User talk:Mathmo

Leave me a new message (bottom page).

Mysterymethod/themysterymethod

Thanks for your note! I notice that Mystery Method has announced that the domain mysterymethod.com is not secure, even if there does appear to be a redirect to themysterymethod.com They've been advising affiliates, advertisers, and so on to update their links.

And the book copyright is important - it's a company book and a work for hire, not Erik's book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clockworkorange101 (talk • contribs) 20:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

hmm... once again I've never seen this notification anywhere? Would be curious to read this, but I'm guessing you are possibly right. I'd have to check my copy of VAH as to if and for whom a copy right is mentioned. I'll get back to you on that later. Mathmo ^Talk 17:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey buddy - hope your arm is better. Do you have yahoo IM? Maybe we can work on updating these pages together Clockworkorange101 23:42, 23 December 2006 (UTC)Clockworkorange101

I do, but last time I used it would have been years ago. Generally those time when I do use an IM it is gchat, address is the same as my username here. Arm still broken.... ah well, whatever. One of the dangers of being a cyclist. I'd guess you are on MM forums? Mathmo ^Talk 04:24, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

• Actually the reason given for the block was trolling. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

claiming i was trolling (which was also absolutely NOT my intention) is a complete about face tactic against me, what Robotman1974 was causing trouble with is claiming I am a vandal. as such any consideration over if I ought to be unblocked or not should be taking if i was or if i was not a vandal into consideration. Mathmo ^Talk 17:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism was probably a bit harsh even for such a heated subject, however, you were clearly disruptive with your edit warring and well over the three revert rule. Comments made by others before this block doesn't change the legitimacy of the block. If you are willing to agree not to add the abbreviation to the article any more or edit war over the article, HighInBC might consider unblocking you. Shell ^babelfish 17:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

thank you, yet another user is seeing that it would be going too far too call it vandalism. i'll concede in other areas i didn't act as well as i should have, but because from the beginning the claims being brought against me by Robotman1974 were that I am a vandal (which as I've said so many times, I am NOT) my responses and explanations have always been aimed at that. but as nobody brought up any other reasons whatsoever (except at a very late stage when/after i was blocked) there was no reason for me to act in response to that. if they had been mentioned and brought up i'd have seen them and in all probability have comprised as is reasonable. Mathmo ^Talk 17:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• • You were warned that specifics actions would result in a block, you did it anyways. There is nothing unfair going on here. Your block has been reviewed and found to be correct. Just wait it out, and don't do it again. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Welcomes

First welcome is from me, the old fella who doesn't need a holiday job (which is what I expect has caused your brief disappearance). As I said on your other Talk page, that's a good list of contributions from you (New Zealand sport, etc), and I hope we get more soon. Kia ora! Robin Patterson 08:04, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC) Argument for "The seduction community cartel" to be chucked of wikipedia

Ah, my disappearance is probably more likely to be related to my utter laziness. Oh, although for the past few weeks I've been a bit busy with the NZ Ironman which I did recently and that went well. mathmo

Aquathlon -- more popular than triathlon?

Hi Mathmo, Congrats on your Ironman!

I left some comments regarding the aquathlon article that you revised on 06:39, 16 April 2005. You can see them on the Talk page

--Tiger Marc 21:03, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Cheers!

(did ironman again this month, in terms of rankings I did heaps better. However the weather gods were hardly with us and made it a difficult day for everybody) Mathmo 09:19, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Note to self, apply for this eventually. [1]

Vandalism Claims

Mathmo, please do not make vandalism claims regarding POV edits that were done by various people nearly ONE WHOLE YEAR ago. I see you have done this to several people. It is annoying. ^rossnixon 01:16, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Err I was offline for a week, and as such looking back at what I put on your talk page I've got no idea at all as to what I was talking about. The link to the edit is perfectly fine it would seem. :s So I'm sorry about what I put on you talk page, shouldn't have. Probably was thinking of someting completely different and got my wires crossed. Probably too tired/stressed or something. Meh, still am because I'm rambling along.... Mathmo 12:53, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Miniature Wargaming

I recommend you remove the miniature wargames you think are less popular. Some of them don't even have articles, and either way, I have created an article for the full list (incuding the less popular ones) to be kept in List of Miniature Wargames. Grimhelm 17:01, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I wanted to be more careful about removing ones I think are less popular, because I know there are a lot of rulesets out there which are played a lot yet I barely know about. Plus just because there isn't (yet) an article about a set of rules doesn't mean that they do not have a significant following. So I thought that getting people to vote on them would make sure that I neither remove any that I shouldn't or overlook any others that should be included. Mathmo 06:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

false claims of vandalism

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, as you did to John Ince, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

What the hell?!? I do NOT vandalise pages, good grief. Try taking a closer look at the page first, then you will see what I actually did is fix it by reverting it back to an earlier edit. Mathmo 03:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Mathmo, I took a look at this article and think it is unfair to call what you did vandalism. I created a page for the other John Ince to disambiguate and restored your text. Marasmusine 19:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Glad you agree with me, and I think what you have done of creating a 2nd page probably is an improvement over what I did. (mine was the lazy easy option...) Mathmo 16:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Ha! Turns out now I take a second look at it my original quick and easy approach of reverting will probably turn out to have been the best way too. What an ironic world we live in. Mathmo 17:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Maths and Physics

Hey man if you are from Auckland and study maths and physics I probably know you... -- Perceptual Chaos 01:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC) hit me up with an email

POV edit

The Helen Clark article is not an appropriate place to discuss the Israeli attack which killed UN observers on July 25. The article Attacks on United Nations personnel during the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict is. Otherwise, we'll have this battle at the article of every world leader who has criticised Israel over the incident.-gadfium 19:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

You seem to have completely missed the point of what this editor was trying to add. He was NOT specifically commenting on that one attack, but adding something to do with the PM's general opinion on an important aspect of international politics. Certainly a very suiting thing to have on an article about a political leader. Mathmo 19:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Nice guy syndrome

Basically, that article was nominated for Articles for Deletion, and the consensus was delete. Before the AfD was finished, I saw it and was amused, and copied it to my userspace, and removed the copy from article categories, removed the AfD tag, and added a note that it was a user page, not an encylopedia article. You can see the AfD here.

If you want it to be put back in the main namespace (as an article), my reccommendation would be to try to address some of the concerns expressed in the AfD, by making the article well-referenced. You are welcome to work on the version in my userspace, but please don't add it to categories shared by actual articles, or remove the "this is a userpage" notice at the top. One you've improved the article sufficiently that you think the concerns about it have been addressed as much as possible, you can try listing it at deletion review.

— Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 23:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

cheers Mathmo ^Talk 14:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

w00t, I am part of an evil cartel!

http://www.geocities.com/xaacacacacacacacac/Abbc.htm Argument for "The seduction community cartel" to be chucked of wikipedia Mathmo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iyouyou (talk • contribs) 22:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

can you remind me of my swiss bank account number that I must have all my millions stored away in from being part of this cartel? Am feeling poor at the moment. Mathmo ^Talk 12:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your support

I wasn't going to send thank-you cards, but the emotional impact of hitting WP:100 (and doing so unanimously!) changed my mind. So I appreciate your confidence in me at RFA, and hope you'll let me know if I can do anything for you in the future. Cheers! -- nae'blis 00:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Project seduction community

If we are going to be accused of having a cartel, we might as well have one. I don't know how to set this up, though. Btw, thanks for your support recently. --SecondSight 08:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

lol, exactly what my thoughts were! Well, one in jest anyway. Was reading up about wikiprojects earlier, seems you don't need permission for them to go ahead. Rather just create them in the same manner as other pages, although people often start them off as a user sub page. Always glad to give support where it is needed and worthy. Mathmo ^Talk 08:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Your edit to Template talk:Anti-war

I noticed that you edited someone else's comment for clarity, spelling or grammar. As a rule, refrain from editing others' comments without their permission. Though it may appear helpful to correct typing errors, grammar, etc., please do not go out of your way to bring talk pages to publishing standards, since it is not terribly productive and will tend to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. For more details, see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Thanks, SchuminWeb (Talk) 10:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

meh, rarely if ever do to that anyway. Just switched a couple of letters around anyway to get a word spelled correctly. Not that anybody else actually got annoyed by it or had trouble with it on the talk page. In the end all that it is I wasted a couple of seconds of my time, which I don't care too much about. Mathmo ^Talk 12:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism?

Whoa. You seem to throw this word around quite a bit; please see the vandalism policy to learn what is actually vandalism. The reason I removed the comment and link from User talk:Iyouyou is because they violate our personal attack policy, which you reported him for in the first place. We do not allow these types of links to be posted. I have a very difficult time understanding why you restored content you reported. Shell ^babelfish 12:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

yeah yeah, sorry about perhaps going slightly over the top. although I'd dispute i throw it around quite a bit! but it did get your attention at least. cheers, hi there! lol Yup, I know it is not vandalism because I assume (hope!) it is a good faith edit. However where reasonable these types of edits User talk:Iyouyou made should be kept, so that there is an easy record should User talk:Iyouyou ever try to be unbanned all the facts will be readily obtainable for review. Mathmo ^Talk 12:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

There is an easy record - its called the page history. Please do not restore the link again. Thanks. Shell ^babelfish 12:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

for goodness sake, SLOW DOWN. do you even look at what the page looks like have you have editted it? you are going to be removing it at least do it properly, not half heartedly. please next time use page view, you haven't done it right any of the previous times. Mathmo ^Talk 12:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

arguably one of edits could be viewed badly [2], you removed not just User:Iyouyou edit but also a comment I made myself about him/her. that is what annoyed me by far the most at first, you shouldn't do that at all. at least you didn't do it again. but once is bad enough, worse you never even seem to have realised it. it is very dodgy when you are changing my commments Mathmo ^Talk 12:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to continue to edit war with you. There is no need to be at all concerned over the talk page of a banned user - they are typically blanked or deleted. I'm completely confused as to why the subject of attacks would be so involved in restoring them to a page instead of fixing whatever formatting concern you have, but if that's the way you want it, I'm not going to bother with it. Happy editing. Shell ^babelfish 12:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

as you just said i'm one of whom the attacks was made on, hence you should assume those who were attacked should have a better idea as to if and how the attacks made of them should stay around. anyway, glad too see you won't continue. thanks. Mathmo ^Talk 12:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

GNAA

The link you added points to a page that does not exist. The article was deleted, and the page protected to prevent recreation. Do not add the link again. Robotman1974 14:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

yes i do realise that page currently doesn't exist. had the link there for future reference should it exist later (after all red links are already highly common through wikipedia already, this is a way wikipedia grows and expands to become and even better encyclopedia). the page survived vdf SEVENTEEN times, at the very least there is hardly anything wrong with having a statement of what the acronym means. Mathmo ^Talk 15:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Do not vandalise this page again. If you object to the former article's deletion, go here: Wikipedia:Deletion review. Robotman1974 15:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

i very strongly object to being called a vandal! fine, you can have just made a flippant remark but use caution before making more claims. you ought to assume good faith, do you really believe i'm trying to intentionally deface wikipedia?! of course not, that is outrageous. have i said anywhere yet that i object to the article's deletion? because it doesn't directly matter if the article was deleted or not. you are failing to see the difference between the single use of a word in a different page to an entire article about that said word. as i am sure you are aware there many many MANY references to people, events, place, and just in general of things that are not individually deemed worthy of an article yet are more acceptable (nah, even necessary) for inclusion as part of another page. Mathmo ^Talk 15:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but your edit to that page looks like a clear case of vandalism to me. I will also point out that I did not call you a vandal, I called your edits vandalism. Please read my posts again. To answer your question, yes, I do believe your intent with those particular edits is to deface Wikipedia. Robotman1974 16:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh see, you are going to go ahead and throw assume good faith right out of the window? take a look around, i've been around for a couple of years and never ever been a vandal. A vandal is a person who does vandalism, hence at the very least you implied i am a vandal (oh, or a vandal is a long gone tribe from hundreds of years ago) Mathmo ^Talk 16:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

This is the last time I will warn you. If you add that link again I will report your actions to WP:AIV. Robotman1974 16:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

great, now are you going to resort to threats in an attempt to force your pov onto others? what is not vandalism can't be reported to there. Mathmo ^Talk 16:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the laugh, Robotman. "I did not call you a vandal, I called your edits vandalism". Geeze, I gotta find somewhere to write that down.--- ABigBlackMan 16:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

sigh, what is this now? trying to use peer pressure or something? Mathmo ^Talk 16:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Interpret my remarks however you wish. I believe your recent edits to GNAA are vandalism. Robotman1974 16:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

oh and reverting over content that has been added is in itself vandalism! be more cautious in your own "vandalism". ;p Mathmo ^Talk 17:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

good grief, how in the world you think this is true I've got no idea. done some more reading up just to double check my views are correct, and nothing i've seen has suggested to me that in anyway my views are misplaced. i strongly suggest you do the same before you continue your constant removal of my edits. Mathmo ^Talk 16:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Because he's adding viable info to the article? Somehow I doubt it. Their may be no article on it anymore, but I believe that the GNAA troll organization at least deserves mentioning upon that page. Though I will agree with you that an edit battle is not the way to do it..-- ABigBlackMan 16:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

thank you very much, you at least have seen that this here is NOT vandalism. If Robotman1974 holds some kind of personal grudge against GNAA then they should bring if up in some other manner. NOT by making misguided claims of vandalism against me. Mathmo ^Talk 16:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

This looks like an obvious case of vandalism to me. When I see vandalism I do something about it. Robotman1974 16:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

yes i can understand that when a person first looks at the edit they might feel perhaps it was vandalism, but once i'd informed you that it isn't did you bother try checking as to if it really is or not? doesn't look like it, rather all you have done throughtout this time is constantly hammer on down the same path of this is vandalism this is vandalism this is vandalism etc... it is ok, you can admit you made a mistake in your initial assessment of this as vandalism. we are all human here and make mistakes. Mathmo ^Talk 16:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Warning

If you add the link again, you will be blocked. I am watching this talk page, if the user add's the link again leave a message here and I will see it. You need to respect the consensus of the editors here. The consensus has determined that this subject is not verifiably notable, and it's inclusion is giving it undue weight, you may disagree but do not edit war. A contrary point of view is not vandalism, but inserted the same view over and over against the wishes of consensus is vandalism. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• Happened to take a glance at the GNAA page again, since then a lot of various different users have been adding back what I original reverted, thus pointing out yet another flaw in your warning comment in that not only was I not vandalising (as everbody but Robotman1974 has admitted to) but also there is no outright consensus whatsoever for the removal of the earlier link as I fully expected to be the case back then. And for Robotman1974 to constantly remove this content without clear consensus for it's removal is disruption on his part (look at what he caused!). Frankly he never should have in the first place. Mathmo ^Talk 03:10, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

there is no consensus whatsoever that I've have been causing vandalism, this is instead merely the misguided opinion of one editor. i urge you not to encourage him. Mathmo ^Talk 16:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

While vandalism might not be the way to describe it, continuing to edit war to include a link to an article deleted by consensus of the community is still a no-no. Shell ^babelfish 17:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

This user has added the link to GNAA again and I have reverted. Robotman1974 16:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia admins know about subtle trolling, where one plays the rules to disrupt WP. use the unblock template to complain to another admin if you think I am wrong about this. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

A) I wasn't trolling, never ever have here or anywhere else. B) You never warned or told me earlier that I was "trolling" (which as I've said before....) Mathmo ^Talk 17:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I noticed, not sure if 1 minute is enough time for the user to have read the warning, it is at the correct version now and I am watching. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

And now you are blocked for 1 week for trolling, vandalism, and ignoring warnings. Once you come back you are expected to work within consensus, not edit war, and not troll. If you violate policy when you come back you will be blocked for longer, or indefinatly. If you feel this is unfair you are welcome to use the {{unblock|reason}} template to ask another admin to reconsider this. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Was "warned" that I was going to be mentioned on WP:AIV, which never happened. apparently an empty threat used in an attempt to force his will upon me. And as I've many many many many times stated and explained I am NOT a vandal, have my actions in anyway been typical of a vandal? no, they haven't at all. Mathmo ^Talk 16:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

You were mentioned on WP:AIV, that is how I found you. I am an admin who intervenes against vandalism, and trolling(typical trolling). Also, whether or not you are a vandal is determined by your actions, not your claims. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

heh, see you are right about that. Just I'd been removed afterwards, so he did do that after all. As for determining by my actions, have I ever ever before in all of my previous hundreds of edits gone on and vandalising rage? Nope, of course not. Because I am not one. Thus my past history indicates it is very very highly unlikely that I would be vandalising at the moment. Mathmo ^Talk 17:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

After re-reading the vandalism page, I agree, your stuborness was not vandalism. However it was disruptive. Sorry for saying your actions were vandalism, but I stand by my block for trolling. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

thank you very much for that. as you could understand then perhaps why i'd find it very offensive to be called a vadalist. is it any surprise i acted in response? of course not. Would be wrong to allow myself to be called a vandal, it is a personal attack against me. So far the one and only person who still calls me a vandal is Robotman1974, the same person who started this whole entire mess by constantly removing content from GNAA. Mathmo ^Talk 18:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I want to be absolutely clear about something. The way I see it, to call someone a vandal (referring specifically to the user and not the edits) is to suggest that the only reason they are here is to vandalise. I did not call you a vandal, and nowhere have I suggested that you are only here for the sole purpose of defacing Wikipedia. I have kept my comments directed at the specific edits to the GNAA page. I still see those as vandalism. That wasn't just any link you kept adding. You had to have known by the fact that the target page had been deleted and protected that your edits would appear to be highly controversial and disruptive. Considering this and the contentious nature of the page in question, I still think your edits to GNAA were vandalism. Robotman1974 18:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Does a vandalist in the "real world" have to only be there vandalising? No, not at all. Merely one act of vandalism (such as burning a letterbox or spray painting a fence etc..) is enough for that person to be referred to as a vandalist. I saw the addition of it as adding useful content to wikipedia. As for the fact it went to deleted page, I saw no problem whatsoever for that. In fact that is a GOOD thing, because people could go there are see the deletion archive or why it had been deleted. If a person is to search for this page there is a high likelihood they would search for the acronym due to the length of it's name. Thus they are easily able to see the page has been deleted, thus would NOT end up deleting it on a slightly similar page (i.e. mixing upper and lowercase or whatever). It also completely removes there being a high likelihood of somebody replacing the disambiguation page with an article about GNAA. But as it stands now what do you think are the chances of having somebody coming across the page and deciding to write the article there? Pretty good I'd say. But with the link there they are able to instantly and easily see why it shouldn't be there. Mathmo ^Talk 18:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

My comments and complaints have nothing to do with any form of vandalism outside Wikipedia. As for your question, I'm not concerned with such irrelevancies. The current policy of protecting deleted pages seems to be holding up well as it is. Robotman1974 19:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

As I already said I agree it was not vandalism. But given your history I think you would continue trolling. Please wait out your block, or if you really want you can contact another admin, but I don't think it will help. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

explain why you think I would continue "trolling" based on what you saw of my history? (don't think you have explained anywhere why you believe i am "trolling"? perhaps if you explained that i'd be able to show you i'm not a troll?) where would you put a notice to contact other admins? WP:RFI/WP:ANI? Mathmo ^Talk 18:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

You can use the mailing list unblock-en-l@mail.wikimedia.org if you'd like another option to have the block reviewed. Shell ^babelfish 19:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much, I'll do what you suggested. Mathmo ^Talk 19:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Although am thinking it would be better if posted on WP:ANI? Could you (or anybody else reading this) please post my explanation for the unfair ban (which I have stated underneath this edit, just copy and paste) to WP:ANI? Thanks! Mathmo ^Talk 20:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Vandalising/trolling

A listing of a few reasons why this entire event has caused me to be unfairly banned:

• Was warned that I shouldn't vandalise. But never given the final warning as required before blocking, as is stated on WP:AIV
• All editors who have seen this have came to the conclusion that I was NOT vandalising (with the exception of Robotman1974 who started all this).
• Wasn't warned AT ALL about "trolling" before I was blocked, hence never was given a chance to even consider this.
• By being called a vandal (which has now several times been seen as false) by Robotman1974 that is a personal attack against me. WP:ATTACK

Mathmo ^Talk 18:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

My warning not to add the link again was very clear, there was no misunderstanding, this has been review by another admin already. I am done talking with you for today. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

1. The warning not to edit again was with respect to vandalism, which has been found by both you and the other admin (plus yet another wiki editor on this page) as not vandalism. Hence in regards to that I didn't break the warning to do and vandalising edit. Mathmo ^Talk 19:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
2. Secondly I was not giving a final warning template before the listing on WP:AIV or the banning as according to WP:AIV. This I'd have expected to see before being banned for vandalism. As I wasn't I was unjustly banned and it should be retracted. Mathmo ^Talk 19:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
3. Thirdly, makes no sense whatsoever for "vandalism" being the only claims being brought up against me beforehand and then for people to say the blocking is for something completely different. (after having admitting the earlier claims of "vandalism" is flawed) Mathmo ^Talk 02:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
4. Fourthly, just in case it isn't clear enough to you already I'll make this explicit statement here: If I'm unbanned then I promise that I will not continue to revert Robotman1974's edits against me, either on GNAA or anywhere else. (likewise I'd hope he will make the same promise towards me, in not reverting any of my edits that I may do on wikipedia) If either of us has a problem with the other person in the future we should bring it up with somebody else to deal with. 19:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Email sent to unblock-en-l@mail.wikimedia.org

Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2006 09:50:33 +1300
From: "david consumer of math" <(my wikipedia username)@gmail.com>
To: unblock-en-l@mail.wikimedia.org
Subject: "Vandalising"

Am user mathmo on the english wikipedia (same name as this email address).

A bit of fuss has been kicked up over a contribution I made to the GNAA page, which gave the internet troll group explanation for the meaning of GNAA. This included a link going to a non-existent wikipedia page, saw no problem whatsoever for that. In fact that is a GOOD thing, because people could go there to see the deletion archive of why it had been deleted. If a person is to search for this page there is a high likelihood they would search for the acronym (and NOT the whole name due to the length of it's name). Thus they are easily able to see the page has been deleted, thus would NOT end up writing it on a slightly similar page (i.e. mixing upper and lowercase or whatever into the full name). It also completely removes there being a high likelihood of somebody replacing the disambiguation page with an article about GNAA. But as it stands now what do you think are the chances of somebody coming across the page and deciding to write the article there? Pretty reasonable I'd say. But with the link there they are able to instantly and easily see why it shouldn't be there. Plus there is a world of difference to having a word mentioned on wikipedia page and to having an entire page purely about that word. And as such to remove contributory edits I'd been making can be viewed upon as vandalism by Robotman1974? Although I'll assume good faith and presume not.Either way if Robotman1974 is holding some kind of grudge or whatever against GNAA he ought to bring it up in a more peaceful way than calling my contributions vandalism,

Anyway enough of that, this email is NOT about the contributions I made to the wikipedia page so much as it is about the manner in which I was banned.

A listing of a few reasons from my talk page as to why this entire event has caused me to be unfairly banned:

• Was warned that I shouldn't vandalise. But never given the final warning as required before blocking, as is stated on WP:AIV
• All editors who have seen this have came to the conclusion that I was NOT vandalising (with the exception of Robotman1974 who started all this, and still maintains that I was vandalising the page).
• Wasn't warned AT ALL about "trolling" before I was blocked, hence never was given a chance to even consider this.
• By being called a vandal (which has now several times been seen as false) by Robotman1974 that is a personal attack against me. (or implied if you wish) WP:ATTACK

========

1. The warning not to edit again was with respect to vandalism, which has been found by both the admin who banned and the other admin (plus yet another wiki editor on my talk page) as not vandalism. Hence in regards to that I didn't break the warning to do another vandalising edit. 
2. Secondly I was not giving a final warning template before the listing on WP:AIV or the banning as according to WP:AIV. This I'd have expected to see before being banned for vandalism. As I wasn't I was unjustly banned and it should be retracted.
   
3. Thirdly, just in case it isn't clear enough to you already I'll make this explicit statement here: If I'm unbanned then I promise that I will not continue to revert Robotman1974's edits against me, either on GNAA or anywhere else. (likewise I'd hope he will make the same promise towards me, in not reverting any of my edits that I may do on wikipedia) If either of us has a problem with the other person in the future we should bring it up with somebody else to deal with.
   

Hand a final warning against me in regards to this dispute Robotman1974 is having with me, and then if it is ever broken ban me from wikipedia. But don't be banning me over a discussion of vandalism which doesn't hold up.


Thanks for any help in this matter,

David/Mathmo

---

I said If you add the link again, you will be blocked., that was your final warning. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 22:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

You say now that was my final warning, for the first time. Never before had you used the word final. Besides, there is more so than just that. There should have been the warning template from WP:AIV as is required before I am even listed there. Which Robotman1974 should have done from the very start. However you look at it from the many different angles the due process wasn't properly applied which caused an unfair ban. Mathmo ^Talk 23:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I think you are misunderstanding the proccess. I don't need to use a template I can talk to you directly, you don't even have to be listed I can block you on my own discretion. You have discussed this with me and a second admin. If a third admin answers your email than you can discuss it with that admin too, I am done. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

unfortunately this whole mess seems to be too complex for anybody else than the directly affect party to bother with explaining. not being warned is only one a many reasons i've listed why this has been an unjust banning.along with the manner of the banning there is also the justification of banning due to vandalism etc... any one of the reasons i've given show why i shouldn't have been banned. Mathmo ^Talk 01:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

For the record Mathmo, I did give you a final warning when I said "This is the last time I will warn you. If you add that link again I will report your actions to WP:AIV." I to did not use templates for this. Robotman1974 23:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Do any of you read WP:AIV as opposed to merely going there? Clearly the zillion times I've linked to it simply isn't enough for you to get the point yourself. As such I'll list below a few of the key quotes from that page Mathmo ^Talk 01:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

1. "Before listing a vandal here make sure that the vandal has been warned with the appropriate warning templates."
2. "If you can't justify leaving these messages on a user's talk page, it likely isn't vandalism."
3. "Users must be appropriately warned using a final warning template"
4. "before being listed on this page".
5. "Users without appropriate final warnings will not be blocked."

You raise an interesting point Mathmo. I had forgotten that WP:AIV talks about warning templates rather than warnings. However, from the first to the last my warnings were quite clear, and I hardly think you can seriously claim that because they were not standard templates that you were not warned. This is a moot point anyway. The reason for the block was not vandalism but trolling. Robotman1974 01:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

thanks, now you too are starting to see one of my points. just is silly how slow this is taking for people to realise what i've been saying. oh well... Back on topic about warnings, people can throw around and talk in a highly loose manner of bannings etc.. (and some of the worst are those who don't even have the power to). Hence you can see why you have to have these measures and formality in place for warnings then later final warnings by way of templates. they even go so far as to explicitly state that a user will NOT be blocked without that happening (which didn't happen with me at all), and stating other stuff too such as shouldn't even be listed here without the template (which as you now know is something you did not do). As for the other point of "trolling", that was only ever brought up after I was banned, if this is truly a valid reason for my banning then it surely out to have been brought up many times before and in detail, like was done with the claims of "vandalism". As opposed to not at all. Makes no sense whatsoever for "vandalism" being the only claims being brought up against me beforehand and then for people to say the blocking is for something completely different. Mathmo ^Talk 02:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I just want to clear up some confusion here. There is absolutely no requirement that you use the standard templates when warning people about any particular behavior; the templates are there for ease of use. There is no formal procedure that must be followed when advising other editors. Again, since you were not blocked for vandalism, all of this is moot. Also, it doesn't matter what label was used, you were very clearly asked to stop what you were doing by more than one person. Edit warring is never ever productive behavior. If you're just learning about these types of things now after being here for two years, this might be a good opportunity to stroll through the policies and procedures to avoid further issues. - Shell ^babelfish 15:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

1. Yes I am aware of various policies, and have been checking up more on them recently just to make sure what I believe is correct. And it is always bringing me to the conclusion that this whole procedure has been unfairly weighted against me. After all clearly what Robotman1974 did to me is fine because he has not been reprimanded in anyway to the slightest degree, and what editing I did was in no way whatsoever fundamentally different from what he was inflicting upon me.
2. Secondly as I elaborated upon on above, a merely typed warning in part of general comment does not carry the same weight as a template does to the slightest degree.
3. Thirdly the ONLY specific claims being leveled at me prior to my warning was of vandalism, so to then be banned for any other reason than that carries very dodgy undertones. After all if these truly are valid claims then surely why in the world where they not mentioned to me at all prior to being banned? As opposed to almost being plucked out of thin air afterwards to justify the users actions.
4. Fourthly, for you to say there is "absolutely no requirement that you use the standard templates" is waaaay off the mark. If you need to read again my quotes above then please do so. Or alternatively go straight to the source at WP:AIV to which I have many many times linked too. As you can quite clearly see it very explicitly says that the appropriate warning templates must have been used before even being listed on WP:AIV let alone blocking.

Mathmo ^Talk 18:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

"Trolling"

Seeing that HighInBC has recently been keeping on going on just about my supposed "trolling" (which I have at all times denied) I'll have a section here to address that specific fact (but do not be forgetting the many other related issues I've brought up that are all highly related to the matter at hand). Have any of you read the relevant pages related to trolling? For instance go along to Wikipedia:Troll, there you can see that it is NOT a policy or even a guideline of wikipedia. Other facts to take note of is that Administrators are not empowered to block usernames for "trolling". This due to the impossibility of defining exactly what it is to be a troll, which makes it complete nonsense to be able to have comprehensive approach to blocking a user due to "trolling". (even the blocking policy page does not have even one reference to trolling anywhere on it) Is easy to see how over just this one aspect I am very upset that that I've been banned by HighInBC for this crime of so called "trolling". Mathmo ^Talk 20:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Talk page archiving

If you find your talk page is getting to long, you may find this interesting: Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page. You may also wish to leave it as it is, both are fine. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 4th.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 2, Issue 49	4 December 2006	About the Signpost

Arbitration Committee elections open	The Seigenthaler incident: One year later
Wikimedia celebrates Commons milestone, plans fundraiser	Wikipedia wins award in one country, reported blocked in another
News and notes: Steward elections continue, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 11th.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 2, Issue 50	11 December 2006	About the Signpost

From the editor: New feature
Board of Trustees expanded as three new members are appointed	Wikimedia Foundation releases financial audit
Arbitration Committee elections continue, extra seat available	Female-only wiki mailing list draws fire
Trolling organization's article deleted	WikiWorld comic: "Redshirt"
News and notes: Fundraiser plans, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Re:

See User:Mathmo/October man sequence. Moving it back into the main namespace as is will get it speedy deleted though. --W.marsh 16:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

yup I know it is likely to be deleted if put into the mainspace, that is why I asked for it to be put into my userspace. probably has a lot of work needing to be done to survive a second vfd, though i'm thinking even that wouldn't be a good idea. mainly just wanted to take another look at it to see if any part of it is at all worthwhile keeping in some kind of form. maybe or then again, maybe not. Mathmo ^Talk 18:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair notice

I'm sorry, but I had to take the issue to the Administrator's Notice Board WP:AN.NinaEliza (talk • contribs • count • logs • email) 04:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Snarky nonsense

I was not objecting to "pornography". I listed two very specific concerns here about things that could cause problems for Wikipedia. You dismissed both of them, and called me a censor. Your current comment that you are being "mis-read" doesn't explain any of it, and in fact continues to portray my objections as motivated by prudery.

Hopefully you'll understand if I seem annoyed by your accusation. — edgarde 08:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

sorry sorry sorry, I don't believe in taking life too seriously. Hang on though, what am I saying sorry for... kidding! Though more seriously.... don't quite even get what you are saying I'm "accusing" you off? Anyway, whatever. Got to run off (or rather cycle to be more accurate, lets be sticklers for accuracy!). Have a nice night (or wherever you are from). Mathmo ^Talk 09:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Downblouse gainsaying

You've already indicated that you just shoot your mouth off in matters like this [3], you don't wish to be taken seriously [4], and you don't want to be held accountable for anything you say[5]. I don't really need the exercise of debating policy with someone who maintains that attitude without contributing any useful information.

Perhaps you could just sit this one out. — edgarde 22:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

why are you carrying on? I've already said back on WP:AN I'm not going to write anymore about this mess on WP:AN, and I'm going to leave it at that. As such I'm going to carry on forgetting about this as I said and not reply to what you have just said here on my talk page. You should take my advice and join me in leaving this matter alone for now, take a break from it all. When we come back again it shall all feel totally unimportant. That is my feeling on this matter. Mathmo ^Talk 22:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Amazon

Hi Mathmo. I was hoping we could come to an agreement about the images you have added at list of sex positions and reverse cowgirl which are captioned as being the "Amazon variant". As I have stated on both talk pages, I do not believe that there is any widespread agreement that the position pictured is called that, so I would like to change their captions. --Strait 17:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

thanks for mentioning it to me on my talk page, I've found what you said and now there are responses to both of them in their respective places. cheers. Mathmo ^Talk 17:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 18th.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 2, Issue 51	18 December 2006	About the Signpost

From the editor: Holiday publication
Elections conclude, arbitrators to be chosen	Wikimedia Foundation fundraiser opens
WikiWorld comic: "Dr. Seuss"	News and notes: Fundraiser plans, milestones
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

This is your last warning.
The next time you vandalize a page, as you did to User:Ram-Man, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. WHeimbigner 12:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

oi, take a deep breath and smile first before reverting my work of art! lol Most importantly read the page first, specifically this part: "I'll revert it myself". So I'll put it back and he can have a chuckle about it (or not!), and he can remove it himself just like he said whenever he feels like it. Mathmo ^Talk 12:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, well-meaning reverting users don't really bother to read my notice at the top of the page. You took great care to leave the lines that I specifically mentioned not to delete! Didn't they even bother to check the diff and find it strange that those two lines would stay with that message while everything else went away? Anyway, if anyone blocks you for editing my page, just let me know and I'll unblock you. -- RM 13:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks man! Was slightly worried he might take it too far and get me blocked, but I knew I was right and if he had persisted in the reverting I'd have just left him with it. Does often annoy me at times how people can be far too trig happy in making their edits without even taking the most basic glance over the context/background. Oh well.... whatever. Liked what you had on your userpage, liked it enough to vandalise it! Might add something similar to my own one day, is good for people to keep a bit of humour in what they are doing and not get too stuffy with the seriousness of it all. Otherwise things can just go downhill from there. Mathmo ^Talk 13:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Multisport-stub

Hi - I see you have created a new stub type, Multisport-stub. As it clearly explains at WP:STUB, and at the top of most stub categories, all new stub types should be proposed prior to creation at WP:WSS/P, so that they can be checked for viability, and to make sure they don't go against either the stub category hierarchy or stub naming conventions. In the case of your new stub type, it was not proposed, and unfortunately is incorrectly named - there is no parent category Category:Multisport - the best parent would be Category:Multi-sport events, and as such it should have been called Category:Multi-sport event stubs. Furthermore, there is considerable doubt it would have the required number of existing stubs (60) to be regarded as a viable stub category. The stub type has been listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Discoveries - please make any comments as to the reasons for and possible population of this new stub type. Be warned that it may need to be renamed and may even be nominated for deletion via WP:SFD if it is deemed not to conform to normal stub type criteria. Please, in future, if you wish to create a new stub type, propose it first! Grutness...wha? 06:55, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing these various points to my attention, and now that I look at it again I'd be agreeing with what you are saying too. (realised at that time category multisport is missing, but didn't feel like creating it at the time. plus I also felt to call a category multisport events is too restrictive)Mathmo ^Talk 10:59, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Covert sexual surveillance

That's my idea of a grand-unifying title.NinaEliza (talk • contribs • logs) 05:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't seem the point of that, or the context of the comment? How would that article be different from an article on voyerism? Mathmo ^Talk 07:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

It's more objective - I'm sorry - read the talk page for the article Ed and I are working on. Also, I remove all user talk pages from my watchlist, so if you could either respond on the talk page or my talk page, it would be much appreciated. Since you were mentioned by Ed, I thought I should copy you in my response. Also, thanks for your comment on another matter:).NinaEliza (talk • contribs • logs) 15:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 26th.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 2, Issue 52	26 December 2006	About the Signpost

Seven arbitrators chosen	Wikipedia classroom assignments on the rise
WikiWorld comic: "Molasses"	News and notes: Stewards appointed, milestones
Wikipedia in the news	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Fake new message box

Please do not trick people into clicking on an external links by putting them into a fake You have new messages (last change). box. I have removed it from your userpage. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Message at fake new message box address ...

Well, Mathmo, seems you are on your way to becoming a former Wikipedian. The link you posted had a virus at the other end. Unbecoming of an officer in the NZ Whatever Force. You should perhaps rethink the reason you have chosen to be a Wikipedian. You have already been blocked for vandalism; what's next ? Somehow you are mad about the Functionality Creep purveryors ? Well, join the conversation, rather than looking infantile and pathetic. BTW: The virus upload was unsuccessful, as with my internets savvy, duh, I, uh, was able to block the thing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.210.62.238 (talk) 21:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC).

Firstly there is no virus there, it is just a joke for everybody to enjoy and bring a bit of light into their day (or not, if the happened to get out of the wrong side of bed). More likely if you are having a problem with a virus it would be due to something at your end. Secondly, I was not blocked for vandalism. That has already been determined, and even though there are still things done wrong about that which I feel upset about I'd rather just leave that in the past. Mathmo ^Talk 02:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Virus absolutely verified by computer expert from HP

The "joke" page contained a virus, which was determined by a computer scientist from HP who shall remain anonymous. My computer was cleaned from head to toe as a result, and the site investigated. Thanks for your comments. Users who make "jokes" are not serious about the Wikipedia project in my view. Please do not place fake redirects to external pages with viruses in the future. Thank you for your anticipated cooperation on this issue. Kreepy krawly 02:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll repeat again, it is likely the problem is on your end (either that or you are outright lying and making it up?). Each of my brother and myself are considered one of the top computer science students in NZ, and neither of us could see a problem there. There is nothing wrong with having a bit of a joke so long as it is not overly disruptive, it improves the over all mood of the project and can make it more warm and inviting to newcomers and regulars alike in my opinion. See for instance WP:FUN and WP:-). Now smile and have a nice day! It is new years eve.... Mathmo ^Talk 02:54, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks. I think that's the first time anyone has ever commented on my diaries without being prompted. Are you a PUA btw? Got a myspace profile? Dessydes 06:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. Mathmo ^Talk 07:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm doing okay. In fact ever sice I attended a PUA workshop about 2-3wks back I've been avoiding my resources for fear of poisoning what I've learnt. That, and I've been experimenting with some stuff of my own. For example, the fact that women love the word "dork". I'm probably a GPUA myself, but I don't know what the G stands for. By the way, editing a myspace is dead easy. And for that matter HTML isn't too bad once you get to know a few things. Do what most people do: head over to mytheme.com it's dead easy to use to customise your profile. Dessydes 13:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

G stands for green.Interesting concept there,"poisoning what I've learnt". Wouldn't mind doing a workshop, but don't have that kind of money at hand (going to have to try and see if I can get an overdraft at the bank just to afford my next Ironman race). Plus also there never have been (and probably never will be for quite a while into the future) workshops in NZ (whereabouts are you?). So in the end it doesn't matter if I have the money or not. Mathmo ^Talk 15:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

My bad, misread your message. Yeah, I think I need to work on my profile page. Dessydes 14:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah.... you seemed to have read the exact opposite. I certainly wouldn't have a problem with creating a myspace page, it is piss easy (I've been to international competitions in programing as the team captain for my University, that gives you an indication of my level of skills). Rather what I see the problem with myspace is that the average person can mess up their page and make it so sheer ugly it is quite a turn off. Meh, but then again it does have it's advantages. There are a bunch of people I'd like to keep in contact with through this. What is yours? Mathmo ^Talk 15:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

http://www.myspace.com/humbledlover. While you're on there you can tell what needs to be altered looks-wise. It's a shame that there are no workshops in NZ, and that you can't afford them. The best thing you can do if you want to get better is go out and experiment, perhaps even open up your own school, but from what you've told me you don't seem to be doing too badly. That's sort of the point where I am. I'm trying to experiment with what suits me and my personality best. Anyway, keep in touch, can't wait to see your profile if and when you get one. Dessydes 20:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I think I might have just added the SwingCat link, but take a look anyway. Dessydes 06:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

You did, as an anon with the IP 80.43.39.235 better watch out you can't hide from me! ;p Mathmo ^Talk 16:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Virus Claim is a Hoax

There is something else going on here... I wouldn't trust KK. His empty threats are just more games. However, it would seem he can hack into sites, so be careful.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.211.139.121 (talk • contribs) 11:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Yup, could guess they are just empty threats that he is making most of the time. As for him "hacking into site", so what if he can? Plenty of sites are so insecure a kid can break into them, doesn't really mean much in the end. Mathmo ^Talk 15:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

We are the friends of Kreepy krawly. We are Kreepy krawly. Kreepy krawly, as if this even needs verification, does not hack. He is a lexicographer, a writer. He resides in England. We program, he does not. We do not hack. We identify and warn of hackers, and their more troublesome brethren, the crackers. Top computer science student ? Well, that puts our esteemed colleague in an uncomfortable position as being more-than-capable of malicious web crawling. Like the trolling recently observed at the Functionality Creep Talk page. The actions of our esteemed colleague were and shall remain hilarious. Yes, hilarious. Hysterical, even. The diversionary tactic of "warning" others of Kreepy krawly's web habits are also hilarious. He is an esteemed member of our community, and a professor at a local university. Thus his following. Thus our trust in his integrity. Others, such as our esteemed colleague Mathmo, have only themselves to blame for diverting attention to their own behaviour. Consciousness does not imply a "conscience." Interesting conversation. Indeed. Do not post fake addresses anymore with links to viruses. Do not do this again. Thank you in advance for your anticipated compliance with this simple request. We do not tolerate trollers, hackers, vandals, or crackers.

I was of half a mind I should just ignore the damage Kreepy Krawly is causing, but then I read a message like yours and I see simply ignoring it is not going to make it all go away. Oh well. Mathmo ^Talk 02:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Please don't give up on getting Kreepy Krawly banned from Wikipedia. This latest entry from him really indicates that there may be other factors at play here. I also wish he (not They) would stop saying that you linked to a virus - from a link to my website! There was no virus and you have been accused of something terrible. That requires action against him. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.211.139.121 (talk) 00:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC).

He hasn't made any more disruptive edits during the last couple of days, if he has just left wikipedia and isn't coming back I'll be content with that. Mathmo ^Talk 03:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Which "disruptive edits" are those, my esteemed colleague ? We have only made positive contributions to Wikipedia, aside from defending ourselves from the persistent onslaught of trolls and vandals. Not to mention hackers and computer science students. Kreepy krawly 00:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

WHAT?!?! You say that as if computer scientist are something who need to be defended against, absolutely not. Without people like us you wouldn't even be accessing the internet at the moment. And lastly, I'm telling you once again do not be messing with the format of my talk page. It is disconcerting and in extremely poor taste for you to be doing so. Mathmo ^Talk 07:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems that you are unable or unwilling to respond the the actual question at hand. "What disruptive edits ?" Check my contributions page and name them, my esteemed colleague. I'm sure that the innovators at ARPAnet are the original innovators of the internet. I would be more than happy to entertain a discussion as to what my esteemed colleague Mathmo has done to provide for the continuance of the internet. Computer scientists, and computer science students, are necessary to the Information Age. Thank you again for "telling me" how Wikipedia should be formatted. I appreciate your ongoing constructive criticism into the matter. Kreepy krawly 21:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Please stop using the phrase "my esteemed colleague", Ben. Obviously you don't hold Mathmo in high esteem, else you wouldn't have accused him of uploading a virus. This isn't some kind of game. You are disrupting a very cool thing with what appears to be total nonsense. Mathmo has asked you to stop re-formatting his page. Why wouldn't your immediate reaction be, "I'm sorry. I'll stop doing that because it displeases you, as I can tell by your repeated admonishing"? I consider you to be a vandal and a disruptive force. Your IP should be banned and all of your pseudonyms banned from this website. I may even register as a user (like you suggested so long ago, Kreepy krawly/Ben/71.210.62.238) Notice the lower-case 'k' in 'krawly'? That's how you want it, right?

My esteemed colleagues: My name, and nobody, in our collective, is called "Ben." Sorry to dissapoint you. In fact, the original Kreepy krawly is named "Dan." I hope this causes extreme pleasure on the part of my esteemed colleagues. You can email me at: dancalliper@gmail.com . Hope to hear from you. My "reformatting" follows Wikipedia clarity standards. Space properly, indent properly. Obviously the "Functionality Creep" discussion was fruitless for my esteemed colleagues, so now the discussion has devolved into "how many spaces and colons." Interesting. While you may consider us a vandal, our contributions do not show any vandalism. Such as our edit to the "Pomona, California" page. Was this edit vandalism ? How about the "Mycotoxin" page edit ? More malicious vandalism ?

You claim the virus was a hoax, but my computer logs and registry files indicate otherwise. Claims to the opposite are attempts to offset personal responsibility regarding the flawed discussion on the Functionality Creep Talk Page. Oh, and that is how we want it. We are Kreepy krawly. Thanks for you adherence to the priciples of fairness and constructive dialogue. Our IP is directed to an IP in Montana for security purposes. That is how we like it after the virus attack. And that is how it shall remain. Kreepy krawly 00:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 2nd, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 1	2 January 2007	About the Signpost

Effort to modify fair use policy aborted	Esperanza organization disbanded after deletion discussion
WikiWorld comic: "Thagomizer"	News and notes: Fundraiser continues, milestones
Wikipedia in the news	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Auckland Meetup 2 Scheduled - Feb 10 2007

You are invited to Auckland Meetup 2 on the afternoon of Saturday February 10th 2007 at Galbraith's Ale House in Mt Eden. Please see Wikipedia:Meetup/Auckland 2 for details. You can also bookmark Wikipedia:Meetup/Auckland to be informed of future NZ meetups. - SimonLyall 08:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

If you are worried about forgetting, may I suggest you put an entry into your diary now! Or set up an alarm/meeting on your mobile phone calendar to remind yourself early enough that you can make it there. --Linnah 15:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I've done that already, was more a reference to that I'm a shocker at being at places on time. Got a very loose concept of time... also never know what might come up before then with a date so far off in the future. But basically, yes I am planning to go. Just stating the obvious perhaps that you can't see into the future though. Mathmo ^Talk 15:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 8th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 2	8 January 2007	About the Signpost

Special: 2006 in Review	Another newspaper columnist found to have plagiarized Wikipedia
Blogs track attempts to manipulate articles	Nutritional beef cooks PR editor
WikiWorld comic: "Facial Hair"	News and notes: Fundraiser continues, milestones
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Halflife

Decay shouldn't be a problem if I keep up my sodium intake as ²³Na is the only stable Isotope23. Must have potato chips...--Isotope23 19:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

errr... yeah, silly me! Is 9am and haven't slept all night, plus I haven't done any serious chemistry since I was 15. Best of luck anyway! (you lucky bugger don't need it anyway... ) Mathmo ^Talk 19:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

User:J00sux0rz

Oh, that makes sense. My leet's a little rusty. —ShadowHalo 22:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: A handy little note [...]

A handy little note for you, I see you have blanked your talk page. While this choice is yours and you kinda can do that it is hardly in good taste to do so without extremely good reason to, otherwise it can look rather suspicious.... Mathmo ^Talk 19:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh really? Well, if anyone were really curious, they could look in my User Talk History and see what was there before, now couldn't they? =P ~ Jessica Ingmann 02:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

SFD notification

This message is to notify you that a stub template and category that you created ({{multisport-stub}} and Category:Multisport stubs) are up for deletion at WP:SFD. Please join the discussion. Thanks. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 15:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Nothing much

Thanks for liking my username. I used it in the days when I used to slum around in chatrooms - people seemed unaccountably keen on it back then as well.

Am yet to meet a kiwi I didn't like - but in fairness, that that's based on a sample size of two. Rgrds, Notreallydavid 18:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 15th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 3	15 January 2007	About the Signpost

Special: 2006 in Review, Part II	New arbitrators interviewed
Cascading protection feature added	WikiWorld comic: "Apples and Oranges"
News and notes: Fundraiser breaks $1,000,000, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Warning

Don't stalk me again. Khoikhoi 23:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey hey, don't go accusing me of being a stalker. Remember WP:NPA & WP:CIVIL. Mathmo ^Talk 23:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not stupid Mathmo. It's clear that you found those pages from my contributions. Khoikhoi 09:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Even so, if true how to you then make the big leap in conclusion to that I'm stalking you?!?! Do properly explain yourself, otherwise what else is this than a personal attack on me? Mathmo ^Talk 12:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I should've clarified by calling it "wikistalking". From Wikipedia:Harassment#Types of harassment:

The term "wiki-stalking" has been coined to describe following a contributor around the wiki, editing the same articles as the target, with the intent of causing annoyance or distress to another contributor.

There you go. Khoikhoi 05:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah, but you then left out the following sentance which came after it.

This does not include checking up on an editor to fix errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, nor does it mean reading a user's contribution log; those logs are public for good reason.

Did it occur to you that I merely went on to read some articles that I too found to be interesting? Then of course if I read them, it is likely I'll also be interested in editing them too. Do try to not be so rash in making accusations and instead assume good faith beforehand. Cheerio Mathmo ^Talk 05:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with you reading them, but when you follow my contributions and revert all my edits, that's when I get pissed off. I cannot assume good faith when you do things like that. Khoikhoi 05:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Why oh why are you yet again blowing this way way out proportion? Not only am I not stalking you, but also I certainly did not revert ALL your edits! You have made how many edits, somewhere in the tens of thousands? And all I merely did is on two other pages I restored earlier edits that other users had made which you had removed. One of them you had removed without any comment whatsoever, it seemed to me like a valid contribution and thus I restored it. The other you had also removed without any comment whatsoever (do please use edit summaries more often, they are very helpful for the other editors of wikipedia), then when I fixed it I did so while at the same time explaining in great detail on the talk page as to why. You can not find any fault whatsoever with my intentions behind my edits made towards the encyclopedia. Mathmo ^Talk 06:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

How would you like it if I went though your contributions restoring edits by users you've gotten into conflicts with? Would you like that? I'm done explaining this to you, but people that harass other users do get blocked. Khoikhoi 06:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

I was looking for an appropriate stub template. By the way I'm not from NZ, I just a slight interest in certain forms of body modification (tattoo). Dessydes 06:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Upload Socom 4 image please

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.49.182.192 (talk • contribs) 16:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean this one? Am guessing so based on [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kosebamse&diff=prev&oldid=102030201this] edit. I looked at the link yet I see nothing. Is an empty page.

List of Battlefield 1942 mods

Most of those mods will be deleted if they don't get an article in the short time. So, instead of adding spam, consider creating articles for the mods. -- ReyBrujo 23:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for fixing the formatting error. It was an accident. I hit an edit conflict and cut and pasted incorrectly. eaolson 03:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• No problem, was no biggie anyway! Mathmo ^Talk 03:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 22nd, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 4	22 January 2007	About the Signpost

Wikipedia modifies handling of "nofollow" tag	WikiWorld comic: "Truthiness"
News and notes: Talk page template, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Anna Popplewell

I have explained in detail on Talk:Anna Popplewell why I think the image that you have added to the article violates sections 1 and 8 of Wikipedia's fair use policy. Eluchil404 08:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Mystery Method redux

I see you are making various comments about the fact that the article is not maintaining a neutral point-of-view, however, unless you can source what appears to be counterpoints to various criticisms, they should not be added.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Stablepedida

Hey Mathmo.

I have noticed you are interested in Stablepedia from more than one comment you put on talk pages. I am the creator of Stablepedia, and i was wondering if you could give me some comments to improve Stablepedia. I would like to get in touch with you. You can find contact info on my user page. Thanks. Sinan Taifour 15:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikistalking

Shortly after a disagreement on one article, I suddenly found you cropping up on another article that I'd recently edited, inserting a link to a pornographic Website that was both unnecessary and objectionable (in that there was no indication as to what the link led to). Looking at your Talk page, I see that this isn't the first time you've done this sort of thing. I strongly suggest that you rethink your behaviour. It's one thing to see an example of poor editing (poor English, poor coding, PoV insertions, etc.) and follow up on the editor's contributions in order to clean up further examples; it's another to follow the editor as a response to a disagreement elsewhere — and when your consequent edits are themselves questionable, the accusation of wikistalking is virtually proved. You really don't want to go down that road. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe that it was, rather it was a very useful and relevant illustrative example. Neither should anybody be in anyway whatsoever surprised as to where the link went, after all it did say pornographic website. You have got to be kidding me here, how much clearer could it be than that?! To claim stalking is also equally silly to me, this is but one instance where we both happened to edit a page (other than the obvious example). Stalking must be vastly more extensive and deliberate than that. Besides, user contributions is a better way to browse about than "random article" and I look at more often I expect which people who I've had no disagreement with at all as those who I have had. Just obviously it is only those who have previously disagreed with me who then immediately leap up and shout claims of "stalking". Mathmo ^Talk 12:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

First, the link said nothing of the sort; the context suggested that the link might have been to a documentation of such usages (as most other such links do). (The other link that you added to the references section wasn't connected to anything in the article, so isn't a reference.)

Secondly, I gave a warning; I didn't immediately convict you, otherwise I'd have taken steps to have you blocked (though I have alerted other admins in case this is your standard way of responding to conflict). Perhaps in future you should follow up the contributions list only of people with whom you haven't just diagreed, in order to avoid the impression of wikistalking. Either that, or don't trawl through the history of such articles in order to see how the editor in question has been editing; interest in the article doesn't entail doing that. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

How unsurprising it is to see my esteemed colleague Mathmo up to his old tricks again. It seems that Mathmo considers Wikipedia a sort of playground where he can stalk, harrass, and excoriate users for his own agrandizement and amusement. We, Kreepy krawly, have been monitoring our esteemed colleague Mathmo's contributions since the unfortunate incident discussed under the title on his talk page: Virus Claim is a Hoax. We have saved the deleted talk page from Functionality Creep if anyone would like to view Mathmo's style of discussion. It is unfortunate and amusing, but neither professional nor serious. Mathmo seems to always come back with absurd denials which amount to "Me ? C'mon, dude ! You're thinking of that other guy !" That of course was not a quote, but a subjective summary of our opinion of his discussion style. In our opinion, Mathmo does not take Wikipedia seriously. Kreepy krawly 23:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Pimps

A pimp lives off the avails of prostitution; it is a lifestyle which typically entails a substantial amount of violence and/or degradation. As such, I block those whose usernames proclaim "pimp", for the same reason I block those whose usernames proclaim "Nazi". DS 04:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

There are a few problems with what you said, one of which you are projecting onto this your own personal opinion of prostitution by calling it degrading. While prostitution certainly isn't on my own personal list of top 3 job careers (though oddly enough a couple of days ago my girlfriend started discussing with me if I'd ever considered becoming a prostitute), I do leave that behind when discussing on RfC. Another flaw in your logic is that you are assuming there is only one meaning of Pimp, for many people it has a meaning similar to "player". I'll leave you with this little thought, would you block everybody who has the word Maddam in their username? Mathmo ^Talk 04:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 29th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 5	29 January 2007	About the Signpost

Foundation names advisory board, new hires	Court decisions citing Wikipedia proliferate
Microsoft approach to improving articles opens can of worms	WikiWorld comic: "Hyperthymesia"
News and notes: Investigation board deprecated, milestones	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 18:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

PickUp 101

"They train people to turn lead into gold" isn't true just because they train people, irrespective of the result; for the sentence to be true, the training must be successful. Similarly for "they train men to become more attractive to women". --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Testing

Yeah, just testing some userscripts on myself :) --Ryan Delaney ^talk 07:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Palestinian refugee

You wrote: "errr.. don't you mean your version is constantly reverted?"

Errr.. no, my version didn't exist until very recently, and Amoruso (who has been edit warring with other editors) was the first ever to revert it, today. So, errr, please read the history carefully. The manner in which you intervened with your 'errr' remark and your reversion to a version that is argued extensively to be against WP policy was a bit disconcerting. Thank you. Ramallite ^(talk) 15:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pamela Fischer

Thanks for contributing to the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pamela Fischer. I expanded the Pamela Fischer article, and you might want to take a second look at it. --Eastmain 03:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for keeping me updated, is nice to see how the article has now been improved. I've made a couple of comments on the AfD and changed my vote as appropriate. Mathmo ^Talk 03:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the improvement

Thank you for your improvement on Pamela Fischer, I have reconsidered the deletion process, but I do not think according to the rule I can withdraw it unilaterally. But I believe more people will post Keep to keep the improved article. Thanks again! Wooyi 03:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Real Social Dynamics

Actually, I went ahead and just performed a history merge, since it's easier and preserves the history - you should be able to salvage anything useful from the page history. --Coredesat 05:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey thanks, that seems like an even better idea. Cheers. Mathmo ^Talk 06:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Real Social Dynamics‎

The comment was deleted because, first, it was added after the AfD was closed, and shouldn't have been, and secondly, the article remains deleted until an undelete discussion has been completed. Please don't attempt to add it again; editing closed discussions isn't allowed (not even by the closing admin in this case, and certiainly not by anyone else). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

One of your comments has already beenfound to be wrong, in that if the closing admin changes his mind he doesn't have to go to deletion review. Which is why the deletion review quickly closed, you were merely making a point. As for the other point you raised, I suspect that is wrong. But I won't bother getting into silly edit war with you over anything I'm even slightly uncertain about. Mathmo ^Talk 11:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Please make new comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Real Social Dynamics (2nd nomination), not an old archive. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 00:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The Romsey School

You prodded this article, stating "What notability, what sources? What does "Community School of 2006 prize" mean? Is it significant?" as your prod reason. The prod was contested by Daemonic Kangaroo (talk · contribs); if you feel it still doesn't meet Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, I invite you to AfD it. However, please do not replace the prod template; once a prod is contested, an article needs to be sent to AfD to be decided, not by another prod. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 11:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Yup, I know that is a way to contest it and that the correct procedure afterwards is to send to AfD. Thanks for the note anyway. When I get back I'll see how I feel about if it should go to AfD (possible not, a person has contested it. Might ask them for the reasons first). Mathmo ^Talk 11:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Tankini Page

It's clear that you're the only person who wants that transparent headless shot. Why is it so important to you that that particular picture be included? Nik42 01:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry

G'day there Mathmo. :) I'm very sorry that I haven't been putting enough work into my nominations, and I'm sorry for the annoyance I've caused. I really want to do the right thing and try to avoid embarrassment and trouble for everyone and I'm very glad that you're willing to help me. I promise that from now on I'll do a bit more research before nominating an AfD, rather than just taking the article at face value. Cheers, --Candy-Panda 11:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey, it is sweet. Hopefully underneath you can see I was just trying to be nice to a newbie! I can understand where you were coming from before, a few of those did look like to me as well as AfD candidates. But the difference is would have checked and in the end not listed them (and probably have improved the article in the process). Anyway, in future about anything else at all feel free to ask me or another of the many other users I'm sure would be willing to assist you. Hope you enjoy wikipedia! (and don't let the bad parts of it get you down too much) Mathmo ^Talk

WP:STALK

Please review. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

What the... !!! For goodness sake be more specific than making a baseless broad sweeping and unsubstantiated claim. Mathmo ^Talk 14:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

How exactly did you come across Jamil Hussein controversy, and why was your first and only act there to engage in a reversion of my edit? Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

oh my, you have got to be kidding! Seriously, are you trying to tell me that page is the reason for this accusation of yours? Why in the world could it be because of that page, have you already forgotten your very badly failed attempt to get the page completely deleted? Mathmo ^Talk 14:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

No, it is the most recent in an emergent pattern of your disruptive behavior that I am attempting to head off at the pass. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

This whole big fuss you are causing has got to be the silliest thing I've seen this year. I've only got that page on my watchlist because you asked me to edit that page!! Good grief, and what do I get from this? Nothing but abuse, accusations, and grief. Probably the memory of how the AfD went for you is sore you must have forgotten? I don't know what it is with you that you should attack me like this. Anyway, to help you remember I'll provide a link to the AfD and a direct quote from that page of what you said to me:

I look forward to your help in making sure that the article reflects what was written in reliable sources

Now I really don't want to massively start editing that article, already have more than enough to keep me busy in life! But your request of me did at least persuade me to add the article to my watchlist so I can help out as and when I can. Gee, silly me. Mathmo ^Talk 19:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Your sole contribution to the article is edit warring to include blogs as reliable sources. Worthless. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok fine, change tack by calling my contributions worthless now that I've shown your accusation of "stalking" to be false. I changed that edit because I disagreed with it (for reasons I've already explained) and naturally it was that edit that I changed because it was the most recent one so it was what I saw displayed on my watch list. As for the blogs, you are failing to appreciate the usuage and context of them in that article. Whatever, I'm doing something else for the moment. Your whole behavior surrounding this I feel has been appalling. Next time you ask for help don't pounce on and attack and editor with such intensity based on merely one edit that you disagree with. Really, was it any suprise to you my edit? You want this article deleted while I voted keep on your AfD, clearly we are not seeing quite eye to eye on this. Mathmo ^Talk 19:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[after edit conflict]
I think that you mean "change tack" — but he hasn't. he's pointed out that, having followed him to the article (something which this Talk page indicates is a favourite tactic of yours when faced with disagreement) you did nothing useful there, but made disruptive edits (another familiar pattern). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Am getting sick of this behavior of attacking me, my sense of humour for it is running out. I've explained already in much detail why I was there (in summary, because Hipocrite asked me to edit on that article!). If you don't understand what I said, then I politely suggest reading it again. Oh, and thanks for pointing out my typo. Rather ironic really considering the lack of tact Hipocrite has shown. Mathmo ^Talk 19:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

No, your blatent disregard for our policy on Reliable Sources is completly expected by me. You are not here to improve the project. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[after edit conflict]Oh that is just swell, more accusations. "You are not here to improve the project"". As for this "blatant disregard" you seem to believe that I have, well... read it yourself: "Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field or a well-known professional journalist. These may be acceptable so long as their work has been previously published by reliable third-party publications." Mathmo ^Talk 19:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd only remind you that, after I'd suggested that you were behaving in a way that was verging on wikistalking, you sarcastically implied that I was doing the saem thing on an AfD — an AfD on an article that head been part of the subject of our initial disagreement. Now, given that peculiar accusation, I think that the horse you're trying to get on just isn't high enough. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Not exactly, these were two different articles we had edited. And then a 3rd yet another one for the AfD. And my comment was to me clearly meant in jest, to make light of the situation at hand back then. If you mis-read it and had taken offense my apology. If it had troubled you so very greatly which you had pointed it out to me earlier and I could have cleared it up with you. Mathmo ^Talk 22:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's all in the History, so I'll not bother to argue the issue. As for taking offence, there seemed little point. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of tall women, List of tall men

Please see new combined deletion debate. ~ trialsanderrors 20:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 5th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 6	5 February 2007	About the Signpost

Foundation organizational changes enacted	Group of arbitrators makes public statement about IRC
AstroTurf PR firm discovered astroturfing	WikiWorld comic: "Clabbers"
News and notes: More legal citations, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Independent evidence for Apollo Moon landings

I noticed that you voted early on this, and wanted to let you know that the article has substantially grown (and will likely grow further) into a useful list of evidence for the Moon landings that has nothing to do with hoax sites. I'd like to invite you to take another look, and to consider changing your vote. Gravitor 19:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Your Proposition

Well, thank you. As I told Nat, I need more mainspace, as well as XfD. Another problem I know someone will bring up in my RfA (even if I wait until June) is that I have 1200 edits to userspace. Those aren't recent (most of them are when I was new), but it's still not going to go well. Thanks for your consideration, and for bothering to leave me a nice message about it. :-) · AndonicO ^{Talk · Sign Here} 10:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parents of the Prime Ministers of Canada

Hi, thanks for your vote to keep on the article on their children, but they have put this one (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parents of the Prime Ministers of Canada) on AfD as well. -- Earl Andrew - talk 17:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Joseph Matthews and the Pickup Wiki

Title sounds like a 70s band doesn't it? lol. OKay, let me start with the pickup wiki. I never really bothered with the Dallas PUA Wiki, I just kept it there as a reference. The pickup wiki I discovered is pretty user-friendly. If you know Wikipedia, you'll easily know how to edit this particular Wiki.

As for Joseph "ThunderCat" Matthews, he does indeed spam, but he is important for a number of reasons:

• It is by stumbling upon him that most guys find out about "the community".
• He is connected with most of the PUAs out there, whereas quite a few of them have issues with one another. This is a trend that is starting to change as it goes (as most sciences and arts do) from being something which few can do and do well, to an industry with standards, and codes of conduct.
• Every year he hosts the "pickup artist of the year award". Most people don't agree with it, and I'm one of them, but in response, guys like Attraction Chronicles have started hosting their own "Dating coach of the year award", which asks for the opinions of other people.
• He helped bring "Style" to fame as the number one PUA. Whether you agree or not is up to you, but he has stuck up for AFCs and the community more than any other PUA out there.

Back when hotmail.com was 250MBs I cancelled my account with ThunderCat, but I've now reopened it under a separate walla.com account which I keep just for PUA related spam; and there is lots of it. More than any free porn websites. Walla give out more space then Google: 5Gigs, plus I have organised that account and it's folders nicely.

Nice hearing from you again, and thanks for the feedback. Dessydes 15:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prometheus Process

Mathmo: I noted that you weighed-in on the first round of the above proposed deletion. I am the contributor with the clear COI (in retrospect) who created the article. I have not and will not participate in editing it since the COI was raised. That said, I do feel the article’s subject can be written from an NPOV, is verifiable and notable. Unfortunately, the initial references used in the article are burdened by COI and I cannot get other contributors to take note of an extensive list of 3rd Party, independent references to the subject.

The following links which are included in my summary of references at [6]. This link is on the talk page of the article. I think the references below support verifiability and notability along with all the other linked references I listed. I would appreciate your take on that belief, and if you concur, your support in retaining the article. If they not support notability, then why? I need to learn more about WP:notability if I am to contribute fruitfully to Wikipedia in the future.

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

Thanks----Mike Cline 21:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[16] and [17] seem to be the same article? Or at least allbusiness.com is a copy from something in bakingmanagement. Mathmo ^Talk 23:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Mathmo-Thanks for your support. There is indeed a bit of redundancy in some of the references, but my intent was to show wider coverage than just one instance. I think is happens on a lot of articles where one finds a redundant source first, makes note of it, then later finds the original source and then doesn't remove the redundant source. I will be mindful of that in further contributions to WP.--Mike Cline 12:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

No problem, in future in areas where you have commerical conflict of interest you might want to try and get some support (and help, along with explainations/understanding) before it is put on AfD. Would make life a lot easier for you I'd expect. Mathmo ^Talk 12:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I would agree wholeheartedly. I thought I was trying to do that once the COI was raised, but found the going tough. I am still a bit concerned that COI is a bit of a trump on NPOV and Notability discussions and will follow evolution of those guidelines closely. For a new Wikipedian, this was a tough, but useful learning experience.--Mike Cline 13:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Operation Christian Vote

Just to let you know, my comments are not personal in the above Afd. The sources still seam to show that the group isn't notable (in my opinion), however, this is just my opinion and maybe other editors will disagree with me. Good luck with finding the sources, and I really hope that you do prove its notability so it can be kept. I'm going to bed in a minute so I'm sorry if I don't reply swiftly to comments. Regards and all the best RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey don't worry, I'm not taking anything personal! I see it now as merely misunderstanding of policy. Nothing personal at all to me, I'd never even heard of this group before seeing it on AfD! Good to see you also aren't taking what I said personally about checking, I was just asking. Gee, it seems we are all being so overly polite over this! Oh... and while I'm about it.... sorry to be a spelling nazi but this is the second time I've seen you spell seem as seam. If you know the difference then ingore this comment, if not it would help for you to look it up. Mathmo ^Talk 00:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm a Pharmacology student not an English student so maybe my spelling isn't quite upto scratch. God, if there was an appologetic (hope the spellings right!) barnstar, I think we'd both deserve one! Anyway, back to business......... WP:N states that they should be the subject of non trivial works, I just feel that the references you've added don't make operation christian vote the major subject and they just briefly mention them, I don't think its misunderstanding of policy, merely interpretation RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

lol, I think I need to go check if there is an appologetic barnstar! There probably is. I've had friends doing Pharmacology, interesting subject. Though I'm a Physics/Math/CompSci student myself (no english there! Wouldn't want to study it myself, well... is at least very low down on my list of favourite subjects to study). I'd have completely ignored your spelling error normally (it did stand out bodly to me the first time I saw it a few minutes ago), but when I see it a second time soon afterwards... for such a simple word too (is only four letters long, sure if it had been twenty four letters long... that is completely different)! Heh, my perfectionist side and eager to help side comes out. Anyway, am getting extremely sidetracked here. But doesn't matter, because I've already answered your main point on the AfD... Mathmo ^Talk 00:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Evanescence

Hi, I've seen you frequently around the article Evanescence and other related articles. Please consider joining the WikiProject Evanescence, an effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage and detail regarding Evanescence. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks that you can help with. Thank you!!!

 Armando.O  ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that, but then again I did already know about this..... the evidence. Mathmo ^Talk 13:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 12th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 7	12 February 2007	About the Signpost

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

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Your hypothetical question

Amazing Race Contestant Deletions

You asked a question on the David Conley, Jr. deletion about WP:POINT. The answer may be here. --evrik ^(talk) 16:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

errr... yeah, had seen there was that link. Only followed it through just now though. Anyway I don't really want to get involved with that. But that is why I was more cautious with my voting. It just looked dodgy what was happening, wouldn't have minded at all though if somebody else had done the nominating of the articles for deletion. Mathmo ^Talk 17:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• Yup. I understand. --evrik ^(talk) 17:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: RfA

Hi, thanks for you confidence in me it is very much appreciated. I do intend to run for adminship in the near future but I want to make sure I am fully prepared first. I hope you will still feel you can support me when the time comes. Thanks again, Mallanox 00:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

New seduction community template

In light of the recent nomination of Template:Notable Members of The Seduction Community, I've began work on a new, broader template in my namespace (here). The intention is that it is placed at the bottom of the page. — Sasuke Sarutobi 16:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for letting me know. And happy Valentines day! lol Mathmo ^Talk 17:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: SOCOM 4: U.S. Navy SEALs

Re your message: Another admin deleted it again. -- Gogo Dodo 19:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

DRV

The article Hillcrest Christian School, on which you commented is up for DRV here. You may wish to take part in the debate. Bridgeplayer 17:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Sand Squid/Messy Stench

Too late & too bad. Another deletion happy admin deleted it. I think these guys get hard-ons from deleting stuff. Like I've said before, it's easier to delet than create or repair.--Sand Squid 06:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Email

Hey - can you set a real email address in your preferences? I'd love to drop you a line. WoodenBuddha

Strange, I thought I'd set it up a while ago. Wonky memory.... lets go check. Mathmo ^Talk 08:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Mountain Biking on Mount Tamalpais

Hello, An article that I created as a part of Wikiproject Cycling called Mountain Biking on Mount Tamalpais and linked to the Mount Tamalpais article, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mountain Biking on Mount Tamalpais. Thank you, Bob in Las Vegas -  uriel8  (talk) 09:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration

I have initiated a Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Nearly Headless Nick disregarding consensus and consensus-related policies, a matter in which I believe you to have been involved in the case history of. Your commentary may be appreciated. Balancer 13:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• I've C&Ped the statements from the RfA to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington (2nd RfC) on the basis that there seems to be agreement that the issue should be taken up in RfC. You may wish to ratify, modify, withdraw, etc your statement if you have made one, or add a statement if you have not. Balancer 23:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey

I've just added some new stuff, but not to the sarging diary, but to the PUA wiki instead. I'm considering deleting that diary and just adding a link to the wiki under my other other diary. Just keeping you updated. Dessydes 11:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Cheers, though it is one of the zillions of things I've got on my watchlist anyway. So I tend to notice the changes you make to it most of the time... Mathmo ^Talk 11:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

'Kay I won't delete the page, but I do want to delete the link to the annihilation vid. It'll still be on the other wiki. Gotta keep this stuff as inner circle as possible. As always, you'll be the first to know when I make changes. Dessydes 07:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 19th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 8	19 February 2007	About the Signpost

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

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Independent evidence for Apollo Moon landings into Apollo Moon Landing Hoax Accusations

This is just to let you know that there is a merge proposal being considered at Independent evidence for Apollo Moon landings. Given that you participated in the AfD debate about this article, you might be interested in leaving your opinion concerning this merge on the talk page. Lunokhod 16:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

RfA proposal

Wow, thank you so much for suggesting it! I don't think I'm ready yet; I'd like to get more involved with policy and XfD's, as well as procedure. So far my contribs have been fairly even among writing and fixing articles and vandal patrol, and I hope to keep it that way. Another article or two to GA or better yet FA, a few more months under my belt, and I'll certainly consider your suggestion! Many thanks, — Editor at Large^(speak) 06:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

That is a good idea of yours, it will make it a stronger possibility you will pass on your first try (I hadn't yet done a super careful check of contributions, you had simply seemed like a good possibility from what I could at first see (there has been recent discussion about a need for more admins). But increased editing in those areas would for sure be helpfull in your greater understanding of wikipedia). I'll do my best to keep you in mind in a few months time, and check you out some more when the time comes (feel free to remind me). Mathmo ^Talk 13:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Pocket trout

Right now, I don't think it should be deleted as the claim it was non-notable in the prod wasn't substantiated. I nominated it for AFD because that's what I usually do with articles that are prodded for the wrong reason, but might still warrant deletion for something else. I'm hoping to get community input. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see now. So I gather that you are then expressing no opinion about the keeping or not of the article? If so it probably would be a good idea to state that in the nomination. Thanks anyway for clearing it up a little with me. Mathmo ^Talk 13:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 26th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 9	26 February 2007	About the Signpost

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

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

New WikiProject

Hey, I'm starting a new WikiProject (sorry that I haven't responded in a while) called Mathematics Construction. The temporary WikiProject is here. Hope you can help! Sr13 (T|C) 07:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 5th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 10	5 March 2007	About the Signpost

New Yorker correction dogs arbitrator into departure	WikiWorld comic: "The Rutles"
News and notes: Picture of the Year, milestones	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Hamish Carter

It's true enough. I added a link on his page to the news story on the BBC site. Regards. --Maarten1963 20:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

David DeAngelo

Hey, could you do me a favor and work in the sources I listed? I would do it myself but I'm stuck with massive amounts of hw. Thanks man. --Amit 02:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... how about half and half (or something), I've got a useless internet connection here which is severly limiting my ability to do stuff at the moment. But I'll make a start anyway. Mathmo ^Talk 02:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Louise Nicholas

Hi Mathmo,

Regarding the inclusion of the word "falsely" on the Louise Nicholas wikipedia page - I agree with the previous edit and feel that this word should be removed. Just because "A proves B" does not necessarily mean that "B proves A".

Just noticed that your "User Page" claims you have some knowledge of Maths. Surely the above logic will therefore make sense! :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.123.128.114 (talk • contribs) 06:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

lol, thanks! I did before kind of see what was being said. Though I feel like the opening section ought to include the fact that they were not found to be true. Also originally a person had made a change to it which said she is a liar [18]. But like you I believed that to be a little bit too strong, so when I put in "falsely" [19] I was actually toning it down from liar. At the time I was merely putting in something better than "liar", and "falsely" was the best that came to mind in that mind. However... if a few more seconds of thought... I believe now it would be better to put "unproven" instead of either of the two earlier versions. Mathmo ^Talk 07:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Mathmo,

Much better!

Do you think the opening might read (slightly) better as follows ?

Louise Nicholas is a New Zealand woman who made allegations, later found to be unproven, that she was raped by three New Zealand policemen in her Rotorua flat in 1984. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.155.146.126 (talk • contribs) 07:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• Yup, completely agree! It reads better like that (though probably could be improved even more I presume at a later date). I'll go change it myself again. Just so you know for future reference, most discussion like this is typically made on the article talk page. So others can see it more easily. In this case it doesn't really matter too much, and is even good idea actually when there is a difference of opinions about one article between two editors. If it saves edit warring etc... anyway.... I'll probably make sure I link to here from the article talk page just so others can see for future reference. Mathmo ^Talk 07:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. A good discussion and resolution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.155.146.126 (talk • contribs) 07:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Have you considered getting a user account? Makes your experience a lot better on wikipedia (watchlists, preferences being set, easier communication, etc...) if you are going to be editing here again. Mathmo ^Talk 07:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Please sign my autograph page

Please sign my autograph page. A•N•N•Afoxlover PLEASE SIGN, ANYONE!!! 21:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

cont. Magnetic_Monopole_NPOV

Hello, I was on vacations, sorry. Now replying your message at User talk:Lixo2 and mediation (see link on title).

How ironic, just after I close... Lixo2 shows up! LOL, welcome back Lixo2! Mathmo ^Talk 00:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 12th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 11	12 March 2007	About the Signpost

Report of diploma mill offering pay for edits	Essay tries to clarify misconceptions about Wikipedia
Blog aggregator launched for Wikimedia-related posts	WikiWorld comic: "Cartoon Physics"
News and notes: Wikimania 2007, milestones	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 20th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 12	20 March 2007	About the Signpost

WikiWorld comic: "Wilhelm Scream"	News and notes: Bad sin, milestones
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Spam links in David Deangelo articles

They are most certainly spam links. Most of the links I deleted didn't have reference to David that would be beneficial to readers. (Having a site for dating doesn't make it relevant to a wikipedia article). Most didn't even have a pagerank yet, hardly authoritative or relevant to the article. I'm still open to others, but these are clearly seeking clickthroughs.

attraction-chronicles.net

Its no longer operational, redirects to seduction-chronicles.net. It's one of main websites for the seduction community. Was formerly attraction-chronicles.blogspot.com

Same thing, the site is the same. Attraction-chronicles redirects now to seduction-chronicles.net

Magnetic Monopole NPOV

Please mediators, see Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-01-26 Magnetic Monopole NPOV... Wikipedia need your help, the dominant POV at Magnetic monopole is systematically DELETING (rv) colaborations. 201.83.166.62 14:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

So very sorry, I've been rather busy recently, and stuff here has been slipping my mind. Haven't been doing much more than random sporadic edits at times. I'll get onto this soon. Now... I must sleep, got two important interviews tomorrow and only a few hours sleep until then. Yet I still have a heck of a lot of work to do beforehand.... what fun! Mathmo ^Talk 14:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 26th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 13	26 March 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor: Tardiness, volunteers, RSS
Patrick and Wool resign in office shakeup	WikiWorld comic: "Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo"
News and notes: Board resolutions, milestones	Features and admins
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 14:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 2nd, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 14	2 April 2007	About the Signpost

Poll finds people think Wikipedia "somewhat reliable"	Wikipedia biographical errors attract more attention
Association of Members' Advocates nominated for deletion	Reference desk work leads to New York Times correction
WikiWorld comic: "Charles Lane"	News and notes: Alexa, Version 0.5, attribution poll
Wikipedia in the news	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 9th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 15	9 April 2007	About the Signpost

Danny Wool regains adminship in controversial RFA	Leak last year likely to produce changes for handling next board election
Association of Members' Advocates' deletion debate yields no consensus	WikiWorld comic: "Fake shemp"
News and notes: Donation, Version 0.5, milestones	Wikipedia in the news
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Special note to spamlist users: Apologies for the formatting issues in previous issues. This only recently became a problem due to a change in HTML Tidy; however, I am to blame on this issue. Sorry, and all messages from this one forward should be fine (I hope!) -Ral315

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 16th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 16	16 April 2007	About the Signpost

Encyclopædia Britannica promoted to featured article	Wikipedia continues to get mixed reactions in education
WikiWorld comic: "Hodag"	News and notes: Wikipedia television mention makes news, milestones
Features and admins	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 23rd, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 17	23 April 2007	About the Signpost

Administrator goes rogue, is blocked	Wales unblocks Brandt, then reverses himself
Historian detained after his Wikipedia article is vandalized	Efforts to reform Requests for Adminship spark animated discussion
Canadian politician the subject of an edit war	Virginia Tech massacre articles rise to prominence
Wikipedia enters China one disc at a time	WikiWorld comic: "Buttered cat paradox"
News and notes: Unreferenced biographies, user studies, milestones	Wikipedia in the news
Features and admins	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Deletion review for Template:User no GFDL

Just thought you'd like to know:

A template you participated in a Tfd for (Template:User no GFDL) has subsequently been speedily deleted, and is now under deletion review. Miss Mondegreen | Talk   16:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 30th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 18	30 April 2007	About the Signpost

Students in Western Civilization course find editing Wikipedia frustrating, rewarding	Statistics indicate breadth of Wikipedia's appeal
Featured lists reaches a milestone	Backlogs continue to grow
WikiWorld comic: "Calvin and Hobbes"	News and notes: Board resolutions, user studies, milestones
Features and admins	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 7th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 19	7 May 2007	About the Signpost

Four administrator accounts desysopped after hijacking, vandalism	Digg revolt over DVD key spills over to Wikipedia
Debate over non-free images heats up	Update on Wikimania 2007
Norwegian Wikipedian awarded scholarship	WikiWorld comic: "Friday the 13th"
News and notes: Election volunteers, admin contest, milestones	Features and admins
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

MedCab cases

Hi, please review and close any of MedCab cases you are done with. --Medcabemail 22:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Mathematics CotW

Hey Mathmo, I am writing you to let you know that the Mathematics Collaboration of the week(soon to "of the month") is getting an overhaul of sorts and I would encourage you to participate in whatever way you can, i.e. nominate an article, contribute to an article, or sign up to be part of the project. Any help would be greatly appreciated, thanks--Cronholm144 23:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 14th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 20	14 May 2007	About the Signpost

Administrator status restored to five accounts after emergency desysopping	User committed identities provide protection against account hijacking
Academic journals multiply their analyses of Wikipedia	WikiWorld comic: "Ubbi dubbi"
Features and admins	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Magnetic monopoles

Hi

I saw you'd signed up to handle the dispute at WP:MEDCAB which seems to have flared up again. I'm happy to have a go at sorting out what's going on, but you were the first to wrestle with this so wanted to give you a chance to run with it first. Thanks for your work so far.

Chrislintott 12:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 21st, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 21	21 May 2007	About the Signpost

Corporate editing lands in Dutch media	Spoiler warnings may be tweaked
WikiWorld comic: "Disruptive technology"	News and notes: LGBT project mention, milestones
Features and admins	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 28th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 22	28 May 2007	About the Signpost

Controversy over biographies compounded when leading participant blocked	Norwegian Wikipedian, journalist dies at 59
WikiWorld comic: "Five-second rule"	News and notes: Wikipedian dies, Alexa rank, Jimbo/Colbert, milestones
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 4th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 23	4 June 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor
Sockpuppeting administrator desysopped, banned	Admin restored after desysopping; dispute centers on suitability of certain biographies
Controversial RFA suspended, results pending	Dutch government provides freely licensed photos
WikiWorld comic: "John Hodgman"	News and notes: Another Wikipedian dies, brand survey, milestones
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Worse Than Failure

Ok. I have userfied the page at User:Mathmo/Worse Than Failure. I have nowikied the last part (categories, stub, & an interwiki link) so that they do not activate on a page in User space.

The key issue here is that the article makes no effort to establish the notability of the web site as is required at WP:WEB. If you want the article restored you need to find independant references that satisfy the WP:WEB criteria. Without those, the article is likely to be deleted again if it is recreated. Recreate the same article enough times, and you will find the space blocked from recreation again. So that is not a good way to go about this. Basically, the proper way to handle this is to either convince me that you can satisfy the WP:WEB criteria, or failing that you can take the page to WP:DRV to look for a reversal of my descision by a larger group of general editors. - TexasAndroid 12:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I'm aware of the notability requirements already. Just wanted to check how far along the article had already gone with that. Not at all it seems, I'd have deleted that article too if I hadn't been aware of tdwtf. Guess I'll have to start from scratch in meeting the requirements. Thanks again. Mathmo ^Talk 23:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 11th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 24	11 June 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor
Privacy report lists Wikipedia among best sites, but needing improvement	Board candidacies open, elections planned
WikiWorld comic: "Why did Mike the Headless Chicken cross the road?"	News and notes: Ontario error, no consensus RFA, milestones
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 02:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

nn-warn re Vulcan (programing language)

Notability of Vulcan (programing language)

A tag has been placed on Vulcan (programing language), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. andy 22:10, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem with this article is that it is far more about Wayne Ratliff - who already has an article anyway - than it is about Vulcan. It tells us almost nothing about Vulcan. That's why I added {{db-bio}}. IMHO you need to do a rewrite, focussing on the interesting and relevant features of the language. andy 08:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 18th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 25	18 June 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor
Wikipedia critic's article merged	Board election series: Election information
Admin account apparently compromised, blocked	Controversial RfA withdrawn, bureaucrats fail to clarify consensus
WikiWorld comic: "They Might Be Giants"	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 25th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 26	25 June 2007	About the Signpost

Board election series: An interview with the candidates	RfA receives attention, open proxies policy reviewed
WikiWorld comic: "Thagomizer"	News and notes: Logo error, Norwegian chapter, milestones
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Inappropriatre level of abstraction and assumed expertise for an encyclopedia article

Hi Mathmo, I think, your opinion expressed in "Inappropriatre level of abstraction and assumed expertise for an encyclopedia article" is right.

--Overix 21:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment in support, it can be little things like this which help keep good contributors around. Here is another way I could state what I said: "There are layers of knowledge, and it is not always possible to remove all layers such as to put all knowledge on the same level of required base understanding for understanding." 21:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 2nd, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 27	2 July 2007	About the Signpost

IP unwittingly predicts murder of wrestler: "Awful coincidence"	Board election series: Elections open
German chapter relaunches website, arranges government support	WikiWorld comic: "Cashew"
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 9th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 28	9 July 2007	About the Signpost

Seven administrators request promotion to bureaucrat status	Board election series: Elections closed, results pending
Wikimedia Foundation hires consultant, general counsel	Newspaper obituary plagiarizes Japanese Wikipedia
WikiWorld comic: "Ann Coulter"	News and notes: FA stats, top information site, milestones
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Christian Vincenz

A tag has been placed on Christian Vincenz, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Severo^TC 21:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Christian Vincenz

I deleted the page because it is a rather serious WP:BLP violation. The source you mentioned is a fan page of one of the alleged victims. You will need something non-trivial if you wish to keep that comment. Without it, I doubt Vincenz is otherwise notable. Do you have something non-trivial? If so, I do not mind undeleting it for you to work on. Thanks. JodyB _talk 03:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Please see my reply to your follow up on my talk page. JodyB _talk 14:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

1942

Just a heads up on the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Battlefield 1942 mods (5th nomination. Bfelite 23:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 16th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 29	16 July 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor: Filling in with a new feature
Möller, Walsh retain seats; Brioschi elected	British agency cites Wikipedia in denying F1 trademark
Two new bureaucrats promoted	Wikipedian bloggers launch "article rescue" effort
Book review: The Cult of the Amateur	WikiWorld comic: "Charles Lane"
Wikipedia in the news	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 19:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Silvia Saint

That's odd. If they revert you again, you should file an RfC or take it to WP:ANI. It was likely a mistake, since that page seems to endure rather heavy vandalism, and spam (as I'm sure you can imagine). Cheers, Silly rabbit 12:58, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed I do realise how that page can get a lot of vandalism, I have it and similar pages on my watchlist and I get to see the degree of vandalism they get compared to others. I tend to find people can put "rvv" too readily, using it as a replacement for a real reason. Or even (as is possibly true in this case) in an attempt to hide an edit of their own which is removing valid content. Mathmo ^Talk 13:03, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Meetup

Hey, I noticed you attended one of the previous auckland meetups, and I am notifying previous attendees we are planning another one on 11th August. See the meetup page for more information, or to say if you are coming. Thanks! Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 01:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Going to check it out. Mathmo ^Talk 03:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 23rd, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 30	23 July 2007	About the Signpost

WikiWorld comic: "World domination"	News and notes: "The Wikipedia Story", visa ruling, milestones
Wikipedia in the news	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Jessica Drake

I have reverted your edits to Jessica Drake as IMDB and TV.com both are not what are considered reliable sources. See here for more details regarding IMDB as a source. Tabercil 03:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

High Society

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent contribution removed content from High Society (magazine). Please be more careful when editing pages and do not remove content from Wikipedia without a good reason, which should be specified in the edit summary. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Valrith 03:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

If you had read the edit summary you would have seen I had specified why. You haven't responded to what I said, instead you labeled my edit as vandalism in your edit summary. Mathmo ^Talk 04:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• • Please do not delete content from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to High Society (magazine). Your edits do not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use Wikipedia:Sandbox for test edits. Thank you. Valrith 19:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Meadowlands shopping plaza

Hi, could you please tell me what the problem is with this article that they seem to be having for no real apparent reason?Jameeserano 04:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Mall articles

Hi - I would like to save the AfD mall articles from deletion, but for personal reason, I would not like to edit them, or be connected too much. I have done some research to allow you to add notability and references to them, or anyone else who would want to work on them:

Downtown:

[20] - provides 2005 retail sales figure at very bottom.

[21] - minor note, not really adding to notability, talking about the huge billboards around it.

[22] - actually, if you have the time, extend the signage discussion, as discussed in this article - even if the Wikipedia article calls it a bland building covered with garish signs - thats info, and adds to the article's quality. Also has some minor details about the centre referenced.

St Lukes:

[23] loads of minor and major info about St Lukes AND Downtown. Gives info on the time of name rebranding of Westfield Downtown. Has LOADS of info on St Lukes expansion and data on the mall itself.

Westcity

[24] Stage One of its existence.

[25] Info on the The Warehouse move into it.

[26] first NZ Village Skycity cinema (link to the Village Skycity article in Wikipedia too, please), same article also has info on the cinema in St Lukes.

[27] Mall turnover

[28] Some more info about its value.

[29] Already historical article, info on its previous ownership.

PS: When you add the reference summaries of the bdcentral articles, maybe use the info here to show the credibility of the source. The site may also be useful with its search function for the other malls.

Auckland Meetup 3 - Coming?

In Wikipedia:Meetup/Auckland 3, you have listed yourself as a likely attendee (and offered to bring a laptop) as well as in the apologies section. Will you be there or not? confused... Linnah 09:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

• Oops, was in a rush and thought that was a comments section! Mathmo ^Talk 22:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Silvia Saint

This message is being left for both User:Mathmo and User:Valrith:

I have seen the two of you steadily reverting each other's edits over the link to Silvia Saint's MySpace page in her article. I strongly urge both of you to take your dispute to Talk:Silvia Saint. Further additions and/or deletions prior to discussion occuring will result in the offending party being blocked and/or the article in question being fully protected. Tabercil 22:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 30th, 2007.

Apologies for the late delivery this week; my plans to handle this while on vacation went awry. Ral315

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 31	30 July 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor: Another experiment and Wikimania
Report on Citizendium	Response: News from Citizendium
User resigns admin status amid allegations of sock puppetry	WikiWorld comic: "Mr. Bean"
Wikipedia in the news	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 00:13, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Three kings

The problem was the article was a significant breach of CSD G12, being a direct copyright violation from another website, the A7 was just a sundary deletion reason. By having this article CSD'd instead of completing the full AfD process, it means that the article can be recreated without falling foul of CSD G4 (Recreation of deleted material). You see, there is method to the madness. I would suggest that you work on the article in your own personal sandbox, and once you think it's ready come and obtain some feedback from others on WP:SHOP before moving it into mainspace. To start off the article strucutre, grab a copy of my shopping centre article baseline template, copy it into your sandbox and work from there. If you have any questions or need some help, please don't hesitate to ask. Cheers, Thewinchester ^(talk) 04:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for explaining, makes much more sense the method you followed. Just seemed odd at first. Mathmo ^Talk 21:04, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Indented comments on numbered lists

On numbered lists (using #), indenting using :: causes the numbering to restart from 1. Instead, use #:, which keeps the numbering intact. Thanks! Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 22:09, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I didn't even notice it. Mathmo ^Talk 22:18, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 6th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 32	6 August 2007	About the Signpost

Committee makes statement on U.S. chapter	About: The Wikipedia Plays
Review: The Wikipedia Plays	WikiWorld comic: "Terry Gross"
News and notes: Similpedia, milestones	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 09:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Talk Pages (re:Keri Sable)

I think you should take your own advice and read WP:TALK, where it clearly states " The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page ". Neither the vandalistic comment I removed from this talk page, nor your addition of a link to the edit history fit this definition. Valrith 20:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Vulcan

'Twas a mistake. I've restored the history. Thanks for letting me know. --Coredesat 22:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Looks like only one edit by you stating that the creator of the language is notable. It's probably not worth bringing back, although you can recreate it as a redirect to the dBase talk page if you want. --Coredesat 00:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

helpful WP space pages

for t hose following AfDs: [30] , and a new one, [31] DGG (talk) 02:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Cheers, although... I was already linking to the first one from my userpage! (gives you an idea of how handy I feel it is..... ) Mathmo ^Talk 03:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Deleted material

Restoring explicitly deleted material, as you did here is not a good idea. Pages are deleted for a reason, and doing things like that will make userfication of other deleted content less likely. --Eyrian 18:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

That has nothing to do with userfication, it hasn't been. Neither could I find any such deleted page, I was restoring it from the history of the main article. Material existing as a separate article or within an article are two completely different things. Mathmo ^Talk 20:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

No, they're not. That material was deemed unsuitable for Wikipedia. It was spun off, then deleted. --Eyrian

IPC

"I feel that it is important to keep popular culture articles because they inherently demonstrate the notability of the parent article while at the same time keeping the parent article more streamlined. Mathmo ^Talk 22:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)"

What you are talking about is taking a list of materials, cited to primary sources, that are being arranged in a particular way to make a point. Tha is to say, you are taking a bunch of primary sources and using them to show something new (i.e. importance). That is categorically original research, and unacceptable. --Eyrian 22:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Meh, I just wrote that a few minutes ago as a start to a more in depth discussion. I've barely made a start with what I have on my userpage there, is mainly just a remind to myself it something I'd like to write a little more about. I'll discuss it more with you once I've done that.

Re: List of Scientologist

Double check it, it's right. Kwsn^(Ni!) 01:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

It's nothing new to do that, I've done it before and have seen others do it. There was what, a 1-2 hour difference? If it were a greater gap, I wouldn't have done it, but I'm leaving it on. Kwsn^(Ni!) 01:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I know it has been done a lot, but strictly speaking it not right. Because it has been let slide before doesn't mean it can always been done. Plus in the AfD there has already been many votes/comments on it. Even worse for you case, is the number of them referring to merging into List of Scientologists. Which now would be patent nonsense, as they are both listed. Mathmo ^Talk 01:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Trainspotting

I missed your additions to the talkpage at the time and have replied there. Valenciano 07:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Cheers! Even though I'd completely forgotten about that edit until I saw it again... is all good. Mathmo ^Talk 06:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm rich!

Sadly, I didn't get any takers on my bet. There's probably some rule against it, that's called WP:BET, but if all else fails, someone need only say WP:FIVE. Mandsford 21:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 13th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 33	13 August 2007	About the Signpost

CC 3.0 licenses accepted on Commons	Reviewing five software requests
WikiWorld comic: "2000s"	News and notes: Meetup, milestones
Wikipedia in the news	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 20:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Clown shoes

a video of Mystery wearing clown shoes? hahaha. I gotta see that. Dissolva 18:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 27th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 35	27 August 2007	About the Signpost

WikiWorld comic: "Helicopter parent"	News and notes: Court case, BJAODN, milestones
Wikipedia in the news	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 3rd, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 36	3 September 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor: Interview with Jimbo Wales
WikiScanner tool expands, poses public relations problems for Dutch royal family	WikiWorld comic: "George P. Burdell"
News and notes: Fundraiser, Wikimania 2008, milestones	Wikipedia in the news
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. R Delivery Bot 04:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 10th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 37	10 September 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor: Interview with Jimbo Wales
An interview with Jimbo Wales	WikiWorld comic: "Godwin's Law"
News and notes: 2,000,000, Finnish ArbCom, statistics, milestones	Wikipedia in the news
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. R Delivery Bot 20:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 17th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 38	17 September 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor: Reader survey
Wikimedia treasurer expected to depart soon	WikiWorld comic: "Sarah Vowell"
News and notes: Template standardization, editing patterns, milestones	Wikipedia in the news
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 03:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 24th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost

Volume 3, Issue 39	24 September 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor: Survey results
Wikimedia announces plans to move office to San Francisco	WikiWorld comic: "Ambigram"
News and notes: Times archives, conferences, milestones	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. R Delivery Bot 02:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 03, 2007

The Wikipedia Signpost

Volume 3, Issue 40	1 October 2007	About the Signpost

WikiWorld comic: "Buttered cat paradox"	News and notes: Commons uploaders, Wikimania 2008/2009, milestones
Wikimedia in the News	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Automatically delivered by COBot 02:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 15th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 42	15 October 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor: Brion Vibber interview
Wikimania 2008 awarded to Alexandria	Board meeting held, budget approved
Wikimedia Commons reaches two million media files	San Francisco job openings published
Community sanction noticeboard closed	Bot is approved to delete redirects
License edits under consideration to accommodate Wikipedia	WikiWorld comic: "Soramimi Kashi"
News and notes: Historian dies, Wiki Wednesdays, milestones	Wikimedia in the News
WikiProject Report: Military history	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 09:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Gangs in New Zealand

A {{prod}} template has been added to the article Gangs in New Zealand, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with {{db-author}}. gadfium 00:33, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

You were planning to get back to this article in March. Could you add a full introductory paragraph, at least, with a list of the main gangs and some sort of context. Are we talking about gangs of a particular ethnic/racial makeup, motorcycle gangs? Grey power? (just kidding!) Areas of New Zealand where problems or influence is greatest? I don't want to AfD this, but it really isn't acceptable in its current form.-gadfium 07:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 22nd, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 43	22 October 2007	About the Signpost

Fundraiser opens, budget released	Biographies of living people grow into "status symbol"
WikiWorld comic: "George Stroumboulopoulos"	News and notes: Wikipedian Robert Braunwart dies
WikiProject Report: League of Copyeditors	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Sorry for the tardiness in sending the Signpost this week. --Ral315

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 14:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 29th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 44	29 October 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor: Florence Devouard interview
Page creation for unregistered users likely to be reenabled	WikiWorld comic: "Human billboard"
News and notes: Treasurer search, fundraiser, milestones	WikiProject Report: Agriculture
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 5th and 12th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 45	5 November 2007	About the Signpost

Wikimedia avoids liability in French lawsuit	WikiWorld comic: "Fall Out Boy"
News and notes: Grant money, fundraiser, milestones	WikiProject Report: Lists of basic topics
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 3, Issue 46	12 November 2007	About the Signpost

Unregistered page creation remains on hold so far	WikiWorld comic: "Exploding whale"
News and notes: Fundraiser, elections galore, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
WikiProject Report: Missing encyclopedic articles	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The Noob

You once voted to Keep the noob, if you are still around, the noob article has been up for three months, and is back in a AFD again. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_noob. Could use your help if you feel like adding another "keep". Timmccloud (talk) 19:49, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Got Your Message

Hey Mathmo what's up you sent me a message a few days ago saying my article might be deleted and It was. I was wondering you could help give me some tips so I could rewrite it up to standard. It was the Article I had written on the PUA Guru Vin Dicarlo, I took his workshop, loved it and noticed that he didn't have a wikipedia thing, so I figured I'd add him. My question is how many references do I need because I can only find a few about him. Thanks Man

EdgeFree —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edgefree (talk • contribs) 21:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 19th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 47	19 November 2007	About the Signpost

An interview with Florence Devouard	Author borrows from Wikipedia article without attribution
WikiWorld comic: "Raining animals"	News and notes: Page patrolling, ArbCom age requirement, milestones
Wikipedia in the News	WikiProject Report: History
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 10:24, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 26th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 48	26 November 2007	About the Signpost

Arbitration Committee elections: Candidate profiles	WikiWorld comic: "Cursive"
News and notes: Ombudsman commission, fundraiser, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
WikiProject Report: Education in Australia	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 3rd, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 49	3 December 2007	About the Signpost

Signpost interview: New Executive Director Sue Gardner	Arbitration Committee elections: Elections open
Possible license migration sparks debate	Featured articles director names deputy
Software bug fixed, overuse of parser function curtailed	WikiWorld comic: "Wordplay"
News and notes: Wikipedian honored, fundraiser, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
WikiProject Report: LGBT studies	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 09:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 10th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 50	10 December 2007	About the Signpost

Wikipedia dragged into German politics over Nazi images	Wales comments on citing Wikipedia produce BBC correction
WikiWorld comic: "Kilroy was here"	News and notes: Elections, Wikimania 2009, milestones
Wikipedia in the News	WikiProject Report: Greater Manchester
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 17th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 51	17 December 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor: ArbCom elections, holiday publication
Former Wikimedia employee's criminal history detailed	Möller resigns from board, joins foundation as employee
Google announces foray into user-generated knowledge	WikiWorld comic: "Tractor beam"
News and notes: Elections, Wikimania 2009, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
WikiProject Report: Plants	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 19:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

COI DeAngelo Criticisms

Hey Mathmo, if you take a closer look at the DeAngelo history, you'll see there's been a lot of trouble with various sock puppets sanitizing and vandalizing at whim or based on financial interest. I myself am not affiliated with any of the companies who profit on the community and industry. So you're too quick on the trigger. Please investigate the links and see if there's merit to them. But stop playing with the criticisms section, as without it, the entire page becomes a one-dimensional marketing / advertising piece for the DeAngelo empire. Take a look and let me know on my talk! DutchSeduction (talk) 14:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I have been following that page now for a long time. A person does not have to get monetary profit to have potential COI of interest, for instance I run various things completely for free yet I do not promote them at all on wikipedia because of the potential COI that could possibly be brought up. Likewise it would be best if you exercised similar caution. Also yes I have looked at the links, they do not look at like what I'd add to the article because I feel that they wouldn't be adding to it. Perhaps if somebody else has been adding in your links then would be some merit in your argument, but for now ease up on it. Thanks. Mathmo ^Talk 02:42, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Mathmo, you are assuming that the site is mine. It's not. You're playing a 3RR game, and continually removing all criticism from the DeAngelo page. Thereby whitewashing a page that is full of corporate product promotion and weasel words. None of the links are commercial, and only a couple of them were added by me, and all of them provide examples of alternatives, made non-commercially available. 3RR Please lay off the vandalism. Feel free to contribute and add to the criticism section. DutchSeduction (talk) 12:51, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 26th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 52	26 December 2007	About the Signpost

Wales appoints six arbitrators	Board approves expansion, up to 11 trustees possible
WikiWorld comic: "Molasses"	News and notes: Stewards, Senate testimony, milestones
Wikipedia in the News	WikiProject Report: Plants
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 13:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 2nd and 7th, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 1	2 January 2008	About the Signpost

WikiWorld comic: "John Lasseter"	News and notes: Stewards, fundraiser, milestones
Wikipedia in the News	WikiProject Report: Scouting
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 2	7 January 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor: Stepping in after delay
New Wikipedia discussion forum gains steam	WikiWorld comic: "Goregrind"
Wikipedia in the News	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 14th, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 3	14 January 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor: A new weekly feature
Special: 2007 in Review	Wikimania 2009 bidding ends, jury named
Controversial non-administrator rollback process added	Supposed advance draft of Jobs keynote surfaces on talk page
WikiWorld comic: "The Nocebo Effect"	News and notes: Fundraiser ends, $500,000 donation, milestones
Wikipedia in the News	Tutorial: Fundamentals of editing
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Vin DiCarlo

If you google Vin DiCarlo then scroll down and look at the cache there is an older version of the page from Jan 9. laurap414 (talk) 19:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Vin DiCarlo 2

Hey Mathmo,

Thanks for the support on Vin DiCarlo. I'm new at this and it helps to know that there's someone trying to see the merit in what people are writing rather than just voting to DELETE because they don't like what they read.

I think it's important to include DiCarlo as part of the community because he represents a whole mode of thought that's been gaining in popularity.

It appears that you've contributed to a number of pages regarding the pickup/seduction community so I'm guessing you have some knowledge about it.

I'm hesitant to post anything now because of salting and being blocked. I just wanted to start a basic page to which people could add their opinions good or bad. The last page I posted was basically just facts about his life. It didn't mention anything about his reputation except for the fact that he's known for creating the concept of "Natural Game"

I'd appreciate your help on this.

1. How many independent sources does a subject need to be valid? 2. Given that the seduction community is largely web based except for a minority of people who have very recently gotten the attention of mainstream media (due in large part to the book The Game which is written by a member of the community) is it at all valid to use blogs or other reputable websites as sources? 3. What can I put up there now to avoid saltage and blockage?

Thanks again! Zbrowman (talk) 20:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

1. Several sources are needed (i.e. more than one).
2. Yes, though obviously you can't basis an article entirely upon blog sources because they are generally user created content (and additionally common sense has to be applied in what blogs are to included, and which are simply blah and are not to be included).
3. There is no danger of you being blocked based on your current/past behavior that I've seen (and assuming you don't go breaking anything like WP:3RR or WP:CIVIL etc in the future). Why are you worried about being blocked?!?! As for the article to be salted, well... I strongly believe there are no reasons of that to happen even IF it is deleted (obviously an article needs to be deleted first before it can be salted). The best thing you can do is actively participate on the AfD (I noticed you have made one comment on it, but you really must also write your keep "vote" along with your reasons next to it as well, like I and others have done). Also improve the current page so it looks better, and actually IS better. Doing what the person above said about using the google cache would be a good start for you (though you might find the wiki code a little difficult).

Anyway, hope this helps a little. Feel free to ask any more questions or for other help, I'm happy to help a newbie on this matter. :) Mathmo ^Talk 21:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 21st, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 4	21 January 2008	About the Signpost

Special: 2007 in Review, Part II	New parser preprocessor to be introduced
Commons Picture of the Year contest in final round	WikiWorld comic: "Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo"
News and notes: Freely-licensed music, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 00:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 28th, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 5	28 January 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor: New feature
Special: 2007 in Review, Part III	Signpost interview: John Broughton
New parser preprocessor introduced	Best of WikiWorld: "Truthiness"
News and notes: Estonian Wikipedia, Picture of the Year, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Tutorial: Reporting and dealing with vandals	WikiProject Report: Molecular and Cellular Biology
Wikipedia Dispatches: Banner year for Featured articles	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 03:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

"New mail" bar on your userpage

Hey! I noticed that you had a fake new mail bar. This is generally frowned upon, so can you please remove that? Thanks! Jonathan 17:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Read the past discussions, it is fine. Perhaps I'll need to add next a "warning: a sense of humour is required to enjoy this area"? Ah well, anyway hope you too have had a great weekend! Cheers. Mathmo ^Talk 20:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 4th, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 6	4 February 2008	About the Signpost

Special: 2007 in Review, Part IV	Tensions in journalistic use of Wikipedia explored
Best of WikiWorld: "Calvin and Hobbes"	News and notes: Milestones
Wikipedia in the News	Tutorial: Adding citations
Dispatches: New methods to find Featured Article candidates	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

ross jeffries

Please read WP:BLP and the BLP notice on the talk page before you revert any further removals of information from that biography. DGG (talk) 05:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Mystery Method

Your writeup of the legal dispute is word-for-word what is posted on the Venusian Arts site. It is NOT neutral. I don't know what your commercial agenda is who you are, but there are two sides to this dispute (as I linked to before it got removed) and so far the courts have all ruled that the claims that VA has put up (and repeated on this page word-for-word) do NOT have merit.

Please be open-minded about the situation craft something neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.47.140.107 (talk) 19:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Mystery Method#Content_dispute_beginning_08:17.2C_7_February_2008_.28UTC.29. Thanks!   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 20:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Long user talk page

This user talk page is becoming long. Some browsers may have problems editing pages approaching or longer than 32kb. Please archive this talk page in accordance with the guidelines laid out here. You can do this automatically with MiszaBot III. Thank you.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 20:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

cheers, had plans for a certain kind of arrangement of archiving that I was going to get around to doing sometime in the future... but this looks like an easier alternative that I'll do for now. Mathmo ^Talk 21:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

No I am not!

What I do not understand is why would you not let the court ruling sit there? What can be your agenda behind that?