User talk:Woohookitty
I am currently on a Wikibreak. I should be back on October 15th. Until then, I will read my talk page only. So if you have a request, you may still leave it.
Archive from when I had a separate vfd comment page
Since you endorsed the original RfC [1], I thought you might be interested to know that since the dispute resolution process has stalled due to BigDaddy's refusal to respond to this RfC, some are now questioning whether an RfAr should be filed.[2] Your comments on this new issue would be appreciated. 69.121.133.154 05:15, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Kari Byron
A prior nomination for Kari Byron occurred during July 12, 2005. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Kari Byron and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kari Byron. Just letting you know. I don't know if you want to correct the nomination or what... but the old one should be shoved in an archive or something. --AllyUnion (talk) 04:16, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Kari Byron is a nomination from July 3, 2005 14:26 (UTC).
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kari Byron is a nomination from 11:20, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
- We are moving all subpages out of the Wikipedia:Votes for deletion to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. --AllyUnion (talk) 00:44, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
Per community consensus, Arbitration has been requested against BigDaddy777. Please add any details or comments you feel are appropriate. Mr. Tibbs 04:41, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
WoowooKitty writes: "And if you were actually civil to people like kizzle and others, you wouldn't even be up for an arbcom. Just a heads up. --Woohookitty 06:15, 3 October 2005 (UTC)"
Hmmm..Civility. You mean like writing a complete stranger "I'm sure you will now call me a Commie pinko liberal for daring to contradict you."? Just curious... Big Daddy. Well, at least I know that comment wasn't disrespectful. Because...well....you told me it wasn't. Big Daddy 10:58, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
You know when you 'garbage collect' like that on a rfa page, it kinda reminds me of how the POV warriors collect a litany of slams against Karl Rove in an attempt to poison his page. Isn't that coincidental? Your pal, Big Daddy. Ps But, I thought you were "Only trying to help!' lol! Bummer, that I sniffed you out from day one, huh? Big Daddy 12:10, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Two votes a consensus does not make. -St|eve 20:46, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/BigDaddy777
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/BigDaddy777 has been accepted. Please place evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/BigDaddy777/Evidence Fred Bauder 15:05, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Please revert your change to the bd777 evidence page
That evidence was not presented there by Paul, it was presented by me. And you have attrtibuted my comments erroneously to him. Please revert. Update: did it myself. Thanks. -- RyanFreisling @ 04:02, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
- Hi, both of you -- it sounds like you're working it out. If I do need to do something, drop by and let me know. Thanks. paul klenk talk
- All taken care of - thanks Woohoo. :) -- RyanFreisling @ 05:06, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
BigDaddy's talk page.
Hi there Woohookitty! I'm watching the RFAr on BigDaddy with interest, so I'm also watching his user talk page at the moment. Specifically, he keeps removing your comments. Whilst you're completely within your rights to inform him that comment vandalism is unacceptable, and that he shouldn't be removing comments which are negative towards him. I realise you've been here longer than me, and I don't doubt you've had more experience in dealing with controversial users, but I hope you wouldn't mind if I suggested something? I don't think anything positive will come from warning him time and time again over his treatment of comments on his talk page. It's cyclical, and I think it might be a better idea to hold off on doing that whilst he's still in RFAr. This comment was left as friendly advice, so please don't take it as me being rude or condescending - just my opinion on dealing with users that create problems. By the way, sorry to see your WikiStress is at 'Pretty Stressed'! Have a nice soothing cup of tea. On me. :) --Sanguinus 05:02, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
- No prob, kitty. Take care and thanks! :) -- RyanFreisling @ 05:13, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
Communist Party of India (Marxist) page
I also think that six images are so much for an article with such a length. However, this does not justify your vandalism. If you may decide which ones are pepresentative of CPI(M), for example a column in Kerala, one poster in Urdu, etc., go for it but if you cannot decide, don't ever touch it please. Behemoth
Problem User
Hi, 66.173.55.245 was threatened with blocking in April by a sysop, but has since resumed marking up articles. He inserted a stupid statement in nuclear power plant today and, when I checked to see if he had vandalised other sites, found he had hit four in September and August. I left a detailed message in his Talk, but he bears watching. Thanks, Simesa 19:14, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
:) ?
Why so stressed? Come on, man, don't burn out! We need you. Maybe you just need a laugh? Okay, I'm on a wikibreak now, but tell me if you need support or anything, or just want to talk. :) Regards, Dmcdevit·t 06:20, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
- Figured it was that. I've been watching that from a distance. I was briefly involved in that whole mery bunch when Paul Klenk filed a 3RR against Ryan Freisling, and Kate decided to protect rather than block. I agreed and somehow we both ended up being attacked for it. For what it's worth, I think it's a pretty clear-cut case (ie, temp block follwed by NPA parole kind of thing). Especially since that was the fastest I've ever seen a case accepted. My RFAR against Ril is two months old, too. Oh and I would just ignore his rantings. They're really just hurting him (and quite funny if you just step back). Sometimes I listen to Michael Savage just to get my blood boiling and so often he can be so wrong it's funny (and/or vomit-able) but, you know. Just try to come up for a breath of freah air every once in a while, okay? Dmcdevit·t 06:48, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
- PS, you might want to propose a temporary injuction if that's how that is supposed to work. Even an injunction against removing/altering others' comments would mean something. Good luck with this. Dmcdevit·t 07:47, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
I move we reject this brain-dead proposal. (I'm only trying to help you here, WoohooKitty)Big Daddy 08:46, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
WooHoo asks: "Don't you think...
It's more than a tad unfair and against the spirit of Wikipedia to post on my talk page when you know darn well that if I post on yours, you will delete my post? --Woohookitty 09:12, 8 October 2005 (UTC) No, not really. But thanks for asking! Take care, Big Daddy 09:14, 8 October 2005 (UTC)\
Ps Not that I mind, because I'm only trying to help but didn't you just get done writing this??
And this is my last response to Big Daddy. --Woohookitty 07:47, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
The reason I ask is that the arbs might find your entire testimony lacking credibility if they discover that your words from just 90 minutes ago have no meaning...Big Daddy 09:26, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
- Yes from the man who continually retracts and adds to his posts. And you took it completely out of context. I meant for that particular topic. And you know it. --Woohookitty 09:55, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
It seemed pretty definitive so, no I didn't take it that way. Hopefully the arbs will though. Good luck with that. Take care, Big Daddy 10:16, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
Ps I'm glad you saved me the trouble of having to remove this latest post of yours to my Talk Page: "Yes on that particular subject. Sure. Take it out of context. Love people with scorched earth policies. And btw, I am going to keep readding this to your talk page. I've reached the limit of my tolerance with this.--User:Woohookitty 09:45, 8 October 2005 (UTC)"
I wouldn't want the arbs to see this as some may interpret that statement as a demonstrable lack of civility. And isn't that what you were trying to accuse me of? Thanks again...Big Daddy 10:19, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
Ps I'm glad you saved me the trouble of having to remove this latest post of yours to my Talk Page: "Yes on that particular subject. Sure. Take it out of context. Love people with scorched earth policies. And btw, I am going to keep readding this to your talk page. I've reached the limit of my tolerance with this.--User:Woohookitty 09:45, 8 October 2005 (UTC)"
I wouldn't want the arbs to see this as some may interpret that statement as a demonstrable lack of civility. And isn't that what you were trying to accuse me of? Thanks again...Big Daddy 10:19, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
- I kind of wish you'd stop blaming me for your indiscretions. It's the 2nd time you've done it this week. Take responsibility for your actions. Why did I say that I was going to keep readding it to your talk page? Because you completely violated policy by taking a post on your page and moving it onto mine! You didn't mention that, now did you? No. Instead you made it sound like that I was being beligerant or something. You were the one who violated policy. I was just calling you on it. But nothing is your fault is it? This from the man who has been violating policy for well over a week now by continually removing and altering posts on his talk page...and who now is moving comments from his talk page onto other people's talk page. You violated civility long, long before I did. I'm just responding to your actions. But to your mind, you've never been uncivil. You've yet to apologize for *any* of your actions or to take responsibility for them. But yet...this is my fault? You were uncivil from the first day you started here.
- And the evidence page against you has many, many examples of your uncivility. Out of all my 10,000 + edits on Wikipedia, I've probably been uncivil 10-11 times...maybe a bit more...but it's always been in response to people attacking me or people who did not deserve attacking like Katefan0. You? Let's see. We are now well over 200 pieces of evidence on the evidence page and almost every piece of evidence has you either violating policy or being decidely uncivil. You've alienated or upset just about every person you've dealt with...even a fellow conservative (Jdavidb) who is just trying to help you collaborate peacefully with everyone else. Your only supporters are paul klenk and gator1 and even they aren't altogether thrilled with your conduct. Several times, paul's warned you to stop being so belligerant.
- And let's see. You've also mocked the process of arbitration several times. You posted a diatribe to your talk page a few days ago where you essentially claimed that the only people who ever get called into arbitration are conservatives. You made it sound like this is some sort of witchhunt...as if BigDaddy777 is just a poor child who is being picked on by the big bullies of Wikipedia. All of the evidence on the evidence page doesn't lie. And we're not done yet. There's a gap of about 3 weeks that Mr. Tibbs hasn't even filled in yet. And you refused to comment on the request for comment that opened for you. In addition, you've said that the only time this process is used is to stop people like yourself.
- So who do you think the arby folks would listen to? Let's see. I made several attempts to help. Let's look at my first post to you. I wrote you a nice note about how you really need to get along with people and if you work within the system, you will get done what you want. And then I said I'm sure you'll call me a commie pinko liberal. The only part you looked at was the last part. First of all, you completely ignored the rest of my post. And as for my comment...HELLO...do you think I just got that out of thin air? We should count how many times you've used the word "liberal" to describe people who have criticized you. Just on the evidence page, we're over 100 references to "liberal". But somehow I'm the boogy man because I point out something that you were going to do if I hadn't said anything about it. You did it with everyone else. Why would I be any different?
- Anyway, so will they listen to...the respected admin with over 10,000 edits and who has worked hard to keep Wikipedia as clean of fancruft, copyvios, etc, as he can...or the man who has barely been here a month...who has all of 1,300 edits and almost 20% of them are being used as evidence against him in an arbitration case...who mocks the arbitration process...who blatantly violates policy by continually removing or altering posts on his talk page (which you do NOT own. No one owns their talk page)...who generally doesn't edit in good faith...who has alienated many people, including some of his fellow conservatives...who picks fights...who doesn't take responsibility? Hmmmm.
- As for this uncivil stuff, again, I didn't make this up. It's not like I sat around and went "ok how can I attack BigDaddy today". It's *all* from what you have done. I didn't make up any of the stuff I just said. We have evidence up the wazoo of everything I just said. But somehow I'm the boogie man. Me and kizzle and everyone else. We're just out to get poor BigDaddy? Where is the evidence? Nearly everything we've said or done has been in response to something you have said or done. We didn't just make any of the evidence up.
- And you know what? If today, you decided to reform...if we went 2-3 weeks without you deleting comments on your talk page (or moving them to other talk pages), attacking people as "liberal hacks" or "Stalkers", people would forgive you. That's what you don't get. You mentioned earlier how I revel in putting up evidence against you. No I do not. We're not out to "get" you. If you stopped these actions, we'd forgive you...including me. What's galling people is that you are continuing to act like you have been. If you started to behave, this would all be forgotten. I have no idea why you don't understand that. Look at jdavidb. He's a conservative and yet he works within the system. Hell, he was elected an admin not that long ago. If we really were so gung ho to "hang conservatives", do you think we would've done that? Think about it.
- And now I really am done with responding to you. If you reform, we will leave you to your marry way. I wish you'd listen to that. --Woohookitty 11:05, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
Actually the liberals in here couldn't even last 24 hours without reverting not only my legitimate edits to maintain their POV, but reverting back to their long standing pattern of making vicious personal attacks despite my declared truce. That's all the evidence I need...Big Daddy 22:51, 10 October 2005 (UTC)