User talk:Sasquatch

This user is a
Cabal of One.

Feel free to add your comments below.

Anyone up for chess?

nd

	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h
8	g1 3 0								8
7									7
6									6
5									5
4									4
3									3
2									2
1									1
	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h

Sasquatch v. World (Sasquatch to move) 1.e4 c5 2. Nc3 e6 3. b3 d5 4. exd5 exd5 5. Qe2+ Be7 6. Ba3 b6

User:Kuban kazak

Thanks for giving him this warning block. But "momentary"? I doubt it. I'm seriously thinking about taking him to ArbCom over this threat. I don't know yet whether that's just an attempt at an insult or a hollow death threat. This person appears as very sick to me. In any case, his behaviour is grossly inacceptable. Lupo 07:20, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

REALbasic

Hey there. Back in April you sprotected this article due to problems with a single persistent vandal. That person then created an account (Boycottrealbasic) to circumvent the sprotect, vandalised the article some more, got banned, and that was the last we heard of them for a while. Well, guess what, they're back and stirring up the exact same kind of problems as before(e.g.), but this time with some legal threats tossed in for good measure. I'm not really sure what can be done as a more permanent solution to this problem (being able to block ranges of IPs from editing specific articles would be ideal); I was hoping we were done with this rather bored person by now. :-/ Warrens 05:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This person is back again, with an absolutely [mind-boggling] number of reverts in a single day. Any chance we can get another protect put on the page? BudVVeezer 04:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

Sorry i haven't replied in a while but i didn't know i am new to wikipedia and Georgemoney told me to copy and did it for me Airforceguy 22:51, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Range block

My home dial-up connection was caught in your range block (the IP assigned to me this morning was 67.0.66.233). I can't edit at home, and I have limited time here at the library.

The IP is randomly assigned by Qwest Communications. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 15:39, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ndru01 evading 3RR block again

I left a comment on the Admin's noticeboard earlier. The edit war continues at Gnosticism in modern times, with User:Ndru01 using another previously-created sockpuppet, User:Moonlight serenade to evade a week-long block Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:Ndru01. Please block User:Moonlight serenade permanently as a sockpuppet, and I would suggest also User:Abba13133131 and variations beginning with 'Abba' (I think I noticed at least one other, but can't find it now). Thanks if you can help. --Cedders^tk 08:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3-RR

Is finding different ways of saying the same thing, and adding them to an article, considered reverting? For example, supposing an editor inserted into the article the following statement:

About his own religious stance, he said: "I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so."

and somebody deleted it. Next the editor inserted:

"Some say Hitler wasn't a Catholic, but he was faithful to the Church his whole life",

and someone else deleted it. Then the editor inserted,

"The Führer remained loyal to the Vatican for all his days "

and that too was deleted. Then he inserted,

"The faith with which Adolf was raised never left his heart,"

and again it was deleted. Has the editor inserting the statements made any reverts at all, for purposes of the 3-RR rule? Please reply here, I'm watching this page. Thank you. Drogo Underburrow 01:45, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it was that exact example I'd consider that 3RR and block for 12 hours on edit warring. More important is the "spirit of 3RR" which is there to prevent edit warring. But that's just me on that case. Sasquatch t|c 15:17, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

7 Help?

(Moved from my talk page...)

What do you need help with? Sasquatch t|c 15:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Have never used this feature before I assume that I answer here instead of on your talk page. Anyway I have just completed a concise article on a method of optimal classification and I am ready for peer review so I visited the mathematics project page and was just about to post it there. What is the appropriate thing to do and where should I publish it once it is reviewed? -- PCE 15:52, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Sock puppet of Ndru01

Hi. Thanks for your action to finally resolve problems at Gnosticism in modern times (and elsewhere), and so save everyone's time. As I mention above, there is almost certainly at least one remaining sock providing a loophole Special:Contributions/Moonlight serenade. Please could you also block this? Thanks. --Cedders^tk 19:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

help

I made an article and I afterwards realized the contend is already written about in a different article. I want to redirect his article to the older article.

Bloger 23:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its not working I did as you said when you click on “edit this page” in the page you see the words #REDIRECT name of second page but the page itself stays the same

Plus isn’t there a way so when one goes to this page he should automatically get redirected

Bloger 23:39, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all the best

Bloger 23:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

College of Toronto

Thanks, I wasn't certain how to handle that. I marked College of Toronto as {{copyvio}} but wasn't certain if a user's page or a talk page should also be marked with the same template. Couldn't find a WP:<something> to explain how to deal with the situation! Again, thanks for the help (and hello from Kelowna). --Stephane Charette 01:58, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation Committee Business

Dear Fellow Mediators:

I'm writing to all mediators listed as active to point out several emergent issues that require the immediate attention of all active mediators. The Committee has come to a place where we can neither provide the function we were created to provide (timely formal mediaton for the English Wikipedia community) nor correct matters to be able to provide that function. In specific, we cannot perform any mediations, because most mediators are no longer taking cases, and we cannot add new mediators, because mediators are no longer responding to requests to join the Committee. I am in a place where I continually accept new cases for the committee, only to see them go stale after several months because there is no mediator willing to take it, and where I deny candidates a place on the committee because no mediator will speak up in support of them. I ask that all mediators take ten minutes to look over the following matters:

There are five requests to join the Mediation Committee, three with no comments whatsoever, and two that have been up for more than a month without sufficient commentary to determine a consensus on promotion.

There are four unassigned mediation cases, and will likely be at least two additional ones within the week.

I beg, beseech, and pray each Mediator to please take a few moments to at the very least comment on the five candidates, and to consider taking one of the open cases. We are at a place where we are literally relying on the kindness of strangers: Almost all cases are being taken by non-Commitee volunteers at this point. Putting the open tasks page (which only changes when we add a new case), and the main committee page on your watchlist so you will know when new nominations and cases are added, would go a long way to helping the Committee succeed. (If having the main page pop up on your watchlist every time someone else comments in a nomination is too annoying, I can move them to subpages like RFA, so that the page will only change when a new nomination is added.)

Additionally, I ask that all mediators check that they have a current email address subscribed to the Mediation Committee mailing list, mediation-l, to avoid the need for future talk page messages of this sort.

My apologies for having to air the committee's dirty laundry in this manner, but I fear it is the only way to get everyone together to bring the Committee back to life. For the convenience of those who simply cannot be involved due to time constraints, I will be listing those that do not participate in any Committee activities as mediators emeriti, so that we have a clearer picture of who exactly we have available to take cases. I am, by separate posting, asking all mediators emeriti to return to actively participating in the requests to join the commmittee.

Yours respectfully, Essjay (Talk • Connect) 02:26, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The site where some one is vandalising is...

Yeshiva Or Chaim, the person is Ti8381. Thanks

Help request from Dakpowers

(Moved from my talk page, I didn't know which to reply in) Thank you! I am trying to fill in all of the gaps on the PGA Tour page by making pages for all of the tournaments. There is a Template:Golf tourny template that I add to each one. How do I edit these templates to add the tournaments I'm making? Thanks so much. Dakpowers | Talk 01:27, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for your help, Sasquach. :) Dakpowers | Talk 01:35, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

>:(

Have it your way :'( Master of Puppets ^{Your will is mine.} 02:17, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Block

Oops - I apparently blocked a user the same time you did, me for three hours and you for one month. Will my block override yours? That is, will he be blocked for three hours or one month? If I accidentally overrode your block, feel free to reblock him. Thanks! --M @th wiz 20 20 22:39, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, sounds good. I always thought it was the most recent block - it's the shortest block? You probably know more than I do... --M @th wiz 20 20 22:41, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I was just on IRC (#wikipedia-en-vandalism). That's how I saw the edits that prompted the block! --M @th wiz 20 20 22:57, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Page deletion

I know what you mean however, I know what I doing and you don't because I am me. I am not going to waste 20hrs of my life writing an article then submitting it and 10 minutes later seeing it all being edited. By someone who seems like a Mongoloid with a candle stick stuck in its ear helped him out or his mom taught him history. So I would rather write a few sentences leave the article for a little while let others expand on it then come back to it and sort it all out. --Street Scholar 13:44, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, did you even read what I said? you know what just stfu. --Street Scholar 16:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about you just shut up and leave me alone? --Street Scholar 10:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously you have an ulterior motive and you want to block me for the reason that I am a Pakistani. Are you a racist? you sure must be a racist you're harassing me. I don't see how my comments can warrant a blocking. I am asking you clearly to stop harassing me and leaving messages on my talk page which any civilized human being would understand. My 3rd comment was not profane and was not against the policies of Wikipedia to my understanding. So I suggest you stop abusing your administrative privileges to silence good people or people who's beliefs and views you do not agree with. I actually challenge you to prove how my comment above this results in me getting a second warning from you? I believe you're incompetent and incapable of distinguishing what is offensive and what is a simple request. --Street Scholar 15:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You really don't know when to give up do you? you're harassing me which part of that do you not understand? I do not want to converse with you stop leaving me messages on my talk-page. You're annoying. Anyway have a good day and dude just me alone I am a man not a woman and I am not homosexual. And I am also a Jatt in our culture unvilived is when you beat someone up not when you say a few words to them, I have different ethical and moral values to you, so try to understand. In my culture talking nicely to someone in a girly fashion is considered a weakness. The way we talk to you may seem rude but to me it doesn't. --Street Scholar 10:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rhetoric?

Please point to 1 instance of me expressing Rhetoric against Cyde? JohnnyBGood t c 00:39, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't being sarcastic. Cyde actually made me laugh, which is a first considering he's done nothing but piss me off for nearly a week. And I genuinely think it is hope that progress can be made. You're inferring sarcasm where there was none implied or intended. As for the "Emergency, Emergency" comment I was referring to the edit history of the anti Cyde shadow group. It was intended as a joke. If you took it as me being sarcastic I apologize as that also was not the intent. JohnnyBGood

t c 01:01, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I know alot of animosity has been thrown his way, some of it by me in other instances no doubt. People get fired up when it comes to userboxes it seems. Apparently this isn't the first time this year this has happened either. In the end the status quo from before will prevail no doubt since by and large Wikipedians like their boxes (myself included). I think Cyde just made a mistake of stepping on the wrong hornets nest however it will calm down in a few days. JohnnyBGood

t c 01:08, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Policy patrol?

Hi, I didn't see you briefly talking with myself or slimvirgin to meet the straw-test or what-have-you. Even so, nice to have you around. If you mess up, I'll yell at you loudly ;-P Kim Bruning 10:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh , actually, that was the straw test. You pass. :-P I'm not entirely sure I've seen your stance on policy before, but we can muddle that out as we go along. Or perhaps have a discussion on irc sometime soon. Kim Bruning 23:56, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EWS23's RfA

Hi Sasquatch! Thank you so much for ~~supporting~~ "esoppO"ing my request for adminship; it brought a smile to my face. :o) I'm sure I'll continue to see you on IRC, where we can relax a bit from a hard days work. :o) Thanks again, and please let me know if you ever see something I could be doing better. E WS23 | (Leave me a message!) 23:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An RFA thank you!

Thank you for supporting my recently successful nomination, even though I still haven't worked out exactly what you said... :-) Jude (talk) 10:38, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Sass...

Less than what one might have hoped for, but appreciated nonetheless. Saves me a monitor headbutt from at least *one* IP for the next six months. >_> Papacha 17:28, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

This template must be substituted. Replace {{Template for discussion ...}} with {{subst:Template for discussion ...}}.

Bhadani has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk pages. Happy editing!

--Bhadani 10:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KI

I'm not at all involved with this situation (nor am I an admin), but I saw a link from BanyanTree's talk page, and I just want to know why you blocked him for so long. Certainly he deserves a block a little longer than 24 hours (a few days in my opinion), but don't you think 3 months is a little long?

ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk 01:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the same issue, Tchadienne / KI / Freestylefrappe asked me for help. Obviously there was justification for a block on civility grounds, but three months seems extreme. He had a legitimate point about POV bias in the edits he was objecting to and, while removing comments without responding isn't particularly friendly, re-adding them isn't either. This is a generally good contributor who reacts badly to conflict, which would be a reasonable description of half the userbase... the other half being the ones who don't contribute much.

I'm talking to him about the issues and will likely unblock if he shows a willingness to discuss ways of resolving the underlying content dispute. --CBDunkerson 11:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why Not Follow your Own words

As long as you are documenting Japanese War crimes why not start an article documenting Chinese crimes against humanity since after all its a historical fact Mao killed more people than even Histler and Stalin. So you like China do you - so do you think you'd have the right to write and veiw Wiki articles uncensored in china now - or could you be punished. How about asking your Chinese commi buddies why they allow North Korea to exist - there would have been unification if your Commi buddies hadn't went aginst United Nations forces during the Korean War. If you think Japanese War crimes are bad wait until you see what China has in store for the world. Why not ask your Chinese buddies about the road system they have been building in Pakistan for decades or their cooperation with Pakistan? Remember what the bible says will happen in the edn times - a army of 200 million will invade Israel - and the only country which currently has that many troops in its army and reserves is China - of course going agianst God's people will result in the total destruction of China as a result of its invasion of the Mid East - a day I cannot wait for, mnkowing that all those Godless commi bastards are dead!

^^^ heh

That's the REALbasic vandal, Sasquatch. He vandalised my talk page, too. Warrens 19:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Freestylefrappe's accounts

Hello, Freestylefrappe has asked me to look into the blocks you put on his KL and User:Tchadienne accounts. I agree completely that KL's personal attacks deserve a significant block, but three months does seem somewhat excessive after several months of good editing. A compromise somewhere between Kelly Martin's initial 24 block and your three month one might be more appropriate. He also wants to change from the KL to the Tchadienne user name. There is no harm in this as long as he doesn't try to hide his identity or use multiple accounts at once. I would thus suggest indef blocking KL, and giving whatever lenght of block you feel is appropriate to the Tchadienne account, so that he can edit with that once his block expires. - SimonP 01:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meh

I've just never gotten around to registering. I know I'll get there eventually, but even when my IP changed I avoided it. Dunno why, I just don't want to do it right now. 69.145.123.171 ^|Hello!

Thanks. I'll let you know if I eventaully get to it. Ha! Soon as I join the procrastinator's club. 69.145.123.171 ^|Hello!

You deleted X-men 4

You thought this was going to be someone complaining about deleting the article?
Wrong.
Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/X-men_4
Close the AfD, please? Kevin_b_er 04:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfC

You blocked a user today, User:Añoranza, I am wondering if their RfC against me Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Zer0faults is still in effect and if so is there a way for me to get an admin to look at its basis before it proceeds? I feel this RfC was filed because I placed the two notices on the administration/incident page. I also dont think any dispute resolution was attempted and challenged what their version of that is. If it is valid can you please advise me as to my options as I feel it is unfair and that this user will just rally the same people who filed a RFCU against me, one that was proven me innocent[1], to attempt to imbalance the RfC. They have already contacted one user regarding it [2]. Advice, information, whatever you can offer is greatly appreciated. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 04:08, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I feared, the same users who accused me of being a sockpuppet are running to the RfC and making accusations. I am allowed to even defend myself? They are saying they started a poll in violation of WP:STRAW then tell me I am giving "cockamamie wikilawyering" for telling them that. They then say I cannot be reasoned with and state the cabal I asked for [3] against me, wouldnt that be proof I try to resolve conflicts? They are even starting the rex accusations of me being a sockpuppet. Do I get to address these comments at all? --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 04:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The User:Mr. Tibbs comments arent even certifying according to the rule "This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users." this is not the same dispute he is reffering to. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 04:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See the statement of the dispute: [4]. This RfC is about your behavior Zero, and yes I am most definitely a part of that dispute. This kind of behavior is exactly what I mean by wikilawyering, Sasquatch. And Zero you can respond all you want, in your response section. -- Mr. Tibbs 04:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the same dispute, look at Anoranza's evidence it all relates to one incident, one dispute. Stop calling it wikilawyering when someone asks you to follow rules on wikipedia, its rude and insulting. Your Straw Poll did violate the provision of making it, and that is to get everyone to agree on questions, and now you are certifying a RfC for a situation that does not involve you after your failed RFCU against me. It says same dispute with a single user, his comments are not about that dispute. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 10:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is why I ask for this to be thrown out, its going to turn into a witch hunt that has nothing to do with the actual situation. I should not be attacked for pointing out policy. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 10:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering if you can reffer this to an admin or take a look at it yourself. It is passed the 48 hours for the RfC and I have am disputing the current comments and the certifying user as neither has been involved in the current dispute, nor has the certifying user attempted to resolve it on my talk page or the articles page as the rules for certifying an RfC state. Furthermore the certifying user has engaged in recruiting people to comment on the RfC under false pretenses, accusing me of being a sockpuppet.[5] The RfC also now has a sockpuppet accusing me of being a sockpuppet,[6] and another user who I have never been on the same article with also accusing me of it. I had to get a Checkuser against myself to put this to bed: Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser#Merecat. Considering there accusations have been proven false it makes their comments even less userful to the RfC. I would just like an admin to read it over and review my statements and proof as to why the RfC should be closed. If you cannot because of your involvement, passing this info to another admin would be great. Thank you --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 11:26, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfA/Gurch

Thanks for your... erm, interesting support message – Gurch 17:10, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AlexPU

Hi. We ask to shorten the block of AlexPU before fortnight. He was impolite and rough, but his actions were provoked by roughness opponent. [7]. (Though his editing were accepted other editor. [8]). The Roughness and provocations rather frequent with his opponent. (see RfC for Ghirla) --Yakudza 06:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Freestylefrappe

Ok, I've been a little slow lately and I know this was a few days ago, but could you fill me in on what happened with Freestylefrappe, KI and Tchadienne? It seems odd that even after all this KI is indef blocked, Tchadienne is only blocked for a week, and Freestylefrappe even allowed to edit after persistant WP:CIVIL issues. Could you explain any of this to me? — The King of Kings 07:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I would also like for you to look into the possibilty that User:Nugneant, User:4.249.9.190 and User:4.249.3.180 are more sockpuppets of Freestylefrappe after his edits to KI's userpage and Freestylefrappe's tak page. — The King of Kings 07:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please restore PatCheng

Pat has sent you an email, but you still haven't replied.--PatChan 10:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

banned for Aryan as username-----

Sasquatch, as an Indian, I find it deeply insulting that you banned/suported banning someone for having Arayn as username. Please do not bring your western biases here. Aryan is a fairly common first name in India (e.g. Bollywood actor Shahrukh khan's son's name is Aryan). If this name is offensive to you as a westerner its due to your own misuse of the term in Nazi times (which are continued to some extent with Aryan Invasion theories and the like). We Indians should not be forced to forego such an anceint and honored term for western mistakes.203.115.76.198 12:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

npov

You yell at me about NPOV, but your the fucking sock puppet.El benderson 02:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and I suggest that you stop sock-puppeting Sassy, or should I say FUNK! God, why are all you admins commies? Anyway, you are way out of line here.El benderson 02:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thats right, use your admin power to dispose of a real threat in your purge. I wouldn't be caught dead with a hammer and sickle on my user page. Why do you sport one if you claim to be so against it?El benderson 02:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Come on, must you block me just because I upset you? Why must you be the enforcer, judge, and executioner? Can we not have a calm peaceful debate? Then perhaps I will judge whether you are Mao, or Chiang. But you must put your adminship aside for a little while. The hammer and sickle is at the top of your page.El benderson 02:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man, why is everyone here declaring martial law? All I see on your page is a giant hammer and sickle, and I'M GETTING PUNISHED!! THIS IS RIDICULOUS, IM SO SICK OF THIS LIBERAL COMMUNIST PLAGUE, OCCUPYING WIKIPEDIA!! IT IS A DISCRACE TO CAPITALISM, AND DECLARES ITSELF LOYAL TO ANY MARXIST SOCIETY. IT IS DISGUSTING!! IM DISCUSTED AT WIKIPEDIA WITH ITS COMMUNIST WAYS!! IM READY TO JUST GIVE UP ON THE ENTIRE PROGRAM!!!! Yours truly, El benderson 03:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Assumption School's IP address

Sorry for the influx in vandalism. it is due to a recent article i made, on Assumption College School. A few colleaques discovered it, and began adding information and vandalism to it. Most of it was not acceptable, so it was reverted. THey continued to do so, so I watched the page. But ther is something wrong with the feature, so I dont know when they edit it.--AeomMai 20:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Friend

Hi, My name is Michael. I am a newer Wikipedian. I would really appreciate it if you would be my friend. Best Regards,

FudgeDoodle

Respond here!

DVD+R/W's RfA

Thank you for your support in my RfA, which ended with the result of (74/0/0). If there is anything I can help with feel free to ask. Also, if there is anything I am doing wrong, please point that out as well. I look forward to working with you in the future.

Highest regards, DVD+ R/W 02:22, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Smile!

[[

Starburst101 talk has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!

|Starburst101]]

Thanks for all you do! Talk to me [[User Talk: Starburst101|here!

I Was editing sensibly and i accidentally made a mistake

Hi sasquatch, i was asking Naconkantari a question on his talk page but now it's all stuffed up, can you fix it?Necrowarrio0

Communism

Wow, for someone so against it, they sure love to sent people to prison without a fair trial, or anything. SO IF I USE ALL CAPITAL LETTERS, ARE YOU GOING TO TAKE OFFENSE AND BLOCK ME AGAIN? DO IT, BLOCK ME FOR USING CAPITAL LETTERS! AND EXCLAMATION POINTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!El benderson 17:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ARGH, YOU JUST DONT GET IT, DO YOU?!?!?!?!?!??!!El benderson 01:54, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I WILL NOT REST UNTIL YOU REMOVE THAT HORRIBLE THING AT THE TOP OF YOUR PAGE, UNTIL THEN, I WILL CALL YOU A PINKO COMMIE, YOU PINKO COMMIE!!!!!!!!!!El benderson 02:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Treason *cough* sock *double cough* sock--64.12.116.13 02:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a bunch

I'm glad I was unblocked. Thank you. If you want the story just read my talk page. Hope you have a good day. --WillMak050389 03:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-06-21 Portal:Taiwan

Hello Sasquatch,

Are you still on the Mediation Committee? Would you like to mediate for the disputed Portal:Taiwan, see Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-06-21 Portal:Taiwan for the mediation request form.

The dispute is over the naming of the portal. Portal:Taiwan vs. Portal:Republic of China. "Taiwan" is intended to be about the island of Taiwan (NPOV) whereas "ROC" is about the nation/state (political POV).

A "Taiwan" portal allows NPOV information about the island's history under Dutch, Japanese, Chinese rule including ROC, about the people including aborigines, etc

An "ROC" portal limits the scope of the portal to only "ROC" on Taiwan, User:Chiang Kai-shek does not accept that the portal is about the island of Taiwan and insists on "ROC" portal. Hence the need for mediation. — Nrtm81 12:19, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfA nomination accepted

You already know this, but thanks for the nomination; it is gratefully accepted. TheProject 06:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A short Esperanzial update

As you may have gathered, discussions have been raging for about a week on the Esperanza talk page as to the future direction of Esperanza. Some of these are still ongoing and warrant more input (such as the idea to scrap the members list altogether). However, some decisions have been made and the charter has hence been amended. See what happened. Basically, the whole leadership has had a reshuffle, so please review the new, improved charter.

As a result, we are electing 4 people this month. They will replace JoanneB and Pschemp and form a new tranche A, serving until December. Elections will begin on 2006-07-02 and last until 2006-07-09. If you wish to run for a Council position, add your name to the list before 2006-07-02. For more details, see Wikipedia:Esperanza/June 2006 elections.

Thanks and kind, Esperanzial regards, —Celestianpower ^háblame 16:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome!

Thank you very much! I've never seen that award before! :) 69.145.123.171 ^Hello! Friday, June 23, 2006, 17:27 (UTC)

Block of Al by Tony Sidaway

Could I please ask you to revisit Al's talk page and read the comments by Tony. They confirm that he is very personally involved with this and is determined to pursue this user for anything he can. This block has not been logged anywhere that can be publicly commented on (as far as I can find) which is a disturbing breach of procedure as the blocked user of course is unable to do so himself. Sophia 10:52, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi sasquatch

This image... [[Image:Ceiling_cat_00.jpg]] is completly annoying. Why is it showing up ' EVERYWHERE??? '

will314159 3RRR block

thank you for arriving after the block expired. The guy that reported me was himself guilty and got me blocked before i could report him. It's kind of like a burglar making a police report on a homeowner unvandalizing his acts and Tom Harrison blocking the homeowner from making a police report, meanwhile ignoring a prior 911 call on another vandal on the same revert acting in concert with the vandal. If you read any of what I posted on it, you would know what I'm talking about it. Then Mr. Harrison had the unmitigated gall to say, "discuss before you revert." ignore the voluminous discussion on the my original "Joyner" quote that between the two of them "Isarig and Precis have vandalized God knows how many times and I am the one that gets blocked. Thanks for "nothing." I will be asking Mr. Tom Harrison for an apology for his deriliction of duty. Take Care! --Will^(talk) 19:17, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the whole sordid history of the Joyner quote from where I initiated on the bottom to the last deletion by Precis on the top. And I am the one that gets blocked?????

(cur) (last) 20:08, 23 June 2006 Precis (→Expertise and professionalism - the Lobby doesn't like it when only one side gets to use blogs) (cur) (last) 17:39, 23 June 2006 Jeff3000 (→Cole and the Bahá'í Faith - correcting, and that it censorship is POV) (cur) (last) 16:48, 23 June 2006 Will314159 (→Expertise and professionalism - restoring Precis vandalism) (cur) (last) 10:14, 23 June 2006 Precis (→Expertise and professionalism - because he has more education, therefore "polemnical" is a word? and no, I'm reverting for a npov, alloting equal numbers of blogs on both sides) (cur) (last) 09:56, 23 June 2006 Will314159 (→Expertise and professionalism - Precis Write a letter to Joyner tellilng him polemnical is not a word, I think he has more education than you do. Or put a sic to it. u r reverting per Lobby POV) (cur) (last) 07:39, 23 June 2006 Precis (→Expertise and professionalism - "polemnical" is not a word) (cur) (last) 23:16, 22 June 2006 Will314159 (→Expertise and professionalism - Isarig and Ben Houston do not make a Consensus) (cur) (last) 22:56, 22 June 2006 Isarig (→Expertise and professionalism - Consensus was "no blogs". See Talk. Joyner was removed along with other blog sources by B. Houston) (cur) (last) 22:54, 22 June 2006 Will314159 m (→Expertise and professionalism - removed double post) (cur) (last) 22:51, 22 June 2006 Will314159 (→Expertise and professionalism - no record of Joyner deletion?) (cur) (last) 22:48, 22 June 2006 Will314159 (→Expertise and professionalism - no record of Joyner deletion?) (cur) (last) 22:00, 22 June 2006 Isarig (→Expertise and professionalism - Landis is wikilinked. No need for his home page here) (cur) (last) 21:59, 22 June 2006 Isarig m (→Expertise and professionalism - rm extrenous '>') (cur) (last) 21:58, 22 June 2006 Isarig (→Expertise and professionalism - Landis's home page is irrelevant as a ref here) (cur) (last) 21:27, 22 June 2006 Bhouston (→Dispute over Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's comments on Israel - removed blog-based source.) (cur) (last) 21:26, 22 June 2006 Bhouston (→Expertise and professionalism - removed blog sources, commented out generalizing and inaccurate statement.) (cur) (last) 21:22, 22 June 2006 Bhouston (→On the "Israel lobby" and US foreign policy - cleaned up references, linkified terms, remove blog-based sources.) (cur) (last) 18:47, 22 June 2006 Will314159 (→Expertise and professionalism - corrected Isarig vandalism on Joyner, more Landis, pro before con, this is JC;s page NOT KARSH's) (cur) (last) 18:26, 22 June 2006 Isarig (reversed order of criticism and rebuttals; Joyner is most wellknown as a blogger; rm offensive screed from non WP:RS source) (cur) (last) 17:40, 22 June 2006 Bhouston m (→Expertise and professionalism - separated paragraph.) (cur) (last) 17:39, 22 June 2006 Bhouston m (→Expertise and professionalism - linkified MESA of NA. linkified other terms.) (cur) (last) 03:08, 22 June 2006 Will314159 (→Expertise and professionalism - Lockman president elect of Association) (cur) (last) 02:43, 22 June 2006 Will314159 (→Expertise and professionalism - more about james joyner's experience) (cur) (last) 02:40, 22 June 2006 Will314159 (→Expertise and professionalism - former managing editor of Strategic Insights James Joyner) (cur) (last) 02:34, 22 June 2006 Isarig (→Expertise and professionalism - No, Joyner was not a prof there.) (cur) (last) 01:23, 22 June 2006 65.184.213.36 (→See also - grammar) (cur) (last) 01:18, 22 June 2006 65.184.213.36 (→See also - Mershon Lecture) (cur) (last) 01:02, 22 June 2006 65.184.213.36 (→Expertise and professionalism - Naval PostG School) (cur) (last) 00:59, 22 June 2006 65.184.213.36 (→Expertise and professionalism - undoing Isarig vandalism pro before con, prof Joyner) (cur) (last) 18:29, 21 June 2006 Isarig (→Expertise and professionalism - more from Mowbray) (cur) (last) 18:24, 21 June 2006 Isarig m (→Expertise and professionalism) (cur) (last) 18:23, 21 June 2006 Isarig (→Expertise and professionalism - this is ther "criticism" section, so critics come first) (cur) (last) 18:21, 21 June 2006 Isarig (→Expertise and professionalism - Joyner is not currently a professor.) (cur) (last) 16:38, 21 June 2006 Will314159 (→Expertise and professionalism - first the proponents, then the opponents- that's the normal course of things in a bio, unless it's an indictment) (cur) (last) 16:31, 21 June 2006 Will314159 m (→Expertise and professionalism - Professor James Joyner) (cur) (last) 16:20, 21 June 2006 Will314159 (→Faculty position at Yale University - final thought by Cole on affair from inside higher ed) (cur) (last) 16:14, 21 June 2006 Will314159 (→Faculty position at Yale University -Z. Lockman opinion quote inside higher ed news) (cur) (last) 23:10, 20 June 2006 Isarig (→Expertise and professionalism - more blog commentary) (cur) (last) 23:08, 20 June 2006 Will314159 (→Expertise and professionalism - Joyner WP link) (cur) (last) 22:17, 20 June 2006 Isarig (→On the "Israel lobby" and US foreign policy - more blog criticism) (cur) (last) 22:12, 20 June 2006 Isarig (→On the "Israel lobby" and US foreign policy - Now that the blog standards have been relaxed a bti, we can add more commentary) (cur) (last) 21:53, 20 June 2006 Will314159 m (→Expertise and professionalism - reformat) (cur) (last) 21:45, 20 June 2006 Will314159 (→Expertise and professionalism - Isarig Don't Revert until there's consensus This is opinion not fact, you are mis-reading the policy!) (cur) (last) 21:33, 20 June 2006 Isarig (your source is not WP:RS thiswas explained in th edit summary and on Talk. Please do not re-add it before reaching consensus on Talk) (cur) (last) 21:28, 20 June 2006 Will314159 (→Expertise and professionalism - Undoing Perfunctory Revert) (cur) (last) 20:19, 20 June 2006 Isarig (blogs are not WP:ES) (cur) (last) 18:58, 20 June 2006 Will314159 (→Expertise and professionalism - trying to undo footnote mess) (cur) (last) 18:54, 20 June 2006 Will314159 (→Expertise and professionalism - Joyner outside the beltway Cole's expert blog provides public service) And you guys think this is the end of this matter???????? Take Care! --Will^(talk) 19:26, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When I got out of "jail." I made a 3RRR viol report on user Isarig for five reverts. Unlike his report on me which was acted on by Harrison in twenty minutes w/o an opportunity for me to respond, the Isarig report has now been pending for 23 hours. What gives? Who do I contact to complain? Take Care! --Will^(talk) 23:06, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Alienus

Hi, I just wanted to thank you for unblocking Alienus. It was a brave thing to do, though given all of the circumstances, the right thing to do. I urge you to talk to Tony, as you mentioned that you might, and try to get him to leave this particular scene. I can only see things getting worse, on several levels, if he continues hounding Al, blocking him left and right. Just watch out, though; he wasn't very happy the last time his block on Al was removed. Thanks again, roma rin [talk ] 23:36, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to say thanks for unblocking Al. Since these issues are talking place on wikipedia all discussion should really take place here rather than on IRC so that other editors can openly see where everyone is at. Sophia 10:14, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's a good point. I think we would all appreciate the openness and honesty of doing it that way. roma rin [talk ] 14:39, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mrknowitman blocked

Hi, I realize that this message is late. I saw your comment on Mrknowitman's talk page regarding a block on June 18. I do believe that this account is a sockpuppet of Mrsanitazier. The relevant warning messages and block message for the June 17 incident is at [9] Mrknowitman and Mrsanitazier are not blocked any more.

I thought I would reply to your message.

Hope this helps. --Starionwolf 03:07, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ransack page

Recently the Ransack page was deleted. It was a page that talked about several cartoon and comic book characters called Ransack. To my knowledge it was a fine page. Someone else proposed it for deletion, and I said to keep it, next day it was deleted. What's up with that? user:Mathewignash

AfD...

...was on Dhimmi. Judaism was a facetious example. You misunderstood. - CrazyRussian talk/email 21:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your chess game

Have you "given up" on your chess game? Or have you not enough time on your hands? 03:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, But...

Well... First, thank you for reminding me about my user name. But I really love my name... I... erm... ,Well, Maybe I'll change my name some time. But... I didn't make up my mind. Well... It's a hard decision for me to decide. May be I will, maybe I won't? 百家姓之四 (Lee) 討論 (Discussion) 10:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sasquatch

There is a mediation case that I am in now and the message said to contact someone so since I recognized your name, I am contacting you. Please PM me in bootcamp. My comments over the past few days have been edited several times by the other person, including in AfD nominations I made, etc., so I prefer that this medium not be used. Ste4k 13:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks so much for the nomination and support -- well, I would hope to be supported at least by a co-nominator :-) -- on my RfA, which has passed with a consensus of 67 support, 0 opposed and 0 neutral. Let me know how I'm doing as an admin any time at my talk page. Thanks! TheProject 21:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Emergency

Hey, you are from Canada too! :)

Here is my problem. I got this message ;

I reverted the change u made [..] --Hectorian 17:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

on my page. I refers to this revert. But the user names are different. I see these same users working on the same pages all the time. Is this sock puppettery? How can I verify? DeliDumrul 04:50, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I actually wanted to ask you if I have a case or I'm just being paranoid. I've never seen a sock puppet before! :) Thanks for your time. Cheers! DeliDumrul 05:04, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've been discussing with this user on the article for a long time now. While he did not come up with arguments (he was stalling me I guess), the other user (name) was making changes. This is the only evidence I have. I didn't want to be falsely fingerpointing, that's why I asked for help. Anyways, thank you for your help. DeliDumrul 05:12, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]