Jump to content

User talk:Gene Poole

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Captain Wikify (talk | contribs) at 05:33, 15 June 2007 (this is sad). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

--Gene_poole 06:18, 25 September 2006 (UTC)/archive 1 - /archive 2 - /archive 3[reply]

Reference for ongoing sockpuppet issues: User talk:Gene Poole/sockpuppets

Vandalism

btw vandalism saw you had omment abut nu disuccsen edit thing so had this idea abut the artickl since did comment somboduy else somwher else on wikipeida .

carbian new nation discussen

hi look like you edit new utopia artickel in discussen at least but why if it is fraud dont you /yours make in info on what happen to the citizens and lawsuites agisnt new utopia that is rumerd to be made ? and if sombody raise that worrys in the discussen pages abut new utopia why do quastibn linke that delted? i mean if its a scam should not sombody guive information abut what who wher abut lawsiutes or things happen in if he get sued by a citizen in virgin island, germany or hounduras ? or (as it look like ) some of the govonouers jump the ship and keep ther citizens infomation/network/adressbok informtaion as a eh way to make a new project in buy island /gated comunity/re? or for fraud ?(if they hade 3200 citizens its a lot of peronal infoamtion that can be abused .. just look on what have to be written in the passport papers...) just a think from sombody that live outside the texas/fbi/sec area

think info that can be abused .. just look on what have to be written in the passport papers... or setup a malinglist/website abut the whole thing ? more dynamic disucssen thwn wiki stuff becuse wikipeida i think is suposed to be epoilykidca not a dynamic weblog rant abut the monthly living of of new country projects ?--61.7.165.135 10:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


How exactly was what I said vandalism in the drop bears article? Mattabat 11:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits here constitute vandalism. Drop bears are not allegedly fictional. They are completely fictional. The rest of what you added is pure fiction. Don't do it again. If you want to add content to WP, ensure you can cite appropriate 3rd party references. --Gene_poole 12:02, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If drop bears are fictional, why didn't provide a third party reference? When and where were they made up, for instance? - The rest of what I added was not pure fiction, it was not cited, there's a difference. I might point out there entire article is not referenced. You are merely voicing your opinion by labelling what I added as vandalism and deleting indiscriminately. I can provide references to aggressive behaviour in koalas towards people when disturbed and handled, however I am discouraged when you are prepared to label others who add as vandals offhandedly and delete their additions. Merely to say something is allegedly fictional is not to say they are real; I mean by saying that although drop bears have been said to be fictional, proof of their non-existence has not been provided. Mattabat 04:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Return of Johnski

Hi, just wanted to let you know that Johnski is testing again. Although all he has done was a spelling correction, it won't be long before he's back at it. Please keep an eye out on the DOM page. Thanks... Davidpdx 13:12, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know to be on the lookout. Johnski is at it again, he left a message on my talk page as well as on the DoM talk page. Both have been reverted, but if you go into the history you can see them. Don't report him just yet though. Let's wait and see what he's up to. Davidpdx 12:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Empire of Atlantium

It looks like it needs an admin to properly restore it. I have put a flag up for that but it may take a little while. Georgewilliamherbert 08:43, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal on Notability

Because you're a member of the Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians, I'm notifying you that the inclusionist proposa Wikipedia:Non-notabilityl is in progress to define the role of notability in articles. Please help us make this successful! Also note the proposal Wikipedia:Importance is a deletionist proposla that seeks to officially introduce notabiltiy for the first time. Make sure this is defeated! --Ephilei 04:33, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Additions to DoM Article

Hi there GP, just wanted to point out the additions I made to the DoM article. Let me know what you think? Can you guess what I'm up to? Davidpdx 11:59, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Archived

Got you archived all the way up to my notice that it's time to archive. The links are at the top of this page, the edit history for whatever is in the archives is still with this page. Cheers! bd2412 T 01:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

Hello, Gene. My name is Claudio de Castro. Just saw your post on my discussion page (claudre). Please add me to your MSN: imperador@reuniao.org . Let us defend micronationalism against its enemies in the wiki. Yours, Claudre 00:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talossa/Atlantium

Gene Poole, I hope you know that the Kingdom of Talossa is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more legitamite than your Empire of Atlantium. Many more newspapers state Talossa than Atlantium. Also, try to stop calling almost every micronation (except for Atlantium, of course) a fictional nation. There's a difference between a fictional nation and a political simulation. Anyway, thanks for supporting me on that page! Kitia 14:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Meroe pyramids 01 x600.JPG

Hi. Some time ago, you uploaded an image Image:Meroe pyramids 01 x600.JPG, indicating that you had permission from the author to release it under the "Creative Commons Attribution NoDerivs 1.0" license. Unfortunately, licenses that bar derivative works are no longer considered free on Wikipedia. Did the permission exactly specify the permitted license, or, did he just say something like "use it as long as you credit me", meaning that a free CC license would also be permisable? If not, would it be possible to seek a more free permission from the original author? BigDT 12:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(In reply to [1]) Please take a look at {{Attribution}}. Does this sound like the permission you received from the copyright holder? If so, please edit the page and replace the image templates there with {{Attribution}}. If not, do you still have the ability to contact the owner and request a particular license, such as {{Cc-by-sa-2.5}} or {{GFDL}}? Thank you. BigDT 11:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ambient music

The definition of ambient music that you edited in 2003 is merely crap. Please tell me man, did you study music theory or physics at university to come here and rant about such music genres? And why do you harrass people that try to improve that article or other articles in general? You should be indefinitely blocked.--Avenger 05:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to suggest you to make your English "less German", it sounds like you actually are from Austria, not Australia.Avenger 05:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's rich, coming from a self-declared space cadet who can barely string two coherent words together. --Gene_poole 04:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete comments

Hi. I have restored the comments that were not made by you. Please help to hold users accountable for their comments by preserving them, unless the comments are destructive, nonsense, or spam. Removing warnings is considered a form of vandalism. Ref: Wikipedia:Removing warnings#Can I do whatever I want to my own user talk page?--Law and Order 08:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Your edit summary hereis a major violation of Wiki etiquette. {{npa3}}.--Law and Order 08:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked Mr. Avengers indefinitely. If someone does this to you again, I'd suggest listing it at on WP:PAIN. --Woohookitty(meow) 09:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is so farcical I can only presume that it is some sort of elaborate jest. - brenneman {L} 09:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, he's actually a full-blown psych case. Avengers is the latest sock of Brian G. Wilson, aka Sky-surfer, who, when challenged for posting nonsense and WP:OR on Ambient music resorted to legal threats (which got him banned) and other general hysteria of which this is a typical example. He also posted what might best be described as a psychedelic stream-of-consciousness rant on his talk page in which he accused everyone who opposed him of being in the pay of the House of Windsor, who are apparently the world's most insidious drug cartel. Funniest thing I've read in years. Unfortunately it seems to have been removed from the page history. --Gene_poole 00:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Johnski At it again

Johnski is at it again. His sock Whatsupdoc has been blanking his user talk page. He then posted a templet to unblock himself, which I reverted. Please make sure he is on your watch list and keep and eye out for him. Thanks.. Davidpdx 09:09, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Johnski has been reverting his talk page again. Here is the 3RR report I filed against him: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR#User:Whatsupdoc_reported_by_User:User:Davidpdx_Davidpdx_09:53.2C_21_August_2006_.28UTC.29.28result:_.29 Davidpdx 10:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3 revert rule

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing in Conch Republic. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you.--Cúchullain t/c 03:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

File:Stop X xp.png
 You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule on Conch Republic. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

The duration of the block is 24 hours. Jonathunder 03:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock|Deliberate misrepresentation by the blocking admin of actions addressing vandalism as a content dispute}}

My reversion of persistent vandalism of Conch Republic by Fairhair does not contravene the 3RR. Vandalism may include the deliberate introduction of false or misleading data into an article, which is precisely the nature of Fairhair's reversions. Should his reversions be allowed to stand, much of the article content will be rendered nonsensical. I have outlined why this is so on the article talk page. There has been no response from any other editor. Multiple third party references cited in the article support my position. There are no reference sources supporting Fairhair's position. Finally, as an editor who has been involved in content disputes with me on the same article in the past, Jonathunder should properly have recused himself from involvement in the present instance. Instead he has abused his admin powers by falsely presenting an instance of vandalism as a content dispute, and instituting a block against me. --Gene_poole 06:18, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking this over as we speak. - brenneman {L} 06:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is painful. Clearly if we accept that the "was" edit is vandalism, you're blocked poorly. However, I think that some possibility exists for interpreting this as a content dispute. Focusing for the moment only on your perception of the events, did you report FH's edits between your note on his talk page and him being blocked anywhere? That is to say, if you listed him on AIV or its ilk, you're obviously in the clear.
brenneman {L} 06:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I also know how painful being blocked and hanging about waiting to see what's happening is, so I'm trying to be as responsive as possble. If you're going to log off/go away/have a cup of tea please do let me know so that I don't think you're staring at the screen in impotent fury.
brenneman {L} 06:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Post block talk

Copied from User talk:Aaron Brenneman

Hi and thanks for taking the time to respond to my unblock request yesterday. Unfortunately I'd already logged off by the time you responded. I'd still like the block dealt with on principle; I've been editing here since 2002 and this is the first block I've ever received. The fact that it was applied as a naked revenge attack by an admin who has related disagreements with me is disturbing. --Gene_poole 08:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(I moved this back here since I like to keep discussions together, so I'm happy for you to respond here and I'll watch the page.) I always like to try dealing with things at the lowest level, so if you'd like some informal mediation on my talk page I'm willing to take the time. I'll be offline in a very few miuntes, but when I return shall I ask Jonathunder to saunter over to my talk page for, well, a talk? - brenneman {L} 08:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fine by me. Thanks. --Gene_poole 08:42, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for persisting, but I wouldn't be holding my breath if I were you. --Gene_poole 12:05, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Our two headed monster is back

Hey GP, long time no see. How's my sock puppet?

Guess who's reared his ugly head again? Yep, he's back. I made a notation on the IP's user page in terms of marking it as a sockpuppet of Johnski. I also went back and added some of his old sockpuppets that weren't in that category, just in case he starts to use those. We might as well tighten the noose now and keep him on a short leash, that way when he starts his usual revert war, we'll know what he's up to.

Anyway, please keep an eye on him. I'm still around pretty often, but I've stopped editing for awhile. You can always send me a message through Wikipedia that will goto my email if you need to get my attention. Davidpdx 11:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick update on the Johnski situation. He has been blanking his talk page again in an attempt to whitewash his bad behavior. If you'd keep an eye out on both things I'd appreciate it. Thanks.. Davidpdx 09:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the news?

Is this you, (4th picture in the row of 4 pictures, below the main stories?) [2] -- Chuq 04:37, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is. Thanks for letting me know. --Gene_poole 08:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Continuous vandalism of valid sourced corrections

I have reported you to the Wikipedia administrators due to your constant vandalism and reverting of valid and properly sourced corrections to the article Conch Republic. In reverting to previous versions, you are not only changing the first paragraph of the article, but are wiping out valid corrections and additions elsewhere in the article (removing valid category tags, spelling/grammatical corrections, etc.) This is a violation of Wikipedia policy and will not be tolerated. Any more removal of valid corrections will be grounds for account deletion. - Marc Averette 13:29, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I'd go that far at this point. (and I don't see it on WP:ANI or WP:AIV, the places where such reports would go). Gene is a valuable contributor. But comments like this one "educating the incurably stupid - and yes, I mean you." really ought not to be made, Gene. At this point if I see another outburst I see a cooling off block for both of you in your futures, because you guys are egging each other on and I suspect you both know better. Mark, I'd dial down the account threats, I'm not sure you're an admin anyway. ++Lar: t/c 16:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I may be a valued contributor, but I also have a finite amount of patience and a low tolerance for people who can't accept that their position is wrong. And by wrong I mean entirely unsupported by anything approaching a reliable third party reference source. --Gene_poole 12:14, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another valid cited source for was/is argument

The Conch (pronounced "conk") Republic was a short-lived micronation in the Florida Keys. Here's some information from their Web page:

Conch Republic (U.S.)

- Marc Averette 13:42, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marc used a secondary source quoting one paragraph from the Conch Republic website out of context, where it uses the past tense describing the secession. The primary source website uses the present tense, of course. Georgewilliamherbert 19:23, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, the first sentence I cited is primary. It then refers to the Conch Republic page (secondary). - Marc Averette 19:52, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
More misquoted nonsense from Marc Averette. Note the quote from the "Honourable Peter Andersen" Secretary General - dated 1998. Strange how they can be quoting him if the Conch Republic doesn't exist. --Gene_poole 08:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How can I possibly use past tense and say "I lived in Miami last year" when I still live in Miami?

How can you continue posting what appear - for all intents and puposes - to be the "so far off topic we've moved to another dimension" ravings of a lunatic on my talk page - and expect me to take you seriously? --Gene_poole 08:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How can I possibly say "Key West was a city at the turn of the century" when it still is a city?

Mr. Howe's reply

Yes, George, you've been involved here on Wikipedia and in the Micronation movement much longer than we peons at Vikesland have. I'll give you that. Second, not that it matters a whole a lot to anyone else beside you, but I can prove my pedigree claims. You deleted them, I've left it as stands, end of story. I'm not sure why you'd care to make an issue of it now unless of course it rubs you the wrong way, which it seems to profusely. Your problem, not mine sir. Finally, I really don't have much patients for the remainder of your nonsense. You're friend FairHair followed you to the Vikesland page and created the AfD based primarily on the fact that he thought you had a self-interest in it. Regarding Prince Christopher Beyette, you and Atlantium would have been better served by attempting some sort of good relations, as it is his documentary that will bring much attention to the micronational movement. Regardless of what you may think, it's not the other way around. Your other statements, accusations, absurdities in making any claims or comparisons of your apartment over Vikesland deserve no further response. Good Luck with your interests.--DukeofAntwerp 16:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as you're deleting my coments from my talk page I'll respond here.
1. I don't give a flying fig about your pedigree. I removed it from the Principality of Vikesland article because it's totally irrelevant to that article.
2. I have precisely zero interest in establishing any sort of relationship with yourself, Mr Beyette or anyone associated with you, as you lack respect, maturity, knowledge and credibility. --Gene_poole 12:15, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantium

Why do I get the siniking feeling that this FairHair is "He Who Must Not Be Named?" OK, I'll say it: Gzornenplatz. You should contact one of the bureaucrats and have the sysops run an IP check. And yes...I voted to keep the article. Damn this site sometimes. - Lucky 6.9 04:17, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tourist dollars

Sorry, my mistake. It still reads oddly to my British eye, but, having found it on the BBC, I suppose it is not just an Americanism and an Australianism. Thanks for the correction --Estrellador* 08:22, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ukrainian pyramids

If you think any of these items are essential to the article, please link them from within the text of the article. Another option is to create a template for pyramids. You should also substantiate your premise that there is some sort of connection between last month's media trick in Ukraine and the world wonder in Egypt. Listcruft looks slovenly and will be deleted, if not by me, then by others. --Ghirla -трёп- 07:06, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

In case you haven't seen the message left for you at Elonka's RfA, I strongly suggest that you read it. Time zones and all - I'm giving you 12 more hours to comply. But I suggest you not make any other edits first. DS 16:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, oh...

Funny how I was just thinking about him, too. Compared to the horrible, race-baiting troll I blocked the other day, ol' Wik seems pretty tame.  :)

I don't have the ability to run an IP check on the account, but it should get done soon when Jimbo looks into it. If it really is Wik, it's amazing how he keeps on skirting blocks. He's probably had an account with every IP in Germany by now. Will you please keep me posted? I've seen this account around here before, but I've never interacted with it.

Thanks, pal. Keep up the good work. - Lucky 6.9 05:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka

Thank you very much for your support in my RfA. Unfortunately consensus was not reached, and the nomination was not successful. However, I do appreciate your comments, am still in support of the Wikipedia project, and will continue to contribute without interruption. Thanks again! --Elonka 19:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate accounts

Hi George, it's time, this has been dragged on long enough. I'm sure you're aware of the rules on what's not allowed with alternate accounts. It's really not that big a deal, just tell me which account you want to keep as your main account and don't use others for voting. And save me the song and dance, I've been editing with you for over two years now, and I've known the account was an alternate of yours since soon after it arrived. You seem to want the best for the project and probably justify the use of mulitple accounts as being needed, but it's not. What's best for the project is not to continue this any longer. Thanks - Taxman Talk 15:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As you well know, I have one account, and this is it. Whatever other accounts you think may be mine, aren't - so you can stop your "song and dance" about it. --Gene_poole 00:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hiya, in order to help conclude this matter, would it be alright with you if I submitted a CheckUser, to settle things once and for all? --Elonka 01:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the efforts, but he's known that people have known about his alternate accounts for long enough that checkuser would not be useful. Besides, checkuser is not to be used for obvious cases of sockpuppetry. For the record, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. - Taxman Talk 19:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Elonka, thanks - but as you can see, there's obviously a gang of admins and bureaucrats here with serious power issues. No amount of evidence or good faith discussion is going to convince such people to call off the dogs - they seem intent on prosecuting a personal crusade and that, it seems, is that. Taxman, your actions are a disgrace for someone in your position. You have no evidence of anything - merely bad faith assumptions which you keep repeating as though they are facts. I'm no longer willing to humour you. Get the hell off my talk page - and stay off. If you post any further personal attacks they will be deleted. --Gene_poole 01:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Gene, I am doing my best to assume good faith here. I assure you that I can understand the frustration that can be generated from feeling unfairly "ganged up on." However, I must strongly urge you to cease personal attacks on other editors. The more that you succumb to the temptation to be rude, the more that people are convinced that any accusations against you must be true. And to be honest, I have to admit that every time I see you indulge in name-calling, I lose respect for you as well.  :/ Please read WP:CIVIL. --Elonka 22:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And integrity would dictate that you consider the questions I posed to you in response to your "warning". You don't really have to answer, because considering the questions should help point out the extreme disconnect between what you are willing to consider as an attack by others and what you are willing to not consider as an attack when you make it. - Taxman Talk 15:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Integrity would dictate that you refrain from making unprovoked attacks on other editors, and then accuse them of attacking you whenever they try to defend themselves. The term for that, as you well know, is spin. --Gene_poole 21:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, well if you still think you're the one being attacked, and you're not making personal attacks, then why didn't you answer the questions? They are copied below to make it easier and lightly edited to fit the context of this page. Also, as mentioned by others you really should stop editing from various IP addresses to evade the block. A group of admins has come to the consensus that the evidence I gave was compelling, so evading the block is not an appropriate response. - Taxman Talk 03:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh come off the grass. You've assembled every editor who's ever been on the wrong side of a discussion with me (at least the ones who haven't already been hard-banned or self-destructed) gotten them to agree to a conspiracy blancmange of biblical proportions, and then blocked one of my closest collaborators for the sin of sharing my opinion on issues that your little gang just all happen to strongly disagree with. And, less than 24 hours after that - hey presto! Wik reappears and starts vandalising articles like he had a license to do so. You then have the hide to flutter your eyelids coyly at me while pretending innocence. Seems to me you're the last person around here who should be lecturing people on "integrity". --Gene_poole 04:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In reference to your third question, perhaps you should consider this: the only people I've ever accused of being disruptive, or sockpuppets have all - without a single exception - proven to be so, and were either permanently blocked, or self destructed. The list speaks for itself:
  • Wik - psychotic troll blocked by the Arbcom.
  • Gzornenplatz - sock of Wik hard banned by Jimbo.
  • Samboy - anally-retentive stalker who left Wikipedia in frustration after failing to get me "punished" for imagined abuses.
  • IndigoChild - raving nutter who left Wikipedia in a rage after I and others prevented him from publishing his original research.
  • MPLX - another psych case, who you should remember from Sealand. Left Wikipedia in an insane rage after offending dozens of editors with his monomaniacal POV-pushing.
  • Johnski - puppetmaster and self-promoter permanently blocked by the Arbcom.
  • Harvardy - indefinitely blocked as a sock of Wik.

Pretty good record, don't you think? --Gene_poole 04:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One among a number of the problems with your theory is that I didn't "assemble" anything. I made the one post to AN/I and notified you and no one else. A number of very well respected admins showed up and agreed the evidence was compelling. If you've had problems with that many good contributors that should tell you something. And I'm not a bit surprised you didn't try to actually answer any of the questions. - Taxman Talk 05:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think we have a Wik infestation (assuming that's who Harvardy really is), but I think there are two unrelated sets of things here, Gene. The admins aren't Wikpuppets. Even I have had my suspicions over time that you and Centauri are just one you. As I said elsewhere, if you really aren't, then there are ways to verify in real life (to the Foundation, or someone else that everyone will trust) that there are two of you.
Attacking everyone who thought you might be a sockpuppet pair is not reasonable. This seems to have brought Harvardy out of the woodwork, but he wasn't one of those admins. The two problems are of completely different nature and completely different solution; the block may have provoked the vandalism, but that doesn't mean that they were both caused by vandals. These are good people here (who happen not to entirely like you, but they aren't WP vandals).
If you're going to defend the sockpuppet allegation, the medium has to be some sort of real world verification which they will believe.
Please don't go attacking everyone over this.
Thanks.
Georgewilliamherbert 03:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone could get one of their friends after the fact to claim they are a given user. Your proposed method isn't robust to abuse GWH. The evidence has been considered, lets just let it go and go work on some articles. Otherwise good points. - Taxman Talk 04:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
More flippant warbling. If you think I'm going to "let it go" after having my integrity attacked so openly, you've got another thing coming kiddo. Better get comfortable; it's going to be a long night. --Gene_poole 21:45, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Micronation flag

Gene Poole: I recently removed a link to Category:National flags from the page of Flag of the Gay and Lesbian Kingdom of the Coral Sea Islands because it is a micronation. Before I get all indignant towards User:GilliamJF for putting it back, I want to ask if I did the right thing; i.e. other micronations, due to the fact that they are not recognised by other countries, are not on the 'official' national flags page. (I ask you because your name is on the history page many times for Flags of micronations.) Scoutersig 01:20, 27 October 2006 (UTC) (Forgot to sign earlier)[reply]

Done deal.

I've blocked those two obvious socks as Wik impersonators/socks. That, my friend, is one sick little monkey. As far as Mike Harvardy is concerned, the best thing for you to do at this point is to have someone like Fred Bauder or even Jimbo cross-reference the IP's between his and Wik's. That's beyond my reach, I'm afraid. I'm personally not convinced that Mike and Wik are the same person, but that's just conjecture on my part. I don't want to make the mistake of reblocking an innocent user. Thanks for turning to me. Always glad to help. BTW, send me an e-mail if you haven't yet. That way, I'll have your new address. - Lucky 6.9 03:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No prob. Had a bit of slow time here at work, so chalk it up to good timing. The edit summaries the socks left are classic Wik. After what that guy did to me, it's a pleasure to blow him out of the water on sight. - Lucky 6.9 03:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Harvedy

I'm not sure whether he is or not. I just happened to see the edit. Haven't been around much, but I do keep an eye on it. Davidpdx 22:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Favor

GP, could you do me a favor and add this page to your watchlist Morris R. Jeppson. This article is about my grandfather and someone is vandalising it. It's really pissing me off. If you could keep an eye on it, I'd appreciate it. Thanks.. Davidpdx 09:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism of my user page

Well he has now begun to vandalise my user page. Can you put this on your watch list as well. I'll send a note to Tom Harrison and see if we can get rid of him. Davidpdx 03:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. If you could do the same for me I'd appreciate it. He used the Fairhair sock to vandalise my user page over the weekend too. --Gene_poole 03:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Potts Point

I got the figure of 9,007 from the 2001 census, 1,842 of whom were visitors, leaving a resident population of 7,165. Orderinchaos78 02:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User pages

Do not keep tagging a contributor's page as a sock unless you actually have some evidence of this. Jonathunder 14:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And for future reference, if you're going to get into a revert fight, perhaps you'd like to bring the affair to the attention of someone who can block or protect? --Golbez 00:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did. I listed it on vandalism in progress. I'm still waiting for someone to respond. I note the account still hasn't been blocked despite the fact you believe I'm right. --Gene_poole 00:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're right about warnings not being removed. I haven't examined the content behind them, nor do I intend to at this point - especially since he's already banned. --Golbez 01:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute Tag DoM

GP, how do you feel about the that has been added to DoM. Also someone is calling for the article to be locked for a month (although it hasn't). Davidpdx 04:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion

I have deleted your Wikipedia:Third opinion request because:

Question

Hello, have you read WP:COI? According to that, it seems like you probably should avoid editing articles related to your organization. Probably should also avoid participating in deletion discussions about Atlantium. Does that make any sense? ~a (user • talk • contribs) 07:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I'm aware of that policy. I've been contributing NPOV content to the article - mostly citations and references - for over 4 years, so there's no demonstrable conflict of interest. Other than that I merely rollback obvious trolling and vandalism. All the people who have done that have now been banned, so it's no big deal. --Gene_poole 23:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Completely off topic and frivolous whining, but there you are.

Darn you. You've stolen my username. Only, not really, because you had it first. Still... I started using the moniker Gene Poole on USEnet in 1999, or something like that. And you beat me to it here, obviously, because I just started fiddling with wikipedia the last year or so.

So, in summary: waah! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.38.59.90 (talk) 01:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Actually I started using Gene Poole on bulletin boards in 1992. So double checkmate with chocolate on top... and nyah ni nyah ni nyah nyah for good measure! :-) --Gene_poole 12:02, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Untagged image

An image you uploaded, Image:Arms Avram.GIF, was tagged with the {{coatofarms}} copyright tag. This tag was deleted because it does not actually specify the copyright status of the image. The image may need a more accurate copyright tag, or it may need to be deleted. If the image portrays a seal or emblem, it should be tagged as {{seal}}. If you have any questions, ask them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- 14:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Brent

I just checked out your user page. Anyone ever tell you you're a dead ringer for Brent? --90.240.34.177 18:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Except he's half as good-looking, and 10 times as wealthy. --Gene_poole 02:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Place names considered unusual

Regarding Place names considered unusual, I have now protected the article from editing, please discuss you concerns on the article talk page. Thanks/wangi 23:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coats of arms of micronations

The link to this article from your user page wasn't working, so I created a redirect, but you may wish to take a look at where you want your user page to link. I also added the Category:Micronations to said article, because I knew it was out there and that I had seen it a few times before, but I couldn't figure out how to get to it! PubliusFL 23:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Ultima Thule Ambient Music

An editor has nominated Ultima Thule Ambient Music, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not"). Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ultima Thule Ambient Music and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. Jayden54Bot 12:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

With regards to your comments on User talk:Doktor Who: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. PeaceNT 10:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreement

Our fighting gets us know where so I would just like to end our large disagreement, we can peacefully coexist and contribute to Wikipedia. At least we are both argumentative. Sloveniaiscool 19:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only one doing any "fighting" is you, and you can stop it any time you feel like it. You're also welcome to make a positive contribution to Wikipedia any time you like. --Gene_poole 05:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pyramids

Hi Gene, I saw that you reverted my edits on a couple of pyramid related pages to include links to the pages on Ukrainian and Bosnian pyramids (and for links to the pyramid category as well). I just wanted to clarify why these links do not belong. The Bosnian "pyramid" is considered a hoax. If the digging on the Bosnian hill does eventually reveal a pyramid, then the links are justified. However, until proof of a pyramid is found, the site remains a hill, with an archeologically significant medieval village on top. In the case of the Ukrainian pyramid, the press simply carried a wrong impression of the site into the popular culture. This innacuracy was soon clarified by the archaeologist in charge. Hiberniantears 12:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not revert the external links sections of pyramid articles again. I am well aware that the Bosnian and Ukrainian "pramids" are not really pyramids, and that the scientific consensus supports this - however that is entirely beside the point; the main reason they are known by most people is because some people claimed they were pyramids; it is not for us to make value judgements concerning those claims; our job is simply to provide links to all pyramid-elated articles and let people read those articles and decide for themselves. The "see also" list is a list of related subjects - it is not merely a list of "legitimate pyramids". --Gene_poole 01:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I think when something is either falsely called, or accidentally called, something it is not, no reasonable source of information would list it said entity under the misleading heading. For example, when a toddler calls a car a boat, the rest of the world does not have to amuse the toddler by now considering cars as boats "because some people claimed they were" boats. I realize you're taking an inclusionist stance on this, and I respect that. However, I think the fact that the articles themselves are already improperly named is inclusionist enough. Including the Ukrainian and Bosnian "pyramids" in a list of legitimate pyramids is very efficient way to undermine any intellectual weight this encyclopedia has. I think making lists of things which are entirely opposed to the scientific consensus (and in the case of the dig site in Ukraine, against the stated clarification by the archaeologist leading the dig) is irresponsible. To that end, I am once again making my reverts, but in the interest of fairness, I am also moving this conversation to the talk pages of the articles. Hiberniantears 12:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gene, I'm trying to avoid a revert war. Move it to the article's talk pages rather than reverting without discussion. It seems clear that we are both willing to revert each other ad infinitum, and that is pointless. ThanksHiberniantears 21:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Stop it"? I'm going to lengths to engage in debate about the very validity of the removed content. Linking an Egyptian pyramid to a Bosnian hill is not NPOV. As an example, I have left the Bosnian link on the Ukrainian page, as they are both not examples of pyramids, but things which (as you point out) someone has called a pyramid. Therefore, the Bosnian page and Ukraine page are both relevent to each other, but not to the other pyramid pages. My intention here is not to supress content, but rather to see that it is placed appropriately based on fact, and proven, credible research. Hiberniantears 21:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for adding discussion to the talk pages of the articles in question. I will respect your current revert for at least a period of days in an attempt to create some debate on the topic. Hiberniantears 22:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Music article sock allegations

Gene, can you avoid throwaway sockpuppet allegations on these articles? If you really think they're socks or long term problems, file a WP:RFCU, or make a similar-editing case, but just making the acusation on article talk pages is not civil. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert 04:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and not WP:RFC/U, which is for user conduct. Thanks. Real96 02:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not quite sure what your message means. I'm opening an RFC on an editor with longterm issues abusing multiple WP policies. What is the problem? --Gene_poole 02:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO, RFC/U is a little slow, because there is a backlog of RFCUs since January. If you want to file a sockpuppet case, then file a WP:RFCU. Also, you need another person certifying the dispute. Real96 02:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(reduce indent) Thanks for your response. Frankly I'm at my wits end with this matter.

I tried a limited RFCU about a month back, and it ended in chaos when the puppetmaster bombarded the request with such a huge volume of obfuscatory nonsense that the original request got completely lost in his avalanche of barely coherent multiple sockpuppet postings - which is obviously exactly what he intended. This is part of his established pattern of behaviour, and it's been very successful to date.

A broader RFC, dealing with all the puppetmaster's socks (that I'm aware of) seems like it has a greater chance of resulting in a more useful outcome. --Gene_poole 03:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you respond on this talk page when we are engaging in conversation, per my talk page rules? Thanks! Real96 02:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TourEgypt

If you wish to find out about the TourEgypt.net situation, you can visit this site at WimiMedia. [3] You have to sign in before you can give a response, however. I agree that TourEgypt is one of the best sites on the WWW; it is unfortunate some unknown administrator on a Wikipedia board suddenly decided to blacklist the site without bothering to ask the opinion of Wikipedia's own registered editors here! The way the decision was made just smealls of elitism. Leoboudv 23:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Advice

Hi. It's generally not a good idea to post uncivil comments and engage in unsubstantiated personal attacks against someone when making similar accusations against them. It tends to detract somewhat from your credibility. More so, when the subject of your attack hasn't actually done anything wrong. I refer you to WP:CIVIL. Thanks. --Gene_poole 04:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here, swallow you own advice. You can dish it out but can't take it. I come to Wikipedia for the intelluality, not to read your attacks against others who actually have something substantial to offer. Cricket02 06:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting Seborga

I had the exact same idea during the recent discussion over the move of the Sealand article to Principality of Sealand. I was thinking that following the same naming convention for Seborga wouldn't work because the article covers both the micronational principality and the municipality -- unless Principality of Seborga covered just the micronation. I would support such a split. PubliusFL 00:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DOM Again

User:Oregonic has edited the DoM article, specifically the section about Mark Logan Pedley. You might want to head over there and take a look what I did. I left some of the edit, but reverted the header that the person changed. If you remember back a couple of months, this is the same jerk that was harrassing me about the article on my grandfather Morris Jeppson. I think we'd better keep a close eye on this. I'm not around as much as before, but I try to check in often. Please let me know what you think. Davidpdx 09:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently User:Harvardy is back again as well and has messed up the article quite a bit in the last day or so. Tom Harrison has Semi-Protected the DoM article as some of the edits were done by Harvedy before he was logged in, which pretty much outs his IP address. I've reverted back the edits after TH did once a day or so ago. My guess is we're going to see quite a bit of this for a couple of months. I hope your around to help. Davidpdx 00:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. I see he's been vandalising my talk page to. Thanks for the heads up. --Gene_poole 21:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I saw part of that already, but that is pretty funny. He left a message on my talk page and I told him to refrain from ever writing on my walk page. He called me a "dick" on a message on his talk page. Davidpdx 08:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo is coming to Sydney

Sorry to spam you if you aren't interested. See Wikipedia:Meetup/Sydney#April 25th for more info if you are interested. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Harvardy

I don't know what the hell the situation is, but cut it out. If you have suspicions that the user is sock, write up a WP:SSP page or file a WP:ANI report or something productive. Calling other user's edits trolling will also not be tolerated unless you provide some evidence. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 01:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GP, I'm going to send you an email. Sit tight and take a look at it before doing anything else. I think some of our questions will be answered quickly if it plays out like I think it will. Davidpdx 09:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to look here [4] please don't post anything there until you get an email from me. I need to tell you something. Davidpdx 10:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, please remove it for now and then take a look at my email. Davidpdx 10:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like I'm not going to have a problem with you know who after all. I'll continue to redouble my efforts on the Johnski matter and let you know if I get anywhere. You might also want to take a look at the recent changes I've reverted in which he mentions an SEC decision having to do with fraudulent stocks. In one of the footnotes it mentions DoM as a "virtual nation" and he's been trying to get that into the article. Davidpdx 00:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of the Hutt thing, I'm going to stay out of it. If he starts posting that drivel other places, then I'll cut in. Davidpdx 01:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GP, yes in fact I'm way ahead of you. It's already done. We'll see if anything come of it. I've gotten no response on the other complaint regarding the Arbitration violation. Davidpdx 01:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are a total of 3 complain reports on him at this point. We'll see if any of them actually work. Davidpdx 02:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GP, I have asked the admin who protected Harvardy's user page to unprotect it and allow me to readd the sockpuppet warning since he has been banned indefinately. Davidpdx 09:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GP, you might want to look at my user page. I added something pretty funny to it. Davidpdx 10:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please can you explain?

Can you explain to me why you removed the info box and material at Moama, New South Wales and left a message that it was spam? I'm assuming that it was a mistake and you meant it for another page?--VS talk 03:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ANI thread

As a sockpuppetry followup, I would be interested in your opinion on the evidence that I have collated at ANI, as to whether you think that this is the same person as DreamGuy/Victrix from your sockpuppetry check last year.[5] --Elonka 23:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but this has nothing to do with me. On cursory examination the edit descriptions look like classic Wik, and if so, both accounts should be blocked. --Gene_poole 21:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Would you be willing to post that at the ANI thread? --Elonka 22:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done. If it is Wik, I'll take great pleasure in seeing him banned for the fourth time. --Gene_poole 22:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Who

Hi there, I'm a part-time editor who has had problems in the past with Mr "Who". See my talk history (revision of 18 Oct 06) for the sort of nonsense I had to put up with. He disappeared for a few months after I shook him down but I now see he is back (hence I have become aware of your interaction with him). I know nothing of Wiki complaints proceedures but am available for input on this fellow's history should you require. RichardJ Christie 12:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

[6] [7]
These comments, especially the latter, are really out of line. See you in 24 hours. – Steel 12:11, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell are you talking about? kingboyk openly threatened me, and repeatedly vandalised the articles exactly as I indicated. --Gene_poole 12:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Diffs...? – Steel 12:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Go look at his edit history. --Gene_poole 12:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

I cannot agree with your comments at Wikipedia talk:Micronations. Wikipedia does need notability guidelines, and verifiability is not enough; otherwise, I could make a scan of my birth certificate, my ID card, and create an article about myself. (For another extreme example, see Notice posted on the corridor of the ground floor at Hietalahdenkatu 7A, Helsinki, Finland - which could easily be verified by photographing it.) By on the other hand, you have a point; notability overlaps with verifiability, to an extent. If a topic has non-trivial coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources, it can be considered notable. (See Wikipedia:Notability.) Regards, Mike Rosoft 12:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Giorgio I, Prince of Seborga

Hi, Giorgio I, Prince of Seborga should also remain as its own article pending an AfD. BlueValour 23:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop stalking me

I've watchlisted every article I've touched today, and you're appearing all over it like you're flavour of the month. It's not just micronations it's the monarchy list too, so presumably you're working your way through my contribs rolling back my work... --kingboyk 00:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Gene Poole (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Block has been made under false premises. Kingboyk's edits are part of an ongoing, concerted 1-man campaign to remove, obscure and otherwise make invisible a wide range of content concerning micronations - a subject about which he is personally dismissive. His actions in doing so are unilateral, and are unsupported by talk page discussions or any other attempt to achieve prior consensus. They also go against the long-established consensus that properly-referenced micronation content should be included in WP. I rolled back some (certainly not all) of his edits, (stating my reasons for doing so clearly in the edit summary in all cases), as it is customary in situations where one editor whishes to make controversial changes to an article for the article to be left in its default position, until the minority position can be supported by consensus. --Gene_poole 03:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I know it can be frustrating when you are on the opposite side of a content dispute with an administrator. It can certainly seem like he/she is throwing his/her weight around. However frustrating it may be, you must still remember to be civil. You raise good points, and I might not have blocked you under the same circumstances; however, quite frankly, edits like this suggest that you could use a day to cool down. I am going to deny this request and I hope you resume editing (sans hostility) in 18 hours when the block expires. If you have trouble again, I or any number of others would be happy to mediate. Please feel free to contact me if you feel I can be of assistance. — Selket Talk 05:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Blocked: 24 hours for edit warring. Edit warring is not permitted and is a blockable offense, even if you don't violate the 3 revert rule, which is simply one measure of edit warring. In 2 hours you made 12 reverts to 9 articles, and only commented on the talk page of one of the articles. You also seem to indicate [8] a willingness to continue edit warring. When your block expires you would be well advised to pursue some form of dispute resolution, rather than resuming mass reversions. Perhaps the issues surrounding micronations would be suited to mediation or a centralized discussion. Thatcher131 00:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that over the past 72 hours kingboyk has been engaged in a campaign to delete from WP as many references to micronations as he can lay his hands on. His actions include listing numerous articles on AFD which have already survived multiple AFD attempts, listing numerous images for deletion which are correctly tagged, and for which no copyright issue exists, and redirecting pages without discussion. His actions are unsupported by reference sources or consensus, and I and others have rolled them back accordingly. The block applied in response is unjustified and should be removed. Thanks. --Gene_poole 00:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You can use {{unblock}} for an independent review. In my view, if the situation is as you describe, you should try mediation or a centralized discussion rather than edit warring. Thatcher131 00:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'll take your advice. --Gene_poole 02:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grand Duchy of Avram

You may have a better chance getting the article to stay if you can present additional sources that discuss the topic. JoshuaZ 00:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. The issue is not "getting the article to stay". The article is not going to be deleted because there's obviously no consensus for that. The problem is the fact that it's become caught up in a highly disruptive 1-man crusade to delete, merge or otherwise make inviusible as much micronation content from WP by Kingboyk. He tried something similar 12 months ago, and failed, because his actions go against a long-established consensus, and in many cases constitute WP:OR. Unfortunately, he doesn't appear to see the irony in complaining about the "loss" of his "hard work" while attempting - in a single day - to wipe out a huge amount of hard work and valuable content contributed by many dozens of other editors over the past 5 years. --Gene_poole 02:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coats of arms of micronations

Please note that the above article has been improperly deleted, and will accordingly need to be restored. The AFD result was "no consensus", with 8 votes supporting deletion, and 7 votes supporting retention. --Gene_poole 03:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Micronation flags

Ah, I understand the sentence now; I hope you won't mind that I tweaked it a bit. —ScouterSig 01:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Change looks good to me. Thanks. --Gene_poole 02:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Micronations

Hi Gene, Is there such a creature as Wikiproject:Micronations, or something similar? If not, are you interested in starting one? I have no idea what the process is for creating a Wikiproject, but would be interested in participating if such were formed. --killing sparrows (chirp!) 21:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Giorgio Carbone

I should be grateful if you would watchlist Giorgio Carbone since it is being regularly vandalised. BlueValour 14:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Images without a source

Hi, I tagged three of your images as having no source. Image:Aurora islands x640.JPG, Image:Sedang marie 01.JPG and Image:Bumbunga map 01.JPG. Please add the source otherwise these images will be deleted. Thanks, Garion96 (talk) 15:51, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hate it when people are not notified when their images are listed on Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images.

Regarding the other images. For example the coin, the image of a coin is copyrighted by someone. The fact that you made a picture of it doesn't mean you can release it under the GFDL. The same counts for flags, stamps etc. Obvious example: I can't scan an image of Mickey Mouse from a comic (even if I own the comic) and release it under the GFDL. Hope this helps, Garion96 (talk) 23:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on how much of the image is your own work. A sole scan of Mickey Mouse from a comic, no. A photo of 20 coins neatly arranged with captions included, I guess also no, but don't know for sure. Since you would incorporate someone else his copyright in your image and release that under the gfdl. Either way, on wikipedia the image would fall under fair use (non-free content). The image must have a non-free content tag (see Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Non-free content and pass the Wikipedia:non-free content criteria. Garion96 (talk) 00:16, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Arms Aramoana.GIF)

Thanks for uploading Image:Arms Aramoana.GIF. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 22:33, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good :)

I'll be happy to support it. Orderinchaos 01:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Funny

(random comment) The genepoole is evil bit on your subpage is really funny --Munkee madness 16:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Arms Aramoana.GIF)

Thanks for uploading Image:Arms Aramoana.GIF. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 23:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adding name to project

Then add away.New Babylon 2 05:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free use disputed for Image:Arms Melchizedek.GIF

Warning sign This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Arms Melchizedek.GIF. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 19:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have made my comments on the discussion page. The entire page you have published is a front loaded slander. It contains every piece of negative writing on New Utopia and nothing about the current work or effort being made to bring off this huge undertaking. Building a nation in 65 feet of water is extremely difficult and incredibly expensive. To see the efforts of this group being slandered by uninformed outsiders with no clue of the day to day goings on with this Government is intolerable.

New Utopia has government representatives and agents near Sydney Australia who would be happy to meet with you to discuss the validity of this project with you in person if you like or by phone if more convenient. The Principality of New Utopia consul for Australia would be the contact person. There are thousands of people who are citizens of this nation. This is taken very seriously by many of them. Seeing their efforts mis-characterized is disheartening to say the least.Vortexentity 03:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)vortexentity[reply]

micronation project

What does 'signing on' entail? What would I be signing up to do? How actively involved would I be expected to become? Bo 15:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really now

What part of "templates aren't created by voting on them" don't you understand? >Radiant< 08:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What part of "straw polls are a legitimate consensus-building exercise and if you don't like it that's just too bad" do you not understand? --Gene_poole 06:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What part of "Radiant! is a highly respected administrator and could crush you, a user with a hefty block log, for being a dick in an instant" do you not understand? And coincidentally, Jimbo was one of the first people to discourage straw polls. Now I know you don't want to mess with him. --Captain Wikify Argh! 17:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What part of "Admin threats are generally not considered helpful in discussions, even by proxy, do you not understand"? Admins are supposedly like any other editors, but with more responsibility and custodial roles, not with larger sticks. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 10:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And Gene is generally being a dick, which is unhelpful in any sort of discussion. Admin or not, I'm allowed to tell him to knock it off. --Captain Wikify Argh! 03:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh come off the grass. The problem here is not and has never been me. The problem here is a tiny group of admins who simply don't like my contributions to WP and, having failed repeatedly and consistently to obtain anything even remotely resembling a consensus for their POV, have made it their personal crusade to make life as difficult as possible for me out of a sense of sheer bloody-mindedness. Their attacks are now becoming increasingly desperate as their influence wanes, and my response is simply to get on with the job at hand, which is to continue my 4+ year history as a respected contributor to the project. --Gene_poole 00:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are pushing Radiant's buttons back, and clearly pushing Captain Wikify's buttons back, too. It does take two to tango in most hostile arguments. Georgewilliamherbert 00:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your attempt at injecting some moderation here. Personally I think it's entirely reasonable for me to point out a few home truths to editors who I've never heard of before - like Captain Wikify - when they suddenly appear out of nowhere on my talk page and post infantile threats and personal abuse. As for Radiant & Co, we all know what's going on there - but as I can't say anything nice I'll follow my mother's sage advice and say nothing at all. --Gene_poole 02:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, please. If you're going to be foolish enough to confront an administrator you believe to be corrupt with a hostile message, you deserve the treatment you're getting. I calmly observed this situation from the side until I saw the comment you left on Radiant's page. That was just sad. Seriously, what were you trying to accomplish? And if you don't like a "group of administrators" (which, as far as I can tell, is nearly every administrator on Wikipedia; your block log and general disrespect to other editors is enough to make any editor cringe), why not leave? No one's forcing you to stay. If the system really is as corrupt as you say it is, don't stick around to watch it. --Captain Wikify Argh! 05:33, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note

You are kindly reminded of our policies on civility and against personal attacks. You have been blocked for incivility and harassment in the past, so it would be prudent if you were to avoid such behavior in the future. >Radiant< 10:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gene_Poole&oldid=138292616"