. If you really want the text then add....I, OuroborosCobra, am adding this comment that was originally added by another editor then removed by that same editor. I am re-adding it so the subsequent discussions make sense."

I do not want to get into World War III, getting shot at by the pro and anti Biden editors. Thank you. Largemaroon1 ( talk) 00:27, 1 December 2020 (UTC) reply

I'm sorry, but that's just not how this works, especially since others had already responded to your comments. Your content was neither pro or anti Biden, so I do not see cause for that fear. Your comments were just about providing sourcing for the fact that he injured his foot, which is factual and a neutral statement. -- OuroborosCobra ( talk) 16:45, 1 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Hello. I saw your comment and I'll ask you to point to the specific words making up the flagrant personal attacks. I see nothing remotely approaching PA, but I could be blind. Thanks. ― Mandruss  ☎ 03:09, 9 January 2021 (UTC) reply

Please refrain from future accusations of NPA violation if you are unwilling to defend them later. Actually that applies to accusations of anything. This is somewhat important. ― Mandruss  ☎ 16:10, 12 January 2021 (UTC) reply

You attacked a user for creating an RFC when they had been reverted for removing an obviously unnecessary Twitter link because that link had been mandated by previous consensus. You could have simply criticized the choice of RFC, but instead made it personal by attacking them based upon their earlier comments of not liking unneeded bureaucracy. Given that they had tried the straightforward approach and been shot down, your elevating it to a personal level was unneeded and definitely not helpful. -- OuroborosCobra ( talk) 16:34, 12 January 2021 (UTC) reply

Ok, thanks. I hear what you're saying. The community has a habit of saying that it wasn't an NPA violation if it wouldn't earn a sanction, and that wouldn't earn a sanction. But I think that's too high (or low?) a bar, and I'll try to take your criticism on board. ― Mandruss  ☎ 16:43, 12 January 2021 (UTC) reply

Two days ago, an evidence-free accusation of "a serious WP:OWN ownership attitude that has been very counterproductive and obstructive" was lodged against me in an ArbCom discussion not specifically about me. The accusation was in the context of a suggestion by the same editor for a sanction against me, ostensibly for my own benefit. The accuser has declined to strike it after two requests to do so, and I have as yet been unable to get anyone else to strike it, including an ArbCom clerk. One of our more competent admins has advised me that I shouldn't be too stressed about it. The accusation remains on the page and may well end up in the permanent record, unstricken. This example was far more egregious than yours, and this is how seriously the community takes NPA. ― Mandruss  ☎ 16:55, 12 January 2021 (UTC) reply

...this, [4] you should mind your own business. That OP is either totally dense or is totally trolling. Or maybe both. ← Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:30, 9 May 2021 (UTC) reply

I'm in the thread, and your comment was in response to the conversation I am in, even directly referencing things I've said. It is my business. If you want to discuss the larger issue that editor is presenting, I started a discussion about it and would welcome your contribution. The comment I removed, however, was not going to do anything helpful. At best, it was going to confuse Rizosome into thinking the answer to his question had to do with the speed of velocity of UV light, and at worst, it was off topic antagonism on your part. I'm as fed up as you are by that editor, but your comment did nothing to help the issue, and may have hurt it. -- OuroborosCobra ( talk) 20:41, 9 May 2021 (UTC) reply

Very good. I suspect he's trying various users' patience, not just yours or mine. ← Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:21, 9 May 2021 (UTC) reply

And here you go with a semi-related retort: [5] I'm reminded of this dialogue from the Marx movie Duck Soup:

Secretary: Sir, you try my patience!

Groucho: I don't mind if I do! You must come over and try mine sometime!

← Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:56, 11 May 2021 (UTC) reply

I apologise for my sledgehammer tactic of removing images - but not for the replacing of images with other suitable images.

Why do I do it you may ask.

The answer is simple. I really like reading through the wikipedia country articles but get tired of viewing the same old US politicians over and over again with various country leaders e.g. here's Trump with the head of Jordan, here's Trump with the head of Iraq, here's Kerry with the head of Egypt etc.

For an example of the sort of thing I am talking about check out /info/en/?search=User:B._Fairbairn

It's out of date but hopefully you do understand what I mean.

...this, [6] - when I mis-read something and get called on it, I feel chagrined. I wonder if the editor in question, who seems to mis-read things often, ever feels any regret. ← Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:08, 10 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{ NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 00:15, 23 November 2021 (UTC) reply

you replied to my question on the science ref desk, and i have a followup question; is the dinosaur they showed that they said was the most humanoid of the dinosaurs the correct one, and if not, which one is actually that? (im asking here because the question has been archived) Allaoii ^talk 22:17, 22 December 2022 (UTC) reply

I hate to contradict you, but this wasn't actually a revert. Kleuske ( talk) 16:18, 3 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Your recent editing history at Israel shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in being blocked from editing—especially, as the page in question is currently under restrictions from the Arbitration Committee, if you violate the one-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than one revert on a single page with active Arbitration Committee restrictions within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the one-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the one-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
You have already violated 1rr on the article, and any admin can legitimately block you right away. Please self-revert immediately Jeppiz ( talk) 00:55, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply

You cannot strike another editor's TP edits unless that editor is not allowed to edit that page. O3000, Ret. ( talk) 16:06, 27 October 2023 (UTC) reply

@ Objective3000 That's very fair and I apologize for that. I thought, based on comments from another editor in the hatted conversation, that was an acceptable compromise. It was not my intention to violate policy. -- OuroborosCobra ( talk) 17:45, 27 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Ballistic missile, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A " bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. ( Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) ( talk) 15:25, 10 November 2023 (UTC) reply

I am very serious about your need to address the content, not the person. WP:ASPERSIONS are a form of personal attack and you should really strike the aspersions you have been making. Iskandar323 ( talk) 16:27, 23 November 2023 (UTC) reply

I understand your concern on that, but this is a contentious topic in general and even has one directly related to Israel-Arab conflict, in which you are among the most active editors and, while I do feel that you are genuine in efforts to follow NPOV, you do far more often than not take positions that are against Israel. Intentional or not, I don't think that the topic at Jews has been brought up in a vacuum. — OuroborosCobra ( talk) 16:53, 23 November 2023 (UTC) OuroborosCobra ( talk) 16:53, 23 November 2023 (UTC) reply

So, I am concerned about spillover of the current geopolitical situation into other tangentially related topics, and I will express that concern — OuroborosCobra ( talk) 16:55, 23 November 2023 (UTC) OuroborosCobra ( talk) 16:55, 23 November 2023 (UTC) reply

I have been editing the page for months, so the imagined connection to current events is just that, and you should keep your aspersions to yourself if they are unrelated to the content. Bad-faith aspersions made out of "concern" are still bad-faith aspersions - it does not make the uncivil civil. It's the equivalent of: "No offense, but ...", i.e. Wikipedia:No offense intended. Iskandar323 ( talk) 20:32, 23 November 2023 (UTC) reply