Talk:BQ

Please stop and discuss

In response to the edits regarding an Aggie bandsman:

CC, Whatever you think about me, please stop and just relax for a minute and enjoy the history lesson. "BQ" was originally a term stamped on a cadet's file folder. It stood for "Band Qualified" at that time (the converse of that was "CT" which stood for "Cadet in Training"). Cadets' files were not stamped with both, so the distinction served as a point of contention between cadets. Soon, the cadets came up with nicknames for the others. Cadets not in the band were called Corps Turds and the band members were called Band Queers. Both sides soon simply took pride in these nicknames and called themselves those very things. Take your pick of the websites that back this up and will be sufficient for you since the one provided does not meet your personal standards Band Queer, Corps Turd. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to revert the edit at this time, but near as I can tell, you have no reason to exclude this valid contribution to Wikipedia. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

• I've removed the reference because it is a perjorative term for homosexuals. While Wikipedia isn't censored, we're also not going to advertise neologisms that demean or defame anyone in the process. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 09:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

::*I agree that the offensive usage on BQ is not acceptable.

• An additional thought. With the fact that:

1. BQZip01's explanation of his account name on his user page.
2. The derogotory connotation that he has declared on the BQ page.

I suggest that [this] might be the next step, as the username is patently offensive.TomPhan (talk) 13:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC) This user is a sockpuppet — BQZip01 — ^talk 16:11, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

This is not a neologism (definition: "a word, term, or phrase that has been recently created (or "coined"), often to apply to new concepts, to synthesize pre-existing concepts, or to make older terminology sound more contemporary."). This term has been in use for decades, if not a century, and was in use long before the homosexual connotation was added. Queer has many definitions and your selective use of a single definition, is misleading...(where have I seen that before?).

CC already stated it, but Wikipedia is not censored and contains many other offensive words, but used in context, they are appropriate. — BQZip01 — ^talk 17:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

To anyone else who does not seem to have a personal bias against me, please read the links I provided. You will see that the term is in wide usage within the Aggie Community. It is in frequent use by people at Texas A&M and its usage is common (feel free to call the band hall if you wish to confirm. Here is their website and phone number 1-979-845-3529). Doctor Rhea is the director and if he osn't busy would likely be glad to talk to you. If not, the secretary will likely be able to answer any questions you have.

If you feel the name is offensive, then you can submit it for removal (threats to take someone to an admin), but don't threaten me as a means to get your way (where have I seen that tactic before...?) — BQZip01 — ^talk 17:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

• It can't be added to this article since it a) doesn't serve a purpose here and b) is an unneccessarily inflammatory remark. You probably need to let this one go. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 17:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

1. it's a dab page, so it does serve a purpose.

Respectfully, I am not "letting go" of something that is accurate. That you find it offensive, I'm sorry, but perhaps you need to expand your definitions of words beyond what you personally find offensive. I have given you hundreds of sites as examples that it is a common term with no seriously negative connotation. I've made my case here. — BQZip01 — ^talk 20:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I find it interesting that your rationale shifts as your arguments are shot down one at a time.

"I've removed the reference because it is a perjorative term for homosexuals. While Wikipedia isn't censored, we're also not going to advertise neologisms that demean or defame anyone in the process." So I point out it isn't a neologism and it doesn't demean or defame anyone

"It can't be added to this article since it a) doesn't serve a purpose here and b) is an unneccessarily inflammatory remark." Now why exactly should we delete this? It serves a purpose within the dab page as it "disambiguates" a term and as for it being "an unneccessarily inflammatory remark", that isn't a criteria. With a simple narrow mindset (not saying this applies, but used as an example), anyone can be offended at anything. It isn't a remark, it is a statement of fact. — BQZip01 — ^talk 20:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• "Band Qualified" is enough for a disambiguation and you don't need to employ an (obviously) derogatory, perjorative term when a non-loaded term will do just as well in its place. It's pretty obvious what the context for the term is so you're going to have a tough time telling me that I'm narrowly interpreting the word. "Band Qualified" is enough so I don't have any idea why you're fighting so hard for this. Can we avoid more lengthy procedure on this issue and just agree to leave it out? Please? Cumulus Clouds (talk) 07:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• "Band Qualified" is not enough for a disambiguation. It is the historical etymology of the word, not the common usage. The only time you hear "Band Qualified" is in discussions of the variety: "you know where 'BQ' comes from?" Please read the provided sources. You will note that "Band Queer" is used far more often than "band qualified". Accordingly I am reverting again. If you would like a source, simply state your choice and I will be happy to include it. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Look, I don't really care about the etymological deriviation of a mean nickname for band members at your school, there's no way that "Band Queer" can be substituted for "Band Qualified," no matter how it's phrased. This is only a disambiguation page. At the risk of being beansy, it's not even mentioned in the main article (this is not an invitation to do that, by the way). Why "band qualified" would be on this page is beyond me. There's probably lots of other nasty things people have said about bands all over the country, but I'm not running into a lot of those on disambiguation pages. Please give this one a rest. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 05:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• You think it is mean? Most BQs I know are proud of the title. We even wrote a song, (sung to the rice fight song):

We're the Aggie Band Queers

Scum of the earth

Filth of creation

Gone from bad to worse (we're dirty sons of B****s

Found in every bar room

and every whore house too-oo-oo-oo

We're the Aggie Band Queers

from A M C

— BQZip01 — ^talk 04:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

BTW, it is mentioned in the main article. Perhaps you should actually read it... — BQZip01 — ^talk 19:31, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Band Queer RS?

What RS are there for the band queer reference? Lawrence § t/e 07:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

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)

Compromise

I have proposed several variations and they all keep getting reverted by CC. What needs to be done? I have provided references galore, altered wording, etc. all at your request with no result other than "no you can't do that". I'm sorry, but your personal standards aren't Wikipedia policy or guidelines. Please offer something. — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• How about "Band Qualified." Cumulus Clouds (talk) 03:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• This is the reason I have such a problem with your edits. This is no compromise at all. I offer numerous phrasing/variations and you offer, 'Let's just change it to what I wrote.' This is not consensus-building, it is stubbornness and a violation of WP:OWN. Your edits do not reflect reality and cited references. I have asked for your input regarding which source to use since the one provided is not to your liking, but instead, you say, 'No, we're going to do it my way.' Please offer something other than this tripe. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:18, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, this is not a situation where an alternative is readily available, and thus it makes "compromise" very difficult. Either the term is included in the article or it isn't. This is a disambiguation page, and you have included "BQ" as a reference to the Fightin Texas Aggie Band, that people may be searching for when they type "BQ" into the box. I'm not sure how often this happens, but it doesn't hurt to have it there. You want to include "Band Queer" in the text for the disambiguation because it's the traditional term for "BQ" (I think anyway, I'm not trying to put words in your mouth). I don't want to include it because it's A) a very visible, perjorative term for homosexuals, B) easily replaceable by "Band Qualified" and C) not necessary in the context of a disambiguation page. I appreciate that you've cited sources for the terms but again, for the reasons I've described, it's just not necessary here. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 10:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• Also, just fyi, punctuation marks go within the quotation marks, not outside of them. It's not a huge deal so I'm not going to fix it because that might run us astray of the recent 3RR mandate. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 10:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

1. The location of punctuation marks varies based on what is used and how it is used. See WP:MoS#Quotation_marks (please stop citing your personal beliefs as a reason to do something).
2. "Band Queer" should be in there because it is the term most associated with it, not "Band Qualified".
3. Just because it is visible or pejorative doesn't mean it can't be included. Once again, this is your own personal beliefs interfering with Wikipedia. This is not one of the rules of Wikipedia. Stop trying to impose your sense of morality on Wikipedia, please.
4. It is not "easily replaceable" at all and does not serve to explain the term appropriately; again, this is your personal belief and does not reflect reality. In short, it is wrong when stated this way, or at the very least grossly incomplete and needs to be rephrased.

By not representing reality and the cited sources, the way it is currently phrased violates WP:NPOV, WP:RS, & WP:V/WP:UNDUE.

— BQZip01 — ^talk 21:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Compromise (take 2)

How about this? It is well referenced (if it is such a derogatory term, why is it stated on the organization's website?) and has links to articles/lists it is in? — BQZip01 — ^talk 00:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• But isn't "BQ" also an acronym for "Band Qualified" which, in the context of a disambiguation page, serves exactly the same purpose? Cumulus Clouds (talk) 01:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• And I should add that at this point Band Qualified wouldn't need any sources and would probably never be challenged by anyone. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 01:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

1. Yes, it is, but that is mostly a footnote into history. Its common usage is almost exclusively meant as "Band Queer", whether used by detractors or supporters. Citing "Band Qualified" makes no sense when somebody says "Way to go, BQs!" or "Stupid BQs."
2. WP:V still applies. Though fewer people of the populous would "object", Wikipedia isn't censored.

— BQZip01 — ^talk 03:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• This debate isn't getting us anywhere. Until such time that somebody else objects to having it there, I won't attempt to remove it again. This doesn't mean I agree with you, just that I don't believe either of us are being very productive right now in an argument that doesn't appear to affect anyone else except you and I. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 04:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I intend to mainly stay out of this dispute at this time, but just in case this helps: you might consider getting a third opinion. I'm just a friendly reminder. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Offensive Term

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)

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)

I think consensus should be build. The term has created too much disruption. If it is beneficial to the encyclopedia, the community should agree, and then put it back in. Otherwise it appears as if a single user is going against the grain to push for some other agenda. 151.32.202.218 (talk) 18:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

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)

Page protected

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)

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)

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)

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)

All I requested was semi-protection. — BQZip01 — ^talk 07:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Discussion to develope consensus before changing page

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)

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)

To those following the thread...this user has been blocked for vandalism (what a shock...) [/sarcasm]. — BQZip01 — ^talk 07:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Would you suggest redirecting the link to the definition or explicitly adding the definition? — BQZip01 — ^talk 07:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

::::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)

You have done nothing of the kind. — BQZip01 — ^talk 07:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Protection changed to softprotect. However before reinserting yours I strongly urge you to discuss the issue in Talk:Fightin' Texas Aggie Band and add the info into Fightin' Texas Aggie Band. `'Míkka>t 07:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

Your opinion is irrelevant, IMHO. (this comment pertains to this specific user, not all IP addresses). — BQZip01 — ^talk 00:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

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)

I am unaware of it being used in any capacity outside of the Aggie Band. — BQZip01 — ^talk 18:40, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Links

Please review MOS for disamb. pages. your revert does not follow guidelines. If you are unaware of the proper linking method or unsure, please talk or contact the help desk for assistance. BQZip, for some reason I was not able to contact you on your talk page. This makes it difficult to communicate. You may want to have this looked at. Thank you.Grandma Dottie (talk) 01:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Grandma is on her game zip: "Each bulleted entry should have exactly one navigable (blue) link to efficiently guide users to the most relevant article for each use of the ambiguous term." ThreeE (talk) 05:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

ThreeE, I feel your reasons for deletion are invalid:

1. Offensive: Wikipedia isn't censored, so offensive terms are included and permitted, though the only person who seems to find this offensive is you and another individual who appears to have the same agenda. This is not a valid reason for deletion.
2. Non-notable: I've given hundreds of sources for the term (see the first entry of mine on this page). It is notable.
3. Uniqueness: It doesn't have to be unique to A&M, though you've given no evidence other than a claim to the contrary. It's usage as "BQ" is unique to A&M (see aforementioned sources). If it isn't unique to A&M, it should then be redirected elsewhere, not deleted. Furthermore, "uniqueness" is not a criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia.

— BQZip01 — ^talk 14:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I see your temperament hasn't changed much BQ -- ignore consensus and plow ahead under erroneous interpretation of WP links. That, and make unfounded sockpuppet claims against people with reasonable disagreements with you. ThreeE (talk) 15:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

My temperament is to be benign and reasoned as well as polite.

Your stated your reasons for deleting it were flawed and I tried to point out why I felt so.

You never stated that you were deleting it because of WP:CONSENSUS. Even if you had, I think it's pretty obvious there is none: basically just a disagreement between you and I.

As for WP:LINK, it states that you should link terms that could be useful. WP:DISAMBIG conflicts with that. So we have two guidelines that contradict (or at least don't compliment each other). I'm not interested in arguing that point and the wikilinks can certainly stay or be removed. I don't care either way.

Have a nice day. :-)

— BQZip01 — ^talk 17:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Removal of link

Quite the contrary to ThreeE's comment above, BQZip01's temperment in this very recent set of discussions has been polite, considerate, and well spoken. While the impressively well-informed "new" user Grandma Dottie might have had something worth discussion in the additional wikilinks, the removal of the term by calling it "offensive" is not supported by guuideline. See F**k, S**t, N**r, Q**r, F*g, A*hole, etc. For good or bad, Wikipedia is not censored. Personally not liking something is not a valid reason for deletion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Disparaging remark removed. This is not about censorship. There is no need for this in the encyclopedia. Please attain concensus before inserting derogatory remarks that bring no value. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gots2bnoing (talk • contribs) 18:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• I am reverting the edit of a SPA account who has remmoved something that has been in place for over a year. Such removal was done without seeking consensus for that action. Further, if someone who is himself the subject of such a description does not feel it to be disparaging or derogatory, how could the SPA? MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 20:35, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree with Gots2bnoing. There is no need for this type of entry in an encyclopedia. Please discuss before adding. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mypasswordis muscle (talk • contribs) 21:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC) Comment by blocked WP:SPA struck out; likely sockpuppet. — BQZip01 — ^talk 22:47, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Per my talk page I am going to be bold. I think it is quite rude to cross out my comments. From the looks of this page, someone might think that your approval is needed here. Well I'm new here, but that just seems wrong. The term, which I am not going to repeat is not a problem. I understand that there are words that not everyone thinks are proper. Those words should be in an encyclopedia when they are there for a constructive purpose. But when they are placed there in a derogatory context, with no value to educate, that is just wrong. I would suggest that you 1. unmodify my entry from above. and 2. Open a discussion about why a term that on its face is nothing more than an insult should be in an encyclopedia. If there is a good reason on how a reader gains relevant knowledge, and people find merit in your reasoning it should be included. But the 2 of you should be ashamed of the way you act like this entry belongs to you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.149.110.134 (talk) 00:29, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, you're not looking new, you're looking like a sock, and you are under investigation as such. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

What bugs said... — BQZip01 — ^talk 00:51, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

"But when they are placed there in a derogatory context, with no value to educate, that is just wrong. I would suggest that you 1. unmodify my entry from above. and 2. Open a discussion about why a term that on its face is nothing more than an insult should be in an encyclopedia. If there is a good reason on how a reader gains relevant knowledge, and people find merit in your reasoning it should be included." The disambiguation page is not in a derogatory context, but a factually accurate one. The links help to educate as does the etymology of the word. Not only is it not insulting, the term is prominently displayed all over the web by former Aggie bandsmen with several news articles being done on the subject (see google links above). As for others finding merit with my rationale, yours is the sole dissenting voice... — BQZip01 — ^talk 00:58, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

It is to be hoped that they are using that term ironically. My guess would be that it implies someone who's "not manly enough" to play sports, so instead he's in the band - and I'm also guessing it's worn as kind of a badge of honor, or at least humor. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Pretty good assessment, but I guess, in a sense, it's kind of "Well, they're gonna call us that, might as well be proud of it." mentality too. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:12, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

To be fair, here it is: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Grandma Dottie. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

And it is a bit telling when one considers just where these SPAs and socks continue to land. I note this bunch has not gone after other perjorative words found on Wikipedia, such as Asshole, Shit, Fuck, Queer, or Faggot, or Cock.. or even the highly charged racial slurs that exist within these pages. That they come here to remove something that has existed per consensus for over a year, makes it look like they are singling this out for some special reason. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 05:51, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I've seen a number of SPA cases who latch onto a particular sentence or paragraph, and it becomes a game of some kind to keep trying to add, change or delete the particular passage, sometimes literally for years. Call it trolling, call it OCD, whatever - it's a freakin' nuisance and wastes a lot of time. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 07:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of sockpuppetry, I think the DAB Link should have not been there per Wikipedia:Disambiguation_page#What_not_to_include. Following this guideline, I have removed the reference as a dictionary definition. There's also a discussion on the target's talk page. Toddst1 (talk) 23:25, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I reverted, but shortened the description IAW the above cited guideline. I hope this satisfies your concerns. See also Talk:List_of_Texas_Aggie_terms#BQ — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:58, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, this is still a dictionary definition and emplore you to revert your change to the article as a good faith editor. Toddst1 (talk) 00:44, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Okay, here's the deal. As Toddst1 pointed out, WP:D (a) discourages dictionary definitions and (b) states "Only add links to articles that could use essentially the same title as the disambiguated term." There's no chance of [[List of Texas Aggie Terms]] existing at [[BQ]].

If the article Band Queer existed, it could (and should) be linked here. However, List of Texas Aggie terms#BQ should not.

Take a deep breath, all. I'd encourage you to put effort into creating the article on Band Queer rather than edit warring here. Okay? tedder (talk) 02:32, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

And the edit warring apparently continues. I reverted, following what is written out at WP:D. There is no reason to list a term that isn't even backed up by reliable sources.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 02:46, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Tedder and Daedelus,

1. This harassment of by a blocked user is quickly becoming tiresome and needs to be dealt with. Please semi-protect or protect this page. I don't care which or what version it is. This is not about the term being used here, but it is active harassment by a user hell-bent on making my contributions on Wikipedia as difficult as possible. As an example, see BQ's "Boston Qualifier" which links to the Boston Marathon...same point, but no one has touched it in two years...

   Others include: "ʻAʻā" in AA, Air Base in AB, Adriamycin and cyclophosphamide in AC, "at", "to", or "for" in AD, etc. It is a common usage across the board.

2. As stated at the top of the page, feel free to pick any of a dozen references mentioned at the beginning of this page.
3. "Only add links to articles that could use essentially the same title as the disambiguated term". That means "could" not "it is a requirement". As stated above, it is commonplace on Wikipedia to include brief, useful definitions.

— BQZip01 — ^talk 04:11, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Commonplace, really? As to our policy, I think not, or would you please list several disambig pages so we can fix them? Wikipedia is not a dictionary.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 19:58, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism not intended

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)

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)

Request Semi-protection

This constant reverting by people who bring the same tired arguments, but with only <10 edits to their names is getting tiring and is clearly an attempt to circumvent indefinite blocks. I do not have time to add additional people to the sockpuppetry list that is so painfully evident here. (This obviously does not apply to those with edit histories longer than 10 edits as of this posting...).

I am certainly willing to have a discussion on the matter, but unfortunately, my military duties preclude that for a short time. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:37, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Full protected for a week. That should give time for you all to reach consensus. I know I'm somewhat involved, having posted above, but I only came into it after a request on WP:RFPP; if any of you would prefer an admin with no involvement, speak up. tedder (talk) 03:52, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

This is of greater interest to BQZip01 than to me, but full protection seems fair. It would be best if he could find a solid source for the "band queer" term, and then the socks would be forced to revert to their original "I don't like it" stance, instead of hiding behind guidelines. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:11, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

1. A week will not be enough to come to a consensus if the sockpuppet harassment continues. I have no problem with protection, but, I doubt the sockpuppets will stay away once it is unprotected (much like the death threats and accusations of murder I received on my talk page [oversighted and permanent semi-protection on my talk & user pages])
2. By guideline, sources are not included on disambiguation pages.
3. What source would you like? Like I've said ad nauseum, there is a link at the top of this page to hundreds of sources. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:14, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I honestly don't understand what the issue is. The admins here seem to have a problem with it, but they're the experts and I'm not. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:17, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Replying here, because it's slightly more concise to do so. As far as sources, I mean sources on the theoretical [[Band Queer]] page. In other words, create the page and put the sources there.

In response to "what about other articles?" you and I are both aware other articles exist and they are in ugly condition. However, the burden is still on keeping the article/link/statement. As I said to Bugs a while ago, prove the socks wrong by creating a solidly sourced page, then there is no legitimate reason to remove the link.

Finally, if protection is needed for longer, I'll be happy to oblige. tedder (talk) 04:31, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

My point was not that other articles exist but that it is standard practice across the board (including another entry on this very page!). This demand by a banned user should hold no weight whatsoever. I feel your concerns can be addressed, but not at this time. I will be unavailable for the foreseeable future (by which I would expect vandalism to increase tenfold on anything I've ever edited...) — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:44, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

While this protection will stop the sockpuppets, it will not result in a cessation of problems. He got what he wants, so there will likely be no comments in the near future. As soon as the protection is lifted, it will resume again, regardless of the outcome. Oh, and if I create a Band Queer page, I would expect a relatively new user to quickly and "mysteriously" nominate it for deletion ASAP. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:47, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

The sources I was referring to were supposed to exist on the dictionary definition page. There were sources for other terms on that page, except for the one you're trying to include here, but other than that, I stand by the fact that dict deffs are not supposed to be linked. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Really, if you want to have your word so badly, head over to Wikitionary and try to get it an article over there or something. Or even Urban Dictionary. I'm sure you can have anything there, but not here.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:32, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Discussions...

With respects, though WP:PREFER suggest protecting a page in whatever version existed at the moment of protection in order to "force the parties to discuss their edits on the talk page", with it protected in its non-consensus form, the sockpuppets really have no reason to be "forced into discussions"... as blocked puppets will not be discussing anything anywhere except on their talk pages, and in order to become involved in a discussion a blocked user would have to then create yet another puppet. There have been lengthy discussions of this term on the page in the past, and it seems that its now being recently visited by numerous puppets shows their disregard toward the consensus of the past and the stability the term had for months established. Protecting the page is sensible, but if we are to have discussions, I suggest reverting to an earlier stable version. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 19:16, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

The protection in this state has been endorsed by 2 different (previously) uninvolved admins (Toddst1 and Tedder) who have cited a guideline for doing so [1] [2] (and could probably cite a policy as well). Characterizing this article as only being reverted to this state by the sockpuppets is misleading. I think you're falsely presuming consensus as well.

As for the discussion, start with why we should ignore the guideline and have a dictionary entry on a DAB page for a term that does not have its own article. Toddst1 (talk) 19:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

The various guidelines for its inclusion have been repeatedly cited in discussions going back months at the head of this talk page. Do you require that I cut and paste them all here? Most certainly, established and respected editors have definitely contributed to the artricle, but it appears that it has been the sock-puppet edit-war of late that has led to the protection. So my charcterizing this article as having been recently edited by sockpuppets or SPAs is accurate. Aside from the anonymous IPs, there have recently been User talk:Texsaxet, User:Grandma Dottie, User:ThreeE, User:Gots2bnoing, User:Mypasswordis_muscle, User:Cokea, User talk:Muscle I am, User talk:GoMetsMets. It is the seeming "rewarding" of those puppets (not of established and well respected editors) by its being locked in its current version that I was addressing, since WP:PREFER allows consideration of protection of earlier, pre-puppet-vandalized, conditions while discussions on interpretations of guideline are taking place. I in no way mean or intend any denigration of the good faith edits of Toddst1 or Tedder. Since the term leads (led) to and is sourced within List of Texas Aggie terms, I politely diagree that it is a dictionary term in this usage... specially as every word within these pages also has a dictionary definition somewhere, even if not a wictionary term. Most disturbing has been the concentrated efforts by the puppets to remove this one term as offensive or derogatory or demeaning from the uncensored encylcopedia that includes many other far more highly perjorative terms. That this one term has gotten such attention from recent puppets is not to seem to be rewarded. Left as it is or not, the discussion here will doubtless continue. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 21:03, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

BQ, Spanish brand of user electronics devices

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)