User talk:Tchadienne: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 21:08, 8 August 2006

Due to conflicts I will once again be switching accounts. However, in order to keep on editing widely-neglected topics (Chad, State of the Union, verifiability policy, etc) without revealing my connection to past editing, I will still edit under this account for certain topics.

Contacting me under this account should be kept to a minimum. For the few users interested in knowing my new nom de plume, I can be emailed at danofalltrades7@hotmail.com.

To those I collaborated with under this account, thanks a bunch. Tchadienne 20:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Civility

Hi, I’m just dropping by to note that the debate in which you’re involved at the moment doesn’t seem to be going very well. Perhaps a more civil approach with a focus on the disputed object might be more productive. Have a nice day. —xyzzy_n 21:15, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alliance for the Restoration of Peace and Counterterrorism

Hey bro, i please yu something:D we made same article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alliance_for_the_Restoration_of_Peace_and_Counterterrorism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alliance_for_the_Restoration_of_Peace_and_Counter-Terrorism actually, we made different versions.... we'd have 2 unite them (make one article from 2 of them ), I dnt know how to do it:) bye,bye >User talk:Ipernar

Warned

You've already been warned and blocked once for reverting warnings on your talk page. Do it again and you will be blocked again. Sasquatch t|c 02:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That was not a warning. But go ahead and block me... since im already illegitimately blocked, somehow blocking me again for reverting your comment on my talkpage would be quite amusing.

Welcome!

Hello, Tchadienne, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Tchadienne 02:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Olive branch

Hi, I never meant to offend you in any way, and I certainly never meant to preach to you or patronise you. If I did so, I apologise. If you'd ever like to chat I'm usually on IRC, nickname jacoplane... I'm actually rather interested in your insight in African affairs, but I guess I'll never get to converse with you about because of this animosity we've got going between us for some reason. I'm sorry you felt you had to abandon your old account, I hope it wasn't because of me. I hope you don't think I'm stalking you, if you do, I'll leave you alone. I just wasn't satisfied with the way we left our dispute, which is why I contacted you again. If you don't want to correspond with me again I'll understand and I'll leave you alone. Take care, jaco♫plane 01:50, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jewess

See my comment at Talk:Banu Nadir. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-16 17:16

Yes, but not offensive for the reasons you claim. See the article's talk page. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-16 17:28

Welcome back

Hi Tchadienne. Just wanted to give you a welcome back. I'm happy that all that happened to you hasn't make you lose interest for wikipedia (BTW, great name!). Ciao, and have care :-)--Aldux 17:42, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sudan, Chad & CAR

Hi Tchadienne, sorry I awnser only now, but I've been away from wiki for some days. Thanks for the link; I must admit I made a jump when I read the article, I had simply no idea such a thing could happen; as a rule the CAR has had little problems with both Sudan and Chad, even if they have long borders in common. That it's bad, there can be little doubt; but it's hard to understand why such a thing is happening; I don't see the point for muslim Chadian insurgents to attack CAR, and how they, or even Sudan, can believe to earn anything from such an action. Maybe the insurgents aren't anymore sure of Sudan's support, and are searching new logistic bases of support; even if I doubt they will find any in CAR, where muslims are few and not very militant. As for Sudan, I don't know if they're behind this; relations with CAR are quite good, so I don't see why they would provoke one of the few bordering countries that doesn't hate them.--Aldux 00:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As for the article at current events, in my opinion that the Sudanese invasion of Chad, civil war in Chad, and genocide in Darfur, are linked, is obvious to everybody who has eyes to see. That they were ever "initially four different conflicts" is questionable; the present Chadian civil war and the the Chad-Sudan conflict were clearly from the start connected to Darfur. Maybe you've been a bit hasty with CAR; we really know to little there to yet speak of a regional alliance, to understand if it was the real birth of a CAR rebel movement, or something that's going to rapidly disappear.--Aldux 00:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Request for Your Feedback

Hello; I noticed you have recently contributed to the current events portal and thought you would be interested in looking at a proposal for redesigning the page. If you can, please take a look at a redesign proposal I created and provide some feedback on its talk page. So far, very little feedback has been received, and so the additional input would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance. joturn e r 23:09, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Libya

Please feel free to evaluate the Libya article which has become a 'Featured Article Candidate' and write you support or opposition on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates. Hopefully Libya will become only the second African country to be featured on Wikipedia. Thanks --User:Jaw101ie 12:28, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've helped correct your concerns on the Libya talkpage regarding lack of info on Qadafhi and Idi Amin, Jews in Libya. Could you please reconsider your opposition to Libya becoming a featured article. --Jaw101ie 21:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded to both of your objections (Amin, the history of the Jews in Libya) in a note just under your comment on the Featured article debate. It would be interesting to hear your response, if only for the fact that further objections could help us build a better article. --(Mingus ah um 19:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]

My Apologies

My sincerest pardon. I was wondering whether it was allowed or not (to strike comments). I thought that the comments were like a 'to do list' so after I did it, I striked it. I honestly did not know it was not allowed.

My apologies again,

Regards,

--Jaw101ie 00:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Much of the Libya article has been improved and updated since I applied it for nomination. References, municipalites and a reasonable amount of copyediting has been done with more on the way. At the moment your vote seems to be neutral. Could you please reconsider?

Thank you very much,

--Jaw101ie 11:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chad-Sudan conflict

Please answer me how can you state that you started the article? If you see the history your error will be revealed. You started working 4 hours after its creation... see--TheFEARgod 15:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S: you can state that you WORKED ON IT but...--TheFEARgod 15:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had to defend some rights by me and let you know it :) Forget it--TheFEARgod 16:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

btw, see: Talk:Ethiopian involvement in Somalia for changes--TheFEARgod 16:04, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An accord?

Probably N'Djamena Accord would be more careful, and wouldn't weight to many expectations on the the accord. The more I learn on the history of Chad, the more I become skeptical regards accords and ceasefires :-/. But unfortunately I'can't do it now; the Chadian Civil War and the Chadian-Libyan conflict are in preparation, and I also want to expand the biogs. of the presidents. --Aldux 17:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I noted you reverted my revert. So you think that the Janjaweed are an autonomous force, mostly independent from the Sudanese government? Just to understand your view.--Aldux 17:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A great idea, I've also found that the French wikipedia already had created a similar page. This is exactly the type of article we needed.--Aldux 14:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blogs

Blogs are not reliable sources because they are personal webpages that have no editorial oversight. Anyone can place anything on a blog. The only exception is if it is a blog by a well-known expert or journalist. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:3RR

Hi, just to let you know, "last rv of the day (according to [[WP:3RR), restoring criticism" this edit summary suggests that you believe you are "entitled" to 3 reverts per day. This is not the case, please read WP:3RR. Regards - FrancisTyers · 00:27, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note, this isn't an attempt to bully you (I just read your userpage), but I'm sure that you're aware that you can be blocked even if you don't violate the 3RR for edit warring and these kind of edit summaries will not help your case :) - FrancisTyers · 00:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Guardian

As a relatively neutral bystander watching this whole fiasco unfold, I just thought I'd drop by and suggest that rather than continue attempting to put your edits into the article (which as things stand seems to be quickly reverted) it might be an idea to try to hammer out some sort of compromise on the talk page first. I certainly think there could be a case for a criticsm section, but such a section should be comprehensive rather than just concentrating on one issue, and should reflect widely held criticisms that have come from major, reliable sources (and, unfortunately, blogs don't count as you can find blogs that criticise everything in every way if you look hard enough). I'd be willing to help you out in developing a decent criticism section, should you decide to take the issue to the talk page, and I'd be willing to guess that a lot of the editors you're currently having difficulties with would too. --Daduzi ^talk 16:53, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the sources a bit closer it does seem that you do have a case that they are reliable. I think there's a general assumption that blogs are unreliable since so many of them are written by average joes with an axe to grind, and this can mean they're discounted out of hand (as can be seen from the discussion at WP:V and my initial comments on the Guardian talk page). However, I do think there's a case for inclusion if the author is notable and/or knowledgable (I'll make a comment on WP:V to that effect later) and I think the examples you provided fall into that category. That being said, however, I do think the issue of anti-semitism would be better dealt with as part of a more comprehensive section on criticism/perceived bias of the Guardian as to do otherwise would give the issue undue prominence (it's far from the only criticism levelled at the paper) and could lead to the snowball effect mentioned by User:Rd232 on the talk page. This, essentially, is the problem we've had with criticism sections over at BBC which has resulted in the section being put on hiatus while a truly comprehensive secion is drafted. Like I said, I'd be willing to lend a hand doing the same on The Guardian, and it is an honest offer.

As regards past disputes, I'm sure that may well play a part in the current situation but my own personal take on it would be that the best way to deal with other editors who you think may be acting in bad faith is to consistently maintain a higher standard of behaviour than those with whom there's conflict and look to the wider community for assistance; I've noticed that other editors tend to be swayed as much by behaviour as by arguments. In any case, the offer of assistance stands and I hope you didn't construe anything in my first post as a threat, that honestly was not my intention. --Daduzi ^talk 18:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Your Request

Sorry, but I am not an administrator, and thus cannot lift the block imposed on you. Sorry for the inconvienence. -^demon^{[yell at me]} 00:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NPA Violation (by me) On My Userpage

I come here with no anger or no harm, but I would like to know how the listing of users who violate the NPOV regulations of Wikipedia is in violation of the NPA rule. Any help is much appreciated. Arbiteroftruth 05:55, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your block

I've considered your position, and decided that 72h is a punishment far too harsh; but before I try to get a reduction of your block, I need to be sure that you will not try to create new accounts. You must understand that I can't simply unblock you because this would be considered a partisan action, and undone immediately by one of the admins involved. And please, stay calm! I know you feel this isn't right, but things don't always go as we like (and please excuse me if I sound condiscendent, it isn't my intention). Ciao,--Aldux 21:41, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Campaign to discredit me

Misuse of vandalism

Hi. I noticed you used the edit summary (undoing vandalism. NPOV) in your edit summary ([1]). Please see Wikipedia:Vandalism for the definition of vandalism. I take a very dim view of being called a vandal and will not tolerate it. Please do not repeat this mistake. As to your inclusion of the NPOV tag, I think you are in a minority of one on the matter. In my experience, these matters are best solved by civil discussions with other editors on the article's talk page, always remembering to assume good faith. In any case, please consider yourself warned. Thank you. --Guinnog 16:32, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

Failure to persuade other editors of the merit of your edits is explicitly not grounds for adding a dispute tag to an article. If you reinsert the tag without giving real and credible evidence to back it, such as evidence of allegations of antisemitism against the Guardian by recognised authorities, you may be blocked for vandalism and disruption. Just zis Guy you know? 16:43, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Patience exhausted

OK, I've tried to be nice about this but you've been utterly silly and confrontational in the face of politeness and many warnings. I am now going to take the matter further. You can't say you weren't warned. --Guinnog 18:44, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Block

I have blocked you for disruption. Removing a warning not to remove warnings from your userpage [2] is a blatant violation of WP:POINT. Just zis Guy you know? 18:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your ludicrous trolling edit summary, yes I certainly do know that blocking you does not stop you editing your user page, the block was for disruption. Since you seem determied to continue the disruption, going to the extent of removing a block notice, I will also lock your talk page. Just zis Guy you know? 19:24, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tchadienne, as I implied on WP:AN/I, I felt you had a block coming for edit warring. I cannot say this block came as a surprise. It's only a 24 hour block; you can contribute again tomorrow. Please try to convince your opponents with arguments only, not with reverting, and accept that you may be mistaken about the importance of some of your contributions. We all are sometimes... As far as an RFC on the Grauniad article; if you want to bring in outside opinion, that is the way to go, but I don't give you much chance that the majority will agree with you. Eugène van der Pijll 19:49, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have reset your block due to your blatant evasion of it. I have no opinion on your current difficulties but please do not give other users dubious "advice" interpreting Wikipedia policy contrary to what it actually dictates and encouraging them to edit war. You do no service to yourself other editors when you encourage their negative behavior. Gamaliel 01:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is beginning to get abusrd. Tchadienne evaded the original block as 4.249.189.162 (talk · contribs) several times, stating outright [3] "Nothing to suspect, I freely admit it's me. Dont bother blocking this account though, I'll just get back on under another anonymous account." After having his blocked extended by Gamaliel, he kept his "promise" and reappeared as 4.249.6.208 (talk · contribs) several hours later and continued to edit The Guardian [4]. Aren't I Obscure? 03:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh, he posted to my page while evading his block.

For the record:

A) As far as I'm concerned, your edits are complete bollocks (the logic of the Me Gibson bit was not merely OR, it was BIzarro World OR), so yes, I will also revert them if I come across them.

B) As it says at the VERY TOP of my Talk page:

1) I am not an admin. I did not delete your page or article, nor did I block you. I may have, at the very most, suggested or urged deletion of pages or articles but I have no power or ability to do so on my own. I'm just an editor.

2) This also means, of course, I cannot undelete your page/article, nor unblock you. I can, however, offer you a cookie.

So have a cookie while pondering the reasons for your block. --Calton | Talk 03:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Terminology

Regarding this edit, note that removing the NPOV tag is not vandalism, as defined in Wikipedia:Vandalism. Calling something "vandalism" which is not, is bound to only inflate passions without doing anything useful. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 01:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Impostor

Tchadienne is now claiming to be User:Freestylefrappe, even though Freestylefrappe has reverted Tchadienne's redirection of F's talk page to T's. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:49, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked the history, and I believe you're incorrect. F changed a sockpuppet tag to a "no longer editing" box, then T later changed it to the redirect. They've never reverted each other that I'm aware of, and the do have the same style. -- SCZenz 04:02, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict, saying the same thing plus...) I even think I've seen edits by Freestylefrappe basically confirming it -- yeah, this. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For your information

Your block has been extended by another admin due to your use of anonymous edits to evade the block, in particular this edit [5]. Please be aware that continued evasion of blocks can lead to an indefinite ban. Just zis Guy you know? 08:54, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And again, by another admin, for registering a new account to evade the block. I repeat: behaviour like this has in the past been justification for an indefinite block. Just zis Guy you know? 20:43, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think 72h is quite mild for block evasion and sockpuppetry, including repeating the tendentious edits which led to the original block. Just zis Guy you know? 22:11, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ello

Now that I'm able to edit again (to an extent), I'd like to state my position. This seems to be mostly a petty campaign by JzG and the usual crowd to get me to leave, which aint about to happen.

Since the block is still in effect, and you all (Guinnog and others who have chastised me for "sockpuppetry") seem to determined to only lengthen it when I edit in an indisputedly productive, neutral, and cited way, I will communicate from here.

I really dont care about you're political/anti-Semitic beliefs JzG. Neither does anyone else. Stop posting them on Talk:The Guardian. Wikipedia is not a soapbox.

In regards to Arbiteroftruth, I hope someone can let him know about this post, as I must apologize for jumping the gun and calling his edits on User:Incorrect and User:Wangfeihung vandalism. He was misinformed, most likely by the likes of JzG, SCZenz or Bunchograpes, and Ral135... the latter three who just happend to notice this incident... and you people wondered why I made those cabal jokes during my last days as Freestylefrappe ;)

If I am unblocked now, I promise not to create any new accounts, which I'd like to add, were never sockpuppets, as the block was illegitimate, and I did not engage in any sockpuppet activities. I would encourage users to take a look at WP:SOCK, as several administrators demonstrated their amazing ignorance of this and other policies. I also promise not to talk to any of the users who have blatantly abused their powers, engaged in vandalism, or otherwise annoyed my over the past two days. However, I will talk to Daduzi, Oscarthecat, and Lancsalot on how to improve The Guardian page. I will leave it to them and responseible users to fix the mistakes of others' pov mistakes. However, JzG and Guinnog have lost the privlege of editing my talkpage. You vandalized it pure and simple. Tchadienne 00:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All comments under the campaign to discredit me section will be deleted when the block wears off. This is non-negotiable.

Hey, I think the accusations of sockpuppetry do not stem from the fact that you have had different accounts like Freestylefrappe or KI, but that you used different IPs to circumvent your block. Using different accounts is ok, especially when you advertise the fact that you're doing so, like you did. I hope you don't take my comment as an attempt at bullying you, since it is in no way meant to be that. jaco♫plane 01:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for being cordial and respectful. Though I disagree, I will keep that in mind. Tchadienne 01:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In what way is accusing me of being anti-semitic not a personal attack? Just zis Guy you know? 15:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I never said you were an anti-Semite. I said you should stop expressing political/anti-Semitic beliefs. You're a lot like Mel Gibson (in the good way) - on one hand you could say "Jews started all of the wars in the world" and then you simultaneously remain in a state of jew-loving bliss and political correctedness. After all, you're not (hypothetically) anti-Jewish, you're just anti-Zionist. MLK had some wise words on this matter. Tchadienne 15:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What you actually said was "I really dont care about you're political/anti-Semitic beliefs JzG." I don't have any anti-semitic beliefs, of which I'm aware. Perhaps you could point me to a place where I have made a statement which is even remotely comparable to "Jews started all of the wars in the world". Just zis Guy you know? 15:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blah blah blah stop editing this page. You're violating my rule! Tchadienne 16:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Current events

Could someone add the following current events to the current events page?

Tajik President arrives in India for five-day negotiations[6]
Aug 3 IMU attack in Tajikistan[7]
SK leave Afghanistan over fears of riots[8]
Someone needs to go back through the history of the page, the threat against Charles Johnson has been deleted. Tchadienne 02:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know you told me not to post in your page but if you tell me more precisely what you want added and where I'll try to do it for you. --Guinnog 03:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a mention of the events. Tidbits suffice. Tchadienne 13:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. On which article(s), please? --Guinnog 13:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All of them... or someone could just unblock me... which would make this much easier... Tchadienne 13:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The irony here is that if you had not worked so hard to evade your block, it would have expired long since. Just zis Guy you know? 14:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The irony is that you claim to read my comments and then you still edit my talkpage after I have made it clear that you are banned. Guinnog's ban-on-editing-my-talkpage may be reconsidered. You however are just digging yourself into a deeper hole my friend. Tchadienne 15:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have no power to ban anybody from your talk page. See WP:OWN. As to digging deeper holes, I would have to defer to your manifestly greater experience there. Just zis Guy you know? 15:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, you're still taking these conversations way to seriously. When I say I "ban" you from my talkpage I'm really saying I now associate you with a general group of users who make up words like "fuckwittery." You havent been singled out and this group is informal. For example, I just remembered how much I dislike Ral135 for comments he made several months ago. If he edits this page in the next few days, before I forget, I'll likely destroy the comments! Tchadienne 16:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd prefer, I can come up with a more formal list. Off the top of my head BunchoGrapes, SCZenz, Gamaliel, and Oleg Alexandrov certainly stand out...

I've done my best with your request, see

As to your block, I advise you to wait it out. I'll help you in any way I can to ensure you are not prevented from adding good content to the project. Please don't set up any more accounts though, as I fear this will only make things worse. Sincere best wishes. --Guinnog 13:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Guinnog 14:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Tschad, I did you a favour there. An acknowledgment (even a curt one) to let me know if I correctly did what you wanted would be appreciated. JzG is right that you can't ban anybody from editing here; it's a Wikipedia page and doesn't belong to you. Nevertheless, thanks for saying that you are reconsidering 'letting' me edit here. That's progress I suppose! --Guinnog 18:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, not at first. Thank you. Tchadienne 18:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I had never seen the current events portal which is why it took me a while to figure out what you meant. So I learned something too, so thank you too I guess. Let me know if there're any other things like that you want done. I can see you're a good editor really and honestly want to help you not to get into worse trouble here. --Guinnog 18:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

block :-(

Hi Tchadienne. I've done my best last night (I know it wasn't enough, sorry :-( ) to obtain at least a reduction of your block. I've spoken of the issue at WP:AN/I, and also with User:Ral315, who has told me that "When Tchadienne actually stops evading the block (without us having to range block his/her entire ISP), I'll be happy to consider undoing the block." So please, please, don't create new accounts: even if you use them to simply leave a message, they will be used against you to lengthen the block. So please don't create more accounts, and I would be grateful if you wrote on your talk page that you will stop editing except on your talk page till. I feel confident that this would convince Ral315 to undo the block. Ciao,--Aldux 14:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will stop editing except on my talkpage until the block wears off... although it's not like I have much of a choice with the range block... Thanks for the advocacy. Tchadienne 14:38, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aldux has spoken persuasively of your good edits; I have unprotected this Talk page in the hope that you will not whitewash it again. Just zis Guy you know? 14:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hahaha "whitewash" is better than using your last verb... what was it.. :fuckwittery"? Tchadienne 14:38, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Setting up a new account to evade a block which has just been extended for block evasion is indeed fuckwittery: stupidity of a very high order indeed, practically begging for an indef block. Given your evident determination to edit come what may, it seems like an acutely short-sighted act. Just zis Guy you know? 15:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Temper temper. That will only get you in more trouble. Tchadienne 15:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems your prescient abilities fall short of being able to divine my emotional state... Just zis Guy you know? 15:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My prescient abilities led me to the conclusion you're implying based primarily on your less than stellar spelling in your above tirade. You'll notice I fixed it up a bit. No need to thank me though. Tchadienne 16:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

Hey... JzG...

Hey... hey... Since you look at my talkpage every few seconds (which IMHO is a little weirdddd) go tell Daduzi I wanna talk with him. Do it. Ahora pronto. Tchadienne 17:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

just to settle a few things:

I see your comments because your talk page is on my watchlist, and because we are engaging in what passes for dialogue on this particular Talk page I respond in a reasonably timely manner. This is normal.

I apologise for my poor spelling, it has nothing to do with temper and everythign to do with having bone-deep burn scars across the fingers of my left hand. This means that my typing is often erratic and contains characteristic errors, and this is made worse if my laptop is awkwardly sited for any reason. I was not aware that there were marks for spelling on this Talk page, if I had been I'd have corrected your own errors when replying.

You appear to be labouring under a number of misconceptions:

Removal of uncited content and original research is always legitimate, not vandalism, and the solution is not to keep posting the same sources it's to find better ones.
Accusing editors who remove uncited content and take it to Talk of vandalism is incivil and unacceptable.
Failure to convince other editors of the merits of your edits is explicitly not grounds for placing a dispute tag, placing a dispute tag under such circumstances is disruptive.
Placing legitimate warnings on Talk pages is absolutely never vandalism, and accusing those who do so of vandalism is incivil and unacceptable.
Preventing edit-warring over uncited content does not imply any shade of opinion regarding the editor, from total support to absolute opposition; it implies that the editor is pushing uncited content and nothing more; personalising edit conflicts is a leading cause of friction.
Disputing a critical edit to an article does not imply any shade of support for the article's subject from uncritical support to absolute repudiation; imputing motives violates WP:AGF and is also a leading cause of friction.
Blocking disputatious editors, following due warning, to prevent escalation of an edit war, is normal practice, and is intended as a sign that you have become excessively passionate and need a timeout.
Evading a block is forbidden by policy, especially where the evasion is in order to repeat the behaviour which led to the block in the first place; this edit [9] is entirely unacceptable per WP:SOCK, as was your registering of new account User:NOBS.
Extending blocks for repeated evasion of a block is normal practice and can lead to an indefinite block from editing. Even your friends told you that this was seriously ill-judged.
Discussing problems with editing behaviour on a user's talk page is not an attempt to defame or damage reputation; if you want your reputation to remain intact, do not evade blocks, do not troll while evading blocks, and especially do not register new accounts to evade blocks. There is no cabal and there is no conspiracy against you. If you find numerous editors and admins taking issue with your edits, you should consider the possibility that your edits are indeed problematic.
Rejection of uncited or OR allegations of antisemitism against an article subject does nto imply anti-semitism, anti-zionism or anti-anything other than anti-uncited content.
Opposition to elements of Israeli foregn policy does not amount to anti-zionism, anti-semitism or anti-anything. Neither does support for ending the occupation of the West Bank amount to anti-anything other than anti-occupation; Israel is in defiance of UN resolutions, support for compliance with those resolutions is entirely legitimate and does not imply any racial sympathies either way.
The mentality of "he who is not fopr me is agin me" is the absolute antihesis of WP:AGF, is obstructive, and leads to stalemate and conflict. If an edit is disputed, the solution is to explore possible compromises and acknowledge the merits of any criticisms raised.

I'm sure there's more but I think that's the gist of it. You appear to be in the grip of crusading zeal for The Tryth^TM. Long experience indicates that this is rarely an indicator for harmonious editing. It is as well to be honest with yourself about your own biases, rather than accusing everybody who disagrees with you of bias in the style of m:MPOV.

Finally, I have never pretended to be perfect. If you are proud of being able to provoke me, then I wish you luck of it; it is not hard to do and frankly I don't see the point but whatever floats your boat. Just zis Guy you know? 18:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You paged me? --Daduzi ^talk 21:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I wish to know if you're interested in having a discussion, hopefully with Lanscalot who is doing excellent work, on how to best improve The Guardian. What is your take on criticism? Would an individual section be good or something more generalized perhaps under the history section? I think ignoring JzG and other similar users may be the best way to make them go away. Tchadienne 22:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sure, ignore anybody who disgrees with you - that's a certain way to harmonious editing, works every time. Just zis Guy you know? 10:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that was an unhelpful thing to say as well, Tchadienne. This is a collaborative project; you can't ignore people who disagree with you. If you have any constructive edits you want to make to The Guardian or any other article during your block, I may be able to help you again. Please don't make it more difficult for those of us who wish to help you. Thanks --Guinnog 11:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Password on the fritz

The password to this account seems to no longer work. Could a bureacrat, or whoever has the power, please send a new password to danofalltrades7@hotmail.com? I tried to simply click the "send new password" on the login but I realize I never set an email for this account. Gracias, Tchadienne 22:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tchadienne, what's the problem exactly? You've forgotten your password? Are you sure it doesn't work now? The block was removed only this afternoon.--Aldux 17:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, someone fixed it. Tchadienne 19:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocking

Just to let you know, you've just been unblocked with the agreement of Ral315 and JzG. Happy editing,--Aldux 15:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still blocked until August 9 according to the block log. Tchadienne 19:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is very strange. I'm looking at your block log in this moment, and it states that you've been unblocked at 15:31 of today, by me, and this action is confirmed by my logs.--Aldux 19:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Your user name or IP address has been blocked from editing.

You were blocked by Ral315 for the following reason (see our blocking policy): Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "Tchadienne". The reason given for Tchadienne's block is: "Continued sockpuppeting in order to evade block."." Tchadienne 19:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Try now; I released an autoblock. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 19:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You beat me to it by seconds :-) Just zis Guy you know? 19:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:POINT

You've been warned before about removing warnings. It's unacceptable. It's also unacceptable to describe the perfectly legitimate enforcement of WP:NPOV as harrassment. You have also been warned about WP:OWN on your talk page, and about disruptively removing substantive debate about your editing behaviour from here. Since you are making a grand exit, coming back every few minutes to do it again is pretty pointless. Just zis Guy you know? 21:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 262: / Line 262: @@
 :Try now; I released an autoblock. &mdash;[[User:Bunchofgrapes|Bunchofgrapes]]  ([[User talk:Bunchofgrapes|talk]]) 19:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 :: You beat me to it by seconds :-) [[User Talk:JzG|Just zis <span style="border: 1px; border-style:solid; padding:0px 2px 2px 2px; color:white; background-color:darkblue; font-weight:bold">Guy</span> you know?]] 19:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
+== [[WP:POINT]] ==
+You've been warned before about removing warnings.  It's unacceptable.  It's also unacceptable to describe the perfectly legitimate enforcement of [[WP:NPOV]] as harrassment.  You have also been warned about [[WP:OWN]] on your talk page, and about disruptively removing  substantive debate about your editing behaviour from here.  Since you are making a grand exit, coming back every few minutes to do it again is pretty pointless.  [[User Talk:JzG|Just zis <span style="border: 1px; border-style:solid; padding:0px 2px 2px 2px; color:white; background-color:darkblue; font-weight:bold">Guy</span> you know?]] 21:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)