User talk:Renamed user 5417514488/archive 17

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23.

Retired

This user is no longer active on Wikipedia.

Please do not major changes without first discussing it on the appropriate talk page, those pages exist for a reson, if you would like to discuss it i'd be glad to.--WWWUser 06:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment

Yuser31415, an admirer of Vivien Leigh--218.217.208.185 01:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand, sorry. Clarify, please? Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 01:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism Claim

What are personal attacks? I said that it was an anti-fan anyway. Isn't it you that began vandalism? Wiki is the place where you should write a fact precisely, not your agreement or objection.--Wbrz 03:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Are you an idiot who doesn't understand if it doesn't explain separately? Foolishness ..disappearing... --Wbrz 01:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

User warned with BV and NPA4 warnings. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 01:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Is that bad?

Is that bad? I just don't understand why it won't work here at home. Perhaps it is because my home IP address won't show briefly in the username box as it does in the office I work at. Power level (Dragon Ball) 03:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

You know that there is a special page on Wikipedia where you're able to see new accounts created, right? I'm just doing what you sometimes do, you welcome random newcomers to Wikipedia too, don't you? Power level (Dragon Ball) 04:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Leo Ryan

• The electoral history link is not a spamlink. Please stop removing it from the article page. Smee 07:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC).
  • The second time I removed it was an accident; I thought I had made a mistake saving my edit. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 07:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Oh, okay, well thank you. I will put it back in then. Smee 07:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC).
      • I see that you already have done that, again, my thanks! Smee 07:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC).
        • Cheers! Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 07:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

rm spamlink

Hello,

I just reverted the change you made on John A. Nejedly. You removed this link from the References section and flagged it as a spamlink, but I think you may have done that in error. The link is to a website that archives election histories for California, and this would seem to be a reasonable link/reference for a biography on a dead politician from California. If there was some other reason for your edit that I missed, please let me know. Thanks, Spicoli 08:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it was a stupid mistake of mine. It's been pointed out above. Now I have 75+ of my edits to undo :( Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 19:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Zarbon

How is it that his IP changes every 24 hrs.? Is there a certain program like that that exists, where one could have his/her IP change over a 24 hour period? BTW, I posted a message about some peculiar behavior regarding another revert at Action figure. Power level (Dragon Ball) 19:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

It depends on the ISP, I believe. Some rotating IPs change every 15 minutes or so - making it very hard to target blocks, as I'm sure you can imagine. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 19:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

That's kinda scary when ya think about it... Power level (Dragon Ball) 20:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Yep ... Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 20:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this is just a little strange also. Another newcomer just so happens to also want the Zarbon toy image to stay. What I think is funny here is that these newcomers all just happen to visit the Action figure article and edit it. Now, if all of a sudden this person (or someone else) puts a {{ifd}} tag on Image:Ryan Giggs action figure.jpg again, then I'll definitely think something fishy's going on here and then I'll have to investigate... Power level (Dragon Ball) 01:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, would you ever expect an anonymous new IP user to do this? No, right? "What's your point", you ask? Because for as long as I've been on Wikipedia, I have never even learned how to do this with my past earlier accounts (which I deeply regret ever making since I screwed up before) anyways, this person knew of: Reverted revision 106760900 by Power level (Dragon Ball) (talk) via undo. I mean that, automatically, is peculiar because of these two reasons:

1. The person has just started editing the encyclopedia and already knows how to undo revisions
2. This person also wants the Zarbon image to stay so badly without giving a thourough reason

Does this ring any bells to you, at all? I mean, who would care so much about a Zarbon toy in the first place? Power level (Dragon Ball) 05:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't stop. Whenever you're back online, see User talk:SUIT#Action figure for comment. Power level (Dragon Ball) 03:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey Yuser. I'm sure you noticed the craziness that happened on Action figure last night, huh? You know, last night was actually my first somewhat successful time using CheckUser reporting those anon. IPs and new users behaviours. In the beginning it was sooooooo confusing to figure out the codes and whatnot. In the end, it was taken care of. Hey, shall we start a CheckUser on 4kinnel (talk · contribs)? I think I know who it is. It may very well be Wiki-star (talk · contribs) or Taracka (talk · contribs); abusive users that created several sockpuppets in the past that damaged a lot of the Dragon Ball related articles. Taracka had several run-ins with Deskana as well in the past. I love the magic of CheckUser now! Don't you? I just wish it was less complicated... So! Shall we get started? Power level (Dragon Ball) 22:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I would be happy to go CheckUser, as long as you've got sufficient evidence - please email me with that. Cheers! Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 22:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Hu12's RfA

Meh, I was just being bitchy myself, I think. Looks like we both had a sort of rough night. Lord knows I've contradicted myself on RfA's before, too. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 23:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

My RFA

Thank You, Renamed user 5417514488/archive 17 for your Support! Thank you for your support in my RfA, which closed at 111 / 1 / 2. I am humbled and rather shocked to see such kind comments and for it to reach WP:100. Please feel free to leave a note if I have made a mistake or if you need anything, I will start out slow and tackle the harder work once I get accustomed to the tools. Thank you once more, I simply cannot express in words my gratitude.

...fly on littlewing. ~ Arjun 19:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

ip block

When IP blocking, watch for sensitive IP addresses. -The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.44.13.214 (talk) 22:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

I'm not an admin. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 20:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject

Hi, I'm iceDevil. I saw your message. And I would like to ask what is actually the WikiProject. Besides, how to join the WikiProject if i am interested and what should i do after joining the Wikiproject? Thank you.

--IceDevil 05:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Weird caching

That's not the first time I've seen that recently... I think somebody has changed something regarding the caching headers that are sent with each page load... /wangi 23:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, perhaps that's it. I'm not entirely sure what happened there :). Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 23:03, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

E-mail

Checkkkk ittttt.... --Deskana (request backup) 23:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 23:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Go check yours now :). Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 23:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I don't have any evidence that the person who's speaking to Deskana could possibly be Taracka or Wiki-star. But I'll keep an eye on that person too. Just for now... Power level (Dragon Ball) 23:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay. That's the best thing to do. Cheers, Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 23:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Indefinite block of ip

That ip appears to be a library terminal which has repeatedly been used for vandalism. Only anonymous editing is blocked. Fred Bauder 02:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Kindness Campaign userboxes

I noticed that there currently exists a redundancy in the userboxes for the Kindness Campaign; Template:User KC and Template:User wikipedia/Kindness Campaign are nearly identical and both are in widespread use. Wikipedia: Kindness Campaign states that the official userbox is {{user KC}}, but {{user wikipedia/Kindness Campaign}} was created earlier. I think there should be just one "official" userbox (and it's not as if two userboxes are actually needed, given that they practically mirror each other), but I have a bit of a dilemma over which to propose for deletion. +A.Ou 06:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Good point. I would suggest taking the matter to Wikipedia talk:Kindness Campaign, and arrange a redirect from one official template to the other, unofficial, template. Cheers! Yuser31415 06:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I've just been WP:BOLD and redirected Template:User wikipedia/Kindness Campaign to Template:User KC. Cheers! Yuser31415 06:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Nasz

Yuser31415, I saw you repeatedly asked Nasz not to blank his talkpage - to no avail. I certainly wouldn't call him a vandal, since at least some of his edtis seem to show good-will, but they are often controversial, unsourced and ungrammatical, and it's impossible to discuss his edtis with him. Do you think there's anything than can be done to teach him to be more civil and open to co-operation? Kpalion 10:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Relisting AFDs

Hi Yuser, when relisting AFDs, please remember to de-list from the original log page [1]. Thanks! --Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 11:09Z

Sorry, my mistake :). Yuser31415 19:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Closing AFDs

Hi Yuser, I'm here to comment on your AFD actions again. I'm glad that you're trying to get your feet wet in preparation for asking for adminship again, but please, be conservative. For example, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OttoBib.com, you closed the AFD even though there were no comments after another admin had re-listed. That means another admin felt there was not enough for consensus, and nothing had changed yet. By closing it, you were going over an admin's head. The right thing to do in this case would have been to re-list again. You might think it pointless if you expect the same thing to happen again, but in fact AFD participation is highly variable and usually even if a first re-list request generated no additional comments, a second one will (participation depends on day of week, time of day, who's active, etc.). Also, you had to write a long statement supporting your closure result, with your own opinions and using words like "probably" -- that means it wasn't an obvious closure. In general, before you get your adminship you should only close AFDs that are extremely obvious and uncontroversial. One keep, 1 weak keep, 1 delete, 1 neutral is not "extremely obvious" and the fact that W.marsh had re-listed it is a big hint that more input is needed. I'm not going to take any action on this but please remember to be conservative. There are lots of "pure keep" uncontroversial AFDs that you can close if you want. Thanks. --Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 12:01Z

Well, I'm not sure I was "going over another admin's head" but closing an AfD that was going to go through another week of process :). If you feel my actions were inappropriate then tell me and I'll revert myself; thanks for pointing this out. (Surprising lack of uncontroversial AfDs that weren't closed yesterday.) Cheers, Yuser31415 19:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Impunv

He has been informed multiple times over the past few days about WP policies, most notably WP:OR. He has been so informed by a number of different users (see his talk page, Talk:String theory, and Talk:Higgs boson as well). He consistently refuses to engage in dialog, and even after being informed by the Mediation Cabal that he was not operating inside Wikipedia policy, violated the 3RR on String theory. When you are searching through the pages, look for "R. Mirman" which is how he usually signs his posts. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I referred to the WP:3RR rule and linked to it... I'm not sure what more I can do to explain. If you look, you can see how he's now opened a 2ND Mediation Cabal request, and STILL cannot figure out how to use History or Discussion pages. I have TRIED (as have many others) to engage him in dialogue... he refuses. I have done my best. You are welcome to attempt to explain things to him, but we have made no progress thus far. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

User talk:JzG

A less heavy-handed approach might be more effective. He's a reasonable person; you should be able to explain your concerns compellingly and moderately and have them listened to. Jkelly 00:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe. This user has been warned numerous times for personal attacks; at one point Durova was considering blocking him for doing just that. Yuser31415 00:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

EVP

Please explain why you stopped the Delete process for EVP and why you are threatening me now? The reasons for requesting the review are clear and reasonable. All I am doing now is following the rules! Tom Butler 00:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

(a) I am not threatening you. (b) The nomination was made in direct violation of WP:POINT. (c) The deletion process would never get past the first step you enacted, because your reasons for deletion were invalid. Yuser31415 00:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

You are making an assumption for which you would have to read my mind to find support. In fact, This comment by one of the new editors helped me decide it was a reasonable move: It might come to that, but I'd recommend giving it a little time. There have been admin reports for COI and 3RR so someone may step in. Looking at the sources, there may be a case made to just delete the article as not notable since there only seems to be one mention other than fringe sources. Let it play out for a couple days, step back and see if other editors step in. --Milo H Minderbinder 04:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Milo_H_Minderbinder#EVP.

By saying "The last time" you are threatening me, so please change your approach. Meanwhile, I am going to appear precisely because the delete request is not me making a point. It is me trying to solve a problem that is openly acknowledged by others. You should let the process run its course according to Wikipedia rules. Tom Butler 01:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Deletion is not a cure-all for 3RR or COI. Yuser31415 01:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

A question

Hi,

I recently encountered an autobiographical article (Carla Hughes Lieblein). Since the subject most likely does not qualify as notable (CSD A7), I tagged it for speedy deletion and placed a notice on the creator's talk page. However, the user removed the tag so I reverted that edit, and then I placed a level 1 warning on their talk page. This time, the user contested the speedy deletion using {{hangon}}, but did not provide a reason.

Since this is my first time dealing with such things, I don't know if my course of action was appropriate. What should I do when dealing with an editor that doesn't have a knowledge of wikipedia policies? Thanks! +A.Ou 03:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

They provided a reason, but not a really legitimate one (does not address WP:N). I really wish that an admin would come...it's kind of frustrating. +A.Ou 03:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Your actions were entirely appropriate (you could use {{db-bio}} next time). Keep it up :)! Yuser31415 03:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Pardon my question, but is this actually an appropriate method of editing? It seems wrong.Arcayne 10:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

en:User:CroDome

Hello. I would have liked en:User:CroDome to make such changes, rather than having another user make them for him. This (diff) runs the risk of envoking anger in the user and putting him on the defensive. Your changes were made a full half-hour after my contribution (diff) to the user's talk page, giving you plenty of time to see the recent additions.

Please, in the future, take into account if the user made their userpage recently (usually meaning they are inexperienced/new users) and if other users have notified them of changes that need to be made. I prefer to give all Wikipedia editors the chance to make their own changes (with regard to such things as userpages) once they have been notified, rather than other users imposing such changes on them because this gives them a chance to learn and become better contributors. Cheers, Stop The Lies 04:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC) Stop_The_Lies

Good point. However, if the userpage remains in its current state for any reasonable length of time, I will {{db-attack}} it. Yuser31415 04:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. Stop The Lies 04:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Stop_The_Lies

Hm, I was not aware that attacks were to be removed on sight (I think I slightly disagree with that with regard to very new users, but still sounds like good policy). I guess that alters what I previously said. Stop The Lies 05:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Stop_The_Lies

You (Yuser) have no right to edit other people's userpages just because the content offends you. If that were the case Striver would either have been banned by now or his userpage would be drastically altered. You know you have no right. You also know how innapropriate it is to be posting vandalism warning templates on other users' talkpages. CroDome is a meatpuppet. If you went through his contributions you would see the account is a joke, and an obvious one at that. I suggest that in the future you not pick fights with other users. KazakhPol 05:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I politely suggest you read WP:ATK. It is quite natural to make a mistake (which is perfectly okay, IMO) but to continue reverting to attack revisions after being warned (nicely, for that matter) is vandalism. Yuser31415 05:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

And, BTW, what is wrong with Striver's userpage? It seems okay to me. Yuser31415 05:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:ATK is a guideline, Yuser, not a policy. Convention on Wikipedia is not to edit somebody's userpage without discussing it with them first. I have seen you act aggressively with other users about their user pages as well as their talk pages; as you seem to desire an admin position, this concerns me. I urge you to try discussing your concerns with users first, and in a non-aggressive tone, before making unilateral actions. Jeffpw 09:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Re:Arbcab

Currently, there is no binding method to resolve disputes aside from Arbcom. In Arbcom, generally at least one party will be sanctioned. Arbcab is meant to take care of minor disputes where mediation isn't an option. It will be designed to be like a binding third opinion. Geo. Talk to me 05:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

But when isn't mediation an option? Yuser31415 05:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Experimenting with Wikipedia?

Can you please explain to me which article you are referring to on my talk page. Thanks. Famico666 16:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Replied on user's talk page. Yuser31415 19:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for experimenting with my user talk page. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

I explained my reason for removing that POV box in the edit summary. I had just been watching the said episode and I felt that the comment as it was written was entirely justified - it accurately described the banter between Amstell and Tourette without taking any sides. I am actually a very experienced Wikipedian and I know what I'm doing (I have a number of reasons why I have started a new username) Famico666 11:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I think User:Recoome's fighting back...

I lefted a comment about this anon. IP that began blanking the tagged sockpuppet userpages of User:Recoome's confirmed puppets on Deskana's talk page. I even opened a Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Recoome just to confirm that he's doing it. Power level (Dragon Ball) 18:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations, you appear to be getting the hang of RFCU quite well. Keep it up, we need more people to track down sockpuppets. Yuser31415 19:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I finally understand it now. I hope Deskana logs in soon. I lefted a very important message on his talk page regarding Recoome's block. Did ya read it? Power level (Dragon Ball) 21:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Just read it now and left a comment there :). Yuser31415 21:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey, you have Deskana's e-mail right? Could you e-mail him about Recoome's most recent sockpuppetry? I tried asking the admin. who blocked his socks yesterday to lengthen Recoome's block, but the person never responded back. I don't know about reporting it on WP:ANI... Power level (Dragon Ball) 16:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Your offer of assistance

Hi: You offered to help mediate as a qualified third at Talk:Zodiac killer#Request_for_Comment:_Link_placement_in_Zodic_killer_entry. I would greatly appreciate it if you could visit there and offer your advice. Thanks. Labyrinth13 19:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

A Barnstar for You

Hello, my name is Avdo. I would like to thank you for helping out with the CroDome problem, and I'm glad that there are good and neutral users like you on Wikipedia. I wish you all the best --GOD OF JUSTICE 20:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Have a barnstar! :)

		The Original Barnstar
		For the excellence in neutrality and editing style. Your very concise editing style is a great example to us all. --GOD OF JUSTICE 20:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow, thank you! I'm glad to help :)! Yuser31415 20:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment

I DONT understand. Why am I discriminized? Because I'm a Croat, right? Serbs must've told you a lot about us, how we are a "Ustashas and demons on erth", when you're not warning other users like User:Alkalada and User:Ancient Land of Bosoni, both riddled with Islamic fundamentalist BS => just look at it; full of hatred towards Croats and Serbs, and I was only telling the truth and yet my page was deleated BECAUSE OF THAT???

Firstly, read WP:CIVIL. Secondly, don't write in ALL CAPS, because that tends to add fuel to the flames. Thirdly, read WP:NPOV. Fourthly, read WP:ATK. Then come back and apologize. Yuser31415 23:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 12th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 7	12 February 2007	About the Signpost

US government agencies discovered editing	Comment prompts discussion of Wikimedia's financial situation
Board recapitulates licensing policy principles	WikiWorld comic: "Extreme ironing"
News and notes: Picture of the Year, milestones	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

AfD closing

I am a bit concerned about this: [2]. Though I personally think the article/disambig is fine, and agree that the result would *most likely* be "keep", it just seems like bad form to close an AfD after only four hours and only three comments. I don't think any damage would be done to the Wiki by being a bit more patient. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 06:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I've reverted my edits. Yuser31415 06:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Please see expanded reasoning for this proposed deletion.--Triglyph 09:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Yuser31415, it is laid down in the rules that non admins are not allowed to close AfDs as "speedy keep", actually. Just thought you would want to know. Regards PeaceNT 09:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

As a note of clarification, I believe PeaceNT would be referring to this, namely the sentence "[n]on-administrators may not "speedy-close" deletion discussions. They must either express their view that the debate should be "speedy-closed" in the normal procedure, or wait until the discussion has run the full AfD period to close it as a "keep" if there is a consensus to do so". Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 11:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's the rule I mentioned. I should have been clearer. =) PeaceNT 11:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I probably shouldn't have closed that AfD as speedy keep. If it is blatantly obvious the AfD is going to fail (ie., some George W. Bush nomination) I don't think anyone would object if an IP closed the discussion. Yuser31415 19:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I would object, Yuser. If you want the tools to enforce policy, the best way to get them (IMO) is to follow the policy before you ask for the tools. The rules apply to everybody. Jeffpw 22:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm hosting a game on my user page.

If have the time go to my user page and see what the game is.Sam ov the blue sand 21:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Looks good (certainly useful for finding all the relevant articles that go with the quotes). I'm sure I'll have a go sometime! Yuser31415 22:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

RE:

Good, now maybe you should also check the number of articles which were successfully locked because of the edit wars Dacy69 and Adil have engaged in. Adding in every given Armenian related articles "terrorist this" or "terrorist that" or obsessivally edit warring resulting in multiple locking of articles, is much more than some isolate cases of answers. What should an Azeri editor feel or even answer, if I were to type "Azererbaijan", "Azerbaijani", "Azeri",... on Wikipedia search engine, to then one by one throwing edits and then with socks meatpopputs reverting and reverting until the articles are locked, and then after a week of it being locked, after it was expired, engaging in and off again? The only thing those users could find as miscundict from my part is abrasiveness. But article content; I was never blocked for article disruption, 3RR etc., or anything content based. The same could not be said with those peatpopputs. Fad (ix) 22:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring is disruptive, but the least of my worries. Personal attacks, such as this, are extremely detrimental to the goals of this project and serve to create and encourage edit wars rather than stop them. I politely suggest you stop. Yuser31415 22:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Good grief. Yuser31415 22:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Dacy69 added something on that article to specifically force an edit war. He is a very disturbing user who has been suspected to be a meatpopput of Adil, not only by me, but also many other users from all spectrums. This guy is not acting in good faith. Personal attack might not be the best, but I disagree with you that it encouraged in my case revert war. To the contrary, everytime I was abrasive it gave some results, positive results as the person who is the real disruptor by reporting me and aware that the actions will be reviewed for a moment stoped.

Also, I don't see what you mean by good grief. Reviewing my blocks, all for supposed personal attack, it actually absolve me. Jtkiefer block was not valid, as he blocked me for an accusation directed at a member involved in an arbitration cases, the accusation was the bases of the evidences I brough in that cases. Jtkiefer was a new administrator and did a mistake, he actually emailed me and apologized for it. InShaneee two first blocks were not valid, other administrators disagreed with those two blocks. The only valid block by InShaneee was the one, which I have reported myself for my own personal attack, which was to a member who was using an articles talk page as a server to copypast endless material from an ultra-nationalist racist website. My answer, as harsh as it could was the only way it gave positive results. Fad (ix) 23:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Nothing forces an edit war, and nothing forces personal attacks. Whether you revert war or make personal attacks is up to yourself. However, if you are not going to play by the site rules you will have to be shown the door. I hope that is clear. Yuser31415 23:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree to the edit counter opt-in terms

I agree to the edit counter opt-in terms. Yuser31415 23:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

...they're will kill me...already beaten me up once and stole all my stuff

You probably don't understand becasue you too're Serbian.