User talk:CIreland

don't delete my page about listing the Bemani pocket games on there own pages

don't

Rethink Speedy Deletion: Induced Birth Infant Liability Act

Man! I put three hours into that one. There was no POV or disparagement in this entry. If you think this is an attack piece with strong POV, then I think you have a duty to edit the article on Alan Keyes that also mentions this with similar language. It's an important article because there is controversy around this issue. But not mine! I read about it on a conservative blog and couldn't find anything on this other than the Google cache. I think it adds interesting information to the debate. Personally I'm a strong supporter of the Senator, and this information helps me understand ALL debate and the angles partisans will take. For example, I also enjoyed reading Michelle Obama's senior thesis, even though her school sealed it. The campaign released it and it turns out there was no racism at all! So the conservative bloggers crying about it were wrong. But I only know that because I had ACCESS to the document. Consider the fine line we walk here and rethink your speedy deletion. jk (talk)

I have looked again at the deleted article and I have not changed my opinion. More than half the main text of the article concerns Barack Obama rather than the act itself. Moreover, Obama is the only state senator whose actions and responses are analyzed in the article. Furthermore, of text concerning Obama, almost all of it is focussed on criticism of him - was there no-one who agreed with his actions? I am fully convinced that the article in the form which I deleted has as its primary purpose the disparagement of Barack Obama rather than a neutral summary of the act. Consequently, I continue to contend that this is a valid deletion under WP:CSD#G10 and additionally according the biographies of living persons policy. If you wish to contest this, I would suggest using deletion review or, if you believe I have misused the deletion process for political ends, you may choose to elaborate your grievance at WP:ANI. CIreland (talk) 20:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

That's a tough one but I respect your take on this. I think this would be an valid article if this issue ever became widely controversial. I had fun researching it nonetheless. But none of the edits or previous versions are archived anywhere, right? I'm curious to see where this one goes in the next few months. Cheers. jk (talk)

I don't believe we have specific notability requirements for acts by state legislatures in the US; I would imagine it depends on the amount of analysis and/or reporting of the particular act. I haven't checked but I would imagine that there would have been plenty of coverage of this act in the media, thus I don't see any problem with having a neutral article on the act. CIreland (talk) 20:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

An typical action by a generic state legislator is rarely notable, especially when it concerns a proposed but failed bill! The importance here is the controversy. Alan Keyes used it in his campaign for Senator and I'm POSITIVE this issue will be pulled out again. So a precedent here is the Swift_Boat_Veterans entry. But this issue does not meet the notability test yet, I think, because it is not in the mainstream press.jk (talk)

Ah. Didn't realise it was a failed bill. Sorry, I'm from the UK where 'act' means the bill passed so I assumed that this was local law. CIreland (talk) 00:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Cannabis Culture & Cost

Eleven years ago The Ottawa Citizen published four consecutive Editorials in four days calling for the legalization of Cannabis. Calling the Editor to commend him for such bold action, it was suggested an article be submitted for payment if published on the Op-Ed page. On submission, the Editor said, "Now we're going to have to shit or get of the pot."

It was published as a Letter To The Editor with the heart and guts edited out so that no reader would have a clear perspective or understanding of the issue. If you're interested, you can read the article in the discussion here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Joseph_Cormier and maybe comment on the images in the article. Peace DoDaCanaDa (talk) 20:07, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Nice Work!

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Thanks for reverting vandalism on my talk page! Shapiros10 contact meMy work 12:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Roman Empire edit warring

Hello. Are you to hate what I edit? I do not understand. Thank you. Nikephoros Phokas (talk) 20:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Has the cavalary arrived? One can only hope so.

Hy, look I'm a bit tired of the whole issue so I'm not going to try to be candid. You have noted that an user is trying to push his POV in the article "Roman Empire". I know my limits and the rules (3RR) and therefore I'm unable to fix the damage which Nikophoras has done to the article. If you are willing, and if you have the patience for it, could you please revert the article to the prior version (the article as it was before he simply imposed his POV and simply deleted worthy info - check the diff)? Thank you. Flamarande (talk) 20:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

This is escalating. Could you please protect the article? Flamarande (talk) 20:56, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I would rather not, as I see one editor edit-warring and then logging out to continue. I have blocked him and his IP. If he returns with a new IP, I will semi-protect the page, but I would prefer to avoid this as this will also prevent the good faith edits of User:209.90.146.105 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). CIreland (talk) 20:58, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I know that I'm probably overreacting (at this point a bit of paranoia appears in unpleasant ways :( ) but I find it a bit suspicious that several users (mark: strictly new user accounts with virtually no edits anywhere else) appeared in the article's talkpage all advocating the 'same side'. Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Cody7777777. Increasing my suspicion is the fact that Cody always wants the last word in the debate and is usually very efficient and all too quick to do so. But as Nico began to impose his POV Cody became mute. As I said I'm very likely to be simply over reacting but... Flamarande (talk) 21:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow. Regardless what you want to believe, I have no idea who Goremite, Nikephoros Phocas, or Molot Gorla are. The IP adress 193.227.242.2 was mine, I forgot to log, when I wanted to post something. I had no reason to join the "edit war", from a historic point of view I believe the "Roman Empire" ended in 1461 (which is not mentioned at all in the "infobox", it is true that is nearer to 1453, and so I had no reason to stop them), and unlike the users who want "1453", I don't want to waste my time in "edit wars", I have other things to do on my computer, (I only edit it twice a month ago, when Wengier changed from "1453" to "476" on 19:36, 12 June 2008, after that Wengier "fought" with Titus001 until they reached the "476/1453" compromise). Also, if it is really important, I'm Roman(ian), not Greek/Romios or Turkish. Cody7777777 (talk) 22:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Cody7777777, I think I have to clarify about this. It was Titus001 who first changed from "476" to "1453" on 21:37, 10 June 2008 ([1]), which was soon undid by Ssolbergj on 21:49, 10 June 2008 ([2]). It was until Titus001 changed again from "476" to "1453" on 17:58, 12 June 2008 ([3]), I undid his edit on 19:36, 12 June 2008 ([4]) by saying "Romulus Augustus was NOT deposed in 1453", because he only changed the end year, but not the end event, which caused INCONSISTENCY between the end year and event. Thus, the version before the previous (relatively small) edit war was "476", not "1453". The compromise "476/1453" was reached during this edit war.--Wengier (talk) 01:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the accusation (I was mainly reffering to my actions in the above post), I was simply around that day watching the article, and at one point I realized, that the end date changed from "1453" to "476", and since no one seemed to change it back that day, I decided to do so myself. Cody7777777 (talk) 02:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

You should also block the other anon and Flamarande. They want the same thing and edit the same "POV". Or are you going to block only one opinion? Goremite (talk) 21:20, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

LOL (see the post above). Please semi-protect the page asap (could you please revert his edit before you do so?). 209.90.146.105 will hopefully understand. Flamarande (talk) 21:24, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Laugh ou loud indeed. That you wantt your version protect is fairly obvious ... though you seem to have CIreland suckered. CIreland, if you are Flamarande Point of View buddy you should declare it rather than sitting on the sidelines waitting to selectively apply your block and protection buttons. Flamarande's POV has been recentlyy destroyed completely by Dimadick by the way. Goremite (talk) 21:29, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

OK CIreland. I am not supposed to revert more than 3 times. Correct? Flamarande is? Can I revert again now because Flamarande has gone 4 times, or is the rule not flexible? Goremite (talk) 21:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I will not block another editor for reverting the edits of an obvious block-evading sockpuppet. CIreland (talk) 22:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Roman Empire

Hi CIreland. I protected the Roman Empire article because of the ongoing edit war that began as soon as the previous protection lifted. I am of course willing to lift the protection as soon as is possible, and I will step it down to semi-protection for now. Is there a good chance that semi-protection will prevent a re-occurrence of the edit warring? I have deliberately not involved myself in the details of the content dispute in order to avoid taking sides. If the situation would be better served with semi-protection, then blocks may be required to prevent further edit wars. I have confidence that you will step in to take the right actions. Best, Gwernol 22:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I've reset protection to semi. Hopefully things will calm down now. Glad you're on the case. Good luck, Gwernol 22:22, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the revert

Thanks for reverting the wonderful thank you note that vandal left on my user page. Much appreciated, and happy editing, Leonard^(Bloom) 04:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I've mentioned one of your 3RRN decisions at AN/I (not to complain about you)

In filing a complaint at AN/I against Scjessey, I've mentioned your decision about his case on July 1 at 3RRN. I don't mention you by name and don't criticize you personally, but you may want to see the report here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Scjessey lying, gaming the system, POV pushing. -- Noroton (talk) 19:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

DoctorFrench

Hi, you recently blocked User:DoctorFrench for edit warring. There's currently a sockpuppetry case in the queue concerning User:Emma368 (who was blocked yesterday for impersonating an Admin in the sockpuppetry case). It looks like the User:DoctorFrench account is yet another sockpuppet which has been used to impersonate me. I'm not sure if it's 'the done thing' for me to ask you to consider permanently blocking User:DoctorFrench as a vandalism-only account, or should I report it at WP:AIV or WP:AN/I? Many thanks for any help or advice you can offer. DrFrench (talk) 20:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• I would like to second this suggestion for a permanent block, though on different grounds which I feel are adequately proven: User impersonation. As you can see, I tried to put this on the proper channel at WP:UAA, but the bot tossed it out since this person is already blocked at present. "Misleading usernames", including impersonation, are already specifically barred by the Wikipedia username policy, as I'm sure you're quite aware. I'm sorry if this comes across as vindictive, but I think it's abundantly clear this user is going to cause trouble and extra work for us all again when the block is lifted, and a longer-term block for this proven (I think/hope?) offense would help to head that off. - Vianello (talk) 20:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Never mind! It appears User:Islander has already extended the block to indefinite. Still, thanks for your assistance and intercession on this! - Vianello (talk) 20:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Care New England

I am contacting you on behalf of Care New England, a health care organization, and would like to know what can be done to put the information about our organization back up on Wikipedia. Thank you Jlg3978 (talk) 13:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

The guidelines for determining whether an organization or company has received sufficient coverage in secondary sources are given in detail at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Additionally, it is important to make sure that any article has the tone and style of an encyclopedia article rather than an advertisement. This is best done by relying on secondary sources for the article rather than the organization's corporate literature. CIreland (talk) 15:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Troy King

Thanks for the protect on Troy King. Looks like things got out of hand last night after I went to bed. Kingnavland (talk) 18:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Allegations of apartheid deletion notification

Some time ago, you participated in a deletion discussion concerning Allegations of Israeli apartheid. I thought you might like to know that the parent article, Allegations of apartheid, was recently nominated for deletion. Given that many of the issues that have been raised are essentially the same as those on the article on which you commented earlier, you may have a view on whether Allegations of apartheid should be kept or deleted. If you wish to contribute to the discussion, please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of apartheid (fifth nomination). -- ChrisO (talk) 18:05, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Samuel Johnson

For the template, I agree. Perhaps, the "letter" should be made its own section on the dictionary page, then the template links to that? What do you think? I have a lot of information on the letter. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 13:22, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't have strong opinion but I do think that a straight merge of Letter to Chesterfield into A Dictionary of the English Language wouldn't be the best at the moment because the Dictionary article is relatively short (and so the Letter content would be disproportionate.) CIreland (talk) 16:19, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Questions about alleged use of multiple anon IP addresses by someone who has an account

Hi. This is a followup to the recent (unsuccessful) request to have the "Illegal immigration to the United States" article semi-protected.

The user Psychohistorian appears to have been editing this and related pages using a long list of anonymous IP addresses. Said list of addresses was put on his/her user page several months ago, and Psychohistorian has made no attempt to delete the list from his/her page, though he/she recently appears to have denied the allegation (albeit claiming that it's irrelevant in any case).

Two questions:

• If it is in fact the case that Psychohistorian is editing anonymously as various IP addresses, in addition to (or instead of) editing as Psychohistorian, is this sort of activity appropriate? If it's not sockpuppetry, it seems to me to be pretty close to it, and despite the comment on his/her user page that "this user is the owner of multiple Wikipedia accounts in a manner permitted by policy", I'm not sure I see which (if any) of the exceptions in WP:SOCK#LEGIT encompasses this particular pattern of usage.

• If (as Psychohistorian now appears to be claiming) these anonymous editors are other people, and not Psychohistorian, would it be appropriate (given the confusion and the real danger of abuse via sockpuppetry) to block all anonymous editing from the specific IP addresses in question, and require these anonymous editors (whoever they are) to sign up for their own individual accounts?

If it were up to me, I admit I would favour a total ban on all IP editing and require all Wikipedia editors to sign up for accounts — but I realize that's not going to happen, and I'm not going to try to push for such a change in general policy. But in cases like this, where there seems to be a real potential for sockpuppetry, I do think it's appropriate to ask for some reasonable action to be taken, even if the result might be to place certain limits on IP editing.

Richwales (talk) 19:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's always a complex issue. There's nothing prohibited about editing anonymously even if you have a shifting IP and/or have a registered account. However, if an editor takes advantage of this to edit war, to evade a block/ban or to otherwise deliberately represent himself as more than one individual, then this become a blockable offence. If it's a borderline case, then file a suspected sock puppet report. If there's clearly a large problem, then additionally ask for a request for checkuser. I've looked over the history of Illegal immigration to the United States for past couple of days but I don't see any serious edit-warring. I do however, see some editors with a clear POV to push, but this is by no means limited anonymous contributors. CIreland (talk) 01:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks. It's not completely clear to me, either, whether real abuse is being done by this particular anonymous editor (who might or might not be the same person as Psychohistorian), in this particular article, at this particular time. And while I would personally prefer to see him/her use a named account rather than IP addresses — and I'm unable to figure out what rational basis he/she could possibly have for declining to do this in hopes of remaining an "outsider" or whatever — I'll accept that he/she does have a right to operate in this way. If I do see evidence of something more serious going on, I'll file a report, but not till then. Thanks again. Richwales (talk) 20:34, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it is hard to see what rational basis an editor would have for refusing to use a named account and rather edit from numerous IP addresses, at least if the editor's intentions are in the spirit of Wikipedia. Editing the same article from multiple IP accounts is confusing for the other editors, which may easily come to believe they are dealing with multiple individuals instead of one, opening for manipulation by the IP master. A fringe "benefit" of using IP accounts might be that it provides an alibi to get other editors to do your bidding - 75.179.153.110 wrote that "anon IPs can't request IP traces" to get Schrandit into doing the checkuser of User:Grant23. Terjen (talk) 05:54, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

On July 15, 75.179.153.110 undid revision 225739076 claiming it to be "as per consensus on talk page, yes, it is". Shortly thereafter, responding to the explanation on the Talk page for the original edit, 75.179.153.110 claimed that "a consensus has been reached" in an earlier section called Intro. In this section, User:198.97.67.59 and User:75.179.153.110 argue in favor of the same position, with both likely owned by the same master, User:Psychohistorian. Terjen (talk) 06:50, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

In that talk page section, 198.97.67.59 appears to respond as if continuing a conversation that 75.179.153.110 started but I think it would be hard to argue that there was an attempt to deceive. Most likely these represent home and work IPs of the same individual. CIreland (talk) 14:56, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that these two IPs most likely represent the work of the same individual, but if so, the editor fails to make this clear. The editor has not acknowledged to edit using both IPs on the same pages. User:75.179.153.110 claims consensus in a discussion in which there are four participants, of which this editor likely owns half. These multiple IP accounts are also involved in other debates on the page, giving the impression of broader support for viewpoints than actually exists. Consider your response if these two IP accounts were different registered users with the same master. Is multiple IP accounts a loophole in WP:SOCK? Terjen (talk) 22:54, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, that's your version of the facts. Here's mine. The edits I made were to reflect discussion which had already taken place in the discussion page. Instead of participating in that discussion where your voice could have been heard, you chose to respond by reverting edits. Then you got upset because the people actually participating in the discussion page on those particular issues disagreed with you. There certainly was an issue, but it wasn't sock puppetry on my behalf. It was you being a disruptive editor.-75.179.153.110 (talk) 23:30, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I had already discussed my edit on the Talk page three hours before you made yours, which stands for itself in showing how you were being disruptive to push your own POV. You made a synthesis with a misleading quote from the US code, inserting the word "however" to make it appear as if our reliable sources[5][6] were in conflict with the law when substantiating a point you apparently disagree with. In your response shortly afterwards you claimed that "a consensus has been reached" and demanded that "If you wish to go against the consensus here, then I suggest you create an RfC". A "consensus" in which this user seem to be the master of half of the four accounts. Terjen (talk) 00:57, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I had an issue with the definition you were using. I created a subsection on the talk page to discuss it (00:23, 10 July 2008). The only response was from Oroso and he also disliked the definition you were using (18:49, 10 July 2008). Later, you created your own section to address the issue we were already discussing. Okay, fine. But what we had then was two editors falling on one side of the issue and one editor falling on the other side of the issue. Consensus does not mean unanimous agreement, nor does it mean "whatever Terjen agrees with". I will note, however, that I attempted to enjoin you in a dialogue to address our differences of opinion on the issue. You would not respond. Several hours later, at 02:45, 15 July 2008, I replaced your definition with an alternative definition. Two hours later, you reverted it. I had a consensus of two active editors addressing the issue in the talk page against one editors addressing the issue in the talk page, so, as per that consensus, I undid your revert at 00:23, 10 July 2008. You seem to be operating under several misconceptions. One, that 'consensus' has to be something you agree with. Two, that you can stop the editing process by not participating in discussion and simply reverting anything you dislike. That's being disruptive.-75.179.153.110 (talk) 01:31, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

This is a misrepresentation. User:75.179.153.110 created the intro subsection on Talk "to take an unofficial poll of the editors working on this article". Both IP accounts in question were used to post in this section. Also, the change this editor reverted had already been substantially discussed on the Talk page in the preceding Civil vs. Criminal section. The claim about me not participating in the discussion has no merit. I posted nine comments in this section, concluding that "Wikipedia editors are definitely -not- reliable sources on issues of law" and that we should not have our lead suggest that "lllegal immigration to the United States is a criminal ... offense" as our article then did based on this editor's original research. I pointed to reliable sources stating the opposite.[7][8] During the discussion in this section, User:75.179.153.110 posted eight times and User:198.97.67.59 posted twice, the latter in both cases appearing to support the position of the former. Terjen (talk) 07:07, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, by all means, look at the section Civil vs. Criminal. Reading it, you find that I did, in fact, wrongly count the editors who support your definition vs. the editors who don't. Factoring in the editors there, there are -three- not two editors who disagreed with your definition of illegal immigration and only one, yourself, who supported it. Thanks for pointing that out. I missed it. Yet, you repeatedly reverted against consensus. Like I said, that's being disruptive.

-75.179.153.110 (talk) 12:04, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

BTW, can you confirm whether you, 75.179.153.110, are the same editor that edited as User:198.97.67.59? Terjen (talk) 23:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Illegal immigration to the United States

Can you help me out here? Several editors keep disrupting the proper use of this talk page and are focusing on attacking editors rather than on developing the article. I have advised them to take such concerns to the appropriate official channels if they feel that their concerns are legitimate. Instead, they persist in being disruptive on the article talk page. What is the appropriate way to handle disruptive editors?-198.97.67.59 (talk) 13:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

He accuses me of being mgm and soccermom, please look into this and clear my name up, this user above had been found of using multiple accounts in an attempt to form a consensus and is now trying to drag innocent people down with him.Grant23 (talk) 15:55, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Since you wrongly accused me can you clean up some of the mess 198.97.67.59 made, the page is now protected.Under general profile of illegal immigrants the first of the sentence of the child rapists (yeah, that is what I am dealing with, so forgive me if I get annoyed). Other than not abiding by wiki's policy at neutrality it makes no sense can an editor please fix it and "illegal alien" is not appropriate just as "undocumented immigrant" is not appropriate. Change it back to illegal immigrant.Grant23 (talk) 16:04, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Also I just found this, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Grant23

So what does this mean, I am none of those people, can you look into it. I honestly swear that I am none of those people and 198.97.67.59 is trying to push me out as an editor so he can go back to editing without challenge from nonbiased editors. Please look at the discussion page on illegal immigration. How do I clear my name up? Grant23 (talk) 16:08, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Answers to multiple questions:

1. You have asked me to make an edit to a page that I have fully protected. I am not allowed to this except under the most extreme of circumstances. If the change you would like is uncontroversial, please use {{editprotected}} on the talk page instead so that another admin will respond.
2. I'm still looking into which IPs may be the same individual.
3. I am confused by your statement that you "just found" the Request for Checkuser that was done on your account, since you edited it yesterday. However, I agree with Sam Korn (talk · contribs) and find the evidence compelling:
   • The three other accounts were created only days after your own.
   • The edits of the three accounts have only been to support your edits on the talk page and by reverting the article.
   • All the talk page edits are stylistically similar.
   • A Request for Checkuser found that it is likely they are the same individual.
4. With regard to a longer term resolution of the issues at Illegal immigration to the United States, I would suggest that you, or another interested party, use an article request for comment to gain some outside opinions.

CIreland (talk)

That's the thing, they aren't my sockpuppets, I have my own site and these things are easy to figure out. See if we have the same IP, location, operating system, are we logged in at the same time. At least you're looking into it. I didn't realize the report was conclusive in finding me using sockpuppets, I thought it was scandit's attempt to discredit me. I don't use sock puppets so it never even occurred to me that decision had been made. I just feel bad that people were banned but I was spared because of this witch hunt. You should consider lifting the ban on their IPs, because they really aren't me and I feel kind of guilty now for punishing them because I was overzealous. But none of us did anything wrong and hopefully this will sort it self out after you look into it. Thanks again!Grant23 (talk) 16:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I thinks it's beyond question that Soccer Mom 5, MGM87 and Swim19 are the same person and I'm not going to unblock them because they have engaged in abusive sockpuppetry. As to whether you are the same person as those three accounts, I am prepared to consider the possibility that you may have been the victim of an attempt to make it appear that you were socking. Regardless, I have no current intention of blocking the Grant23 account. Furthermore, in case you were not aware, you have every right to remove anything you like from your user talk page, for any reason. CIreland (talk) 16:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I have my own reasons for being an IP anon. I will keep those reasons to myself. I appreciate the fact that you acknowledge that being an IP anon is not, in itself, a violation. I have also attempted to always edit in good faith and not abuse Wikipedia.

All that being said, if someone ever posts suspicion that I have violated 3RR, they are free to post those links in my page and, if I have violated 3RR (or usually if it just looks like I might have - for the sake of avoiding a problem), I will correct the problem. Noone has ever done that. I suspect the reason is that I do, in fact, make every effort to adhere even more tightly to policy than do most editors (insisting on being an IP anon subjects me to greater scrutiny - I accept that that greater scrutiny is an important difference between an IP anon editing under different IPs and a named user editing under multiple names), so I have to make that much more effort to adhere to policy). Unfortunately, since several of the articles I work on are politically charged, it is that much more challenging. Like most people, I'm not a robot. Still, insisting on being an outsider to Wikipedia allows me to see several things that others might miss. One of those things is how cliques develop, spread, and influence Wikipedia. Perhaps someday I'll write a letter on it. The point is, if I had not made my choice to be an IP anon - an outsider, I'm sure I would have been less aware of these things. That awareness is valuable, because it gives me a better idea of how Wikipedia works and what needs improving. I use multiple IPs. I want to remain anonymous, because of the outsider status it gives me. That being said, I have to decline confirming or denying which IPs I operate under. I will say this. I use some of the IPs you mentioned, but, even then, I am not the only editor using those IPs. Anyway, I'm drifting off target. What I want to say is thank you for taking the time to check if I was editing in good faith or not rather than just assuming I wasn't because I'm an IP anon. Thank you for locking down the article. It certainly needed it. Thank you for stopping the disruptive stuff going on in the talk page. Basically, just thanks for taking care of this situation. Its very appreciated. Sometimes people don't hear "thanks" enough for the work they do here.-75.179.153.110 (talk) 19:48, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

This is already getting confusing. Is 75.179.153.110 the same editor as initiated this section by positing above under the IP 198.97.67.59, or not? I am pretty sure they are the same editor (see Talk:Illegal immigration to the United States) but that may not be as clear to others. Terjen (talk) 03:10, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Thank you for your interest. The discussion you asked about is linked in my original response to the 3RR report. I was also clear in each edit summary I made; if you review them you'll find that I did ask for discussion and consensus prior to (instead of after) the significant merge, each time. Badagnani (talk) 05:16, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello, thank you again for your comments. You again state that there was no discussion; however, there is indeed a discussion and it is linked in my first comment at the 3RR report. It is a bluelink in my first comment. I hope you will be able to take a look at it. Badagnani (talk) 05:42, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment on the talk page of the reporting editor. As it is clear that he, following his previous practice of editing in an intimidating manner, is using "brute force," indeed reverting just after making the 3RR report, wouldn't it be best if the templates are returned to their original unmerged state pending consensus? Otherwise, I believe it's simply enabling editing behavior that is contrary to our fundamentally collaborative, consensus-driven project. I don't think it's too much to ask, in this case. Thanks again for your consideration, Badagnani (talk) 05:53, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is most unfortunate because it sends a strong message to the reporting editor that such "brute force" changes, imposed through insistent, repeated reverting in lieu of actual discussion and consensus-seeking, is fine, and should be done again in the future. Of course, in his hip pocket will always be the threat of reporting me. This intimidating, non-collegial manner of editing is not what we are or should be about. I don't believe it's too much to ask that the templates be protected in their original, non-merged versions pending the seeking and generating of consensus, for the above reasons. Thank you again for your consideration. Badagnani (talk) 06:01, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you; I appreciate your reply. Badagnani (talk) 06:09, 20 July 2008 (UTC)