Hi there, I noticed you put your name down as interested in a Birmingham meetup. Just letting you know, the date is now set as Saturday 20th October. We really need input on where, and what time we will meet, so comments would be much appreciated on [[Wikipedia:Meetup/Birmingham 2|the page]]. Thanks. '''[[User:Majorly|<span style="color:#002bb8">Majorly</span>]]''' (''[[User talk:Majorly|talk]]'') 13:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi there, I noticed you put your name down as interested in a Birmingham meetup. Just letting you know, the date is now set as Saturday 20th October. We really need input on where, and what time we will meet, so comments would be much appreciated on [[Wikipedia:Meetup/Birmingham 2|the page]]. Thanks. '''[[User:Majorly|<span style="color:#002bb8">Majorly</span>]]''' (''[[User talk:Majorly|talk]]'') 13:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
==Do not edit==
The rules don't prohibit me from editing. There are changes that have been suggested and discussed for months. you have done nothing. The rules say the actual person can make the changes. Why don't you just respond to the changes I've made?
Hi! Please leave a message and I'll get back to you...
Don't hesitate to get in touch if you have a question or need help. I'll do my best and can probably point you in the right direction if it isn't something I can sort out myself.
Will
Re: Image:Dx-06
I don't know what you really mean on being double? Zenlax 9:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
WJB, I suggest you make a very long statement if you accept this request (fairly or not, people may hold it against you with such a short nomination). USAx3, I think you wanted Template:RfB. It's mainly the optional questions that are different.--Chaser - T20:48, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing. But it will almost certainly fail. There is a de facto standard at RFB that means that editors with less than one years experience as an administrator will not become bureaucrats. --Deskana(talky)23:24, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Essjay, Redux and Linuxbeak are just some users who had less than a year. This is one candidate who will not fail, and it's really not helpful saying it almost certainly will. In fact I am positive WJBscribe would pass now, he's pretty much a bureaucrat already, just without the flag. Majorly (talk) 23:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for explaining. I'll explain how I saw it. I think that if a canadate is fully qualified, then he/she shouldn't have their canadancy fail just because of timing. But that's just my opinion and I respect yours.--Wikipedier is now U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A.23:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi all. Thanks to U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. the kind nom. My last response to a discussion of this nature can be found at - User talk:WJBscribe/Archive 9#'Crat. I'm not sure that my opinions have changed greatly since then though I keep an open mind. I still think asking people to support my RfB is asking a lot when not only have I not been an admin for a year, but I haven't even been editing Wikipedia for a full year. I also note that there is no crat backlog at the moment and that 4 crats are presently doing renames. Seems to me my time is more helpfully spent elsewhere. In any event,there a few things I'm dealing with at the moment that mean I can't give this my full attention at present. It will prob be a few days before I decide whether to accept or reject this nomination. If I do decide now is too soon, I hope no one will be offended - I truly value the support. WjBscribe01:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you all very much for your input. I've thought about this a long time and I do still think its premature. I take onboard some of the points made here and elsewhere and agree that maybe a full year as an admin isn't strictly necessary - however I still believe that a few more months of experience before asking the community to extend their trust of me is a good idea. Also, the present crats have everything more than under control and there are plenty of other things for me to be doing. I certainly won't let thing go undone however and would consider running whenever backlogs started to mount again. Otherwise, perhaps this is a matter we could revisit towards then end of this year, or start of next... Thanks especially to U.S.A. for a kindly written nomination. WjBscribe12:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again. On a previous occasion (see here), I requested that the talk page of User:Black Rhino Ranger be protected due to soapboxing and related activities. On User talk:Snakezilla, the talk page of a sockpuppet of this user, he is attempting the same activities. This comment is particularly egregious. If at all possible, I'd request that the talk page of every single one of his accounts be fully protected, as he seems to move on from sockpuppet talk page to sockpuppet talk page in order to broadcast his views. Much appreciated. Sephiroth BCR(Converse)19:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I'm not yet prepared to protect all of those pages as protection isn't meant to be used preventatively. Do get in touch if this resumes elsewhere - you can also request protection of these pages at WP:RFPP. WjBscribe12:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ariel♥Gold gives you a huge smile, because tomorrow is Monday, and everyone can use a pre-Monday smile!! Smiles promote WikiLove, and hopefully hers has made your day better! ({{subst:smile}})
Can you delete this? I am going to reupload it to Commons under PNG formatting instead of here, and the reuploads are a little much.. — Moeε10:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some doofus, with nothing but an unsourced claim that they heard it on a radio station, has changed the name of Britney Spears's fifth studio album to Piece of Me. I don't know how to change it back without screwing it up completely. You wanna do what the community has entrusted you to do????? How's it hanging, by the way? Jeffpw11:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fine thanks. I think that's all fixed and I've move protected the page to avoid it yoyoing about the place. Do get someone to lift that when a title is actually officially confirmed :) ... WjBscribe11:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks honey, and you're a px150peach. And to think you actually followed my tracks and removed it from requested moves! There's a good reason why you're admin and I'm not.
About Poor Britney's new album: I will absolutely get that protection removed when the title is officially announced. We're all waiting with baited breath, especially since the MTV debacle last Sunday evening. Did you see it? Really tragic, but she did look bangingly hot, even to this confirmed bachelor!Jeffpw11:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Butting in here, sorry WjBscribe) I actually noticed this earlier, the IP editor also changed the Template:Britney Spears. I don't know a thing about her, so I didn't revert it, but I think if it has not been confirmed, perhaps the template should be reverted as well? Ariel♥Gold11:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks WjBscribe, I tend to avoid changing templates like that when I'm completely unfamiliar with the artist, so I thought I'd just keep an eye on it, and I happen to have your talk page on my watched list (wonder how that happened... hmm) and saw this, lol. Anyway, thanks for fixing it! Ariel♥Gold12:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! I've just put out two more Britney brushfires on the Wiki today! That gal is a handful, no doubt about it. But well worth the effort. Remember that flick, Being John Malkovich? I would love it if I could pull a Being Britney Spears for a day--especially at the time she was making babies with Fed-ex. Jeffpw12:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
...when they deleted Category:Wikipedians who don't wish to become administrators (or whatever it was called). :) Thank you for the kind offer, it's flattering, but I lack the ambition or desire for an admin's powers and responsibilities. And even if it were my ambition, I would have to argue that I lack experience in some critical areas, like FA. But thanks again. Cheers, Xtifrtälk12:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see here that you changed my tag, which I don't mind the change to a hard block, but my question is that on the Wikipedia:Usernames_for_administrator_attention page, there is absolutely nothing about using a different tag for a hard block. There is also very little guidance on when to and not to use a hard block. 17:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I went for a hard block because I edit conflicted with you on the block and having looked at the account's deleted contribs thought they should be hardblocked for vandalism (never mind the username issue). I usually keep username blocks soft - it was the vandalism I was responding to. Agree the new tag wasn't ideal but the standard {{usernameblocked}} tag encourages the user to create a new account - which seemed inappropriate when I'd just deprived them of their ability to create a new account. I would normally have discussed it with the other admin concerned but I thought it was a fairly minor change in the block - apologies for stepping on toes. WjBscribe17:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not a big deal, but I'm mainly interested in the template usage. No biggie. SInce I'm not fond of vandals, I may adopt this policy when dealing with the dual vandal/username issue too.Rlevse18:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I guess what I really wants is a "The combination of your contributions and username lead me to conclude you have no interest in contributing productively here" template :-) ... WjBscribe18:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bullshit:[4] That's called following the rules. Did you even stop to check, or do you just post what sounds true to you? If there's something personal you'd like to discuss, use e-mail. Otherwise, WP:LEAVEMEALONE.Proabivouac12:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm well aware of that- it was a recommendation, not a rule. You chose to follow it and then to conduct yourself in such a way that no longer what your real name associated with your editing here. Both were the results of free choices you made as a presumably intelligent individual with free will. WjBscribe12:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Go find even one policy which supports what you're doing. It doesn't exist. Yet the language of the policy I've just forwarded to you is crystal clear. No exception of the type you've just made up in your head exists on paper, even digital paper. Really, you may as well cite WP:IAR because that's all you have: just the naked acknowledgment that you've no intention of honoring the assurances you give your volunteers.Proabivouac12:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You want a policy that says you can't create new accounts to avoid ArbCom sanctions? That tells you that if you did so for another legitimate reason (such as to change your name) that you might need to notify a lot of people so the sanctions could still be enforced? That sometimes the consequences of punishment for misconduct can be harsh? Did you think the fact your first account was your real name would absolve you of further responsibility for how you behaved while editing under that name? I think you need to calm down a little and think about how poorly you have conducted yourself in this matter. WjBscribe12:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Clue: you don't have a right to publish malicious bullshit about people no matter what your house vision of Karma. You recall the Don Murphy discussion: "he was mean to us, so we don't have to listen to him anymore!" Wrong. Morally wrong, socially wrong, ethically wrong, professionally wrong, legally wrong. Wikipedia is responsible for anything it publishes, period. To appeal to what in your mind is someone's "comeuppance" only supports the appearance of malice. If you mean to punish someone with what you publish, you'd better step away from the keyboard, and WF would be smart to keep those tools from you until you get some perspective. You're supposed to be a senior editor of a responsible publication, WJB. Act the part.Proabivouac12:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not a "senior editor" - there is no such thing as a senior editor of Wikipedia. All contributors hold the same editorial standing as you well know. You seem under the impression that you are a subject in this encyclopedia - you are not. We have no article about you. There are some records within this site of your conduct as a volunteer who edited this site - those contain your full name only because you chose to edit under that name. Otherwise your name would not be contained - you are to this day free to deny that that is your name and nothing would change. You seem to wish to blur the line between our internal proceedings relating to our contributors and our encyclopedic content - they are separate things and must be governed by different rules. For example, if you agree to cease editing this website, there would be little need for us to keep most of their records. They are however necessary in order to chart disruptive behaviour by those who contribute. WjBscribe12:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Step out of Wikiland: an "internal" proceeding is one which is not accessible by the public. As ifthe New York Times could title a section, "The Internal Proceedings of the New York Times," and publish there anything it liked.Proabivouac13:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't deny that it is accessible. And if they did contain something defamatory that would be quite serious - but something you would have to resolve outside of Wikipedia having taken legal advice. However this is a separate issue to the fact that you have evaded sanctions and that a record of the link between your accounts is needed so that those sanctions can be enforced if you choose to continue to edit. If you wish to email OTRS detailing statements on Wikipedia that you believe should be blanked someone will no doubt help you - but the entire ArbCom decision does not fall into that category. As you have been asked before - identify the specific content you believe to be "malicious and false" (the term you have been using) and we will take appropriate action having reviewed that content. WjBscribe13:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WJBscribe, it is quite true that when Proabivouac originally registered, people were encouraged to use their real name. It seems also to be true that when he changed his name, he privately informed several administrators, and Danny. He may even have informed Jimbo. As far as I know, any administrator — perhaps even any user — who suspected his identity and asked him by private email received a prompt and truthful reply. I know very little about the His Excellency case, but I have looked at the evidence page, and have seen that His Excellency (while hiding behind anonymity) was making some pretty disgusting personal attacks (check evidence submitted by Merzbol).
"The Jews took note, and have taken every measure to stop me. They're an active bunch of snots..."
"You fuckers say NPOV is non-negotiable, even if consensus goes against it. REALLY? Prove it . . . the honorable members of ArbComm can suck my dick"
"Take your Arbcomm case and shove it up your ass."
"For god's sake, fuck off... At best, you're stupid, at worst you're both stupid and a hypocrite. And yes, that's a personal attack."
"I do feel that Jews are screwing up the planet"
"Fuck it. I made a bloody mistake even thinking these clowns had an ounce of crediblity. Such a waste of time."
"What are you complaining about, you crybaby - You're a Jew, for Yaweh's sake. The administrators here wouldn't dream of holding you accountable for anything you do."
"Jimbo, please take a break from patting yourself on the back and look around. Wikipedia is being used to push propaganda and offensive hate rhetoric... you're likely to be sued for it in the near future."
I have not found one single example of behaviour from Proabivouac that came close to the digusting viciousness of His Excellency. I have found some example where he was a bit provocative, which would likely never have happened if His Excellency had been banned indefinitely, for his vile, disruptive behaviour. Again, I admit I'm not particularly familiar with the case, but there was nothing in the submitted evidence that suggested that Proabivouac was harming the encyclopaedia. His Excellency seems also to have made several accusations of bigotry against Proabivouac. Now, I don't edit Islam articles, so I don't really know how Proabivouac behaves there, but having seen the posts from His Excellency, I certainly wouldn't take any of his accusations at face value, would you? (I also notice that Proabivouac seems to have the support and friendship of at least one Muslim, which would be unlikely if he were at Wikipedia for the purpose of spreading anti-Islamic racial hatred.) Yet His Excellency's accusations of bigotry, made by a repulsively vicious anonymous troll against a person who was at worst slightly provocative and who was using his real name, remain visible for any potential employer to find when he googles the names of job candidates.
It's rather unjust to blame someone for registering with his real name, when that was what was recommended at the time. A lot of reasonably intelligent, decent people might not have realised the possible consequences for real life harassment. I'd ask you to examine His Excellency's personal attacks (many of which were made against Proabivouac's real name, while to this day His Excellency's identity remains unknown). Ask yourself would you be comfortable in having that kind of person free to write anything he liked about you with your real name, on one of Google's top ten websites, so that potential employers could see it? It's possible that the answer may be that you wouldn't mind, as some people have jobs that are extremely secure, and care little about their personal reputation. Others are more vulnerable and care a lot. It's not really for us to judge another person's circumstances.
In any case, whether you think Proabivouac is right or wrong, what is the harm in making a little effort not to make things worse for him? He seems to be upset. You seem to think it's ridiculous. Fine. Is there anyway that you can keep that opinion without goading him? Remember that he did inform several administrators. Remember that several innocent people have suffered serious harm as a result of their Wikipedia usernames being linked to their real life identity. Remember that he did not use a sockpuppet to do any double voting or reverting, or to evade a ban. Do you think that real life harm is an appropriate punishment for violating a Wikipedia policy? Do you want to increase that harm? Do you think it would have done serious damage to Wikipedia if the committee had made an announcement that Proabivouac was under probation for one year, for reasons which he wished to remain private? Do you think that it would have done serious damage to Wikipedia if the committee, after Proabivouac's probation evasion became known to them, had offered him by private email the option of leaving Wikipedia for one year (or even permanently) as an alternative to having his identity published? It's a very very sad thing if Wikipedia administrators do not even have a desire to find some solution, where possible, that doesn't involve causing the risk of real life harm to an editor who has violated a rule. ElinorD(talk)13:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Elinor, Proabivouac is editing my talkpage and has now been doing so for some time - I am not goading him. I have asked him to cease edit warring - that is always unhelpful in all circumstances. It is not for me to review the correctness of the ArbCom decision. I defer to them that if they sanctioned Proab's previous account his conduct required sanction. He did indeed inform some admins - but I have no knowledge of the basis on which he selected them - where they impartial or allies? I am concerned that those admins then helped conceal from ArbCom the evasion of sanctions. ArbCom have an email list - they are an obvious choice to contact, Danny is not and nor are a random selection of administrators. I have in several places detailed what steps Proab could have taken - leaving for a year is an obvious one. I am willing to work to find a solution that minimises the upset to Proabivouac as long as he stops his recent disruptive behaviour. Already the evidence page of the ArbCom case against him has been blanked - something I support. If Proab now announced a wish to cease contributing (such that sanctions were no longer needed) I would accept that less of a link were needed. Is Proabivouac at risk of harm? Has he ever alleged this - no. I am one of the more willing admins to help people to protect their names when they are threatened, however I expect (1) some legitimate risk of harm to be explained (e.g. SlimVirgin or Musical Linguist) and (2) a record of good conduct. The later is important - it is not because the original account is his real name that I think a link to it is needed but because that was the account under which the misconduct occured.
Proabivouac's recent conduct has been Wikilawyering, making threats against other editors and he has generally refused to engage in discussion. I (and many others) have asked what "malicious and false" statements about him are present on Wikipedia so they can be looked at and maybe removed. He has not chosen to impart that information. He continues to be hostile and uncommunicative. Once he is able to acknowledge in principal that his sanction evasion was wrong and that some link to the original case will be needed, I agree that a way to minimise the use of his name (which distresses him) should be able to be found. WjBscribe13:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"I am willing to work to find a solution that minimises the upset to Proabivouac as long as he stops his recent disruptive behaviour."
That's ridiculous, as the only "disruption" you can point to - and the only reason I now have a block in my log - involves exactly me blanking your links to your house attack farms, as ElinorD underscores, basically a pile of vile antisemitic filth the Committee solicited and has perversely curated all this time.
Danny was the counsel of the publisher of this encyclopedia. If you mean to say that communication with your counsel is ignored… well, that doesn't look too good, does it?
Danny was never the Foundation legal counsel, you are thinking of User:BradPatrick. How can you think that describing the final step in this website's dispute resolution system as "your house attack farms" is condusive to a mutually agreeable compromise being reached? What are you asking me to "quit" - you are the one who is posting here on my talkpage. I do not intend to post to yours unless your disruptive behaviour resumes. WjBscribe13:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An ArbCom decision is not "an attack". But if you like, if your disruption resumes I will ask at WP:ANI for an uninvolved admin to deal with the matter rather than handle it myself. WjBscribe13:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"For example, if you agree to cease editing this website, there would be little need for us to keep most of their records."
Let's reframe that: are you saying that if I don't edit, that Wikipedia will stop publishing attacks on me anywhere on its site, and delete (not blank, but delete/quit publishing) those which now exist?Proabivouac14:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lets bear in mind that I have no authority to make such guarantees - however I think the argument for keeping some of those pages would be considerably lessened if there was no current editor under ArbCom sanction. You presumably do have a right to vanish provided you are not going to reappear under a different name. I don't think the entire ArbCom case could be deleted though. Also, as you avoided the sanctions once, people might feel there was a risk of you doing so again and that those (like yourself) who spend a lot of time hunting for sockpuppets need to know what to look for. By contrast, I am perhaps too trusting in this area - a criticism you have hinted at yourself in a different matter. In any event, this is all something that ArbCom would need to decide - perhaps a compromise worth suggesting at WP:RFARB. WjBscribe14:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is precedent for actually deleting most evidence of a users' presence. HOTR, for example, although it was contentious at the time it was arranged (and required intervention by Jimbo and Fred) it seems to have stuck. As far as I know, he has not actually returned to editing, and has therefore kept up his part of the bargain. As much as it pains me to suggest that someone should simply accept a voluntary ban and not edit at all, that may be a necessary step here to preserve what is left of your peace and privacy. For one thing, you orginally edited with your real name, and that cat can never be completely stuffed back in the bag, even with deletions and account renaming. Another problem is that you came to the attention of that other site through your vigorous pursuit of sockpuppets, and were ID'd because your article interests and style were the same as they were under the old name. Adopting a new name without some kind of agreement will likely have the same result (or worse) next time as it did this time, unless you suddenly become a Pokemon fan. Any agreement that you could change accounts and continue editing would require safeguards (for example, three neutral admins--not friends or allies--who would monitor your talk page for complaints and intervene if necessary) and would have to be approved by ArbCom and not simply discussed with one member, and could still end up in an outing unless you change your editing patterns. However, if you truly are willing to stop editing for a year under any account name, a disappearance could probably be arranged without too much excess drama. E-mail me if you want to explore this further. Thatcher13115:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thatcher has more experience of these matters than I and if the scenario he outlines is appealing I urge you to get in touch with him. I would be willing to support such an arrangement. WjBscribe18:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since these are clearly schoolkids, would you consider adding {{Schoolblock}} to that page instead of the more generic block? Simply offering the option of requesting unblock from that address is unlikely to be productive. / edg☺★14:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The post you edited was not by me but by User:Sfacets[5] - I agree it wasn't briliantly worded. As to the block summary, you will see that I used {{schoolblock}} as the summary when blocking the account. That means that they will see that template in full whenever they try to edit the page - the note on the talkpage isn't really all that significant and is more so other users known easily that the account is blocked. WjBscribe14:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello WJBscribe, I'm posting again in regards to adminship.
OK being now at 24 000 edits including 1 800 Wikipedia articles/talk edits (including about 25-30 afd discussions, 150 AVI and 140 RFPP), editing 10 000+ articles, created something like 360 articles, 9 templates and 6 categories, and now having edit summaries in both minor and major at close or at 100% I believe now that giving some requests by other users to try out again at AFD So from now on I will accept any nomination of me at WP:RFA. I Still though have possibly some issues in regards to the sockpuppet and image policies (although the latter I can just stop adding images or do less so often even though I'm at 160+ image edits and close to 80 images downloaded). Thanks!--JForget16:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't worry too much - you're not expected to be a policy encyclopedia, just to be able to find it and apply it with common senses when necessary. Anyway, I'll get on with writing a nomination for you. WjBscribe17:55, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Forgot tomention he is checking my contributions daily and commenting upon them, as well as offering unsolicited advice, and has been messaging me even after I requested he stop. Jeffpw13:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see you've been your charming self again ;-). Still - I do hate that sort of collection of "evidence" against other users. It really does need to go... WjBscribe13:57, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good and good to see you :-). I rather thought you'd fallen by the wayside... In Wikipedia terms, you now have grandchildren you've been away so long! C.Fred, FisherQueen & RockMFR are all now admins despite having been nominated by me ;-). Anyway, dust off that desk and get to work... WjBscribe23:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All good choices. I'm proud of you :o) And my mother will be pleased. Actually, no, she'd be horrified. Lack of grandchildren is a very good plus point for her in the whole poky-bum-sex thing. And so to bed... ➔ This is REDVEЯS23:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no edit war going on. The discussion regarding the pronoun use was, for all intents and purposes, over. The last statement made by any other editor was well over a week ago and it does not appear that Schumin wishes to take part in discussing the edits I made and defended. He's obviously watching the article as he was quick to revert my edits, so he should've known how the discussion was faring and should've made his thoughts known. What justification is there in protecting a page when the person requesting the protection does not wish to discuss the issue, opting instead to make mean-spirited comments in the edit summary (see here)?
Furthermore, this alleged edit war has been going on only for a matter of minutes and between just two people. I've never - NEVER - seen a protection request fulfilled so quickly and with so few edits and editors involved. I've made protection requests before that were rejected due to there being not enough activity. The activity involved on this article is far, far, far, far less than that. Based on this and the above, I see absolutely no justification for this page protection. Jinxmchue00:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Who requests the protection is immaterial and protection is not an endorsement of the protected version. The article's history showed a recent pattern of edit warring that showed no sign of abating (especially given the previous edit war in June). I therefore judged protection necessary. Please discuss the disagreement on the article's talkpage and request unprotection when you have reached a consensus. You may wish to seek involvement from other editors, such as through WP:RFC. WjBscribe00:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, honey! I was actually asked by another editor if I would draft it, since I am an uninvolved party. I'm glad you think it looks good--I will say it's easier to do something like that if you are truly uninvolved in the dispute. Jeffpw21:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I noticed you put your name down as interested in a Birmingham meetup. Just letting you know, the date is now set as Saturday 20th October. We really need input on where, and what time we will meet, so comments would be much appreciated on the page. Thanks. Majorly (talk) 13:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do not edit
The rules don't prohibit me from editing. There are changes that have been suggested and discussed for months. you have done nothing. The rules say the actual person can make the changes. Why don't you just respond to the changes I've made?
Hi! Please leave a message and I'll get back to you... 
