User talk:Everyking

Questions, comments, thoughts, complaints? (last blanked 1/1/06)

---

Hilary Duff

Sorry for vandalizing your talk page. I just wanted to get your attention. Jim16 03:58, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

you're a tribute to wikipedia everyking. -anonomous

thank you

Greetings Everyking, I wish to offer my gratitude for supporting me on my recent nomination for adminship, which passed with the final tally of 65/4/3. If you would ever desire my assistance in anything, or wish to give me feedback on any actions I take, feel free to let me know. Cheers! Elle vécut heureusement toujours dorénavant (Be eudaimonic!) 09:48, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

The community is against me

I had always known the entire was against me, despite my faithful contributions. Please see the following, and if you can discuss the situation at this article. Thanks! Happy new year! —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 15:03, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

George Reeves

I realize this is old news, since you wrote it 1 1/2 years ago, but the find-a-grave site that you cited on the George Reeves page states that his mother made a mistake on the grave marker, that his birthday was January 5, 1914, not January 6 as the marker states. That seems hard to believe, but the find-a-grave authors must think they know something. Wahkeenah 16:02, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Message to Jimmy

Dear EveryKing: Hi, I was looking to see if Jimmy had answered my question when I ran into this message you sent him:

-Proposal to ban intellectuals-

Please send me the page to vote against it...me not been able to write about boxing, fashion or show business again?? Nahh it won;t happen if up to me.

Thanks and God bless you!

Antonio Radico Martin

Endorse my summary, PLEASE!

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Bishonen

We were unfairly blocked, that is why I have started this RfC. Thanks, EK. Siblings WC 02:28, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

DrippingInk, Hollow Wilerding, Winnermario

Hello. I have just registered an account on Wikipedia. I was searching for an administrator to help me become familiar with Wikipedia, and stumbled upon Bishonen. In regard to the blocks of DrippingInk, Hollow Wilerding, and Winnermario, I must make it clear that the operators of these accounts was... questionable. You see, I was introduced merely yesterday (January 2, 2006) to Wikipedia. The woman known as Hollow Wilerding presented me with her computer as a late Christmas gift as she is ordering a new computer. It might be in your personal interest to know that these three accounts have not been operated by three separate people; these accounts have been operated by two people. William Wilerding owned the DrippingInk account, while Mariah Wilerding owned the Winnermario account, and the reincarnation of Hollow Wilerding. Blocking these users was certainly the best decision that any administrator could make — they are deceitful people with terrible attitudes. Also, they are very clueless when it comes to English, which is a shame considering Mariah is an English teacher. I, Cruz Nelson, served as an English student of Mariah's from 2004–2005. I must admit that it was like living in hell; I have no idea how she was capable of receiving her graduate diploma. All in all, I have come to announce that she literally gave me her computer in an attempt to return to Wikipedia under a new IP address. Although some of their contributions, namely Cool (song) were generous and positive, overall these two siblings are not going to go far in life. Please understand what I am saying. Thank you. –Cruz AFade ^{(Speak about it} | ^{How many?)} 17:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

The above was a really random comment from Cruz, my brother, or User:DrippingInk. As it stands, those fools don't look like they're going to be holding up — as long as I am present, I just know they're going to remedy my actions. That's not going to be happening. Since anyone is allowed to Wikipedia, that's what I'm going to be doing. In addition... actually I'll stop here. Please reply when you log on. ;) —Empty Wallow | Wollaw Ytpme 20:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

wheel warring

Take a look at AN/I today. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 00:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

User talk:167.206.78.2

If several good faith contributors don't listen to you, why should a vandal? :-) Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:10, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

In response to User talk:Empty Wallow

James, don't worry.

Administrators are all the same — except for you. They made fun of all my comments and removed my comments from User talk:Bishonen because they have the power to block people, and all that other fancy stuff they're capable of. They love the power. Administators are merely a mockery of everyone else on the site: RfA is a popularity contest, RfCs are difficult to handle when one is not an admin and filing it... I have it very difficult. The reason I changed from User:Winnermario to User:Hollow Wilerding was because I had originally approached the Wikipedia community in bad faith. Very bad faith. That's the reason I had switched, and though I never wanted to do any harm, well, I kind of had gotten carried away. User:DrippingInk is ashamed of the Wikipedia community and myself now. He believes that administrators have to be removed from Wikipedia altogether.

Well so do I. The blocking of the three accounts shows something: loathe; hate. The administators who participated in the conversations noted that I wasn't someone they wanted to have editing Wikipedia anymore. Well, let me tell you that I sure as hell did more work than some of those fools are ever going to do — Cool (song), Luxurious (song), Hollaback Girl, The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask, Shakira. Those are my best articles, and one notorious editor who I would banish if I were capable of it, User:SlimVirgin noted that I be removed and that my contributions were not anything to envy. Funny, considering she had never communicated me prior to the accusations.

Furthermore, I am taking a two-week wikiholiday beginning today. Since that was my banishment time, I am finally going to be accepting it. However, upon my return, something nice called Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Administrators will be materialising, Majora's Mask is returning to FAC without a vote from my brother, Luxurious is going to become featured, and I'm going to continue work on The Island (2005 film). They're actually lucky that they even have me editing on this site; if they hadn't, they wouldn't have had all these articles improve so amazingly.

It's funny to think, after accusing me, they didn't even believe my name, occupation, or even nation. Hideously laughable because if that is what the Wikipedia community is made of, this site will be gone very, very soon. See you in late January. Could you endorsement my RfC come the time? They banished you from the administrators board not because you are a terrible admin — because you assume good faith. And that's what Wikipedia should really be about.

Oh, by the way, my name is Mariah Wilerding. 64.231.75.102 14:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

The last I heard, you were unfortunately banned indefinitely...so you may not be able to return in two weeks. You might be able to get it shortened if you appeal to the right people, though (not me, although I would love to do it, because there are people who have been looking for me to use admin powers in some questionable way for a long time, so they can have me desysopped). Everyking 22:11, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I know! Don't you see? Wikipedia is consisted of mere popularity! When one does not agree with the others, they are degraded for this. The majority of the administators went against us because they were all just agreeing with each other. I understand why they are attempting to have you desysopped — now you do too. You don't agree with them, and also because as I've noted above, you assume good faith, which nearly every admin doesn't. But will you endorse my RfC? I plan on having every admin desysopped, especially Bishonen, who, if you noticed, ignored all of my comments when it pretained to:

You have no evidence that we are one person You cannot prove it, only assume it You are assuming bad faith Wikipedia is about references, and you have no reference that we are one person

She ignored all of those comments. You now see? The admins are like an organization materialised in bad faith. The fact that she ignored the comments proved it: she wanted to be right, and knew that if she were wrong would be desysopped. Please endorse my RfC come my return. 64.231.75.102 22:22, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Siiigh

Well, I tried my best, but I couldn't get the proposal through. However, I did get a clarification asked for you on WP:RFAR and I'm still willing to speak for you if the need ever arises. Sorry it didn't work out. Cheers.--Tznkai 05:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

When I said...

"I thought that you were considered too opinionated on everything." I was kidding. I'm sorry if that wasn't obvious.
brenneman^(t)(c) 07:19, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

He won the Nobel Prize!

That was the content of the Robert Aumann article when it was deleted. WP:CSD A1: Little or no context. Nobel Prize for what? When? Actually, I was about to block the account who created it as an impersonation of Jimbo, then checked the Jimbo's contributions list, and thought better... Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Rfa thanks

Hello James. Thank you for supporting my Rfa! :) I will try my best to be a good administrator. Please ask me if you need any help. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 17:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Bulbasaur

I don't think there's anything else I can add. I expanded the May's Bulbasaur paragraph a bit. See what you think: Bulbasaur, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bulbasaur. Thanks! --Celestianpower ^háblame 17:30, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Notice of request for injunction

I expect you'll see this in my reply on my own page, but just to make sure: I've requested an injunction against you posting there anymore.[1] You may not be trying to harrass me, but that's the effect you're having. Bishonen | talk 18:00, 7 January 2006 (UTC).

Violation of arbcom ruling

James, your repeated questioning of Bishonen regarding a block by Snowspinner is violating the arbcom ruling against you. When you asked for clarification of this, Raul654 replied that: "Everyking is not to mention, gesture, indicate, or gesticulate in any way that implies Snowspinner or any action taken by Snowspinner (including, but not limited, to Snowspinner's edits)." [2] Please note that if you continue with your current course of action, you're likely to be blocked from editing. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:02, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

But it is not Bishonen's block that currently stands; it is Snowspinner's. Therefore, in seeking to overturn it, and in going on and on and on about it, which is the behavior that keeps getting you into trouble, you are "mentioning, gesturing, indicating, and gesticulating in a way that implies Snowspinner," which puts you in breach of the ruling, and if it continues, you may be blocked. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:19, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

She is nevertheless the primary antagonist here. And it is unfair to try to force me into talking about something I am forbidden to talk about. Anyway, I see I've been blocked now. Crazy stuff goes on here, that's for sure. Everyking 19:23, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Directly after the first warning to you above, which you acknowledged reading, you posted another comment about the issue to Bishonen's page, which she has expressly asked you not to do. I've warned you twice before (for example, here) that I intended to help enforce the arbcom ruling, and again for a third time above, but as you clearly have no intention of stopping, I've blocked you for 48 hours. Please note that the next block may be considerably longer. If you want to comment on any admin action, or any edit, the onus is on you to ensure that Snowspinner is not involved in it. If he is, you must not comment. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:30, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I feel your pain. Now I'm also getting nonsensical fluttering around me, and three Administrators is all it takes to invent new Wikipedia rules. (SEWilco 16:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC))

Block

Everyking:

I've blocked you for 24 hours for violation of the Arb Com's ruling per the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Block_disagreement. I am in no way involved in the situation, but rather am acting as a steward of the community's trust. If you would like to discuss the block further, please feel free to do so on this page, or to email me. -- Essjay · Talk 01:59, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

as further discussed, you have probably violated rememdy five, and certainly civility, taking the time to discuss and respond to requests is very important, especially when the issue spans so many. Bishonen's talk page is her domain as much as your talk page is yours, and every other user. Basic wiki ettquette and human respect suggests that polite suggestions be atleast entertained obviously, and probably listened to. Also, tone was hostile and combative, and increasingly slow. Take the time to cool off.--Tznkai 06:15, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

This guy here is supposed to be my advocate, believe it or not. Everyking 06:20, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

(sigh) - on the block

Hi Everyking (RN Speaking, from the Ashlee Simpson articles, heh :) - some day we'll have to try to get autobiography featured again...),

This is quite the quagmire with the blocks and such. It's a difficult situation. I realize you want to critisize the admin actions here, but you are really getting on the bad side of some people - as they are looking with ever-increasing scrutiny of whether you are having anything to do at all with snowspinner, and they think that you don't do enough research in situations you critisize.

Also, the reason that some admins are giving for this block is that you were harassing bishonen. Even from an outsider, it does appear at very least rather over-zealous.

It's difficult explain - but basically Wikipedia is not the real world - people, even admins, are volunteers, and come to wikipedia in a rather unprofessional matter sometimes, sometimes just to have fun. In some organazations people critisize eachother for every little thing, like some places I've worked for as a programmer, but not all places do so, and neither does Wikipedia. Wikipedia runs more from positive reinforcement since its contributers are basically volunteers - so people generally only criticize each other when its OBVIOUS.

Like the incident with Bishonen - it's very unusual here to criticize someone so much here - my suggestion would be to try to keep to one to two "posts" or edits on someone's talk page in incidents like these, maybe three. In this case, you really should have just left the one message on his talk page then left an outside view on the RFC as he suggested. I know it doesn't seem like you could do much if you did that but persistantly messaging someone will really annoy them and to the level you did could be taken as harassment by some.

In terms of the snowspinner thing I have no idea whether or not you started the HW thing because it was snowspinners block as some admins suggested. I think they are unrelated, right?

What do you think, Everyking? I hope that helped. In addition, even if you totally disagree, I'm sure it would go a long way in some people's minds if you apologized to bishonen and reaffirmed that you criticism had nothing to do with snowspinner.

Personally, I'd like to unblock you myself - but I don't think we can do that until we talk about things a little bit, and I'd be in some serious hot water if I unblocked you then you went back to criticizing bishonen :\.

Anyway, I'm going to bed now - I'd really like to finish this and maybe we can work out a solution here with the other people involved, except snowspinner of course since you can't speak of him, but in time hopefully that will clear up too :).

WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 10:41, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I quite honestly have no interest in pursuing any further discussion with Bish after what has been done. I am not going to apologize to her, because she is very much in the wrong here, and I won't cave on that, but I will agree to not have anything to do with her in the future. It seems there is a severe personality clash and we aren't going to be able to work anything out. That is disappointing, but that seems to be the way it is. I tried, and I got blocked for it.

I agree with you that my criticisms can sometimes be overzealous. My response to that is that I see a block as something very severe, so if someone is willing to block, they should be willing to handle some criticism for it, too. But with Bish, I was not, in the main, trying to criticize her original block—while it wasn't compatible with my personal philosophy, I could accept a block per se. But I wanted to come to some kind of agreement with her about how we could allow HW to return to editing in the future—for example, what HW could and could not do, under a parole or mentor arrangement; if we could agree, then we could see if HW would also agree to the terms. She was completely hostile to this, and when I persisted, she called it harassment. Well, I'm sorry. I guess I should've quit talking while I was still allowed to edit. But I thought I could still get her to negotiate something regarding HW...obviously I was wrong about that, and I pursued a very wrong approach. Anyway, I appreciate the nice message. That's the first time yet I've seen someone be polite with me about this. Everyking 11:04, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad to see that someone has unblocked you :). "I quite honestly have no interest in pursuing any further discussion with Bish after what has been done" - you see - this is part of the problem in my view. It shouldn't get this far - for one thing bishonen obviously doesn't hate your guts that much, and it's really not good to hold long-term grudges like that. Even in cases of extreme personality conflicts, one can generally just apologize to and with reasonable people this will be enough to maintain a working relationship - and that is important because you never how will things will turn out - you could end up being good friends one day or something. Also, occasionally you'll want to just message a person and it is important to keep a relationship at least to the point where you arn't making snipes at each other in every comment. Apologizing about your personal actions doesn't diminish the validity of your actual professional actions to most people. People were blocking you in this case because the way you were being so over-insistant and it was verging on harassment to some people.

I know it is kind of wierd but people take criticism more seriously when either they deem it is valid and/or it is made sparingly. In this case people have deemed your criticism not valid quite often, and because you do it rather often some people have stopped taking it seriously and are either tired/frustrated of it. When this happens you could try taking a step back and double-checking your facts in each case and try to "pick and choose" your battles. In the future if someone doesn't agree with you like with the HW thing try messaging someone else to ask to step it or take it to RFC as suggested :).

Hope that makes sense :). A much belated happy new year!

WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 00:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

What she has done is completely beyond the pale. I tried to advocate for a blocked user, and she got me blocked, too—on false charges, no less. I don't want to discuss her anymore, or anything having to do with her. This has been a shameful, shameful episode. Everyking 00:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Unblock message

You have been unblocked. See WP:ANI discussion here. Bishonen | talk 18:21, 8 January 2006 (UTC).

3D Monster Maze

Hi Everyking. I hope you've still got enough "positive energy" to contribute to articles and their talk space despite the recent block you've endured (the ArbCom decision was pretty much inquisitorial to my taste, but I must say I haven't reviewed all the evidence, and also you could have stayed cooler despite disagreeing with it all). Stay cool (esp. if you're running for the very same ArbCom), and let your (plentiful) contributions speak for themselves.

Thank you for your comments back at the original FAC nomination of the <subj>. Since then the article grew considerably, and is now viewed positively by User:Wackymacs, one of the original objectors. Could you please have a look and then hop over to the article talk page to express your current views?

--BACbKA 03:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom election

*big wikihug*. While I opposed you, I don't like the way people are piling on the oppose; I think people should leave these votes alone if they're planning on opposing, and it's already leaning *way* in the oppose direction. --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 04:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok. :) And have a laugh at this.. User:Phroziac/AYB. --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 04:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, I don't have anything against you, either, but I thoroughly disagree with open votes, precisely because of piling on and because some of us end up, intentionally or not, "encouraging" other people to vote one way or another. Had this HW stuff not been recent, I'd have just listed my name. Apologies for hurt feelings, but there has to be a way of liking a person's general edits and thinking they ought not be on ArbCom. Geogre 14:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

RE:Advocate

First, I promised to protect you from people attacking based on Snowspinner.

Second, I managed to lift the block based on interacting with Snowspinner, which would have led to harsher sanctions

Third, I gave you plenty of opportunity, in public, to get yourself out of it by a simple apology and promise not to do it again.

Fourth, I blocked you because you were uncivil, something you told me you wouldn't do.

--Tznkai 05:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I guess my only response to that is don't commit any robberies next time. I did my best to be fair and work with what I was given. I'm sorry you don't see that as enough.--Tznkai 06:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Mistress Selina Kyle

Try looking at the top of her talk page for the reasons behind it. Also you should check out the Administrator's Noticeboard Incidents for a post made by User:SlimVirgin encouraging people to permaban Mistress Selina Kyle, citing extremely untrue things, which were subsequently proven false by MSK. Put simply, MSK's "crime" is exposing the corruption by admins like SlimVirgin and Kelly Martin and trying to get some accountability. She is a hero and Wikipedia would be much worse for having lost her. We'd be better off with MSK on Arb Com instead of Kelly Martin, that's for sure. 203.122.192.54 11:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I hope the following information helps. There is a push right now by a few admins to get rid of templates on user pages that are controversial. The general feeling about these templates is that they are expressions of individual opinion used solely on personal pages, but a few admins have taken it upon themselves to circumvent consensus of the community and speedy-delete these templates anyway. When they are caught and the templates restored, they try other ways of making these templates impotent, such as changing their information. Mistress Selina Kyle is a strong advocate of uncensored personal opinion on user pages. When User:Carbonite stripped the categories from dozens of templates [3], she restored them. With Mistress Selina Kyle out of the way now, I feel quite confident that those categories will disappear again with no consensus from the editors of Wikipedia. By bringing this up, I will probably be blocked forever as a sockpuppet or something unprovable. ۩ Pandora ۩ 22:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

James, Kelly has performed CheckUser on MSK and shown conclusively that she has been vandalising WP from a variety of ips. Please don't unblock her. See WP:AN and WP:ANI for why. I appreciate you may not comment there, but don't try to be a lone hero here. Right or wrong, it would only backfire on you. You're really better off out of this debate. All the best, jguk 22:31, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello Everyking. I have not been involved with any of the issues relating to Mistress Selina Kyle. However, I did notice the proxy placement of a request for arbitration, followed by the removal of that request, which piqued my interest. A cursory examination of her talk page history confirms that she has admitted to editting from behind an anonymous proxy server. This is clearly against policy as described at Wikipedia:Blocking policy, which states "Administrators are permitted and encouraged to IP-block anonymous proxies indefinitely". A cursory examination her contribution history often shows surly, even abusive comments, lack of discussion on talk pages, impersonating an administrator on her user page, etc. Again, looking at her talk page history, there have been numerous warnings about these activities here. I see that you are considering unblocking her account. Based upon the above, I urge you not to unblock her unilaterally. Instead, we should reinstate the request for arbitration, so that she has a chance to explain herself, and so that others have the chance to state why she has been blocked. Johntex\^talk 23:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Arbcom candidate userbox

Greetings. I've made a new userbox for arbcom candidates to show on their userpages so that visiters will know they're running.

{{User arbcom nom}}

If you'd like to place it on your userpage, feel free. Regards, – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 02:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

RE: banning

Just to caution you, they appear to be strongly considering blocking you from editing, which would probably mean an indefinite ban. It would be in your interest, from a purely pragmatic perspective, to moderate yourself on the Holocaust issue or at least find a topic unrelated to the Holocaust to work uncontroversially on, so you can fall back on that if they try to ban you. I have no intention of banning you and would not want to see you banned, but I am just trying to alert you to how they think around here and how you might be able to survive as an editor here. Everyking 08:34, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up.

I said that their POV seemed that likely they were Zionist. Is that a banning offense?

How did these people get in the postion that they have? They seem to work together.

I wouldn't say that I'm a Holocaust denier, more of an aethist on either side of the issue.

But I do acknowledge that there are a hell-of-a-lot of people on this planet that don't buy into the Holocaust fully, in varying degrees, as promoted by jewish advocates. As a matter of fact the official death toll has been downsized from 6m to 1.5m. Is this the only element in world history that it is illegal (ie banning) to talk about?

This is why I am requesting that this be removed from Budapest as being controvertial and moved to Jews in Hungary. Thanks again. Bloblaw 09:10, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

---

I don't think the issue is really about Holocaust denial. One admin asked if we had a "stance" toward holocaust denial, and every other admin who responded said no, we don't need a special stance. I'm an admin, and I couldn't care less whether he thinks the holocaust happened or didn't happen. My only concern is that he 1) not try to insinuate that belief into articles over the objections of a consensus of editors who have scads of documentation from reliable sources on their side, and 2) that when someone asserts that the holocaust did happen, he not respond by claiming they are a "Zionist shill" being paid by a "Jewish advocacy" group. Bloblaw, in reference to your question on my talkpage, you cannot have the conent removed from the Budapest article because a) a consensus of editors disagrees with you and thinks it is relevant, and 2) mainstream sources reject your assertion that the numbers are wildly exaggerated. Perhaps one day in the future mainstream sources will have come around to your belief, and at that time Wikipedia will reflect it. But until then, it cannot. Babajobu 09:25, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Your message is refreshing. I'm glad that the discontent of the editors is not on the issue of Holocaust denial. I hope that they are sincere (not so sure). Because that would be a red herring. As I have attempted to say over and over, it is that this contentious subject of Nazis vs Jews is on the homepage of Budapest. I understand your message that I should refrain from calling it as I see it.

The sentence in question, in my opinion, is an insertion that the Holocaust did happen. As unpopular as it is with the editors, there is an alternate dialogue. Hence the request that the subject being moved to an appropriate venue.

Perhaps one day in the future mainstream sources will have come around to your belief, and at that time Wikipedia will reflect it. But until then, it cannot.

Nice concept ;-) We both know that mainstream media (Hollywood, television and print) are owned by special interests. I probably won't live to see the day when true dialogue rules.

Thanks for the warning but I'll play this out, I'll be strong but polite and if the f*ckers want to ban me to shut me up then so be it. We'll find out if they are sincere anyway Bloblaw 10:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Pushing the limits

Everyking, your recent warning that "they" are considering blocking User:Bloblaw violates remedy 3 of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Everyking 3. "Everyking prohibited from commenting on administrators' actions". Administrators' actions include discussing whether a user should be blocked from editing. I'm disappointed that you reflexively come to the defense of users who really don't have any business editing here, and I'm annoyed by your deliberately paranoid language. Reactions like this are the reason that you are prohibited from commenting on administrator activity. Rhobite 15:15, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Integral help at wikimodel.com

Hi Everyking et. al. who enjoy facilitating quality wiki work.

I have synthesized a wiki at http://www.wikimodel.com for modeling causality. I would greatly appreciate additions to the work in progress! Thank you

Response

...but it was true. You've been caught out time and time again saying "I haven't really looked into this but I'm going to complain anyway", so I'm a bit amused that you want me to apologise for noting that. Ambi 09:15, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you sadden me more than anything else. Now, if you told a lawyer you knew more about the law and a parent of an Aspie that you knew more about Aspergers Syndrome...but you're not Zordrac. :) Ambi 09:25, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

RFC/KM

You commented on Kelly Martin's second RfC. it is up for archival. you may vote at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Kelly_Martin#Archiving_this_RfC. CastAStone|^(talk) 03:41, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

felbeast

FELBEAST WAS wrongfully blocked by hall monitor i want to be unblocked

Response to User talk:Solar Serenity

Don't worry about it. I plan on filing an RFra against both Bishonen and Geogre next week. I am not making any further edits from this account until January 22. You should know why they blocked you too. It's obvious that if they found out that they had been wrong the entire time, they'd be in a s**t-load of trouble. I will see you next week. Bye. —Solar Serenity | Ytineres Ralos 03:09, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Zordrac

No, I did not block him, as you would have seen had you checked the block log.

Zordrac was blocked because some clever detective work proved beyond reasonable doubt that he was Internodeuser. I must admit that I was one of those taken in - all this time I'd been assuming that Zordrac was a good-faith (if misguided and irritating) user, when he's turned out to be a reincarnation of a banned user. In hindsight, it seems more obvious - it certainly explains his tendency to never work on articles and instead spend all his time playing factional games. Ambi 03:58, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

The Epopt blocked him, IIRC. I didn't even hear that he'd been found to be Internodeuser until I saw the template on his userpage this morning. Yes, there was IP evidence, but also some very convincing circumstantial evidence. Several arbitrators did the detective work, none personally involved to the best of my knowledge. Where is Internodeuser doing this complaining, out of curiosity? Ambi 05:35, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Wondering

Everyking... if I am calculating correctly it must be about 5 AM in Georgia now, and you appear to have been editing all night. How do you get the stamina? Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, nice. Keep up the good work! Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:38, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Semi-bot edits

Please do other wikipedians a favour and provide edit summaries for your dab edits. With my huge watchlist, checking your every edit consumes a lot of time. Happy edits, Ghirla | talk 11:22, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks / The Raspberry Reich

Thanks for your fixing up typos on The Raspberry Reich. I'm quite ashamed at how obvious they seem now, but thanks. I really appreciate it. AnAn 08:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Request from user

Hello. I am an anonymous user from the Toronto District Library Board. A recently banned Wikipedian from our establishments known as Hollow Wilerding would like to attain your electronic mail so that she and her "posse" can communicate with you once she purchases a computer. Her consistent access of the computers in the libraries to disrupt Wikipedia lead us to permanently banning her from each branch around Toronto. If she ever does get herself a computer, then you may be able to talk to her. Please leave your electronic mail in the space below so that I may give it to her; respond quickly. We do not want her begging any longer. (It might interest you that Hollow Wilerding is not a teacher but a teacher-in-training who submitted her own treatment to various networks around the world, including Wikipedia, claiming that she is something she has yet to possess.)

Again, please respond quickly.

--Toronto District Library volunteer (64.231.179.130)