User talk:-Ril-

Comments about my signature go here

I have split my talk page into 3 sections. Please respect the sections as I will ignore and delete anything not respecting them. Thanks, ~~~~

This page, nor any of the subsections, is not to be used for the preservation of articles, or talk pages, about to be deleted in accordance with a vote on VfD.

---

El_C

I'm not sure you are reading this as you seem to have suggested you have put the subsection (which a blocked user cannot edit) on your watch page. In a way, I suppose that is entirely my fault for having the subsections on different pages and templating them onto the talk page.

Basically, SimonP made 4 reverts as well, indeed before me. Simon's edits involve removing sections that contain comments and votes by people other than him, as well as adjusting what it was that people had already voted for (a bit like having a VFD over King Kong's 512th Greatest Hits Album and then, after 50 people have voted delete, and 2 to keep, changing the VFD to be over Jesus, and claiming that there was an overwealming majority to delete it as fancruft).

I do not regard this as appropriate behaviour, and was merely restoring the comments, votes, and what it was that these people had signed their votes to. His edits removing their votes, comments, and changing what it was that other people signed up to, effectively constitute vandalism, albeit rather refined, and reversion of vandalism is not covered by 3RR.

He is the author of the articles that started all this, and is simply trying to sabotage any attempt to obtain consensus, simply because it will go against him.

It should be noted that since he also violated 3RR he shouldn't be able to edit Wikipedia at the moment either. ~~~~ 01:52, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, I watchlisted User:-Ril-/Nissa (I'm not sure what it means) for some inexplicable reason, sorry about that. In answer to your question, I cannot take action against Simon P for edits which "effectively constitute vandalism, albeit rather refined," because it's too loose. If, however, you can demonstrate that there is some consensus that these edits did, in fact, consititute vandalism, then I will reconsider. As for his self-correction, and him not undergoing a block, this is in accordance to policy. I view the 3RR as a "cool down" period, and as such, I view your block as arbitrary; meaning, had he not self-corrected, he would also be blocked right now, had you self-corrected, you would not be blocked right now. It sounds procedural (that's the arbitrary apsect), but the aim is to reduce conflict from being intensified. I suggest that you gain the consensus toward your position in this case, this way you will not risk violating the 3RR. El_C 02:07, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

In fact, he has just claimed the poll is closed on the poll page because it isn't going his way. ~~~~ 01:58, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Following edit conflict: You are, of course, more than free to contest that claim, but in fairness, it states that the poll is temporarily closed. El_C 02:07, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Also it should be noted that when the poll closed the option I supported was leading by 19 to 4. - SimonP 02:16, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Accepted.

I have divided up the page to stop a repeat of the last vote. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:48, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Voting results

Please see: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#When_delete_votes_means_to_keep. --Ttyre 17:32, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I'll add my opinion tommorrow, I'm marking some extensive coursework at the moment, and I need to finish by wednesday. ~~~~ 17:50, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

About Authentic Matthew

I don't understand your criteria in dividing this page up, so I'm posting this at the bottom of your Talk page, where it is the custom to put comments on other Talk pages.

Basically, the options are

• You want to say something nice
• You want to say something nasty
• You want to say something else

These have a section each

~~~~ 19:28, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I was responding to a comment you left on my Talk page. My intent in writing did not concern whether you felt it was nice or nasty; further, you may disagree about whether my intent was to be nice or nasty. Frankly, I find it much easier to get my point across without worrying which one of these categories it should belong to; you are welcome to move this section accrodingly. -- llywrch 02:30, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I would put it in the "something else" category then. That's where most of the comments go (I've had to archive the old page). ~~~~ 07:50, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

This article reports a POV, which was held by Jerome, not the Wikipedian who wrote the article. Whether the POV is "correct" or "incorrect" is irrelevant; as long as it limits itself to reporting the substance of the claim, & who claims it, then I feel it is acceptible content for Wikipedia. And while it's been several months since I looked at the literature, I believe a number of scholars have also reported that this was Jerome's opinion -- so it is not a case of original research.

But the point is that Jerome's position is almost universally regarded, by academics, and non-academics (including those of extreme religious and non-religious bias, as well as the more neutral), to be wrong. Not only that, but they believe that Jerome held it only because he didn't have enough information, and that he didn't hold it as an alternative to any other theory. I.e. Jerome didn't hold it as a rival theory to what we now regard as accurate, he just held it as true because he didn't know of anything else.

It would be like having an article about "scorpions commit suicide when threatened too seriously, e.g. by fire". They don't. Ever. It's a myth (caused by scorpion's cold bloodedness going haywire under high heat, causing them to have random spasms - their poison is NOT toxic to themselves, and even if they deliberately stung themselves, it would do nothing). Note, this is not the same as an article about "it is a myth that ....".

We also have an article about Phlogiston. Applying the your criteria to that article means that it should be also listed on VfD. -- llywrch 02:30, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

But Phlogiston was a theory supported by a large number of reputable scholars. There are none supporting the content of the article. Jerome is notable, but not everything he says is notable or deserving its own article as a result, otherwise we would have an article on "Salissa is an attractive lady, but her boyfriend is a fat traitor, and that new fashion for red sandals is vile". ~~~~ 07:59, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Authentic Matthew is presenting someone's unintended error due to lack of info as a genuine, and rival, theory, presenting it as fact, presenting it as if it is the same as the modern theory (it is completely different, and opposed to many of the points), by deliberately misusing terms from modern theory (see the articles themselves) - terms and theories Jerome did not use because they didn't exist until after 1800. ~~~~ 19:28, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

The flaw in your arguments is that it presumes intention on behalf of its original author to present Original Research, which hereafter taints this article. I believe that bad articles can be rescued, improved, & fixed; that is one of the ideals behind Wikipedia, that all articles improve. From the changes that were made this last weekend, this one looks as if it is headed in that direction; I am willing to give it some time to see if I'm right. The worst case is that it will simply require more time to build a consensus for the article's deletion.

The fact that there is no-one else involved in creating the article, that it is defended with an army of (obvious) sockpuppets, and that no-one can anywhere else find the content, illustrates that it is original research. ~~~~ 07:59, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Lastly, I am not at all invested in the fate of this article: if the vote goes against my opinion, & it fails its VfD & is deleted, I'll likely keep on contributing to Wikipedia; the loss of one brick will not bring down this entire edifice. I wonder if you can make the same claim. -- llywrch 02:30, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I would like to reiterate that I am uncomfortable with the current article name, & beleive that it should be changed. But I mentioned that in my VfD vote. And whether this article duplicates material from other articles is another matter; a number of pages begin with duplicated material, & grow into articles with independent content. But if making a merge would be the best thing to do, then this option should be argued -- not complete deletion.

FWIW, this is the first time I've ever been contacted about changing my vote concerning VfD. I find it unusual. -- llywrch 17:33, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I've seen it on lots of people's pages. I have many contacts from people about my own votes above (most of which are now archived b.t.w.). I had assumed it was standard practice. ~~~~ 19:28, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Beware of trolls

-Ril- please (and this is not an attempt to gag - but a plea) stop making sockpuppet allegations on Authentic Matthew. I thought you had agreed to leave that to User:Ta bu shi da yu. Personaly, I think your allegations are probably justified, but if this becomes a debate between you and opposing forces of darkness, I fear that the article will survive. I think they are probably trolling for your reaction anyway. --Doc (?) 22:57, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

They have 3 edits between them, all to the VFD, all as if they have met me, the dispute, and the article, before. I'd have thought they were obviously sockpuppets. I want them blocked so that the accounts that own them are revealed as well. ~~~~ 23:00, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Agreed - but I suggest you point it out to User:Ta bu shi da yu - if named as socks by a neutral person, it will carry more weight - and your prior comments will be vindicated. --Doc (?) 23:08, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I did that before I even responded to you. ~~~~ 23:19, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

VfD of Authentic Matthew

Thank you for your opinion. After further consideration, I have decided to stand by my original vote. Thanks! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 15:49, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

RfA for Germen

Please be aware that, in light of the RfC against Germen, I have raised an request for arbitration for him. Axon (talk|contribs) 10:12, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Your signature (again)

Ril, I find your signature confusing, as do at least some others. Would you be willing to consider changing it? The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:47, 28 July 2005 (UTC) No. Thanks anyway. ~~~~ 21:52, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Actually I find your sig to be difficult too. The problem is when refering to you. if someone types ~~~~ then what appears is their sig and datestamp, Which is annoying to say the least.

Suggestions for possible alternatives:

• ~~-~
• ~Ril~
• ~~^ril~~
• ~~^tilde~
• ~~_´`´ ~

I'm sure you could think of others too. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 22:23, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

You shouldn't rely on who people claim to be and who they actually are. Signatures are easy to forge. I never copy someone's signature, but actually go to their userpage and check to see who they genuinely are. -- Theresa knott (a tenth stroke) 22:36, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

If you want to refer to me, you can always click edit, and copy + paste my signature. Or you can use <nowiki>~~</nowiki><nowiki>~~</nowiki> ~~~~ 22:32, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

(that looks like <nowiki><</nowiki>nowiki<nowiki>></nowiki>~~<nowiki><</nowiki>/nowiki<nowiki>></nowiki><nowiki><</nowiki>nowiki<nowiki>></nowiki>~~<nowiki><</nowiki>/nowiki<nowiki>></nowiki> in the edit window, which obviously looks even worse) ~~~~ 22:33, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I'm a bit annoyed that [[User:~~~~]] already exists, otherwise I'd have had that. Linking to it, and to its diffs, is amusing.

Maybe I should sign <nowiki> instead ? ~~~~ 22:42, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

That would be even worse. If someone copied your sig rasther than copied and pasted it it would nowiki all further edits. The point I am trying to make is you should choose a sig that people can simply write when they want to refer to you. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 22:45, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

So tell me, why does no-one complain about User:Eequor? ~~~~ 22:48, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps because Eequor's signature doesn't fuck things up if you type it rather than copy and paste it. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 23:09, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

You can no-more type Eequor's signature than mine. ~~~~ 23:24, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I can easily type your signature. But if I do it fucks up. Eequor's signsture is difficult (but not impossible) to type, and if I do, it doesn't fuck up. So there is a big difference. I'm not saying Eequor's sig is good or clever. In fact I think it's rubbish, but it is less annoying or problematic than yours. A while back I used a graphic as a sig that morphed my name into an anagram. People complained about it and came up with a number of reasons why it wasn't a good idea. So I changed it. No big deal. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 23:53, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

The thing is, this is simply signature fascism, a subtle form of racism. I'm keeping it. ~~~~ 07:35, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Racism? You are talking bollocks. How can asking someone to change their sig to something a little less difficult possibly be a form of racism, subtle or otherwise? I have no idea what race you are. If you insist on keeping your crappy sig then so be it, but people will think badly of you for it. You are obviosly fine with people thinking badly of you over something so trivial. So be it. I'm outta here. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 21:18, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Racism because you are judging that it does not resemble the form you have, and is therefore somehow wrong. Note I said subtle. ~~~~ 08:06, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

then i would sugest that pople not take ril seriously till he stops not aking everyone else seriously. Gabrielsimon 07:53, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Suggesting that people violate Wikipedia:Assume good faith is inappropriate behaviour. So is trolling someone else's talk page when you don't have anything direct to say. ~~~~ 08:07, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

its obvious your not taking any of this seriously, and if you dont take this place seriouisly, what would give you the inkling to expect anyone to tak tyou seriously in that case? ( not trying to be rude, trying to illustrate my point) Gabrielsimon 08:10, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I strongly suggest you cease trolling. You are 1 vote away from an arbitration case against you. ~~~~ 08:15, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

calm down for a monment and think about what i said from a perspective not your own, youll seee what im trying to say, im not attempting to " trol" Gabrielsimon 08:17, 29 July 2005 (UTC) Trolling is what you are doing on this talk page. You have no reason to have come here, but have chosen to do so merely to carry out an attack. That is trolling. You are now banned from this talk page for the next week. If you edit it, your edits will be reverted by me on sight. ~~~~ 09:01, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Test {{subst:Special:Watchlist}} 12:17, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Noitall

Hi -Ril-, Noitall is getting the impression that you're following his edits and reverting them inappropriately, perhaps because of bad feeling between you. I've checked out a few of the edits, and it does look as though there's a problem. Is there anything I can do to help out? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:06, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Maybe you can persuade him that his edits on Islam-related issues are not NPOV, and that images such as Image:G-string-micro.gif are not speedy deletable, despite their pornographic nature (otherwise the erection picture at Penis wouldn't exist), and should be IFD'd instead. ~~~~ 07:31, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

What do you see as the problem with his Islam-related edits, and can you give some examples? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:57, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

• [1] - note the top, and the edit summary
• [2]
• [3] more of the same, this time posting to an article, thus constituting a personal attack
• [4] - note also the edit summary
• [5]
• [6] - totally POV edit
• [7] and [8] unfactual POV
• [9] - note edit summary
• [10] POV - whole point of NOT mentioning that in the article was because many christian sects disagree, and it is discussed at christology
• [11] POV - note edit summary
• [12] seriously offensive personal attack on a well respected editor
• [13] edits to assert a POV without actually checking validity - later partially reverts her/himself

Further, his edit history is filled almost 100% with edit wars, including edits actually encouraging (explicitely) people to engage in edit wars. This is not constructive behaviour. ~~~~ 20:12, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

• Of course, he did not address the issue of his behavior on this page or on my talk page. Apparently, he thinks that revenge and personal attacks are appropriate for him to take if he dislikes things an editor has done or said with someone else (which I would dispute in any event). Despite his personal attacks, which have no justification even though he attempts to justify them above, and although I have refrained (as much as I possibly can) from taking any actions against him, I continue to try to resolve this issue (if it can be resolved). That is the entire reason that I requested SlimVirgin to see what can be done to resolve the issue.

-Ril- still failed to address the issues I before asked of him (this was about the 5th or 6th attempt), , which are:

1. your reactionary reverts are done for revenge

   No, they are done because your edits are not NPOV.

2. your attacks against me in the past where you attempted to certify an RfC and tried to revert a deleted RfC without any justification, followed by your continuing reactionary reverts on this article without any justification.

   I certified the RFC because

   • the majority of your entire edit history is edit warring
   • you insert POV into articles, then revert any changes to it on sight
   • you insult well respected editors, such as Mustafaa, even calling them terrorists and vandals, merely for contesting your edits
   • you actively encourage other editors explicitely to edit war
   • you claim you have support from other editors for your edits, and when questioned provide no evidence of the claimed support whatsoever
   • etc..

3. after being provided a source concerning the making of a non-controvercial edit, much of which was not written by me, you refuse to consider the source

   POV IS a controversial edit. If it wasn't controversial, you wouldn't keep insisting on making it - if it was non-controversial you wouldn't care.

4. continuing to make POV charges without once stating what is POV

   POV is defined as a violation of WP:NPOV

5. continuing to make POV charges despite the fact that many other editors contributed to drafting this passage

   The only editor changing the passage in the edit history is Noitall. When asked to provide evidence that other editors support you changing the passage, you provided none. ~~~~ 08:15, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

6. each and every edit has been a reactionary revert without a single attempt to state the supposedly POV issue or suggest a way of changing my edit such that it would be supposedly less POV

Try to address the issues to be resolved, not how you can justify your continuing personal attacks. --Noitall 00:25, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

-Ril-, perhaps you could try to avoid the appearance of revenge reverts of Noitall's edits. While content disputes are valid, reverting an editor's work because you don't like him is disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point. No purpose is served by creating more bad feeling. It will only end up causing more RfCs and possibly an arbcom case, and it's definitely not worth it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:47, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

I have not reverted Noitall's work because of any opinion of Noitall's character. The things I have reverted are because they are either POV, or inappropriate. ~~~~ 08:15, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

• In all his writing here, on the article talk page, on my page, he continues to respond with lots of writing, but refuses to address a single issue. If simply stating "POV" is enough to justify all his personal attacks and edit warring, then no one on Wiki is safe. --Noitall 14:17, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

• Actually, on controversial issues, when challenged, you are required, by wikipedia policy, to justify your edits, not the reversion of non-justified edits. You did not justify your edits even remotely satisfactorially, I was well within standard policy in reverting them until you provide an explanation - the only one you came up with was that "it had support from other editors" when I asked for evidence, none was provided. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 14:22, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

New VfD

Hi Ril, are you putting the other ones up for VfD again as well? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:18, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I didn't put them up in the first place, someone beat me to it. So I don't feel it would be right for me to open those up again when whoever it was that did it should have the (somewhat dubious) honour. ~~~~ 19:32, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

WARNING

Ril you are being attacked - there is a User:--Ril-- spaming 'authentic matthew with porn. --Doc (?) 21:55, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. Thanks for the heads-up, Doc! FreplySpang (talk) 22:02, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I can guess exactly who that is. ~~~~ 07:04, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Rather afraid not

I would also like to see it gone. However, if you add the merges with the deletes, that's still about 62% delete, and really we need at least 70% delete (as a rule of thumb). Take out the merges, and you get even less. Sorry, it's staying. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:00, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Total votes - 36

• 21 delete - 58%
• 11 keep - 31%
• 4 merge - 11%

Taking delete and merge together

• 25 delete or merge - 69%
• 11 keep - 31%

Adding in your own opinion

• 37 total
• 26 delete or merge - 70.3%
• 11 keep - 29.7%

Hmmm, its very close isn't it. ~~~~ 09:14, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Maybe so, but closing admin's decision is final. I concur with the final admin's decision. My advise: the best tonic for stupidity is correcting it with good sources. Please feel free to correct the record. I would, but there's just too much POV pushing for me to keep abreast of it all! - Ta bu shi da yu 12:29, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Authentic Matthew (consensus)

I'll check it out, but I'm not inclined to vote again on something that just survived a VfD, and if I do, I'm inclined to let my vote be swayed by the previous result. -Harmil 12:33, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

• Ril, I responded to your request regarding another VfD for this article over on my talk page. Fernando Rizo T/C 17:35, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

You are blocked for 24 hours

What part of "closing admins decision is final" didn't you understand? I have:

1. Deleted the new VfD,
2. Removed the VfD tag from Authentic Matthew and,
3. Blocked you from editing for 24 hours.

You have been blocked from editing because your action was disruptive of Wikipedia. Please take the time to review WP:POINT while you are unable to edit this site. I hope you learn from this experience that disruptive behaviour is not acceptable on Wikipedia. I will be reporting this to WP:AN and WP:AN/I. If you have a problem with the block, please locate the mailing list and make your comments there.

Ta bu shi da yu 13:41, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

What part of the deletion policy don't you understand? It explicitely states that an article may be relisted for VFD if there is no consensus. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 13:43, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Ta bu shi da yu

You have just violated the blocking policy - Wikipedia:Blocking policy.

Your alleged reason for blocking is "disruption" the blocking policy clearly states

Sysops may, at their judgement, block IP addresses that disrupt the normal functioning of Wikipedia. Such disruption is to be objectively defined by specific policies, and may include changing other users' signed comments or making deliberately misleading edits. Users should be warned that they are violating policy before they are blocked.

You did not do this ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 13:58, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

You have just violated WP:CSD. There is not a single thing on CSD which allows you to speedy delete the new VFD. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 13:58, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

You have just violated Wikipedia:Deletion policy. It says

In general, if an article has been discussed at Votes for Deletion and the discussion did not result in a "delete" decision, the article should not be immediately renominated for deletion, because unless there is a good reason for people to change their minds, the second vote would be identical to the first one. An exception can be made if a vote has no consensus and a severe lack of votes. There is no policy or consensus for a hard time limit before an article can be renominated, but some people are likely to vote 'keep' for the reason that it was already discussed last week.

There was no consensus, so there is nothing wrong with re-listing. It is certainly not a blockable offense. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 13:58, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

And the blocking policy explicitly states that disruptive actions may see you blocked. Your actions were disruptive. You are rightly blocked. Stop ranting at Ta bu shi da yu. Admins are allowed to stop bad-faith and disruptive editing. TBSDY did so. [[smoddy]] 14:01, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

It also explicitely states Users should be warned that they are violating policy before they are blocked Ta bu shi da yu did not do this. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 14:02, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

You have been warned previously that such an action would result in your being blocked. TBSDY was perfectly within his rights. [[smoddy]] 14:09, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Where exactly? Because as far as I can see this is certainly not the case. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 14:15, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

this should have given you some idea. [[smoddy]] 14:19, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Actually, that is about the 2nd VFD not the 3rd. The one that Ta bu shi da yu administered, not the one that Ta bu shi da yu broke deletion policy over. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 20:46, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Ril, you incorrectly highlighted the excerpt from the deletion policy. It says "An exception can be made if a vote has no consensus and a severe lack of votes". The previous VfD did not have a severe lack of votes. Thus, an exception can't be made. Carbonite | Talk 14:24, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

11 votes to keep is a severe lack of votes as far as most people I know would be concerned. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 14:26, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

The lack of votes means about five votes in total, not too few votes for your opinion. [[smoddy]] 14:28, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the 11 votes were for the opposing opinion to mine. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 14:30, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

My mistake. So there were what? twenty votes in all? That seems completely adequate to me. You were certainly being disruptive. [[smoddy]] 14:32, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

I disagree very strongly, and find your motivation suspect. Particularly due to this edit (i.e. you have an issue with me), this edit (i.e. you wish to condemn even when opponents leap to my defence), and this one (i.e. you are an extreme fan of Ta bu shi da yu, and therefore unwilling to judge his/her actions neutrally). ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 14:46, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I agree. I am biased against you, and you know that as well as I do. Therefore, I would never consider blocking you myself. That is not to say that I cannot talk to you. And it is completely ridiculous to suggest that I would support every one of TBSDY's actions. I happen to agree with this one. If I were an arbitrator, I would recuse myself. If I were asked to act in a way pertinent to being an admin, I would recuse myself. I am acting in my position as an editor, the same as you. My motivation is what I think is right. [[smoddy]] 14:52, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad that at least you are honest enough to admit that you are biased against me, even if you are wrong. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 14:56, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Ril. I would like to assist in resolving this matter. I believe that there are three salient points:

• It is considered, at best, poor form to relist articles at VfD immediately after they are kept. Such relistings rarely, if ever, result in the article being deleted, therefore they serve no purpose. In general, when relisting an article on VfD, one waits until either the salient facts that might lead to a deletion decision become more clear, or waits a sufficient length of time that perhaps the criteria for keeping articles may have shifted. In either case, ordinarily some months must go by.
• It is very poor form to second-guess an admin who has closed a VfD discussion.
• Ta bu shi da yu's block is inappropriate, for reasons I will address with Ta bu.. shortly.

Based on this, I am going to unblock you, and I am going to ask you to refrain from relisting Authentic Matthew at VfD. If you make such a listing I will remove it. I also suggest that you drop any further discussion and ruleslawyering wrt to this matter, though I will not try to stop you if you insist upon continuing. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 14:50, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 14:50, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

What is ruleslawyering? ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 14:54, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Arguing the letter of the law rather than the spirit. [[smoddy]] 14:58, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

---

In my defence, I was really high on Codeine at the time. Strike that, I *am* really high on Codeine at this time! El_C 14:57, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Isn't that a headache cure? ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 14:58, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

I had oral surgery (can I say oral on this Television channel?) two days ago (or was it three?). I gotta rest now. El_C 15:09, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Is that the same as dentistry, or actual surgery involving an operating theatre? ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 20:42, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Codeine is used to treat pain. For example, I just came off of a round of it to treat pain related to a moderately severe knife wound (stupidly self-inflicted as a result of failing to correctly de-pit an avocado). It's not terribly good at treating existing pain, but it has the effect of sort of blurring pain which is experienced while on the drug, making it difficult to recall later. -Harmil 15:05, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

That sucks, sorry to hear that. But you didn't need a knife for that, not if it's ripe — and if it isn't ripe, you don't wanna open it anyway. Key, though, is to have lemon. Very, very important for all your avocadoing needs. Trust me: I used to pick avocados right off of trees in my youth. El_C 15:23, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, I managed to stab myself with an umbrella, in the leg, when I was ten. Pouring lemon on the wound wouldn't have helped, I'm sure it would have stung. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 20:42, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Hello!

Thanks for your memos regarding the VfD results. I'm watching those pages to see just where the discussion is going concerning those articles. My own editting contributions could only be directed to prose and grammatical corrections. Certainly, I feel that articles concerning the historical conflicts of various civilizations are worthy of notation in any complete sense of an encyclopedia. If you are planning to contribute any future editting of the articles you mentioned, I wish you good luck! Bon appetite! Hamster Sandwich 21:00, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Your signature (again and again)

Hi -Ril-. With all due respect for you and your contributions history to Wikipedia, I think your signature is inappropriate. Here's why:

• Wikipedia:username says "No deliberately confusing usernames: usernames designed to cause confusion with other contributors, or features of the software." (emphasis added by me) Your signature has the same graphical effect as a username, and is easily confused with a software feature of Wikipedia.

• Truth be told, it is also graphically identical to an existing username, [[User:~~~~]] (which by the way has been used to vandalize pages, was recently permanently banned as a result and is itself a username in clear violation of Wikipedia policy). So not only is it confusing, it's a misprepresentation of who you are, since to my knowledge you're not [[User:~~~~]], and by simple extension both ways, a violation of WP policy.

• It is also identical in appearance to the "nowiki" html tag trick used now and then by anons to mask their IP address.

• It is taken as disruptive by many Wikipedia users (I cite the discussions here on your talkpage and elsewhere).

Would you please change your signature to something more helpful? Thanks. Wyss 01:45, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

CSD

Please stop tagging articles for CSD for bogus reasons like "advertising" and "not notable." Remember vanity only applies if there is no assertion of notability, not if you deem them to be not notable regardless of their assertion. I've just had to remove six or seven of your tags, and it gets very tiresome. Sure, some of those could be taken to VfD and deleted, but they need to be at VfD, because "advertising" is really something that needs cleanup and "not notable" is subjective and needs consensus. Please read over WP:CSD and think about the articles more before tagging. --Dmcdevit·t 10:31, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Okay, now really stop. This is exactly what I told you not to do, and tagging that after I warned you smacks of bad faith. --Dmcdevit·t 20:17, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

References

Ril, while I appreciate your attempts to make articles more readable, I saw you removed several references. References are crucial to support the authenticity of Wikipedia articles. I have added them again. Please don't wipe them out again.--Germen (Talk | Contribs File:Nl small.gif) 12:32, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

References should go in the bibliography section. Including certain references in the body of the text acts as POV. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 18:28, 4 August 2005 (UTC)