User talk:ThuranX: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 23:34, 8 February 2007

Welcome!

THIS IS MY USER TALK. IF YOU VANDALIZE IT, I WILL REVERT THE VANDALISM. AS MANY TIMES AS IT TAKES. HITTING MY TALK WITH 'CEASE AND DESIST' VANDALISM WARNINGS FOR UNDOING YOUR BAD INFO, OR YOUR OWN VANDALISM, WILL ALSO BE REVERTED.

NEW COMMENTS GO AT THE BOTTOM.

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

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Dr Debug (Talk) 23:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Archives

70.232.140.196

Thanks. Not only is he NOT me, I've already reverted his bizarre little freakout essay. Thanks for being on the watch, I've already reported him to the admin who blocked his other IP. ThuranX 22:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It appears you've already beat me to the revert, and we edit conflicted... but i didnt' get the EdCon notice... anyways, he's gone way over 3RR on the Heroes page, pretending to be an NBC lawyer. We definitely need admin intervention. Cna you step in, or should I go to AIV? thank you. ThuranX 22:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked the IP address for some time to stop further disruption. Asterion^talk 22:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re. Marzipan. Yes, you are right. I should have clarified this to him/her. Thanks for helping out. Asterion^talk 22:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sock

Looks like Asterion already blocked him/her. What is the story with that IP? Ace Class Shadow (talk · contribs) is on my watchlist (because of the naming conventions ArbCom case) and his pages were hit a few times today. —Wknight94 (talk) 22:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I have semiprotected your user and talk pages. I will review this in a few days or as soon as you are confident there will be no more disruption. Hope this helps. Asterion^talk 22:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks B

I see you've really had my back this week, as usual. Thanks. I don't think I have much to worry about if I start to conduct mysekf more professionally. No more "Crazy ACS" for a while...*sigh*. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 00:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, good looking out. However, the user's edits aren't vandalism. In the strictest sense, it might be a content dispute, but I don't have any problem with using "silly" over "retarded". (Some people take issue with that kind of stuff.) Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 02:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User deleting links from references

Regarding 71.231.107.188 (talk · contribs), whose edits it appears you rolled back today because he was deleting a lot of dead links from pages' reference sections: I'm just wondering why it's such a problem that he was deleting dead links. Now what we have are a LOT of articles with dead links to yahoo news that he spent a lot of time deleting - there are few citations to be found, simply blue text that says "Yahoo news report" that leads to a 404 page. I totally understand the reasoning behind not deleting viable citations simply because the url no longer works, but it seems like what he was doing (at least, in the most recent edits) was valuable grunt work, and he was repaid by having his changes reversed wholesale. Thanks-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 06:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, there was an AN/I against him for his actions, so I'm not the only one who found his behavior odd. Second, he used misleading edit summaries. If you actually look, he dropped wikilinks, sentences, and so on. If he found a yahoo citation, and that was dead, he seems to have deleted the relevant information too. Further, Citations aren't supposed to be deleted just because the link location may have changed. there's more info on AN/I on this, I recommend taking a look there. ThuranX 06:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I came to this from AN/I - is there anything else besides the one user's request that someone block the IP? I did not notice the other changes the editor made to the articles, if that's true your reverts are more understandable, but my original question still stands. Is it bad to delete a dead link if all that gets deleted is that - a dead link, not a larger citation etc? Also, if the link is dead and the info is no longer accessible in any way (including any way that would be facilitated by having a full citation), is it such a problem to delete the text that depended on that link as its source? I don't have a particular feeling on this either way, I am just wondering. -Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 06:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check his talk, you'll see links to the FUTON bias pages. I recommend reading them. THe principle is that while the rapidly accessible links at yahoo.com and cnn.com may change, the story is still there. It's far more helpful to wikipedia for him to relink the citation to the correct story instead of use a bot to find dead yahoo.com links and remove them and associated context. I am also concerned because if his does this with Yahoo, he can nxt do it to any other site. We have no way of gauging this user's biases, either. How can we tell if he's doing this in a general, NPOV manner, merely hitting major news carriers, or if he next intends to hit CNN.com, The New Yorker's site, and then Mother Jones? or hitting links to The Economist, the WSJ, and FOX? Either way, this is an amazingly subtle and high volume way to subtly push an agenda of removing newslinks which may cater to, in writing style, some political leaning or other. By removing a link instead of relinking, he can simply remove a percieved potential bias. ThuranX 06:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I read all the relevant stuff, I don't comment on things if I don't know what's going on:) So, what you're saying is, when a link like this goes dead, the story is still there just at a different link, so what a user should do is fix the link rather than delete it. Is this always the case? Does yahoo news actually archive every news story that ever passes across its voluminous pages? Also, I am somewhat skeptical of the claim that this might be political POV pushing, as we should assume good faith of this user (although if he is using truly misleading edit summaries, that's not in his favor.)--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 07:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I admitted already that I can't be sure he's doing anything wrong; that it's the potential for anyone to misuse this behavior which concerns me. I certainly think he's doing this in good faith; but the next person? Finally, I think that even if the yahoo story's been lost, most of them are from the AP, UPI, Reuters, and the other wire services, and can be found elsewhere. It's slower going, but if the editor doesn't want to do it, the article's context provides enough for a reader to search for the article in question. removing the citation instead means that any such info in the article can be removed as lacking citation, another way in for POV. It is far better to leave a citation in, to demonstrate that the item was cited at one point, and other editors should AGF about the cite, and work to replace it. Again, look at the user's talk page. I'm not the only one concerned abou this. ThuranX 16:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Goldsmith

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Mary Goldsmith, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at its talk page. Removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, but the article may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. Carabinieri 23:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Ford

Thanks yr msg. Is there grounds for commencing an arbitration proceeding? This is a longstanding problem. Also you should lodge a 3RR if warranted. I saw in an edit summary a threat to do so. Don't threaten. Do it. --Mantanmoreland 15:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yikes! sorry for posting in wrong spot. You should get an e-mail address, by the way.--Mantanmoreland 17:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I probably should, but I geek out enough on WP as it is. Getting Email updates about it would probably incapacitate me, LOL. As for the 3RR, I decided that giving him the opportunity to self-revert something which is a borderline situation would be better than running for an admin. Unfortunately, he doesn't seem interested in working with anyone, and as you may recall, he wasn't interested last time he tried this either.ThuranX 18:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's easy to add an email address, and I highly recommend it. As for Henry, I went back to the page and I see that the identical battles as previously are being refought. Given the protracted nature of this thing, you really have to follow the rules and go step-by-step in the dispute res process. --Mantanmoreland 18:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not worth it. Things like this make me stick to simple articles on Wikipedia. I'm wasting my day off arguing with a neo-nazi about whether or not Henry Ford was or wasn't one of many influences on Hitler, which he admits over and over in talk but seeks to remove from the article. The less I have to deal with him, the better, and I've already walked away from it. I'm tired of it. He won't reply with answers, he just deliberately misreads everything said to him, picks the best way to make it a fight, and goes with it. I've already stated there that I won't waste any more time with it. ThuranX 18:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Might be better to stick it through for a short while, as other outside editors take a look at it.--Mantanmoreland 19:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

there are no other editors looking at it. He's making personal attacks and gettign away with it. I'm tired of it. ThuranX 19:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that does not help his case. What makes you say other editors aren't looking at it? I am.--Mantanmoreland 19:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've left him a final warning, revert or strikethrough, or else be reported. He hasn't replied. We'll see. As for who is and is not watching, no one other than BenBurch, an account under investigation for sockpuppetry, are opposing him. I'm tired, and have work to do. I'm out. we'll see what happens. ThuranX 20:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Myspace

I've been dealing with the blog.myspace.com issue as of late. One citation (Jon Favreau's Myspace blog) was removed from Iron Man, and when I restored it, I found myself discussing the issue with Wizardry Dragon. He's currently up for RfA now, and there's some brief discussion about the blog.myspace.com issue. Apparently, Raul654 added it to the spam blacklist, so I've contacted him to see what this was about, as some Myspace blogs are valid for usage. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 05:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yeah, regretably, apparently, Jimbo Wales decided MySpace is out. When the owner says no, you can't argue. First evidence of the 'cabal' I've ever actually seen. I've asked about a way to appeal this, in light of the magazines discussing Piven and Story's intent to involve fans. I'm hoping that demonstrating that these two blogs, at least, contain enough valid content to be worth ban waivers or just a reversal. MySpace is too big and complicated to use a blanket yes/no. I'm hoping that there may be SOME way to introduce a discussion, but on the other hand, it might just get me permabanned for arguing with Jimbo. ThuranX 05:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After talking to Raul654 (see User talk:Raul654#Myspace), he's recommended having an admin add valid Myspace blogs to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. Know any admins that are helpful with film articles? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 05:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've requested the action of him. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 05:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any idea who the admin was? I wouldn't mind chewing his ear off. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if Chris had added it yet. I don't see anything in the history, but I don't understand how we were able to re-add the link on a couple of occasions if it was still blacklisted. I've pointed him to a SuperHeroHype.com citation confirming the validity of the blog. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Kosher

LOL, sorry. That's a good one though. I don't think I would have thought of that, at least not in that terminology. Kudos for extra thought. Bignole 04:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Genealogy wikis

Hello. Mindful of your recent attempts to weed out links to mostly small one-family wikis, I thought I'd better tell you that I believe the Genealogy Wikia deserves to be listed. In view of something above, I won't bother appealing to your loyalty to Jimbo (Wikia chief) - but maybe the fact that the one-and-only Angela is Vice-President may convince you that that wiki isn't rubbish.

Robin Patterson 00:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC) in Wellington[reply]

Spidey

Can you take a look at the Plot section at Spider-Man and see if there's anything that needs to be cleared up? Your insight would be appreciated. Thanks! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, per Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines#Plot, it's at the ideal length of about 600 words. And for the bits of information that you mentioned, they probably don't quite belong in Reception. I've been trying to expand the Production section (pretty much done with Development), and Bignole's got some Reception and Costume stuff in his sandbox. I've been working my way backwards using an array of sources -- IGN, Access World News, Comics2Film. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate Link Removal

I added the link on the Furniture article to the Dmoz.org directory on Furniture. You deleted the external link calling it "commercial". I am not sure if you are not aware of what Dmoz is what? Dmoz is not a commercial webiste at all, it is the first man-made durectory of web links. There are over 1,400 articles on Wikipedia that link to the Dmoz Directory. Please see Open Directory Project for more information about Dmoz and the Open Directory Project. Please make sure that know what you are deleting before making such hasteful edits on Wikipedia. I am going to go add the link again now and please leave it alone this time. Eric 23:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A giant listing of all the places tht keep self-adding to the Furniture page, woo hoo! No, it's gone. it's a commercial spam link, plain and simple. every site on there is a place to buy stuff. that's commercial. It lacks any useful informational pages. A link should build on a page's topic, not take a reader where they can spend money on it. ThuranX 00:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the tag because it was put in by a unnamed user who is doing it to other ones that I believe still have references. Brian Boru is awesome 19:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling!

Thanks for the advice! it was appriciated.--Vintagekits 21:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment solicited

Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/BenBurch

Thanks! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BenBurch (talk • contribs) 22:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

"Rampant deletionism"

Your use of this phrase on the adminstrator's notice board toes the very thin line between expressing a viewpoint with passion and a personal attack. Since it appears that the offer was made in otherwise good faith, can I get you to redact? - brenneman 05:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Argh! Sorry mate, I was clearly not very clear there: I just mean that single phrase should be redacted! Yes, good thing, extending hands across water, etc... I apologise without preveraication for my thick tongue. I just didn't wnt someone to latch onto those two owrds and miss the larger point. - brenneman 05:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not REinserting it. No desire to look like a fool. I did as an admin asked, end of story. ThuranX 05:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Hello?....McFly..anybody in there?

Yeah, I was loosely following what was going on, and I got a good deal by looking at other people's (including McFly's) contributions to better understand what was going on. I saw where he was reverting you and claiming that it was a double standard, and I went back and saw his original post. It seems that he's now just picking a fight over something very small. I reverted him earlier and left a warning on his talk page. If he continues, I would suggest seeking an admin for his disruptive behavior. That, or just deciding to let him delete it, thus eliminating him from future equations (hopefully). He may think that he has won the battle, but I think that's better than all of us falling prey to his little game any longer. Just a thought. Bignole 23:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Ford

Thank you for your diligence regarding this article. The editor in question has a notable whitewashing POV. He and I have discussed some of his edits in Ford's talk page previously and reached some compromises - compromises he unilaterally broke with the edit you reverted. Feel free to call on me any time you need assistance reviewing this editor's contributions. Rklawton 15:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto (re your note on my Talk page).--Mantanmoreland 16:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whoopsie!!!

I used the undo function... It must be broken... --BenBurch 22:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thank you

Re my note at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#tried to discuss apparent personal attacks, editor dismissive, it appears no one else cares (as of this timestamp), or nobody wants any part of it. Thank you for at least taking it seriously. I try to talk to this user and I just get it thrown back in my face: "proof of concept." What would you do? Do you think I'm overreacting by asking for input at AN/I? I'm signing off for the night. I hope I'll catch you later. Peace, — coelacan talk — 04:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Home furnishing franchise

Thanks for the feedback. I edited the rankings section to make it sound more neutral. Jetsetta14 16:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to expand the article a bit more. One question, I used Warehouse club as a reference and noticed that that article gives specific history and company examples. Could you explain why that is acceptable in that instance? Thanks! Jetsetta14 16:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

68.166.69.245 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

if you look at the Gorilla page, you'll see he relogged in, and redid the edits. As his actual point, not his point, was at least worth discussion, I'm going to let the edit stand under AGF, but I felt it right to make you aware of his avoidance of the block. If you feel that because of his behaviors, the edit should be reverted, I understand and will not revert that. I felt that in the interest of not escalating, letting the edit stand till the section can be properly reworked was a reasonable compromise for now, and I will make a new section later tonight. ThuranX 00:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up. If you feel that the situation can be managed in this way then I will leave it with you, as I am going off-shift now. Regards, (aeropagitica) 00:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RfAr

You have been listed as one of the involved parties in a case against Philwelch. Please follow the link above. Best regards, — Nearly Headless Nick 14:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, ThuranX. I appreciate the fact that you don't wish to be involved in the Arbitration request mentioned above, but I've reverted your removal of the (brief) mention of your name in the request. Statements by other users should not be altered by others; likewise, the links to you as an "involved party" should not be removed. This does not mean that you are officially an "involved party": it simply means that you were mentioned in the initial case request and were notified as a courtesy. If the case is accepted, you are not obligated to participate at all, and from my understanding of the case, I do not think that it will center around you or your actions at all. Thanks for your understanding. Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Philwelch

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Philwelch. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Philwelch/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Philwelch/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher131 12:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Location Maps

On the WikiProject Countries talk page, you had either explictly declared a general interest in the project, or had participated at a discussion that appears related to Location Maps for European countries.
New maps had been created by David Liuzzo, and are available for the countries of the European continent, and for countries of the European Union exist in two versions. From November 16, 2006 till January 31, 2007, a poll had tried to find a consensus for usage of 'old' or of which and where 'new' version maps. At its closing, 25 people had spoken in favor of either of the two presented usages of new versions but neither version had reached a consensus (12 and 13), and 18 had preferred old maps.
As this outcome cannot justify reverting of new maps that had become used for some countries, seconds before February 5, 2007 a survey started that will be closed at February 20, 2007 23:59:59. It should establish whether the new style maps may be applied as soon as some might become available for countries outside the European continent (or such to depend on future discussions), and also which new version should be applied for which countries.
Please note that since January 1, 2007 all new maps became updated by David Liuzzo (including a world locator, enlarged cut-out for small countries) and as of February 4, 2007 the restricted licence that had jeopardized their availability on Wikimedia Commons, became more free. The subsections on the talk page that had shown David Liuzzo's original maps, now show his most recent design.
Please read the discussion (also in other sections α, β, γ, δ, ε, ζ, η, θ) and in particular the arguments offered by the forementioned poll, while realizing some comments to have been made prior to updating the maps, and all prior to modifying the licences, before carefully reading the presentation of the currently open survey. You are invited to only then finally make up your mind and vote for only one option.
There mustnot be 'oppose' votes; if none of the options would be appreciated, you could vote for the option you might with some effort find least difficult to live with - rather like elections only allowing to vote for one of several candidates. Obviously, you are most welcome to leave a brief argumentation with your vote. Kind regards. — SomeHuman 7 Feb 2007 20:39 (UTC)

Your changes to Hindu Fundamentalism

In India there is one and only one group of Hindu Fundamentalists represented by the Sangh Parivar and its ideology of hatred called Hindutva - a group of editors has tried to base this article on Hindutva purely on indegenous sources that are not critical of Hindutva and tries to portray it as a social movement Read these newspapers Reseacrhes [1][2].Neptunion 00:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phunbot

Thanks for asking me to take a fresh look at what Phunbot has been trying to accomplish on the Ra's al Ghul page. We'll see how that goes. Doczilla 05:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Problem?

Why did you revert my edit?

You said I engaged in speculation, what speculation? The process wasn't reversed, I have seen the show and even can give a link to it. In the show the process was not reversed, all that happens is Superman for an unknown reason gains his power back afterwards. So there is no speculation. Now if I said that the process was probably reversed by the destruction of the staff or the process was temporary due to it not being complete as the process was stopped before completion because of Batman's interference that be speculation or rather more an educated guess by me as I actually watched the show unlike you and if you have watched the show then how can you revert it as you know the revert isn't true.

As for my poor grammar, that can happen from time to time to anyone and besides I have seen you misspell in practically all your comments to me in the talk page so why are you talking about such a subject when you do it to. Besides I thinking attacking someones grammar especially when they have done the real contributing to the article is a bit rude, childish and mean. Pick either, they all fit. I mean we all make mistakes and if you have a problem with the grammar correct it, don't start insulting people. Now if I misspelled every other word in all my edits I could see you making a comment but making a rude comment about one sentence out of the hundreds I have done so far on wiki is rude.

So I am going to revert it back as I watched the show and actually know what I am talking about. Be happy I now don't do nicely detailed statements when it comes to sections like that and do it simple like you.

Also since I am the one who made the original contribution that you keep reverting my edits back to, I think I have some say in its content and when I did make that first edit afterward I actually watched the episode and then amended it make it correct which is why I got rid of the whole thing about it being reversed.

You can continue to revert it back but reverting it would be wrong as what you revert it to is wrong and since your big in having no speculation and big on facts I think its a bit peculiar for you to be purposely revert edits made by others that our correct to something you've been told by someone with facts backing them up that is wrong. I got over this whole Ra's debacle, how about you try to so we can move on and so I can actually go back to contributing as I haven't done anymore so far as I keep having to go back and forth to this article leaving me no time to contribute.

P.S. In my edit description I did say it wasn't reversed which means you completely ignored that as well of course all the stuff I said in the talk page about my edits being accurate as I watched the shows and didn't just come into an article like you and just edit stuff without any facts to base your edits on unlike me. Phunbot 22:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hinnen

At this point I don't care if they ban me or block me. Hinnen has been so mega-uncivil and mega-dispuptive that he has made this simply not-fun for me here. I cannot imagine why he is allowed to continue like this. And this wikistalking thing! Hell yes I said bring it on. I can think of no other way to force him to get the attention of enough admins to finally get one of them to deal with him. --BenBurch 23:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 184: / Line 184: @@
 '''P.S.''' In my edit description I did say it wasn't reversed which means you completely ignored that as well of course all the stuff I said in the talk page about my edits being accurate as I watched the shows and didn't just come into an article like you and just edit stuff without any facts to base your edits on unlike me.
 [[User:Phunbot|Phunbot]] 22:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
+== Hinnen ==
+At this point I don't care if they ban me or block me.  Hinnen has been so mega-uncivil and mega-dispuptive that he has made this simply not-fun for me here.  I cannot imagine why he is allowed to continue like this.  And this wikistalking thing!  Hell yes I said bring it on.  I can think of no other way to force him to get the attention of enough admins to finally get one of them to deal with him. --[[User:BenBurch|BenBurch]] 23:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)