User talk:Pyrococcal

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• How to edit a page
• Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! -- Francs2000 | Talk [[]] 14:09, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Problems with your changes of "Neu!" to "NEU!"

Hi. I'm afraid I see troubles with your changes to Neu!. Please see/discuss them on Talk:Neu!. ←^#6  _{talk 17:03, 20 May 2005 (UTC)}

Hey, did you know that I tried to write the article NEU!, as an exact copy of the existing Neu!, but it was deleted after a while. Anyway, please go to TRIO!, and tell me what you think. c ya. Brian W 17:23, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Electric Café

Hi Feline1,

I saw your posting on Vandalism in progress. I don't know anything about Kraftwerk but I googled a bit and it looks like you're right. The usual thing to do is to leave a message (or several) on the offender's talk page. Even anonymous users have talk pages, although they aren't always reliable. This user's talk page is User talk:68.225.171.78, and it looks pretty stable. Hopefully this will start a conversation about why he/she thinks "Sex Object" is the Bartos track. At least it gives you an opportunity to (politely) ask him/her to stop. Also, would you please sign your comments in discussions like Vandalism in progress and Talk:Electric Café? All you need to do is type four tildes like this ~~~~ and the software will fill it in for you. Thanks! FreplySpang (talk) 14:15, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• P.S. I just looked over the edit history of Electric Café again - please don't call other users "dickheads." It is possible that it is an honest mistake, after all. Personal insults like that are not acceptable in Wikipedia. FreplySpang (talk) 14:21, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Man Machine

lol sorry yeah, i just noticed that it was a dot, not a hyphen, on the album cover... will fix them now!!! secfan 15:51, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Kraftwerk entries

Apologies for the recent over-enthusiasm. Being a novice wiki it's all to easy to over-step the line from information to opinion... hopefully getting better, even if my spelling isn't. Ricadus 23:12, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Not so grumpy now

Hi Feline1! Sorry if my earlier comment on Talk:Little Britain came across as a bit grumpy! I've had some coffee now, and am feeling much better for it! Regards, CLW 11:05, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

P.S. - Loving that recent vandalism to your user page! Snigger... CLW 11:11, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Eurythmics singles

Hey Feline1... Just wanted to explain some edits I did to the initial Eurythmics singles pages you started (and I do realize you're not done yet)... I added the singles titles (boldfaced) to the opening of all the articles and wikified the text (i.e. song titles are quoted and albums are italicized) and added wikilinks as well. I also removed text like "yet again" because using words like that seems to make the assumption that the reader has seen all the other Eurythmics pages. Just make sure the language you use allows the articles to stand alone, as if the reader hasn't seen any other Eurythmics pages. Oh, and if you need any help, just let me know!  :-) -- eo 03:55, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

No personal attacks, please

With regards to this edit: Wikipedia has a firm policy against personal attacks. Please try to find a more constructive tone to voice your concerns in. JRM · Talk 02:21, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry there - sometimes I just find things offensively stupid --feline1 12:40, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

It is more stupid to offend than it is offensive to be stupid. This one too was uncalled for. Next time if you find some clumsy wording you will improve it without adding an insult - or don't. Femto 13:10, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Re. Tubeway Army article

Rather than risk a revert war, I'll talk about it here first. Removing the recent addition I made re. the change from 'Tubeway Army' to 'Gary Numan' on the grounds that it's "POV fan-blabber" is not only trite but inaccurate. Any POV in that text is Numan's, as stated by him in at least one interview at the time. The main point of it was to expand on what was there re. the name change and to contrast Numan's desire to have complete control over the music as opposed to his contemporary John Foxx who felt a need to work in a collaborative band situation. If you think it could be expressed better or needs a reference then by all means say so but removal on these spurious grounds doesn't help the cause. And while I'm at it (pedant that I am), reverting "Tubeway Army was" to "Tubeway Army were" because a band name is 'plural' - well it ain't actually, even though it does imply a number of members! A band name is singular and if you check out say Kraftwerk or King Crimson articles you'll see them treated as singular entities as well. ;-) Ian Rose 15:16, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh lord help us all, a Numanoid with Delusions of Grammar. Let's start with the easy bit: Tubeway Army were from London (not "Tubeway Army was from London") and THEY spoke UK English, the common practice of which is to treat a group/band/ensemble name as a plural noun (eg "I am useing these scissors to cut my trousers", not "I am using this scissor to cut my trouser".) I don't know what they say in Australia but whatever it is, save it for the INXS articles. As far as your stuff about Numan's attitude vs. John Foxx - I'm sorry, but this encyclopedia is not the place for speculative subjective musings on which pop star has the most integrity. The article as it stands makes clear the "Tubeway Army" was Webb's project, and he just decided to switch monikers from that of a band, to the artist name "Gary Numan". We don't need to waffle about whether he's a nicer guy than John Foxx or not.--feline1 15:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Woah, saucer of milk for Mr Feline1 ! I can see earlier admonishings about personal insults has really sunk in... For someone who espouses objectivity so vigorously I'm amazed at what you read into things, particularly this "nicer guy" bit. 'Fraid the only "speculative subjective musings" I can see here are yours, man. But hey, if you think its waffle and adds nothing, then fine, say so, but spare us the rest...  ;-) Ian Rose 01:46, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Groundless accusations of vandalism are not appreciated.

With regard to Talk:Group 3 element, I reverted an unbacked and controversial edit that negated the previous content of the article. I took the matter to the talk page, and even provided a link to your revision for further discussion.

I do not take unsubstantiated accusations of vandalism lightly. Consider this an official complaint. Femto 15:16, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

The edit was not "unbacked" (what sort of word is that? hello?), as it was based in easily verifyable textbook chemical fact, and was correcting existing glaring errors in an article. The only person to consider it controversial appears to be yourself. It takes more than one person disagreeing with someone to cause a "controversy". Frankly I had to bite my tongue a lot in my comments to you. Your opinionated mixture of clumsy English and daft errors of fact is rather trying - meanwhile, the article in question remains in the deeply flawed state to which you reverted it. Great. --feline1 15:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: "Advanced Level"

Maybe I shall switch to "intermediate level" then. I chose "en-3" in the beginning in a worldwide sense of English speakers - I believe I'm quite on the top end when compared to most other English speakers in the world. However, the wikipedia is a place for English writers... so I'm being looked down upon because only the very top English writers in the world (higher than me) would be here. Deryck C. 10:34, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Well to a native English speaker, your sentance structures are sometimes a little amusing. --feline1 12:18, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

No personal attacks, part 2

Talk:Lanthanide - Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by admins or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you. Femto 16:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I initially thought you were talking about wee Derek!

I was retorting to user-pageless author Olin in such a fashion because he accused me of not being "accurate", of not following the terminology "chemists" use, of simply putting stuff in articles because of my own "notions". This was a personal attack on my integrity and competance as an author and moreover was complete baseless drivel. The writing of mine that he was referring to was both accurate and the product of my degree-level chemistry experience, not of my own "notions". Calling someone a "wee hallyon" (="scallywag", for those of you not so well versed in Hiberno-English, the kind of exasperated quip a mother might make at her errant child) is hardly a vicious or abusive insult. But hey, thanks for stalking me and threatening me with your wikijargon, femto. Be seeing you. --feline1 18:29, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Since you mention it, there's also Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. The exact meaning of the word matters less than the "because I say so, you anonymous <anything>" attitude.

Dude, if you keep perceiving it as personal attack when editors challenge each other's authority and don't just take your word for it on what you write, then frankly, Wikipedia is not the place for you. That user-pageless Olin apparently already has a better grasp than some of us who've been around for longer. Femto 13:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Morever, my point was that it is important what a lanthanide is in an article about lanthanides. If that is perceived as a personal attack, then by all means, tell me how to make that point without your feeling threatened. I mean, I'm the one looking for sources to cite to make an authoritative encyclopedia article. If you'd like to improve the article, then by all means, go right ahead. Olin

Even if that *was* the point you were failing to get across, it was a spurious point, because the debate was not about what a lanthanide "is" (which is defined by their shared properities and behaviours), but whether what they "is" (ahem) was best illuminated by pedantically trying to force-fit them into Groups. Since you couldn't grasp that, there wasn't much point criticising the accuracy of what I indeed *had* put in the article to improve it! I really don't see what the point of you berating me about edits I made simply because you can't understand them. Or complaining because I therefore directed a mild put-down at you. Femto, I do like contributing to wikipedia, on subjects about which I am knowledgeable and articulate, even if people occasionally troll at me. Be seeing you.--feline1 15:05, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Fine. Whatever. It seems like we're splitting hairs. I'll take my Ph.D. in chemistry and be a hallyon (and maybe a retard like you called someone else) and just let you do whatever you would like in the lanthanides (a plural noun, as opposed to lanthanide, a singular noun, as indicated by the "a") article, even thought the first sentence defines the lanthanides in terms of numbers like you seem to be so resisitant to and is as precise as can be expected in an encyclopedia. Be as knowledgeable as you like and don't reference a thing. Fine. I don't have time for irrelevant arguments. I have other articles to work on. Olin

Yeah, like your user profile. Bye then!--feline1 18:01, 10 February 2006 (UTC) :D

Stop reversions, stop insults, read edit summaries

Re: Fripp & Eno's two albums with 20-minute tracks

You've been warned twice already [1][2] that List of songs over fifteen minutes in length isn't limited to music with lyrics but actually lists all musical pieces (including instrumentals such as Brian Eno, Tangerine Dream, Klaus Schulze, Ash Ra Tempel, Pete Namlook, and much more).

The point of the list is long musical compositions, whether they have lyrics or not. And thus this list is relevant and potentially useful (as a "See also" link) to people interested in No Pussyfooting, an album entirely made of two 20-min tracks. But you apparently didn't even bother to check this simple assertion before each reversion, despite being clearly informed.

If you're so unhappy about the lax title of the list, then move it to List of musical pieces over fifteen minutes in length (a long-ass title the original creator probably wanted to avoid by using the word "song" instead) or something, preferably after announcing it on its talk page for discussion. But please stop deleting relevant wikilinks.

And stop insulting me with your "bollocks" [3] when you're the one who didn't bother to check the list the first time, or after being informed of its actual nature, and twice.

-- 62.147.37.231 11:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I will not be barracked by anonymous troll logins, thank you very much. I don't care how bad that other article is, it is no reason to mess up a perfectly good Fripp & Eno one. There are no songs on Fripp & Eno's albums, the end! If you want to repair that other daft list so that it isn't named "songs", or remove the pieces from it which aren't songs, then be my guest.--feline1 12:41, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Quote song: "Colloquially, 'song' is commonly used to refer to any music composition, even those without vocals". …? You have at least to concede that other opinions may exist.

Before this escalates into an edit war, may I remind both of you of the three-revert rule. To Feline1, the fact that IP editors are anonymous does not automatically make them fair game for disparaging remarks about their opinions or for accusations of trolling. To the anon, start a discussion at Talk:List of songs over fifteen minutes in length and/or Talk:Fripp & Eno (No Pussyfooting) and ask for third opinions. Femto 15:27, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Dearest Femto, this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a colloquia. Even the briefest glance at that dreadful "list of 'songs' over 15 minutes" excuse-for-an-article reveals a plethora of complaints from other wikipedians about its sorry state: it is flagged as sub-standard, has been nominated for deletion, and the talk page is full of people wailing and gnashing their teeth. I am not the only user to revert our IP-addressed friend's edits on Fripp & Eno. I stand my opinion that the list in question is dreadful and should not be used as a reason to add daft links to a perfectly good Fripp & Eno article.--feline1 15:34, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

A strange (and patronising) change in the page Peter Hammill

Where did you get the idea that only the sycophantic fans of Peter Hammill's work like Clutch and Incoherence? I know there's a lot of fans around that like most of what he did, but there's some sort of consensus over the quality of In A Foreign Town (1988) (it's not good), as there is consensus over In Camera (1974), Clutch (2002) and Incoherence (2004). Please listen for instance to the discussions on the Peter Hammill mailing list on yahoo (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hammill/), or talk to anyone who knows anything about Hammill's work before you make a statement like this. Mark in wiki 10:40, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Such gushing subjective adujulations about one's favourite music are not appropriate for sober wikipedia articles. Usually, when finding such stuff in an article, it is best to just calmly tone them down, how occasionally I find ones that are so outrageously inappropriate that a little bit of temporary satirical vandalism seems to most effective way to get the author to mend their ways :) --feline1 12:19, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion this patronising tone is quite uncalled for. But nobody knows as good as you do, and I will refrain from trying to convey something of Hammill's obsessiveness. Never mind. Go ahead and attack and vandalise, and don't think about what I might have tried to say here. Empathy is something difficult. I do think, if any encyclopedia were to be stripped from subjective comments, there wouldn't be any content left... Mark in wiki 18:50, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Go and read Wikipedia's editorial policies on neutrality and point-of-view etc etc. If you don't like them, then you are free to go and set up your own Hammill fanzine site somewhere else which is as subjective and gushing as you wish. PS: I bet I like Peter Hammill more than you do LOL :)--feline1 22:35, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh yes, I'm sure you do. I wonder why so many people who say they like music are such bad listeners. Anyway, you were right about the addition. I am new here, but by the way you make your point I understand that wiki is being made by the people who have the biggest mouths. Mark in wiki 14:40, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, my mouth is a whole metre wide. Now please dry your eyes.--feline1 14:56, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Ivfn.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Ivfn.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Image legality questions. 10:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I am not a number

Nor am I a pipe. Far as I know, at least. Ahem. I noticed you didn't like my change on the Under Pressure Page, so I changed it a bit. Better? Queen is 89 kabillion times better than Vanilla Ice, but it sounded like a point of view to me.--69.145.122.209 03:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't care what it sounds like to you: to anyone with an iota of sense, it is not an "opinion", but is an objective demonstrable fact, and indeed covered by copyright law. Please wise the bap.--feline1 09:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I won't take that as a personal instult since I notice you do it to every other person. I'm passive, so feel free to burn me. The problem I have is that 'falsely' is a very, very strong word-it leaves no leeway. What if Vanilla Ice did change one note? I don't think he did, but that's the problem. "I don't think he did" It's not what I think, it's what the facts are. And if we're not sure about the facts, the best thing is to just leave it ambiguous (many people believe it is not true). Sure, it was covered by copyright laws. But that's not what that particular sentance is about. That bit-o-info in particular says he claimed that one note was off. Did he not? --69.145.122.209 21:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

And by the way, nice burns! I just read back across several of them. Whoo. Third degree... :)--69.145.122.209 21:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

You can HEAR the notes he used by LISTENING to the record with your EARS! It is not AMBIGUOUS, it is not a matter of BELIEF, it is not a matter of what you THINK. He samples the entire bass riff and piano chords. No notes are "changed" - he is not playing an notes, it is a SAMPLE. The only matter for debate is if V.Ice was really dense enough to claim he had changed a note - this could be referenced.--feline1 08:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

He didn't change one note, anyway. Ha added one. The fact of the matter is he did claim he added that bit, and he was recorded saying it. So we know that part is not false. And I agree that he did illegally sample it. But have you any research that proves he was false? I'm not asking for that part to be taken out, I'm asking for some rewording. If you'd like to do it yourself, fine by me. It is, however, a point of view until changed. --69.145.122.209 21:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

How many times do we have to tell you the same thing?!? One does not need to "research" hearing 5 bass guitar notes in a riff. One just listens with ones ears. The end. All that should be added to the article is a reference source for where V.Ice claimed he'd added a note. I haven't a clue what the source is and haven't the least interest in V.Ice anyways.--feline1 09:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. One. You can't say "Tom Hanks was a good actor". He is, but you can't say it unless there's proof! Is there? Yes, he has won plenty of awards. Is there proof that he used the sample without adding one note? Yes, you can listen to it. But that's you! It's not the general population! I can't stand Vanilla Ice, but he was recorded on VH1's list of 100 greatest one hit wonders saying he added a note. If you're going by what you can hear, think about the extra "da" added in Ice's version. I know he sampled it, but he also added another sound, just like he claimed he did. --69.145.122.209 21:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

You know, if I was going to behave like an egregious mentalist, I wouldn't do it on the Interweb where everyone could see and laugh at me...--feline1 13:33, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's the fun of being an anon IP. I'm anonomous, remember? Ha ha ha ha... Whoo. I can laugh at myself. And I ran out of ideas about two paragraphs ago, as you may have noticed. You may have won the battle, but the war is not over... ENTER MANICAL LAUGHTER HERE... MWA HA HA HA HA... --69.145.122.209 01:53, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

By the way, where do you get your material for roasting? Much as it singes my fingers to type it, I like your style. I'm in awe of you skills.--69.145.122.209 01:57, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

It's all just made up!--feline1 07:37, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Take a bow, Mr. Feline, you have wowed me. And that's hard to do. Hey, look! A blue car! --69.145.122.209 23:51, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Songs over 15 minutes in length

Other songs in that list were similar to having long pauses from what I know, so I assumed that that sentence I deleted had been left in there by some mistake, so I removed it. Dsims209 14:43, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, perhaps you would do us the favour of deleting all the other daft entries from the list which are only "long" because they contain loads of silence as part of a "hidden track". That would be more use :)--feline1 19:28, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Rightho I'll see what I can find. (Dsims209 11:46, 29 April 2006 (UTC))

Carryduff

Hi Feline - Carryduff Irish stuff from Culture NI website - link to Reference on the page to find it. Cheers Ardfern 18:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Motorik

Do you think you make something of the rather crappy motorik article? Almost worse than nothing at all at the moment, partic. since half of it seems to be lifted from your Neu! work. I'd do it myself but more your line of country... Cheers, Ian Rose 12:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

God, it's awful! LOL I thought "motorik" was just one of those daft journalist terms. --feline1 16:22, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Autobahn

HELLOO, we were working at the same moment on the same article, Autobahn, but I realize that you've been faster, anyway my version would have been shorter. I just edited a little your text, as you can see. Also, I worked a little on Autobahn (the album-related article), and on the Vocoder article. Cheers. Brian Wilson 16:47, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Tommorrow Never Knows Chord

God man, no need to be caustic about it, I was just trying to help. Why don't you think about how you talk to people? Coz we don't need you around if yer going to be like that.--Crestville 14:36, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Ha ha ha, what a four letter word you truely are.--Crestville 15:03, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes well, at least I don't go trolling around wikipedia user talk pages picking fights with random strangers. Bye now.--feline1 15:05, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Given I've never met anyone on wikipedia, you're all strangers. I'd have trouble not talking to a stranger on wikipedia. You're not "random" because you had a go at me personally. I'm not picking a fight, because that would require some degree of offence. Logic, eh? Sure, I'm quite happy that I don't go trolling wikipedia insulting well-meaning people with my pseudo-cod intelligence just to make myself look big (and you've done it a few times). Ha ha, you loser. Have a simply awful day. Bye now.--Crestville 18:06, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Please calm down, this place is for improving knowledge, not for harrassing each other. Have a nice weekend, you both. Brian Wilson 02:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

As you can see above, I supported you a lot of times, beginning from that NEU! stuff. I'll no longer support you, I'm very sorry. You are to much offensive. Please stop yourself or you will be banned.[[User:Brian G. Wilson|Brian W] 12:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Dear Brian, I put it to you that you are a partisan loon, and no responsible wiki editor will "support" you if you type paragraphs of semiliterate rubbish. The stuff you were typing about Kraftwerk simply did not make sense, it was gramatically egregious, lexically confused, and, indeed, bollocks :) When this was gently pointed out to you, you take offence. I think you would be better taking a tissue and drying your eyes.--feline1 13:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

What a nasty peice of work you are. Seeing as you've been warned about personal attackes before, I would not be at all surprised if you soon founeed yourself blocked by a responsivle wiki editor. Telling people to "dry [their] eyes" is neither effective nor amusing and portrays you as something of a four letter word. BTW, your beard looks stupid.--Crestville 14:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your personal attack, Crestville. In my defence, I would point out that at least my beard can be easily shaved off…--feline1 14:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

In the end, the love you take etc. Yeah, you can always go at the beard but the inherant pomposity, obnoxiousness and grating, self indulgent arrogance of a failed musician? Well that's like and oil stain to get out. Vanish won't work on that fucker.--Crestville 12:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Guards! Guards! --feline1 13:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Ouch. Good comeback. I think I'm going to give you a nickname. I think I'll call you "Pauline"--Crestville 15:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, a failed musician, mbbuahahhahahahahahha... Brian W 14:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Well I've 2 gigs in London this weekend... what will you two be doing, apart from getting banned from wikipedia? --feline1 15:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow. 2. I'm studying for exams.--Crestville 15:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Goddamn Pauline! That was one mother of a ban I had right there! Bam bam.--Crestville 15:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Civility

An administrator has been asked to look into your interactions with other users; I am taking the liberty. You demonstrate a clear history of argumentum ad hominem (personal attacks) and incivility based entirely upon what you perceive to be the inadequacies of others. Please remember, this is a Wiki, built upon the premise that anyone can edit—and, "anyone" means people of widely varying abilities and levels of command of the language (and, to many, English is not native). These users need assistance and reinforcement, not to be belittled. Also, given the discussion above regarding Vanilla Ice, may I suggest a reread of Wikipedia policy on verifiability may be in order? Feel free to write me with any questions. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 19:18, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes it's true, my asperger's does make me far too ready to bite people's ankles. I must try harder. At least there's nice users out there such as young Crestville, who as you can see, go out of their way to defuse situations and refrain from bickering :) ... I still maintain that Vanilla Ice Ice Baby's direct sampling of Queen's "Under Pressure" is verifiable though - by any rational person who is able to listen to the two bits of audio with their ears.--feline1 20:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

LOL at your message on my talk page—of course, that passage is directed specifically at vandals and is intended to be tongue-in-cheek. ;) As for "Ice Ice Baby" and "Under Pressure", I agree with you outside an encyclopedia article; within an article and per policy (which states, "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth"), however, it must be presented from a reliable source (which must be cited). In this particular case, the mention of the settled lawsuit is sufficient (if uncited), though handled with more dispatch than even I would have recommended. Thanks for writing back, and happy editing! RadioKirk (u|t|c) 20:23, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't be puttin well meaning folk into a situation where they are likely to retalliate, coz odds are, if you provoke them without good reason, they will retaliate. You do have a tendancy to insult people who in no way deserved it.--Crestville 20:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Whilst you have a tendancy to keep coming on my talk page to bitch at me. Methinks you doth protest too much...--feline1 21:15, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea whether you're being sincere or not, you've completely lost me is a tide of mindless sarcasm (supposedly the lowest form of wit:)). I would point out, sincere or not, comparing yourself to Peter Cook is both pompous and rediculous, and I mean that not in a way which is an insult to you, but he was witty rather than just unpleasant and acidic. I'm not having a pop at you, but he was very, very, very funny. And you're not in comparison to me as he was to Dud. Probably no-one is.

You have, however, made me laugh by trying to belittle my staus here. "Bold little messages" and comparing me to Derek seems to imply a relationship, for lack of a better example, akin to Cook and Moore where you are the wisened, experienced contributer and I am a plucky underdog who can;t quire get it right. Allow me to put your mind at ease. I am a long serving and experienced wikipedian. I assure you, you are mistaken. There is not some subserivent role to be played here. I've been here longer than you and I have contributed more than you (not to undermine your contributions in any way, they are good, but your attitude is poor). I did not engage in this little exchange for shits and giggles, rather I make it part of my day-to-day routine to moniter trouble-makers like yourself where I am made aware of them. I am monitoring you so that I can make reports to the admins on how you are adapting and should be dealt with. At the moment they are assuming good faith, but waiting for you to put a foot out of line. You are a good contributer, but your attitude stinks. Please try to change your ways (It's turning into a Christmas Carol here) or you will find you make things difficult for yourself, and that would be a shame.

Still, you can't be all bad - you like Derek and Clive, so that's a start.--Crestville 23:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

BTW, I genuinely can't tell if the message on my talk page was meant to be nice or not. I'll assume good faith for the time being.--Crestville 23:37, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Crestville, Benny Hill is the lowest form of wit.--feline1 08:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd go with Su Pollard or Victoria Wood meself.--Crestville 13:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

This is as may be, however your heinous sexlife is hardly the issue here.--feline1 13:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, they go like the clappers. They're just not funny.--Crestville 15:12, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Ha ha...

I know you're supposed to be civil, but I love reading your responses to comments. They're honestly the best flames I've ever seen. Have you ever considered journalism? You'd be a great opinion columnist. 69.145.123.171 ^Hello! Monday, July 3, 2006, 20:41 (UTC)

Well cheers - I do write for a living, actually. But I am not a number, I am feline1. Whereas ewe...--feline1 22:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I knew it. And ha... My page too cheery? ;) 69.145.123.171 ^Hello! Monday, July 3, 2006, 22:17 (UTC)

Ah ha! I just remembered who you remind me of! Cecil Adams! 69.145.123.171 ^Hello! Monday, July 3, 2006, 22:44 (UTC)

3RR

Feline1. Regarding the British Isles article. I am on the same side as you, as you can tell from my edits and talk comments, but I have to give you a friendly caution. You are coming perilously close to violating the WP:3RR on the British Isles. Just be careful or you may have that against your record. Other than that, keep up the good work as I honestly believe British Isles is the NPOV term. Ben W Bell talk 12:26, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah well that's why I only reverted it twice ;-) I do believe impartial responsible editing will win out against blatent political agenda-ising in the end, though... --feline1 14:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually you've reverted it three times. It is three reverts in any 24 hour period, not in any day. Just be careful. Ben W Bell [[User talk:Ben W Bell|talk] 14:20, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah but one of the reverts was a reversion of my own reverts LOL --feline1 14:22, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

You have breached 3RR. Either you revert yourself straight away or you will be reported for breaching 3RR and will be blocked for 24 hours. Your choice. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 22:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe my edit is in the spirit of the editorial consensus reached on the British Isles talk page, so I am not going to revert it. I support the request for mediation on the article, and would happily abide by the results of that. I cannot abide your rampant political POV-ing on the article though.--feline1 22:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

In that case you will be blocked and unable to contribute to the page. Your choice. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 22:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Quite. It's nice to be able to make choices, isn't it? :-) I have yet to hear you articulate what you actually find wrong with my initial disclaimer paragraph.--feline1 23:02, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Try reading the talk page, then. It is all there. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 23:06, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

No it isn't. Since you've broken the 3RR rule yourself now, shall we not just strip naked and have a fight instead, as I suggested?--feline1 23:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Jtdirl has only made 2 reversions within the past 24 hours-- not a 3RR violation. By the way, please be civil. Seriously engage in Jtdirl's concerns about the content, and avoid childish taunts. 172 | Talk 23:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

Oh what a farce! jtdIRL enlisted 172 to act as his sock puppet so that they could together revert my edits and push me over the 3RR. And tried to disguise his own reversions by labelling them as "re-inserted opening paragraph" when he infact reverted wholesale to his version (which contains many more extra sections that push his minority POV, and overwrote other editor's contributions). To suggest I have not attempted to engage with jtdIRL's concerns is ridiculous - the talk page is full of me replying to his barbed sectarian POV rants, and I wrote a header for the article trying to satisfy his POV. All he did was delete it. He flies in the face of the expressed editorial consensus on the talk page, he pushes his own minority POV, he is rude, assumes bad faith (eg continual descriptions by jtdIRL and 172 of my edits as "vandalism", and rides rough-shod over half a dozen other wiki policies and guidelines.

--feline1 09:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

If you continue attacking Jtdirl based on his nationality, I will see to it that you are blocked for an even longer period of time. By the way, Jtdirl and I worked on the Irish Potato Famine article several years ago. His efforts to bring the article up to the standards of contemporary scholarship on the subject led a concert of POV-pushers to accuse him of being a 'Brit-loving, self-hating Irish Tory.' In light of Jtdirl's years of contributions on Wikipedia, your accusations that he is promoting an Irish nationalist agenda are transparently absurd. 172 | Talk 20:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I now realise that jtdIRL is an admin! and that he himself blocked me! What a total farce. He initiated and inflamed the edit war himself, to push his minority political POV. The whole thing is orchestrated! The guy's not fit to be an admin.--feline1 09:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Again, cease the personal attacks or you will be blocked again, probably for a much longer period of time. 172 | Talk 20:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

172, I will not be intimidated by the behaviour of yourself and jtdIRL. The facts of what has gone on a plain for anyone to read. Others editor and admins can draw their own conclusions. I am not attacking him on the basis of his nationality (I am from Ireland myself) - the basis of my complaints with him are with his conduct (both as admin and editor) and the content of what he's been putting into the British Isles article.--feline1 21:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

final warning

	This is your last warning. If you continue to make personal attacks, you may be blocked for disruption.

FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 21:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

What's the deal, feline1?

Hey there, feline1. I just got done peeking at your long screed at Talk:British Isles, full of useful information like...the fact that two people who disagree with you can combine forces to make more than 3 reverts is a reason for you alone to make more than 3 reverts. I like that reasoning...you are entitled to do more of something because more people disagree with you! If I'd been permitted to use that logic in the last two US Presidential elections, the world would be a better place today. And it inspired a shorter counter-screed too from Jtdirl about future attacks from you about Jews and 9/11 and Hiroshima and potatoes. As a Jewish Japanese Irish American who loves potatoes, I've got all my bases covered. Well, 3 out of 5. I just arrived at British Isles so I don't know how long you've been at that article and talk page "making yourself useful," but I hope you stop wasting your time by pissing off admins because you were invaluable to Wikipedia earlier this year (after pissing off plenty of non-admins there) by making critical contributions to a controversial issues in chemistry. Group_3_element, Group_number_of_lanthanides_and_actinides, and, to some extent, the entire Periodic table (standard) have been stable for months because of your knowledge and contributions--once they were rewritten by me to appear as if they had been written by a sane person. I don't want to defend you personally because I think you're a jerk who writes poorly. But you're a knowledgeable expert jerk when it comes to some science topics, so I think you have a place on Wikipedia...just probably not on pages like British Isles because you lack self-control and the ability to work well with others in a hyper-sensitive humorless environment. You're wasting your time at Wikipedia arguing with admins and contributing to controversial geopolitical terminology articles when there are controversial science terminology articles out there where people will value your knowledge and contributions in spite of your failings and folks might take the time to clean up after you and tolerate you. By the way, anyone who defends the intellect of Nancy Reagan to make a point is a desperate and dangerous charlatan who must know subconsciously that he is fighting a losing battle. Flying Jazz 02:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

...um, so what *is* the deal then? And have you ever *read* Why I Want to Fuck Ronald Reagan by J.G. Ballard...? Has Nancy, for that matter?--feline1 07:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Note Well

I have been told about you, our computer man has narrowed down your where you contribute these diatribes of yours and locating you physically is no longer a problem. I am warning you to watch yourself. We are monitoring the situation. If your "angle" continues, there may be consequences. I have warned you once and will not do so again. You know what (not) to do.

Disclaimer

The above "note well" is meant in jest so relax....

Thanks for that, 86.41.206.31 ...--feline1 16:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

What the hell was that? See, this is why you shouldn't wind people up so much. Some weirdos on wikipedia.--Crestville 16:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure. Perhaps it was a mentalist?--feline1 16:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

re: Eurythmics images

Hey no problem.... I've got their whole history ready to upload... just gotta get the articles created... they're long overdue! -- eo 13:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi there... Im slowly working thru the Eurythmics singles... please add to them... you seem to be very knowledgable about the band other details I know nothing about (i.e. synths used, etc.). If I've fucked something up let me know or correct it or whatever. Later! -- eo 17:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Early Tubeway Army singles

Cripes! We've combined well updating these entries - what's the world coming to...? Cheers, Ian Rose 16:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

It's coming to bombing. Is there an article for The Lenanon (Human League song) ?--feline1 16:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

"The Lenanon" ? Is that some previously-unreleased Beatles medley they did ? Cheers, Ian Rose 17:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Freddie Mercury - Personal attacks

I can see from your talk page that you've been warned about this before. Your edits to Talk:Freddie Mercury are becoming very uncivil. I will quote here from the official warning: "In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by admins or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately." ... discospinster _talk 23:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Well it is sometimes difficult to separate moronic content from moronic editors, particular when they are just IP Addresses. However as the poor quality of debate was irritating me so much (I could not possibly condone such asinine editing), I've decide to unwatch the page rather than attempt to participate further.--feline1 23:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Belfast

I've toned down the POV to state what the sources say. Also, please see WP:CIVIL. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 09:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Or alternatively, *you* please stop pretending you aren't familiar with the editorial consensus on this paragraph?--feline1 09:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I assume you're talking about the "2nd most popular city in the UK, above London and Glasgow, for short breaks" discussion on the Belfast talk page. This wasn't mentioned in the paragraph added today. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 10:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Methody

If you manage to source that, I'll take my hat off to you. Or eat it! Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 15:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

) Well for instance, ask anyone who attended MCB when "Kinky" was at the helm, and they'll just *tell* you that was his nickname. But I somehow doubt it was printed in the Belfast Telegraph! LOL--feline1 16:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Florian Schneider

I didn't see Florian Schneider do anything, look at anything or obviously move his hands during the last few Kraftwerk concerts I saw. What do you see him doing in Minimum-Maximum? I didn't see anything, so whatever you say, it remains true that this controversy exists. But I can drop the word "hot" if you feel it's silly. Juryen 23:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

On the DVD, you can quite clearly see him monitoring various software things on his laptop screen and clicking on some stuff (when the camera makes a rare glance over his shoulder). It is true that many "fans" blether a load of uninformed rubbish, but this does not belong in an enclycopedia article.--feline1 09:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that makes sense. "Monitoring various software things and clicking on some stuff," that sounds about right. He's not completely inactive, he's a bit of a sound engineer, but he doesn't play music as such. Go and put that in the article, that's the consensus opinion. Juryen 11:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The plain fact is that none of us really know exactly what he's doing, and speculation does not belong in an article! All the music and visuals is generated and controlled by software, so the notion that he's not making music when engrossed in his laptop is ridiculous.--feline1 11:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Ridiculous, rubbish, blether uninformed rubbish ... I think I'm going to revert the article to what it was and waste no more time on you. Juryen 12:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I already directed you to the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy in the comment on my original edit. This is an official wikipedia policy. Your edits do not conform to it. As such, I, and any other responsible editor or admin, will revert them. You will waste less of your time if you read, understand and adhere to that policy.--feline1 12:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Pedants

You're well aware that this edit wasn't helpful, I assume. Please don't do that again. Femto 11:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually I think it was helpful. And fitting. Have you actually read the article on pedantry? It says plenty about the relevant epistemology.--feline1 10:54, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Aside from the negative connotation of the word, are you trying to say every article about an ambiguously defined scientific term should have such a useful link to pedantry? Sure. Femto 12:38, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

No, it's just that these endless schoolboy quibbles about the nomenclature of the lanthanides is one of my pet hates - students keep getting the impression that the classification is some real thing present in nature, and worrying about that, rather than appreciating that nature is a mess, chemistry just uses such classifications to try and make it tidier, and the important thing are the real empirical observations of actual properties. (cf. many groups and rows in the periodic table have such diverse properties than IUPAC hasn't even bothered to suggest a collective name for them).--feline1 22:02, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

British Isles (terminiology)

Please do not add nonesense to Wikipedia, as the template would say; it is considered vandalism. --Robdurbar 16:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

You're just trying to oppress me with your republican imperialism! I'm off to sail the Welsh Sea.--feline1 16:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I considered it quite funny. Matthew 00:13, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

As hilarious as you may think your edits are, they are repeated and blatant violations of WP:POINT ('do not disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point'). Please stop now, before reprimands become more serious. --Robdurbar 13:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it's high time you referenced your claims that the Manx don't find the term "Irish Sea" offensive. I heard that the term is not officially used in the Tynwald, for instance.--feline1 14:21, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Very good point my dear fellow. The Manx people could find it objectionable (rather than offensive) to be floating in a sea of Irishness. But then again the Manx language is descended from Old Irish, so it once was an Irish island. Then the Brits came and stole it from it's Gaelic protectors. Maybe they should give back, oh dear! ;) MelForbes 18:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Blocked

For your repeated violations of WP:POINT on British Isles (terminology), I've given you a three day block. If you wish to contest what's going on on the page, use the talk. --Robdurbar 15:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Oi! There was nothing whatsoever wrong with my last edits (i.e. they weren't "satirical") - they were totally in keeping with the paragraph I added them to, which blabbers on at length about what the adjective "Irish" means, and whether or not it can be applied to "British" things. I simply clarified this re: "Irish Sea". I suggest you re-read it carefully before unblocking me :) --feline1 15:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll unblock, so long as you assure that you do not start posting stuff about controversy over the term Irish Sea; I have re-read your edit and I still think that it is 'tounge-in-cheek' at best; and it needs to be understood in light of the previous edits you made (which were blatant 'POINT' violations). If you feel there is a need to explain 'Irish Sea' on the page, then go for it - but you know as well as I that it can easily be done in a way that doesn't sound like its taking the piss. --Robdurbar 17:47, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

well the article is already goes into detail about the of Irish Nationalist POV material about how the geographical term "British Isles" is offensive and not used in Ireland (not that the article *shouldn't* do this, of course - it's part of the article's raison d'etre). However to any neutral observer unfamiliar with the British Isles (ie exactly the sort of person who would NEED to read the article in the first place), if they followed the logic of the offense taken at "British Isles", they'd wonder why "Irish Sea" wasn't equally as offensive to British and Manx people. So the article can dispassionately note that it isn't considered offensive. Which was the final (non satirical) edit that I offered. I feel it's logically consistent and neutrally worded. Just because Irish Nationalists may find it an embarrassment that their antipathy to certain terms isn't reciprocated by their imagined "opponents", doesn't mean it's not a fact, not "tongue in cheek" or "POV".--feline1 21:26, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Historical reference to City of Derry/Londonderry

Hi, sorry to drop this message onto your page but I'm trying to invoke a discussion on the WP:IMOS page as to what to use for the historical references to the city of Derry/Londonderry. I am trying to obtain a non-POV neutral discussion over what terminology to use for this or whether the IMOS as it stands should indeed cover this. Since you have been involved in discussions over Derry or County Londonderry and the likes in the past I thought you may like to get involved in the discussion. See the appropriate talk to get involved. Thank you for your time. Ben W Bell talk 16:23, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Your edit to List of musical pieces over fifteen minutes in length

Your recent edit to List of musical pieces over fifteen minutes in length (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // AntiVandalBot 09:47, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Yo

Merry Christmas and all that Jazz. How's the music going?--Crestville 10:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

It's going into outer space! (well, Dorset) for the weekend with Ann Shenton, hurrah!--feline1 17:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Michael Stone (loyalist paramilitary)

"Arguably" and "may be regarded as" are classic examples of weasel words. "Spide" is also a pejorative term so it would be disallowed under WP:BLP, unless properly sourced. And since it's purely a subjective opinion as to whether someone is a spide or not, I don't see how it could ever be properly sourced, unless Stone were to describe himself as a spide. Demiurge 12:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

This would be better discussed on the Stone article's talk page...--feline1 15:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Thought you might find this comment made about you to be interesting

Just thought I would bring to your attention, if it is not already, this comment made about you on a users talk page. I doubt the comment holds 100% validity, and as such I thought maybe you should be aware it was made. -Ionized 00:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Interesting! cheers :)--feline1 11:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Release date of Here Come the Warm Jets

You reverted my change of release year from 1973 to 1974. I was changing it to be consistent with the statement above about it being released in January 1974. If you know that to be incorrect, would you mind changing that date as well? I made the same year change on the discography page, so that should probably be changed back as well. Have a nice day. --PEJL 12:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

OK - well I guess the best thing would be for someone to check the CORRECT release days for Warm Jets & No Pussyfooting, and *then* amend everything accordingly! I don't have time right now - doubtless http://www.enoweb.co.uk has the facts though...--feline1 12:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

That web site says 1973 for both albums, so I'll change it to that. --PEJL 12:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Your edits to Lough Neagh

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits are considered vandalism and are immediately reverted. If you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Thank you. Ben W Bell talk 15:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Please do not add unhelpful and unconstructive content to Wikipedia, as you did to Lough Neagh. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Do not disrupt the Wikipedia to make a point. Doops | talk 15:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah yeah yeah, I know all about WP:POINT- but sometimes it is necessary - for instance, you were reverting back to sectarian troll edits. If admins are going to insist on such partisan behaviour, ordinary innocent wikipedians must resort to being Extremely Silly in response.--feline1 15:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Lough Neagh, you will be blocked from editing. --Hiddekel 15:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes I know - nevertheless, why is the sectarian edit war allowed to persist on this article?--feline1 15:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Lough Neagh, you will be blocked from editing. Once again: Do not disrupt the Wikipedia to make a point. I know you're frustrated, but don't take it out on the project. Not cool at all. Doops | talk 12:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Then why don't you admins intervene to stop the edit war? Eh? How many more months do we have to put up with this? Me not to breaking WP:POINT is hardly the problem here.--feline1 13:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

First, I am not an admin. Secondly, even if I were, I obviously couldn't act as one in a context where I've taken a side. Doops | talk 14:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Well perhaps I should be the one leaving YOU threatened messages about getting banned, since you persist in perpetuating a pointless sectarian edit war with relented POV edits and counter edits?--feline1 14:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Huh? I'm not badgering you about the edit war; your participation in that is (in my view) a matter for your own conscience. I am, rather, badgering you about the joke edits you keep making -- those are patent vandalism and will certainly get you banned. (I am not an administrator and so I'm not threatening you; I'm advising you as one editor to another.) As far as my getting banned for edit warring, I think you've got me confused with somebody else -- look in the page history and you'll see I'm pretty pacific. Cheers, Doops | talk 15:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Fact remains, though: my edits are hilarious :)

Fact remains, one more edit like this [4] and you will be blocked. Keep to making this an encyclopaedia. Ben W Bell talk 09:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll respect everyone's threats a lot more when they stop the sectarian edit war. As far as I'm concerned, such tribal patheticary does far more to damage wikipedia's reputation than a wee bit of satire.--feline1 09:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to do this as I believe that British Isles should stay in the article as it is an accepted term, and I agree it's only a few (well evidence hasn't been provided to support how many more it is) that object to it, and the debate should be held elsewhere. However your edits are going too far and you have been warned about them.

You have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for a period of 24 hours as a result of your disruptive edits. You are free to make constructive edits after the block has expired, but please note that vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our neutral point of view policy will not be tolerated.Ben W Bell talk 10:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Well that's fine, you just go ahead and ban someone who's protesting about ineffectual admins who're perpetuating a secatarian edit war (which brings wikipedia into disrepute), and do nothing about the actual problem. This article should've been sent to an ArbCom long ago. Objective neutral-point-of-view "consensus" cannot be reached in articles if all the participants are just POV-pushing sectarian loonies. --feline1 11:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

3RR warning

Please refrain from repeatedly undoing other people's edits, as you are doing in Robot Rock (song). If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. The three-revert rule (3RR) prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, please discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.

Your edits to Robot Rock (song)

With regards to your comments on Robot Rock (song): Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.

Please sign your comments. Please stop making stupid edits and reverting good ones. Please stop ignoring a year's worth of talk comments. Please stop expecting respect from other editors if you behave like an ass.--feline1 10:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Just64helpin 10:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Stop threatening me as a front for getting your own poor quality editing ramroaded through--feline1 10:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

There is too much rudeness from you on this page alone, and I see lots and lots of warnings above. I have blocked you for three days. Welcome back after the block, and start to interact civilly with others, please. Attacking and insulting people because you disagree with them is not acceptable here, and I'm afraid you will face a longer block if you come back still wrapped in flames. Bishonen | talk 10:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC).

Stop vandalising periodic table article

If something is unclear for you - use talk page of the article. TestPilot 18:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The article itself explains why your edits are egregious. Perhaps you should read it?--feline1 10:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

MPC

Thanks for helping us out with the MPC article; I'm wondering if you have any sources you could direct me to in regards to your information about David Cockerell as a founder of EMS and Electro-Harmonix, because my quick google research couldn't uncover anything to that effect. Thanks a bunch. Tanque 06:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Machine Trilogy

Hey there. I'm about ready to slap an AfD on this article for attaching undue weight to a probably spurious term (Numan talked about a "'machine' phase" of his career, never a "machine trilogy" to my knowledge, and nobody could compare its usage to say "Berlin Trilogy" in any case). However, if you have any startling references that might change my mind, feel free to let me know ASAP. Cheers, Ian Rose 12:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Nah, sound like a load of old codswallop to me! Delete!!!!!!!--feline1 14:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

FYI, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Machine Trilogy is listed now. Cheers, Ian Rose 05:16, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Periodic Table layout

Your thoughts as an "other person" would be appreciated at Talk:Periodic table (standard). Flying Jazz 08:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Cornish orthography

Even though your edit was "unencyclopaedic": You're bloody well right. Unoffensive text or character 13:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

LOL yeah :)--feline1 13:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Your recent comment at User talk:Mongvras

Please do not add defamatory content to Wikipedia. If you would like to experiment please use the sandbox. Thank you. DuncanHill 18:26, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

It was satire, not libel. I see you're one of the Cornish mafiosi too LOL. Your bouncy castle awaits...--feline1 19:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:CIVIL, and perhaps in future you should label your "satirical" comments as such. DuncanHill 20:13, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear Duncan, I am quite familiar with WP:CIVIL. Perhaps you should familiarise yourself with the recent edit history of the Cornish Language article, to see who's been engaging in pointless partisan edit wars there... --feline1 20:32, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Its a shame you didn't take the opportunity to withdraw the comment. Completely uncalled for. You have been blocked for a week. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

A week's holiday! Thank you :)--feline1 18:49, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Hallo! I see that you've dropped your earlier, tentative interest in Cornish. Was there any particular reason for this, or were you merely diverted by other concerns?Whathojeeves (talk) 20:49, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Your edits to Human League articles

I will not revert a second time your edit to Dare (album) as you have now justified your first edit in the language of a professional and not a vandal. I patrol all Human League articles and I will not hesitate to revert any edits that damage the article or remove content without justification. I never revert a factual, constructive edit. Some of the technical content you have added today is constructive, knowledgeable and very welcome. However your edit summaries are deliberately inflammatory and you have intentionally added nonsense to articles, which is the behavior of a troll/vandal and not that of a serious Wikipedia editor. If you use profanity or abusive language in your edit summaries I will simply revert your edit and refer your edit to WP:AN/I You already know what is acceptable because you have been warned and banned for it in the past.

This aside, you clearly have an interest and knowledge of electronic music and your assistance in editing Human League articles is both sought and appreciated. Therefore I will give you the benefit of the doubt and continue to assume good faith. I ask that you work to expand articles not damage them. Please think carefully before removing other peoples work and if you disagree with something then please justify why fully in neutral language or discuss it on the talk page, as you have just done on your last edit and we will accept it. Regards Andi064 01:00, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Lough Neagh

Hi. I'm trying to get some constructive discussion going on over at Talk:Lough Neagh. As an editor that has been involved in discussion to date, would you be interested in taking a look and giving your thoughts? I'll be reminding all of the editors that I'm inviting to remember to keep it cool, and assume good faith. I'm sure that if all editors work together here, we'll have this one nutted out in next to no time. Mark Chovain 23:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

You'd have to be very naive to "assume good faith" with that lot: pretty much all the edits are deliberately sectarian. It's supposed to be a geographical article, but not of the "editors" ever add any material about geography, all they do is endlessly argue about the use of the term "British Isles" and whether or not the article should mention "Ireland" or "UK". They have no interest in making the article more informative and simply use wikipedia as a forum for their narrow-minded political bletherings, which in my view only brings the encyclopaedia into disrepute - if it were up to me I'd ban the lot of 'em.--feline1 09:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Stop harassing me

If you don't stop harassing me, I will report you. Nondistinguished 20:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Stop? I didn't think I'd started! What's the matter?--feline1 20:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I have reported your actions to User:Spartaz. Nondistinguished 20:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The alleged "harrassment" was merely me asking "Nondistinguished" if he was in fact User:ScienceApologist. Nondistinguished has since been indefinately blocked by an admin for being one of several ScienceApologist sockpuppets.--feline1 11:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Lough Neagh in the British Isles or not.

Hello - I see you've participated in the TalkPage discussion at Lough Neagh. I have created a table of the different contributors and their views/arguments about the geographical description to be applied. I am proposing that, if there is a clear consensus then the article is modified to reflect the consensus amongst editors. I am notifying each of the people I've identified as having been interested of this fresh opportunity to reach a consensus and settle this matter. Wikipedia has a policy on canvassing, please do not breach it with actions that are, or could be seen as being, partisan. PR^talk 07:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Would you ident your posting, so as it doesn't blend in with Sony's; thanks. GoodDay 17:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Couldn't you do it for me? I'm busy filleting some haddocks here! Thanks.--feline1 20:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppets

Indeed, Morven has blocked a number of accounts as sockpuppets of myself. I have not received any notice of this until you pointed it out. Thank you. ScienceApologist 16:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Interacting with me

Hi Feline,

With the following comment:

And that you are *not* in fact a lying hound, mendacious agitprop loon, and guilty of serious misconduct?

I could see that you are principally interested in being a dick. Therefore, I am going to ask you not to post on my user talkpage from now on. Thanks.

ScienceApologist 18:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

You seriously think that me paraphrasing a line or to from the Fawlty Towers episode Communication Problems means you can avoid the question of whether you deliberately lied about your use of a sockpuppet and attempted to mislead Admin's into punishing me for raising the matter? If you refuse to discuss the matter with me than I guess I'll just have to raise it with an Admin. Be seeing you.--feline1 18:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia standards of conduct

Please be aware that Wikipedia has standards regarding personal attacks and civility. Referring to another editor as a "lying hound, mendacious agitprop loon, and guilty of serious misconduct" and badgering them by repeatedly re-posting the same material to their talk page is not consonant with those standards. Raymond Arritt 18:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Being a lying hound is not consistent with WP:FAITH, and attempting to raise the issue with the alleged liar in question is not a violation of WP:NPA. Characterising my actions as "badgering" and "repeatedly re-posting" when in actual fact I merely replaced my initial query with a more neutral, straightforward and less embarrassing version, after the first one was deleted (with the intention of allowing User:ScienceApologist to explain his conduct to me amicably, rather than have me need to involve an admin) is a curious way to describe my actions. --feline1 11:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your comment on my talk page. Your recollection of the community's reaction to your personal attack on another editor is at odds with mine. I do know you have made some good contributions - indeed I made this point when I asked for admin intervention in the Cornish Language issue. It seems to me, however, that you do find it hard to remain civil, and that some of your attempts at humour in fact serve only to inflame situations. PLEASE - try to tone down your comments, don't undermine the good work that you do by intemperate or thoughtlessly hurtful comments. Wikipedia is not the British justice system, and editors and admins do look at patterns of behaviour, so an editor who shows a pattern of considerate and well-mannered behaviour will be more likely to get the benefit of the doubt than one who has a history of - how shall i put it - obnoxiousness (however innocent his intentions). In short - just try to be a little more gentle in your comments. DuncanHill 21:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

SA

Hi feline,

I'm just wondering what the other SA socks are, aside from Nondistinguished? You mention others above. ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 01:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Irish langauge place names

Feline, coming out from a few conversations with others, I've created a Gaeilge task force to coordinate translations of Irish place names and other Irish-language related work. Since you seem to have an interest in this stuff, you might want to get involved. I'm sure there's plenty to do even without a knowledge of Irish. Some bright ideas (which I know you're capable of) and an outside view, might alone be a significant contribution. Maybe drop a line on the talk page so that we can all "get to know eachother" as the man might say. --sony-youth^pléigh 15:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

SA

These might help, I don't really know:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Electronic_voice_phenomenon/Archive7

From SPR: "the Society's aim of examining "without prejudice or prepossession and in a scientific spirit those faculties of man, real or supposed, which appear to be inexplicable on any generally recognised hypothesis." The Journal's contents reflect the wide range of our contributors' specialisms and interests and include reports of current laboratory and fieldwork research, as well as theoretical, methodological and historical papers with a bearing on the field of parapsychology." The point is that the journal's peer-review process is entirely less restrictive than the typical peer-review process for good reason: they are outside mainstream control. That's the whole point of "psychical research". You'll note that the Wikipedia article is careful to state that JSPR is peer-reviewed within the field of parapsychology. That's different than being peer-reviewed for scientific accuracy. --71.57.90.96 13:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid you are outnumbered here, Davkal. The point is that the peer review status of JSPR is contentious to the point of a bald inclusion being clearly spoonfeeding the reader. Just saying that the research was "peer reviewed" is misleading because the standards of peer review at JSPR are different than other journals due to its specific inherent bias. Without the adjective "peer-reviewed" the sentence is neutral. With the adjective the sentence is biased. --216.125.49.252 19:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

............

Irrelevant to the initial point. 2) I disagree. Seek a Wikipedia: Third opinion. 3) See below. 4) No, I describe what he did and make clear that this is a design flaw: it's patently obvious. 5) Why not indulge me and use mine? 6) MacRae is clear as to who he contacts. 7) You use abusive shite language and you haven't made your WP:SOCK allegations stick. So WP:KETTLE? --71.57.90.96 12:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Here SA claims that not loging in and just using his IP address (two different ones to give the illusion of more than one person and not coming clean when asked) is not a problem at all

Choosing not to login to one's account is manifestly not sockpuppetry. Are you accusing me of engaging in such an activity? If so, can you present any evidence in the form of diffs in the proper location? --ScienceApologist 19:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't you have email?? ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Kinky

You're having a laugh, right? I'm struggling to believe that you really think this deserves inclusion! Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 11:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Why not? He was my headmaster for (4?) years, and that's what we all called him. Are you familiar with WP:BIO?--feline1 (talk) 13:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

While rereading WP:BIO, which clearly states you should have a reference for things like this, you may also want to look at WP:OR. -- Mark Chovain 20:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying that I "researched" my own memory of participating in this fact?--feline1 (talk) 22:16, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes - if that's not the case, then you should provide a reference for where you got it from. -- Mark Chovain 22:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Is anyone actually contesting the fact that this nickname was used? Or are people connected with maintaining the school's "proper" image just misusing wikipedia policies to provide an excuse to censor...?--feline1 (talk) 23:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Ulster Scotched

You added the {{fact}} template to Ulster Scots (linguistics):

"although one academic (with a notable bias - he is President of the Ulster-Scots Language Society), Michael Montgomery (2004: 131) has argued for recognition on non-structural, apperceptional grounds".

It is referenced "Michael Montgomery (2004: 131)". How stupid are you? By the way lovely Jim Shannon article. 172.202.63.107 (talk) 12:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello. You would do well to stop the personal abuse right there. And matters related to the Ulster Scots article should be discussed on its own talk page, not here. "Michael Montgomery (2004: 131)" is not a proper bibliographic reference either (the name of the publication is missing! and it doesn't correspond to any listed below the article. And it's not formatted correctly with footnotes... unless you mean it was the 131st thing Michael Montgomery said in 2004 :)--feline1 (talk) 12:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I thought it meant the 2004th thing he said 131 days ago but my friend Google thinks it might have something to do with this: Ulster Scots: Lost or Submerged? Ulster and Scotland, History, Language, and Identity, 1600=2000, ed. by William Kelly and John Young, 121-32. Dublin: Four Courts. 172.206.140.152 (talk) 01:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Well so go add that to the article and stop cluttering up my talk page with this stuff!--feline1 (talk) 09:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Hudson Hawk21

Whilst I appreciate your concern that removing warnings obfuscates things, and makes it more difficult to keep track of how far up the warning ladder a user is, it remains the case that users ARE permitted to do it. This user is clearly a vandal, and probably a sock. He will be banned soon enough for his current behaviour. The last thing we need to do is give him ammunition by breaking the rules and restoring content to his talk page that he has deleted. Mayalld (talk) 21:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Harumph--feline1 (talk) 21:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, harumph indeed :-). I'd love to just attack him, but experience says that the best way of sorting this kind of sock is to play everything with a straight bat. By the book! Mayalld (talk) 21:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I used to feel the same way you do, Feline1 (and in some ways, I still do), but it's honestly more trouble than it's worth to revert changes that vandals make to their own talk pages. It's much easier to just add a note when reporting their misbehavior elsewhere, and check their contributions and their talk page history when investigating them for vandalism and other policy violations. Same as the rest of us, vandals get a "you have new messages" message anytime you edit their talk page, so they are almost guaranteed to delete warnings if they're here to cause real trouble. Save your own sanity and don't worry about it ;) --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 21:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

/shrugs/ I have gone and read WP:USER, and it seems unambiguous - but as is often the case when I read Official Wiki Policies, it seems to be that The Law Is oftentimes An Proverbial Ass :) The *spirit* of that policy is that users can read, and implicity, understand and take note of a warning, and thus remove it having learned their lesson, their blushes spared, and able to make a fresh start free of stigma. It is amply clear that nothing of the sort was happening in this case: the vandal was simply trying to maximise confusion, pasting warnings *he'd* received onto other people's talk pages (unsigned, so it made it look like an admin had left them), and editing admonitions on his own page to make them appear to support himself. This is *NOT* the situation WP:USER is seeking to achieve. But hey, who am I to argue with the mandarins... --feline1 (talk) 22:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree that it mainly generates more confusion, but it's gonna be an unending battle. Even a blocked user still has access to edit their own talk page. --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 03:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Obviously you don't know anything about Queen or music in general, quit erasing truthful posts or my dog will beat you up! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.164.47.2 (talk) 09:02, 12 January 2008

(UTC) Don't be silly. Anyways, if you want to add a claim like that to a wikipedia article, it must satisfy WP:VER e.g. include a quote from John Deacon saying that he was inspired by Chic when he wrote the bassline - otherwise it is unencylcopaedic.--feline1 (talk) 12:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

YOU should add it then since you do know about it, it's something every music genius (like myself) needs to know for references. If I myself decide to include Deacon in the studio with Chic, will you keep it there and not erase it? -F. Awph —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.164.47.2 (talk) 01:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Read WP:VER and understand the kind of things that are acceptable references.--feline1 (talk) 02:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Ivfn.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Ivfn.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rettetast (talk) 17:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Translating names into Irish

The issue over the translation of Irish names has cropped up again. It really needs to be sorted out once and for all. If you have a chance, I'd appreciate it greatly if you could take a look at RfC: Verifiability and reliability of sources used to produce Irish-language versions of subjects' names.

This is the second RfC I've submitted in as many days, as a result of two very frustrating encounters with one particular editor. The other was over the validity of using the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography as a reference on Wikipedia. Thanks.--Damac (talk) 18:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

February 2008

With regard to your comments on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland/Gaeilge: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. BigDunc (talk) 18:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

March 2008

Please do not use talk pages such as Talk:Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster for general discussion of the topic. They are for discussion related to improving the article. They are not to be used as a forum or chat room. See here for more information. Thank you.—Emote _{Talk Page} 17:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning. I shall be flagellating myself tonight in penance, and won't do it again.--feline1 (talk) 18:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Howdy

I like the way you're STILL getting told off by the admins all the time. Seriously :) You could well be the Johnny Rotton of wikipedia. Remember that really protracted argument we had that time? I enjoyed that.--Crestville (talk) 15:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I know you did :) Actually, though, "Emote" isn't an admin, he's just a 17-year college student and christian fundamentalist who decided to tell me off! Well I'll go to the foot of our stairs, etc etc...--feline1 (talk) 16:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Take your medecine :p--Crestville (talk) 21:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

An apology

It appears you were right about User:Nondistinguished and User:ScienceApologist being the same person. DuncanHill (talk) 15:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Auch sure that was aaaaaages ago - did you complain about me making the indentification at the time? I can't even remember! No worries. Anyways it seems "ScienceApologist" is still doing his best to flamewar across the Interweb in the name of Science.....--feline1 (talk) 16:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I gave a message of support to SA (which was rather critical of you) and a welcome box to Nondistinguished. I was rather annoyed with you at the time following some unfortunate comments relating to a Cornish contributor. If you are interested in why this has come up now, I'm sure you can figure it out from my recent contributions! DuncanHill (talk) 16:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

From a brief perusal of the pages in question, I can see it just confirms my longstanding suspiscion that ScienceApolgist will not rest until everyone not currently holding tenure in a university is banned from editing wikipedia. The guy is an incorrigable flamer who cannot be appeased. I like to imagine him as Manuel in the closing scene of the Fawlty Towers episode The Anniversary, where he lies snarling and fighting on the floor, with Terry the Chef crying "I'll 'ave to kill 'im, Mr Fawlty, I'll 'ave to kill 'im!!"--feline1 (talk) 16:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Baiting

Hi. Please stop baiting other users,[5][6] or else you will soon find your account disabled. Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 16:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry there. I thought I was correcting some points of fact in ScienceApologist's allegation, which had misled you, as you had replied to him that "It does seem like sock puppetry then." Would you have preferred to have remained misled?--feline1 (talk) 16:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I was not misled. The matter has been resolved conclusively. Jehochman ^Talk 16:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I was misunderstanding, but the allegation was that the IP address "82.35.165.180" was a sockpuppet of Ian Tresman? ScienceApologist asserted that as this IP address was in Surrey, and that the SIS "operates out of Surrey", and Ian Tresman is involved in SIS, then this proved "82.35.165.180" was a sockpuppet of Ian Tresman. To me, you appeared to be accepting this assertion to reach the conclusion that "It does seem like sock puppetry then"? The asertion and logic were false: the SIS does not "operate" out of Surrey, nor have a membership who predominantly live in Surrey. Moreover Ian Tresman does not live in Surrey. Therefore the notion that the IP address was proven as a sockpuppet of Ian Tresman by this is false. In actual fact, it appears to have transpired that the comment left by 82.35.165.180 on Admin Stifle's talk page was by the user Soupdragon, and not made by Ian Tresman at all? With no evidence whatsoever to indicate that Soupdragon was acting on Ian's behalf.--feline1 (talk) 17:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how you could have thought that this would be a helpful contribution to the Arbitration being opened. To me, it just looks like you're kicking sand in the eyes of editors with whom you have had prior disputes. Antelan^talk 12:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

/shrugs/ I think you're reading to much into it. "LOL" I wrote and laugh out loud I did — I was viewing the page to read about the IanTresman case, and there before my eyes was yet *another* screenful of acrimony involving ScienceApologist. It made me laugh, and I wrote a sentence to celebrate the fact. Whether that will be "helpful" to arbitrators in gauging the kind of effect ScienceApologist's behaviour has on the community, I do not know.--feline1 (talk) 13:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Well some bossyboots has deleted it now anyways. Clearly I am viewed as some kind of master at baiting....--feline1 (talk) 13:26, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Please don't make such comments. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration is used for helpful, constructive comments relating to whether the Committee should hear requests, and your comment fell well outside that range. Daniel (talk) 13:32, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry there :) --feline1 (talk) 13:37, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Redirect of Group Number of Lanthanides and Actinides to Group 3 Element

Please contribute to the discussion at Talk:Group_number_of_lanthanides_and_actinides. Flying Jazz (talk) 14:53, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

June 2008

Please do not use talk pages such as Talk:Iris Robinson for general discussion of the topic. They are for discussion related to improving the article. They are not to be used as a forum or chat room. See here for more information. Thank you. BigDunc^Talk 20:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Invitation to CfD Category:Pseudoskeptic Target Discussion

I noticed that you have edited in related areas within WP, and so thought you might have an interest in this discussion.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 18:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:OUTING

I have redacted your use of the purported real name of a wikipedia contributor, per WP:OUTING. Please review this policy and consider if your behavior is consistant with it. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 19:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for "outing"

I've blocked this account indefinitely for violating Wikipedia's policy on "outing". Specifically, you've posted a section of evidence to an ArbCom case which purports to identify an editor by their real-life name, which is not disclosed on Wikipedia and which, to my understanding, has been courtesy-blanked in the interest of privacy wherever it appears.

An aggravating factor in this case is that you appear to have reposted more or less verbatim your evidence from a prior ArbCom case, to the point of needing to fix copy-paste errors. Yet in your previous ArbCom evidence, you did not "out" the editor in question (see here). This indicates, to me, that you copy-and-pasted the old evidence from 2007 but then expended extra time and effort specifically to add what you believe to be the editor's real-life name. That, to me, indicates an intention to "out" this user.

In accordance with the WP:OUTING policy, I've blocked this account and will revert the edits in question. This block is not intended to be permanent, and may be reversed upon a convincing assurance that further "outing" will not occur. I'll say explicitly that any reviewing admin may undo this block at their discretion without further discussion with me, if they wish, though I'd appreciate a notification if an unblock is being considered in the absence of resolution of the outing issue.

If you wish to appeal this block, you may use the {{unblock}} template, or follow the guidelines here. MastCell ^Talk 20:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi MastCell, sorry there - I wasn't aware of WP:OUTING as a policy - I did indeed repost evidence from an earlier ArbComm (as I made clear in the edit summary), because I thought the evidence was still relevant to this ArbComm - I wasn't editing it to "Out" the guy, I actually thought I was being more polite! sorry. (Also - I didn't realise he was keeping his identity secret, as for example he appeared at the 5th New York City wikipedia Meetup event on Sunday 13 January 2008, and is quoted by name at the writeup on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/January_13%2C_2008#Discussion_of_Pseudoscience_on_Wikipedia and appears in an associated video http://www.archive.org/details/PseudoscienceOnWikipedia where he discusses his, erm, 'approach' as an editor on wikipedia.) Apologies for the breach of protocol.--feline1 (talk) 20:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, that's all I wanted to hear. I've unblocked you, and I think I lifted the autoblock as well (if not, let me know). I'm sorry for the heavy-handed reaction, and I realize you've been off-wiki for awhile and policies change. MastCell ^Talk 20:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

No worries, thanks for sorting that out. I see the writeup of the 5th New York City Meetup has been speedily redacted now as well! But it had the users' name in it at the time I linked...--feline1 (talk) 20:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I understand the confusion. For the record, I think what happened is that at some point this user wished to redact potentially identifying information from Wikipedia, in response to some past incidents. Much of it has already been redacted, but references pointing a real-life identity remain scattered here and there on Wikipedia - it's like trying to put smoke back in a bottle. I accept that you weren't aware of that subtext, and that your use of the purported real-life identity was an attempt at politeness rather than an attempt to "out". Thanks for handling it with equanimity. MastCell ^Talk 20:31, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Ireland naming question

You are receiving this message because you have previously posted at a Ireland naming related discussion. Per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names#Back-up procedure, a procedure has been developed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration, and the project is now taking statements. Before creating or replying to a statement please consider the statement process, the problems and current statements. GnevinAWB (talk) 17:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Respected Psychiatrist

Thank you for defending your phraseology. BTW: has the feline1 email address changed? Advise. Phaedrus7 (talk) 17:56, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

No it's still the same, and I still get several mails a week from you on it ;)--feline1 (talk) 22:52, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Taking Tiger Mountain

Eugh. Please do not post your critiques of critics reviews on wikipedia. This is very bad form. Thank you. Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Why did you put those review quotes into the article? They were clearly stupid and unencyclopaedic?--feline1 (talk) 17:39, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Crisco

A little WP:AGF, please, if you don't mind. It annoys me greatly to have someone call me homophobic, given that not only am I in a same-sex relationship, but I've also taken a lot of shit for it in RL. So knock it off already and focus on the article, not the editor - Alison ^❤ 21:59, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Well stop making bone-headed bloody-minded edits then, and help put better references into the article then instead! --feline1 (talk) 22:22, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

You want it included, you find them. Not my job. I just remove bone-headed, unreferenced garbage when I see it - Alison ^❤ 22:25, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and you're now at WP:3RR. Jes' sayin' ... - Alison ^❤ 22:26, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

If you'd care to explain to me how a link to half a dozen gay shops selling crisco as lube for fisting isn't prima facie evidence that gay shops sell crisco for lube, then I might take you more seriously.--feline1 (talk) 23:02, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

While you're ranting about cites, please, a cite for shoulder-length fisting? Achromatic (talk) 04:25, 5 December 2009 (UTC)