User talk:Saturday/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

← Archive 1 |

Archive 2

| Archive 3 →

Re: IP 4.157.14.58

Just thought I'd let you know that this IP appears to be a dynamic one, as I'd just clicked on the "Log In" link when I was told that I had new messages, even though I wasn't logged in yet. I don't know who was the last person to use this IP, but it sure wasn't me.

--Special Operative MACAVITY^{Debrief me} 13:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: My Page

Hey philip thanks for taking care of my page: Urmston Grammar School, I am a new member of Wikipedia and so am still getting used to it, one member Nlu was very helpful and tried to help me sort out problems with my page. I Hope one day i can return the favour, Many Thanks Alex, --Gocartsforelephants 22:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Joe Zajac

The rules on {{db-repost}} have been refined to refer specifically to articles that were deleted through WP:AFD or similar consensus. For reposts of speedied material, the actual speedy reason should be used again, as possibly the new content might be different enough. In this case, it's still a {{db-bio}}. Fan-1967 18:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Right, sorry about that. It has been a while since I have N.P. patrolled. Thanks for the heads-up. Philip Gronowski ^Contribs 18:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Executive Linguist Agency

I have the significance to the city right there. What are you talking about? Just because you've never heard of it doesn't mean it's insignificant. that's a terribly ignorant view.

Please look at notability standards for companies here. Philip Gronowski ^Contribs 19:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Fact tag

I think that here you used {{subst:}} with {{fact}}. It's much easier on the eyes if you don't. - 152.91.9.144 00:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Big Fan of Yours

I read about you on an outside site. Your knowledge of true crime and the English language is phenomenal. I just wanted you to know I am a huge fan of yours. StonedBushbyStonedBushby 21:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Review

I would like to thank you for the ER review. Sr13 (T|C) ^{Editor review} 07:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Appeal

Apeal

---- It might be not the right place to write, please, forgive me, but I have found it rather difficult to reach editors of Wiki.

Dear Mr. Gronowski

You just removed a link in San Francisco article to my site: *San Francisco Virtual Tour. I believe this link is not spam. It is totally in line with wiki link policy. Please, visit the site. If you still have an objection, e-mail me to discuss it: ipolk@virtuar.com.

Let me remind here the except from link policy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links ):

"..information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks); or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article (such as reviews and interviews)."

My virtual tours provide great amount of free reach content, no doubt found meaningful by hundreds of thousands of visitors of my site. It can not be added to the article, since it is a virtual tour and needs a specialized software ( Java Applet ) to run. My virtual tours allow navigation around the place as if you are there.

I hope will will be able to come to my site and find yourself that what it is very useful. Please, refer to my guest book, and read what other people are writing about it: http://www.virtuar.com/gue7bk/guestb245o21.html

Thank you!

Igor Polk, www.virtuar.com

You do realize that you are writing to a 16 year Canadian boy with no friends except the internet. He has no power and no say. He is not an admin. He has been mocked on other sites. You are justified- there is just no reason to appeal to this nincompoop. ColScott The King of this Clown 207.6.209.233 03:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

My heart will be forever crushed knowing that a guy who is obsessed with Charles Manson thinks I am a nincompoop. Hell, his site mocking me is enough to force me into writing bad poetry and cutting myself. Philip Gronowski ^Contribs 04:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I scarcely think that is why you write bad poetry, cut yourself and have no friends. That would be the Canadian element of your life. Charles Manson is a living being. **censored**apedia is an internet site. Your obsession with making Jimmy Wales rich while you do the work is what makes you both sad and a nincompoop. And why act like you don't care? When we defined your lack of character you cried like a girl to that Stoner in British Columbia and reportedly snitched to Google, which agreed that you were a sad case. So you do care. You care very much. And we both know it. 207.6.209.233 20:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

If you bothered to check my contributions you could see that I never actually reported ColScott to HighInBC or anyone for that matter. ColScott was blocked by a different administrator for his persistent spamming and was later re-blocked for a longer period of time by HighInBC. I just really don't care about a person who spams pages, I care about the integrity of those pages. Philip Gronowski ^Contribs 21:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

at times you sound human. When and if you convince me you are, let's talk. You started all of this by not realizing that the link is not spam. Hang Tight. 207.6.209.233 22:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Death By Gluten

Cheers for the support in the above Afd, been taking a lot of flack off dodgy IP addresses for nominating it. I've given USER:207.6.209.233 a warning for making personal attacks on you. If he continues I will report it to AIV. I also gave you an editor review, I hope you find it constructive, I just don't want you going into Rfa and getting rejected for silly little reasons. Anyway, hope all is well RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Forgot to add you little junior high schooler :) RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Editor Review

Dankeschone fur deine reviewen! Please don't tag that as db-nonsensense! I was meant to say thankyou for the review. Probably should have elaborated more on my questions but I was a bit annoyed when I went for a review, said all I wanted to say in my statement! It has been a pleasure meeting you tonight and happy editing (I better not say good luck :)) RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry forgot to add, have you ever considered using popups for vandal reversion? I find its invaluable and makes reverting vandilism far easier. Actually to be honest with you I use Lupin's tool, it shows all recent changes and updates every 30 secs. Its worth a thought anyway if you don't use them RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 01:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I used Pop-ups for a bit but I didn't really like them. I'll have to try Lupin's tool now that you mention it. Oh, and the pleasure is mine. Philip Gronowski ^Contribs 01:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

207.6.209.233

I have reported the above user to AIV for attacks on our talk pages, hopefully now it will be sorted!! (junior :P!) RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 02:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Good Work

You know what I mean!! RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 02:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Blocked! RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 02:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Nicolaus Copernicus

Hi, do you dispute that he was a Prussian? --Der Eberswalder 00:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Nope, I personally don't. The thing is that your edit was not discussed on the talk page. The note there directly asks for consensus on the talk page before a change. I saw no such thing and your edit was reverted. Give it a week for a discussion on the talk page, then act according to discussion on the talk page. If it is disputed don't put Prussian in, if it isn't go nuts. I think neutrality was perfect this way, no mention of nationality in the opening paragraph. Philip Gronowski ^Contribs 00:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually I should say that there was no discussion on the nationality talk page. Philip Gronowski ^Contribs 00:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, then I wait. --Der Eberswalder 01:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Page deleted

You just nominated the page I just created (winterkids) for speedy deletion, and before I'd finished reading the notice and gone to add "hangon" to the page, it was already gone. I'm not an experienced wikipedian, so I'm sorry if I missed something, but to my mind it met WP:MUSIC. Phunky 22:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I am a new pages patroller and I don't remember the exact content of your page. Your page most likely did not meet the criteria for inclusion. If you wish to discuss undeletion check with the administrator (ask me if you don't know how) who deleted your page. If there is no progress that way, go to Wikipedia:Deletion review. Cheers, Philip Gronowski ^Contribs 22:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I checked WP:MUSIC beforehand; I think it met the central criterion and certainly met criteria 3 and 10 below that. I assume you nominated it for speedy deletion because "fails to even claim that the subject of the article is notable" since non-notability isn't a reason for speedy deletion under WP:MUSIC; I'm not sure what exactly this requires, though. How do I contact the administrator who deleted it? Phunky 22:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, I can't remember the article completely so I really can't tell you what it violated. Search the name of the article (exactly) and click the create article button. There is a link on the edit box which says deletion log. Click that and it should have the admin who deleted it listed along with a reason. If that doesn't work then I'll find it for you. Philip Gronowski ^Contribs 22:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I was just about to post here to say I'd found the deletion log before you posted that :) Phunky 22:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Reported IP

I've reported 207.6.209.233 to AIV for continued personal attacks, he's just left one on his talk page, hope that helps RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 01:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey there. Thanks for reporting him. Quite frankly, I do believe that the truth prevails... which is why spammers like him won't win. Cheers, Philip Gronowski ^Contribs 01:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for one week RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 02:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure he will be back. Thanks again. Philip Gronowski ^Contribs 02:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Multiple edits to Nicolaus Copernicus today

Please review this article as several anonymous IPs struck this article today and did a lot of edits. I tried to keep up with them but some edits may have slipped through. I am not the expert on this article but from your words on the talkpage, you might be. Thanks, Ronbo76 00:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I am also not an expert on Copernicus but I can give it a good run through. Philip Gronowski ^Contribs 01:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, checked over nothing changed. Philip Gronowski ^Contribs 01:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that's what I do. But as you can see from the histories, one anon IP was over-writing/riding edits while you and I were doing reversals. I try to pick the best one looking for one by an established username. Ronbo76 01:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, Copernicus is a really annoying page to watch. There is a huge amount of vandalism and POV pushing going on, it is often hard to differentiate between the two. Course then there are the editors who don't bother to check for vandalism before editing the article, often leaving vandalism for months on end. If there is another vandalism spree tomorrow then I am going to request semi-protection for a bit. Cheers, Philip Gronowski ^Contribs 01:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Philip, nice to meet you, I believe this user Arurba that reverted your edit is the same person as someone from Poland who keeps getting blocked for being disruptive. his username is Serafin but he more commonly edits under the IP address 131.104.218.46. The articles he usually "edits" (it's more like vandalism) are Jan Dzierzon, Expulsion of Germans after WWII, Recovered Territories and Estimates of number of deaths in connection with expulsion of Germans after WWII‎. Take a look at his past edits and see for yourself the user's past edits to better acquaint yourself with this user, as you will probably have to continue dealing with him as he is very tenacious at his pursuits. Special:Contributions/131.104.218.46 Special:Contributions/Serafin

I thought I smelt a sock when the users first edits were to Copernicus. I will set up a sockpuppet report on the user in a double. Cheers, Philip Gronowski ^Contribs 03:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

--Jadger 03:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I see you are from Woodstock, I live not too far away from you, in Goderich, cheers!

--Jadger 03:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

South-Western Ontario representing! Philip Gronowski ^Contribs 04:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I will be blocked for violating the 3RR, as it doesn't apply to stopping vandalism, as this clearly was.

--Jadger 16:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that was vandalism, a user was trying to change the article for what they thought was the better. Also some of the edits to other pages were not vandalism either, just POV. Philip Gronowski ^Contribs 17:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

At first it was not vandalism, but then when he refused to cooperate with other users and keeps adding his own unreferenced POV into articles and was blocked, then evaded his block, it became vandalism. A smart user would have learned that he isn't accomplishing and cooperated with users, I learned that when I first started and was only blocked once in my whole time on wikipedia, this user has been blocked atleast half a dozen times in less than a month. Compromise is the strength of Wikipedia, and he will not, when he sees he can't get anywhere, he stops discussion and just starts revert wars.

--Jadger 00:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, he is evading his block right now by writing to you on your userpage, and editing articles. Can you please translate what you are speaking with him about on this userpage, he has personally attacked me before in Polish on another user talk page.

--Jadger 00:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok it will take me about 50 minutes, I am doing some work and just checked Wikipedia now. Since he is only speaking to me under this account and is not being disruptive then I won't report sockpuppetry. In response to the 3RR thing, I am still going to stress that revert upon revert won't solve anything. I just wanted the article to go nuetral and then get fully protected, as it is now.

The translation will be found here. Philip Gronowski ^Contribs 01:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Geez I should have posted to say I was done a while back, sorry. Philip Gronowski ^Contribs 04:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

thank you, as you can see his logic is very flawed. "I'm not callling anyone a nazi. I am only asking if he is one or if he collaborates with them. Removal of commonly known truths about Criminal effects of Nazism is a proof that somebody is a Nazi." When the article has nothing to do with Nazi atrocities comments on Nazi atrocities should be removed. You do not see anything about nazi Atrocities on the Sesame Street article. The articles he is editing are about atrocities committed by others (not nazis), one should not try to minimalize them by saying "the nazis did this much worse".

Also, you can see "You can rest assured that I will be doing everything to close as many articles as I can." that his cooperation is practically hopeless, which is rather sad, I would like this to come to an end so I can get back to more useful edits. Did I mention before that he has been permanently blocked from both German and Polish Wikipedias for the same actions? We should learn from their experience and not repeat it.

--Jadger 19:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

My user page

Have a look at my user page, its right at the bottom, thought you might appreciate it phil! Hope Death By Gluten don't hate me too much! RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 01:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey there, thank you! I have been looking for a good toolbox lately, would you mind if I "borrow it" and place it on a subpage of me own? Congrats on the 1500 edit too! Have a good one, Philip Gronowski ^Contribs 01:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Take it by all means!! Thanks for the 1500th edits congrats, about 1000 have been in the last month - guess I better find a girlfriend! RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 01:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I know what you mean, I have been coming home from school and just turning on my computer, even when I don't need to. It is no help that vandalism has been on the rise. Thanks for the toolbox by the way. Philip Gronowski ^Contribs 01:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Help me

How may I help you? --Sopoforic 03:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

That was quick, thank you. I just need to know if I did the right thing on a certain edit. I created a sockpuppet case against User:Serafin and now I need to create another one. The page on reporting sockpuppets reads:

Look at the template you've just added to the user page, by either saving or previewing your work. If the link "Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/PUPPETMASTER" is not red, that means there is an existing evidence page about this possible puppetmaster, i.e. the user has been suspected in the past. If that link is red, go ahead and click it, to create a new evidence page on the suspected puppetmaster. On the other hand, if there is already an existing evidence page for this user, you should start a fresh evidence page under a different name. Use the next available name in the series Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/PUPPETMASTER (2nd) (or (3rd), (4th) and so on). Remember to replace the term PUPPETMASTER with the actual account name of the user, and don't forget to save the user page that you just modified.

Does that mean I putWikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/PUPPETMASTER (2nd) here?: (bolded and italicized):

{| class="messagebox standard-talk" style="width: auto;" |- | [[Image:Puppeter template.gif|50px| ]] | '''It is suspected that this user may be a [[Wikipedia:Sock puppet|sock puppet]], [[Wikipedia:Sock puppet|meat puppet]] or impersonator of [[User:Serafin|Serafin]]'''.<br>Please refer to [[Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Serafin]] for evidence. <small>See [{{fullurl:Special:Log/block|page=User:{{PAGENAMEE}}}} block log]</small> {| style="width: 100%; background: transparent; " |- | align="left" | <small>[[Wikipedia:Sock puppetry/Notes for the suspect|Notes for the suspect]]</small> | align="right" | <small>[[Wikipedia:Sock puppetry/Notes for the accuser|Notes for the accuser]]</small> |} |}

Sorry that is probably really confusing. Thanks in advance. Philip Gronowski ^Contribs 04:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, but since I've never dealt with sockpuppets before, I had to do some reading before I could answer. I need a little clarification. Do you mean that you need to create a second case against User:Serafin? If so, then I'd recommend simply adding the additional info to the case that you've already got open, since you just created it today. If not, then please restate your question, because I'm not sure I understand. --Sopoforic 04:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Yep I just did that. I'm sorry my question was a bit odd to say the least, reading it again it barely makes any sense to me. The reporting sockpuppets instructions are a bit oddly worded as well. I just added the additional info and fixed the major screw up I made, I hope. Thanks again. Philip Gronowski ^Contribs 04:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

All right, I'm happy to have helped. If you have further questions, you can use the {{helpme}} tag again, and I or someone else (hopefully someone more knowledgeable about this than I am) will help you out. --Sopoforic 04:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Please don't say you're an idiot, you most certainly are not. Any student in mathematics is smarter than I am. Goodnight and sleep well. Philip Gronowski ^Contribs 04:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Stop jadger and start to discuss you ideas with me

I need not be afraid about it. Review jadger repeated activity without editor value. You want discuses historical fact I welcome, but actually you started the ware against Serafin is not it? And you have nothing except some biased personal view to kill the historical enters. Do you support nationalistic German line? Stop jadger and start to discuss you ideas with me.--207.245.84.70 05:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok let me explain my position. I stay away from most topics on Polish history because I have strong feelings about them. I do, however, stop edit warring and POV (Point of View, how a single person might look at something) insertion. You will notice I did not revert some of your edits because they were perfectly alright [1] or because I would be in violation of the Wikipedia:Three-revert rule[2].

I have told both you and Jadger to stop edit warring, and reverted what I could. You have both been warned and anymore edit warring will result in a block. Please stop your edit warring and discuss your edits on talk pages. I also have good reason that you are a sockpuppet of a blocked user, a violation of Wikipedia Policy.

Also you are continually engaging in personal attacks, another violation of Wikipedia Policy. My Polish written skills are not fluent so I won't be able to respond in Polish today. Philip Gronowski ^Contribs 05:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Ja też próbuje być grzeczny ale nie dla tych co gwałcą obiektywną prawdę. Dla jakich celów współpracujesz z Nazistami? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 168.213.1.132 (talk • contribs).

Pozwol mi zaproponowac taki uklad: Przestanmy zmieniac cokolwiek na razie. Jezeli bedziesz chcial cos zmienic, przedyskutuj to najpierw na "Talk Page" i poczekaj na zgode innych uzytkownikow zanim zaczniesz cos zmieniac. Zamierzam poprosic administracje o zabezpieczenie strony przeciwko jakimkolwiek zmianom.Jednoczesnie chce poprosic abys nie nazywal mnie albo innych uzytkownikow Nazistami. Mimo ze moja prosba nie jest formalna, prosze zebys zdal sobie sprawe z tego, ze nazywanie kogokolwiek Nazista spowoduje, ze bedziesz zablokowany i nie bedziesz mogl zmienic niczego. Zaraz po przeslaniu mojej prosby do administracji zamierzam wylaczyc moj komputer i nie bede odpowiadal na zadne pytania z twojej strony. Dobranoc. Philip Gronowski ^Contribs 05:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

No problema. Ja mogę dyskutować do momentu aż widzę jakiś sens. W wypadku Jadgera przestałem się wysilać. W momencie gdy ktoś zarzuca systematyczne ludobójstwo Polakom i nie realizuje co mówi jest dla mnie skończony. Zobacz jak niżej:

P.S. you said: "Please be careful the decision was USSR, USA and UK and was done for the sake of future peace anyway. Ask them to compensate Germany the “loses”" The potsdam agreement was not a binding agreement, and it never gave the land to Poland, it gave them temporary administration over the lands, and using that administration they expelled and murdered millions of Germans, then claimed the land for themselves with Soviet backing later on. stop trying to blame others for the crimes that your nation committed, the blame lands squarely on your shoulders [3]

Trochę więcej o moich usiłowaniach porozumienia się z Jadgerem możesz się dowiedzieć z: [4]

Po prostu nie komunikuje się z nim według tego jak niżej:

Because you are revisionist - you do not accept the international decisions, Poland rights to its accident territories and bilateral German –Polish treaty I do not see any reason to discuss with you. Also because, you accuses Polish nation for a crime and you have no knowledge about facts regarding it. Bye, Andrew 131.104.218.46 01:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC) [5]

• Jeżeli ktoś na zasadzie zemsty przyczepia się i rewertuje artykuł (Jan Dzierzon) od dawna uregulowany. Usiłuje przesuwać zdania już po paru ustępstwach w jego kierunku to jak można traktować taką „osobowość”.

Świetnie że starasz się być obiektywny i sprawiedliwy, ale to jest cecha polska, nic takiego nie spotkałem ani tutaj w Kanadzie ani w zachowaniu niemieckim. Obrzucają nas błotem ale jak chcesz im przypomnieć co oni zrobili to masz na głowie całe stado które nie pyta o obiektywne wartości. Przykład w edycji: [6] (cur) (last) 12:07, 12 January 2007 Serafin (Talk | contribs) (Summary)

Wniosek: nasza narodowa wola do zgody kosztuje konsternacje tych co protestują przeciw zorganizowanej zaślepionej sile – choćby to był tylko narodowy charakter obcych.

ODNOŚNIE: Jezeli bedziesz chcial cos zmienic, przedyskutuj to najpierw na "Talk Page" i poczekaj na zgode innych uzytkownikow zanim zaczniesz cos zmieniac.

Nie widzę w tym najmniejszego praktycznego sensu. Nie wiadomo kto ma wyrażać zgodę. Kto jest odpowiedzialny za ciągłość dyskusji itd. Można tak apelować do święty NIGDY. Jak zmieniam coś daje co najmniej krótkie uzasadnienie. Wyjątek stanowią akcje Jadger’a ze zrozumiałych powodów.

ODNOŚNIE: Zamierzam poprosić administracje o zabezpieczenie strony przeciwko jakimkolwiek zmianom.

Zamykanie stron niczego nie daje poza frustracją. Jeżeli ktoś byłby odpowiedzialny za prowadzenie dyskusji i za wprowadzanie zmian to inna sprawa. Ten ktoś też musiałby mieć świadomość że skargi na jego decyzje będą rozpatrywane przez administracje. Jednak coś takiego nie istnieje.

ODNOŚNIE: Jednoczesnie chce poprosic abys nie nazywal mnie albo innych uzytkownikow Nazistami.

Nikogo nie nazywam Nazistą. Pytam tylko czy jest takim, albo czy z takimi współpracuje. Dowodem na to że ktoś jest Nazistą jest usuwanie powszechnie znanych prawd o zbrodniczych efektach Nazismu. Bardzo prosty dowód.

ODNOŚNIE: Mimo ze moja prosba nie jest formalna, prosze zebys zdal sobie sprawe z tego, ze nazywanie kogokolwiek Nazista spowoduje, ze bedziesz zablokowany i nie bedziesz mogl zmienic niczego.

Możesz być przekonany że będę działał tak żeby pozamykać jak najwięcej artykułów. Anyway, nie przypominam sobie bym personalnie i bezpośrednio kogoś nazwał Nazistą. Paranoja. Ci co działają jak Naziści mogą zaprzeczać prawdzie o Nazizmie i prowokować innych. Nie można ich pociągną do żadnej odpowiedzialności ani nawet pytać o to czy są Nazistami.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ptak (talk • contribs).

"Dla jakich celów współpracujesz z Nazistami?" W takim razie co to znaczy? Wyraznie mnie pytasz dlaczego wspolpracuje z Nazistami - a wiec zakladasz ze albo jestem Nazista, albo ich kolaborantem. Moze ci sie wydaje, ze nikogo nie nazywasz bezposrednio Nazista, ale niestety insynuujesz to i to w dosyc oczywisty sposob. Philip Gronowski ^Contribs 23:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Moj Drogi, Insynuacje to nie sa wyzwiska :) A trzeba wiedziec kogo sie popiera zanim podejmie sie akcje. Robisz komus afront bez wiekszych ceregieli a pozniej sie obrazasz ze ktos Ci odpyskuje. Czy teraz juz wiesz kogo wsparles? AS>

Unikanie odpowiedzi nie leży polskim charakterze. Zrobiłeś bałagan i zostawiłeś. Pytałem Cię czy już załważyłeś komu pomagałeś. Taki brak odpowiedzialności charakteryzuje Kanadyjczyków. W Polsce mówi się jak powiedziałeś "A" będziesz musiał powiedzić "B". AS>

Greenarrow71

I noticed you reverted his edit to Eaton Hall (Cheshire). He also wrote something irrelevant on Ron Wilson here. Greenarrow71 should definitely be monitored for the next few days and probably banned if this continues. --Whiteknox 04:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Whoa, I didn't even notice that other edit. Thanks for reverting it. I don't think he will be a problem anymore, he hasn't edited in the last few days. If he does continue to vandalise he will be blocked for a period of time. Banning is usually a last case resort too. Visit Wikipedia:Vandalism for more info. You can also use templates like the ones found here to warn vandals. Cheers, Philip Gronowski ^Contribs 04:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Spawnopedia

Hi, Philip, I suspect -- based on writing style -- that Spawnopedia may be your old "friend" ColScott. They certainly employ the same rhetorical style as well as specific interests. --Kynn 21:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

That is more insulting than you calling me a troll. I don't see any similarity bewteen us. Among other things I know Wikipedia far better than you. Please apologize. Spawnopedia 21:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, Spawnopedia the last part of your comment was unnecessary. Also please don't take it too personally that another user thinks you may be a sockpuppet. It is a violation of Wikipedia policy that is difficult to confirm, see Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. They are allowed to voice their beliefs. Kynn, you may want to follow guidlines and steps on Wikipedia:Sock puppetry to further investigate your suspicions. I am going to try and stay neutral on this part so far. Philip Gronowski ^Contribs 22:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I take your criticism constructively but this guy is now emailing me privately and it is mean stuff. Sorry. Spawnopedia 22:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

How did he get your email? You can post the e-mails here and I will review if what he is saying violates policy. Philip Gronowski ^Contribs 22:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

He got my email when I emailed him and asked him to relax. To be frank, Phil, I just want him to chill out for a minute and not be so serious. Spawnopedia 22:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The best thing I think both of you could do is just to both distance yourselves from editing the pages that are in question, have a nice cup of tea and come back when your heads have cleared. If you can't seem to come to an agreement on Wikipedia then ask for comment or arbitration and stop contacting each other off Wiki as well. Philip Gronowski ^Contribs 22:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

wow I just wrote a similar thing. Fact is, as a friend of Hamsher, he should not be altering a page like that anyway. I said FOUR HOURS ago we should just let the discussion decide. Spawnopedia 22:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I can't see any proof that he is a friend of Hamsher, unless proof is shown then I will assume he is not. Philip Gronowski ^Contribs 22:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Wait, hold on a sec. Phil, I haven't emailed this guy. Now he's making stuff up, just like he's making up the notion that I'm friends with Hamsher. I haven't mailed a single mean thing to him, or a single thing at all. I haven't even checked my email lately, so I have no idea if he has emailed me. --Kynn 23:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

You are a very very good actor. Spawnopedia 23:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Man this is getting confusing. Okay Spawnopedia you need to tell me how you go Kynn's email and provide proof that he emailed you. Again I haven't seen any evidence that Kynn has any relationship with Hamsher. Kynn, I encourage you to launch a checkuser and stay away from editing anything related to Spawnopedia. Philip Gronowski ^Contribs 23:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Phil, my user page has a link to my personal web site, which lists my email address. I would assume that is how he found my address. --Kynn 23:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Email received by Kynn

I have received the following two email messages and have not responded to either:

Delivered-To: nextofkynn@gmail.com
Received: by 10.49.30.15 with SMTP id h15cs519511nfj;
        Mon, 22 Jan 2007 13:14:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.64.91.15 with SMTP id o15mr8341768qbb.1169500444858;
        Mon, 22 Jan 2007 13:14:04 -0800 (PST)
Return-Path: <davidmagus3@hotmail.com>
Received: from bay0-omc2-s16.bay0.hotmail.com (bay0-omc2-s16.bay0.hotmail.com [65.54.246.152])
        by mx.google.com with ESMTP id z21si7694223qbc.2007.01.22.13.14.04;
        Mon, 22 Jan 2007 13:14:04 -0800 (PST)
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of davidmagus3@hotmail.com designates 65.54.246.152 as permitted sender)
Received: from hotmail.com ([65.54.162.35]) by bay0-omc2-s16.bay0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.2668);
	 Mon, 22 Jan 2007 13:13:26 -0800
Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC;
	 Mon, 22 Jan 2007 13:13:24 -0800
Message-ID: <BAY108-F25896A7FCFA746B1E8F546EFAE0@phx.gbl>
Received: from 65.54.162.200 by by108fd.bay108.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP;
	Mon, 22 Jan 2007 21:13:23 GMT
X-Originating-IP: [207.6.209.233]
X-Originating-Email: [davidmagus3@hotmail.com]
X-Sender: davidmagus3@hotmail.com
From: "David Magnus" <davidmagus3@hotmail.com>
To: NextOfKynn@gmail.com
Bcc: 
Subject: Hane Jamsher Accolyte
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 13:13:23 -0800
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 22 Jan 2007 21:13:24.0972 (UTC) FILETIME=[274642C0:01C73E6A]
Return-Path: davidmagus3@hotmail.com

Hey Kynn is this the best address for spam?

_________________________________________________________________
FREE online classifieds from Windows Live Expo ÔøΩ buy and sell with people 
you know 
http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwex0010000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://expo.live.com?s_cid=Hotmail_tagline_12/06

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              
Delivered-To: nextofkynn@gmail.com
Received: by 10.49.30.15 with SMTP id h15cs522726nfj;
        Mon, 22 Jan 2007 13:53:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.65.224.11 with SMTP id b11mr8415732qbr.1169502817633;
        Mon, 22 Jan 2007 13:53:37 -0800 (PST)
Return-Path: <davidmagus3@hotmail.com>
Received: from bay0-omc3-s13.bay0.hotmail.com (bay0-omc3-s13.bay0.hotmail.com [65.54.246.213])
        by mx.google.com with ESMTP id f14si7734091qba.2007.01.22.13.53.37;
        Mon, 22 Jan 2007 13:53:37 -0800 (PST)
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of davidmagus3@hotmail.com designates 65.54.246.213 as permitted sender)
Received: from hotmail.com ([65.54.162.41]) by bay0-omc3-s13.bay0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.2668);
	 Mon, 22 Jan 2007 13:53:28 -0800
Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC;
	 Mon, 22 Jan 2007 13:53:28 -0800
Message-ID: <BAY108-F3110F7B2EC491B1001B4AAEFAE0@phx.gbl>
Received: from 65.54.162.200 by by108fd.bay108.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP;
	Mon, 22 Jan 2007 21:53:23 GMT
X-Originating-IP: [207.6.209.233]
X-Originating-Email: [davidmagus3@hotmail.com]
X-Sender: davidmagus3@hotmail.com
From: "David Magnus" <davidmagus3@hotmail.com>
To: NextOfKynn@gmail.com
Bcc: 
Subject: Oh Philip
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 13:53:23 -0800
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 22 Jan 2007 21:53:28.0010 (UTC) FILETIME=[BF98C2A0:01C73E6F]
Return-Path: davidmagus3@hotmail.com

Phil is a 16 year old child in Canada with no one to love him
Please stop making fun of him

_________________________________________________________________
Search for grocery stores. Find gratitude. Turn a simple search into 
something more. 
http://click4thecause.live.com/search/charity/default.aspx?source=hmemtagline_gratitude&FORM=WLMTAG

Apart from what is listed in the full headers above, I know nothing about the source of this email. I can't confirm that it is from Spawnopedia -- however, I have not received any email which identifies itself as being from Spawnopedia. I have no plans to respond to either of these messages, and have not done so. --Kynn 23:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

These have nothing to do with me. NOTHING. My name isn't David either. This is a pure setup. Now I am SURE that Kynn is this COLSCOTT guy. Otherwise why bring you into it and make up emails like that?Spawnopedia 23:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Spawnopedia, I am going to Kynn's side. That was way to much to fake, I bet that if I asked for a screenshot of his email inbox that he could show me it. I am going to ask for administrator intervention. Philip Gronowski ^Contribs 23:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

PHIL- it does not show an email from me. for all we know Magus is his brother or something. Do not be fooled. Spawnopedia 23:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that Spawnopedia similarly post the email he claims to have received from me (as well as the email he claims to have sent, but which I say was not received). That would help determine what's going on here, yes? It's always possible that a third person is playing both of us for fools with the email thing, although I don't know how that person would be able to get Spawnopedia's address, or why Spawnopedia's email to me was not received. --Kynn 23:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Excellent idea, Spawnopedia seems to avoid posting those emails. Philip Gronowski ^Contribs 23:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I am avoiding nothing I am just not that good with headers and all that- not that savvy sorry Kynn Spawnopedia 23:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

From : NextofKynn@gmail.com Sent : Monday, January 22, 2007 12:47 PM To : <pheasantunderglass@hotmail.com> Subject : re: Wikipedia

Go to previous message | Go to next message | Delete | Inbox Hey Spawn, fact is that Hamsher just this weekend recovered from her THIRD bout with breast cancer and she doesn't need to see crap like what is on the article there. People like you stir it up and make me sick. Maybe you should get ill and that would teach you something.

That is where it all started. That is how I knew he knew Hamsher. That is when he attacked. He's playing everyone. Phil do you know how to get headers in hotmail? Spawnopedia 23:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Nope. Geez i wish there was a simple way to get this all finished up. Philip Gronowski ^Contribs 23:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. That isn't even how I write. I'd like to see the full headers of this, as I certainly didn't write anything like that anywhere. Also, can you please post the email you claim you sent to me? Because as I said, I didn't receive it.

As far as full headers in hotmail, a simple google search reveals all. --Kynn 00:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Help Me

What do you need? --Sopoforic 23:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi there. If you take a gander at the discussion unfolding above this post you can see it is getting rather large and confusing. I was wondering what would be the best place to further discuss/work on this discussion? Should I request administrator intervention or what? Sorry for such a general question, this topic is really confusing. If you can't help then I understand. Philip Gronowski ^Contribs 23:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd like some advice on what to do as well. I'd also like to apologize to Phil for bringing this up on his talk page. I wasn't being very thoughtful, and I am sorry for dragging you into this. --Kynn 23:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

That is crazy- you attacked me on multiple pages all because I thought you should use a discussion page for discussionSpawnopedia 23:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

A word of advice: don't accuse others of attacking you, even if they really are. It doesn't help the situation, and can make you look bad if it turns out that they weren't intentionally attacking you. Remember that the very first step in the dispute resolution process is avoiding having a dispute. That means not just avoiding any kind of conflict, but also avoiding making it worse once you've gotten stuck in a conflict. So, just try to keep cool and let things work themselves out. The best thing you can do is to take the high ground and refuse to goad other editors, even--and especially--if you think they deserve it. --Sopoforic 23:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Fortunately, the conversation seems to be remaining mostly civil. If it remains so, and you don't think you can help to resolve it, you could ask for a third opinion. If it begins to turn uncivil, the right place is probably Wikiquette alerts. If both you and one other person fail to resolve this, then you take it to requests for comment.

It doesn't seem to me that there's any need for administrator intervention just yet. As long as everyone is civilly discussing the issue, the best thing that can happen is to continue the discussion--after all, we should assume that all three of you are acting in good faith, and have merely gotten into an unfortunate situation. I do have a recommendation for action, if you'd like: you don't seem to be directly involved in the dispute at hand, so I'd recommend that if you don't seem any closer to a resolution, that both Kynn and Spawnopedia should agree not to edit whichever article or articles were causing the contention for a week or so, and not to discuss the issue until a week has passed, either. They say time heals all wounds--it certainly does cool tempers and help clear the mind for rational thought. Chances are, after a week, this won't seem like a very big issue anyway. If this fails, though, you have the dispute resolution process available. --Sopoforic 23:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this decision. It is sound and Solomonic Spawnopedia 23:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'm going to post this on all pages. Distance yourselves from ediing those articles or contacting each other. This dispute looks like it is going to turn uncivil soon and that is never a good thing. Please follow the outside comment by Sopoforic and cool off for about a week. Philip Gronowski ^Contribs 00:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Nie będę cię uczył rozumu. Od tego masz rodziców. Chcę ci jednak powiedzieć że robisz bardzo przykre wrażenie, nierozważnego i niewychowanego. Nie powinieneś się brać za sprawy dorosłych. AS>

Bobby Beausoleil

Umm, you reverted my accurate and well sourced edit to this page without even deigning to explain yourself. Please do so now. AZJustice 20:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Blogs (Unless written by a recognized authority) are not allowed per Wikipedia policy. It has been discussed on the talk page and that particular blog has mass spammed Wikipedia. Do not call my edits vandalism. Any links to that blog will continue to be reverted. Philip Gronowski ^Contribs 21:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I know nothing about that Blog. I linked to a letter by the guy himself. That is a primary source and therefore valid. You need to be a little uptight and read things before deleting them. AZJustice 22:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

As I said before, blog are not valid per Wikipedia policy. Sources must be reliable and written by a recognized authority, which that blog is not. It does not even prove that those are Mr. Beausoleil's words. I also did read that link, seeing as I was personally libeled against on that blog, I wanted to see if it happened again. Philip Gronowski ^Contribs 22:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Blog policy is NOT as straight as that. In this case this is a letter from the man himself reprinted on the site. His words. That is considered reliable. I respectfully request you read up on Wikipedia policy. Also why would YOU be mentioned on a Charles Manson site? Are you related to the victims or something? AZJustice 01:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I was libeled for removing links from Wikipedia because the site violated policy. Look at the current page of the blog, somewhere near the bottom; the text was changed from something a fair bit more offensive. Again, blogs that are not written by a recognized authority will be removed for violating that part of policy. It says pretty clearly in Links normally to be avoided that: "Links to blogs and personal webpages, except those written by a recognized authority." are to be avoided. There is also no proof that those are his words, the unrecognized authors merely say that they are. Philip Gronowski ^Contribs 01:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

How does the site [b] violate policy[/b]? and why should any external site care about Wikipedia policy? Are you saying that that letter is NOT from Bobby Beausoleil? Confused.AZJustice 01:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

What matters is that Wikipedia has criteria for adding external links. An external site that is not written by a recognized authority on the subject cannot be included. Again, see Wikipedia:External links. I am saying that the site does not provide any proof that the letter is from Mr. Beausoleil. It is not written by a recognized authority. Philip Gronowski ^Contribs 02:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I was not adding an external link I was adding a footnote AZJustice 02:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:RS which is the guidline for reliable sources that can be included within wikipedia shows that http://tatelabianca.blogspot.com/2006/01/set-record-straight-part-two.html can't be used. As phil said, it also fails WP:EL which is wikipedias external links policy. Have a read of both to see why the source can't be used RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 02:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

thanks I enjoyed the read. Your first article is a guideline and specifically states that it is NOT policy so we can move on from there. The second, EL, says that a letter from the actual person in an article is to be considered a valid source. So basically you defeated your own argument. Maybe you should read the article again? AZJustice 02:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Admitidely WP:RS is not policy but as it says on the page, it is generally accepted among editors, I have never come across a time when this has been ruled out for only being a guideline. Look at the WP:EL page again specifically the links normally to be avoided section (specifically section 11). link you posted comes from a blog, therefore fails WP:EL as there are no reliable sources which show that this is definately a letter from Bobby Beausoleil RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 02:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I am going to sum this up really quickly, seeing as I have exams to study for. That source/external link is moot because it fails EL Point 11. It links to a blog that is not written by a recognized authority. This has been discussed on the article's talk page and has been accepted by a large amount of both regular editors and administrators. Philip Gronowski ^Contribs 03:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Just wondering how you can study for exams when Jimbo needs you on Wikipedia? AZJustice 03:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Phil, this is just the same guy again. Look at his contributions; the first things he did were the same things he keeps doing all along. Wikipedia needs better controls against persistent trolls, or at least, smarter trolls. --Kynn 07:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

excuse me sir, I believe you just called me a troll, which I notice you have been warned against before, and not smart. Actually, every one of my changes which you choose to mark up this morning was accurate and correctly sourced. It seems like some critics say, you are not interested in improving Wikipedial but rather in some agenda of your own. Kindly leave me outAZJustice 14:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Mmhmm. --Kynn 16:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I personally don't think this guy is a sock, he has different grammar and is not specifically spamming pages or anything. He seems to be a person who likes working on external links. Philip Gronowski ^Contribs 23:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

You are better at assuming good faith than I am. I'm not going to argue in detail here, since it would be unseemly. Good luck with him, Phil. --Kynn 00:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I've got some more ideas about this, but rather than pollute your user talk section, I'll dump it on my own. --Kynn 00:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I checked out your page, some of the stuff looks pretty convincing. Good job investigating by the way. Philip Gronowski ^Contribs 03:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Marini

hi i wrote the marini page - its TRUE REALLY!! give me a day or so to scan some sources User:fresh_start 01:56 13 february 2007 (gmt)

Highly unlikely, but in the mean time check out WP:N. Philip Gronowski ^Contribs 02:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 12th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 7	12 February 2007	About the Signpost

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

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Quizlet Article

First of all, I appreciate your vigilance. However, I don't agree that the Quizlet article warrants speedy deletion. I appreciate the problem of insignificant webmasters trying to get publicity from Wikipedia (though I don't think it's too effective) by creating articles on small, unimportant websites. In case it helps bring this into context, I didn't create Quizlet, but merely use it. Considering it has been mentioned in Lifehacker, on Digg, etc., I thought it was fitting for there to be a Quizlet article on Wikipedia. Your thoughts would be appreciated on the article's talk page. » K i G O E | talk 00:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I will respond on the talk page. I am always open to criticism. Philip Gronowski ^Contribs 00:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

A comment by Don Murphy

Then here is the criticism you need- what happens when somebody that you have annoyed on here finds you? You have given them more than enough information. Do people at your school know you are a Wikifool? Will girls like you when they find out you have crossed Col Scott? Will your dreams of fleeing Canada ever be fulfilled? Will Ryan Bushby save you if Murphy recruits an admin? Why do you think you matter? 16YearOldCanadianClown 08:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

First, if anyone finds me I really don't know what I'll do Donny. Maybe I'll laugh at them for tracking me down because of something on the internet. I do have several people at school who do know I edit Wikipedia. I think I have greater things to worry about than if girls know I crossed some random guy on the internet calling himself ColScott. I do plan on traveling again, so I will flee Canada for a few months, maybe even years. The winters really do annoy me. I don't think you will recruit the admin Omnicron has planned our for you, seeing as his messages on the board have pointed at a really unlikely person. And yes I do read your board and I know the name of the admin you guys are talking about. And I matter because my mommy says so every night. Philip Gronowski ^Contribs 18:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

PLEASE do NOT edit the Don Murphy page again. As you know, personal websites are allowable for accurate and up to date information. The Future Films section is taken DIRECTLY from a post that Murphy made himself on his message board. It is properly cited. Any change to this page after giving you proper notification will be considered VANDALISM and that mommy you talk about above will be more ashamed of you than she tells me she already is. PhilMakesMeGroan 10:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Phil, don't feed the trolls. Just ignore, revert, and report 'em. --Kynn 16:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 19th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 8	19 February 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor
Arbitrator Dmcdevit resigns; replacements to be appointed	Essay questions Wikipedia's success: Abort, Retry, Fail?
In US, half of Wikipedia traffic comes from Google	WikiWorld comic: "Tony Clifton"
News and notes: Brief outage, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Matt Furey

Philip - an explanation was given for every edit to that page. Before more changes are made let's investigate a point of clarity - Is it your intent to be directly responsible for the content on the Matt Furey wikipedia page? Is it your intent to be directly responsible for the changes and revisions you have made? Please respond immediately so that this can be resolved in the proper method.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.185.84.17 (talk) 03:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC).

It is my intent that pages are kept to a certain standard of quality. I am responsible for all changes I have made. Most of your explanations were inadequate or wrong. This edit, for example, was not vandalism; as were many others which you said were. Blanking pages just because you disagree with something (the talk page for example) is another thing not to do. The page is heavily biased yes, but there are processes for that. Proper tags were left at the top of the page warning readers that the article was not neutral. Also, many of the things you added were almost spamish in appearance, there is no need for a product list. Philip Gronowski ^Contribs 03:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. Appropriate actions will be taken. Please keep this content in place.

Signpost updated for February 26th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 9	26 February 2007	About the Signpost

Three users temporarily desysopped after wheel war	Peppers article stays deleted
Pro golfer sues over libelous statements	Report from the Norwegian (Bokmål) Wikipedia
WikiWorld comic: "Pet skunk"	News and notes: New arbitrators appointed, milestones
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)