User talk:Cptnono

Template:Archive box collapsible Don't talk to me about anything but Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Qwest Field/archive1! (Not really but take a look if you have the chance)

Glenn Beck

I have added "my" version of a proposed Van Jones section. The "right" one is likely somewhere in between yours and mine. (read: let's both be willing to compromise)— Mike :  tlk  02:23, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank goodness you're finally working on something. Now if you could start working on the ACORN section, see what I proposed on the talk page. Bachcell (talk) 22:19, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

BLP on Talk:Glenn Beck

You don't get to call living people names, sorry. The rules are pretty clear. Please don't make an issue of this because there is none to be made. Don't restore that comment again. Thank you. Gamaliel (talk) 15:01, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

See, now that's the polite way to say "get over it." A courtesy lesson, from an admin. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:50, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Totally was :) I also don't need a courtesy lesson since I am not in kindergarten. I still think they are interpreting the rules incorrectly. The admin also doesn't know how format talk page headers (before someone gets offended: I screw them up too sometimes so am just poking fun). Cptnono (talk) 21:11, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is very sensitive to BLP issues, i.e. to disparaging living persons. The probability of someone suing wikipedia, because an anonymous editor called them an idiot on a talk page, is likely very small. But they don't want to take chances. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 21:35, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

They are right Cptnono, you cannot give your opinion that a living person is an idiot. You can say that X source called the person an idiot, but you cannot call that person an idiot. nableezy - 21:38, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

No they aren't. A known writer wrote in his TV critique piece that being parodied on SNL was a greater tribute than a TIME magazine cover. This is colorful writing that I doubt was supposed to be taken seriously. Since an editor was pushing inclusion based on it being a huge deal for the subject (not the writer and this was on the subject's article's talk page not the article), my comment was that the writer was "an [BLP censored?] if he actually believes that. I have a feeling it was just to be cute...". It was colorful but it wasn't overly offensive. Since it is assumed that he didn't mean it literally then it is not offensive to him at all. If he did mean it literally there is still nothing in the BLP guideline prohibiting this manner of making a point on a separate subject's article's talk page.

Yes there is. The BLP policy is not strictly for making comments in actual biographies, it says that any such comments anywhere on Wikipedia must have highly reliable sourcing. Your opinion does not count as a highly reliable source. Dont take this the wrong way, Im just trying to make sure you dont get blocked for future comments. nableezy - 21:59, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

No worries, I'm not taking it the wrong way at all and enjoying our little kumbaya. As I mentioned last night, I am still quitting smoking so I could snap at any moment, though! The opening line discusses "biographical material". I was not discussing biographical material I was asserting that I was potentially disagreeing with the writer. It is also clear that I assumed I was not calling him an idiot with the follow up line. I was making a point to another editor on an unrelated talk page and I think the admin took it the wrong way. Also, on my revert, I made sure to add "in my opinion" to make it clear that it was not fact. I also wanted to point out that the subject was called a knuckle dragger on the talk page. Why wasn't that removed?Cptnono (talk) 22:08, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I was overzealous but better to err on the side of caution when it comes to BLP. As for the other comment, I'm not omnicient nor do I examine every inch of every page for possible BLP offenses. I just delete the ones I see. If there's another offending comment you can remove it yourself or provide a link to the section that contains it and I'll do it. Thanks. Gamaliel (talk) 22:56, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

The other comment was a red herring (idiom) on my part since you can't be expected to go through line by line so no problem. Thanks for getting back to me.Cptnono (talk) 23:18, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

"Knuckle dragger" is just as bad as "idiot" (maybe worse) and should also be expunged, if it's a BLP reference. And for what it's worth, objectively speaking, I would have to say that anyone who seriously thinks an SNL parody is a greater achievement than a Time cover is, shall we say, a little too narrowly focused. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:35, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Glenn Beck and ACORN

I see they finally got Van Jones in, but are they still keeping ACORN out? Check out NYT finally admits they dropped the ball and they need to have at least one person watch the conservative news and talk circuit. Now when WP people admit they've been playing see no evil hear no evil, that will be the day. Bachcell (talk) 15:57, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

No worries!

;^) ↜Just M E here , now 06:02, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Spoof of Beck

With regard to citations

(in the article about the spoofer website) -- Would you help me move them up into the text? If you were to try(?), do note that I'm not emotionally attachment to any of em so if you think any one or several bloggier uns are unable to be attached to a statement of opinion somewhere in the article, don't hesitate to delete it or them entirely.↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 11:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll look.↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 11:22, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Had to add brand-new cite for "Anonymous" (group) association.↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 12:04, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Although much blogospheric chatter talks much of Google bombing this meme, I can't find it mentioned in a 2ndary source other than Wikinews so maybe we should take our mention of "Google bomb" out.↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 12:12, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Lol @ e/c comment↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 12:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

What should be the article's title? then, what should be it's lede? (& so forth -- )↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 13:33, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

A riddle on English syntax

Were we to say, Glenn Beck Rape Satire, would we be meaning a "satire of Glenn Beck about rape" or a "satire by Glen Beck about rape"? (Or, for completeness here, the technicality that we could mean a satire of a person's raping Glenn Beck.) Or were we to produce a script called Stripper Vampire Murderers, which of several variable roles possible would we be trying to cast? "strippers who murder vampires"?, "vampires who murder and also strip"?, or "people who murder stripping vampires"? Only after our title became an idiom could our audience know for sure which one we meant!↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 19:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing like someone who appreciates and enjoys the complexities of the English language. Perhaps you should take a look at the argument for & against referring to the "Gaza massacre" or the "Gaza Massacre" in the article on the Gaza War. Here is my contrib for your enjoyment. As a kid a teacher used the following sentence to demonstrate the importance of punctuation: The Indians said Jane scalped General Custer. Stellarkid (talk) 22:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

@ Stellarkid: lol

@ Cptnono on my talkpage: "Rape satire of Glenn Beck" would be M U C H clearer (howevah, I myself have retired from messing with the article, having emended my AfD !vote to one of deletion!)↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 01:27, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

BTW I did go ahead and, citing WP:Naming conventions, boldly moved the article to something less imprecise and ambiguous than before -- my sort of "randomly picking out of my hat" "Glenn Beck – Isaac Eiland-Hall controversy." Please feel free to move it to something else. The article has been barely worked on by anybody -- which, by a certain measure, shows its subject matter to be of less interest to WP editors, for whatever reason (and perhaps less notable?), than I had previously thought. (It is a pretty crass joke/parody.)↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 23:42, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 23:55, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• I took out the website infobox to emphasize the dispute, per se, over, per se, the website, but it certainly could go back in. Cirt had added most or all of the "See also" wikilinks. I put them into columns so they would take up less space on the page; they could stand some culling though.↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 01:22, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't mind your contibuting to the discussion, Cptnono

But your meta points confuse me.

The religious content that Bytebear objects to is currently in the article in the Skousen section, since *I* put it there. Thus, for example, how am I not contributing what I had already contributed? See how your statements confuse me?

(To fill you in: Bytebear had written on one of our -- either his or my -- talkpages that he was disappointed in my having reverted his removal of the religious content in this section; so, I am now providing information on the article talkpage to buttress its inclusion.)↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 03:00, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

• Good idea, Cptnono. How much is Leap on Kindle?↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 03:13, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll look at the local library/used bookshop tomorrow.↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 03:19, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

• Didn't get to the library yet but I will. (P/s Cptnono, I now know why you had thought I was warring; Jimintheatl was, in the "External links" section and hi/r username starts with J just like mine, with with 11 letters in hi/r name to 13 in mine.)↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 16:19, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Authorship and Publishing

Before I say my say, I want you to know that if I sound irritated, it's not because of some stupid ideological difference, but only because I spent twenty minutes sourcing that section.

What was wrong with it the way it was? I really think it was fine. It's not promotional, just the facts, backed up with enough sources that no one can gripe about it. Is there some manual of style problems or something? Joshua Ingram 20:14, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I responded to you here. I came off wrong. I was agreeing with you, but after reading it a second time, I see that it looked like I was bashing both of you. Sorry, man. Joshua Ingram 20:44, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I listen to Beck enough that the humor is rubbing off on me. Joshua Ingram 20:56, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Review

Dude, I've been fairly busy with personal issues and been spending too much time on Ricky Ponting. Have added at comment on the review page and will be looking to add more by the end of the night here. Aaroncrick (talk) 09:00, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Nah everything's fine. Just found a life off wiki. Should be still editing but not as much, or at least not for as long. Aaroncrick (talk) 11:16, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

May be easier for me to copy edit it. I've done a few sections. Aaroncrick (talk) 11:23, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Article looking good. Will give a final ce. Aaroncrick (talk) 09:46, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Great. Have you fixed all the refs? Aaroncrick (talk) 07:11, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

You finished? Need to finish the review. Aaroncrick (talk) 23:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry didn't notice you replied. Archived talkpage so should be easier! Aaroncrick (talk) 23:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Fine how it is. Should be finished within 24 hours. Aaroncrick (talk) 00:05, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry it took so long. YP didn't have enough reviewers. Even though it was 1 support and 0 opposes. Aaroncrick (talk) 05:23, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Should have supported if you deemed the article FA material. If so, the article probably wouldn't have failed. Aaroncrick (talk) 05:58, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

No problem :) Aaroncrick (talk) 10:12, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

SSCS

Where a category could smear the organization or is otherwise disputed, it is better to wait and leave it out until consensus is that it should be there. That is the same as any article, if something is questionable, leave it out until there is consensus to include it. No consensus or consensus to leave something out = leave it out. I don't see any proof of strong consensus to include it anywhere, so the less damaging thing is just to leave it out for the time being, the world won't fall apart while discussion is ongoing, but leaving it there could generate a bad rep.--Terrillja _talk 00:12, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what your arbitrary 24 hours thing was about with adding the category again, but I think you should rethink your actions. When something is being discussed for addition, then it is best to maintain the article as it was until there is strong consensus to add it. I have yet to see strong consensus anywhere for this to be included. I do however see a long term history of you warring over the category. You might notice that I had no activity during your arbitrary time period, because contrary to popular opinion, there is something else to do outside of wikipedia.--Terrillja _talk 17:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey there! Thanks for trying to work out an amicable consensus. I disagree with removing the content of the biodiesel fuel of earthrace and preferred the balanced "animal fat and soybean" approach because it is mentionede in so many sources and obviously important enough for people to have feelings about. Regardless, the reason I'm writing now is because the article is being reverted via sock puppetry and I'm not sure how to aproach dealing with it. Do you know what to do with sock puppets? --68.41.80.161 (talk) 17:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

OK.. I did it, I'm official. :) --0nonanon0 (talk) 23:19, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Archiving =

Please just leave it as is, I'll play with the bot, but please don't do it manually as it screws up the bot and makes more work for me later. If a topic is done, then use the {{done}} template and the bot will archive it on the next run, otherwise it will archive after 90 days.--Terrillja _talk 23:01, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help

Good work on the Jennings article. It looks good! Timemachine1967 (talk) 23:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Yep, it all worked out in the end. Thanks again. Timemachine1967 (talk) 21:38, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Request

I'm sorry if I am putting this in the wrong area, but after your helpful comments earlier on today on the help page I would be grateful if you could give some advice please. I am editing the Nicholas Hagger page as the original information contained within it was incorrect. The areas I need help with are:

1. How do I link the reference numbers in the text to the actual references at the bottom of the page? I added the reference numbers from the button on the toolbar. At present the references are not linked.

2. While editing the page, half of the toolbar disappeared from the top. Can you tell me how to get the full toolbar back (as it is at the top of this article? The one with the ref button on it.)

3. The Bibliography and the Notes at the bottom are in double-line spacing and do not look right. I need help with this, including how to put in the square bullet points.

4. External links, there are some external links I need to put in, at present two are waiting to be added, see bottom of Nicholas Hagger page.

5. As I was not sure where to save the edited page for you to have a look at to check, I published it. I do appreciate that the page has not been checked by one of the editors but hope that it will not be deleted this time. It does have red writing at the bottom which refers to the incorrect citing of references. I do not know how to get rid of this. It was not my intention to publish until all the links were perfect, but I was not sure how to transfer all the work I had done to a sandbox.

6. When asking a question, where is the best place to do this? Apologies if this is the wrong place. Maybe you could let me know which is the best way to proceed.

I am new to this, and would be very grateful for your help.

With many thanks --Sanrac1959 (talk) 14:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the message you left for me. I have been looking at all the various help-pages yesterday and I think most if not all my queries have been solved. The page works very well I think. It would be good if I you could ask you for help with any future queries I may have. Thank you once again. --Sanrac1959 (talk) 10:04, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Will Hurd

WILL HURD

---

This is a response to the copyright infringement violation for the Will Hurd page I have created. I have expressed permission from the author Will Hurd, to publish any and all information from the website. What sort of evidence do I need to support it?

Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by WilliamHurd (talk • contribs) 04:40, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

My edit

If I take it to the talk page than same as always, nothing will ever be done. Why am I not a loud to actually edit the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Craigboy (talk • contribs) 06:40, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Well who's conscious do I have to have? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Craigboy (talk • contribs) 07:24, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Its like that because of the strong pro-israel contingent on Wikipedia. I think they work for the Israeli government myself. Da'oud Nkrumah 03:10, 8 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dnkrumah (talk • contribs)

Please go look at the number of Stars of David on user pages of contributors to this article before saying silly things. You might notice lots of green, white, red, and black. Don't forget to sign your comments

Excellent point. Thanks for the constructive retort.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 03:50, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Seattle Sounders FC task force

Hi, I wanted to notify you that I've created a proposal to create a Seattle Sounders FC task force at WikiProject Football. As someone who has edited articles in the space, I thought you might be interested. If so, you can add your name to the list of supporters here. Cheers. ← George ^talk 17:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and created the Seattle Sounders FC task force. It can be found here. Our first order of business is to tag all of the Seattle-related articles with WikiProject Football's {{football}} banner (most already have it), and add a Seattle importance rating to it. This be done by adding a Seattle=(importance) parameter to the banner, where (importance) is one of Top, High, Mid, or Low. ← George ^talk 16:52, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

IP block

Just to let you know that I've blocked 69.19.14.39 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) for 1 week. Regards, Bencherlite^Talk 09:19, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Bencherlite^Talk 09:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Allied Artists International

Senior Abuse of a 93 year old, computer illiterate man

• I am a relatively inexperienced editor of articles about China. Louis Lesser is a historic business figure in China, who was instrumental in opening it up.

• Louis Lesser does not self promote with his own Wikipedia page, even though he was partners with President John Fitzgerald Kennedy in developing Barrington Plaza, the largest urban renewal project in the history of the western United States, he sold the New Frontier to Howard Hughes, and was landlord to Hughes Aircraft, and he was mentor to both Warren Buffett and Kirk Kirkorian.

• Louis Lesser is now 93 years old man and is computer illiterate.

• Louis Lesser is CEO of Allied Artists Pictures Corporation.

• Kimball Dean Richards is the CEO of Allied Artists InternationalPitctures Corporation.

• Kimball Dean Richards has a criminal record that includes so many crimes over the past twenty years that he has been identified as a “Master Criminal” by the FBI, was sentenced to 20 years for bank fraud, mail fraud, an wire fraud in about 1990, and plea bargained after he solicited the MURDER of one of his own employees, tapped the phones of the Sheriff’s office in order to pre-warn drug dealers of impending searches, and was extradited to Arizona for still more criminal charges.

• WarriorBoy is an editor who only writes articles that promote ALlied Artists International.

• I provided extensive reliable sources, then got threatened by Warriorboy that if I edit I will get sued, and also am risking edits on an article on a person using a company name, who newspapers say that he hired someone to kill someone(before you erased it and all of the references).

• • Am I at serious risk of being sued, or killed by the person that the newspapers say hired someone to kill a person he had a dispute with? How safe is Wikipedia? Is this why you removed all of the LA times stuff?ChinaUpdater (talk) 00:24, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Allied Artists International

An article that you have been involved in editing, Allied Artists International, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allied Artists International. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 23:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Curiouser and Curiouser, Allied Artists Pictures Corporation DOES still exist

• - Allied Artists Pictures Corporation is still in existence, and is unrelated to Allied Artists International per here[1].

• Do you know how to dig deeper to see what is really going on here?

• I suggest you and everyone start out HERE - [[2]] - , by getting out your Microfishe Reader, as you will not be able to search it, and find the name {Allied Artists Records]].

• I transcribed this[[3]] - into Microsoft Word yeserday, but I do not know how to post such information on Wikipedia, after doing all that work (as a periphheral observer to a curious spectacle at first, but now a party in what you all call an edit war, in which I am out of my league).

• I poseted the above on the main article talk page up for deletion for NN. I believe KDR's SP is the originator of all these Allied Artists pages.

• But it is likely the article will be deleted entirely, leaving all of the other WarriorBoy articles associated with this still standing and hard to find.

• I am just a Philosopher of Mathematics, not an Encyclopedia of Corporations researcher. My best friend's father-in-law ran the Mathematics Olympiad in Gansu China, and I began to edit articles on China. So I am about as far from reality, physical or virtual, reality as it gets.

• I came into this because I do assistance to famous high end thinkers who are abandoned in old age, such as people going blin with macular degeneration, who need someonw to read to them the latest Journal of String Theory, etc., which the Braille Institute does not provide for, but I do. These people have minds that work fine, but their bodies are failing.

• I was personally helping Louis Lesser, a 93 year old man who is computer illiterate.

• Lesser told me, INCREDIBLY, that he used to be partners with President John Fitzgerald Kennedy in the largest urban renewal project in the history of the western United States, Barrington Plaza. Lesser said that he sold the Las Vegas New Frontier Hotel to Howard Hughes]], and that he was landlord to Hughes Aircraft. Lesser said that he was mentor to Warren Buffett and Kirk Kirkorian, and others whose names i knew from the press. Lesser said that he sold the Taj Majal in New Jersey to Donald Trump, and stayed with Trump in a spare bedroom of the Trump Towers penthouse whenever he was in New York. Lesser said he was partners with so many incredible people, that I did not believe a word he said.

• I checked everything, and every thinkg he said turned out to be true!

• Then Lesser said he was a part owner, with others of historic note, Allied Artists Pictures Corporation, WHICH STILL WAS IN EXISTENCE[4]. Again, I suspended belief.

• Lesser said that some "crook" was trying to make others think otherwise.

• One of those to whom Lesser was mentor said that a convicted felon, KDR, had committed massive fraud on Union Bank, and other major banks, using the name Allied Artists, and associated names.

• I went to Wikipedia to get information, and found nothing but the pages of KDR's SP's. I found what seemed like hindreds of them, in a virtual fraud scheme similar to what I read in the federal indictments.

• I just now found this here - [5] - . What does it mean?

• • Then I found the many newspaper articles, most from the late 70's and early 80's on microfische, on solicitation to commit murder, felony wire fraud convictions, computer fraud convictions, etc., at which point I got that CLEAR LEGAL THREAT.ChinaUpdater (talk) 16:44, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• • Then I found out about WikiLaw, and EditWars. Whew!

• • I do not want a hit put out on me, like happened in one of KDR's prior convictions.

• • Do you know anyone who can find out online what exactly is going on here? As a retired philosopher of mathematics, I am not exactly up to the task. My first efforts at joint editing ended up with the exposure of KDR, his SP's, and his MULTIPLE (hundreds of them) phony ADVERT NRS NN WIki pages. Who at Wikipedia is good at finding out who really owns this company? ChinaUpdater (talk) 16:44, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry Accusation, Major Fraud at Wikipedia, just like in the Federal Conviciotns using the same methods

Sockpuppetry Accusation, Major Fraud at Wikipedia, just like in the Federal Conviciotns using the same methods

• I have seen enough, as of this, - [6] –, which when coupled with the massive other edits by WarriorBoy85, all overtly NN ADVERTs, all NRS, and all COI and POV, to make the following accusations.

• WarriorBoy85 is clearly trying to defraud people who read Wikipedia into thinking Allied Artists International successor to Kimball Dean Richards' company Allied Artists Records (by WarriorBoy85s own edits here).

• I accuse WP:WarriorBoy85 and WP:TechnicalExpertise of being Sockpuppets for Kimball Dean Richards. I dont care about his overt legal threats, or his history of Solicitation for Murder here [7].

• Kimball Dean Richards is owner of Allied Artists Records according to here[8], here[9], here[10], also here [11].

Kim Richards, CEO of Allied Artists International, by WarriorBoy85’s own original edit of his side bar, is one and the same as Kimball Dean Richards, who was named, indicted, and convicted of Major Fraud using these names and associated names.

• ALL of the HUNDREDS of Wikipedia entries are nothing more than ADVERTising for Allied Artists International and its "artists" should be deleted on NN, and NRS, COI, POV, as well as SP.

• All of the HUNDREDS of entries, such as “artists” web sites, and redirects, done by WarriorBoy85 and TechnicalExpert should be undone by high ranking Admins, and let the rest of us low level folks get back to our far more simple editing work.ChinaUpdater (talk) 17:30, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

EDL

I just wanted to say thanks for stepping into EDL with a neutral and policy-focused outlook. Leaky Caldron 22:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I would still anticipate some problems. I've only been involved in the lead and just a couple of words have caused wholly disproportionate disputes, even down to the pov-intro tag! Leaky Caldron 23:09, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Afraid so. Extremely vehement as well. No give or take.

There is some background contained in this clip from BBC Newsnight from a UK Government advisor on the far right. I raised it last week on the talk page but it was derided. They guy gives a very good description of them about 2 minutes in. [12]

Prof. Matthew Goodwin, a Government advisor on the far right on BBC Newsnight on 12 October, described EDL as a street based, single issue, grass roots social protest movement opposed to violent, militant Islam. It is not currently political but tensions exist within the organisation and a debate is underway about whether it should stay as a street based protest movement or something more organised and political.

Leaky Caldron 23:25, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The government advisor piece was very authoritative but there was no enthusiasm to use any of it, as you can see from the talk page. He has not been quoted in the press which is a shame because it would nail some of the evident bias that surrounds this type of mob. Personally I don't think they will endure. If they do they could morph into something more organised along quasi political lines, but at the present they are a mob reminiscent of the 1970s travelling football hooligans. They have West Indian guys in their line up, tending to reinforce the single issue aspect. Leaky Caldron 23:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi again. I wondered about cite episode after the show was broadcast. I've tried to determine the policy on this. The show was broadcast and available on the BBC's retrieval system (BBCiplayer) via their website but only for a week. As mentioned in the talk page, that is said to be not acceptable because (a) it is now longer available (b) not available in all jurisdications due to licencing issues. Mainly the issue is (a) though. What are your thoughts? Leaky Caldron 07:55, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I am working on a piece to include the quotes by the far right expert from the Newsnight article. However, while the current warring is taking place I'm putting it on hold. Even minor changes, including you guessed it, the pov-intro tag have been reverted again. Leaky Caldron 16:15, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Caution

Seeing that you are from Seattle, you might not be aware that there is considerable activty on all British Right Wing sites this week (including EDL) given that the British National Party are being given access to the BBC for the first time. As a result there are multiple new editors/IPs etc. engaged. Monitoring all of this is a complex task and many editors are involved. You might want to bone up a bit on context. --Snowded ^TALK 14:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi again. Hope you're having a good day. I have made a bunch of minor changes to EDL, nothing major [13]. No doubt I'll find many of these reverted tomorrow! The trouble continues with the POV pushing. I have enlisted via editor assistance the help of a NPOV expert. We'll see what happens next! Cheers. Leaky Caldron 23:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. How much, if any, is relevant and worth including in the following section from the Newsnight article I mentioned? These are direct quotes.

• During their press conference on 10 October, it was put to them that “somebody described EDL as a drinking club with a website.” After several seconds pause there was general laughter from the EDL members with no response given.

• Dr Matthew Goodwin is research associate at the Institute for Political and Economic Governance, University of Manchester and has advised The Home Office and local councils on the far-right. He says that “the EDL is essentially grass roots, single issue social movement unlike the BNP for example, the EDL only campaigns on one issue which is that being opposition to violent militant Islam. Right now, that is what EDL is all about (organising demonstrations), in maintaining a street-based presence in Luton, Birmingham, Manchester and the organisation is expanding to Wales and Scotland but I think there is a tension within the organisation between those who want to stay at the grass roots and those who want go towards elections. What this marks in essence is a return to the 1970s strategy of kicking its way into headlines, what we saw with the National Front in the 1970s and really what the BNP has gone out of its way to avoid. There is no question looking at the EDL demonstrations in Luton, Birmingham and Manchester that confrontation follows in its path.“

"EDL Goons on Newsnight, part2". Newsnight. 2009-10-12. 1:26 minutes in. BBC. BBC2. {{cite episode}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |began=, |episodelink=, |serieslink=, |ended=, |transcripturl=, and |seriesno= (help); Unknown parameter |city= ignored (|location= suggested) (help)

I admire your discipline in keeping your contributions to only a few per day! Your latest suggestion had the impact I thought it would. ;) FWIW I thought it was a fair attempt at cleaning it up - it scanned well - but there are some entrenched views trying to steer the article. Hope your not sleepless over there! Leaky Caldron 23:31, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

was just logging off when that came through. I'm only 10 miles away from the Toon but I actually follow their big rivals - Sunderland, since I was a lad. Also the 49'ers in the NFL! Don't hold these allegiances against me! ;) Leaky Caldron 00:19, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

EDL - possible compromise

possible compromise here:

[14] can you take a look? cheers. Leaky Caldron 15:54, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Cheers. Is that the Sounders? It was a bad result today - hit the post in the last few mins. for 2 - 2which would have been good from 0 - 2. Your Newcastle won! Regards the article, it needs polishing that's for certain. YOU CAN HELP! The cite episode you suggested the other day is a big win. Get's rid of the political issue and allows us to move on to the next hurdle. Make sure you keep contributing! Enjoy the match. Leaky Caldron 22:41, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll look out for the score. Don't get discouraged. I think you and unSchool did good work here. Leaky Caldron 23:03, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Good win v Dallas!! Leaky Caldron 23:56, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

They are not covered quite so much now that they are out of the Premier League. Do you follow the Seahawks in the NFL? I see you editing their home field stadium article. The EDL article will not go away. It attracts editors with a particular perspective! I'm just polishing it a bit and looking out for anything slipping in that's clearly non-NPOV. Leaky Caldron 19:49, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Just finished reading it! I enjoyed the last line - lol. I'll pick up the more obvious ones and hope they stick. I think we are all agreed that other eyes would help which is why I approached Unschool but we saw what happend there. 49'ers now on a skid after starting 3 - 0. Good comeback v Houston not quite enough last night. Leaky Caldron 20:36, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi again. I've worked a few more of the issues list. Can you review some time? The flag has been and gone and been and gone! How much closer is it to NPOV that we can leave it out in your opinion? Leaky Caldron 19:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

We were edit conflicted there. Been having a nightmare with the refs. for the numbers! This bit is interesting because it comes from the spokesman: "...a claim contradicted by the organisation's spokesman Kelway, who said it has about 300 active supporters who attend demonstrations and strong support from Cardiff, Swansea, Luton and Portsmouth." Leaky Caldron 20:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

{out}. Ctp., bad news for Sunderland. we lost in an overtime penalty shoot-out in the cup competition tonight. Back at EDL, can you point to the source for the bit you added regarding the casuals setting aside diferences etc? I read your comment about the opening. There is an obvious consensus challenge to overcome there with your suggestion about attribution so I can see why you wish to stay away from that particular battle. Personally I'm ok with it. Leaky Caldron 22:49, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I wondered if this might convince you more about right wing without the need for qualification in the lead? It's taken from the Telegraph article you used. In trying to describe EDL it says "The answer lies in a combination of anti-Islamic internet bloggers, who constitute the EDL’s intellectual 'elite’, organised football hooligan 'firms’, who provide the street-fighting muscle, and agitators from the Far Right who spy an opportunity to enflame racial tensions which have grown up around the Muslim community following the bombings in London on July 7 2005."

The organisation is a fusion. The internet bloggers by themselves would not have become the EDL we see on the street. THey needed the muscle (the football hooligans) and agitators (the far right). Without the 3 elements together, EDL would not be the street based movement it has become. It is a coalition of the clever, the ignorant and the opportunist. The "right wing" element makes the movement we see on the street de facto right wing, whether the original thinkers like it or not.

Convinced? Leaky Caldron 23:39, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

They still argue against it. You have also shown with the quote that it is a complicated fusion. "The English Defence League is an organization formed in 2009, whose stated aim is opposition to the spread of Islamism, Sharia law and Islamic extremism in England. The group is comprised of various social groups including football hooligans and far-right elements. The EDL organizes public demonstrations in English cities." 23:48, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I might give that a try! regarding the bit about the boy being converted to Islam, you need a source since it is not in the telegraph. You could use this [15]. Leaky Caldron 23:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Just spotted the NPOV Noticeboard entry. Well worded! some nice quotes in there, ;). I'll chime in if/when needed. Leaky Caldron 20:00, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Cheesesteaks

Hi. I'm baffled by the information you added to Cheesesteak and in the reference you cited: are you saying that the sandwich known as "cheesesteak" in the Lehigh Valley has no cheese? —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:25, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

edit war warning - Janeane Garofalo (another editor)

Umm, what I've done seems hard to reconcile with an "edit war", given I've managed two reversions and used edit summary and the talk page to discuss both. Also, it seems to me that describing Garofalo's word choice as a "racist slur" is an NPOV problem and particularly for a BLP shouldn't be allowed to stand. I'll back off from editing for a few days (I wasn't going to violate 3RR with or without the warning) but your warning seems premature. Cheers. --CAVincent (talk) 21:03, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, fair enough I suppose. As I said, I'll back off for awhile. --21:16, 23 October 2009 (UTC)CAVincent (talk)

No problem. As I mentioned on the talk, I'm thinking you are right. just want it to be smooth and not see needless blocks. And the obnoxios bolding was the template and not me.Cptnono (talk) 21:16, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Arihant class submarine

By78 is back with his antics. I request you to take care of the Arihant class submarine page and make it inclusive with all the information like the way you edited the INS Arihant page. Especially with the reactor[16]. The media's confusion with nuclear reactor and nuclear fuel rods has lead to this issue. Bcs09 (talk) 15:25, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Pending civility report

I did not accuse you of being pro BNP/EDL. The Four Deuces (talk) 13:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Gaza

WP:AE

I have filed a report regarding your comments at Talk:Gaza War here. Tiamut^talk 14:16, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

If you are going to quote me please dont do so out of context. A relevant clarification to No, that is not how it works was left out. nableezy - 03:57, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Your last reply was in response to Administrative action is one thing, arbitration is another. Arbcom does not "rule" on content. Regarding your imaginations, I was "charged" with edit warring with the loudest complaining editor having made the same number of reverts (2) as I had. That is not "gaming the system" that is a bullshit report. Regarding the rest of your message, I still sorta like you so I am just going to pretend you did not actually write that down. And if you dont want me to pretend that please repeat it on my talk page so that I can give you the proper response. And when editors say they accept that it was used by Hamas and still do not want the name in the article that is not me rejecting a "perfectly fine option". And the current lead is a "perfectly fine option". Why exactly are you rejecting what was agreed as a "compromise" by Stellarkid, Tiamut, and myself? You keep saying I have not proved anything, but I have and a number of others feel that I have. I aint having this "conversation" anymore as I do not want what respect I still have for a few of the editors here to vanish. The "No, that is not how it works" was specifically about "arbitration" to solve a content dispute. That is not what WP:Arbitration does. nableezy - 04:03, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I do see the problem. You leave a reply to one message without including that message and you remove an explanation of the one message from me that you do quote. But your life, all I was asking for was you to include my clarification of "no, that is not how it works". nableezy - 04:14, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi there

I know you dont like that suggestion, but better than comment it write your proposal. The section is just a tool to make things clearer. And reach consensus eventually. Regards Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 11:12, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Gaza Revert

May I ask why you reverted me, particularly when all the material that I cited was sourced with RS. You reverted the lead and information in the fact box. The lead offers a sourced explanation as to why certain civilian areas were hit by the IDF. The phrase "Inflicting huge civilian devastation" is emotive and not in compliance with NPOV. I also added in the fact box that the campaign resulted in an "Israeli military victory" and virtually all reliable sources concur with this assessment. I provided 2 sources (Aviation weekly and JPost) and can provide at least two more, including the New York Times and the Institute for Near and Middle Easten Affairs. I won't revert until I here your explanation. Respectfully,--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 20:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Because I'm an idiot. Fixed.Cptnono (talk) 20:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

No harm. In the lead, instead of the current phrasing ("Huge devestation on civilian targets was also inflicted"), which in addition to violationg NPOV is just an awkward sentence, we utilize, "IDF attacks resulted in collateral damage." It's dry, neutral and not emotive.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 21:00, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Look I'm under the microscope here. Other editors assume that any edit from me, no matter how neutral (even the correction of a spelling mistake) is POV pushing. I have no problem making the correction myself but it will generate an avalanche of attacks and criticism. I think the change will carry more legitimacy from you and will be less likely to be reverted. though I've noticed that you've got your cheering corner as well :)--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 21:11, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

What about "IDF attacks directed at military targets resulted in substantial collateral damage." How does that strike you.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 21:22, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm cool with that--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 21:30, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi there

After following your argumentation about the use of Gaza massacre I respect your position even if I disagree. The problem is that without new editors involved we are stuck. So I propose you start a new 'POVtag' section in talk where you explain why you tag article it will be much clearer for a new uninvolved editor to jump in. Start new RFC wher you defining the problem. The explicit atribution "According to the Sunday Times of South Africa" in lead does nothing good and dont solve anything btw. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 00:19, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok. How about the atriibution then. Can you tink about removing it? Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 00:26, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I mean the line "According to the Sunday Times of South Africa," in lead. And if there is more than the 'gaza massacre' that make the article not NPOV the bigger reson to start a new NPOVsection for clearity imo.Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 00:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Why is it needed? Its redundant. The RS status is there. Its the most useless line in lead just taking up space. Its not making the 'Gaza Massacre' look any more disputed if thats your reason. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 01:35, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Good clarification in Gaza war talk. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 01:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I wont remove it but I still think its useless, even from your view. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 01:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Jiujitsuguy block

Sure other admins or I would shorten (or perhaps lift) the block if there was a reasonable sign he would behave now. However everyone always believes they are in the right and the other party is biased so trying to appeal based on rights and wrongs won't get him far. --BozMo talk 11:14, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Dissapointed

[17] I have respect for your arguing in the various disputes regarding Gaza War even if I dissagree with you. Trying to cast doubt about my evenually retired account and my involvent of block of Jiujitsu wont make anything good. On the 3RR topic I saw you missinterpretated Jiujitsus 4 revert. It was a revert of user Dailycare. Your edits was not affected. He was repetadly warned for editwarring and if he didnt care I dont know what. Regards and hopfully without any personall conflict with you. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 10:42, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Im so sorry,I missinterpretated you post totally. I was upset by Stellakid and didnt read it correct. Again sorry. Hope you excuse me. I think I slept to little lately if thats an small excuse Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 10:52, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I take a wikibreake a few days as I act stupid. Damnit, I cant apology enough for the above. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 11:01, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Worst brainfart ever, again sorry. Going to sleep now. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 11:14, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

totally agree

Totally agree and will follow your excellent advice. Stellarkid (talk) 21:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

not clear what you are referring to re: "wall of text" -- I do not think any user should be fiddling with the order of the page and you are right to bring it back to chronological order. Stellarkid (talk) 22:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Just the "attack attack attack" entering of text to the point that no one knows what is going on. I just got done explaining this to Nableezy, if he receives a probationary period on the article I'll be abiding by it as well. I have slight concerns with Romac's random runs of reverts and pending concerns w/ Jiujitsue and Mr.Anon but overall I think it will be fine without me.Cptnono (talk) 22:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Cptnono. You have new messages at Nableezy's talk page.
Message added 21:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

nableezy - 21:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC) 21:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Cptnono. You have new messages at Nableezy's talk page.
Message added 22:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

nableezy - 22:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC) 22:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Cptnono. You have new messages at Nableezy's talk page.
Message added 01:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

nableezy - 01:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC) 01:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

If you wanna see a copy of the article

Cptnono, I have it saved here.↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 04:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Even though it's in my user space, you are welcome to edit it or fiddle with it any way you like. (Or of course you could copy a version to your user space, with free reign to fiddle on it that way, too!) BTW, it takes guts to create a refurbished article on a topic that was very recently deleted; and it is usually more diplomatic to change the topic's scope. However, the deletion was controversial (see its deletion review here: WP:Deletion review/Log/2009 October 28), so a reburbished article on a very similarly circumscribed topic just might fly, you never know!↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 05:09, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Wow. Hey, listen -- Cptnono, let me move its sandbox to your userspace, kay? ↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 12:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I just did so, to "User talk:Cptnono/Percieved negative relations with Obama administration by some commentators" (This probably breaks policy -- other 'en WP:IAR -- to do so w/o waiting for your OK. Please reverse it if you're not cool w/it. Thanks.) Also note the discussion here: "Talk:Presidency of Barack Obama#Enemies List.↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 13:47, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh my... This could give people the wrong idea considering I am rallying for neutrality on a "far right" article regaring the EDL. Just so anyone viewing this is clear, the English Defence League appears to be full of drunk thugs, Beck can be a clown, it is sad how many Gazans died even though Israel's victory can be viewed as impressive, I'm waiting to see what Obama does before passing any judgment, I agree with the negative infoboxes on Bush, and pickles are awesome. My aim is neutrality and polarizing articles are obviously the worst offenders. I'm not right wing.Cptnono (talk) 01:59, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

W/regard your politics, Cptnono: Cool!

W/regard to the "Fox News - White House conflict" article, I had just been, like, observing stuff and, then, thinking it encyclopedic, doing my duty as a Wikipedian to try and find the most proper place to contribute a brief mention or two about it. But, the way I feel is, if the community or powers that be might think in this case the topic is too ephemeral in its importance to merit mention in an encyclopedia, then I just go (which in Valley speak means "think"), "Yeah, OK; cool" -- and move on. So, at this point I am just showing you the stuff that had been in the now-deleted article (the vast majority of which I didn't write, BTW) in case you wanted to salvage or cannibalize anything from it. In other words, I am not so married at all to any particular iterations of text(s), coverage(s), or topical framing(s)....↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 02:36, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Cptnono: Groovy! :^)↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 14:04, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

just want to thank u for ur support. I just didn't have the time to respond to anon's jibberish and that admin just blocked me w/out giving me a chance to respond. To be honest, I didn't know of the block till about 3 days in. But in any event, just wanted to say thanks. I'll be back editing this piece. I'm just a bit busy with work. A far as Anon, I think he's an experienced edit warrior and he's got lot's of time to waste.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 06:13, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll do my best.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 06:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

What's a"sock puppet?"--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 19:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Well u obviouly know a helluva lot more about this stuff than I do (which isn't saying much cuz my kwowledge of the wiki process is virtually nil). But I will say that for a "new user," Anon seems to navigate wiki quite well. How do you prove such an allegation? And even if you succeed in proving it, what's stopping him from logging on under a different username?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 20:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

He's quite adept at the Wiki rules and procedures, knows where and how to file complaints and has excellent command of the Wiki language. For someone who's been on for such a relatively short period of time, it's strange. I suspected it but didn't know there was an actual term for it.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 20:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I told you that I'm an idiot when it comes to Wiki. Can you please explain to me in a nutshell 1)what kind of restriction they placed on you and 2)who filed a complaint against you and 3)was any one else sanctioned or were you singled out for special treatment?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 01:32, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi

I think your sanction was fair, although I do understand where you were coming from and that you did not intend to be offensive. So much depends on how stuff is interpreted and the AE board does not necessarily understand the full context of both frustration and provocation that can be a product of trying to collaborate with others who do not share your opinions. I know you will have an easy time fulfilling the sanction. Looking over your edit history I can see you are a really patient person and have generally bent over backwards to reach consensus. It has been a trying time. Keep your sanction in mind and continue with your excellent and fair editing. Best wishes, Stellarkid (talk) 01:59, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Prose

When you say "prose" where else would you like me to state the the IDF scored a tactical military victory other than in the Fact Box section? If you'd like I can also include it in the lead. I could say something like, "the war concluded with an Israeli military victory." What do you think?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 02:21, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

How about "Post war military assessment"--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 02:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: Oops

No worries. This is the first time I've read through the entire article, and aside from those very minor typos it looks really good. Good job! ← George ^talk 21:18, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

G Massacre

Just curious as to why you won't engage on the page with Nableezy out? Your opinion matters. Stellarkid (talk) 22:47, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I do appreciate where you are coming from. Take care, Stellarkid (talk) 02:32, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your recent comment on my talk page. I do appreciate it. As for taking it slow, lol... is it possible to take it any slower? As for the rest, I didn't read 3RR like that but you are probably right. I thought that it had to be 3 of the same edit and that it was supposed to be a real revert, not a change. I will read the policy again. Again, not at all preachy and you are welcome to be preachy anytime if you think I need it.  :) Stellarkid (talk) 18:03, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

made it to the playoffs!

I see.  ;) Leaky Caldron 20:07, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah. I misread the CBS report. I thought it said made it through but it was actually made it's debut in the playoffs! So down to Texas next week! We came back from 2 0 with 10 men to draw 2 - 2 yesterday. Leaky Caldron 20:21, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

AU

He's at it again. Filed a complaint against Stellar. Attempting to silence, muzzle and censor those who disagree with his view by filing complaints. He knows the game well and manipulates it to his favor. What ever happened to that sock puppet issue?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 06:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

My intention is basically to issue a counterclaim. I hoping that the Admin who involves himself in this mud also puts UA under the microscope. I can't believe some of the stuff he said and got away with, specifically, the racial profiling. He makes the assumption that based on my edits, I'm employed by the Israeli government, live within a certain geographical location and belong to a certain ethnicity and then has the nerve to ask me outright. I find it repulsive and offensive in the extreme. Regarding the Sock puppet, can you please do it because I'm a wiki idiot.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 07:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

My friend, you are a fool

A sockinvestigation need proof of really bad banned users connected with me to even open. Lot of jobb for finding out a username who just forgot its password. But if you got time be my guest. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 09:37, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I might get banned but if so keep an eye on my talkpage I give you and anyone who read it somthing really interesting to investigate Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 09:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=hammy ? english is not my native language as you know. And yes I changed my earlier password when I was drunk and then... well. Worst is that it happend 2 times :O Still no bans or restrictions. Just that you know. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 09:51, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

And still, I think Ihave less edits on those accounts together than on this. So all this fuss that I know wikipedia so good I just lol at. I just take it as a complimang. Btw I had no plans to even create the account. If you red my story at my AE It was RomaC that called me it as I edited as IP. But that moron Jiujitsuguy have given me many laughs so I stayed. Cant understand you even talk to him haha. But retards can be funny sometimes if they dont bug one to much. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 10:10, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Hammed it is, cheers! Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 10:15, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

So, you inerested in Jiujitsuguys bloging? Not so nice things from Wikipedia POV. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 10:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Hint, Google is your friend. Not jiujitsuguy though. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 10:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC)