User talk:Blu Aardvark/Archive 2

Help desk

At the help desk, specifcally here, in response to the question you gave a welcome message with heaps of information, but missed answering the actual question. I think the welcome message for newbies at the help desk can be overwhelming and unhelpful, maybe we could work on a welcome template specifially for the help desk? --Commander Keane 12:47, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

• That probably would be a good idea, actually. I kinda missed the question, and thought I was answering it. (sheepish look). --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 12:50, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Attack of the Atheistic Sockpuppets!

Thanks for the work, and don't worry about losing any of my deathless prose. Honest to God (sorry), I don't know how I got involved, except extreme irritation, since I have no strong feelings on atheists or geeks. Geez, it's not as if they're the first batch of self-righteous types intent on using Wikipedia as some kind of soapbox/promotional vehicle. --Calton | Talk 08:12, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

P.S.: I think Marcperkel's complaint has something to with the The God Who Wasn't There article, since he seems to reacted extremely badly to it being listed on the Copyright Violation page, haranguing the guy who listed it (User :Doc Glasgow?) on his Talk page.--Calton | Talk 08:17, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Gabrielsimon's most recent 3rr violation

I see you said (before Gabriel deleted your comments) that he only had three reverts in 24 hours. Please see a list of them at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Gabrielsimon#Evidence of disputed behavior at # 26. By my count he has at least four if not five, but he tries to split them up and make other edits at the same time so as to confuse the comparisons but always manages to revert the same basic chunk. I'd appreciate it if you relook at it. DreamGuy 09:35, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

DreamGuy must be in love with me or something, he cant stop thinking or talking about me. lol Gabrielsimon 09:40, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

also , it might be good to look and check the edit summaires of Dreamguys in relevence toi his accations of my violations, because for one thing, if its about my RFC page, and it was tonight, that wasnt even me, as i explained on the talk page, and which i am very embarrassed about. for other 3rr accusations , please check for bait9ing in the edit siumam,ries, on Dreamguys part ( rude and insulting edit sumaries)

thanks! Gabrielsimon 09:43, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

(and pleae check my talk page for something slightly important) Gabrielsimon 09:46, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

cleanup on aisle 9...

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my user talk page! FreplySpang (talk) 17:30, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

thanks

Thanks but I was already able to get the list. I realized I had added all the mayors to the List of Irish-Americans so I was able just to get them off there. 64.108.222.252 06:54, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

renames of the speedy deletion templates

Now that the TfD on {{nn-bio}} has been closed I have renamed all the speedy deletion templates to names that start with "db-" as discussed in that TfD discussion. I have also cleaned up all double redirs and fixed all coumentation pages I know of. The only template not conforming is {{delete}} because it is currently protected. I hope this meets your concerns in this matter. DES ^(talk) 23:54, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

If people look for information

If people look for information on a topic, it should not direct them to your talk page. 69.216.240.155 05:11, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

• As far as I am aware, there have never been any times in which anyone directed a person to my talk page for information on a topic. If you are referring to the comments relating to the article on Irish-American mayors, I keep that information intact for my own archival purposes. It's been archived, and nobody was being directed to my talk page in either case. --15:14, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Medical_Alert copyright infringement

The copyright infringement for Medical Alert you mention is simply wrong. The site you point to as the copyright holder has no copyright for the term "medical alert". In fact, the [www.medicalert.org MedicAlert Foundation] is the holder of the copyright. However, they have permitted the [www.consumeradvisorycouncil.org Consumer Advisory Council] to use their trademark where it serves to help resolve consumer confusion between medical alert alarm systems and MedicAlert bracelets. What's really alarming is that instead of pointing consumers to either the MedicAlert Foundation or the Consumer Advisory Council, you have pointed them to a site that copied most of its text from the Consumer Advisory Council Medical Alarm FAQ.

• If the copyright infringement is wrong, why not make note of it on the article's talk page? As for the copyright, I didn't suggest that the term was copyrighted by that site - I instead pointed out the fact that the text in the article was an exact copy of text from http://www.realarticles.com/Medical-Alarm.html - which is not in the public domain. A google search for the text did not turn up the Consumer Advisory Council, and I see no support for your claim that the site copied it's text from the Consumer Advisory Council Medical Alarm FAQ. Nice try though. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 17:06, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Okay, you win. If you'd rather degrade the value of Wikipedia by sending consumers to a Google Adsense site, so be it.

• That site is what a search turned up when I pasted a chunk of the articles text. It appears to be a copyright violation, infringing upon the copyright of the site I linked to. I'm not sending consumers anywhere; I'm simply noting an apparent copyright infringement. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 17:20, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip

I'll start doing that from now on and go back to older articles I created and add it. I also see you've added them to a lot of articles, so thanks, that's good work. 69.216.240.155 07:37, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for helping revert the latest page move vandal account.

I noticed you did the other half of the latest page move vandalization reverts. Thanks. JesseW 19:06, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Category:Millennial Wikipedians

Category:Millennial Wikipedians has been listed on categories for deletion. Since you are using it on your user page please weigh in on the vote and that of the other generational categories here. Thanks. -JCarriker 20:01, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

template:vandal1

Hi, I'm just letting you know that I'm nominating this template for deletion, because I feel it to be redundant with tests 1-3, can be considered "biting the newbies", and causes confusion when someone clicks the section edit link. Feel free to weigh in on the TFD. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 04:31, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

I see. Fine, how ever dont mark it for deletation istead redirect to Template:test1? --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 15:12, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Infact I'll make the redirect myself. You may want to cancel the vote. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 15:19, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Laodicean Church

Hi, I thought you might like to take another look at this article, post re-write. --Doc (?) 00:47, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

tlhIngan Hol

Hi.

I want learn Klingon as you. Do you know any webpage where learn Klingon? Thanks Reignerok 00:09, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Jesus

Check out the Jesus article and edit it to keep it focused on Jesus and a biographical account of Him. Watch the Jesus page to keep it focused on Him. Thank you. Scifiintel 21:41, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Comments

I've just been reading your suggestions to fix Wikipedia, and while you've got some good points, others strike me as downright odd. Arbitration members are not allowed to vote in cases which they are a party to already. Wikipedia does not have a policy of removing citations from articles, and actively encourages their addition. Policies are already reviewed and voted upon by the community. Hmm. Ambi 03:15, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

• Some of 'em are a bit odd, actually. I haven't observed much in the way of ArbCom; I've just heard reports, secondhand, that they are allowed to vote in their own hearings. If this is not the case, then, great! All the better, and part of the way there. As for the removing of citations from articles, again, secondhand. The more, the better. And as for the policy part, I was suggesting that current policies be re-reviewed. This is actually a minor thing, but might foster positive discussion. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 05:48, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

• You will no doubt note that I made an attempt to clarify these suggestions on my user page. Of course, judging by your attitude that it is "uninformed whinging [sic]", I don't think you will be particurly interested. --User:Blu Aardvark10:08, 1 January 2006 (UTC) (Can't be bothered to sign in right now)

humorous but can't sign

Check the history. I didn't sign it either! WAS 4.250 03:41, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Recent Changes Camp in Portland

FYI RecentChangesCamp Tedernst | talk 22:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

• Ooh. Quite interesting. Unfortunately, I don't believe I'd be able to make it, due to the fact that I live in the Grant County area of the state, and don't have any reliable transportation. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 22:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Bummer. There is a conference wiki that I'm sure will be very active during the event and people might also do things through IRC, so check that out if you're interested. Tedernst | talk 22:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Inconsistent enforcement of WP:AUTO

I recall reading on Wikipedia Review a comment about an editor other than Jimbo who did substantive editing of his own page, whos edits were brought to the attention of admins who turned a bind eye to it. On the off chance you know which post i am talking about, I'd very much appreciate a pointer. --- Charles Stewart 09:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

• I do remember that thread, but I'll have to look for it. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 18:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

• I've searched for it, then searched for it again. I know it's there, but I can't seem to find it. The ProBoards search function doesn't seem to work properly, and the title of the thread isn't giving it away. I might just have to re-read every thread on the board to find that reference for you. I'll look into that in a bit. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 19:39, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

• Many thanks for your efforts: I might use them in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Carl Hewitt/Workshop. This sounds like too much work: why not just ask a question on the bullettin board? In fact, I should do it myself. I'll set up an account later. --- Charles Stewart 21:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

{{sp-sprotected}}

Hi there. In the TfD for this, you said we should keep it because we need a small template for long-term protection. But, as I said in the debate, we already have {{sprotected-small}}, which doesn't have the misleadingly titled name of the nominated template. Indeed, the notion of a semi-permanent semi-protect should not be enshrined in a template as there is no basis in policy for it. For George W. Bush we should simply use the correctly named and worded {{sprotected-small}}, don't you agree? -Splash^talk 15:42, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

• My apologies. I wasn't aware we had a {{sprotected-small}}. That is certainly a lot more appropriate for page protections - I'll update my vote in a few. Thanks for informing me! --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 19:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello

Hi Blu Aardvark, glad to see you did not permanently leave Wikipedia. I was wondering why my Template:Current event template redirect wasn't working, couldn't see the obvious! :) —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-15 13:36Z

Thanks

Thanks for taking note of The Arcata Eye and Plazoid pages.--Metatree 00:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Happy Birthday!

Have a great day :) -- sannse (talk) 10:15, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Admin Fighter

That was really funny, gave me a good chuckle. You should have just crossed it out and left it in. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 11:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

"Removing religious and political categories. Recent attempt at vote stacking leaves a bad taste in my mouth."

Were you referring to this: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Catholic Alliance of Wikipedia-like vote stacking? --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 11:50, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• No. I was referring to a Wikipedia email I recieved earlier today, sent by User:Jason Gastrich in an attempt to stack votes on AFD's related to Christianity. Looks like he's got himself an RfC now. --207.118.125.60 15:43, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

policy proposal

Hi, you recently commented on bible-verse articles, and may therefore be interested in commenting about a proposed policy covering roughly 50 specific verses:

• Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Verses of 1 Kings 4 and 5

--Victim of signature fascism 20:25, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Ubuntu Logo

Blu,

I noticed you changed the logo for the Ubuntu Linux User Box. Why? The usage policy on Ubuntu's offical site clearly allows for such use. Besides, the logo is just that, a low-resolution image of a logo, which is allowed under fair use. I am aware that some discussion has been going around about "fair use" images in user boxes. If you changed the logo to Tux because I labeled it as a fair use image and not with some other licensing information, I'm sure I can find an appropriate image copyright tag. --Jcarroll 06:50, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

• At the time I had changed it, several ongoing discussions had indicated that copyrighted images and logos available under fair use were not to be used in userspace, per Wikipedia policy. The Ubuntu trademark policy may allow it, but Wikipedia policy (per WP:FU is to limit images that are not available for commercial use - which the Ubuntu trademark policy explicity disallows. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 10:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC) The preceding text was copied from User talk:Jcarroll

WP:NPA

Please review and adhere to WP:NPA, WP:CIV, and WP:WQT. Please re(?)-familliarize yourself with Wikipedia policy. Thanks in advance. El_C 13:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

• I am fully aware of the above policies, thank you. I do not feel that it can be considered a personal attack, or incivil, to call a troll a troll. I'm sorry if you don't agree with me in that - but that does not mean that my statement is a violation of any of the above policies. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 13:17, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

  It is a violation, and you must refrain from it. WP:NPA is non-negotiable. El_C 13:30, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

  Funny. Nobody considers it a violation of WP:NPA to call User:Willy on Wheels a vandal. Nobody considers it a violation to all User:Lir a troll. Why the double standard? Particularly if all I stated was that "I feel that this user is a troll"? WP:NPA is non-negotiable, but apparently it's open for interpretation, depending on who it is, eh? --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 13:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

  "Eh," again? Anyway, feel free to request another admin to review this instead. El_C 13:37, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

  Anyway, believe me when I say that to say "I feel he is a troll" is really one of the nicest things I can really say about him. I apologize if it seems to be incivil, but the fact of the matter is - I feel that strongly, and can think of no other way to express that. Without resorting to actual personal attacks, that is. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 13:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

  No need to apologize, as I am not offended. You must, however, attempt to be more thoughtful on how to express such an assessment ("trolling," "resembles the conduct of...", etc.). If you are unable to think of such alternatives, I suggest you refrain from directing such comments until you are able to do so. El_C 13:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

  To clarify: let's say that I feel a certain member's Nazi sympathies/apologist leanings impact their edits and interactions with other users, I would rephrase it in terms of this being reflected in editing practices, et cetera, etc., as opposed to the outright, unqualified personal characterization as as a Nazi sympathizer/apologist per se. El_C 14:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism to my Userpage

Wikipedia Review is not a "neo-Nazi" "Wikipedia hate site". There are no neo-nazi's on the forum - at least, no open neo-nazis - and it's not a "hate site" - it's simply highly critical. You were banned from the site for trolling, no other reason. If you want to hold that as a badge of honor, it's your perogative, but I would request that you at least be honest about it. Oh, and before you call 207.118.103.139 a sockpuppet of Internodeuser, you should do a whois on it. It's a CenturyTel IP, and geolocates to Canyon City, OR. It's not an Internode IP, geolocating to Melbourne, Australia. Seriously.

It's quite interesting that you know so much about this vandalism. I really don't care if it's Zordrac or not. It's obviously one of the banned users at your little site. I have enough evidence to have the whole IP range banned. Thank you for your assistance. --malber (talk · contribs) 01:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Allow me to politely point out that you have no evidence whatsoever. You have an anon IP removing some trollish statements from your user page.

Also, allow me to point out that I run Wikipedia Review. By calling it a "neo-nazi Wikipedia hate site", you are essentially calling me (and the rest of the members of that forum) a neo-nazi Wikipedia hater - and that could be considered a personal attack. I did not intend to pick a battle with you, or anything of the sort, but I would ask that you calm down. I did see that you tagged this talk page with three templates that had no place whatsoever here - you will see that I removed your blatant trollery, and I would ask that you do not do that again. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 01:52, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

WP:RFCU is that-a-way, User:malber. Tread lightly. El_C 04:52, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Banned

Hey, why did I get banned from the Wikipedia review? Couldn't you stomach my criticism of your users nastiness about our admins? And how, pray tell, does this give you the high moral ground to complain about blocking on Wikipedia? - Ta bu shi da yu 21:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

• I didn't ban you - I haven't even checked on the forum or Wikipedia for a couple of days now. I assume this means that Qwerty banned you - I'll have to ask him why when I get a chance. I don't really have the time to look things over at this particular moment, because I'm in the process of moving my stuff out, but as soon as I get an oppurtunity, I'll look into it for you. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 23:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

• Having looked over your most recent posts, I see nothing worthy of a ban. Lifted, and apologies. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 23:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

• S'cool. Can you do something about the personal attacks on SlimVirgin? It's really horrible. At least if we get constructive criticism that we can deal with you guys might be listened to by us sometimes. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:10, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Landon2006 move

Thanks for the correction, didn't mean to stick a talk page note onto his user page. Deadsalmon 02:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• 's ok. That's a really easy mistake to make with users who don't have userpages yet. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 02:51, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

TfD

I'm sorry that you find my version of the template insulting; I imagine you have no idea how insulting the present version is to every admin whose only transgression has been to interpret policy as best they can. Am I to understand that you no longer assume good faith? Mackensen (talk) 16:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

A further question. If you're so pissed about admins ignoring policy, do you intend to prove these violations and hold us horrible bastards responsible? By all means, file a Request for Arbitration. Call for my head. Otherwise, I'd ask that the black armband come off, because it's not accomplishing anything except stirring up factionalism. I'm here to write an encyclopedia. Are you? Mackensen (talk) 16:37, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

First of all, factionalism is a necessary part of Wikipedia. It isn't necessarily a good thing, but Wikipedia's systematic flaws support it. Userboxes do not. As for dispute resolution, it's already been tried. Perhaps you remember Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kelly Martin? I distinctly recall that when that case was brought before the arbitration committee, they unanimously decided not to hear it, despite the clear dispute, and the abusive actions and statements.

Second, the template does not say "This user is pissed...", it says, "This user is annoyed". It also is a bit more specific, and says "This user is annoyed at admins ignoring policy". It really doesn't apply to admins who don't ignore policy. As for specific evidence, feel free to check the logs and contributions of admins like Marksweep. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 21:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I remember the arbitration case quite well; I urged acceptance at the time, in a long-winded outburst of wasted eloquence. Over time, I changed my views, mainly because of the sort of attitude I see expressed above. Factionalism is not, to my mind, a necessary part of Wikipedia. Those of us who've been here a while try to avoid it as much as possible, because it interferes with getting things done. I've always taken a collegial attitude, which is probably why my arbcom candidacy was supported by several users with whom I'd been in prolonged content-related disagreements.

Something else to consider is that many of us believe MarkSweep, Doc glasgow, myself, and others acted in good faith based on what Jimbo said, and take Jimbo's utterances fairly seriously. We're here for the encyclopedia, and we agree that userboxes are polarizing and divisive. Look how much energy has gone into this new phenomenon–a couple months ago we didn't have them, and I think it self-evident that the encyclopedia functioned just fine without them.

Finally, just who, exactly, is an admin who ignores policy? Who decides that? I checked Mark's contributions and I saw plenty of in-process speedy deletions. Consensus isn't required for a speedy deletion. It never has been. The process for such is to delete based on policy. The policy is to delete certain userboxes. Some admins tend towards a more liberal interpretation of the policy, some don't. What irks me, and irks others, is that it doesn't seem to be possible for an admin to make a good-faith deletion around here; no one will believe it. Because these boxes express a POV, removing them becomes a strike against that person's viewpoint, even though it's not. Countless keep votes on DRV express that sentiment, even though it's obvious from the delete logs that the admin in question doesn't give a damn which POV is being pushed (now, an admin who only deleted one kind of POV–that would be abusive).

Anyway, this is a long comment, but perhaps something to think about. Best, Mackensen (talk) 23:34, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Spam

If you continue to add links to your website on Wikipedia pages, I will consider blocking you for disruption, whether you're adding or restoring them. If you need to direct someone to a page, you can add the nowiki tag, but you seem determined that the links should be live, which suggests you're spamming. Please review WP:NOT. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

• I am determined that Selina's statements should remain as they are. Why are you determined that they remain in nowiki tags, rather than as original? You have stated no reason for your actions, which are abusive, particularly as the editor whose statements you are altering is not free to comment on it or change it. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 05:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, please consider WP:CIVIL: "Whereas incivility is roughly defined as personally targeted behavior that causes an atmosphere of greater conflict and stress". And consider the section headed "Removing uncivil comments". Try to be kind, Jeff. Being determined to retain incivlity really isn't very kind. Grace Note 05:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Blu, as you know, her post has not been altered, because the link remains. She complained about it on WP:AN/I and received no support. This is an encyclopedia, not a playground, and the silliness over spreading this link has nothing to do with writing an encyclopedia. Finally, please review WP:NPA regarding this comment. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:48, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the comment. I don't want to see you blocked over this, Jeff. It's nonsense. Please don't personally attack SlimVirgin again, whatever your views on her are (and whatever they are, a template talkpage is not the place to express them). And beware breaking the 3RR over this page, please. Consider that a warning if you like. Jeff, you're very heated. Please consider a deep breath and a step back. Grace Note 05:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

• Cute. You've just proven my statement to be factual, Sarah. You are a troll, PoV pusher, and censor (don't you dare remove this statement. RPA is controversial, and I stand by my words). Nothing but. I see you've blocked me for "spam" for maintaining that Selina's statement should remain as it is. You have granted no real reason why her statement should be altered, other than, quite simply, you don't agree with the site. I can understand why you would be upset - we are often quite critical of your actions, but for damned good reason, as you have just proven. Right now. It's a good thing I've decided to go on a Wikibreak anyway. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 05:55, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Block

As you continued to restore the link after being warned, I have blocked your account for disruption. The block is a very brief one, but if this behavior continues, the blocks will increase in length. The website you are trying to link to is, first of all, one that is run by you, which makes your attempts to include links to it inappropriate. In addition to that, it contains some very serious libels about editors, including that one editor, whose real name is revealed, is a pedophile, which is the kind of stupid attack that could get someone killed. That is another reason it will not be linked to from Wikipedia. I repeat: this is an encyclopedia, not a children's playground, not a link repository, not a userbox project, and not a venue for your personal attacks. If you assure me that you will stop creating live links to this website on Wikpedia, and will stop helping others to do so, I will be happy to unblock you. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:56, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

• Two words: Fuck. You. And goodbye, I'm going on Wikibreak. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 05:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  • That would be eight words -- Malber (talk · contribs) 19:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

• Allow me to clarify. I have blocked your account for disruption. What disruption? I disrupted your ability to go on a censorship spree, SlimVandal. I did not disrupt Wikipedia in any way by doing so. if this behavior continues, the blocks will increase in length. A threat? You know you aren't supposed to block editors you are in dispute with, but what the Hell, abuse of admin privelages is perfectly acceptable for a member of the elitist cabal. The website you are trying to link to is, first of all, one that is run by you, No, I'm an admin there. I don't run the new site. That would be like saying you shouldn't include links to Wikipedia because you are an admin here. On second thought, that's a good idea - we need less abusive PoV pushers. it contains some very serious libels about editors. Nonsense. The forum has moved, and the "libelous" postings (not that there was actually any libel) have not been copied over at any point. But thank you for pointing out your ignorance. That is another reason it will not be linked to from Wikipedia. No, the reason it will not be linked from Wikipedia is because SlimVandal is throwing a temper-tantrum because members of the board criticized her actions. Well, there was the near-porn picture by Selina, but we've already covered that. If you assure me that you will stop creating live links to this website on Wikpedia I won't create live links to the site, no. and will stop helping others to do so If you censor somebody's comment, I have every inention of restoring it to it's unadultered form, unless you can explain your actions, which you have not done. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 08:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

The forum is never going to be taken seriously. Why do you insist on banging your head against a brick wall on this? As long as it continues to be run by banned users (especially Selina who has shown a penchant for disclosing users' personal information) with access to IP addresses of posters, this will remain the case. No disenter in his right mind would post there. I sure as hell refuse to. The past reputation of the old board isn't lost by changing to the new location. But go ahead and call this censorship and hyperbolically rant about it in posts over there. It won't do anything to raise the tenor of the debate. Anyone familiar with the history of the site and the personality of its sysop would perfectly understand Slim's actions. -- Malber (talk · contribs) 19:55, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Your comments requested

I'd like your thoughts on a brainstorm I've tried to articulate here: User:Leifern/Adminwatch idea. And feel free to spread the word. --Leifern 16:55, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

This user thinks it is ironic that thanks for supporting Cyde's successful RFA came in the form of a userbox.

Here's a userbox for you. --Cyde Weys 04:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• Not gonna justify that with a response. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 08:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikistress.

I do hope you find the peace you need in your break, and the stress goes away soon. Try to hang in there. - File:Ottawa flag.png nathanrdotcom ^{(T • C • W)} 04:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Robot Rage

Please drop your prejudices and retain some objectivism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephenjh (talk • contribs)

• I have no "prejudices" against the article. I simply feel it is not notable. Consensus has been reached on this fact, and that can be reviewed via the relevant AFD. I tagged it for CSD because it is a recreation of an article that has been deleted, by consensus, through one of the deletion processes and in line with our deletion policty. If you feel that it should not have been deleted, or that the deletion was "prejudiced", you are welcome to list the article on Wikipedia:Deletion review, which is the proper venue for such things. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 02:30, 21 March 2006 (UTC)