This is the talk page of Peter M Dodge. I respond to all comments here, as it becomes difficult to keep up with the volume otherwise; if I believe immediate notice is necessary, I may copy the response to your talk page.
Be sure your request belongs here; most routine requests dealing with permissions (admin, bureaucrat, checkuser stuff) should go to a noticeboard rather than an individual talk page. See the links in the toolbox below. Disputes between editors, especially content disputes, belong in formal dispute resolution, not here; if you raise them here, I'm just going to say "I don't get involved" and send you to dispute resolution, so save time and head there now.
If you left a comment and didn't get a response from me, ninety-nine times out of one hundred, I was busy and forgot to answer; poke me, and I'll be sure to do it. However, if you left a comment that you expected would elicit an angry response, and instead received no response, then I probably didn't forget, I just didn't respond. I reserve the right to archive personal attacks, incivility, or canvassing separately and immediately. Severe instances may simply be deleted.
Others are encouraged to help out and respond to posts here. Plenty of angry and clueless posts find their way here, and to my email; in the vast majority, I find that the writer has misunderstood some difficult aspect of Wikipedia. Though I may seem to have everything under control, I appreciate having others help out and back me up.
If you are here to ask about something, or ask for something, please be clear about the context of your request. If you have concerns or wish to as for something in regards to cases being overseen by the Mediation Committee or Arbitration Committee, or about a request for checkuser, please specify.
I'm kinda sorta maybe editing Wikipedia again, but I am by no means an active Wikipedia editor. Please be patient waiting for a response to your posts.
There has been a lot of canvassing here over ArbCom decisions, RfAs, AfDs, and the like. Canvassing is bad and very un-wiki. In fact, it states right in WP:SPAM:
“
The Arbitration Committee has ruled that "[t]he occasional light use of cross-posting to talk pages is part of Wikipedia's common practice. However, excessive cross-posting goes against current Wikipedia community norms. In a broader context, it is unwiki. "1. Wikipedia editors are therefore not to engage in aggressive cross-posting in order to influence votes, discussions, requests for adminship, requests for comment, etc.
”
Regarding VandalProof: If you're here to post a message about a warning that has been left on your userpage or an edit summary attributes the wrong user, there's no need, it's a bug in the software that is under investigation over at WP:VP2. Just remove the warning from your userpage (but leave an Edit Summary explaining why) and all will once again be well with the world.
Do not, under any circumstances, remove posts from this page without my permission. Non-vandalism posts, regardless of merit, should not be removed or reverted; anyone observing the removal of information from this page by anyone other than myself should blanket revert on sight.
For all those that participated in my RFA - your opinions were much respected and appreciated. I withdrew after a day because the harassment of the oppose !voters was simply unacceptable to me, and against my wiki philosophy. In shorter words, it was unwiki. If the community feels I would make a good administrator a couple months or so in the future, I will reconsider then.
Don't worry - I'm not here for another fight :P just to thank you for the spelling fix you made - in answer to your edit summary, no I don't mind - in fact, I'd a thousand times over rather you did fix it than didn't. Kind regards, Anthonycfc[T • C] 16:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't doubt your intentions, myself, Durin - but there is a saying my friend Hannah used to say often - "the road to hell is paved with good intentions." The fact that you've been told you're doing something wrong, and want to argue instead of correcting yourself, well that worries me. People make mistakes - it's human nature. All you need to say is "okay, I'll keep that in mind," and move on. This is only a big issue if you two choose to make it one. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 16:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Did I make a mistake? No. Why? Because it was apparent from the track record (as I cited earlier on Essjay's talk page) at WP:CHU that denying requests for low edit counts was routine and maintained by several bureaucrats. Nevertheless, Essjay assaulted me for it and made rank accusations against me. If I were to now suggest someone be denied their request due to low edit counts, that would be a mistake. I have already acknowledged and agreed with Essjay's stance on the low edit count situation. Accusing people of nefarious intent and editcountitis (as Essjay did) is not a good way to get people to say "Okay, I'll keep that in mind". --Durin 17:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
First of all, Me != Essjay. Second off, this and this may be good reading. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 17:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I of course know you are not Essjay. I made an error on his talk page thinking I was responding to him when it was you and already corrected it by drawing the conversation over here. I find this discussion among all of us rather silly to be honest. There's blatant evidence that low edit counts have been a routine reason for WP:CHU denials. Essjay's now current stance against this rule of thumb makes perfect sense, and I agree with it. But, it is not stated anywhere at WP:CHU. I operated on my observance of WP:CHU over time and my understanding of how bureaucrats handled such requests. Essjay came along and insulted me for it and you expect me to acknowledge I made a mistake when there's nothing published anywhere that I've read to show that I made a mistake at the time I made the statements. As I said above, if I were now to make such statements it would be a mistake since I agree with Essjay's stance. I'm sorry you find my disputing someone else's incivility as uncivil itself. If you can point to what specifically was uncivil in my comments I'd be happy to make amends for it. --Durin 17:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Essjay was hardly uncivil, although we can both agree he made some fairly chafing accusations. However, as I said in my comment, it's only a big issue if you and he choose to make it one, otherwise it's just something to remember in the future. Just, keep in mind that Essjay rarely speaks out about things, and only does so when it really bothers him, so he was not doing what he did to merely be malicious or mean. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 17:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
And I rarely take actions that affect users without doing my homework, understanding the policies behind those actions and making sure that what I am doing is the accepted norm. I did all of that before making even my first comment to a user at WP:CHU. I don't run off half-cocked shouting "yeeee hawwww!" and willy nilly take issue with people who happen to have low edit counts. Wanna join me for lunch here? :-) I'm half tempted to make a caricature of myself as a pencil necked geek hunched over a keyboard saying "ah HA! ANOTHER LOW EDIT COUNT USER!!! FILTH! PWNED!!!!!" This, of course, is hardly me but seems like the vision Essjay has of me. :-) --Durin 18:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Could you put a link to the archived community ban discussion on User:MyWikiBiz's main or talk page? I've got a case where I think the right action is to overturn a prod, block a user a ban evading sock puppet, and delete under G4, but I can't find the ban discussion itself. See ANI note and the links therein. GRBerry 17:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
The link you want is Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive72#User:JossBuckle_Swami - you might have to scroll a little. I was the one that proposed the ban, and consensus was "we thought he was already banned?" that is to say, they thought it was common sense such a disruptive editor should be banned :-) Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 20:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
User:Peter M Dodge/Userboxes/AGF has been proposed for deletion (Feb 4 templates for deletion). It has no incoming links, but it's in your userspace. I would guess that the deletion will be denied because this page is in your userspace. If you want it deleted, however, this would be a good time to suggest it happen. Take care. - grubber 18:05, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Delete away. I don't particularly want it deleted, but I don't really care, either :-) ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 20:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm the one who started this intrusion. My only beef with your template is that it includes itself in Category:Wikipedia related user templates but is a repeat of {{User AGF}}. The simplest solution would be to comment out the category statement. What do you think? Urhixidur 20:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
For being attacked by just fucking everybody, and yet finding another snarky remark to put them back in their places, I award you my personal Flamestar of Insolence.
Hey there; please please do not take this the incorrect way at all - but, just out of interest, you weren't enquiring about my userpage (located above) where you?
As I said, I am just enquiring - it was quite mysterious :P hoping you are well; also, I don't think you got my reply, so yes - I also have bipolar type I (Manic Depression, although it's not been called that in years :)
Kindest regards, Anthonycfc[T • C] 00:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand what you're asking about. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 00:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Okay; thanks a lot for your reply - just covering all my bases. The matter's resolved anyway. I hope I've not offended you in anyway. Yours, Anthonycfc[T • C] 17:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Post script: just out of interest, why do you use bullet points "*" rather than indents "colon (:)" for your replies? Anthonycfc[T • C] 17:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
It makes the reply stand out more. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 19:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
:P good idea; I would like to enquire on your opinion on my suitability to participate in the role of Requests for CheckUser clerk? I do feel that there is room for new clerks acting in the 'stead of inactive clerks? I value your opinion, and I have come to respect you as a Wikipedian, and I would appreciate a honest answer rather than a false one. Awaiting your reply; kind regards, Anthonycfc[T • C] 19:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
There currently isn't a need for RFCU clerks, which is why you're on the standby list. When the time comes that we need one, you as well as the other people on the list will be evaluated. It's Bryant and Essjay that makes those determinations, so if you're curious, they are the ones to ask for guidance from. I'm just a mere clerk :3 Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 19:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Also, I've inserted a fresh image at your Userpage Icons page, as the old IRC-link image was deleted. I don't know if this icon is suitable, but it does (IMHO) look better than a redlink. here's a diff if your wondering about the code change. Cheers, Anthonycfc[T • C] 19:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Peter, for the clarification. I suspected something like that must have been going on because it made absolutely no sense otherwise. I wish they wouldn't do that. RfA is brutal and they shouldn't put people through it unless they think the person has a decent chance of passing and the reality of RfA these days is someone with less than 400 edits has no chance of passing. I hope they think carefully before pulling something like that again. Take care, Peter. Sarah 18:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm sorry if I'm intruding, but Peter's page is on my watchlist and I would like both of your opinions on this matter. I've been thinking of proposing a change to the RfA page text because over the past year, I've observed quite a few unsuccessful RfAs by well-meaning people who don't seem to realise what they are getting into. It makes me feel sorry for these editors who may be wonderful people but who stand little chance of succeeding in an RfA at the current time due to their inexperience.
The RfA process is harsh, and I think unavoidably so, because candidates have to undergo such scrutiny and face criticism by people they've never met. Perhaps with some changes to the RfA explanatory text, lesser-experienced Wikipedians will be better able to understand the process and judge whether or not to proceed, and hopefully spare themselves from undue stress. Again, I'd welcome both your comments. --Kyoko 18:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I hardly had a chance of passing my own RFA, and that was with ten times the number of edits Somitho had. Somitho knew what he was getting into, hence the comment about editcountitis. I think it showed a bit of a lack of respect for Wikipedia and the process to try when he knew he wouldn't have a snowball's chance in hell of passing, but that's just my opinion. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 18:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
MM, I don't know if Somitho was disrespectful of Wikipedia. It's simply a matter of people who think he would be a good admin telling him to try. RfA can be trying, and difficult, but ultimately (to me) it's up to the person running if they honestly feel they can handle the job. I didn't vote on it since I wasn't sure, and I tend not to vote on RfA's where I can't get a good handle on how I think the person would perform. Kyoko's idea is a very good one. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 19:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I've noticed at least 5 or 10 very inexperienced RfA candidates during my time on Wikipedia, so this is not solely in response to Somitho. If you are very curious, I once stumbled upon a user whose very first edit was an RfA request. I don't even remember who it was.
This is the proposed addition that I came up with. I might post this on Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship after getting feedback from all of you.
"Because the position of administrator is not a right but rather a privilege granted by the community to users it trusts, candidates for administrator should be advised that their record of contributions will undergo intense scrutiny. Such candidates should be prepared to receive criticism. Likewise, all participants in the requests for adminship process should adhere to WP:CIVIL regardless of their choice to support, oppose, or remain neutral."
I still think the text could use some modification, especially in making clear the need for experience, but at the same time, I don't want to turn this into "gaming the system". --Kyoko 20:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
You tell me why I should not return this edit to elaragirls talk page. What is your rationale here? You can't just decide what should and should not stay on another users talk page when there are no grounds for its removal. David D.(Talk) 20:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
They've been harassing several editors, of which Elara is one. Harassment is against the code of conduct and is not tolerated. Posts containing clear harassment are usually reverted or removed on sight, sometimes even the diffs deleted and in extreme cases even oversighted. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 20:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Just noticed this in passing. The edit summary is a borderline threat "I can tell right now, you're going to either be a real peach or a real pain in my ass. Let's hope (for both our sakes) you don't piss me off.". Flameviper sadly has a history of making rash, unwise edits which he later regrets, removing the post is doing everybody a favour. -- Heligoland 20:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
No, the edit summary for the deleted material was no personal attacks (see the diff above for the removed material). The content was a link to elaragirl making personal attacks. That she fell for the bait is unfortunate but it is a fair comment. As far as I am concerned there is no clear harrassment in the post that was removed. I am sure this user will be banned but there is no reason to go around editing others comments when there is no good reason. Peter, it was this very thing that introduiced me to you in the first place. You do it way to much. It can be counter productive. You are becoming judge and jury and personalising this to an extent that is not healthy. Let those who are uninvolved sort it out. Elaragirl can clearly defend hereself she does not need a bulldog. David D.(Talk) 20:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I'll go whereever the hell I please, to be honest. Get a clue, please, or you'll join Flameviper. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 20:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
The above post just clarifys the point I made below. David D.(Talk) 20:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
If you had wanted to remove the actual attack it would have been the following edit. The content of the post you chose to remove was a link to elaragirl making personal attacks. I am curious why you left the actual personal attack from the troll while removing a diff showing that elaragirl had made a personal attack? Your sense of judgement seems to be swayed by your frustration and anger. Of course you'll disagree with this observation but leaving such fight to those not personally involved is always the better route. David D.(Talk) 20:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Honestly, get a clue. I can do whatever I feel on Wikipedia so long as I follow the guidelines. As can you. So get a clue; stop it. I am a grown man and can make my own damn choices. I do not need you telling me what I should do. Don't. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 20:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Peter, you're disruptively removing a post (not yours) from a talk page (not yours). This is disruptive and intrusive, please don't do it. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Please stop, Peter. I'm already tired of seeing edit wars on user:Elaragirl's talk page, and you've been involved in several of them. There is no reason for you to be removing talk page comments from a talk page which is not yours. You can help show your support of Elaragirl in other ways; you don't need to obsessively remove any comment on her talk page that you don't agree with, and you've been doing this for a while. The example you removed was not a personal attack, and did not need to be removed. Please leave other users' talk pages alone and go back to editing the encyclopedia. If you do not plan to edit the encyclopedia, as your userpage suggests, you don't need to be editing talk pages either. Firsfron of Ronchester 20:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
If people treated Elara with respect, there wouldn't be a problem. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 21:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Just FYI, I actually agree with you strongly about being wary of COI, and realize that others feel strongly about it too (which is why I put it so prominently in my acceptance message; I don't want anyone to think I try to hide my mistakes). Did want to ensure that you understand that this was a while back and a learning experience. I don't go anywhere near that sort of thing now, and having made the mistake in the past and been corrected on it, I think I can detect it pretty well. I'd be happy to answer any questions (here, there or otherwise) you might have about this or any other issue. :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib]ツ 23:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Not at all. I respect you greatly for "owning up" to your mistakes, I just feel it's too recent an incident and there's been no strong evidence to show you've learned from it yet. Give some time to show that you have, and I'll support you in the future. Do this well, and I may even consider nominating you again myself. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 23:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi Peter, I wonder if you might be able to help with a rather silly editor who keeps putting some unusual information into Professor_Richard_J._Finlay - probably one of his professors (although the editor claims to be the man himself.... This seems a bit of a sensitive wiki issue, and i don't really know the best way to report or deal with it, so i thought i'd ask you! Cheers, Purples 00:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I was bold and fixed it up as well as I can. Let us see if my fixes stick. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 00:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi Peter, You left a remark on Eagle101's page about nofollow. The most recent public statement by Jimbo (admittedly 2005 on a mailing list) and the debates on Meta and WP all seem to indicate this is the eventual way forward. SO do you have a better idea? At present we bypass nofollow for a huge list of sites (many spammy) via the interwiki list, which includes many non-wikis of course. --BozMotalk 07:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Currently the only thing that's bypassed (somewhat controversially) is Wikia. I don't personally think anything should bypass it. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an advertising venue. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 22:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm responding here to your comments on essjay's talk page because i thought it was a more appropriate place for us to chat...
You certainly made some forthright comments, and I hope you appreciate that i don't agree with them. I also feel that its very poor form to mention words like 'personal attacks', 'harrassment', and 'ad hominem' without being sure. You are wrong on this issue, and I think i deserve an explanation for why you are being so mean to me. It's jolly rude to tell someone to get a clue.
I wanted to mention something to essjay, so i put it on his talk page - i think this issue is important enough to be conducted openly on the wiki, and i don't think it's impolite to do so - i think we agree?
Looking at the whole conversation, I realised that it might seem that a bunch of people had just shown up on his talk page and were talking about him - which i apologised for.
What everyone seems to agree on is that the New Yorker printed something they were told as fact by Essjay, which turned out to be a lie.
I'm concerned about this, and it's wrong to shout me down by being mean and telling me i'm stupid.
Well, in my opinion it's the publications own fault if they didn't check up on the facts they were publishing as fact were true. Essjay's reason for fabricating these "credentials" (and in fact not even the New Yorker called them that) was simple, and in my opinion, understandable, due to his position on Wikipedia, he has several people who stalk him in real life. Brandt and the like. As such, he made up these details to astound those that would seek to harass him in real life, although it didn't always work - his priest and other people related to him have received calls from these people. He's "lied" as he has only to protect those in real life he cares about, and to me that's completely understandable. You'd know this if you read his last archive before commenting, and I really feel that crucifying him over it is morally bankrupt. That may not have been your intention, and I doubt it was, but I used as strong a language as I did in my comment to get the point across, as I did not feel you were "getting it." Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 17:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for the misconception, but that comment was about the content! XD Sonic fans keep on adding pointless "family" lists to the articles, and I likewise remove them as they're pointless listcruft. Sorry for the harsh words ^^'GrandMasterGalvatron 19:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
As long as you don't repeat it, it's fine. There are standards for civility and a code of conduct on Wikipedia. Occasional lapses happen to the best of us, but repeated misbehaviour tends to get dealt with harshly. Just make sure it's the former and not the latter and you will be okay. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 21:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Wow, if 2 users had not sent me an email (which I found just today) I would never have known that you thought I was a sockpuppet of Lee Nysted. I guess in the future I will be more careful who I choose to disagree with. --Bill W. Smith, Jr. (talk/contribs) 13:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I guess we've never met; I'm Willow. I see that you've been despondent lately, and with good reason; please accept my sympathies and my best wishes for recovery!
I'm writing to ask whether you might be able to clarify your opposition to Tim Vickers on his RfA. I'm perfectly willing to believe that there are many differing viewpoints of his character and of the proper role of an admin, and your views should definitely be heard and appreciated. I think Tim also is the kind of person who would appreciate hearing constructive criticism to help make him a better person; indeed, he might value it more than praise, since it would teach him more. Your input would be valued; please be so good as to give us the benefit of your perspective.
Thanks muchly, Willow 20:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
P.S. This is a nifty Talk interface; how does it work?
I don't see what him being a scot has to do with it. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 21:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
My apologies, there was no disrespect intended, especially given that so many of my own ancestors were Scots. It's just that being Scottish seemed important to you, so I thought I might appeal to you to help your countryman understand your opposition to him. If that doesn't make sense, the fault lies with me. Regardless of my own shortcomings, please let me conjure you again to help us to understand you by clarifying your comments at Tim's RfA — thanks! Willow 21:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
You may have missed my request at the ArbCom discussions - so I thought I would ask here, away from these heated discussions. For the sake of making me a better Wikipedian I would really like to know what Policy and in particular what ArbCom precedents mean that would should take into account how far a user has been pushed with respect to their subsequent conduct. Thanks in advance.
I don't think it's very fair to say that i'm disrupting, without saying how at all. It also clouds the discussion. Would you mind if we bring the conversation between us here, to avoid clutter? I'd think it polite of you to move your comment here.
I have concerns, and have raised them with essjay - I don't think that's disruptive at all. We can continue here if you'd like.... Purples 00:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
That is the third time you have revived that discussion, and you have been told by multiple parties including several administrators that this is disruptive. If you do not cease, you may be blocked for disruption. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 01:26, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Why do you have to reach for the blocking threat? I don't think it's called for at all - I have serious concerns, and am trying to raise them in as nice and quiet a way as i can. Can you genuinely not conceive that someone could have a good faith problem with the behaviour mentioned? I understand that it doesn't bother you, but i don't think that's simply the end of the line. Cheers, Purples 02:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate your comments that her actions are a personal attack WP:NPA. But, how do I make her stop?DPetersontalk 23:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Just ignore her, if she continues, an administrator will block her. Don't give her any reason to feel justified by responding. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 23:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
OK, I will continue to ignore her and not respond. I will do my best to Assume Good Faith. Thank you for taking the time to respond to me. I really do appreciate it. DPetersontalk 23:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Peter, I just wanted to thank you for your input on my RfA, which was successful with a final tally of 61/0/2. You said that you found that something about me gave you a bad feeling. It is my hope that I'll be able to assuage that through my conduct as an administrator. If you have any comments about my use of the tools I would be glad to hear from you on my talk page. Thanks again for your comments. Heimstern Läufer
In my past dealings with Grace E. Dougle they have been overly vexatious and incivil, so it seems par for the course, so to speak. That is a quote by you, from an administrators noticeboard. You are obviously confusing me with someone (It would be helpful to know the name of the user you are confusing me with). If not, I wonder where we have talked to each other? I do not remember your name. You are confusing me, right? --Grace E. Dougle 14:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Also, the singular they is an insult. I am leaving the project and you are forgiven, have a nice live.--Grace E. Dougle 17:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Peter. I write this message to you, because I saw (at least I think so) that you were working on this subject.
Today I've discovered that a user PaxEquilibrium has requested a checkuser's service regarding me.
In his "explanation", he said some things, that are not truth and some are misinterpretations; alltogether, all written things are an attempt to discredit me.
To shorten (all cited words are from request for checkuser):
expression "GreaterSerbian propaganda" is very often said and written in Croatian media. I'm not the first, neither the last Croat (neither Bosniak) that'll use that expression. It's not rare. Type on Google those words ("velikosrpska propaganda"; multiply with forms in singular in plural, times 7 grammar cases). Search en.wiki and see how many times that expression was used.
Boycotting of PaxEquilibrium. Do I have to make a reply to him every time he floods me with his remarks? No. I don't want to talk with him. That's taking my time, neither I have a obligation to answer. That's not the reason to accuse me. I did removed his posts, because I hoped that he'll finally get the message and leave me alone. If he's alone in his life, and has nobody to talk to, I'm not here to make him company.
Syrmia. There was misinterpretation here. I redirected [2]the article from the form Srem (Serbian form) to Syrmia, an international, neutral nameform (I haven't insisted on Croatian form). That change was reverted by Panonian. At the same time, the article Szerem existed (Hungarian name for Syrmia). Then I had a discussion with Joy (see Joy's and mine talk page). Joy said "why Syrmia is not good choice". But... finally, the articlename came to the form which I proposed at the beginning, but Pax never mentioned it in his accusation. It is much easier to throw mud on someone, than to say "He was right.".
Why did I said "Croats need own version"? Well, Hungarian form was tolerated (article Szerem), Serb form also (article Srem), but Croat form wasn't (besides the fact that part of Syrmia is in Croatia). Why should part of my country have Serb name in English wikipedia (there's a sr.wiki for that). If others have right to have an article regarding Syrmia, why Croats wouldn't have right.
"equal interests". Pax said: "...Kubura seems to have a rather odd, but tiny interest in all the articles Afrika paprika dealt..". So does PaxEquilibrium have interest in those areas. Is he maybe a sockpuppet or sockmaster? Why don't he report himself to checkusers? Maybe he's playing a game to kick me out.
"Pagania": Regarding Pagania, I'm from that part of Croatia, of course I have interest. Why Pax has interest in it?
"House of Kotromanić": I insisted in the neutral name form, Stephen (see my comment on talk page). I knew that if I insist on Croatian form Stjepan, that there'll be an edit war, so I proposed that solution (while HRE insisted on Serb form). Yes, English form on en.wiki. Simple. Also, the user Emir Arven made similar changes.
"Stalinist police methods". How do you call this what PaxEquilibrium said: "and Kubura will deny that he's the perpetrator for a long time... will admit in the end, when a new sock is invented). Checkuser might confirm Kubura as the Mastermind of this invasion.". Hey??? What is this? Is wiki tolerating stalinistic methods? Has anybody warned PaxEquilibrium about his behaviour?
also, he deleted few times the contents of my userpage (these changes were compromising for his "neutrality", "good boy" presentation and his admin ambitions). The excuse was lame (...rule, according to which You cannot use talk pages to propagate against users). I didn't propagate, because these were put into comment. Some of those were data that I kept as evidence for admins. Wikipedia is getting larger and larger, and it's getting harder to collect evidence about someone you find as problematic, especially when you want to confirm your claims about some persons with arguments. Removed content was this change and this change. They tell a lot (claiming the territory of other countries; denying the existence of certain people on certain area). Compromising for someone who wants to be an admin.
I knew that he was up to something. Whenever PaxEquilibrium starts to play a game of "good boy", or "play nice", he's about to be nominated for adminship. Or, in this case, he wants to play present himself as nice boy vs. evil opponent. So he persistently provoked me by deleting (see history) the content of my userpage or annoying me in other ways (since 14 November 2006 [3] ). What's he allowing to himself? What kind of behaviour is that? If I don't want to talk to him, I don't want to talk with him. I told him: "we're not getting anywhere"[4]. He persisted with one-sided communication [5] and [6].
I didn't want any propagandist pamphlets on my talk page, wiki isn't a place for that, so I removed them. I hoped he'll "get the message" and leave me. But, PaxEquilibrium continued to annoy me [7] and [8] and [9].
His messages were getting into ...kind of trolling..., I don't know, have I used the right expression? Was I too rough in description?
And, after that unpunished discrediting on "request for checkuser", he wants to normally talk and [10] with me, after all those spitting on the famous "request".
Unfortunately, I've then made a mistake. I've put my comment on his talk page, to answer to an claim of an other user. Pax gladly waited the opportunity. Later answer came as a result of my questions [11] to him. I had to do that, I don't want to make anymore reverts, despite the disgustingly unneutral content of the articles.
But he still didn't got my message .
Maybe some of those links aren't cronological, but I hope you'll get the picture.<br<>
And after all this, you allow to such a person to discredit other users. Kubura 21:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Please do not place gratutitously stupid and useless templates on my talk page. They will be removed. If you wish to communicate with me, use your own words. FCYTravis 19:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
If you cannot communicate in fashions that are civil and do not include personal attacks, then do not communicate at all. Wikipedia has a Code of Conduct. Occasional lapses are forgivable but continued infractions will be sanctioned. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 19:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, Peter, this does not qualify as a Personal Attack. Please do not call it as such - I would like to respectfully point out that you may also wish to review these policies - I often come across you posting uncivil posts, and then removing replies pointing this out.
Hopefully you will take my advice into consideration.
Kind regards, Anthonycfc[T • C] 15:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
