User talk:Dorftrottel

User:AldeBaer/Title Welcome!

This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 7 days are automatically archived to User talk:Kncyu38/Archive/Archive-Sep2024. Sections without timestamps are not archived. Archived sections are listed at the section index, and here is a list of all archive pages.

welcome

Hello, Aldebaer, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  09:08, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

double vote

You inadvertently voted twice on Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Akhilleus. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 07:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I removed the double, sorry! - Denny 13:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Ditto here. =P Xiner (talk) 19:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Danny's RfA

Thanks for letting me know and also fixing it. It's twice, now :-( Snowolf ^(talk) _CON ^COI - 18:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Rfc

This comment has been responded to

Might I actually suggest seeking a Wikipedia:Third opinion, it may be a better road to down for starters Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 16:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

IRC cloak request

I am Kncyu38 on freenode and I would like the cloak wikipedia/KNcyu38. Thanks. --—KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 22:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I know this is irrelevant to this section but thanks for doing that, I made a silly mistake, again thanks! Tellyaddict 17:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Your note

This comment has been responded to

Thanks for your note, but there's no problem with doing that. This is how policy develops. People notice flaws and go and correct them. Several people have done it today on that page. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

My Adminship

Thanks a lot. And thanks for supporting me on my RfA as well. --soum (0_o) 09:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Subconscious music

Resolved

Thanks for your comment. Yes, normally MySpace links are discouraged. In this case I feel that the link is one of the few access points to the label, the other being through Severins webpage. In so far, as far as I am aware, the label does not have its own page(s) then the two I provided are all there is. If you don't feel that an exception should be made in this case then please remove it again. If you think it should stay, perhaps we might copy this discussion to the talkpage for future reference for other editors. Cheers. LessHeard vanU 19:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

In so far that the label has released work by Steven Severin, Steven & Arban Severin and, very soon, Arban Severin then it makes sense to have it as a separate entity. I can put in a discography which shows the range of artists/releases to illustrate it better, if you think it would help establish its notability separately from its founder. LessHeard vanU 19:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC) ps. At least one of the films for which the label has the soundtrack has its own article, which helps.

I found what I could (which coming from a member of S. Severins website means that there aint that much to find) and put in the releases. I cannot find any mention of a release date for the soundtrack Arban is working on, so I haven't included it. If you believe notability is established then please remove the tag. Thanks. LessHeard vanU 20:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC) ps. The MySpace page is easier to navigate than Severins own site, and that is pretty damn rare I think!

Thank you for your consideration and advice. LessHeard vanU 00:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you for your support on my Request for adminship, which finished successfully, with unanimous support of 40/0/0. I will do my best to serve Wikipedia and the community. Again thanks.
--Meno25 08:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

RfA thanks from Akhilleus

Akhilleus gets new weapons.

Dorftrottel, thanks for your support in my successful RfA. As the picture shows, the goddesses have already bestowed my new weapons, which I hope to use to good effect. If you ever need assistance, or want to give me feedback on my use of the admin tools, please leave me a message on my talkpage. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

User:JohnHistory

Evening Kncyu, any chance you could give me a follow up to the old John History situation? Did you get any look with the 3rd opinion? I'm about to go to sleep, but I plan to follow it up properly tomorrow Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 01:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey

Resolved

Sorry about that, busy weekend tired I apologize, thanks for the notice. -Lakers^Talk 09:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Double vote

Resolved

Ooops.. thank you! Snowolf ^(talk) _CON ^COI - 13:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

attack site

Look, in my opinion, you're right. The mentioned sites are indeed attack sites. I just want to lay emphasis on the ambivalence I'm having, because I believe those sites offer at least some valid criticism. Dang. Someone should make a site that collects the better bits and pieces from those attack sites and leaves out the attack crap. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 22:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your understanding, and you're right: a straight criticism community that scrubbed abusive nonsense, and outing, could be an asset. - Denny ^(talk) 22:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Mikeblas' RfA

Resolved

• Your comment on my talk page is fair enough - I appreciate your point - BUT I wonder can you show me where Mikeblas has refuted my concern over the use of this otherwise uncivil language? If he has already (before now) then I will be happy to reconsider my !vote.--VS ^talk 03:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough - I didn't see the closure come up on my watchlist when I replied to you. I will send my congratulations to him then.--VS ^talk 04:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Indian Trail Academy

Responded at the appropriate venue. Why would you put the information of ITA's suicide's on it's page. That is information that is not needed to be shared. The people in the schoool and in the district knonw of it's reputation and that is far too much media for the incidents. If you do this, then you might as well add pages to Wikipedia that talk about each student, and how they took their life. DELETE what you wrote, it is not needed, and hopefully students in the school will open their eyes, never do again, and the school's administraion stops putting harsh and corrupt rules in place, amking the learning experience horrendous and unbearable. Thus the reason why students have killed themselves. Just remove what you wrote. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Che Chavez (talk • contribs) 13:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

KFP's RfA thanks

Thank you for supporting me on my recent nomination for adminship, which passed with a tally of 45/0/0. Please let me know if I can help with something or if I make a mistake. Cheers! --KFP (talk | contribs) 15:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Danny's RfA

Resolved

Howdy! On the talk page for Danny's RfA, you wrote 'Sigh, what purpose do these stats serve?'. I'm not certain what you mean, they serve the purpose that anything does on this project. I found an interesting correlation, and I shared the raw data so folks could come to their own conclusions. While I invested quite a lot of time and effort in collecting the data, it didn't cost you or anyone else anything, so your comment is puzzling. With the utmost of respect, I'm not in the habit of telling people what they can and can't work on. I ask that you return the favor, my time is mine. If you feel that it was actually harmful, then I invite feedback, but if, as your phrasing suggests, this was more of an issue of "I don't see the purpose of doing this", then my request stands. I hope you won't take offense. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 19:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I asked what purpose the stats served as a matter of respect for Occam's razor. They are not needed nor particularly userful, as me and others and even yourself have pointed out. Another way to put my critical attitude may have been: "You supported Danny, why not leave it at that? Why present statistics that can only reasonably be interpreted in one way, no matter what you declare your motivations to be: The sample you provided does clearly speak against newer editors, as if they should have less say in the RfA in your opinion (since you researched and presented those stats then & there)" Now, I replied here to do you a favor you asked for. Here you are. As for what your initial motivation to post the stats where, I'm inclined to stick with Hanlon's razor. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 21:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Your linking to Hanlon's razor suggests that you're calling me stupid. You're entitled to your opinion, but that doesn't reflect terribly well on your ability to make an argument that can stand on its own merits. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 21:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

To freely quote from yourself: "I only referred to Hanlon's razor, you may interpret it any way you want, I didn't mean to say anything particular by posting it here, I just find it interesting." —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 21:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, thanks for your opinion. If we all agreed on everything, the world would be a pretty boring place. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 21:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 22:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Warning

If you link to an attack site again, you may be blocked from editing. The Arbcom has ruled that "Deliberately linking to an attack site may be grounds for blocking." [1] Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that was pretty much my question. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 10:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Per the above linked arbcom ruling and your decision here to disrupt the project to make a point, I'm giving you a final warning. Knock it off, this is an encyclopedia, not a first year law debate class. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 04:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Replied on Chairboy's talk page. —AldeBaer user:Kncyu38 13:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

TNBD

Means "This is no big deal."--Mantanmoreland 16:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Agree :) —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 16:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

RE RfA reform

I've read your proposal and commented in the appropriate section. I fully support your proposal, and you're right, it's quite similar to mine. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 19:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

arbitration requested - you are named

User:Mangoe has filed for arbitration about Wikipedia:Attack sites at this address. We are named parties. - Denny ^(talk) 21:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 21:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Anytime. - Denny ^(talk) 21:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I gave the impression that I had something personally against you in this. Mangoe 14:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

I put it on my user page, SqueakBox 19:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Point?

I was not trying to make a point, and I won't have myself be pushed into that corner. I wanted to cheer Tobias Conradi up, in fact I thought about awarding him the original barnstar instead but thought it was kinda lame. However, to prevent this kind of misunderstanding, I had asked whether or not I could be blocked for adding that link to the debate at Wikipedia talk:Attack sites. This is how Fred Bauder replied. My asking that question was preceeded by reading this, linked to by Kirill Lokshin in the Mongo request for carification. As long as Tobias Conradi has no problem with it, it should be of no concern to you. Should he not welcome this or any further messages from me, he can tell me so, and I will never message him again. —AldeBaer user:Kncyu38 13:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I just realized you didn't even remove the link. So what precisely are you threatening me for? You saw that link and left it there, you're just as "guilty" as me. Great stuff. —AldeBaer user:Kncyu38 13:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

There, I did it for you. Happy? —AldeBaer user:Kncyu38 13:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Thinking about it, I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean by "disrupt the project to make a point". Could you explain how you arrived at the conclusions that (i) it was my intention (ii) to disrupt and to make a point. To (i) I can say it wasn't in the least bit my intention to disrupt the project or to make a point, (ii) I don't even see how either might apply here. If you believe it was somehow disrupting and/or making a point, I'd greatly appreciate your input to help avoid further incidents like this one. Have a nice day. —AldeBaer user:Kncyu38 14:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

First, thanks for deleting the link, it shows that you're willing to take a step back from the precipice, and I appreciate it. Second, as you know, the purpose of an ArbCom ruling like this is to implement a decision to protect the project. It is their ruling that linking to an attack site is verbotten. When you instead provided a link to a Google search that had the attack site in question as the only result, it's an example of trying to weasel around their ruling. Now, there's nothing wrong with weaseling, it's what seperates us from the animals. Well, except for the weasel... but in this context, it comes back to the first year law student issue. There's a term 'wikilawyering' that has come into vogue that describes this action, specifically looking for a tiny loophole to remain technically within the letter of, but in direct contravention of the spirit of a policy or arbcom decision. I think you're very aware of this, but I'm hoping you'll reconsider the path you're on and try doing things that help the project instead. If you have any further questions, let me know and I'll try and help. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 14:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. I assure you I mean well, but I fear that this encyclopedia is shooting itself in the leg by censoring material that is not in itself attacking Wikipedia users. I just happen to find that essay on cabals very interesting. I would never have linked to a subpage with attack material, the exact page I linked to does not contain any libel or whatnot that I could recognize. Is it also "weaseling" then to suggest a Google search with the keywords "aware of the following faults"? And what about that second ArbCom case? There seems to be no consenus on generally forbidding links to each and every site with attack content, that's why Kirill Lokshin linked to it, I believe, to illustrate that ArbCom itself is rather undecided on the matter. —AldeBaer user:Kncyu38 14:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

You see, it seems rather difficult to respect and adhere to the spirit of ruling, when there seems to be no consensus on what that spirit really is, what precisely it includes and what it excludes. —AldeBaer user:Kncyu38 14:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no cabal. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

"You see, it seems rather difficult to respect and adhere to the spirit of ruling, when there seems to be no consensus on what that spirit really is, what precisely it includes and what it excludes." — You must find it maddening to exist in the real world. -- KirinX 14:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

lol, Actually no. In the real world, I enjoy freedom of speech. —AldeBaer user:Kncyu38 15:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

As you've just established that your dispute is with the Arbcom decision, it'd be appropriate to take it up with them at this point. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[2] Tobias Conradi (Talk) 22:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Good comments

Good comments you made and questions you asked on the attack sites talk, but do you really expect an answer? —AldeBaer user:Kncyu38 20:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

• I hope to be pleasantly surprised, even when I don't expect to be. Frise 20:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Dorftrottel, thank you very much for your support in my successful RfA. I am thankful and humbled by the trust that the community has placed in me, and I welcome any comments, questions or complaints that you may have. Again, thank you for your support, and happy editing! Hemlock Martinis 22:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Indian Trail Academy

Thank you. I did not want to sound harsh nor cruel in nature, but what was added didn't seem right. If the school really wants people to know this, they can put it on since they are the one's who created the page, you know? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Che Chavez (talk • contribs) 12:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC).

ANI vs AN

You are among those who express non-support votes due to an ANI post. It may be worthwhile to note that WP:ANI and WP:AN serve different purposes. I contacted AN over the unusual edits. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 18:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

P.S. regardless of whether you change your vote, I would appreciate it if you would correct your explanation so that others are not misled. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 18:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

 Done —AldeBaer 21:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding TonyTheTiger's RfA, what was El_C's joke? I don't get the joke. What does "I oppose neutral" mean??? Does it mean that the person oppposes the category "neutral" and thinks that there should only be support or oppose? "I hate the guy"...is this literal or a joke? Huh???VK35 21:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

David Irving link

Thank you for doing that. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:38, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Titanic

OK fair enough, but for it to fit into the article you'd need to write a proper paragraph about it at the appropriate point rather than just drop in the sentence fragment "See also Titanic"...... ChrisTheDude 16:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting it go anywhere else, but you'd need to write at least a couple of full sentences explaining the affair, hopefully with a reference at the end, or if you don't fancy that then put a link to it in the "See also" section at the end of the article. "See also"s don't go within the main body of the article..... ChrisTheDude 16:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Query

Can you say what the purpose was of your trying to out an editor today? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Apology below. —AldeBaer 01:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours

You have been blocked for 24 hours for attempting to reveal personal details about another editor. I debated a permanent block, particularly in light of the fact that it was done as WP:POINT in a discussion about blocking people for even posting links to websites that attempt to out people, but in the end I thought 24 hours for a first infraction was enough. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

What a shame, I was just about to say sorry. —AldeBaer 00:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to post an apology here; depending on the content, it might well have an effect on the length of your block. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I just had the same idea. —AldeBaer 01:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I've unblocked you based on our e-mail correspondence. I'm going to take you at your word regarding this account. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Apology

Regarding [3]/[4]/[5]. It took me a moment to realise what you are so enraged about. Now I understand. I am not a meat puppet, let alone sock puppet of someone who maintains an attack site, I just happen to have read that site and let you know about it - I could have written three thousand stupid words about a WP:COI instead. I'm sorry, it was a stupid idea, yet not intentionally malicious. I just got totally carried away and I admit I didn't assume all good faith or full neutrality in you regarding that debate. I hereby apologise for the incident and hope you can accept. —AldeBaer 01:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

And of course, I will try me best not to do that kind of thing again. As I posted to the proposed policy talk page today, the debate is starting to get at me and I had already decided to stay away from it for a while. Now that Fred has clarified his statement, there isn't much left to debate about. I suppose my action was like a child's attempt to test the limits. I got a slap on the wrist for it, and I know I deserve it. Tomorrow, I'm going to return to formatting/tagging/categorising stubs. —AldeBaer 01:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate that,and certainly accept your apology. However, just so you know, the course of action that you just admitted to doing is in fact being a meatpuppet of a banned user. I just wanted to point that out.--Mantanmoreland 01:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

...frack me you're right. I didn't realise it. What can I say? I'm sorry. I should've known better. I'll avail myself of the opportunity to cool off and tomorrow's gonna be a new day. I'm Adrian, by the way (sort of a lame quid pro quo, I know, but all I can offer you right now). —AldeBaer 01:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

A thousand lashes with a wet cat o nines tail! Go and sin no more.--Mantanmoreland 01:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

:) I'm off to my local S&M shop. Seriously though, up until you replied above, I didn't actually understand just what meat puppeting really is about. Some mistakes you have to make for yourself to find out, I suppose. —AldeBaer 01:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

And self-administered (so it doesnt kill you), SqueakBox 01:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Now, that'd be lame. I was naughty and need to be punished. —AldeBaer 01:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Aahh! SqueakBox 01:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

(ec) I just read up on it myself and you arent a true meatpuppet becaue you do good things here too, SqueakBox 01:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I do, but it was meat puppeting. —AldeBaer 01:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

AldeBaer, I've e-mailed you. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Checking. —AldeBaer 01:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the trick is to express one's views fully without alienating other people, SqueakBox 01:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

There is more to do it than that, as this debate concerns websites that specifically target Wikipedia editors, and that has poisoned the atmosphere. It has also skewed the discussion by discouraging editors from participating, out of justifiable fear of being targeted.--Mantanmoreland 02:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

(ec) But not all victims feel the same way. I've been described as a nut job on WR and was outed on WW but then again nobody has criticised me (too much) on wikipedia so far for opposing the WP:BADSITES proposal and nor should they, SqueakBox 02:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I underestimated the extent of it. —AldeBaer 02:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

TeckWiz's RFA

Hey AldeBaer. Thanks for supporting my unsuccessful RFA this week. I hope to keep helping and improving Wikipedia alongside you. --TeckWiz ^ParlateContribs_@(Lets go Yankees!) 01:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Could you actually read the sources before blindly tagging something?

The source cited in Manfred von Richthofen is available online; if it was a book source, then we could hardly be blamed for being suspicious of the weasel word. But considering you could have just followed the footnote and clicked the link (not very hard to do!), you could easily have fixed this up yourself without launching into your tirade about weasel words. Please don't blindly follow policy without thinking; it takes more than the ability to parse English text to be an editor. When there's an obvious source, and following up on it is a cinch, there's no excuse for mindlessly sticking a weasel word tag on it. I've fixed the problem. Johnleemk | Talk 08:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Proposal vs. essay

Yes, I agree with you. Worth keeping as an essay. I wonder what happened to the author of this proposal? He may actually have a life, I guess. :)--Mantanmoreland 01:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

He probably went to go edit on Conservapedia.--Academy Leader 01:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Conservapedia?? Hadn't heard of that one... —AldeBaer 02:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

He's a broadcaster so maybe he's broadcasting. Funny how he just vanished. Ain't it now?--Mantanmoreland 02:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I vaguely recall seeing a wikibreak tag on his page, but it's not there and I can't find any diff. I guess he just has to take care of other (=RL) things, he will probably return eventually. I'd be interested to hear his opinion on the goings on at BADSITES and what he suggests how to proceed? —AldeBaer 02:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Apologies?

Sure they do, but a lot depends on the people you're apologizing to. Some people are just mean-spirited, and it doesn't matter how apologetic you are. On the other hand, I notice that you did get unblocked, albeit about an hour or two before your block was to expire anyway, so I suppose I was too pessimistic. Everyking 03:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Shirahadasha RfA thanks

Thanks so much for taking the time to comment on my my RfA, which was successful. I learned a lot from the comments, I appreciate everything that was said, and I'll do my best to deserve the community's trust. Thanks again! And thanks for your kind words and support. --Shirahadasha 04:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Hello Dorftrottel, thank you for supporting my RfA!
I was promoted with a final tally of 68/12/0.
Also, please wish a Happy Birthday to Her Majesty the Queen. Vivat Regina!

Re:Casino Royale

It's hardly a spoiler. A spoiler is saying Vesper dies, not the basic plot of the film. Alientraveller 17:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's said that you should write articles on a 7th grade level, and I know plenty of adults that couldn't tell you what CPR stood for. I mean, someone could just click the link, but if they have no vested interest in knowing the details of CPR, I figured might as well let them know ahead of time.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Double vote in RfA

Thanks for that. I wasn't sure how to switch votes "the right way". Grace Note 00:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Berghain

I apologize. The reason was the "Bold Text" at the bottom of the article. Sorry! -Billy227 00:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

And next time, don't be as threatening please! -Billy227 00:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

AldeBaer, thanks for participating in my successful RfA. You expressed concern about me not answer the questions; I've written some brief reflections, including an answer to Question 3, in case you're still worried: User:Ragesoss/RfA. --ragesoss 07:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Reverted a couple of edits

Hi AldeBaer,

I reverted a couple of your edits which deleted links in citations. Please see WP:EL:

The guideline of this article refers to external links other than citations. Citation links belong in the Notes or References section of a Wikipedia article. Care must be taken not to delete inline links and external links if it looks like they are being used as references. This guideline only concerns external links that provide additional info beyond that provided by citation/reference links.

Best wishes, Jakew 09:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

(Copying from my talk) Oops, I was sure I had done my reading. However, I just formatted one of those citations, so as to provide a proper reference for anyone. Have a look [6]. —AldeBaer 09:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Not to worry. I think Wikipedia policy grows faster than it can be read anyway. Thanks for formatting the cite!

Would you mind reverting your edit of 10:10:33 to circumcision? Jakew 10:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Here's another link that doesn't work, though this one's dead, not only restricted: Genital_modification_and_mutilation#Male. That kind of "reference" is for the birds, in my opinion, and I'd like to delete it, as it gives the superficial impression of providing a reference when there really is none. —AldeBaer 10:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm sure there was once a reason for its inclusion, but I agree: there's no point having a dead link. Jakew 10:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

References

Firstly, I do not believe I introduced the reference, but updated the citation templates from earlier. Secondly, the source is the British Journal of Medicine, which is undoubtedly reliable. -- Avi 11:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out

My mistake, I thought that babalooo was indef banned. I reverted my edit to the RfC. - Crockspot 16:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

user:JohnHistory

Wow you are pathetic

changed your name and still herassing and destroying Wiki credibility. lol. I could care less about your silly littlle ways. I think your pathetic and a cancer to this world. If you continue your ways you will be banned permanently. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JohnHistory (talk • contribs) 14:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC).

Whoa! These kinds of personal attacks are unwarranted.--Mantanmoreland 02:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

!!!VIOLATION: Your support of racist propaganda and the desruction of Jimbo Guidelines: VIOLATION!!!

you are officially a biggot. The MVR page shows this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Manfred_von_Richthofen You have constantly supported and reverted the article to include racist propaganda sources (it labels me a "pagan" (vii) instead of respectable ones like bios. If you do not stop your vandalization and false claims supported only by a biggot or two (falls under tiny minority and undue weight Jimbo guidelines) you will be banned. In the face of sound logic, you have repeatedly shown you are unable to set your emotions aside or abide by reason. Instead, you have pursued a selficious feud in spite of logic. You have failed at the modest task that was your charge. You have labeled yourself in invalid here for all to see. JohnHistory 14:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)JohnHistory

Malicious reverts to racist propaganda & your violation of Jimbo Guidelines

No matter what you change your name to, you are abusing wiki principles kncyu38/AldeBaer and violating guidelines. by using this racist/prejudiced (it calls me a "pagan" on page vii for being a Christian and Westerner) self proclaimed "propaganda" (vii) in the article you have made yourself a biggot here for all to see. This unnacceptable as a source. If you continue your vandalization here you will be labeled a permanent prejudiced editor on Wikipedia. JohnHistory 14:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)JohnHistory

You are officially making yourself a biggot AldeBaer/Kncyu38 through your perpetual support of this prejudiced "propaganda" (vii). The MVR page shows this quite clearly at this late point in the discussion and i will no longer stop from telling it to you straight up. The logical consensus here is to take it out. You have constantly supported and reverted the article to include racist/prejudiced self proclaimed "propaganda" (vii) sources (it labels me a "pagan" on page vii) instead of respectable ones like bios and you have refused to follow the discussion logic and your lack of understanding is quite clear for all to see. If you do not stop your vandalization and false claims supported only by a biggot or two (falls under tiny minority and undue weight Jimbo guidelines) you will be banned. You have completely violated the Jimbo Guidelines of Undue Weight and Tiny Minoirty princples in favor of this prejudiced propaganda. I ask you why? In the face of sound logic, you have repeatedly shown you are unable to set your emotions aside or abide by reason. Instead, you have pursued a selficious feud in spite of logic. You have failed at the modest task that was your charge. You have labeled yourself in invalid here for all to see and have destroyed any and all of the last rements of respectablity you may have once had. You cannot hide from your past by changing your name. JohnHistory 14:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)JohnHistory

JohnHistory

I know you don't like me and I don't much care for you, but JohnHistory (talk · contribs)'s attacks are out of line and I've left him a warning to that effect. Let me know if things don't get any better. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you know the whole story between me and AldeBaer/Kncyu. (he changed his name recently) It is long and it involves hateful e-mails from him to me, and his new found support of prejudiced propaganda on the Manfred Von Richtofen page to furhter his feud with me. I don't know why you would take his side, or why he would reach out to your if he did? I at least say my responses, which at this late point are heated, openly. I also provide sound logic. I do not do all of the subterfuge and feuding that he does. II have asked him to drop this so many times. I would not even be writing about this if he did not start pasting old random discussions and warnings on my talk page obsessively, and maliciously reverting the MvR page to include "propaganda" (Hebrew Impact on Western Civilization, vii) while I was gone, I was assuming he would be stopped by someone else, or grow up and give it up. He even said he didn't care about the article at all earlier, it is just his feud with me. whatever. Wiki is really not a respectable source for anything anyway. In part due to characters like AldeBaer//Kncyu and his incredibly limited number of supporters. 71.192.101.77JohnHistory

more user:JohnHistory

Your anonymous herassment and obsessive pasting on my talk page.

Why are you constantly pasting random old discussions between me and others from even months ago onto my talk page? This seems like clear cut herassment and some weird form of obsession by you. I will report this if it continues. You are abusing your position here and working against the greater good. I think you need help my friend! Thanks. 71.192.101.77 18:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)JohnHistory

Your malicous herassment and avoidance of logic

To answer your questions here; At this late point, your support of this prejudiced, and as many have said bad source(s) comes across as bigotry or prejudice of some kind. and your constant reverts (which deleted my disclaimer and is why I gave up trying to do it that way) are malicious at this point, which is late in the game because you are violating policy and supporting something that is basically racist, and definately propaganda, and not good enough to add. goodbye. etc, etc, etc, etc.

You are clutching at straws with this sock puppetry garbage, like always. Why would I do that as a bad thing? Anyone can tell that it is my IP address. I was as you said, just going to straight to the article, i didn't remember to sign in. It is obvious I am stating my case the same way, any fool could tell that it was me or check the IP as you did and see. Who cares? Why can't you debate the real issues? Why has your logic failed so badly. Why are you left as a Bigot by all of this? Is that what you intended? I think you just don't care about the MvR article at all. You haven't even bothered to fix the facutal info that is wrong about him serving for Russia. Why? You just want to continue feuding with me and try to get me blocked as you have already clearly told me you intend to do. I could care less. All you do is maliciously herass me about petty things like this. Your stance on the Mvr article is indefensible. You are really hurting yourself by supporting this prejudiced/racist (calls me a "pagan" vii for being your average white person(that is to say being a western christian) self-proclaimed "propaganda" (the Hebrew Impact on Western Civilization, vii) which is also clearly a violation of Jimbo Guidlines as well. This you avoid, instead you play these silly games of sock puppets, and whatever else you conjure up. JohnHistory 19:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)JohnHistory

Thanks!

Thank you Dorftrottel, for voting on my RfA. Although it failed, I will try to improve in the ways pointed out to me, and maybe I will become an admin next time. If you have any comments, questions, etc., you know where to go. ¿SFGiДnts! ☺ ☻ 21:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Your post re user:JohnHistory

The comments that you site are taken very seriously by the Wiki administration. I know you're on Wikibreak (I am on a semi-break myself), but if you have a mo you might want to pursue it in the appropriate forum. A few harsh remarks here and there can slip by, but the ones you mention are beyond the pale.--Mantanmoreland 16:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

re:double vote

Oops, thanks for cleaning that one up :) James086^{Talk | Email} 09:21, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

RfA Voting

Sorry for the late response. I have changed my vote to neutral in order to prevent cabal allegations from appearing. I do not support the candidate however. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Captain panda (talk • contribs) 13:12, 12 May 2007 (UTC).

Thanks

Aldebear, thank you for your kind support of my RfA, which successfully closed yesterday. Please feel free to drop my a note any time if there is anything I can do for you. Pastordavid 15:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for participating in my RFA, which passed with 53-1-0. I will put myself into the various tasks of a administrator immediately, and if I make any mistakes, feel free to shout at me or smack me in my head. Aquarius • talk 17:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Hi AldeBaer, thanks for your support in my RfA, which passed unopposed. Please let me know if I can be of any assistance. --Seattle Skier (talk) 19:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

defcon

i am very sorry for my disruptions to the wikipedias. Hyper flyin' 09:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/LessHeard vanU

• My bad - didn't see that at all - thanks--VS ^talk 11:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Div style cropping thing

Hi, basicaly you have two layers of DIV tags, one fixed size one that is the "viewport" and one inner one with relative posissioning to move the relevant part of the image into view. Set up a working example here User:Sherool/Crop example. I don't think it works in for example IE 6 though, so not recomended for use in articles... --Sherool (talk) 16:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

No problem, just remember: Internet Explorer doesn't deal very well with this hack (not even version 7) because it always put possisioned elements on top of "normal" elements so the overflow:hidden thing does nothing and you just end up with a oddly possisioned image blocking the menu and most of the text. Looks good in Mozilla (FireFox, Netscape etc.), Opera, Konqueror and such, but there are still a good number of users who stick to using IE for some reason... --Sherool (talk) 17:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Carioca RFA

Thanks for your support on my request for adminship.

The final outcome was (31/4/1), so I am now an administrator. If you have any comments or concerns on my actions as an administrator, please let me know. Thank you! --Carioca 20:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Your comment

I'd appreciate it if you would remove the personal attack on the RfA page about "friends flocking in" and my "political agenda." It's odd that you would suddenly launch an attack after your conciliatory e-mails. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Done. It wasn't meant as a personal attack, though, only irony. But that's ultimately in the eye of the beholder, so I removed it. —AldeBaer 10:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

If you don't feel that you're having or acting out a political agenda, why not just say so on the RfA page? —AldeBaer 10:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Your note

I would block anyone who actually links to an attack site, after an appropriate warning. In this case in point, the user indicated support for such linking, which is not blockable per se, but is (for me) sufficient grounds for rejection as an admin candidate. Crum375 13:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Hi AldeBaer. I'd like to thank you for your support of my RfA. It was closed at surprising 75/0/0, so I'm an admin now. MaxSem 22:46, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: suppressed?

It's quite a strong allegation to say another user "suppressed" your comment, esp. when that comment was a) clearly too long for the RfA page and more suitable for the talk page and b) simply moved there for the convenience of all participants. —AldeBaer 23:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

"Convenience" of those who don't want anyone reading it, certainly. You'll note it was dumped in a section labelled "Moved from talk page" with absolutely no indication of which comment I was replying to, and no indication was made in place of that comment that I had actually replied – Gurch 23:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

"those who don't want anyone reading it" is simply renewing the assumption of bad faith, you realise that, I take it? If you want to make it clear which comment you were replying to, why not simply insert that info on the talk page? —AldeBaer 23:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

A 40-user pile-on oppose initiated at the whim of a few users? Sorry, I'm well past assuming good faith now – Gurch 23:18, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

My Rfa

Hello, AldeBaer. Thank you very much for your kind support on my recent Rfa, it succeeded! I feel thrilled and hope to live up to your expectations. If you see me doing anything inappropriate, please do let me know. ~ Best regards, PeaceNT 11:22, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

My RFA

Many thanks for your support at my RFA. It ended successfully and I am now a glorified janitor. If I can be of any assistance please don't hesitate to contact me through my talk page. Happy editing! —Ocatecir ^Talk 18:29, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Was DennyColt a sockpuppet?

It was obvious from the start that DennyColt was a sockpuppet. What wasn't clear was whether he was a sockpuppet of a user who had been harassed or, as now seems more likely, a troll who wanted to discredit the MONGO ArbCom ruling by exaggerating an interpretation and forcing an implementation.

We don't normally tag sockpuppets unless we have an identified suspect for the puppeteer. Even checkuser requests are supposed to have a suspected puppeteer. "I think X is a puppet of Y because . . ." is far more likely to be accepted than "I'm sure X is a puppet, and I want to know whose puppet it is."

We also don't block sockpuppets just because they're sockpuppets (unless they're sockpuppets of blocked or banned users). There would have to be some evidence that the puppet and puppeteer together took multiple reverts or double votes, or otherwise tried to give a false impression that there was greater support for something than was actually the case.

What can't be denied is that his proposal caused great harm to the people that it was ostensibly supposed to protect. Many of them fell right into the trap, if it was a trap, and supported, in the hope that the proposal, with necessary modifications (and there would have been a lot of necessary modifications), could help them. Now, it seems that those who care more about the rights not to have censorship than about the plight of the victims will do what they can

Hope that helps clarify the situation. Musical Linguist 01:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)