User talk:Mirv/Archive 11

Archives by date
archive1 (27/01/04)
archive2 (pre-12/04/04 history)
archive3 (04/12–07/29/04)
archive4 (07/29–20/09/04)
archive5 (20/09–26/09/04)
archive6 (27/09–03/11/04)
archive7 (03/11–22/11/04)
archive8 (22/11–05/12/04)
archive9 (05/12–17/12/04)
archive10 (17/12/04–11/01/05)
archive11 (11/01/05–24/7/05)
archive12 (24/7/05–12/12/05)
archive13 (12/12/05–25/4/06)
Others
rubbish bin
AOL-using lawyer
Arbcom election
User talk:Mirv

Messages left here may not be seen for months. Use e-mail if you absolutely must contact me.

Administrator powers

If I have misused my magic powers in any way, this is the place to tell me.

Protection

Every page I protect is on the wrong version, of course, so to conserve valuable electrons, just leave a link to the page and a number from the list. Thanks.

If I accidentally protected a page to which I have made substantive edits, tell me here. I will unprotect it immediately.

Deletion

Did I speedy-delete something that wasn't a candidate? Did I delete something for which there was no consensus to delete? Tell me here.

Blocking

Rollback

Did I use the admin "rollback" feature on one of your edits without warning or explanation? Then I probably thought you were vandalizing, spamming, or otherwise editing in malice, and chances are good that you were: most of my rollbacks are of such edits. If you want to know why I reverted your edit, append your question to the end of this talk page.

The Templar Revelation

Since you've done such good work on Priory of Sion and Holy Blood, Holy Grail, I thought I'd ask if you can add anything to this article. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 00:11, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I would love to but I haven't read the book so I can't contribute much to the article. Loremaster 15:25, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've been seeing your username come up on my watchlist today. I was earlier to think that you'd be leaving for a while. Glad to see that you're still popping in occasionally. Take care, 172 08:22, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

209.122.104.163

Are you particularly enjoying reverting User:209.122.104.163? Why not block him per the ArbCom decision and be done with it? It doesn't seem to be a shared IP, don't see why not. --fvw* 22:54, 2005 Jan 14 (UTC)

I just did. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 22:55, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Canada comment

The issue of Canada vs Dominion of Canada is pretty thoroughly discussed at Talk:Canada section 5 Official Name. It seems to be a tempest in a teapot. BNA Act 1867 Section 1 Preliminary, clause 3 says "It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the Advice of Her Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council, to declare by Proclamation that, on and after a Day therein appointed, not being more than Six Months after the passing of this Act, the Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick shall form and be One Dominion under the Name of Canada; and on and after that Day those Three Provinces shall form and be One Dominion under that Name accordingly." Most of us take "that Name" to be "Canada" but I guess others read it differently. The word Dominion does not occur again in the BNA Act. Indeed just about every clause says something like "Parliament of Canada", "House of Commons of Canada", never Parliament of the Dominion of Canada. You can come to your own conclusion.--BrentS 05:24, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Template:Islam

Whoops, sorry about that. At the time I did the revert, your revert was not at the top of the page. Must have been some sort of glitch that caused my revert to be applied to the most recent change, even though it wasn't showing up when I did the rollback. RickK 00:37, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

Спасибо

Thanks for reverting vandalism to my user page. I am much obliged. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 00:46, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Charles Darwin

You blocked me a couple of days ago, but I think you made a mistake. I did do more than three edits but I only did two reinsertions of the factoid. I guess you just counted the edits and assumed they were all reinsertions. I'd appreciate if you didn't take my word for it verified for yourself. Cheers, Vincent 00:17, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Apologies, I didn't realize that blocks could be redundant. Your block was simultaneous with another but I was under the impression that it was made a couple of days later. My mistake. Cheers Vincent 09:29, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Tacitus: traslated from it:Tacito

I have translated it:tacito from Italian into Tacitus. I have put the traslation below the (old) English article. Since there are some points present in the (old) English version but bot in the traslated from Italian version a merge is needed. Since I am not English fluent speacking, is better if someone else does it. A clean-up and spell and grammar check is also wellcome. AnyFile 22:20, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I started to clean this up, but then I saw that you put an inuse tag on it. Note that among AnyFile's problems with English is that he doesn't know the usual English forms of most of the names. I'm guessing you know what you are doing, so I'll get out of your way, but feel free to grab me. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:07, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

& now I see it's been hours, the inuse tag is off, others are working on it, so I guess I'll jump in. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:45, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

Ass Rape

Fine, but then either protect it or else put it on your watchlist so that you know if it gets vandalized. ;) --Dante Alighieri | Talk 23:42, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

Miranda 4Play

Hello. I noticed you closed the VfD discussion on Miranda 4Play, but didn't actually delete the article, although there was a consensus to delete it. Is there any reason for it? JoaoRicardo 17:42, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It seems to have been simple negligence on my part. I note someone has deleted it now. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 20:51, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the answer. JoaoRicardo 02:11, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Reverts vs. personal attacks

On the new/old no-personal-attacks enforcement policy proposal, you argue based on our experience with three revert rule enforcement that the remedy would be worse than the problem. Out of curiosity, may I ask if this means you've reconsidered your support for the three-revert rule enforcement policy? --Michael Snow 22:04, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Re Rules of wiki

Hi. I voted for you in the arbcom election based on your record and statement. I also voted for:Chuck F, Dante Alighieri, DG, Ed Poor aka Uncle Ed, Everyking, Improv, Lir, PedanticallySpeaking, sannse, VeryVerily

REQUEST: User:Violetriga has taken editorial control of my talk page, and created a new (archive) talk page for me; without asking me, and if she had I would not have given my permission. There is of course a strong rule that people add comments to others' talk pages but do not edit them. She's always coming to my page and adding stuff so she could've ASKED me to do a new page in the way she wanted. But there was nothing wrong with how I did it anyway.

Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page, makes it clear there is NO set way to start archives: "In closing, there are no fixed rules about archiving discussions on Wikipedia."

Please see history of my talk page where she says:(cur) (last) 10:00, 2 Feb 2005 Violetriga m (fix archive link after moving it to the correct place). The page above says: "(Note: Utilizing the "Move this page" feature for such an operation is not at all advised.)"

It also says that:

"Monolithic discussion file.

For certain discussion pages, particularly those concerned with policy, which don't lend themselves to organising by topic, the following alternative archiving strategy may be preferable."

Which is what I did. If I am not allowed the same equal option to edit my talk pages I can't be responsible for them, or for pages others create "as" me. Please list her archive page that she's created "for me" on pages for deletion, as if I do it, or do or type anything on the wiki I'm liable to be "banned" "long term" I'm told.

Please also note that UserChrisO is breaking the mediation rules by posting comments on that page and. It says on the page: "Please do not edit this page directly if you are not a participant in a case." He did twice and as usual "took control of the page" on himself; deleted add more edit etc. Please use your Amin powers to warn/block him as rules require. Above is page vandalisation of mediation page. The post he's got on there is not allowed by rules/is designed to discourage people from volunteering/influence them in how they see my appeal. Page states clearly NOT ALLOWED. Appealants make their case not him. HE thinks no rules here apply to him, and no rule giving users rights applies to ME. Such hate filled ARROGANCE.

And User:Neigel von Teighen came to my page, gave me more trouble and deleted my request for an Advocate and hasn't put it back from the wrong section, or corrected the claim that makes it look as if I've FOUND an Advocate. This'll stop someone volunteering as an Advocate.WikiUser 21:06, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

FURTHER: Hi Charles (Mirv). Neigel von Teighen has been in touch with me and been helpful so please disregard that bit of my post. ALSO: Because of the huge level of chriso and v.riga's posting re me everywhere I go and elsewhere, before even I can get there, I can't make out what answer is what to me below. Or is everything below the line not from you to me? Could you post your actual answer to me on my talk page and I'll read it and if necessary get back to you. Thanks.WikiUser 19:19, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

---

I've taken the liberty of improving some of your wikisyntax; I hope you won't mind. As to the substantive issues:

First: It seems to me that something like this happened with your talk page archive: You cut-and-pasted old discussions to User talk:WikiUser page 1 archive, as recommended by the guideline you cited. Violetriga moved that page to User talk:WikiUser/page 1 archive and deleted the redirect that remained; she then fixed the link from your talk page to point to the archive's new location [1]. The edit history of your archive page was not changed; you are still the only one who has edited it. I don't think this was meant to be a hostile move.

When you created the archive as User talk:WikiUser page 1 archive, the software treated that as the user talk page of a user named User:WikiUser page 1 archive, and that user does not exist. Under its current title, user talk:WikiUser/page 1 archive, the software considers it a subpage of User talk:WikiUser: it is automatically backlinked to its main page, and links to it from that main page are simpler to make. (For example, on this page, the link [[/Archive 10]] automatically links to User talk:Mirv/Archive 10, like this: /Archive 10. So I'm pretty sure Violetriga's action was intended to be helpful, and had I seen it before her I might have done the same. Assume good faith.

While it might have been more polite of her to ask, it was probably simpler just to do it herself. I've never seen anyone object to the tidying of their userspace. In this case it might be better for all concerned if you just try to see it as an honest bit of helpfulness, which is very probably what it was. Deleting it probably isn't necessary, but if you really want it gone there's no need to list it for deletion; since it's your subpage you can have it deleted any time you like. Just slap the standard speedy deletion notice on it (using the text {{delete}}) or ask a sysop to delete it for you.

Next: ChrisO probably shouldn't be posting comments in your request for mediation; he ought to use the talk page, yes. However, it doesn't qualify as vandalism, and it's not up to me to stop him, especially not by blocking him. The Mediation Committee handles this sort of thing.

Given that one of the complaints against WikiUser is frivolous misuse of Wikipedia procedures, it seems only fair to mention that fact; it's certainly relevant to the question of whether his mediation requests against Violetriga and myself should be accepted. -- ChrisO 23:37, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps so; the RfC does show something of what you were talking about, so it's worth bringing to the mediators' attention. However, as I understand the procedure, cutting in to someone else's request for mediation is considered bad form and comments on a request ought to be placed on the talk page. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 15:59, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Last: Have you tried talking to Neighel von Teighen about your problem with his actions? That would be the necessary first step; let me know how it goes. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 21:58, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hello there. To clear things up in your mind (I know WikiUser won't listen) you are correct in your assumption of my actions. I moved the page to the more appropriate convention of subpages, deleting the original location after noticing there were no direct links there. The reason I didn't ask is because WikiUser assumes bad faith on my part no matter what I do. For your reference Neighel von Teighen has removed his offer of being his advocate and you make wish to check Wikipedia:Requests for comment/WikiUser, though I wouldn't at all blame you for staying out of it! Cheers, violet/riga (t) 22:14, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I took up my offer only because I'm not the right person for this, not because of any campaign against WikiUser. Indeed, I never heard of him before! About the request: I must recognize it's my fault, but I did the move and told WikiUser about this. --Neigel von Teighen 22:21, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You made the offer before reading the RfC and withdrew it after reading it, which illustrates my point above about needing to mention it! ;-) -- ChrisO 23:37, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thank you

So what am I allowed to edit? And how does this apply to other people, like Rubenstein, for example?

P.s. do you know how I can make a formal complaint?

Tigermoon 12:19, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You are allowed to edit anything you want, as long as you're editing for yourself and not proxying for CheeseDreams. Slrubenstein isn't under any editing restrictions, so I'm not sure what you're asking. You can make a formal complaint through the dispute resolution process, but you're encouraged to try and sort things out on your own first. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 15:59, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

There seem to be four different choices. I am not sure which is the formal complaint. Is it mediation, comment, arbitration, or advocate? Tigermoon 16:36, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration is the formal complaint, I suppose. A request for comment is just that: a request for broader input in resolving interpersonal difficulties. Mediation is a more structured method for resolving disagreements. I'm not really familiar with advocacy.

In my opinion, a request for arbitration made at this time would probably be rejected, as I see broad agreement that Slrubenstein's actions were proper. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 16:46, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ibn Khaldun

Moved from Wikipedia:Translation into English:

• Article: de:Ibn Khaldun
• Corresponding English-language article: Ibn Khaldun
• Worth doing because: The German article—which is featured-quality—has a much better biography and summary of his works.
• Originally Requested by: —No-One Jones 02:06, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Status: done. But could be checked for typos etc and English/Wiki-spelling of names, and also there seems to be (looking at some of the external links listed) some confusion/contradiction over parts of his middle life (all the intrigue, who and where) which somebody could check. Rd232 10:22, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Other notes:

I figure there's no point to leaving this hanging out longer on Wikipedia:Translation into English. As done as it will probably get, now like any other article with possible issues. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:34, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

spambot domains

I think we have a handle on the set of domains the spambot is using. See Category:Protected against spambots. As soon as Silsor adds it to the spamfilter list and it propagates, we should try unprotecting again... how long does it take for additions to the blacklist to take effect? -- Curps 01:10, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Rienzo

Rienzo is still editing under further sockpuppets User:65.161.65.104, User:MahBoys, and User:Sandor, and User:130.236.84.134.

This is in violation of a 3 month ban from the arbitration comittee - Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rienzo

I would appreciate an immediate block of these accounts. CheeseDreams 14:36, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I am NOT a sock puppet of Rienzo! Sandor 14:39, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes you are, your edits are identical in style to Rienzo's other sock puppets, particularly your edit summaries. CheeseDreams 14:41, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Treason

Because he walked and quacked rather like Mr. Treason. But go ahead. Snowspinner 01:18, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

Gmail password harvester

What is the email I should use to contact gmail about that guy? I figure the more people complaining, the more likely they close his account(s). -GregNorc (talk)

Thanks for the info, I got a response from google saying they're looking into it.

On another note, the offender was given a 24 hour ban, but once that's up he'll probably screw around some more. Keep an eye out. -GregNorc (talk) 23:48, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

Republic

Any chance you could look into the edit war Wheeler and I are conducting at Republic and perhaps protect the page? - SimonP 15:39, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, but would it be possible to protect it at the version that existed before the edit war broke out? Shades of m:The Wrong Version, but I personally doubt that much discussion will occur if it is left at the version Wheeler prefers. - SimonP 16:01, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)

Quebec Wikipedians notice board

You are hereby cordially invited to join the Quebec Wikipedians notice board.

Vous êtes cordialement invité à collaborer au Quebec Wikipedians notice board. Circeus 19:27, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)

Usenet thread

Reading over the Usenet thread, I agree with your decision to remove it.

You realize that, with this item, we have a situation that could get out of hand. Personally, I thought I would VfD it if this happened. Now I'm unsure about my decision.

I take issue with your edit summary, "remove link to thread that is largely mike and his sockpuppets talking to each other". That claim is untrue, except for the obvious fact that "Mike Church" and "ambition_game" are the same person. I'd maybe given him credit for "spirit of night" (left-wing, long-winded, thorough) but maybe not. It's truly unclear. The rest are all clear non-socks, such as Nick0r who runs cardschat.com, and Llor.

The problem is that WP frowns upon abusive edit summaries in general, and this is a particularly hot issue. So please refrain from the allegations because they'll turn this into a nightmare for everyone. You can justify your edits and votes on content alone without making sock accusations, because the second people start playing dirty they won't go back, and we'll have to delete Ambition (cards) for that reason alone.

That said, I agree with your decision to remove that link. Looking at it, it doesn't have all that much to do with Ambition.

Cordially,

EventHorizon talk 09:06, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

User:Vfp15

Vfp15's ban timer is extended [2]. Could you point me in the direction of the proof of his ban timer being reset? User:Michael_Snow was the original banning admin I think... --Mrfixter 17:04, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ok, shouldn't have quoted your "ban timer" can I not see proof of his block being reset until march 23 then? --Mrfixter 18:24, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Mike

I noticed you undeleted the Minions page. I don't know everything Mike's been up to lately, but I doubt he's given up dishonesty for Lent. Did you notice the bit where he used a sockpuppet to nominate himself for adminship? I wish I'd seen it while the discussion was still active. I think that one is sufficiently bad (especially considering how many times Mike has been warned about this stuff) to consider getting the Arbcom involved. I've been trying to find a developer to do a sockpuppet check, but real life hasn't given me enough Wikipedia time to pursue it strongly. Isomorphic 01:54, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

User:Mike Church was nominated for adminship by User:Lst27 last spring. While this judgment was questioned by the Wikipedia community, he was not considered a "sock puppet" by most users. He later admitted to being User:AlexPlank.

I have studied the "Ambition war" very closely and was very opposed to User:Ludocrat's decision to revive the page. I think that if you have a problem with the recent revival of the article, you should nominate it for deletion. Reinstigating a politically-motivated personal attack on an individual will create a situation that gets really ugly, really fast. We can have a VfD debate on Ambition (cards) on grounds of content and logistics alone. I still have not made up my mind how I will vote, but as a recognized neutral authority on the matter (having researched this thing pretty heavily) I fear that VfDing it myself would send a strongly anti-Ambition message. Frankly, if it were sent to VfD, I would probably lean toward delete, though wishing to hear both sides' cases before making a decision. EventHorizon talk 04:01, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It is true that Lst27 nominated him for adminship [3], but that is not the nomination in question. We all know which it was, and Mike knows we're on to him, so the less said about that, the better.

Nominating the new article for deletion would be premature, I think. Mike seems to have learned some lessons from his last go-round. He's not trying to fill the article with unverifiable claims, he's not trying to link to it from as many places as possible, and so far he's kept his temper. (The puppet show has, unfortunately, continued.) In my opinion the deciding factor in its final deletion was Mike's behavior, so if that doesn't come up again, the article might be worth keeping. We'll see. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 04:32, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It is still pure self-promotion in the sense that we would never have an article about it if Mike hadn't written one. Those of us who think that notability is a criterion for inclusion (including myself) would therefore object to it. Also, we don't want to set the precedent that if you're a persistent enough liar you can get whatever content you like into Wikipedia. Isomorphic 21:09, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It was a borderline case. Perhaps new evidence will show up. Perhaps it won't. EventHorizon has produced many claims of its notability, but hasn't referenced or verified them. Bad precedent, true, can't argue with that. Send it to VfD and let it decide. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 21:25, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Adios

--Nasrallah 02:27, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Charles, I'm very sorry to see you leave the project, and I hope that you'll consider returning as yourself at some point. We need people like you. I'm not going to argue with what you said, but I do have two observations: what you described as the negative aspects of some sysops reflects how I, and others, occasionally felt about 172, and people don't talk about IRC because very little of import happens on IRC. If everyone who was suspicious of what happened there spent a few hours silently watching, I think they'd feel reassured. Best regards, Mackensen (talk) 04:54, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Nasrallah, personal attacks in edit summaries are still personal attacks.

Mirv, VfD is a sink for time and effort that might better be spent elsewhere. But it's a significant problem only if articles that should be kept get deleted or vice versa. I don't see much sign of that, do you? VfDs that probably aren't warranted don't get very far (Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Mayor of Galway is currently 6-0 keep). Newly-minted voters, anons and sockpuppets are usually pointed out by others, and this is taken into account in the tallying process. There's also VfUnD to correct mistakes.

You complain about "fetishization of process" and "wikilawyering", but the alternative to "process" and "lawyering" is arbitrary use or abuse of power by admins, or bypassing "process" and moving decision-making to back-channels like IRC — both of which which you also complain about. It seems there's a contradiction here, which is natural since it reflects the same contradictions of the real world.

The messiness of Wikipedia reflects the same messiness as society in general... the politics of Wikipedia is no different from political systems in wider society. Just think of it as politics and governance, because that's what it is. Efficiency, transparency, fairness... these are all issues that every political system deals with. It's hard to see how Wikipedia could magically invent a simple and perfect system when the real world has so notably failed to do so over decades and centuries.

I happen to agree with you on images. Not so much on moral grounds but as a practical matter of real-world issues and accessibility to all.

I also think that Wikipedia's real strength is in the large number of quiet and uncontroversial articles on relatively obscure subjects, and creating and improving such articles is a great way to take a break from politics. Like Georg Wilhelm Richmann, a gentleman who tried to replicate Ben Franklin's experiment with unfortunately shocking results... you can recharge by creating such articles, but why do it anonymously, though? Why do a dramatic exit when a wikibreak or time reduction or simple change of focus might work well instead? And there's lots of mundane uncontroversial admin stuff that can be done (speedy deleting new articles that are alphabet soup or test pages, or sorting out the copyvio backlog, etc.) -- Curps 05:01, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Charles, when I was brand new on Wikipedia you were one of the first people whose signature I learned to associate with constructive actions. Very soon I came to realize your edits were always well reasoned, according to policy and in the best interests of the project. While reading your reasons for leaving, it was those qualities about you that kept going through my mind. Charles, those aren't reasons to leave; they are reasons to stay, and to stay active. Change only happens when someone speaks up. Your leaving is a statement, loud and clear, but I hope you reconsider and choose to make more than that one statement. I hope you remain active in this persona to work toward making things work better on the administrative side. We need admins like you. SWAdair | Talk 08:08, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I only wish I could have said it half as eloquently as SW has. Take care, whatever you decide to do. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:21, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hello Mirv, it's maybe strange to write this since I'm on a sort of wiki leave myself, but I can only say the same as the people above: take a break, but don't go entirely. Wikipedia needs people like you more than anything else. sad to see you leave and hoping that there will be one day an "auf wiedersehen", --Elian 00:16, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Mirv, I'm truly sorry to see you go. We'll all miss your enthusiasm and spirit, and I hope you return after a good wikibreak. User:Rdsmith4/Sig 03:44, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Mirv I am mainly active on nl: wikipedia so you probably do not know me. I can see what you have done though over the years. So I hope you will decide to stay. Waerth 07:07, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Charles, I'm sorry to see you go, and hope it is only a temporary Wikibreak. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:47, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Glad to see you're at least considering. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:42, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Of all the words/Of tongue or pen/the saddest are these:/It might have been." (John Greenleaf Whittier) Goodbye, Charles. Someday I hope to see you again. Neutrality^talk 04:50, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

• I have just read your page. It is brilliant beyond all compare. yes, Wikpedia is turning into mob rule. It is sad. I am forced also to go around recruiting votes for pages and i concur with your comments.WHEELER 20:24, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Welcome back

Hope your break went well. -- Netoholic @ 06:35, 2005 Mar 11 (UTC)

Ah, good. Hope is not lost.  :-) Considering is good. I'm looking forward to seeing a flurry of edits any time now. SWAdair | Talk 07:56, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Whooohooo! you're back! Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 08:46, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Welcome back! Jayjg ^(talk) 14:08, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sock puppet (if that's the right term)?

Hi Mirv -- I think that Paul V has a new user account -- User:Manuchao (contribs). He's targeting a set of articles related Paul's favorites, and is now re-adding deleted links to talk pages...but I wanted to at least get a second opinion before rushing to judgment.

Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 13:53, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I see what's happening now -- I've been paying scant attention to the mailings lists of late, and have mostly been away for a couple of months. Thanks for the clarification. BCorr|Брайен 21:45, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:District Attorney's Office

What the fuck are you doing at Wikipedia:District Attorney's Office? BLANKFAZE | (что??) 06:55, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure what Wikipedia:District Attorney's Office is all about, but is it really a good idea to make prank edits to it? -- Curps 08:56, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Barnstar

I just realized that no barnstars adorn your userpage, an injustice which must be remedied quickly. Therefore, I award you this shiny rotating barnstar. Best wishes --Neutrality^talk 07:21, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

For being an all-around great contributor, I award you this Tireless contributor Barnstar. Your friend --Neutrality^talk 07:21, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

The DAO

For what it's worth, the DAO was started after the comments from Mav, Raul, and Ambi in rejecting the arbcom case I brought against myself, asking for an prosecutor's association to counterbalance the AMA. Snowspinner 14:46, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

Glad to see you back!

Hope your Wikibreak was productive and fun. ^_^ -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:15, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

RFA for ABCD

Tim Starling has shown that I am not a sockpuppet on my RFA. In light of this, you may wish to change your vote. Thanks. – ABCD 00:49, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

My RFA is now at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/ABCD2, after being reset. – ABCD 17:24, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Good work

Good work defusing the de-adminhip policy situation. →Raul654 05:37, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. It seemed the obvious solution. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 05:42, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

OIC

Isn't OIC one of those -censored- ideas set up by User:Snowspinner? I think it should be run through the Arbcom, since it's at least against our No Personal Attacks rule to begin with.

I do believe some kind of investigator club should exist, but one that is neutral and impartial.

Kim Bruning 08:49, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

OIC is shorthand for "Office of Investigations critique. The Office of Investigations, now the Office of Member Investigations, is indeed a—censorship be damned—maliciously wrongheaded idea of Snowspinner's. The arbcom encouraged him (though one member has expressed dissatisfaction with his method), and the attacks are general rather than personal, so I think an arbitration case would be futile.

I could support a similar group, with the same caveat: that it be neutral and impartial. Doesn't the AMA already do something like this? —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 09:01, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

See Wikipedia_talk:Association_of_Member_Investigations#Why_not_the_AMA. Cheers, (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 10:26, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Association of Member Investigations

I don't really like how you said they were a "dictatorial fiat" (regardless of whether is true or not). It gave rise to all sorts of ill feelings and dispute-like behavior. If they bully good users they dislike it should be easy to prove and arrange them before the arbcom for it themselves.

His words, not mine. He declared himself a dictator, and I will call him a dictator. Pointing out bullying to the arbcom has not proven successful yet, but I am willing to try again. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 15:04, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Have you tried to suggest changes to Snowspinner in a friendly manner, or become a member of his association before you started your organization? I've got nothing against your organization, but publicly bashing the AMI and calling them "dedicated to bullying the users that its narrow directing clique dislikes" doesn't seem like a good idea. It's not productive and only causes conflict. Wikipedia users should stick together. -- Mgm|^(talk) 14:37, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

I tried joining the organization and politely suggesting changes. For the dictator's response, see the addendum on User:Mirv/Little tin gods. So that's no good. Saying that the AMI has nasty purposes may not be a good idea, but I submit that nasty purposes ought to be exposed. Sunlight is the best disinfectant. Wikipedia users should stick together, not form dictatorships devoted to persecuting the users that the dictator dislikes. Hence my harsh opposition. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 14:57, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Politely? Hahahaha. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 16:47, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Not at first. Later yes. Both got the same response. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 16:49, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Good job!

One thing about you mirv, you keep me laughing! Smacking around Snowspinner was the best thing I have seen you do in quite a while. The only person capable of taking on a rogue admin is another rogue admin, clearly.Nasrallah 22:55, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

admin request

Hi, I have a favor to ask for you. Another user, User:HappyApple reverted me four times today. If you have the time, could you take look at the situation for me? I'd like you to consider blocking him for 24 hours. The article is this: [4] According to my calculations, he reverted four times a set of copyedits I did at 11:23 this morning (he also edited anonymously for some reason). Part of the problem is that he is also refusing to adhere to a vote taken on the Pump regarding a naming issue. [5] I hate to bother you with this stuff but I feel he is going too far. If you are unable to help out, no problem. -- Viajero 19:47, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I realize your position. I wasn't aware of that page. All taken care of. All the best. Viajero 22:58, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Double votes ?

Sorry but your message about "double votes" is more than a tad confusing. I have 1 user account, and I don't post anonymously. --Centauri 08:24, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I was hoping you might actually want to explain what you're on about.--Centauri 08:41, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

So Gene_Poole used my account once and then reverted it. I think I've already pointed out elsewhere that I know him, and that he's helping me research a book I'm writing. Please check your facts and assume good faith before jumping to conclusions. --Centauri 08:55, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Master list of open proxies?

Hello Mirv. I found your list of open proxies, User:Mirv/Open proxies. I wonder if there is a list of all open proxies known to Wikipedia. Would that be your list or is there another one I should look at? Thanks a lot for any information. Regards & happy editing, Wile E. Heresiarch 06:44, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Palestinian cartoon

Hi Mirv. I thought you might be interested to know that (with not a single valid justification offered) the Image:Shark Palestine Caricature.jpg, formerly being used to illustrate a widespread opinion about the nature of the Arab-Israeli conflict, has been put up for deletion: Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion#April_1. - Mustafaa 09:58, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Template:Kurdistan Workers Party/Timeline

Hi "Mirv", I saw you in the history of some of User:Coolcat's template experiments; I've reworked what he was doing as subpages in his user space; there's a discussion on my talk page and I adjusted his notice on the village pump. The timeline is still a template and I thought I should give you a heads-up; it's still used by Kurdistan Workers Party which I'm not going to touch for now. — Davenbelle 06:26, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC) p.s. Feel free to bring that pear I mentioned.

Wikipedia talk:No original research

has a discussion going right now that you might be interested in. - Mustafaa 10:51, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

John Kerry Protection

It seems extremely POV to delete a quote of John Kerry that fully explains his position and replace it with a POV pushing summary before protecting the page. Please protect with the full quote. Symes 03:49, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)