Talk:BQ

message: What RS are there for the band queer reference? Lawrence § t/e 07:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Lawrence, if you will be so kind as to look above, in the first paragraph, there were two google links in the article. Please select the reference you find most accurate/apropos. Furthermore, there is a link hidden in comments in the main article. Specifics of the term were cited, but were removed (but left in comments) for brevity. — BQZip01 — talk 04:43, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Band Queer RS? 

message: Please develope consensus before attempting to add an item that may be offensive to others.  justification to include this term should be agreed upon before it is added.  This is not a list for anyone to add items based on POV.   207.195.244.106 (talk) 13:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is also not a place for you to push an agenda. Wikipedia isn't censored and, therefore, your removal of this term is against WP policy and Arbcom. We do not need consensus to add things to Wikipedia. — BQZip01 — talk 18:47, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. An IP adding the first contribution claiming knowledge of the previous history. Pardon me for not believing your sincerity. — BQZip01 — talk 19:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Offensive Term 

message: Page is protected on  m:The Wrong Version, see Wikipedia:Protection policy for details. If you are unable to find an agreeable solution yourselves, please follow Wikipedia:Dispute resolution process, starting with WP:RFC, WP:3O.  `'Míkka>t 06:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Mikkalai, with all due respect, calling my addition, "biased, nationalistic, libellous, [or] inaccurate" is extremely offensive and insulting. I have made every attempt to provide thousands of sources and showing notability, verifiability, and accuracy. There is nothing in this that is anything like what you cited runs contrary to an ArbCom decision (I'm not trying to wikilawyer anything on the ArbCom end and I realize you are an admin, but that doesn't mean you are necessarily aware of everything that ArbCom has stated, so I am repeating it here FYI). This editor's actions have been placed in WP:SSP and, if you will please take to time to read it, you will see that this editor has a personal agenda against me. If confirmed, this will be a second time the user has been blocked for sockpuppetry and disruption. Please review the sockpuppet report page and tell me this person isn't trying to game the system (at best) and isn't a disruptive, personally vindictive editor (sorry to use such harsh words, but I think you will agree). Moreover, the person doing these edits isn't interested in a discussion, so a third opinion and many other options in the DR process are pointless if one person is on a personal vendetta and ignores consensus. I humbly request that you reconsider your protection level or at least the version of which you have decided to protect (why are you supporting an unreferenced edit?). — BQZip01 — talk 06:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand you are frustrated, but I suggest you to read carefully what you are suggested to read. In particular, The Wrong Version is not what you think.  Once again, please follow the steps of dispute resolution process. My action was to stop the revert war and it ends right here: being a "blocking" admin I cannot intervene in the content dispute. An alternative was to block both of you for 3-revert rule violation, which was not an option because of the alleged sockpuppetry.  `'Míkka>t 07:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is vandalism from a sockpuppet. By definition, reverting vandalism is explicitly not a violation of WP:3RR. — BQZip01 — talk 07:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: All I requested was semi-protection. — BQZip01 — talk 07:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page protected 

message: There must be some sort of compromise that can be reached short of inserting the disagreeable item on the BQ page.  I do not believe the item that you wish to insert is noteworthy.  If you feel that the item is important to YOU, possibly we can agree on a suitable location on your user page. Texsaxet (talk) 06:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Pardon me for not believing your sincerity. Your edit history speaks volumes and you are a blocked user attempting to evade your block of being disruptive...by being tendentious. Given your current status, I have no desire to "discuss" anything with you since you won't listen anyway. — BQZip01 — talk 07:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: To those following the thread...this user has been blocked for vandalism (what a shock...) [/sarcasm]. — BQZip01 — talk 07:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please disengage and follow the process of dispute resolution. Please also be advised that the proper place to discuss the issue is Talk:Fightin' Texas Aggie Band, where people knowledgeable in the subject are.  `'Míkka>t 07:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I was the primary author of that page and brought it to FA status as the featured article of the day. No one has had a problem with the term on that page. — BQZip01 — talk 07:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: False. There is no words "Band Queer" in the page, only BQ, which is way not the same. `'Míkka>t 07:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Would you suggest redirecting the link to the definition or explicitly adding the definition? — BQZip01 — talk 07:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Maybe we should focus on content and try to resolve our differences of opinion.  CC and I have both showed are intend to avoid conflict.  Can we work this out?  Texasaxet (talk) 07:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You have done nothing of the kind. — BQZip01 — talk 07:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

text: The information about their nickname is already contained in List of Texas Aggie terms and the nickname itself is already in use on the page and has been there since before it was put up for FA. I'm not adding it back yet, because I want to hear what you have to say. Furthermore, I believe it is this person's intention to harass my edits no matter where they are and this most recent attempt was an attempt at a "good hand" account...that failed. He doesn't want a discussion and is not civil or reasonable. A "discussion" with him would be pointless. — BQZip01 — talk 07:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Mikka.  Band Queer is simply not notable.  There is no need for it to be listed.  There appears to be a fixation with a sole editor in having this entry made.  I would also suggest that it is a COI in that it is a self promotion(BQ is part of the editors user name).  There is no need for any continuation in this melodrama.  70.19.125.82 (talk) 11:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Your opinion is irrelevant, IMHO. (this comment pertains to this specific user, not all IP addresses). — BQZip01 — talk 00:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In addition to being non-notable and offensive, the term is applied to band members all over the place, so it isn't unique to a&m. ThreeE (talk) 05:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I am unaware of it being used in any capacity outside of the Aggie Band. — BQZip01 — talk 18:40, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion to develope consensus before changing page

message: I think I stepped in a puddle of mud.  Why would we have a link to a link in another article -- esp. since it is somewhat ugly term? Cokea  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cokea (talk • contribs) 03:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, we don't censor. It should be here if the article on Band Queer exists and has sources to back it up. tedder (talk) 02:33, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism not intended 

message: There are articles about it on, for example, Spanish, French, and German Wikipedias; in case somebody wants to write an English one.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.149.62.79 (talk) 16:34, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  BQ, Spanish brand of user electronics devices