User talk:Mindspillage

Please post new messages to the bottom of my talk page. I will respond on yours unless you request otherwise; please respond on mine so that my new message box lights up, as I will notice your message sooner. Thank you.

MAC address Spam

In the MAC address article we're seeing repeated insertion of a spam link to www.sdadapters.com (and historically, www.sd330.com). Blocking the user won't affect the spammer, because they're coming in from a different IP address each time. Can you either add the two addresses to the spam blocklist or protect the article? I think I'd prefer to see the first; protecting a page to protect against spam seems like overkill. Josh Parris # 23:30, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

grin

You have ostrich! ; - ) -- Essjay · Talk 00:45, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting Meta-Association outpacing Exclusion

You think it is valid to delete an Association outpacing exclusion? Why not delete the Deletionist Association then?

User:Canadianism 05:28, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stetson

Hello Mindspillage, are you still at Stetson? Just wondering, because I'll be travelling up there next week — I'll be too busy to meet anyone, but just wanted to let you know... (P.S. I like your music excerpt of Bach Suite, but that should be played on a cello!) :-) Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 22:17, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(replying via email) Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 22:58, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

That was unexpected! What did I do wrong?! Normally I'm very low profile; I've never gotten a barnstar before. This is very disconcerting. :-) Hm, a cryptic message... I'm not exactly sure what edits of mine you've found in page histories, but I'm happy you found them sensible. Although I don't do much article writing, so, um... I'm a Wikignome with an inferiority complex. Wait, what was I going to say? Oh yeah: Thank you! That was nice. I also want to tell you that I have a lot of respect for you, thank you for all your hard work (and I wasn't surprised when you became an arbitrator :). Dmcdevit·t 00:45, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PS: You spilled something over at my talk page. I always wanted to say that!

PPS: Did I say thanks?

User:Rafterman

Not a problem, so long as he behaves himself, but if he starts doing it again, he needs to be blocked indefinitely. User:Zoe|^(talk) 07:53, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rafterman sent me this email:

Please unblock me, Zoe, I'll never vandalise again. If I vandalise again, I'll let you hunt me down and kill me. I was just being a dick because I could, I'll never do it again. Please assume good faith in me, I'll become an admin if you unblock me, I will work hard, and then after months and months I will be an admin, just give me another chance. But if you don't, you will face hell, wikipedia, will face hell. So either you unblock me, or prepare to bring it.

Doesn't sound particularly repentant to me. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:29, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A small favour

Hello,
You recently wrote "Would like to see more evidence of ability to handle disputes without losing his temper". I had been under the impression that, with the obvious exception, I wasn't too bad at that. However, the truly incompetent are usually blissfully unaware. With this in mind I'd like to ask the eponymous favour.
I've been trying to help move things forward over at WP:WEB. I haven't had much luck. I'm trying not to be cranky, but don't know how else to progress this. So, if you'd indulge me, I'd like to ask that you review the discussions and my contributions to talk pages. There is also some history on WP:DRV and some AfDs, but those would require looking at diffs and I know that you're pretty busy.
If you're not keen, I'll understand.
brenneman ^(t)^(c) 23:52, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking at that, I only mentioned the RfA as an aside. There was only one opinion expressed that I took even the slightest umbrage at, and it certainly wasn't yours! - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 05:39, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rouge admin

Conical list of Musician Jokes

Can you help me here? Im looking for a place to park three things:

A conical list of Musician Jokes

Q:What is the diffrecne between a Viola and a Violin?
A:A Viola burns longer

An archived usenet post on the Atmospheric Effects of Avation.
Is there still an all-you-can-eat resturant across the street from Stetsion?
- Is there a picture of it?

Artoftransformation 04:46, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alfred Reed

Kat - you're right, there isn't a lot on the web about his passing. I did find this site: http://www.wasbe.org/en/news/reed.html after searching for 'Alfred Reed obituary' on Google. Sorry I didn't get back to you sooner! Cheers, Kate (aka anonymous user with an IP Address)

Thanks for supporting my RfA

I know I've been slow in saying this, but thanks for supporting my request for adminship. It was an honor to be both nominated and approved as an admin. If there is ever any adminish (is that a word :-) things you need help with, please let me know. --Alabamaboy 16:25, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Another Chance

Thank you very much for another chance. I swear to the good lord above, I will not let you down. Rafterman 20:13, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

More from User:TheDoctor10

Hey, 'spillage. I just wanted to draw your attention to a (still pissy) response from User:TheDoctor10 on his talk page. He seems not to understand that he did, in fact, violate the terms and conditions set forth by Wikipedia for editing the website. I'm not sure whether it's willful blindness or unwillingness to step down from a fight, or what. I tried to give him some friendly advice, but it seems to have fallen on barren soil.

I wasn't sure if you had his talk page on your watchlist or not, but he's demanding a response — I think from you, even though it's after the comment from me. Not my problem really, but wanted to let you know. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:27, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up on that; I don't really have anything to add beyond what you'd said. By the way, I noticed you said you weren't an admin: would you like to be? Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:04, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's very kind of you to ask. I think at the moment I'm content being a lowly editor, and trying to keep things on an even keel with my peers. I may change my mind later, but I don't feel like standing (running?) for adminship at the moment. Thanks, though!

As for TheDoctor10, do you think that there's anything more we can do? It looks like he's on a lower boil at the moment, despite his vague threat to "take it to the Foundation". —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:11, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand wanting to stay a user; if you change your mind you have a willing nominator. As for TheDoctor10, yeah, it looks like he's calmed down a bit—or at least not reverting at the moment! I'm not terribly worried about the consequences of him taking it to either the Foundation or the criminal justice system. :-) I suppose if he persisted a user RfC would be in order, since it looks like this isn't a new issue; hopefully not, of course. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:31, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, he's been an on-and-off nuisance on various Doctor Who-related pages for a little while. I filed the RfC on his behaviour at List of minor Doctor Who villains, after discussion with other editors, and at the time I wasn't sure whether it was better to file it about the page or about the user. Khaosworks, who's the driving force behind WikiProject Doctor Who, recommended that we start with the page. I suppose we'll see whether, despite his bluster, he's capable of taking a hint. (In this case, a hint dropped with a ten-ton weight attached...)

And again, thanks for your kind remarks about adminship. If I do change my mind, I'll let you know! —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:40, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

I just wanted to thank you so much for your support of my RfA which finally passed! That was some debate. I greatly appreciate it! Ramallite ^(talk) 04:28, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's regrettable that it ever has to happen on any Wikipedia article, but thank you for protecting the Elvis Presley page. I note you say you aren't sure as to seeking another term on the Arbitration Committee. In this regard, I plan to make a proposal in the next day or so that might be of interest. - Ted Wilkes 19:35, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I admire those who have dedicated themselves to Arbitration Committee work. It requires a special personality and from what I see, is mostly a thankless job. My suggestion will (hopefully) be a way to reduce the workload of the Arbitration Committee in a way that gives a simple resolve to certain issues regarding basic fundamental Wikipedia principles that currently trigger long edit wars and endless Talk page parlance that then wind up at Arbitration. - Ted Wilkes 20:35, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Edward George Honey

Please do not keep this article protected too long as it is currently mentioned in Template:Did You Know on the main page and I am hoping for it to bring some more editing. Thanks. Harro5 04:35, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RFC?

The rule for unlisting and deleting uncertified RFCs exists, in my experience, to get rid of "attack" RFCs that aren't really based on anything. If an RFC has received substantial feedback from the community, it is proper to keep it as a record of an earlier dispute, even if the one who originally filed it would prefer it not to (the possibility of RFC backlash is warned against on the RFC page, after all). For that matter I personally wouldn't even unlist an RFC if the last comment made was less than a week ago. There are a number of third parties who have given their view, and they should at least be consulted before deleting the entire page. R adiant _>|< 16:57, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. R adiant _>|< 17:41, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding User:Rafterman

I believe you blocked this user indefintely recently and when he appealed you reduced that block to 48 hours on 8th November suggesting future misbehaviour might cause the block to be reinstated. You might then be interested in this edit complete with false edit summary from 11th November. Subtle it is not. --pgk^(talk) 21:22, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the action, you might also like to consider his update to his talk page including the rather vile edit summary: [1]. Thanks again --pgk^(talk) 22:01, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm...

Something looks a bit awkward here: User talk:LoveandPeace. What is the best thing to do here? --HappyCamper 01:55, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ah hah! Now we know what is going on...[2] - were you able to contact someone who can read the material? --HappyCamper 18:46, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that's comforting to hear. Oooh, I should mention in passing that Antandrus started an artile on Hora staccato - Is there a viola adaptation of this piece you could...record for the article? :-) :-) :-) --HappyCamper 21:36, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Daily - - - - and a question

OK, I am not compromising your reputation. See how good I am? Promise, I was not coming just to *- - -* you, but for a real question. People sending permissions don't link to the article, don't give their user names etc. Which makes it very difficult to use those permissions at all. Is there a page here that advertizes the email address permissions? If yes could you point me to it so that I try and make it comprehensive? If not, can we think of making one (or a section in any other page you'll deem appropriate)? Thank you friend. And here are your daily *- - - -*. notafish }<';> 09:36, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Judi McLeod and Canada Free Press redux

Hi mindspillage, I'm very concerned that Hobbes000 did not give you a full set of facts about Judi McLeod. Hobbes000 removed verifiable information from those pages including mention of a documented lawsuit, a politically inconvenient endorsement and the paper's original name.

I also find it suspicious that Hobbes000 claims not to know Judi McLeod but dismissed disputed - and in some cases verifiable - facts with complete authority.

I'm also concerned that Wiki staff didn't pick up on this.

I find it too suspicious that in the same time frame - August 23 to August 25 - that Hobbes000 was reverting pages and removing verifiable information, "somebody" was reverting and vandalizing the Rachel Marsden page, removing any mention of Marsden's stalking conviction.

I strongly believe that this is a pretext to stop factual information from appearing.

Judi McLeod's old publication Our Toronto published a short 100-word letter to the editor from Paul Fromm. I re-read it last year when going through older issues. I will look into this again.

I appreciate the situation Wiki is in, and I do realize that Wiki administrators must go out of their way to avoid any appearance of bias, but much of what Judi McLeod says needs to be taken with a grain of salt.

For that reason I seriously doubt that there has been a "smear campaign" on the internet ... especially since I can't find any trace of it!

they have been the target of a smear campaign recently and are concerned that those responsible are attempting to defame them on Wikipedia as well.

Or tell the truth.

I would have also preferred you said "They CLAIM to have been the target of a smear campaign," and not stated it as fact.

I would like to know more about this recent smear campaign and where it occurred. What proof did they offer? On one Wiki page you claim "one person" is behind a smear campaign, but elsewhere you claim it's a group of people. Which is it?

This is probably what she meant and I hardly consider it a smear campaign. "World O'Crap" link

Judi McLeod has a very bizarre idea of what constitutes libel. She claims that calling her employee Rachel Marsden a convicted stalker is defamatory, even though Marsden was convicted of stalking.

I hope I don't sound too harsh. I worry McLeod has misled you and other Wikipedia administrators. I want to bring this to your attention before it becomes a problem.

Thanks! --Cyberboomer 00:30, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your thoughtful comments on my page. Yes, it is a heated topic. I had suspected that you knew "nothing about Canadian politics." That's okay. I understand the position you have to take in this. --Cyberboomer 01:02, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lockdown

Hi, umm i've altared the Lockdown page and added a separate disambig page to encapsulate other examples. Not sure what you meant at the talk page however. Pydos 15:58, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh right. The only other lockdown related page i've found is 'TNA Lockdown'. Possibly whoever was responsible for the copyright violation just scarpered and deleted the page to which you are refering. I'll let you know what, if anything, i find. Pydos 11:19, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DeLand etc.

Re:The result of the debate was delete, and this coming from another DeLand resident... ...and coming from another extropian transhumanist, agnostic atheist, and geek. Yeltensic42.618 16:49, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Another weirdo around these parts...I know, the number of atheists in West Volusia is probably in the single digits. As for the Hitchhiker's Guide, for a while around the time the movie came out I claimed "Adamism" as my religion. As for the show, if you go to Sands Theater I can still be found on the lobby wall in three places (though in two of them I might be pretty much unrecognizable). When exactly did you go to Stetson, by the way? I live only several blocks from Stetson. Do you know Eric Hoffman by any chance? Yeltensic42.618 22:47, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so you graduated at more or less the same time that I wrote the Chris bensko article. Coincidence? I think...probably so. It would be rather difficult not to cross paths, especially considering that when you started there I lived even closer to Stetson than I do now, virtually on the edge of the campus in fact; then for another two and a half years, I lived about the same distance away as I do now, but in a location relative to the campus such that I passed through the vicinity more often (I still do regularly, but more often by car than foot, other than walking to Sands Theater, which doesn't involve venturing into the campus itself (I live west of Woodland, so going to the theater means only going to the near periphery of Stetsonland)). It has occured to me that the title of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead is somewhat of a misnomer; they are not dead yet as the play is going on, so it should be Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are to be Dead in the Very Near Future, by the End of This Play in Fact. Yeltensic42.618 07:08, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Just wanted to drop by and thank you for taking the time to comment on my RfA. I really appreciate the feedback. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 14:36, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for the congrats :) .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 22:18, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

Hi Mindspillage,

Thank you very much for your support on my RfA. I was both surprised and delighted about the amount of support votes and all the kind words! If I can ever help with anything or if you have any comments about my actions as an admin, please let me know! Regards, JoanneB 15:45, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kat in the hat in the ring

I'm very glad to see you've decided to run for the arbcom. I'd have actively urged you to, but I've rather lost track as to whether we're even having an election this year. You're probably right about having to be somewhat crazy to do it, but you strike me as about the sanest of the bunch, both current and available replacements. (Though don't get me started again on preference vs. approval voting.) I'll stop now, before you end up needing a different hat size. Alai 19:30, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you from Ann

Hi, Mindspillage. I just want to thank you very much for supporting my RfA, and to say also that I hope I'll make a good job of it. I'm supposed to be working on an assignment at the moment, and had been reducing my Wikipedia activity, so delayed thanking people, but I'm finding the new rollback button so easy to use that I'm just keeping Wikipedia open on my browser while working on other things, and I thought I'd like to thank at least a few of those who supported me while I'm here. Glad to see from your userpage that you like semicolons as well as music. That's another thing we have in common! Cheers. AnnH ^(talk) 23:07, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Going back in

...to write and edit I see! nice job! (Come Out (Reich)) Antandrus (talk) 03:41, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Featured article for December 25th

I noticed you have listed yourself in Category:Atheist Wikipedians. That said, you will probably be interested in my suggested featured article for December 25th: Omnipotence paradox. The other suggestion being supported by others for that date is Christmas, although Raul654 has historically been against featuring articles on the same day as their anniversary/holiday. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-28 08:27

Musical mode

Hey, no problem; I've been meaning to do that for a while, actually. Everybody has a different way of understanding modes, and they all wanted to put them in there. :) Now, cleaning up the new page, that will take some work.... /blahedo (t) 09:26, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Come Out (Reich), which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Reply required as per Wikipedia:Arbitration policy for Requests

I have not yet seen your reply as required by Wikipedia:Arbitration policy#Requests to my request here as of 15:39, November 24, 2005 re with respect to this process. Please provide a rationale for your vote that was rendered while I was prevented from responding on the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Wilkes, Wyss and Onefortyone in accordance with Wikipedia:Arbitration policy for Requests which states "Individual Arbitrators will provide a rationale for their vote if so moved, or if specifically requested." Thank you. - Ted Wilkes 23:04, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, but the question I asked was: On what authority did you base your decision to deny me due process and render an opinion? Thank you. - Ted Wilkes 23:24, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration Policy guarantees me due process and I want to know on what authority did you base your decision to deny me that most fundamental right. Also, you stated "Wikipedia is not a court of law". This contradicts what Jimmy Wales has stated on the Wiki mailing list. - Ted Wilkes 23:48, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re your statement at User talk:Ted Wilkes "Re: due process: Wikipedia is not a court of law, thank the deities. You were not denied anything and your case will be heard fairly. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 23:42, 28 November 2005 (UTC)"[reply]

Wikipedia is a court of law. I quote Jimmy Wales: "The arbcom is a judicial sort of body." And in fact, your denying me the right to be heard violated the most absolute and fundamental right under the administration of any judicial body. What's worse, is while deliberately and recklessly denying me the right to be heard, you accepted the diatribe of a person you unanimously voted to place on Wikipedia:probation because of his repeated serious violations of Wikipedia:policy and conduct. - Ted Wilkes 16:44, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wilkes, Wyss, 141

Why did you accept this RfAr when no efforts, nor evidence of any efforts, to remedy the alleged issue by other means have been made or presented? I ask because this seems to be contrary to both the template instructions and WP policy. Could you please cite the documented section of Wikipedia's written policy which you used to make this extraordinary exception? Thanks. Wyss 23:59, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hogbrend

Hello, unless User:Hogbrend is your sockpuppet, he's stealing your identity. --Angr (t·c) 16:25, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In response (consensus)

Thanks for your question regarding my opinions concerning consensus. I am almost certain that any opinion I have given regarding consensus has been restricted to AfD vote closures. I suppose my view hasn't changed (as pertains to AfD closures) that 66% or a clear two-thirds majority is adequite to close most AfD candidates. In more contentious cases, I would not hestitate to ask for some trustworthy, impartial advice. Regarding any of the straw polls or other polls that take place, I would not have any administrative role in closing them, until I have gained more experience and credibility within administrative circles. So as it pertains to AfD, after discounting votes that come from sockpuppets, brand new user accounts and other spurious sources, a clear two thirds majority would suffice. Since I was nominated several days ago, I have been making a dent in the administrators required reading pages. I might not become an admin (at least during this run at it) but I will be prepared for subsequent attempts. As Samuel Johnson once said, "Knowledge is Power". If you have any other questions, or if you feel I have forgotten to mention some comment I made in the past regarding consensus, or anything else, please feel free to respond to this memo. Hamster Sandwich 20:15, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting Read

You may have already seen it, but I found this page a rather interesting read. Yeltensic42.618 06:37, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh...

POTW is trying to rile me up again. Can you or one of the other arbitrators do something about this? Like I said time and time again at the rfar, he'll keep on going with this trolling(of me or something else)until he's forcibly stopped, and i'm trying to stay out of this. karmafist 00:36, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cease making personal attacks. With regard to the above; if you're not prepared or able to back up your allegations with evidence, don't make them, either. Andy Mabbett 00:40, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See what I mean? He doesn't respect the arbcom enough to see the rfar(where the evidence is), but he's more than happy to hound me. Please, something has to be done here, and I do not want to be the one who has to do it, but if someone does not, I will. This cannot continue. karmafist 03:02, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If someone does not, I will. Even I have never had an idea this bad, and that's saying something. If no one else will, that almost certainly means you shouldn't. Ok, shutting up, getting back in my box now. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 03:14, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Machine parts.

Fishsticks.

Bathtub?

HeAvEn.

DRUT!

WoW vandal

WoW hit you and a bunch of other stuff...want me to block Westwax indef?--MONGO 11:42, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It was autoblocked as I noticed after I went and indef blocked the account. That guy moves fast. Has anyone ever tried (dumb question) checkuser?--MONGO 11:59, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re Arbitration Committee procedure re request by RedWolf

Please note that the Arbitration Committee appears to have failed to follow standard procedure as seen here and notify User:RedWolf that his "Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Wilkes, Wyss and Onefortyone has been accepted" and that he "Please place evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Wilkes, Wyss and Onefortyone/Evidence." Please ensure this is corrected. Thank you. - Ted Wilkes 22:18, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me for jumping in here, but don't you mean Redwolf24 (talk · contribs), and he appears to have been notified? Talrias (t | e | c) 22:26, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Another Wonderfool alias

Please read Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Another_Wonderfool_alias. Uncle G 16:50, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes

...The North Carolina Vandal is upset I blocked him again (63.19.*.*); interesting; I didn't know he was active on meta as well. That's the same one that called me an "uneducated loser". (It might be a good idea to look for new pages from any 63.19 address there.) Sometimes I do RC patrol for ten minutes when I'm at work ... it's fun to have a T1 line ... :-) Antandrus (talk) 17:18, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Socks

Hi,

You may already know, but User:Striver was briefly accused of being a sock pup of yours. [3] :-(

It seems that the guilty account has been dealt with, so just FYI.

Regards, Ben Aveling 03:17, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, I knew you'd go over to the dark side sooner or later! bwahaha. (j/k) [4] Antandrus (talk) 17:52, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why, thank you! LOL. I wish he had recorded the vintage. :-) Antandrus (talk) 04:13, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Middle of last week. A very good week. Ben Aveling 09:39, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WebComix

You wrote If the parties could make neutral statements and avoid loaded language on this page as much as possible, it would more useful for the AC as well as helping to keep the acrimony from spreading further than it already has. If you consider any of my contributions to be loaded language, please let me know and I will look at moderating them. Filiocht | The kettle's on 14:32, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I withheld a comment on the workshop page. I'm sure that you know it already, but in the section where Tony mentions a "history of assuming bad faith" for Aaron, I thought it rather odd that this charge had been effectively added and wondered whether it was within bounds or not to mention, in a neutral way (as I'm not making an accusation of malice) that Aaron had prosecuted an RfC against Tony before, that the two have had bad relations for a while. Indeed, I would mention at the same time that I have had bad relations with Tony in the past, too. Geogre 01:19, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think this would be valid comment. Filiocht | The kettle's on 09:04, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Awolf002 RfA comments

I wanted to thank you for your support regarding my RfA. Regardless of outcome, I appreciate your trust! You also went out of your way to comment on the main idea of my request. That is outstanding in my book!!! Awolf002 15:25, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Karmafist

Thanks for your note on my Talk page. I have responded to Karmafists's comment on his Talk page, and I'll be around for a little while longer to check for any further comment. There is also some discussion there as to whether or not there is a parole in effect on Karmafist, I would welcome your input on that. Best regards, Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 05:37, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm an admin now!!

Thanks a ton for voting on my rfa, the final tally was 50-0-0. You voted support with the comment "Looks like an all-around good user." I hope to grow into an all-around good admin as well. Thanks again. --Gurubrahma 11:43, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BDAbramson's RFA

Thank you, Mindspillage, for spilling your mind in my RfA - I'll do my best as an admin to make the reality of Wikipedia rise to the level of the dream. BDAbramson T 02:14, 8 December 2005 (UTC) ^{<--note new "admin gold" sig :-D}[reply]

User:Solcutter

Take a look at User:Solcutter - what is going on here? Thue | talk 12:58, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yet Another RFA Thank You Note to clutter up your talk page...

Mindspillage:

Just wanted to drop you a note to thank you for your EXTREME UNCTION SUPPORT on my recent RFA. I shall strive to make sure you never regret your support vote.

All the best.
→ Ξxtreme Unction {^yakł_blah} 14:25, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination Theft

Durin has this nice list of potential admins up, here.

Are you thinking what I'm thinking?

Kim Bruning 05:05, 10 December 2005 (UTC) wait, silly question![reply]

Do you support the creation of a Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Code of Conduct as I have just now suggested at User talk:Jimbo Wales#A sincere question? - Ted Wilkes 18:28, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stalled arbitration

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ultramarine appears to have stalled. In the meantime, wholly independently, and coming upon this dispute by another route entirely, I have proposed a solution to the perennial neutrality dispute that appears to underpin this conflict on Talk:Criticisms of communism#NPOV. Both sides appear to have at least accepted the idea in principle, but have become stalled. The Arbitration Committee giving them a little encouragement, and perhaps a tiny push to get them over the initial hump and into the process of actually working, might help. Uncle G 04:30, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Striding through the snow/ Russian soul depressed

Making sonnets go

And seriously impress.

Never heard before

Of an Onegin

And therebefore my eyes

She's gone and writ one!

Geogre 18:33, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: My letter

Oh my word! I almost fell with laughter when I saw your comment there. Thanks for the barnstar and the kind words. By the way, I'm up for RfB. *NUDGE NUDGE* ;-)

Thanks Mindspillage! Alex Schenck (that's Linuxbeak to you) 19:11, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration Johnski

I just wanted to let someone know that we are all done posting evidence. No one has posted anything for about three days. Thanks! Davidpdx 02:34, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

i wanted to apologize for prematurely requesting arbitration. i am now doing the right thing in the right order. Marshill 21:00, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

EffK is forced to Abandon a Corrupted Wikipedia

I refer you to my response of a few moments ago at 15 December [[5]],http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/EffK/Evidence#3_December_2005 EffK 03:17, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

move

Hope all goes well with the move! What, there's life outside of Wikipedia? :-) Antandrus (talk) 06:12, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I always manage to smash at least one finger and hurt my back ... take care, hope you're not doing everything yourselves! Antandrus (talk) 06:16, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Holidays

O.K. Kat, so you don't believe in Santa, but I still want to wish you and your loved ones all the happiness in the world and the best new year ever (Especially in Virginia). Your friend, Tony the Marine 04:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

I'd like to thank you, first and foremost; if you're receiving this message, it's because I think you were one of the people I adopted as a personal mentor, and who helped to make the whole Wikipedia experience more enjoyable.

The fact is, I've got no choice but to leave. The recent sordid affair with User:Deeceevoice and my appalling conduct in that showed me that I have not the calibre required to maintain good relations with users on the wiki. Worse still, I violated almost all of the principles I swore to uphold when I first arrived.

I've now been desysopped, and I plan on devoting a little more time to what I am good at, which is developing. I don't fit in on this side of the servers, but perhaps I can still be of use to the project.

Thank you. Rob Church ^Talk 02:13, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Did we forget?

This is a friendly reminder that apparently, the winners of Wikipedia:Article rescue contest have not been determined! I am posting this to all the judges listed there. Maybe it would be a good idea to get this done soon? --HappyCamper 03:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Florida

I noticed from Category:Wikipedians in Florida that you are a floridian and I have created a state wikiproject, Wikipedia:WikiProject Florida. So far is it very small but it could be expanded later. Join it if you want and help set tasks etc. Thanks --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 06:34, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Poetlister block

Hi there. I got an e-mail from User:Poetlister asking for me advice for how to present the case with regards to the mediation for List of Jewish jurists where User:Poetlister, User:Jayjg and User:RachelBrown were involved in an edit war with primarily User:Lulu_of_the_Lotus-Eaters and had filed a mediation request here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation#List_of_Jewish_jurists, also mentioning User:SlimVirgin (although from what I saw in the evidence, Slim Virgin wasn't really involved). I note that your stated reason for the block is that Poetlister is a sock puppet of RachelBrown, however RachelBrown has not logged in for a period of time. They apparently live near to each other and talk on the phone. There should be no suggestion of sock puppetry as 1) they were both logged on at the same time on many occasions and edited at the same time and 2) RachelBrown has ceased editing as at about 3 weeks ago, while Poetlister is continuing. I respectfully ask you to remove the block so as to facilitate in an appropriate mediation, and to allow due process. From what I can gather of the evidence, it seems that Lulu of the Lotus Eaters is primarily at fault, and a Request for Comment would seem to be the logical next step up from here. I can see many breaks of the 3RR rule for one thing. Please can you remove the block so that things can be sorted out. Thank you. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 22:20, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Zordrac and Mindspillage, there is no ongoing RfM. RachelBrown made a request for mediation some weeks ago and Lulu of the Lotus Eaters turned it down. There are no outstanding issues, and RachelBrown has stopped editing, so the matter is over. The issue at the time was that Rachel Brown would not supply sources for her edits when Lulu asked; then she did and Lulu wasn't happy with the particular source; then Rachel agreed to provide sources in future, and Lulu accepted the particular source she had offered. That was the end of it.

For reasons known only to herself, Poetlister keeps posting in various places that she is in mediation regarding what she calls a "complex issue," sometimes including me in the list of people who are opposing her, sometimes not. We've asked her what she believes the issues are, and Lulu has made it very clear he will not go into mediation with her, but she doesn't respond. The whole thing is decidedly odd. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:36, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The issue at hand is the block. This needs to be reverted. Other things can be dealt with later. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 22:39, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the RfM, here is Lulu's very clear response [6] and that was probably the third or fourth time he said it. Whether she needs to be unblocked is a separate issue, but if you're saying she should be unblocked to engage in mediation, it's important to know that there is no mediation for her to engage in. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:42, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is a RfC issue actually now that mediation has been refused. I see evidence of wrongdoing on the part of Lulu of the Lotus Eaters requiring a RfC and possibly ArbCom. If this blocking is being used in any way to cover this up, then it is very much out of order. There was no rational reason for the block. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 22:44, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There was a rational reason for the block. Evidence was presented to the arbcom, a checkuser was done, it was found that there was likely sockpuppeting used against policy. There does not seem to be a mediation taking place -- nor is there currently an RfC taking place. (Note that the main RachelBrown account is not blocked.) If you have an RfAr to bring, Zordrac, then bring one, and when that happens the appropriate action can be taken; however, the block stands until there is sufficient justification to remove it. THe blocking is to stop the sockpuppets being used to stack debates. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:49, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think that it would be inappropriate for me to bring an RfAr as I am a neutral party and have no personal knowledge of the dispute. I think that it would be more appropriate if User:Poetlister brought it to RfAr, or, alternately, for User:RachelBrown, although since one has quit for good and the other has been permanently banned, that seems somewhat ridiculous. Thus I will simply acknowledge lack of process here. If in the end there is no attempt to follow process, and no effort to fix this problem, then I guess I will leave it. It seems that I have inherited a second Wikistalker from this, in Lulu. LOL. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 21:23, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have no knowledge about the block on Poetlister, and will not comment on whether it is proper or justified. However, I am not participating in any mediation with Poetlister (nor with anyone else); any such alleged mediation should not affect a blocking decision. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 22:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's correct. You refused the mediation, thus leading to an escalation of the problem to an RfC, which was to be filed an hour later, which was why I was contacted. Yet, just minutes before it was to be filed, User:Poetlister was banned. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 12:04, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I feel I should join in here, I have been having conversations with these people separately and there is no way that Poetlister, RachelBrown or Londoneye are the same person. While it may be true that they support each other in disputes (Rachel's flatmate did revert on the British jewish page, once logged in on Rachel's account, but otherwise correctly logged out showing as an ip) I don't feel a block is justified at all. Arniep 01:59, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If CheckUser shows conclusively that they are sockpuppets, then the sock accounts should be blocked. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:18, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? Is that the policy? Can you show to me this policy? I have never seen it anywhere else. Also what is the definition of "conclusively"? These 5 users all had vastly different editing patterns and contributed to totally different articles, the only similarity being that 2 of them voted on 1 or 2 of the same AFDs as each other, which made no difference to the result. It seems quite bizarre that a block could be justified when there is no evidence of any "vote stacking" or any other undue interference. If the CheckUser is true, a likely explanation is that they all use the same Internet Service Provider. ISPs often cater for thousands of users, and in some places are region based. In the absence of evidence of any actual wrongdoing or any consistency of their actions, it seems quite a ludicruous decision. So we've got a poet, a historian, a geographer, an S&M fashion person and a religious zealot yet we are saying that the 5 of them are the same person? Seems quite bizarre to me. Are such conclusions normal practise? Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 21:23, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm afraid they are. If a certain group of editors want someone banned, they're going to be banned. If it wasn't this, it'd be something else. -- Grace Note.

Oh. Are there worse examples than this one? I am still quite dumbfounded by this. I didn't believe it at first, but yeah. I did ask Poetlister directly if they were the same person, and she said that RachelBrown and her are bestest best friends and visit each other regularly. She didn't say whether or not they are flatmates, but they might be. Is there a rule prohibiting 2 people contributing from the same house? I didn't think that there was. If there is, it should be listed somewhere. But the other 3 weren't friends. One was a cousin, and the other 2 used to go to school together but have nothing to do with each other now. It just seems bizarre. Not only that, but all of these users had talked on the phone to other Wikipedians, proving that they are all different people to each other. They even gave their real names and put their real photos on to Wikipedia. And I am sorry, but someone explain to me how User:Taxwoman can possibly be a sock puppet of User:RachelBrown? They had ZERO in common. There's thin links and then there's thin links. Maybe there is a case for investigating whether Poetlister and RachelBrown were the same person, but the other 3 are so far removed from it that it is a joke. And besides which, why ban Poetlister for supposed impersonation of Rachel Brown 3 weeks after Rachel Brown left? That's just absurd. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 09:04, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Poetlister

Hi, you're usually a pretty reasonable person, and not an admin who generally throws their weight around. You have banned Poetlister as a sock of RachelBrown. However, you don't seem to have presented any evidence in an accessible place, such as in the place provided on the template or on the talkpage for the user in question. Please do so. Not providing evidence in either place leads one to believe that you have come to the conclusion off your own bat, and that's not really fair on the user concerned. I've removed the sockpuppet tag, because I think we should not permit unsubstantiated accusations. I am also making this request because I'm sure you acted in good faith and that you can provide substantial evidence that the users are one and the same. Thanks. -- Grace Note.

I concur. Please explain why you believe that User:Poetlister and User:RachelBrown are sockpuppets of each other. Further, an indefinite block appears to be unjustified even if true. --Nlu (talk) 03:58, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There were several IP matches in close temporal proximity on several distinct occasions between Poetlister, RachelBrown, and the other involved usernames in a manner that makes it unlikely that they are separate people, and I have received no correspondence from any of the blocked usernames nor from RachelBrown (which is not blocked) either protesting this or attempting to provide explanation. The indefinite block is justified for a sockpuppet being used to reinforce one's own position in debate. If they are separate and I have placed the block in error I will apologize for having done so, but currently the evidence suggests otherwise and I cannot justify lifting it without hearing a good explanation to the contrary. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 06:06, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is Poetlister's e-mail address: ig26yh@hotmail.com. Her name is Giselle Hillman and is no relation to Rachel Brown. You can contact her, and she will talk to you on the phone, as will Rachel Brown. She is not particularly technically savvy (nor are any of these girls) and hence likely didn't realise what they were supposed to do. Now that you've explained what needs to be done, I am sure that she would be happy to give you everyone's phone numbers, including her own, and you can talk to them each on the phone to verify who they are. Note that it has been explained many times previously how it is theoretically impossible for them to be sock puppets. However, Poetlister did visit RachelBrown's house regularly. I don't believe that there is a rule prohibiting 2 friends who are both Wikipedia editors, from visiting each other from time to time, or even using each other's computers when doing so. Is there such a rule? I understand that Londoneye once visited Rachel Brown's house as well, as they are first cousins. The other 2 apparently did not. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 08:55, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Emails?

Mindspillage, are you getting my emails? Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:18, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply! I've emailed you back. And it was pretty chilly today... :-) Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:59, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A compromise

I have just received an e-mail from Poetlister, which states the situation as follows:

User:Poetlister and User:RachelBrown are best friends, and likely used the same computer from time to time. There may be a very thin link towards them being "meat puppets" because of this. I understand that they visited each other virtually every weekend.
User:Londoneye was Rachel Brown's first cousin, and came over to visit once or twice, over a month apart from each other. Being cousins, they called each other from time to time.
User:Newport went to university with Rachel Brown, and when they found out that they both used Wikipedia, they called each other up on the phone to talk about it, and catch up on old times.
User:Taxwoman also went to university with Rachel Brown, although they were never friends and have nothing in common with each other. Newport apparently called Taxwoman up on the phone at one stage to talk about what they had in common.

Now, since Rachel Brown has stopped using Wikipedia, and Poetlister doesn't have Rachel Brown's password etc and has no desire to log in pretending to be Rachel Brown, I suggest the following temporary compromise:

Ban User:RachelBrown and lift the ban on User:Poetlister so that Poetlister can contribute to the ongoing debates.

If you are right, that they are all sock puppets and all the same person, it should make no difference which is the account that is allowed to remain.

Since it is the ban on Poetlister that is the most controversial one, I suggest that this be the one that is lifted.

I would also suggest that User:Taxwoman's links are the thinnest, and request that her ban be lifted as well.

As Londoneye and Newport had minimal involvement in Wikipedia, I don't really think it makes any difference if their bans remain or not. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 08:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that all of the 5 supposed "sock puppets" have their own phone numbers, their own voices, their own addresses, their own photos and so forth, that prove indisputably that they are 5 completely different people. If you like, you can call them to confirm this. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 08:51, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Help

Hi, I uploaded an image of Ari Meyers within the the accordance established by Wikipedia (source and licence) and someone put it up for deletion because "it is unencyclopedic". The image is of good taste and just because it is a wallpaper image I don't think it should be deleted. Please view and if you can, express your opinion. Images and media for deletion/2005 December 24 Thank you, Tony the Marine 04:01, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Clarified (like butter)

In case you saw my comment to Aaron on my talk page, I should clarify. When I said that I disagreed with your endorsement of the "edited deletion policy," I meant that along the lines of "I disagree with my girlfriend that Sun Kil Moon's new album is as good as the first," rather than "I disagree with Bush's decision to take the United States into a war of choice in Iraq." The reason I disagreed with the endorsement was that the allegation had been framed in a way to suggest that the edit was something no one is allowed to do. Since Wikipedia is "the encyclopedia anyone can edit," I figured that it was a reasonable edit, and having it be part of an RFar was out of place when the implication was that the edit had been used in an extra-policy manner. After all, Snowspinner has been quite a busy beaver on policy in the past, and he has frequently edited policies as they were being exercised, so it seems to me that that, by itself, is either all in or all out of arbitration evidence. (The aghast tone of Tony and Snowspinner's "he edited the deletion policy!" is bewildering, in other words, given who it is who's speaking.) I remain convinced that it was a poorly licenced RFar, of course, but I've said my peace there. Anyway, I didn't want you to read my disagreement as criticism. Geogre 15:54, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Query - Freestylefrappe RFA

I tried to get Theresa Knott to answer my question, but she responded angrily and lectured me without actually answering me. There are a few complaints against me that I find...insane.

My RFA(dminship) voting style is accused of being Boothyesque. (First of all this is of course a personal attack against Boothy...) Not only is this mysterious to me (no one has provided any reasonable diffs or any particular RFAs and I have been repeatedly accused of voting against LifeisUnfair and WikiFanatic which I did not) but I hardly see how it violates any policy. Wasnt Boothy brought to an RFC/RFA(rbitration) for this? Didn't nothing happen? Have I somehow done something different than Radiant and Zordrac have been doing for quite some time? freestylefrappe 19:56, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Brazilianethanolposter.JPG

Sorry about the delay of my reply (I have been on holiday in New Zealand), but the source of the poster is a Time-Life book called Library of Nations: Brazil (ISBN 705408558). I assumed the poster was a government publication, but I was probably too hasty in uploading it. It probably ought to be deleted, and I'm sorry for any trouble I've caused here. —DO'Neil 00:43, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas!!

I wish you and your family a Merry Christmas and a happy New Year. --Bhadani 14:57, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Final statement

I have revised my final statement in regards to Nobs01 and others, please have a look if you have the interest. Cheers, Sam Spade 07:44, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DeadLand Departure

I'll bet the atheist population of DeLand has been halved. Yeltensic42.618 19:29, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I figured there must be more than two atheists in DeadLand....I just can't think of any off the top of my head. Yeltensic42.618 18:22, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tears

Quite offtopic, but just in case you're interested: User:Kosebamse/stuff#Weep_o_mine_eyes. Am currently looking through Arvo Pärt and Leonard Cohen; suggestions welcome. Kosebamse 13:09, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your suggestions. I had already considered Barber's Adagio and Pärt's Fratres (superb recordings by Kronos Quartet on one and the same CD, IIRC) and Mozart is another obvious choice, and I agree with "the whole thing" (but my personal favorite is the opening bars of the "Lacrimosa"). Will look into your other suggestions, and again thanks. Kosebamse 20:56, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

do you know Bill Thayer

Are you familiar with user:Bill Thayer ? He isn't an admin but he has a lot of edits and I'm just seeing if anyone has encountered him before I ask him if he'd like to be nominated.RJFJR 16:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've nicked your user page theme

Dear Mindspillage: I've stolen your user page theme, which, amusingly, you originally stole from Talrias to begin with - I do hope you don't mind :) All the best, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 16:49, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hah! It would be awfully hypocritical of me to mind, now, wouldn't it? And now we're categorymates, too. (You can keep your color scheme, though; I look awful in yellow...) Mindspillage (spill yours?) 18:05, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Are we having fun yet?

Well I hope you are enjoying the holiday season. And I hope ArbCom is not getting you down. Here's a little poem (Sung, more or less, to the tune of '"The Shadow of Your Smile"), my holiday gift to you.

The spillage of your mind I find refined

The hat upon your head is black not red

The head beneath your hat

Spills forth the thoughts of Kat

Never to be maligned

The spillage of your mind

Paul August ☎ 20:28, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Several comments from AndriyK concerning the arbitration

The Arbitration Committee is going to punish me for something what was (and stil is!) not forbidden by any rules (creating artificial histories of redirect pages). I did it to prevent disrupting Wikipedia and violating the Policies. Why not simply to say "do not do it anymore" instead of punish me for something which is not forbidden? How could I know that I was not allowed to do it if none of the policies forbids it?
In view of the Arbitration Committee, the existing policy about Ukrainian geografic names do not address the question of names associated with the Kievan Rus. How could I know it? There is no any restrictions to particular historical period in the policy about Ukrainian names. How could I know that spelling of Ukrainian names in Wikipedia should be different from Britannica and other English language encyclopedias? Which policy says it? It seem the policy states the opposite.
It's very funny that for a single revert of copivio article made by mistake I will get the same punishment ("Warning") as Ghirlandago will get for multiple insultigs and personal attack made on purpose!
It's very surprising if I will be forbidden to correct Ukrainian names and those who were distorting them and ignoring the naming convention are allowed to do it further.
It's very strange that multiple edist of my opponents that disrupted Wikipedia: broken links, sneaky vandalism, POV-pushing etc. were completely ignored by the Arbitration Committee.
The group of users that has been squeezing Ukrainian editors out of the Community by persisting and scoffing trolling, insulting and personal attacks now is about to succseed to use the Arbitration Committee for this purpose. I called this group "Russian Mafia". It was not a personal attack. It was merely a stating of the fact. Is there a more appropriate name? I do not think so.
The Arbitration Committee voted for decissions that were not discussed in the Worshop. And if any of them were discussed, the discussion has been ignored. As the result, the decissions contradict each other. The proposed enforcement #1 refers to Russian names, while #2 refers to Ukrainian names. What have I to do with Russian names? I did not change a single Russian name since I am here. What is the reason for this strange decision about Russian names? Can somebody explain me?
Nearly all my statements, comments, evidence, proposal were ignored. It would be OK if the Arbitration Committee would discuss them and then reject. At least I would see a fair procedure. But I did not see anything but silent voting.

Even a serial killer has a right to be heard in the court. You deprive me of this right just for the attempt to protect Wikipedia against pushing of Russian POV and distorting Ukrainian names!--AndriyK 21:55, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks...

...for your suggestions User:Kosebamse/stuff#Weep_o_mine_eyes (comments here). I would be grateful for a handful more opinions (but I don't want to make it a big project right now - it's just a whim after all), so if you know of another one or two Wikipedians with some expertise... Thanks again and a happy new year, Kosebamse 10:39, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

More wishes

Hello, I wish you and your family a prosperous and happy New Year 2006! We shall surely remain actively involved in the Project Wikipedia. --Bhadani 16:32, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year

(Feliz Año Nuevo)

Happy New Year from Tony the Marine

I wish you all the happiness in the world and remember, if an injustice is ever committed against you or one of your articles, I will always be by your side. Your friend Tony the Marine

Sock puppet problem

Hi there. I have my first sock puppet to report, and I'm stuck with what to do next after taging the user(s) and collecting evidence. They told me on the Help Desk to ask on WP:AN/I, but nobody responded. Then they told me to contact an ArbCom member. So now I contact you. <contact>, <contact>. --Dijxtra 17:31, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. Saw you at the ArbCom members list, so I tought you can checkuser. Anyway, I sorted the thing out already. --Dijxtra 09:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clueless newbie seeks an explanation

Okay, I'm just a n00b, sort of (I've been registered here forever, but have only really gotten active in the last couple of months), and I come in search of knowledge.

To wit:

What's with the duck?

This is the second place I've seen it today. Is it an admin-only thing? Do I need to purchase my own duck or can I borrow somebody else's? Does it have to be in a pram? I mean, I'm even less likely to own a pram than a duck. What is the benefit of partaking in the duck experience? If I change my name to DuckInAPram, will I be considered cooler? It's all so confusing. --Aaron 22:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser request / result of a personal threat

User:Bumpusmills1 is a new user whom I have worked with in an attempt to teach him Wikipedia guidelines, manners, and so on. To his credit he is trying to learn. Unfortunately, he was a bit abrasive at first and stirred up some vandals and such, especially anonymous editors User:68.45.146.191, User:199.216.98.66 and User:216.13.219.229 who placed User:Bumpusmills1's personal contact info on User:Bumpusmills1's user page and threatened him. (Examples of these threats are [7] and [8], although there are more examples in the history.) It appears these anonymous users are sock puppets of one user. To cut to the chase, I was told to check with the people on the arbitration committee to see if one of you could do a checkuser on these ISPs and see if this is a Wikipedia editor making threats. Thanks for any help you can give.--Alabamaboy 23:31, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks.--Alabamaboy 16:08, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

St. Pete Times

I saw your article! I live in Florida, its great to see a Wikipedian so enthusiastic to the project, and a representative to the outside world. Keep up the great work.

Take care, ε γκυκλοπαίδεια* 02:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know I'm late in congratulating you, but things take awhile, ya know. What a good article. Except, you only work up to two hours a day? And you only join 1,800 others (is that the actual number?)? "Are people who spend hours editing an encyclopedia for free a little, um, geeky?" I almost laughed out loud. And "Willie"? He obviously didn't do his research. :-) Thanks for promoting Wikipedia. You can pass this along to gmaxwell if you feel he warrants a little gratitude, too. ;-) --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 19:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TfD nomination of Template:Infobox Biography

Template:Infobox Biography has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Infobox Biography. Thank you. DreamGuy 07:29, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Check your email

Hello, please check your email. Sent information re: WebEX and Min Zhu case. --FloNight 18:49, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS Help

I heard on the mailing list that there was some grunt work needed on the meta OTRS system. Is this still true, because I'd be glad to help out if I can. You know, the more musicabal members, the better, right? Cheers, Bratsche^{talk | Esperanza} 15:47, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Instantnood & Huawei Probation Extension

Hey Spill, saw your motion to extend which I fully understand and agree with. However, I don't think that Schmucky should be left out per [9]. --Wgfinley 23:45, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to butt in, but if I could give my take. I have no special preference for Schmucky, and recommended the probation, but to be sure I looked at his contributions before responding on WP:AN and the evidence against him small. Whereas the other two seem to have made literally dozens of reverts in the last two weeks, Schmucky only has a handful. I think he has improved (or at least his activity is down :) and there's no sense in punishing him just for being Instantnood's counterpart if there's no edit warring (that's akin to punishing him for his POV). I'd leave it at these two for now. Dmcdevit·t 00:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE:Ignore All Rules

Thanks for the kind words! Glad to see that people actually like to read my subpages :-). Nonetheless, I have looked at your record and several of your views and opinions at various Arbcom cases and RFC cases, and I think that your views on IAR is responsible . I think that there has been a bit too much ignoring of the rules lately, to the point where it has led to shouting and bitterness, and that is what inspired me to write that essay. By the way, good luck in the election, you are the one (and I think only) "incumbent" who I supported. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Francs2000's Bureaucratship

Thanks for your support on my request for bureaucratship.

The final outcome was (70/5/0), so I am now a bureaucrat. I seriously didn't expect so many good comments from everybody and I appreciated the constructive criticism from those that gave it. If you have any queries, suggestions or problems with any of my actions as a bureaucrat then please leave me a note. -- Francs 2000

22:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your user page

I award you this barnstar for having one of the most entertaining user pages on Wikipedia. (KC)

Of course, it just wouldn't be the same without this beautiful portrait, so you have to share this barnstar with Essjay. Have a nice day. --Tantalum T e lluride 03:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom candidate userbox

Greetings. I've made a new userbox for arbcom candidates to show on their userpages so that visiters will know they're running.

{{User arbcom nom}}

If you'd like to place it on your userpage, feel free. Regards, – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 02:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TfD nomination of Template:Oldvfd

Template:Oldvfd has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Oldvfd. Thank you. —Phil | Talk 19:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thanks for the speedy assistance reverting the work of the User:Roger Dangerfield vandal. Best regards, Hall Monitor 19:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Same here, thank you. --Bookandcoffee 19:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks For Reverting Vandalism On My User Page

Thanks for reverting Roger Dangerfield's vandalism on my talk page. This is the first time that my user page has been vandalized, and I had not known what was going on. Once again, thanks for helping to revert my page back. I guess I should be honored since user page vandalism seems to me to be an initiation of sorts. ;) Thanks, mate. Boneheadmx 20:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And thanks also for reverting same on mine. Regards -- Ian ≡ talk 00:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and another one here. Would have quite confused me to find that note without explanation ;) Cyberevil 01:04, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Major and minor

From the talk page of Major and minor:

== Final paragraph - sadder ==

Any comments on the mystery of minor key music tapping into sadness, grief, bitterness? Is it so, and why so? I'm not looking for a Sunday supplement "brain doctor" explanation.--shtove 00:09, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

:There's definitely no scientific basis for it; it's all culturally conditioned -- in former eras the modes were given different interpretations. It can be fun to read ancient Greeks' analyses of why certain modes were happy, sad, or caused youth to misbehave (I seem to remember the Lydian mode was particularly wicked in this regard). Anyway, it's just because composers have been using minor mode for sad songs so we have learned to make the association. —Wahoofive (talk) 00:49, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

::Thanks for that. There's an article on Lydian mode, but no mention of the misbehaviour of wicked yoofs. The Chinese musicology article describes a different type of scale, and how a switch equivalent to major to minor is made - I wonder does the "culturally conditioned" theory apply to traditional Chinese music too? Is there an article that explains all this, just the way I want, now, immediately? Or any suggestions for a heading to consult in Britannica?--shtove 11:57, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

:::WP's music articles are pretty weak. Doctine of affections would be a good example to look up in the New Grove.—Wahoofive (talk) 20:40, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

New Grove's Doctrine of Affections is mind bending: can you help? According to my Barbarian beliefs, each Puritan deserves to spank and be spanked. Yours Rushpecfkly, shtove 01:51, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong number?

Hey, I think this was meant for you: [10] FreplySpang (talk) 18:49, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greg

Kat, this is honestly out of order. It was Greg who was rude, as he pretty much always is, and it's not fair to defend him and not make clear to people that he's your significant other. I feel Greg is a problem user and that you have a serious conflict of interest. It's clearly inappropriate for a member of the arbcom to be defending a user who's running around pretending to be an admin in order to intimidate people. When it reaches the point of you trying to solicit apologies on his behalf, it has gone too far. I'd like to discuss it with you further, and I've e-mailed you about that, so let me know if you're willing, please. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:29, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Responding here, because I don't want people to see only one side of this. I think you are mischaracterizing the situation, and that your statement does not accurately represent either my position or his. I'll respond more thoroughly to your email. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 20:36, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome

I'm trying. And I won't stop until I get everyone under a big tree, having a picnic. I'll bring the punch :).--Sean|Black 22:36, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

St. Pete/Tampa Meetup

Hello Kat, it was great meeting and talking with you at the meetup. Have a safe trip back home! Laura Pinto 02:10, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom for Dummies

I've just created User:Snowspinner/Arbcom, which is a first draft of basic advice that people who are taking a case to the arbcom should have before trying to write an evidence page. It's geared towards the practical rather than the idealistic, but I wanted comments on it before I do... I don't know, actually, what I'll do with it. Phil Sandifer 22:10, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you're back!

Hello there Kat: I do hope you had an enjoyable trip to St. Pete, and to welcome you back to the Wikipedia paramilitary; I am sure an array of delightful cases awaits you. I enclose suitable armaments to permit you to carry our your Wikipedia firing squad duties adequately. :) Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 21:23, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back from me, too. ;) —Nightstallion (?) 21:23, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Before anyone gets upset, I'd like to assert that despite any labelling to the contrary, the ammo boxes in the foreground are filled with tranquilizer darts only. *wink* TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:28, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Xed arbitration case

Hi Kat. It doesn't feel very good to oppose your arbcom nomination, especially not since I basically trust your judgment and know that you are a responsible admin, but your decisions and responses in the Xed case really made me question your passion to get it right, as I noted with my vote.

Now, considering the newest 'revelations' from Fred Bauder over at /Proposed decision, and considering the fact that some others have also raised some questions, I am specifically interested in your take on the background of the case; and of course I would also appreciate it of you tried to adress (some of) the various unanswered questions. Although Fred is by far the most responsive arbitrator in this case, he is quite good at saying very little actually. I would appreciate to hear your thoughts. I will ask some other arbitrators to weigh in as well. Thanks, — mark ✎ 10:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, just now I came across your more extensive response here (missed it because I'm on a wikibreak officially). In the light of what Fred said recently about the mailing list and IRC discussions, I think it's possible that it wasn't to Snowspinner's thoughts that unduly weight was given. The problem, then, becomes the issue raised by Derex: why is the one year ban not supported by the FoFs? And how come four of the six arbitrators (excluding you) support it without responding to questions raised about it? There is something fishy about Fred's recent comments here,, and I think that input from more arbitrators could clear up things. Thanks, — mark ✎ 10:50, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And to respond to your more extended explanation at the Workshop page: Yes, Xed was on a personal attack parole. That parole has been enforced only three times according to the block log. This did work out quite well sometimes, in that Xed, rather than diving into hot debates, focused more on contributing content after such blocks. It went wrong (as had happened before) when he started editing AIC-related articles, where he edit warred with Jajyg and Viriditas. The rest we know from the arbitration case; most evidence provided by Snowspinner is related to this. As several people have noted, there is no way in which Xed's misbehaviour would warrant a one year ban. It is not clear to me at all why a civility parole would not work; certainly no-one has convincingly argued this to be the case. — mark ✎ 11:11, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to echo mark's comments. And also to point out that you stated "I think this is perhaps a bit long". Since Neutrality has now changed his vote to oppose, your vote is now the swing vote on the one-year ban. If you really do think the proposed ban is excessive, I'd ask you to reconsider your vote, as it is now the swing vote.

I'll note for the record that I often think that arbcom is too lenient with editors who contribute little except quarrels. One reason I take an interest here is that it looks to me like Xed has contributed substance (though my one editing interaction with him was actually a disagreement). And since the problem here appears to be style, not substance, I wonder if this is really the best solution for Wikipedia. I'm impressed that Xed started the systemic bias project, and think perhaps a little more forgiveness for ill manners ought to be granted for people who really affect the overall content of Wikipedia. Meek people seldom change the world, but I do suspect Xed has now learned that there will be no tolerance for further incivility. At any rate, I'd appreciate it if you'd take another look in light of your previous comments next to your vote. Derex 16:28, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Kat. I have read between the lines a fair bit on this one, and it seems likely there is more than meets the eye. That's some of my problem with this, there ought to be some transparency to an arbcom decision. If for some reason that can't be done, Jimbo should just make the call himself in private. Anyway, I really appreciate you having a look, and I will respect as fair whatever final decision you make. Derex 22:40, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have replied on my talk. I share Derex' worry over the 'correspondence behind the scenes'-thing, but all the same I want to thank you for your thoughtful comments. — mark ✎ 10:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mindspillage. I'm going to offer my two cents out of the blue as someone who has interacted with Xed and watched the tail end of the most recent ArbCom hearing. One of the first edits on my talk page as a newbie was an encouraging comment from Xed on some articles I had started. We later talked over how to split Congo Civil War into First Congo War and Second Congo War on what is now Talk:Second Congo War. He made a terrific start to Congo Crisis, while I fiddled around with formatting, before he got sucked into the first ArbCom case and the article remains half-finished. I was the first person to welcome him back after his ban ended, though saw little of him except at Talk:First Congo War over some challenges to content, and when he invited me to review Culture of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. He also left a friendly note at Talk:Yoweri Museveni after it became an FA. Nobody who has had social interaction with Xed would argue that he doesn't have a short fuse and can't be just a pain to collaborate with, and he did once pull me into a full scale battle he was holding with an anon mob over the article FilePile. However, there are absurdly few regular editors working in African topics and, despite some ignorant statements made about his lack of contributions, his absence makes itself felt in the content of the wiki. You and the other arbitrators obviously have to weigh all the other stuff that doesn't show up in my regular article hunting grounds, but it seemed appropriate to offer a counter view from someone who wishes Xed would stop messing around with the ArbCom and come back to writing great articles that almost nobody else on the wiki is interested in starting. - Banyan Tree 03:53, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Childe Rowland

Hi Kat. Thanks for tidying that up. I have taken the opportunity to illustrate the article and remove the duplicated explanation of "childe". —Theo (Talk) 11:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting a second opinion

Hey, Mindspillage. You may or may not remember me — we conversed back in November about some problems we were having with a user at the Doctor Who WikiProject. We've got another small matter, which isn't nearly as contentious as that was, but if you've got the time I'd like it if you could take a look at it. It's about the name of the page for the very first Doctor Who story. The facts are these: in the early days of Doctor Who, each story was a multi-episode serial, but the overall names of the serials weren't widely publicized. (See 100,000 BC (Doctor Who)#Alternative titles and Doctor Who story title controversy for more information than you probably need on the subject.) At the time this serial was produced, the name used by the production team was "100,000 BC", but this wasn't widely known for decades. A novelization, VHS and (next week) DVD have all been released using the name "An Unearthly Child", which was the name of the first episode (as opposed to the full 4-episode serial). In short, "An Unearthly Child" is more widely used but "100,000 BC" is more accurate.

Of course, this is exactly the sort of insignificant matter that fans love to argue over. We were beginning to work towards a consensus here when someone unfamiliar with the "voting is evil" concept put it up at WP:RM. The resulting discussion and voting was either just at the 60% threshold or a bit past it, depending on how you count the views of some folks who joined the discussion but didn't vote (on the principle that voting is evil). Nightstallion closed the vote saying, "Not moved, vote is evil, evidence is inconclusive." Although I don't necessarily disagree with either of his reasons, I think that the discussion was heading towards a consensus to move the page to the more common (albeit less accurate) name, per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). Nightstallion said he wouldn't mind another admin looking at the vote/situation, so I'm asking you. Could you take a look at the discussion on the project and article talk pages, and chime in with an outside view? I think it would be helpful. If you don't have time I could ask another admin, or maybe even do an RfC, but I do feel we're just on the verge of a consensus and might get there with some sensible guidance, while further bureaucratic processes might make people ossify into their positions further.

I've been way too verbose here, so please forgive that as well. It's like Mark Twain said, "I am sorry this letter is so long, only I have not had time to make it shorter." Thanks for yours. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:14, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify the above logghorea: I'm not asking for any formal process, just a quick once-over to see if you agree with Nightstallion's closing of the move request. If you don't have time, I completely understand — just let me know. Thanks! —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:42, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look at the issue, and for your thoughtful response. We will, as you say, keep talking. I'm optimistic that a consensus can be reached, despite the ossification of some parties' positions (aided by the vote). Again, thanks for your time. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:28, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beckjord

RE: request for arbitration

Hi. Concerning the arbitration regarding Erik Beckjord, is there a place that someone outside can say something on his behalf? He has mental health problems, but is not malicious at heart. I think it should be noted that his intentions are well, he just is not mentally able to edit without help. I think this should be considered, as he is not just some troll here to cause trouble. --DanielCD 02:49, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kat and DanielCD

Re the bad boy you are discussing, he has an outside email address listed, and he tells me he thinks Kat is amusing and intelligent, and he likes Daniel if even if Daniel insults him.

He sends you both, Mindspillage and DanielCD the following:

(Re Beckjord,etc)

I've contacted him outside Wikipedia and he is of the opinion that this entire arbitration procedure is a huge farce and he really doesn't care what the committee does one way or the other. When people like Android79 are given any credeence whatever, the entire procedure loses all validity.

He does want to simply get some enlightened admin who is respected to make some simple and basic edits to the Bigfoot article, since it is not what he *says* that is judged, but it is the name he carries that is judged and instant reverts follow with no consideration of the __content__ of the edits he tried to make. However, an admin who has some philosophical background, such as DanielCD, might be able to insert a short paragraph in the Bigfoot article that can make a profound change in how READERS view this topic.

He says there is an old fashioned and almost comic book approach used in Wiki, which has been "Is there a Bigfoot or is it a hoax?" and this ignores the possibility that a new life-form may be involved, by excluding it from the basic question.

The better question for an ARTICLE should be:

On the question of alleged hairy humanoids, does the evidence show they are 1) a hoax or error;OR 2) a zoological species of possible primate; OR 3) a life form outside of zoology that has special abilities that enables it to escape capture?

In the light of research by advanced theoretical physicists such as Dr.Micho Kaku, (CCNY,CUNY)("Parallel Worlds") and Dr. Fred Allen Wolf ("Parallel Universes")as well as recent research evidence found by active researchers other than himself, this __restructuring__ of the basic article format question is justified.

Can an __enlightened__ and __intelligent__ ADMIN insert this change into the article?

Gerald Hawkin

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

Globe

Nope, not yet! I'll let you know. :-) Antandrus (talk) 21:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration on Cartesian materialism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Not_a_content_dispute.2C_just_straightforward_bullying

This is not a content dispute, just straightforward bullying see : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/06_12_2005_Alienus_and_Loxley_edit_war_over_Dennett_and_Philosophy_of_the_Mind#Final_mediator_recommendations_by_Nicholas_Turnbull

I would like to reinstate this request.

1. I have added all the content for this article. It cannot be a content dispute.

2. Alienus refuses to talk specifically about any point, including the new data that obviates his objections.

3. The mediation concluded that the dispute involved bullying.

4. The article is the victim of an evil troll who is simply teasing me.

Please do something. loxley 09:26, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck...

... with this. —Nightstallion (?) 19:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Times that 300 Wikipedians actually agreed and voted to support something?

Or someone, rather, assuming that J. Wales (the "one man" with the "one vote" in the sense of the cynical old joke) concurs with what seems to be almost everyone else on wikipedia that was paying any attention. Congratulations on the result, which I'm confident you'll prove is a sound judgement on the part of the community. Alai 07:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. —Nightstallion (?) 07:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EffK

Do you know why this arbitration case is still in evidence rather than in voting? Alternatively, could the request for a preliminary injunction be considered? Robert McClenon 13:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations (or condolences?) on your re-election/re-appointment

Here's wishing you the best of luck and success in re-assuming your tasks in support of the encyclopedia, and to the benefit all of us. ++Lar: t/c 21:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC) (PS I'm a "prefer answers in the same place" sort, and will watch here but really, no reply is necessary...)[reply]

None necessary, but I'll thank you anyhow. :-) Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations!

~~My condolences~~ Congratulations on your reelection to the Arbcom! May it be as thrilling and fulfilling as you'd imagined. I sure am glad you made it to this esteemed position - better you than me! :) – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 21:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats from me as well, and you'll be sure to hear from your local Signpost reporter soon... ;-) Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on a huge victory.:)--a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 03:14, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that was an impressive showing! Glad you're continuing! --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 03:24, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yup! Paul August ☎ 03:38, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats

Congratulations from Heidi & Joe - a decidedly excellent selection!hydnjo talk 00:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How can you be an atheist and an agnostic at same time?

Atheist says there is no god.

Agnostic says we do not know one way or the other.

This is more intellectual.

-- Mr Agnostic.

Exactly: I don't think it's possible to know one way or the other, but I don't believe there is one. Strong agnosticism, weak atheism, if you want to get all technical about it. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:44, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't you consider yourself rather ignostic-atheist than agnostic-atheist? =] —Nightstallion (?) 07:39, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recomendation

I am recomending that the subject User:Beckjord be placed in a Mentorship protocol. He has already requested assisstance before this matter came up. The mentors are not to be skeptical, yet follow Wikipedian protocol. I too have seen strange things myself, yet I don't let that influence me at all. The subject has to examine things as a doctor or a police officer would, so that he can follow Wikipedian protocol. My short time here will disqualify me from being a mentor myself. The mentors must be familiar with paranormal matters, yet follow Wikipedian protocol. Hope this helps. Martial Law 00:09, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

email from beckjord

He says he does not need mentorship,but simply wants an admin to clean up some of his edits,

AND NOW HE SEES ThaT SOME ARE DOING THIS,

but then Android79 and DreamGuy ruin it all by doing their stupid reverts that eliminate what the otehrs did in good will. Those idiots talk about removing fringe statements, when the fringe is the only thing with any evidence, and the mainstream people do not go out in the woods. You cannot be mainstream from your desk top.

New ideas in science usually come from fringe scientists.Then the mainstream scientists resist it.

DG and Android,

Those two, equal a Wiki "Two Stooges".

Disgusted as well.

Tom Bennett

Succesful RfA!

Thank you for your support during my RfA! The community has decided to make me an administrator, and there's work to be done. I look forward to seeing you around the project in the future, and if you see me do anything dumb, let me know right away! Regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 23:27, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Signpost interview

Hello, Mindspillage. I hope you don't mind taking a few minutes out of your busy Arbitration schedule to answer a few questions for the Wikipedia Signpost.

How do you feel about getting the opportunity to serve on the ArbCom?
What do you think of the election? Do you think they were conducted properly? What could have been improved, in your opinion?
What would you say to those who supported you? Opposed you?
What do you think of the other Wikipedians who were appointed along with you?
What do you think of Jimbo's decision to re-appoint three Arbitrators (JamesF., Jayjg, Fred Bauder)? Do you support this?
After a week on the job, what are your initial thoughts?
What do you think are the strengths of the ArbCom? Weaknesses?
If you could change anything, what would you change? Why?
What are your thoughts on the clerk's office? Do you support it? Why or why not?
Do you plan on finishing your term? If you had to make a choice right now, when your term expires, would you run for re-election? Why or why not?
If there's one thing you could say to the Wikipedia community, what would you say, and why?
Is there anything else you would like to mention?

Congrats on your recent selection. By no means feel obligated to answer all (or any) of the questions; though we'd appreciate it if you did. An article featuring your responses will be published on Monday. Thanks a lot, and don't hesistate to ask me if you have any questions at all! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:50, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. If some of the questions look familiar (I reused some from last time), feel free to skip them. Thanks!

RFAr

Just for the record, the question wasn't "can he be blocked if he's not being disruptive" because that's just commonsensical. The question was "can he be blocked if he is being disruptive", since several people have implied that he should not. Hence the confusion. R adiant _>|< 17:30, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dyslexic agnostic and T-man

I thought you should be aware of the latest developments: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dyslexic Agnostic/Evidence#Fourth asserion. Dyslexic agnostic 16:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

eBaum's World AfD merge

I've left feedback for your entry on the eBaum's World talk page at Talk:EBaum's_World#Cleanup. I'm unhappy with the state that the article has been left in. Alwarren@ucsd.edu 19:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Same here. The discussion resulted in a majority of Keeps. So why the merge? And why getting rid of all the content from the controversy article? 209.51.77.64 21:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your kind note

Thank you for your flower -- it was very heartening. Not much of a scent though. . . :) Anyway, It's encouraging to hear so many distinguished Wikipedians give their support. May your day be bright. All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 18:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there....

Congratulations, Mindspillage! Your user page has been nominated for the Esperanza User Page Award! Five judges will look over your user page and award it 1-10 points in four categories:

Attractiveness: general layout, considering colour scheme and/or use of tables if applicable
Usefulness: links to subpages or editing aids, helpful information
Interesting-ness: quirky, unique, captivating, or funny content
General niceness: at the judges' discretion

But first, you must be chosen as a finalist. If your user page is chosen as one of the five finalists, you'll have the chance to win an award created just for having a great user page!

More information can be found on this page.

KnowledgeOf Self | talk 19:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MAC address Spam

*grin*

Deleting Meta-Association outpacing Exclusion

Stetson

Thanks

A small favour

Rouge admin

Conical list of Musician Jokes

Alfred Reed

Thanks for supporting my RfA

Another Chance

More from User:TheDoctor10

Thank you

RFC?

Regarding User:Rafterman

Hmm...

Daily *- - - -* and a question

Judi McLeod and Canada Free Press redux

DeLand etc.

Thank you

Thank you!

Kat in the hat in the ring

Thank you from Ann

Going back in

Featured article for December 25th

Musical mode

DYK

Reply required as per Wikipedia:Arbitration policy for Requests

Wilkes, Wyss, 141

In response (consensus)

Interesting Read

Sigh...

WoW vandal

Re Arbitration Committee procedure re request by RedWolf

Another Wonderfool alias

Ah yes

Socks

WebComix

Awolf002 RfA comments

Karmafist

I'm an admin now!!

Yet Another RFA Thank You Note to clutter up your talk page...

Nomination Theft

Stalled arbitration

Striding through the snow/ Russian soul depressed

Re: My letter

Arbitration Johnski

EffK is forced to Abandon a Corrupted Wikipedia

move

Happy Holidays

Thank you

Did we forget?

User:Poetlister block

Emails?

A compromise

Help

Clarified (like butter)

Query - Freestylefrappe RFA

Image:Brazilianethanolposter.JPG

Merry Christmas!!

Final statement

DeadLand Departure

Tears

do you know Bill Thayer

I've nicked your user page theme

Are we having fun yet?

Several comments from AndriyK concerning the arbitration

Thanks...

More wishes

Happy New Year

Sock puppet problem

Clueless newbie seeks an explanation

Checkuser request / result of a personal threat

St. Pete Times

TfD nomination of Template:Infobox Biography

Check your email

OTRS Help

Instantnood & Huawei Probation Extension

RE:Ignore All Rules

Thank you

grin

Daily - - - - and a question