User talk:Linuxbeak/Archive5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Op ed, part 2[edit]

Good question...maybe just tell them the truth about me. I'm appaled and sickened by the thought of these kinds of articles appearing here that are written by people taking advantage of the site's generosity. All my contributions are 100% family friendly. I'll do my best to slay the slime and garbage as it comes in, too. That's the reason I wanted the adminship in the first place. - Lucky 6.9 01:06, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I note (via googlenews) that the original errant press release is making it's way around the web in an unmodified form.Limegreen 02:08, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

I can't tell you how appreciative I am of your calm response to PeeJ. You do great work! - Ta bu shi da yu 02:55, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Indeed very well done. The only thing better would be if they had actualy retracted the press release (sadly some other sources are picking up the terrible article). Broken S 03:24, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

News stories[edit]

You might like to fire off your response to any sites that appear on google news [1]. --Martyman-(talk) 03:02, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, well. Good luck with your finals. --Martyman-(talk) 03:07, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

RE: your RfB[edit]

I'll probably end up being the Jeannette Rankin of your party...my vote won't count and I'm not trying to be a spoiler...just for an ape like me, some things have to be in stone.--MONGO 04:31, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

About Defamation and PeeJ[edit]

I read your letter- I'd forgotten about most of that, since while I remember participating in the image tagging project, I forget most of the details. And you're right- when trying to convince someone to tag an image, remove this or change that, (... I tend to think that??...) it's always best to begin with civility. Many thanks, and I will watch this as it unfolds... Schissel-nonLop! 05:57, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

One of the two articles in which the circular reappeared was published by news.baou.com, which seems to publish a lot of anti-Wikipedia screeds according to http://news.google.com, including this gem. Schissel-nonLop! 02:14, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Parents for the Online Safety of Children pt. 2[edit]

Do you have a link for this organization? --Gbleem 19:00, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

  • "POSC" is a fictitous organization and brainchild of Greg Lloyd Smith. The original press release can be found here: [2] Though it's dated later than the PJ posting, notice that the listing on PJ has no newswire accredidation while the latter posting on officialwire.com (also run by Greg Lloyd Smith) self-credits the same posting. Also see the contrib history of Baoutrust for further exploits of GLS. CrazyLittle 07:58, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Added fifth question to your RfB[edit]

Please look at your RfB and respond to the question I've added about IRC et al. This is very important to me and I'll await your response. Kind regards, Cecropia 16:08, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt response. I'm satisfied. I think we should add that question to RfB, although it wouldn't get used very often. -- Cecropia 16:32, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Your letter[edit]

I hereby give you a curious looking red star for your userpage, for dealing with those Perverted Justice people and getting them to publish your letter clearing up the facts. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:54, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

metatalk[edit]

Left you a note on meta :) +sj + 17:24, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I was looking over your contribs...[edit]

Question about this. Why did you mark this POV, but then not follow up on the talk page? Why couldn't you just NPOV it yourself? You can answer here, I'll keep an eye out. Thanks. --LV (Dark Mark) 19:32, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, yes. I actually think I got sidetracked when that happened, and I never got around to following up on that. That was a mistake on my part.

Also, your user page says "I do have intentions of running for bureaucrat again, but that won't be until March 2006." Why the change of heart? --LV (Dark Mark) 19:34, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't know. I figure now is as good a time as any, and besides... it would be a nice early Christmas present if this RfB is successful. Alex Schenck (that's Linuxbeak to you) 21:41, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi[edit]

Hey don't take the RFB comment to heart. I vote oppose on practically all admins. I know that the policy is that "becoming an admin should be no big deal" but in my opinion it is a big deal. If for no other reason than it is virtually impossible to ever be removed. I vote keep on articles if I can find any reason for it to be kept, and oppose on admins if there is any reason to.

As for Brandt, I think he's a great guy. While he is obviously a bit paranoid and way too conspiracy-theory like for me, his heart is in the right place, and he's out there to help all of us. I don't for a moment think that Google is evil, and when I saw his stuff about it, I was left scratching my head about it. Like so what if they scrape? Yes he's right, but I mean like why does that affect me? Same with most of the stuff he writes. He seems to be over-dramatising stuff that's not really relevant. I wrote to him a few times back in 2002 about it, and he never really gave me an explanation. He kept going on about Big Brother and the CIA and stuff. Yes, okay so Google is government sponsored and probably is CIA sponsored. But like huh?

But the thing is that, whacko or not, his heart is in the right place. He is really out there to help each and every one of us. He writes a lot of good stuff, and he tries to help out every single person on this earth. One of the really great things that he does is with privacy. And it really sickened me to think that Wikipedia had portrayed him as a privacy invader. Even if you think that he might have inadvertedly done that, that was certainly not his aim. He was out there to protect privacy.

The guy is a bit hard to take, and I suppose that if you're not an activist yourself, then you probably don't understand where he is coming from. It's about people who are trying to help each and every one of us. People who are trying to make the world a better place. And when you're trying to do that, it doesn't matter what the results are. Its the aim that is important. Yes, he stuffs up. Yes, the whole thing about Google is totally over the top and unnecessary. But I support namebase and Scroogle, and what he's written on Wikipedia Watch has been really helpful. If only Wikipedians realised that he's actually helping Wikipedia. He saved Wikipedia with the Seigenthaler issue, and it will be because of him that Wikipedia gets out of this. If you think it was all a selfish publicity stunt, then you don't know him.

His article is very biased, and quite inaccurate in a lot of places, where it states POV as fact, over such things as why Google Watch was started. It wasn't started because of his page rank. He started it because his web site was listed on Google without his permission. He started it to protest against privacy invasions. That's what he used to say back at LiveJournal in 2002. And he was involved in a number of law suits with Google, which worked in his favour, yet there is no mention of them. That was when he got famous, over the law suits. Although I didn't know his name back then. He was just the Scroogle guy. Pretty sure its the same guy.

But really, when you're dealing with people like that, who are out there to help others, the best way to deal with them is to get them on side. Write to them so that you agree with them in principle, but disagree over a few points. That's what I've always done in dealing with him, and with other people like that. Then you would find that he would support you in all things.

I've seen what you've written about him, and its horrible. And I don't know why you wrote me your name or something, perhaps expecting me to tell you mine? I don't know. There's an article about both of my grandparents in here, who are both famous activists, both with their own Wikipedia entries. Of course, none of the rest of our family were. Just those two. The most I've done is written a letter to Paul Keating to petition for him to give me more Austudy. It was a purely selfish act, but 2 weeks afterwards, they changed the policy so that everyone got what I had asked. That's really pretty much my greatest achievement, other than helping out the odd person with legal cases etc. But I am happy not to be famous. I believe in baby steps. Incrementalism I think is the word. We can achieve great things through little steps.

Anyway, I think that you should write to Daniel Brandt and try to make peace with him. He probably won't answer, so maybe just demonstrate that you're nice and stuff. You catch more flies with honey.

By the way, what was that extra bit you wrote besides Linuxbreak? I was a bit confused on that. Do you have 2 accounts? Is that the name of your secret 2nd account? Both links took me here though. I guess its an in joke. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 19:41, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

No, he didn't publish your address. And what he says about you is not defamatory. If you think that it is, then you should sue him. There is nothing illegal about it. And it is far from hypocritical as a privacy activist to display names like that. I could go over why, but its too tiring, and its pointless due to your personal bias. There is no way that I will change my vote unless you apologise to Brandt and sort things out with him. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 04:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

RfC for User:Braaad[edit]

Linuxbeak, could you look over the RfC for Braaad, maybe put your two cents in and sign it if you feel like it? Grant 21:57, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Two more votes![edit]

Looks like Alkivar and I just voted for you at the same time. THANK YOU once again for all your help! - Lucky 6.9 23:49, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Pedophilia[edit]

You placed the {{npov}} tag on the pedophilia article, but you have not commented on just what exactly is biased. Could you elaborate a little so it can be fixed? 24.224.153.40 02:56, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I admit it[edit]

Ok, I know better than to edit other people's comments, but I couldnt help myself. I saw your Rfb and thought it was very well written and well thought out. It also had a silly typo in it that drove me nuts. So I fixed it (you used "rational" instead of "rationale"). If you're really mad feel free to change it back and change my user name to something really mean once you get your new bureaucrat powers ;) -Lanoitarus (talk) .:. 03:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Wow, did not realize I could vote, for some reason I had the rather un-wiki notion that only admins could vote for bureaucrats. Best of luck to you! -Lanoitarus (talk) .:. 03:58, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

The Black List[edit]

As you are aware, we are all listed on the Black List. Do you think that everyone who is listed on that list should be informed (in case they don't know) so that they can avoid giving out personal information? In fact, I find it most disturbing that he has taken my (and probable everyone else's) quotes out of context - elsewhere in the same comments, I am praising him for finding out who wrote that stuff about Seigenthaler. BTW what's he got against Gmail? I have one of their accounts. Izehar (talk) 18:21, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Brandt[edit]

Linuxbeak, I know you mean well over the Brandt issue but you have unprotected an article you've recently edited and may edit again in the near future. Please decide whether you're involved in this as an editor or as an admin, and let me know. I'm probably going to protect it again, though I want to check the history first. I think everyone needs to calm down before deciding how to proceed. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:00, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I kept a very open mind and went to Mr Brandt's page before I read the Wikipedia talk pages. Linuxbeak, you are the bigger man. If you're like this at 18, then our future, when guys like you hit 30, is in good hands. Stombs 12:29, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I admit I was a bit surprised that you'd done this. I guess it is good in theory, but that wasn't what I was asking. Yes, he should be unbanned, and yes he should be able to input in to his own article (or at least be able to write on talk to advise people as to its contents). For one thing, I would dearly love for him to tell us why he started Google Watch. I can remember why he did, because he used to have it on his site, but I can't for the life of me find it anywhere. I know its definitely not because he was worried that his page wasn't popular enough - there's no way that a privacy activist would want to be popular. I'd also love him to show us details of his legal dealings with Google, as I couldn't find them either. His being able to contribute would help that a bit.

But at the same time, we must respect the community decision. After much discussion, the Brandt article was starting to come along well, and we were reaching a kind of agreement about it. As at when you moved it, I for one thought that the article was wonderful. Incomplete, due to Brandt not having his input, but accurate and neutral for what it had included. It took one hell of a lot of effort to get it to that stage. Not only were we having people with competing POVs, and a lot of POV pushers, but we also had vandals (including GNAA) who regularly wrote pro-Brandt and anti-Brandt (seemed to be about 50/50 each way) with up to 50 vandalisms per day to the article - one of the most vandalised pages on Wikipedia. The GNAA one from yesterday was one of the worst ones, as they used some kind of script to post hundreds of photos of penises on the page without actually editing it. I couldn't get rid of them either.

I have thought it through, and really, he's not notable for namebase. He's notable for Google Watch. And that's the issue. If Wikipedia Watch is suitably notable, then, as creator of 2 notable articles, Daniel Brandt should stay. However, if Wikipedia Watch is not notable, then all info about him should be a small stub in the Google Watch article. Whilst Scroogle is notable too, that's really the same as Google Watch - its just Google Watch's search engine. Its like if he wrote a Privatepedia as a private version of Wikipedia, then it's really just an extension of Wikipedia Watch.

Whilst I can understand your intentions, I think it was too much and probably created more problems than it solved. But I am not sure. It was good though as it gives hope to sort things out.

One thing though - one of the fellow admins did a Denial of Service attack on Wikipedia Watch. I'm asking for confirmation. If he did, I think he should be stripped of adminship and banned. Similarly, there was a "hoaxer" that attacked him, who also should be banned. Such people hurt Wikipedia a lot more than a critic like Brandt. Brandt actually helps Wikipedia by pointing out its problems. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 13:46, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

RfC on Page Protection policy[edit]

FYI since you were mentioned in this dispute [3]. I filed an RfC regarding SlimVirgin's use of Page Protection here and other disputes given accusations of it being violated. Your input is much appreciated. Rangerdude 22:27, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Brandt/RfB[edit]

I really appreciate that you took my comment in opposition to your RfB so seriously. I hope your decisive and constructive steps to make peace with Daniel Brandt will bear fruit. Your actions are particularly impressive considering RfB was at something like 70-2 in your favor, so you hardly needed my vote to get approved, and now you're facing criticism from other quarters that you would otherwise not have experienced. Best wishes. --FRS 17:48, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Your input on AfD is requested[edit]

I have entered an AfD for the article Chair force. I feel this is an inherently POV article that is degrading to the United States Air Force and besides, there is already an entry in military slang for this topic. I would appreciate it if you would review the article, other comments and if you are so disposed, please add your opinion/comment. Thanks. --rogerd 19:26, 17 December 2005 (UTC)


Felix Navidad[edit]

File:Santa.jpg
Tony the Marine

O.K. Alex, so you don't believe in Santa, but I still want to wish you and your loved ones all the happiness in the world and the best new year ever. Your friend, Tony the Marine 04:37, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

I'd like to thank you, first and foremost; if you're receiving this message, it's because I think you were one of the people I adopted as a personal mentor, and who helped to make the whole Wikipedia experience more enjoyable.

The fact is, I've got no choice but to leave. The recent sordid affair with User:Deeceevoice and my appalling conduct in that showed me that I have not the calibre required to maintain good relations with users on the wiki. Worse still, I violated almost all of the principles I swore to uphold when I first arrived.

I've now been desysopped, and I plan on devoting a little more time to what I am good at, which is developing. I don't fit in on this side of the servers, but perhaps I can still be of use to the project.

Thank you. Rob Church Talk 20:18, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

About the "pedophilia" thing[edit]

I've been looking into this silly "wikipedophilia" thing today, and I haven't found very much. This lack of results is interesting in itself. The source of these charges comes from the press release from "Parents for the Online Safety of Children," a group allegedly founded in 1997 by “an organization of concerned citizens.” A Google search for the name of this group reveals absolutely no results whatsoever, except for several references to their press release attacking Wikipedia; apparently this organization has never had any mention in any Web site, news service, Usenet newsgroup, or any mention anywhere before now. The sudden appearance of this group and its claims of “pedophiles” on Wikipedia suggests two possibilities: 1) The press release may be fake, one of many Internet-based trolls; or 2) it is a result of the recent edit war at the pedophilia entry. --Modemac 21:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Here's something interesting: a blogger did some detective work and put two and two together to come up with a possible reason for the bogus "wiki pedophile" press release. It might (emphasis on might) be some petty revenge for the QuakeAID scandal early this year that was exposed to the public, thanks to Wikipedia! --Modemac 03:15, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

hi's.[edit]

thanks for the revert. I have already posted about this on FireFox's talk page. They first vandalised by talk page before moving to my user one, I reverted that one myself :)

User_talk:FireFox#YOU_are_being_impersonated_-_Please_read.

Do you have any suggestions on what I should do? I think it is User:Kiand but I have no way to check --Mistress Selina Kyle 22:13, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Assistance with arbitration[edit]

We've put in an arbitration that has been accepted [4] The main users involved are

Additional suspected accounts, sock-puppets or cronies (primarily NLP talk page):

Since the arbitration began several new users have popped up with remarkably similar editing style and content POV:

Can you drop by our talk page Talk:Neuro-linguistic_programming and ask these everyone to calm down? I'd really appreciate it. AND if you are up for it we need some assistance in preparing evidence for arbitration so we can restore some civility on the article and talk page. --Comaze 00:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Stupid question, but[edit]

...would you please consider fiddling with your signature a bit? On my screen it looks rather like plaintext with a wikilink in the middle, which is mostly because it's the only sig I know that isn't cursive/bold/colored or anything. No big deal but I'd say there's no harm in asking. Yours, Radiant_>|< 01:27, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Plagarism[edit]

I award this Barnstar in appreciation of supplying software to make it easy for people to add comments to the end of wherever.

Supplied to you by User:AlMac|(talk) 10:18, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Your RFB[edit]

Early congratulations, Alex! NSLE (T+C+CVU) 01:00, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations indeed - I'm guessing you've set the RfB record! BD2412 T 02:19, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Congrats --Jaranda wat's sup 02:20, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations! --cesarb 02:46, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Well done, sir, you're a bureaucrat! And you've beaten me to it, as well :P Congrats! Andre (talk) 02:48, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Let me add my congratulations! Well earned and well done, best wishes! Rx StrangeLove 03:57, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations![edit]

Congratulations, Alex. You are now a member of the Heartless Bureaucracy®. Your special reward for this achievement is that it is rare enough that you're not getting a canned response. By now you should know what's entailed, but I will offer just a few points of simple advice:

  1. Do what you're supposed to do.
  2. Don't do what you're not supposed to do.
  3. Keep only your own counsel or that of other bureaucrats when a decision must be made.
  4. Ask another bureaucrat if you have any questions whatsoever.
  5. Before making a potentially controversial decision, ask yourself: "If this decision is criticized, do I know how I will respond?" And note that you may be questioned on decisions that appear obvious to almost anyone.
  6. Once you make a decision, you are like an umpire, never change it except under the most unusual circumstances, such as the revelation of an important compelling fact, such as that the "successful" candidate is a fugitive war criminal. Ignore this advice and your decisions will be constantly questioned.

Having said all that, enjoy having reached the pinnacle (*cough*) of unpaid English Wikipedia responsibility! :) -- Cheers, Cecropia 02:36, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

A bureaucrat noticeboard? I didn't know it existed so I can't say if it's active. -- Cecropia 02:47, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
It's rarely used. Mainly because it's so rare that there's a tough decision (and even rarer that the person who is faced with such a decision doesn't just make it). By the way, the above is very good advice. If we're seen as at all wishy-washy, everyone who fails an RfA will start second-guessing and asking others to intervene, and it will very quickly become a zoo. -- Pakaran 04:47, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Congrats![edit]

And you were all worried! 120-2 is pretty ringing. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 04:17, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Btw, looks like the last post to the BN is 12/15, so it's somewhat active. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 04:19, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations! I'm proud to have been the very very first vote on your RfB, it's still funny to me how I just happened to notice you going by in the IRC bot's report, wandered over to vote, and was like..."Hey did y'all notice Linuxbeak's RfB just went up?" and the mad rush that followed that. Heh. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 05:18, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Don't remind me, I was supposed to get the first vote, and ended up getting a seven-time edit conflict. :P NSLE (T+C+CVU) 05:26, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Tee-hee. What's sad is how short term my memory is, I saw this and went "Hey, he's not supposed to do that, only Bureaucrats...can.......nevermind." Ëvilphoenix Burn! 05:59, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Barely a newly minted b-cat, and already screwing up :-)[edit]

Linuxbeak; a) congratulations on the overwhelming support for your bureaucratship. Well deserved! b) When making ILS approaches to RfAs, please remember to place the appropriate templates on the page when you reach the outer marker. These include {{rfap}} at the top of a page for successful RfAs, {{rfaf}} for unsuccessful, and {{rfab}} at the bottom of each RfA. rfaf applies whether "failed" or "no concensus". When you reach the middle marker, make sure you change "ending" to "ended". Whether you mark the end time as originally posted or when you actually ended it is, I think, up to you. There doesn't appear to be any policy on the point. When you reach the inner marker, stick your head between your knees, click "save page" and hope like hell you do it as nicely as the Midwest Air pilot did it tonight in Boston. :) (See [5], [6], [7]) All the best, --Durin 05:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

What happened in Boston? Ëvilphoenix Burn! 05:18, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
This, presumably. -- Pakaran 05:33, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Hi Linuxbeak. Thanks for the note about my successful RfA, and also for your vote of support. I feel very honored, and promise to use my shiny new sysop powers judiciously and well. :) -GTBacchus(talk) 05:15, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Username change[edit]

Thanks for the help. Jamie (talk/contribs) 13:33, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Andy blocked from AN/I[edit]

Tony Sidaway prepared a central location for Pigsonthewings probation blocks— Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing/Probation. As your block is under the same provisions, you might want to update the page with the relevant info. —Locke Cole 13:44, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, look, Locke Cole's stiring up trouble. Hypocrite! Andy Mabbett 14:30, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
That's stirring up trouble? Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 14:31, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
As much or as little as I was, when so accused. Andy Mabbett 14:36, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Ummm?[edit]

I agree that Andy shouldn't be lashing out at Karmafist and Locke Cole. I agree that he complains alot. I agree that he'd be better served by letting it go and returning to trying to edit articles. However, in regards to:

"People are not out to target you."

Please tell me you were kidding.

One of the reasons that Andy isn't editing articles is almost certainly the fact that when he has tried Karmafist (prior to being banned from doing so) and Locke Cole followed him around to articles they had never visited before and reverted his edits. That's not kosher. Blocks for the 'personal attack' of calling something censorship are not kosher. Blocks made to win a content dispute are not kosher. Karmafist has openly been talking about indefinitely blocking Andy, and doing everything in his power to make that happen, since something like three days (and ten edits) after their paths first crossed. People are absolutely 'out to target' Pigsonthewing. That's half the problem... his response to such being the other half. --CBD 14:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

The critical difference being that Karmafist has, to my knowledge, backed off. He's been leaving Andy alone, with the probably exception of when Andy turns up on his Talk page to complain actions outside of the dispute that he had with him, and when Andy posts to the noticeboards complaining about him. Karmafist has changed his behavior, and has acknowledged that he made some errors. Andy hasn't changed a whit, continues in his disruptive behavior, and refuses to ever admit to being in the wrong, and thats the fundamental problem, and the main reason he continues to end up blocked. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 23:09, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
After hearing that, I'm inclined to agree with you. All sides have been acting foolishly. However, the way that Andy has presented his case has been in a very abusive, and, I will say it, annoying manner. When one refuses to acknowledge the existance or the validity of an RfC or an RFAr, that really gets under my skin (along with a lot of other people!). So... while I am now inclined to agree with you, Andy has not made it any easier for himself. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 14:45, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
that really gets under my skin: so, you're making this personal? Andy Mabbett 14:46, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
He's saying it annoys him. It annoys him that you refused to participate in your RfC, and he's saying that it annoyed him that you hold such contempt for the ArbCom. He's saying you're making it difficult for yourself. That doesn't mean he's making it personal. And as far as that goes, you could just as easily be claimed to be making things personal, with your dogged pursuit of Karmafist and Locke Cole. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 23:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree that Andy shouldn't be lashing out at Karmafist and Locke Cole.: Thank you, CDB, but I'm not 'lashing out', I'm making valid comments on the real behaviour of others, unlike the proven lies and inventions some of them have posted (or, rather, I was, before I was banned from doing so in an act of censorship which neatly proves my meta-point). Andy Mabbett 14:46, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
If CBD, your strongest defender, uses the term "lashing out", it's worth considering that maybe you're coming on a little strong. The best approach for you, if you have a problem with another user's actions, would be to contact CBD and discuss it with him. He is a very thoughtful, articulate person, and works hard to find the truth in the situations he deals with. He would be a good ally for you, and taking your issues to him, instead of the noticeboards, would gain you much more mileage. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 23:13, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Also, Locke Cole has openly declared that he operates a veto over my edits. Andy Mabbett 14:51, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
That kind of attitude won't be long tolerated on his part. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 23:15, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
(to Linuxbeak - edit conflict) Exactly what I've been telling him. People generally aren't inclined to give you a thorough hearing when you've annoyed them. However, while this is an inevitable aspect of human nature, that doesn't mean we shouldn't strive against it. It's only by being fair even to the annoying people that 'fairness' establishes any meaning at all. --CBD 14:53, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
(to Andy) I understand, but I think the manner in which you are 'proving your point' is going to result in (at best) a Phyrric victory. And that only if the admin community shows the very best standards of fair and reasoned decision-making... as opposed to responding like any normal person would. --CBD 14:53, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Admins clearly aren't normal people - they're policemen, judges and 'executioners'; and should behave and be held accountable as such. Andy Mabbett 16:00, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Abuse[edit]

Kindly remove the derogatory and false comment about me, from the table on your talk page. Andy Mabbett 14:48, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Lord. He said you acted weird. Given the amount of invective that has been hurled at you, that's inconceivably minor. You need to address your own problems before you criticise others. Nobody in this debate, Karmafist, Locke Cole, Leonig Mig, Scottfisher, myself even, and you, is above reproach. Nobody. What is bothersome to people is that you absolutely refuse to acknowledge that your behavior needs to improve. You patently refuse to acknowledge the things that you have done that are out of line, and you refuse to change your behavior. You remove warnings and notices critical of you from your Talk page, yet complain about it if other people remove your comments from their Talk pages. The moment someone else does something remotely problematic, you raise a huge stink about it. This is a case where the parable about removing the plank from your own eye before criticising the splinter in your brothers eye holds true. Leave Karmafist alone. Just let him be. I've been hounding him to leave you alone, and to let other people work with you, and for him not to get involved, yet you continually criticise him and attempt to raise problems with him. Just let him be. If he behaves problematically, it will get dealt with. It's not something you need to get yourself involved in, and if you do, it will only weaken your position. Your continual raising of issues is like the boy who cried wolf, and the more you cry foul, the less people will be interested in defending you. That being said, we're all still interested in being as fair as possible. If Locke Cole gets in another revert war with you, we'll address that. Please, continue editing positively, and you'll be ok. Remember that it takes two to revert war, so if you make the nobler choice and don't revert, you'll come out looking better, and you'll be far more likely to be successful in the discussion. Ëvilphoenix Burn!
There are so many lies in your rant that I hardly know where to begin; if you continue to behave in that manner, I shall assume that you are being dishonest deliberately, rather than through ignorance or incompetance. Andy Mabbett 19:19, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Is that so? Well sir, I believe I may be accurate in saying that your Arbitration is about to re-open. I suggest you prepare evidence and contribute to it, rather than ignoring it as you have been doing. The truth will come out. Best regards, Ëvilphoenix Burn! 03:07, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
The truth will come out. Will it be ignored, again, as well? Best regards: Not based on past evidence. Andy Mabbett 09:44, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Who is doing the ignoring? You ignored your RfAr. I suggest you not repeat that if it re-opens. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 00:34, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

proposed ban from Karmafists Userspace[edit]

I propose that Pigsonthewing be banned from Karmafists User and Talk space, and all subpages, per the recent ArbCom ruling placing Andy on probation. Please see this for discussion, and I would welcome your input there. Thank you. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 23:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, but this point needs to be made - Karmafist calling User talk:Karmafist/POTW Archive the "troll gulag" and edits like this are what I mean about Karmafist being the instigator of hostilities here and not 'leaving Pigsonthewing alone' as has been claimed. If calling Pigsonthewing a "troll" doesn't violate this arbitration decision then there is no way the various 'personal attack' blocks against Pigsonthewing himself (for much less severe comments) were valid. When you guys banned Pigsonthewing from responding on either of those pages I told you that only covered half the problem. Karmafist should also be stopped from his continued harassment of Pigsonthewing. His decision to post insults on pages Pigsonthewing is banned from responding to makes it all the more egregious. Andy was not involved in the incident sparking Karmafist's comments here at all. Karmafist just felt like gratuituously insulting him. Again. And no admin said boo about it. Again. I keep hearing about how I shouldn't 'claim Andy is completely innocent'... I've never actually done that. From day one I have taken issue with his behaviour as well. What I do have a problem with are the false claims that Karmafist isn't doing anything wrong. He's been blatantly violating WP:NPA, WP:HA, and a host of restrictions on use of admin powers for a couple of months now. I don't think that means he should be de-sysoped, but I do think people need to stop making excuses for him and get him to play by some set of rules other than WP:IAR. --CBD 14:57, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm curious how comments like that would even be discovered by Pigsonthewing unless he was reading Karmafist's contribs. In other words: how does it instigate anything unless POTW is stalking Karmafist? (Note that this is in stark contrast to POTW stalking Karmafist at his ArbCom election page, or to other users talk pages. The big difference being that POTW actively engages Karmafist, while Karmafist merely generally stays within his own spaces). —Locke Cole 15:10, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Meanwhile, in the real world.... Andy Mabbett 19:19, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

America's Army[edit]

I didn't know you played AA. Maybe we should start a Wikipedian clan or something, or at least an association. (User category?) -- Natalinasmpf 00:22, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

You know how you sorted things out with Brandt?[edit]

Think again. You're back on The List, and I notice he's put all the personal information back on as well. I know I've probably just ruined your day and for that I apologise, but I just thought you should know.

I really don't know what to think about this guy. You'd think he'd have the decency to at least acknowledge your apology. I don't know if you'll be pissed off at this, but I am. Raven4x4x 01:50, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Understandably pissed off you are. Personally, I'm not going to make a big fuss about it. I apologized for my words in a phone conversation; I suggested some compromises, and at that point it's up to him to decide what to do. If he wants to put my info back up on his thing, I'm not particularly concerned. My conscience is clear, and to me that's all that matters at this point.
If Mr. Brandt wants to continue acting in a way that is totally unreasonable, then I won't help him. Let him go off on his crusade. I think he's got a point, but at this point people are so fed up with it that they don't want to hear it. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 02:27, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, I wasn't going to suggest making a big thing of it (or even a little thing). I'm going to ignore him from now on. Raven4x4x 11:15, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

You did the right thing. Its not the result that matters, its how you go about it. I am very proud of you. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 12:16, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Merry Christmas[edit]

I would like to wish you and your family a Merry Christmas and all the best for the New Year. Guettarda 17:24, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I also wish you and your family a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. Congratulations on your elevation to the bureaucrat’s position. --Bhadani 16:02, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Alex, Thank you for your offer. Considering what an ass I was to you previously I am very impressed. I have a feeling that it is all just seasonal foolishness and I'm NOT really bothered all that much. I have incorporated the -warning boxes- into my HUMOR section and responded with whitty commentary. Best wishes for a prosperous new year. Braaad 20:11, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Blocking User:Nick levine[edit]

Hi. Thanks for your reply. Yes, please could you block access to User:Nick levine (lower case "l"). Cheers, Nick Levine 19:30, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Help[edit]

I uploaded an image of Ari Meyers within the the accordance established by Wikipedia (source and licence) and someone put it up for deletion because "it is unencyclopedic". The image is of good taste and just because it is a wallpaper image I don't think it should be deleted. Please view and if you can, express your opinion. Images and media for deletion/2005 December 24 Thank you, Tony the Marine 03:45, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Christmas Gift[edit]

from Tony the Marine 07:24, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Ignore user[edit]

Hi Linuxbeak. I thought to ask you here what I can do if I want to ignore someone. They are making things very unpleasant for me here, and I don't want to communicate with them anymore, yet there doesn't seem to be any way to get them to stop leaving me harassing comments in my talk page, nor to stop them from following me in to other articles and leaving me harassing messages in other people's talk pages after my comments etc. I have asked them to stop harassing me, informed them that their following me in to other articles is described as "Wikistalking", and described to them that I do not wish to communicate with them any longer. They are now insisting that I should get banned for trying to infringe on their freedom of speech, and are harassing everyone else who is in any way trying to stop them from harassing me. On other internet systems I have used, there has been a simple way to "ignore" someone. At a bare minimum I want them to be prevented from being able to leave comments in my user talk page. However, I would also like for them to be forbidden from contacting me on other talk pages as well. Obviously, they can still talk about me, but I just don't want this harassment. The person concerned is User:Antaeus Feldspar who started doing this because of my efforts in relation to his apparent mortal enemy, User:Daniel Brandt. He has most recently commented on my talk page so as to "prove his innocence" that he is not harassing me and is now leaving unwelcome messages on my talk pages. He has also left messages on other users' talk pages as well as article talk and Wikipedia talk and in edit summaries in articles so as to "prove his innocence" that he is not following me around and is not Wikistalking me. He has also threatened me so as to prove that he is not threatening me. Quite frankly, I think that the guy is insane. I know that that's rude, but seriously, I can't imagine anyone taking him seriously. However, due to my efforts with the Poetlister issue (see User:Zordrac/Poetlister), a similar case to the Daniel Brandt issue in a lot of ways, I have also inherited User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters who is behaving in the exact same way as Antaeus. Whilst Antaeus obviously started it and his actions are much worse, I would like to ignore both of them. Because of the stress that this creates, I don't ideally want to go through the whole stress of a Request for Arbitration etc. I quite simply just want them to stop. Is there some way that this can be done? Wikipedia:Harassment seems to suggest that the fact that I have already asked them to stop and yet they've continued after this suggests that they are now required to stop. Thanks for any help. Oh, and P.S. it is very likely that one or both of them will comment in here, proving their guilt even further. Expect it. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 12:26, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. HolyRomanEmperor 13:46, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Withdraw[edit]

Hey mate,

sorry to be of any trouble but I cant work out how to withdraw my nomination for administrator. If its not too much trouble could you please assist me in anyway possible by withdrawing it for me or instruct me on how to withdraw from being a candidate for admin.

Any help will be greatly appreciated. --Ari89 14:16, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Removed from RFA. --cesarb 17:40, 24 December 2005 (UTC)


Merry Christmas!![edit]

MERRY CHRISTMAS, Linuxbeak/Archive5! A well deserved pressy!--Santa on Sleigh 22:21, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!![edit]

Dear Linux: Thanks for your present!

You know, I lve near a general aviation airport, and my neighborhood is used as an index point by jet pilots flying to Sky Harbor, and also I live close to a hospital so I see Air-Evacs all the time. Needless to say, Ive gotten to appreciate the small, privately owned propellers as much as I loved jetliners when I grew up! Thank you so much for the photo, that airplane looks neat.

Two days ago, and to give you an idea of what the skies are over my house, me and my niece saw a USPS Boeing 727, a private, general aviation aircraft, an air evac and a police helicopter...all at the same time1!!

Im sending you a presnet as well, here it is:

Mexicana used to fly this same airplane over my house when I lived in Puerto Rico (the airline had only two DC-10s, they were used for Caribbean routes, and I remember seeing them). To top it all, when I saw a die-cast model of this airplane, with the same registration at Hobby Bench, I couldsnt resist so I have it here in front of me ,..lol I hope you enjoy it!!

Merry, Merry Christmas, may you get all the presents you desverve and spend the holidays how you wish with your belocved ones.

God bless you!

Sincerely yours, Antonio Mexicana ay ay ay!! Martin

Possible rename[edit]

I may want to remove the (MTG) from my name. What are the potential side effects though? I know that you are a Bcrat, so that is why I am asking you. Thanks.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 23:00, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Need some clarification :-)[edit]

Hey there linuxbeak. I need a bit of clarification. I want to classify articles that are within the realm of nutrition for cleanup based on the category. Eg - "Nutrition articles requiring cleanup" - Is there any possibility that i am allowed to do this, or do i have to whack it in with the other 1000+ articles requiring cleanup? I want to actually have ease by simply adding the category and t hen looking at the category list and seeing what work i have to do, rather than manually editing a page. :-/ Regards, xmas greetings, hello etc Spum 22:39, 26 December 2005 (UTC)