From time to time contributions here have shown traces of a sense of humour, which is disruptive of the serious, sombre, and relentlessly grim mood that so many good people in all walks of life have exhibited. Be advised that if you address me here on similar matters, you face the risk of enjoying a feeling of Schadenfreude while at work on projects and you may even have a similar effect on other editors. Please consider very carefully whether you want to be responsible for such consequences. Thank you.
You can sign your name on talk pages and votes by typing ~~~~; our software automatically converts it to your username and the date.
If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on my talk page. Or, please come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your :questions.
We're so glad you're here! --Simonkoldyk 18:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your warm and helpful welcome!
As a non-native English speaker I'm always a bit worried that my contribution will be unintelligible.
{{helpme}}
Have I done anything wrong by creating a new article?
W. Frank 18:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
PS: I'm originally from Dresden in Germany but was a foundling by the occupying British forces after the firestorm. I'm semi-retired now.
W. Frank 18:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
{{helpme}} I noticed that Wikipedia doesn't have an article on the oldest primary school in New Zealand and I don't feel qualified to write one. Instead I've e-mailed the current Principal of Nelson Central School and suggested he contribute one - was that a silly thing to do?
W. Frank 19:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
{{helpme}}
Why do I have two distinctly10:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)W. Frank different user pages?
You are User:W. Frank; the other page is at User talk:W Frank (notice the . after the initial initial in your username). User talk:W Frank should be deleted because it corresponds to a non-existent user; if you find the information useful, you can copy it to this page first; to request its deletion, place {{db-nouser}} on the page (in this case; there is a different tag for each speedy deletion reason). --ais523 10:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The former (not this page but the other) seems to have been created by mistake, as there is no user account by that name, you can safely ignore it or if you like redirect it here. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 10:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, one and all!
I've marked the phantom for deletion now ( I hope, I'm so stupid I may have done it wrong again...)
W. Frank 10:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I put a {{prod}} message on Nelson Central School because the article doesn't yet contain any content. I realise that you are waiting for Dr Potaka to respond to your email, but the article could have been created when he replies. Having empty articles make Wikipedia look bad. The effect of the message I put on the article is to ensure that it is deleted if nothing happens for five days or so. You could also start the article with information from the Ministry of Education. See how other New Zealand school articles are formatted, for example Logan Park High School.-gadfium 05:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Sorry about that. I'm very new to all this and there's a lot to learn. Thank you for your help. My motivation was that I did not like a dead (or red) internal link in my Cabragh House article... W. Frank 12:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Also regarding the Nelson Central School article, any commentary about the article should go onto the article's talk page rather than onto the article itself. This is a general Wikipedia convention (see WP:TPG). --Lost tourist 15:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Sorry about that, as you see above, I'm brand new and (hopefully) learning about this wonderful animal every day.
I've also replied to you on your user page and also in the article's talk page.
Just this once, and hopefully just for a few hours (maximum 99) could you leave the article as it is until Dr Potaka or another editor shows up to start it?
Please forgive me for being a Newbie editor. When writing my article for Cabragh House, I noticed a missing link for Nelson Central School. I then e-mailed Dr Potaka, Principal of Nelson Central School, suggesting he create (or delegate members of his staff) to create the missing article.
Subsequently I have received e-mails from others in the Nelson region indicating that he may be temporarily indisposed for the next couple of days.
I suggest, therefore, that you leave the Nelson Central School page in the condition I have reverted it to just now and including the scheduled for deletion box. That way if he, or no other editor, shows up to correct and expand the article, it will be deleted automatically in 5 days and if volunteers (or Dr Potaka himself, since I assume he will also be a Newbie to Wikipedia) show up in the meantime they will have a skeleton on which to hang flesh.
Thank you for your tolerance, forbearance and understanding W. Frank 15:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)!
W. Frank 15:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
When I suggested you see how other school articles were formatted, I didn't mean for you to copy the whole article into Nelson Central School. You ended up with a mess of information mostly about the other school. I've now changed the article into a bare-bones article about Nelson Central. It no longer needs the prod. Feel free to improve this article yourself, but don't revert it to the previous mess.-gadfium 19:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
But I didn't, gadfium.
According to the edit history, that Revision as of 12:52, 7 December 2006 was made by 89.240.127.10
I may be stupid but I'm not so stupid as to spell it "Neslon Centraql Skool" as that anonymous editor did...
However, I do take your general point and I will go in and try and clean it up a bit later this afternoon. Thank you for your useful and pertinent comments.
I reverted your change to Persian Walnut because at the time the walnuts were distributed by merchant marines, who were also, like their civilian counterparts maritime merchants. If I am wrong about this, please explain on the talk page before reverting. Thank you. KP Botany 18:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Mmm. Are we talking here about Royal Marines (the military) who were doing a bit of trading, or the English Merchant Navy (also doing a bit of trading) or what exactly?W. Frank 20:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
I reverted your change to the Anglican Church in Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia link. This is because the name of the diocese is exactly that - with the comma. This is because the Anglican church in NZ is made up of three threads or traditions - Tikanga Pakeha (broadly those of European origin), Tikanga Maori (broadly those of Maori origin) and Tikanga Pasifika (broadly those of Pacific Island origin). The "Aotearoa" part of the name refers to the five Hui Amorangi, the "New Zealand" to the seven Dioceses - both of these split up New Zealand, but differently. So you are right that Aotearoa is New Zealand, but not that the name should have a slash in it. Ringbark 21:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for correcting my inadvertent error - I mistakenly thought that this was an example of ignorant grammar rather than a considered ecclesiastical decision. God be with you! W. Frank 13:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks frank, it takes a lot to stand up in support for what you feel is worth speaking to. web 2.0 is a great development on line. Hope Fiji can work it out and not have UN intervention.
Your comment on GRU page history is uncivil and personal attack. If you continue restoring obvious falsification that GRU was helping Saddam Hussein and would continue personal attack on me, I would report you on administrators noticeboard.Vlad fedorov 17:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
We will have to agree to disagree that my comments were an uncivil and personal attack.
This is what I wrote as a comment:
"=== Large scale deletions without consensus ===
At 16:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC) I placed a comment on the talk page of User_talk:Vlad_fedorov who has been conspicuous by
his absence from these pages [ie the talk pages of the GRU article]
his consecutive deletions, without any prior discussion, of material provided by other editors
This is the exact quote of what I wrote on his user page:
"Wikipedia as a community has rules to prevent edit wars.
If you wish to delete large passages of another editor's work without providing any references, it is more polite to discuss your proposed changes on the article's talk page FIRST.
If you do not, your excisions may be regarded as vandalism.
Please proceed immediately to talk:GRU and discuss your point of view (POV) with fellow editors there before reverting this article again.
If you do not, you run the risk of being blocked from Wikipedia.
You may find that Wikipedia:Wikiquette provides some helpful guidance. Thank you for your anticipated compliance."
Within less than half an hour (and without any further discussion or comment) at 17:05, 8 April 2007 Vlad fedorov had expunged my comments using the following as his edit summary: "Personal offence removed"
I am posting my comments here [ie the talk pages of the GRU article] because I have a strong suspicion that any further help I offer on Vlad fedorov's user pages will also be expunged.W. Frank 17:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)"
Now I have emphasised some points that I believe are relevant to your deprecated behaviour with regards to GRU, your own talk pages and elsewhere:
Wikipedia's contributors come from many different countries and cultures. We have different views, perspectives, and backgrounds, sometimes varying widely. Treating others with respect is key to collaborating effectively in building an encyclopedia.
Principles of Wikipedia etiquette
Assume good faith. Wikipedia has worked remarkably well so far based on a policy of nearly complete freedom to edit. People come here to collaborate and write good articles.
Treat others as you would have them treat you – even if they are new. We were all new once...
Be polite, please!
Keep in mind that raw text is ambiguous and often seems ruder than the same words coming from a person standing in front of you. Irony isn't always obvious - text comes without facial expressions, vocal inflection or body language. Be careful of the words you choose – what you intended might not be what others perceive, and what you read might not be what the author intended.
Work toward agreement.
Argue facts, not personalities.
Don't ignore questions.
If another disagrees with your edit, provide good reasons why you think it's appropriate.
Concede a point when you have no response to it, or admit when you disagree based on intuition or taste.
Although it's understandably difficult in a heated argument, if other editors are not as civil as you'd like them to be, make sure to be more civil than they, not less. That way at least you're not spiralling down to open conflict and name-calling by your own accord; you're actively doing something about it: taking a hit and refraining from hitting back – everybody appreciates that (or at least they should).
However, don't hesitate to let the other party know that you're not comfortable with their tone in a neutral way – otherwise they might think you're too dense to understand their "subtlety", and you'll involuntarily encourage them (e.g. "I know you've been sarcastic above, but I don't think that's helping us resolve the issue. However, I don't think your argument stands because...").
Be prepared to apologize. In animated discussions, we often say things we later wish we hadn't. Say so.
Forgive and forget.
Recognize your own biases and keep them in check.
Give praise when due. Everybody likes to feel appreciated, especially in an environment that often requires compromise. Drop a friendly note on users' talk pages.
Remove or summarize resolved disputes that you initiated.
Help mediate disagreements between others.
If you're arguing, take a break. If you're mediating, recommend a break.
Take it slow. If you're angry, take time out instead of posting or editing. Come back in a day or a week. You might find that someone else has made the desired change or comment for you. If no one is mediating, and you think mediation is needed, enlist someone.
Avoid reverts and deletions whenever possible, and stay within the three-revert rule except in cases of clear vandalism. Explain reversions in the edit summary box.
Remind yourself that these are people you're dealing with. They are individuals with feelings and probably have other people in the world who love them. Try to treat others with dignity.
Remember the Golden Rule: "treat others as you want them to treat you."
How to avoid abuse of talk pages
Most people take pride in their work and in their point of view. Egos can easily get hurt in editing, but talk pages are not a place for striking back. They're a good place to comfort or undo damage to egos, but most of all they're for forging agreements that are best for the articles they're attached to. If someone disagrees with you, try to understand why, and in your discussion on the talk pages take the time to provide good reasons why you think your way is better.
Terms like "racist", "sexist" or even "poorly written" make people defensive. This makes it hard to discuss articles productively. If you have to criticize, you must do it in a polite and constructive manner.
Always make clear what point you are addressing, especially in replies.
In responding, make it clear what idea you are responding to. Quoting a post is O.K., but paraphrasing it or stating how you interpreted it is better.
Working towards a neutral point of view
When we correct violations of the neutral point of view (NPOV) policy, we often make the mistake of using phrases like "foo points out that" or "xy explains". These phrases themselves can be seen as non-NPOV, as they imply a certain agreement by Wikipedia. The original author then often sees this as non-NPOV and deletes the changes, and eventually, an edit war results. It is better to use the following procedure:
Inquire politely on the article's talk page about aspects of the article you consider non-NPOV (unless they are really egregious), and suggest replacements.
If no reply comes, make the substitutions. (Use your watchlist to keep track of what you want to do.)
If a reply comes, try to agree about the wording to be used.
That way, when an agreement is reached, an edit war is very unlikely. The disadvantage is that the article stays in an unsatisfying state for a longer period of time, but an article that changes frequently doesn't create good impression with other Wikipedians or of the project as a whole.
A few things to bear in mind
Wikipedia articles are supposed to represent all views (more at NPOV), instead of supporting one over another, even if you believe something strongly. Talk ("discussion") pages are not a place to debate value judgments about which of those views are right or wrong or better. If you want to do that, there are venues such as Usenet, public weblogs and other wikis. Use article talk pages to discuss the accuracy/inaccuracy, POV bias, or other problems in the article, not as a soapbox for advocacy.
If someone disagrees with you, this does not necessarily mean that the person hates you, that the person thinks you're stupid, that the person themself is stupid, or that the person is mean. When people post opinions without practical implications for the article, it's best to just leave them be. What you think is not necessarily right or necessarily wrong – a common example of this is religion. Before you think about insulting someone's views, think about what would happen if they insulted your religion. Also, always remember that anything that is written on Wikipedia is kept permanently, even if it is not visible.
Try to avoid deleting things as a matter of principle. When you amend and edit, it is remarkable how you might see something useful in what was said. Most people have something useful to say. That includes you. Deletion upsets people and makes them feel they have wasted their time – consider moving their text to a sub-directory of their user pages instead (saying not quite the right place for it but so they can still use it): much less provocative.
Wikipedia invites you to be bold. Before initiating discussion, ask yourself: is this really necessary to discuss? Could I provide a summary with my edit and wait for others to quibble if they like?
You can always take a discussion to e-mail or to your user page if it's not essential to the article.
If you know you don't get along with someone, don't interact with them more than you need to. Unnecessary conflict distracts everyone from the task of making a good encyclopedia, and is just unpleasant. Actually following someone you dislike around Wikipedia is sometimes considered stalking, and is frowned on because it can be disruptive. If you don't get along with someone, try to become more friendly. If that doesn't help the situation then it is probably best to avoid them.
Though editing articles is acceptable (and, in fact, encouraged), editing the signed words of another editor on a talk page or other discussion page is generally not acceptable, as it can alter the intent or message of the original comment and misrepresent the original editor's thoughts. Try to avoid editing another editor's comments unless absolutely necessary.
If you really continue to regard any of this as a personal attack (as opposed to an attack on your intolerable attempts at political censorship) then I think it would indeed be a very good idea to "report [me] on administrators noticeboard" - perhaps I should not have pointed you towards the WP articles referenced above.W. Frank 14:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I have published the first text on case of Alexey Galkin so-called "confessions". The other texts would follow shortly. Especially on the allegation of hiding Saddam Hussein's "weapons of mass destruction" and allegations of promoting the terrorism. I advise you, as you are not competent in Russian and couldn't study Russian sources which are usually not published by Western media, to stop your dispute. I would like to note that both of the articles I use in my text about Alexey Galkin are from Novaya Gazeta - which is anti-Putin newspaper. One of their journalists was Anna Politkovskaya. Both of the articles are supportive of Alexey Galkin. They contain not only the interview and transcript of "confession", but also comments of the newspaper journalists and conclusion of phsychologist who has studied the videotape of Galkin "confessions". Moreover, the transcript of Alexey Galkin press conference which was interrupted in two places by Abu Movsaev is telling enough about voluntarity of these confessions. If I would describe in such way all accounts of false allegations in this article, the article itself would be bigger and contain rather irrelevant information, than infromation on [GRU]]. Vlad fedorov 08:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't really think that my user talk pages (or yours) are the place to discuss this. Please take this to talk:GRU and discuss your point of view (POV) with fellow editors there. W. Frank 14:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
W.Frank, firstly howiya! secondly the terrorism category in the - the term terrorism is a divisive and largely POV term and is outlined as a term to be avoided by wiki. It is usually used where the target of an attack was specifically civilians. I know you didn't add the cat but you replaced it, however, it is an incorrect and POV category - unless you think the British Army targeted the civilian they killed because they thought he was a civilian and are happy to write into the article that the British Army are terrorists for killing the civilian then I would suggest that this category does not suit this article.
P.S. I am always happy to help in any way and I am always contactable on my talk page. regards --Vintagekits 15:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
1) Good day to you, Sir! Thank you for your friendly offer of assistance and for your tone of voice. I try and steer clear of controversy since there seem to be so many more impolite editors on Wikipedia these days.
2) I do so agree with your point of view regarding less inflammatory wording in article text - however, in categorisations we need to be brief and pithy - a bit like a tabloid headline, in fact.
My general policy is to have as many helpful categorisations as possible since it helps readers explore the wonderful source of knowledge that is Wikipedia - especially children.
Since I'm always reluctant to censor the Good Faith efforts of others, may I ask you to copy edit this dialogue there?
3) Sadly, in this era of assymetrical warfare the concept of civilian has rather lapsed. I was a foundling in the smoking ruins of a city that was "terrorised" by the American hero Winston S Churchill and his Terrorflieger. Do you not think the categorisation is correct since the Warrenpoint Ambush article records one of the greatest military defeats of the British Army in recent years?W. Frank 15:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
So is it unreasonable for an editor with an interest in a certain subject area to concentrate on that subject area, considering the terrible state of those articles? Should the editor be branded as a "comrade" for improving the articles? I don't think so. One Night In Hackney303 18:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I think you have to make allowances for language confusion here. I don't regard the terms republican or comrade pejorative (of themselves and obviously it depends on the context). It would greatly assist progress and trust if you would answer three simple straight questions with three simple straight answers and not by answering a question with a question:
1) Do you regard yourself as an Irish Republican?
2) Do you regard being identified as a republican to be a personal attack or shameful in any way?
3) Do you regard yourself as a complete loner with no sympathy or comradely feelings towards any organised political grouping with an Irish focus?
And for the avoidance of doubt, I would answer "Yes" to all three of the above as Strathclyde Police (my next door neighbours would attest).W. Frank 19:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
You stated "actions carried out by your comrades". If you have evidence that I am a comrade of Provisional IRA members, or other evidence of support for Physical force Irish republicanism I would be delighted to continue this discussion, until then I will not favour allegations with commentary. One Night In Hackney303 20:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Can you explain your original choice of signature referenced below from your archived talk pages?
I am not sure that adding the name of a terrorist organisation after your signature is a good idea? Astrotrain 20:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Your opinion has been noted, and will be ignored. Thanks. One Night In HackneyIRA 21:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
You wish to refer to [1] on the admin notice board. Astrotrain 21:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm simply going to ask you nicely to remove that from your signature. There really is no reason for it and it is creating needless controversy.--Isotope23 21:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Why should he move it??--Vintagekits 21:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
One night, this is just a friendly reccomendation, for the good of wikipedia. Is having it there that important? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I suggest you read Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Astrotrain. This has already been discussed fully and the signature changed willingly. The above post by you is quite unnecessary and harrassing another editor. Stop it please and use your editing privileges for benefitting wikipedia by contributing good content to articles, not carrying out some personal crusade. Take this as a final warning. Tyrenius 00:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
User:W. Frank is being generally disruptive, and has made several personal attacks on me today. Starting earlier today he's disrupted numerous IR related articles, despite never editing them before. It's clearly disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. He's editwarring to include the list of dead on Omagh bombing, despite there being a clear discussion on the talk page why it's not on there, which I directed him to.Here he used the phrase "actions carried out by your comrades", implying I am directly associated with the IRA. I made it quite clear I regarded it as a personal attack, and made it clear why I regarded it as an attack on his talk page. Several hours later he made this edit to his talk page with a summary of "inserted list of victims soon to be deleted by the comrades", clearly using a phrase he knows I regarded as a personal attack. Thanks. One Night In Hackney303 23:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I would advise you to take careful note of what is said in it. Any further reference to "comrade" or suchlike in regard to any editor will be seen as an attack. Continual reverts without discussion and consensus on the article talk page is edit warring and may lead to a block. See WP:3RR. It is not necessary to reach the 3 reverts before a block is implemented. In Omagh bombing you have edited against a consensus and WP:AfD. It is necessary to read talk pages before editing, particularly if you want to edit controversial articles. Otherwise your editing can become disruptive. Your editing practice is beginning to seem somewhat undesirable.
I notice from archived copies of 303 and IRA that you have been helpful to him in the past and I appreciate your consistency.
Since we all know what the agenda is here, I think it best if I take a Wikibreak.
Tschuess!
PS: Sorry I forgot to sign the previous reply. Before I go to bed and start my Wikibreak what do you think about the editor who has summoned you deleting stuff he doesn't like from his user pages?
Thank you for the compliment. I try like most admins to be consistently helpful to users, and we do indeed know what the agenda is, namely that you are out of order. A wikibreak is certainly a more sensible option than carrying on as you have been, but if you carry on with good contributions as you did in your earlier editing history, then there will be no problem. Comment on edits, not editors. Re. your last enquiry, see WP:TPG#User_talk_pages. It is considered a discourtesy to leave template warnings for established editors, though you may not have known this. You may notice I have taken the trouble to write individual messages on your talk page. Tyrenius 01:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
{A few minutes later Tyrenius blocked W. Frank as a "Sockpuppet. The relevant template has NOT been moved here too, for obvious reasons}
User was blocked as a sockpuppet, but unblocked pending conclusion of discussion. Tyrenius 22:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Denial of being a "Sockpuppet"
I utterly deny being a Sockpuppet of G.
Please provide an address where I can send copies of my Passport, Driving Licence, etc.
I have spoken to him in hospital and he is also willing to have me send copies of his Passport, Driving Licence, etc to the same address to verify that we are two different human beings with two different nationalities.
I have asked him about the incident you refer to at =[1]
and I have no reason to disbelieve his explanation that he inadvertently signed my name (using 4 tildes) while using the same computer at work without noticing that I was already signed in. I see from the logs that he also corrected that mistake immediately.
I should explain that when you get our passports, etc, you will see that I was G's boss (before he went into hospital with cancer) and I did not know it was not allowed to use the same computer.
For the avoidance of doubt, G did bring to my attention the IRA activity (and also bring my attention to WP in December 2006, but I am a real person with opinions of my own and it is not right to ban me indefinitely because another editor used the same work computer without checking who was logged in.
Please be so kind enough to refer and copydedit this appeal to the correct places while I am banned.
W. Frank, this is the one page you can still edit while you are blocked, so you should appeal your block here and not on the several other pages you have posted to as an anon. At this point, please wait for a response from User:Tyrenius to your appeal and the discussion on his talk page. If he does not respond (eg he has gone on holiday), I will raise the matter more widely in 24 hours.
Anything you post on this page will be read by me and presumably by Tyrenius, and if you indicate that there are others you want notified of your views I will be happy to request that they read this page.-gadfium 20:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Please forgive my impertinence for appealing to your sense of fairness and requesting your help.
I am sorry that I am unable to append my signature but I assume that I should not log on because I have been indefinitely banned as puppet.
As an administrator I believe you will be able to e-mail me at the address I registered under my user name W. Frank (which is a truncation of my passport name) and I will be happy to fax you my German Passport, ID Card, Pension Book, etc.
It is hardly surprising that G and I share some interests.
G introduced me to Wikipedia in December 2006.
before that date (when his cancer worsened) he was working for my company. Both g's children were born in Nelson and I naturally visited them when I holidayed in NZ in 2005 and again last year.
When I damaged my leg, G suggested editing Wikipedia in December 2006 but if you examine the articles I have edited and he has edited you will see that, although we have some interests in common, we have edited independently.
All this has blown up in the last few days.
Because he has been having chemotherapy in Glasgow (where I live) I have returned the hospitality offered by his family (both in ireland and NZ) and put him up in between sessions (as a perk, I retain a flat in the same building of my old firm).
A few days ago, before he went in for his latest session, he did show me (on the firm's computers) what had been happening with the IRA articles steadily reducing the prominence given to victims and since I have suffered due to terrorism myself I was also outraged.
In that limited sense he did canvass me but the opinions I expressed have been my own. I would also admit to using cut and paste from time to time from his edit summaries after he left for the hospital but again that is made easier to do because he had been using the same company registered browser (which, for security reasons, keeps the history as an audit trail - both he and I work/worked for a company active in bank security card software).
I would be perfectly happy to operate a self denying ordinance of not editing any irish articles if that were felt appropriate.
As the brief biography on my user page made clear (before someone deleted it yesterday) you will see when you get my passport and birth certificate that the name, date and place of birth all are truthful.
I will not visit G in hospital until later this evening but I assume that he will give me permission to also fax his personal documentation to see that we are not even remotely similar (I am bald, short and German - he is hairy, tall and Irish) and I am also willing to visit anybody you name in Scotland that is on a bus route to establish my bona fides (as a pensioner, I can travel anywhere in Scotland for free on my bus pass).
Please be so kind as to e-mail me (or tell me here that you can not.
I appeal to your sense of fairness in helping me correct this injustice and restore my good name.
I apologise unreservedly for any inappropriate conduct (intentional or in ignorance).
W. Frank (I can not sign because of the editban but you can confirm that this is really me by e-mail, fax, phone, post or personal visit).89.240.90.169 14:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
The above post was copied here from User talk:Gadfium for ease of discussion. Tyrenius 23:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Please provide an address where I can send copies of my Passport, Driving Licence, etc.
I have spoken to him in hospital and he is also willing to have me send copies of his Passport, Driving Licence, etc to the same address to verify that we are two different human beings with two different nationalities.
I have asked him about the incident you refer to at =[2]
and I have no reason to disbelieve his explanation that he inadvertently signed my name (using 4 tildes) while using the same computer at work without noticing that I was already signed in. I see from the logs that he also corrected that mistake immediately.
I should explain that when you get our passports, etc, you will see that I was G's boss (before he went into hospital with cancer) and I did not know it was not allowed to use the same computer.
Please provide the address to me at w_f_buchholz@yahoo.co.uk
For the avoidance of doubt, G did bring to my attention the IRA activity (and also bring my attention to WP in December 2006, but I am a real person with opinions of my own and it is not right to ban me indefinitely because another editor used the same work computer without checking who was logged in.
Please be so kind enough to refer and copydedit this appeal to the correct places while I am banned.
I have copied the above from my talk page. I am certainly willing to hear your case. You are entitled to appeal to another admin or to a forum, such as WP:AN, but it is normal to discuss with the blocking admin first. It is, let us say, unusual, but not impossible, I agree, for such a situation as yours to happen. Do I take it that you would normally edit on a different computer at work from your employee, Gaimhreadhan, where there would not be any confusion of logged-in names, but on this occasion, for whatever reason, you happened to use the same computer as him, without realising that he was logged in (I presume that was his normal practice to stay logged in, to save having to log in each time)? I've just studied your other post above and see that there are indeed different computers at your firm, so you and he would be able to edit from different computers normally, each accessing the internet separately and perhaps even simultaneously, but there is a central log file which shows all these separate actions, which you have access to and where you sometimes got ideas for edit summaries? Tyrenius 21:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
I have unblocked you on the suggestion of User:Gadfium, while this discussion is in progress and AGF that you will be able to meet any doubts satisfactorily. I reserve the right to reblock after giving warning, if the questions are not answered satisfactorily. Please note at no stage will I expect real life identification, or information which could reveal this. For the time being, at your suggestion, you will not edit Irish articles, until this discussion is ended by agreement on both sides. Tyrenius 22:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
This is Gaimhreadhan.
When I am logged on, I asm not allowed to edit because a red template comes up saying I am blocked as a puppet of W. Frank.
I confirm the truth of Frank's statement above and confirm that I am also wishing to etablish my identriy by forensic checks.
I am not his puppet and he is not mine.
Please e-mail me with the address you wish me to visit or mail to establish my bona fides.
I really resent your phrase that you will not expect to d#see real life indentification since this would quickly establish your errors.
I aplogise for the tone of my message since I assume you have acted in good faith, but you have been seriously misled by others. Please remove the blocks.
You have also reversed the sequence when you say abgove "on this occasion, for whatever reason, you happened to use the same computer as him, without realising that he was logged in". It was Frank that was logged in as W. Frank since I had been teaching him how to edit in WP and my mistake to edit on MWanners user space without noticing that he was still logged on. I signed using the usuial foru tildes but this was converted to his name since he was still logged on. Immediately I noticed the mistake and corrected it and noted the correction in teh edit log.
Given that it is so easy to track use in the firm (because of retinal and fingerprint scans when we log on to a workstation) od you really think I would be so stupid as to pretend to be my boss?
I am innocent of allegations of Sock or meat puppetry but plead guilty to losing focus on the primary purpose of WP: to expand and improve encyclopaedic articles, when I pointed out the IRA agenda of re-writing history.
I have only come out of hospital temporarily this morning to try and fix the problems my mistake in December 2006 have given Frank, but you can communciate with me by e-m,ail via my mobile since I can swithc it on when I visit the toilet without breakiong hospital regulations.
Gaimhreadhan, Louth County Library, Dundalk. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.71.158.130 (talk) 11:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC).
You have edited and not answered the questions on this page regarding sockpuppetry. This matter is far from resolved. If you do not give priority to the discussion to resolve it, I will assume this account is a sockpuppet and block it accordingly. This is the final warning in this regard. Tyrenius 23:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Two days ago I both e-mailed you and asked you to e-mail me. You have not responded by e-mail. Do you seriously expect me to discuss the security procedures of our former workplace in public pages? If you decline or are unable to e-mail me, please ask another administrator to assist. This farce has gone on long enough.W. Frank 00:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
That proves the sockpuppetry then, as the email was headed Gaimhreadhan. Tyrenius 02:11, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Further question. If G lives in Ireland (confirmed by IP location) and W lives in Scotland, how do you share the same computer at work? One Night In Hackney303
I live in the centre of Glasgow, G lives 200m from the Irish land frontier. While I am sessile, G is not. When I last drove from G's to Belfast City airport it took me about 65 minutes and it is about 15 minutes from Glasgow Airport to my flat (which is in the same building as the company G worked for. I have wireless access on my laptop and neither I nor he have commented publicly on working arrangements.) Now all this jesuitical argumentation is unnecessary. Both I and G have offered positive vetting of our bona fides and it is symptomatic of this whole nonsensical and kafkaesque allegation that nobody has taken me up on it.
So let me get this straight - you both were interested in discussing the same topic, you both have the same view on this topic, you both "work together" and you both use the same computer - but you are not a sock or meatpuppet. Is this like the time the other day that you were not canvassing even though you were?--Vintagekits 11:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Ours are not minority views. It is hardly surprising that we should both seek to oppose your agenda.
Further question. If G lives in Ireland (confirmed by IP location) and W lives in Scotland, how do you share the same computer at work? One Night In Hackney303 14:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't really know how to say this without seeming impolite so I will be plain: Until you both change your attitude, neither of you are welcome to post or edit in my talk space. Please go away and do something useful while I await the first e-mail response from an administrator.
So let me get this straight - you both were interested in discussing the same topic, you both have the same view on this topic, you both "work together" and you both use the same computer - but you are not a sock or meatpuppet. Is this like the time the other day that you were not canvassing even though you were?--Vintagekits 11:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Further question. If G lives in Ireland (confirmed by IP location) and W lives in Scotland, how do you share the same computer at work? One Night In Hackney303 14:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
It's not your user-space, so instead of prevarcating why don't you answer the questions? One Night In Hackney303 00:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Very appropriate, considering you and your meatpuppet friend have libelled me, and are using Wikipedia to campaign against something. Well done, a spectacular own goal! One Night In Hackney303 00:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
If I have libelled you (ie: made statements that are both defamatory and untrue), then you have my unreserved apology.
Now please go away. But before you do, please strike through your untrue and defamatory meatpuppet comment. Neither of you are welcome to post or edit in my talk space. Please go away and do something useful while I await the first e-mail response from an administrator.
I have blocked you for 24 hours for refusing to discuss the issues of your relationship with G, and for attempting to ban those who are trying to resolve the matter from your talkpage. I think they're being very patient with you. You can still post to this talk page during the block. If you attempt to edit as an anon during the duration of this block, the block length will be increased. Tyrenius is welcome to remove the block if he sees fit.-gadfium 01:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
I endorse the block. I see only evasion and prevarication over this matter. Tyrenius 02:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
I note that you were extremely vociferous in protesting the block for sockpuppetry, and have now become most reticent about answering the questions regarding, in particular, the exchange above, which I copy here:
Two days ago I both e-mailed you and asked you to e-mail me. You have not responded by e-mail. Do you seriously expect me to discuss the security procedures of our former workplace in public pages? If you decline or are unable to e-mail me, please ask another administrator to assist. This farce has gone on long enough. W. Frank 00:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
That proves the sockpuppetry then, as the email was headed Gaimhreadhan. Tyrenius 02:11, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
You have been active today and emailed another admin. Please stop emailing admins offering to provide proof that two separate people exist, as it proves nothing related to wiki use. Unless I hear very quickly with answers on this page, I will take the post above to be proof of sockpuppetry and act accordingly. Tyrenius 23:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
You have been blocked from editing for violating Wikipedia policy by being an abusive sockpuppet. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by replying here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}}. You may also email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list instead, or mail unblock-en-l@mail.wikimedia.org. This follows the above and complete lack of response. Tyrenius 18:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I have unblocked this user based on a personal phone call from him and a reasonable explanation of how he and G came to be using the same computer. Fred Bauder 22:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Please come back to GRU article where Biophys who published allegations of GRU participating in bombing of buildings in Moscow and rest of Russia and allegations of helping Saddam to hide his weapons now deletes the whole texts without discussion. Vlad fedorov 04:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
As you are aware, I have been more than reasonable recently, even calling for the unblock of Gaimhreadhan. However I am not happy about you questioning my motives, as you did here and elsewhere. Please head over to the Gerry Adams talk page, and see exactly how hard I've been trying to prevent an article being sanitised. One Night In Hackney303 01:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I have never written that you were unreasonable and it is evident that you put a great deal of work into your edits. Please do not take the edit you refer to as being directed at or about you, Sir. I have already adopted a self-denying ordinance not to edit articles where you might disagree with me and I wish you well - both in life and in WP.
I think you really know in your heart of hearts the difference between truth and spin and invite you to share a wee dram if you ever wish to a) shed your anonymity b) come to Glasgow. God bless!
My apologies, I assumed the phrases "We do also both agree that balanced articles in WP should not be subverted by extremist minority opinion cliques acting in concert" and "The fact that both I and G do not wish terrorist atrocities to be sanitised or hidden from our readers" could only possibly be directed at me, and other allegedly pro-Irish republican editors.
You are welcome to edit any articles you choose, in fact there are a large number of articles relating to the Troubles that are in need of attention, and I would welcome constructive edits to them. However the last thing the articles need is edit warring back and forth over something as mundane as a category, when there is much more important work that needs doing to them.
Sadly I'll have to decline your offer of a drink in Glasgow, the last time I was in Scotland was 9pm on New Year's Day after I fell asleep on a train home from London, and the taxi back home to England was prohibitively expensive, and the whole experience has put me off going to Scotland again. One Night In Hackney303 01:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Like most Germans, I like Ireland and the Irish but I'm quite ignorant of all the details. G is the man for that. You would be very interested in some of the family pictures and letters that he has and it's good to see that there are big changes ahead in the government of Ireland. WP has good rules to help editors co-operate and I only got involved in this when I saw categories being systematically deleted from articles before the deletion of the category had been properly discussed. (You will note that none of the category deleters ever replaced the category even though the consensus was to retain the [by-then-redundant] Category. At heart I'm an inclusionist - we have to assume our readers are clever enough to make up their own minds if we include referenced sources. Goodnight and God bless! W. Frank 01:43, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I was including things like checking spelling, grammar and tone in the articles as well, plus there's no doubt some of them will have POV problems in places as well. The number of editors involved in improving them is terrifyingly small compared to the number you'll find on say some popular culture articles, so again any help will be more than gratefully received.
I'll also clarify that the category wasn't being removed to "sanitise" any articles, at least that wasn't my intention. If the articles already make it clear that the people concerned were killed by the IRA, that's really all that's required. There's no need to go overboard and have "murder" every other sentence, or include the opinions of twenty newspapers in a reactions section. There's actually a discussion here about whether the category in question (or a better thought out alternative) could be used, and the discussion seems to have ground to a halt somewhat. If you have anything to add, please feel free to do so. One Night In Hackney303 01:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I accept your explanation. If you read what I wrote previously, I regard categories NOT as a precis or encapsulation or headline of the article. I view them as useful to readers who might be interested to follow a particular topic. That's why they don't need to be (and can probably never be, given how short they should be) neutral or even balanced. Pithiness is required! And now, if you'll forgive me I must get to bed! W. Frank 02:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Allow me to explain why IRA is used in that article, to prevent further confusion. Post-1972 the Official IRA was on ceasefire, and the only active group using the term IRA was the Provisionals, which remained the case until the Continuity IRA became active in 1996. Unless more than one IRA is being referred to in a particular article or there's a risk of confusion, the standard usage is the acronym IRA. PIRA is not an acronym generally used except by the British Armed Forces, the common name in British, Irish and American media is the IRA. One Night In Hackney303 02:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I understand. However, I think that a certain degree of precision is required in encyclopedia articles. US presidents may say they are making a state visit to England, but we both know that, if it is a state visit, they really mean the UK. However, you are by far the expert when it comes to these matters, so please feel free to revert my edit if you feel it muddies rather than clarifies the waters. Tschuess! W. Frank 02:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Well I thought it best to explain, should you be about to make any further changes of that nature. The media never (well, hardly ever) use the PIRA term, and even the PIRA article makes it clear it's more commonly known as the IRA. I think some clarification may be needed on the Fitzgerald part similar to your edit, but not in that exact form. At present the sentence starts with "Irish Prime Minister Garret FitzGerald", so it would make more sense to clarify that particular Irish rather than the latter one possibly? I'll change the PIRA parts back for now, but await further discussion tomorrow on that part. One Night In Hackney303 02:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
