Jump to content

User talk:Blu Aardvark/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Help desk

[edit]

At the help desk, specifcally here, in response to the question you gave a welcome message with heaps of information, but missed answering the actual question. I think the welcome message for newbies at the help desk can be overwhelming and unhelpful, maybe we could work on a welcome template specifially for the help desk? --Commander Keane 12:47, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Attack of the Atheistic Sockpuppets!

[edit]

Thanks for the work, and don't worry about losing any of my deathless prose. Honest to God (sorry), I don't know how I got involved, except extreme irritation, since I have no strong feelings on atheists or geeks. Geez, it's not as if they're the first batch of self-righteous types intent on using Wikipedia as some kind of soapbox/promotional vehicle. --Calton | Talk 08:12, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

P.S.: I think Marcperkel's complaint has something to with the The God Who Wasn't There article, since he seems to reacted extremely badly to it being listed on the Copyright Violation page, haranguing the guy who listed it (User :Doc Glasgow?) on his Talk page.--Calton | Talk 08:17, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Gabrielsimon's most recent 3rr violation

[edit]

I see you said (before Gabriel deleted your comments) that he only had three reverts in 24 hours. Please see a list of them at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Gabrielsimon#Evidence of disputed behavior at # 26. By my count he has at least four if not five, but he tries to split them up and make other edits at the same time so as to confuse the comparisons but always manages to revert the same basic chunk. I'd appreciate it if you relook at it. DreamGuy 09:35, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

DreamGuy must be in love with me or something, he cant stop thinking or talking about me. lol Gabrielsimon 09:40, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

also , it might be good to look and check the edit summaires of Dreamguys in relevence toi his accations of my violations, because for one thing, if its about my RFC page, and it was tonight, that wasnt even me, as i explained on the talk page, and which i am very embarrassed about. for other 3rr accusations , please check for bait9ing in the edit siumam,ries, on Dreamguys part ( rude and insulting edit sumaries)

thanks! Gabrielsimon 09:43, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(and pleae check my talk page for something slightly important) Gabrielsimon 09:46, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

cleanup on aisle 9...

[edit]

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my user talk page! FreplySpang (talk) 17:30, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

thanks

[edit]

Thanks but I was already able to get the list. I realized I had added all the mayors to the List of Irish-Americans so I was able just to get them off there. 64.108.222.252 06:54, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

renames of the speedy deletion templates

[edit]

Now that the TfD on {{nn-bio}} has been closed I have renamed all the speedy deletion templates to names that start with "db-" as discussed in that TfD discussion. I have also cleaned up all double redirs and fixed all coumentation pages I know of. The only template not conforming is {{delete}} because it is currently protected. I hope this meets your concerns in this matter. DES (talk) 23:54, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If people look for information

[edit]

If people look for information on a topic, it should not direct them to your talk page. 69.216.240.155 05:11, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • As far as I am aware, there have never been any times in which anyone directed a person to my talk page for information on a topic. If you are referring to the comments relating to the article on Irish-American mayors, I keep that information intact for my own archival purposes. It's been archived, and nobody was being directed to my talk page in either case. --15:14, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit]

The copyright infringement for Medical Alert you mention is simply wrong. The site you point to as the copyright holder has no copyright for the term "medical alert". In fact, the [www.medicalert.org MedicAlert Foundation] is the holder of the copyright. However, they have permitted the [www.consumeradvisorycouncil.org Consumer Advisory Council] to use their trademark where it serves to help resolve consumer confusion between medical alert alarm systems and MedicAlert bracelets. What's really alarming is that instead of pointing consumers to either the MedicAlert Foundation or the Consumer Advisory Council, you have pointed them to a site that copied most of its text from the Consumer Advisory Council Medical Alarm FAQ.

  • If the copyright infringement is wrong, why not make note of it on the article's talk page? As for the copyright, I didn't suggest that the term was copyrighted by that site - I instead pointed out the fact that the text in the article was an exact copy of text from http://www.realarticles.com/Medical-Alarm.html - which is not in the public domain. A google search for the text did not turn up the Consumer Advisory Council, and I see no support for your claim that the site copied it's text from the Consumer Advisory Council Medical Alarm FAQ. Nice try though. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 17:06, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, you win. If you'd rather degrade the value of Wikipedia by sending consumers to a Google Adsense site, so be it.

  • That site is what a search turned up when I pasted a chunk of the articles text. It appears to be a copyright violation, infringing upon the copyright of the site I linked to. I'm not sending consumers anywhere; I'm simply noting an apparent copyright infringement. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 17:20, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip

[edit]

I'll start doing that from now on and go back to older articles I created and add it. I also see you've added them to a lot of articles, so thanks, that's good work. 69.216.240.155 07:37, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping revert the latest page move vandal account.

[edit]

I noticed you did the other half of the latest page move vandalization reverts. Thanks. JesseW 19:06, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Millennial Wikipedians

[edit]

Category:Millennial Wikipedians has been listed on categories for deletion. Since you are using it on your user page please weigh in on the vote and that of the other generational categories here. Thanks. -JCarriker 20:01, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

template:vandal1

[edit]

Hi, I'm just letting you know that I'm nominating this template for deletion, because I feel it to be redundant with tests 1-3, can be considered "biting the newbies", and causes confusion when someone clicks the section edit link. Feel free to weigh in on the TFD. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 04:31, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Fine, how ever dont mark it for deletation istead redirect to Template:test1? --Cool Cat My Talk 15:12, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Infact I'll make the redirect myself. You may want to cancel the vote. --Cool Cat My Talk 15:19, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Laodicean Church

[edit]

Hi, I thought you might like to take another look at this article, post re-write. --Doc (?) 00:47, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

tlhIngan Hol

[edit]

Hi.

I want learn Klingon as you. Do you know any webpage where learn Klingon? Thanks Reignerok 00:09, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus

[edit]

Check out the Jesus article and edit it to keep it focused on Jesus and a biographical account of Him. Watch the Jesus page to keep it focused on Him. Thank you. Scifiintel 21:41, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]

I've just been reading your suggestions to fix Wikipedia, and while you've got some good points, others strike me as downright odd. Arbitration members are not allowed to vote in cases which they are a party to already. Wikipedia does not have a policy of removing citations from articles, and actively encourages their addition. Policies are already reviewed and voted upon by the community. Hmm. Ambi 03:15, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Some of 'em are a bit odd, actually. I haven't observed much in the way of ArbCom; I've just heard reports, secondhand, that they are allowed to vote in their own hearings. If this is not the case, then, great! All the better, and part of the way there. As for the removing of citations from articles, again, secondhand. The more, the better. And as for the policy part, I was suggesting that current policies be re-reviewed. This is actually a minor thing, but might foster positive discussion. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 05:48, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • You will no doubt note that I made an attempt to clarify these suggestions on my user page. Of course, judging by your attitude that it is "uninformed whinging [sic]", I don't think you will be particurly interested. --User:Blu Aardvark10:08, 1 January 2006 (UTC) (Can't be bothered to sign in right now)[reply]

humorous but can't sign

[edit]

Check the history. I didn't sign it either! WAS 4.250 03:41, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Changes Camp in Portland

[edit]

FYI RecentChangesCamp Tedernst | talk 22:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bummer. There is a conference wiki that I'm sure will be very active during the event and people might also do things through IRC, so check that out if you're interested. Tedernst | talk 22:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistent enforcement of WP:AUTO

[edit]

I recall reading on Wikipedia Review a comment about an editor other than Jimbo who did substantive editing of his own page, whos edits were brought to the attention of admins who turned a bind eye to it. On the off chance you know which post i am talking about, I'd very much appreciate a pointer. --- Charles Stewart 09:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've searched for it, then searched for it again. I know it's there, but I can't seem to find it. The ProBoards search function doesn't seem to work properly, and the title of the thread isn't giving it away. I might just have to re-read every thread on the board to find that reference for you. I'll look into that in a bit. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 19:39, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{sp-sprotected}}

[edit]

Hi there. In the TfD for this, you said we should keep it because we need a small template for long-term protection. But, as I said in the debate, we already have {{sprotected-small}}, which doesn't have the misleadingly titled name of the nominated template. Indeed, the notion of a semi-permanent semi-protect should not be enshrined in a template as there is no basis in policy for it. For George W. Bush we should simply use the correctly named and worded {{sprotected-small}}, don't you agree? -Splashtalk 15:42, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

[edit]

Hi Blu Aardvark, glad to see you did not permanently leave Wikipedia. I was wondering why my Template:Current event template redirect wasn't working, couldn't see the obvious! :) —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-15 13:36Z

Thanks

[edit]

Thanks for taking note of The Arcata Eye and Plazoid pages.--Metatree 00:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Birthday!

[edit]

Have a great day :) -- sannse (talk) 10:15, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Admin Fighter

[edit]

That was really funny, gave me a good chuckle. You should have just crossed it out and left it in. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 11:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Removing religious and political categories. Recent attempt at vote stacking leaves a bad taste in my mouth."

[edit]

Were you referring to this: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Catholic Alliance of Wikipedia-like vote stacking? --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 11:50, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

policy proposal

[edit]

Hi, you recently commented on bible-verse articles, and may therefore be interested in commenting about a proposed policy covering roughly 50 specific verses:

--Victim of signature fascism 20:25, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Blu,

I noticed you changed the logo for the Ubuntu Linux User Box. Why? The usage policy on Ubuntu's offical site clearly allows for such use. Besides, the logo is just that, a low-resolution image of a logo, which is allowed under fair use. I am aware that some discussion has been going around about "fair use" images in user boxes. If you changed the logo to Tux because I labeled it as a fair use image and not with some other licensing information, I'm sure I can find an appropriate image copyright tag. --Jcarroll 06:50, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • At the time I had changed it, several ongoing discussions had indicated that copyrighted images and logos available under fair use were not to be used in userspace, per Wikipedia policy. The Ubuntu trademark policy may allow it, but Wikipedia policy (per WP:FU is to limit images that are not available for commercial use - which the Ubuntu trademark policy explicity disallows. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 10:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC) The preceding text was copied from User talk:Jcarroll[reply]

WP:NPA

[edit]

Please review and adhere to WP:NPA, WP:CIV, and WP:WQT. Please re(?)-familliarize yourself with Wikipedia policy. Thanks in advance. El_C 13:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am fully aware of the above policies, thank you. I do not feel that it can be considered a personal attack, or incivil, to call a troll a troll. I'm sorry if you don't agree with me in that - but that does not mean that my statement is a violation of any of the above policies. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 13:17, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It is a violation, and you must refrain from it. WP:NPA is non-negotiable. El_C 13:30, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Funny. Nobody considers it a violation of WP:NPA to call User:Willy on Wheels a vandal. Nobody considers it a violation to all User:Lir a troll. Why the double standard? Particularly if all I stated was that "I feel that this user is a troll"? WP:NPA is non-negotiable, but apparently it's open for interpretation, depending on who it is, eh? --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 13:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    "Eh," again? Anyway, feel free to request another admin to review this instead. El_C 13:37, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Anyway, believe me when I say that to say "I feel he is a troll" is really one of the nicest things I can really say about him. I apologize if it seems to be incivil, but the fact of the matter is - I feel that strongly, and can think of no other way to express that. Without resorting to actual personal attacks, that is. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 13:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    No need to apologize, as I am not offended. You must, however, attempt to be more thoughtful on how to express such an assessment ("trolling," "resembles the conduct of...", etc.). If you are unable to think of such alternatives, I suggest you refrain from directing such comments until you are able to do so. El_C 13:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    To clarify: let's say that I feel a certain member's Nazi sympathies/apologist leanings impact their edits and interactions with other users, I would rephrase it in terms of this being reflected in editing practices, et cetera, etc., as opposed to the outright, unqualified personal characterization as as a Nazi sympathizer/apologist per se. El_C 14:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism to my Userpage

[edit]

Wikipedia Review is not a "neo-Nazi" "Wikipedia hate site". There are no neo-nazi's on the forum - at least, no open neo-nazis - and it's not a "hate site" - it's simply highly critical. You were banned from the site for trolling, no other reason. If you want to hold that as a badge of honor, it's your perogative, but I would request that you at least be honest about it. Oh, and before you call 207.118.103.139 a sockpuppet of Internodeuser, you should do a whois on it. It's a CenturyTel IP, and geolocates to Canyon City, OR. It's not an Internode IP, geolocating to Melbourne, Australia. Seriously.

It's quite interesting that you know so much about this vandalism. I really don't care if it's Zordrac or not. It's obviously one of the banned users at your little site. I have enough evidence to have the whole IP range banned. Thank you for your assistance. --malber (talk • contribs) 01:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Allow me to politely point out that you have no evidence whatsoever. You have an anon IP removing some trollish statements from your user page.
Also, allow me to point out that I run Wikipedia Review. By calling it a "neo-nazi Wikipedia hate site", you are essentially calling me (and the rest of the members of that forum) a neo-nazi Wikipedia hater - and that could be considered a personal attack. I did not intend to pick a battle with you, or anything of the sort, but I would ask that you calm down. I did see that you tagged this talk page with three templates that had no place whatsoever here - you will see that I removed your blatant trollery, and I would ask that you do not do that again. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 01:52, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RFCU is that-a-way, User:malber. Tread lightly. El_C 04:52, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Banned

[edit]

Hey, why did I get banned from the Wikipedia review? Couldn't you stomach my criticism of your users nastiness about our admins? And how, pray tell, does this give you the high moral ground to complain about blocking on Wikipedia? - Ta bu shi da yu 21:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I didn't ban you - I haven't even checked on the forum or Wikipedia for a couple of days now. I assume this means that Qwerty banned you - I'll have to ask him why when I get a chance. I don't really have the time to look things over at this particular moment, because I'm in the process of moving my stuff out, but as soon as I get an oppurtunity, I'll look into it for you. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 23:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • S'cool. Can you do something about the personal attacks on SlimVirgin? It's really horrible. At least if we get constructive criticism that we can deal with you guys might be listened to by us sometimes. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:10, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Landon2006 move

[edit]

Thanks for the correction, didn't mean to stick a talk page note onto his user page. Deadsalmon 02:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TfD

[edit]

I'm sorry that you find my version of the template insulting; I imagine you have no idea how insulting the present version is to every admin whose only transgression has been to interpret policy as best they can. Am I to understand that you no longer assume good faith? Mackensen (talk) 16:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A further question. If you're so pissed about admins ignoring policy, do you intend to prove these violations and hold us horrible bastards responsible? By all means, file a Request for Arbitration. Call for my head. Otherwise, I'd ask that the black armband come off, because it's not accomplishing anything except stirring up factionalism. I'm here to write an encyclopedia. Are you? Mackensen (talk) 16:37, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, factionalism is a necessary part of Wikipedia. It isn't necessarily a good thing, but Wikipedia's systematic flaws support it. Userboxes do not. As for dispute resolution, it's already been tried. Perhaps you remember Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kelly Martin? I distinctly recall that when that case was brought before the arbitration committee, they unanimously decided not to hear it, despite the clear dispute, and the abusive actions and statements.
Second, the template does not say "This user is pissed...", it says, "This user is annoyed". It also is a bit more specific, and says "This user is annoyed at admins ignoring policy". It really doesn't apply to admins who don't ignore policy. As for specific evidence, feel free to check the logs and contributions of admins like Marksweep. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 21:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I remember the arbitration case quite well; I urged acceptance at the time, in a long-winded outburst of wasted eloquence. Over time, I changed my views, mainly because of the sort of attitude I see expressed above. Factionalism is not, to my mind, a necessary part of Wikipedia. Those of us who've been here a while try to avoid it as much as possible, because it interferes with getting things done. I've always taken a collegial attitude, which is probably why my arbcom candidacy was supported by several users with whom I'd been in prolonged content-related disagreements.
Something else to consider is that many of us believe MarkSweep, Doc glasgow, myself, and others acted in good faith based on what Jimbo said, and take Jimbo's utterances fairly seriously. We're here for the encyclopedia, and we agree that userboxes are polarizing and divisive. Look how much energy has gone into this new phenomenon–a couple months ago we didn't have them, and I think it self-evident that the encyclopedia functioned just fine without them.
Finally, just who, exactly, is an admin who ignores policy? Who decides that? I checked Mark's contributions and I saw plenty of in-process speedy deletions. Consensus isn't required for a speedy deletion. It never has been. The process for such is to delete based on policy. The policy is to delete certain userboxes. Some admins tend towards a more liberal interpretation of the policy, some don't. What irks me, and irks others, is that it doesn't seem to be possible for an admin to make a good-faith deletion around here; no one will believe it. Because these boxes express a POV, removing them becomes a strike against that person's viewpoint, even though it's not. Countless keep votes on DRV express that sentiment, even though it's obvious from the delete logs that the admin in question doesn't give a damn which POV is being pushed (now, an admin who only deleted one kind of POV–that would be abusive).
Anyway, this is a long comment, but perhaps something to think about. Best, Mackensen (talk) 23:34, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spam

[edit]

If you continue to add links to your website on Wikipedia pages, I will consider blocking you for disruption, whether you're adding or restoring them. If you need to direct someone to a page, you can add the nowiki tag, but you seem determined that the links should be live, which suggests you're spamming. Please review WP:NOT. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am determined that Selina's statements should remain as they are. Why are you determined that they remain in nowiki tags, rather than as original? You have stated no reason for your actions, which are abusive, particularly as the editor whose statements you are altering is not free to comment on it or change it. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 05:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please consider WP:CIVIL: "Whereas incivility is roughly defined as personally targeted behavior that causes an atmosphere of greater conflict and stress". And consider the section headed "Removing uncivil comments". Try to be kind, Jeff. Being determined to retain incivlity really isn't very kind. Grace Note 05:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blu, as you know, her post has not been altered, because the link remains. She complained about it on WP:AN/I and received no support. This is an encyclopedia, not a playground, and the silliness over spreading this link has nothing to do with writing an encyclopedia. Finally, please review WP:NPA regarding this comment. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:48, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the comment. I don't want to see you blocked over this, Jeff. It's nonsense. Please don't personally attack SlimVirgin again, whatever your views on her are (and whatever they are, a template talkpage is not the place to express them). And beware breaking the 3RR over this page, please. Consider that a warning if you like. Jeff, you're very heated. Please consider a deep breath and a step back. Grace Note 05:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Cute. You've just proven my statement to be factual, Sarah. You are a troll, PoV pusher, and censor (don't you dare remove this statement. RPA is controversial, and I stand by my words). Nothing but. I see you've blocked me for "spam" for maintaining that Selina's statement should remain as it is. You have granted no real reason why her statement should be altered, other than, quite simply, you don't agree with the site. I can understand why you would be upset - we are often quite critical of your actions, but for damned good reason, as you have just proven. Right now. It's a good thing I've decided to go on a Wikibreak anyway. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 05:55, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Block

[edit]

As you continued to restore the link after being warned, I have blocked your account for disruption. The block is a very brief one, but if this behavior continues, the blocks will increase in length. The website you are trying to link to is, first of all, one that is run by you, which makes your attempts to include links to it inappropriate. In addition to that, it contains some very serious libels about editors, including that one editor, whose real name is revealed, is a pedophile, which is the kind of stupid attack that could get someone killed. That is another reason it will not be linked to from Wikipedia. I repeat: this is an encyclopedia, not a children's playground, not a link repository, not a userbox project, and not a venue for your personal attacks. If you assure me that you will stop creating live links to this website on Wikpedia, and will stop helping others to do so, I will be happy to unblock you. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:56, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Allow me to clarify. I have blocked your account for disruption. What disruption? I disrupted your ability to go on a censorship spree, SlimVandal. I did not disrupt Wikipedia in any way by doing so. if this behavior continues, the blocks will increase in length. A threat? You know you aren't supposed to block editors you are in dispute with, but what the Hell, abuse of admin privelages is perfectly acceptable for a member of the elitist cabal. The website you are trying to link to is, first of all, one that is run by you, No, I'm an admin there. I don't run the new site. That would be like saying you shouldn't include links to Wikipedia because you are an admin here. On second thought, that's a good idea - we need less abusive PoV pushers. it contains some very serious libels about editors. Nonsense. The forum has moved, and the "libelous" postings (not that there was actually any libel) have not been copied over at any point. But thank you for pointing out your ignorance. That is another reason it will not be linked to from Wikipedia. No, the reason it will not be linked from Wikipedia is because SlimVandal is throwing a temper-tantrum because members of the board criticized her actions. Well, there was the near-porn picture by Selina, but we've already covered that. If you assure me that you will stop creating live links to this website on Wikpedia I won't create live links to the site, no. and will stop helping others to do so If you censor somebody's comment, I have every inention of restoring it to it's unadultered form, unless you can explain your actions, which you have not done. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 08:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The forum is never going to be taken seriously. Why do you insist on banging your head against a brick wall on this? As long as it continues to be run by banned users (especially Selina who has shown a penchant for disclosing users' personal information) with access to IP addresses of posters, this will remain the case. No disenter in his right mind would post there. I sure as hell refuse to. The past reputation of the old board isn't lost by changing to the new location. But go ahead and call this censorship and hyperbolically rant about it in posts over there. It won't do anything to raise the tenor of the debate. Anyone familiar with the history of the site and the personality of its sysop would perfectly understand Slim's actions. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 19:55, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments requested

[edit]

I'd like your thoughts on a brainstorm I've tried to articulate here: User:Leifern/Adminwatch idea. And feel free to spread the word. --Leifern 16:55, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

[edit]
This user thinks it is ironic that thanks for supporting Cyde's successful RFA came in the form of a userbox.

Here's a userbox for you. --Cyde Weys 04:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikistress.

[edit]

I do hope you find the peace you need in your break, and the stress goes away soon. Try to hang in there. - File:Ottawa flag.png nathanrdotcom (T • C • W) 04:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robot Rage

[edit]

Please drop your prejudices and retain some objectivism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephenjh (talk • contribs)

  • I have no "prejudices" against the article. I simply feel it is not notable. Consensus has been reached on this fact, and that can be reviewed via the relevant AFD. I tagged it for CSD because it is a recreation of an article that has been deleted, by consensus, through one of the deletion processes and in line with our deletion policty. If you feel that it should not have been deleted, or that the deletion was "prejudiced", you are welcome to list the article on Wikipedia:Deletion review, which is the proper venue for such things. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 02:30, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for one week

[edit]

You have been blocked for 1 week for violations of WP:NPA in regards to your WikiBreak parting message. --Cyde Weys 21:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

[edit]

Your request to be unblocked is denied. First of all, you're purportedly on a WikiBreak, so why do you care if you're blocked? (See, perhaps, meatball:GoodBye.) Second, your block was justified by your behaviour, so don't expect it to be removed quite so quickly. Some indication that you understand why you were blocked, that you understand that your block was justified, and that you will not engage in such behavior in the future would be a good start. Kelly Martin (talk) 22:02, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Why do I care? Because I have trolls such as User:SlimVirgin and User:Jayjg launching personal attacks on me on WP:DRV and WP:ANI, and I have every intention of responding to their falsehoods and trolling. Second, because those users ARE trolls... I cannot interpret their statements and abuses of power in any other way. How is it a personal attack to call a troll a troll? You call Lir a troll, you call us trolls, but it's a violation of WP:NPA to conclude that such accusations, without any basis in actual fact, are, in fact, trolling? You call Willy on Wheels a vandal... that's a personal attack if you want to stretch it that way. You also are not neutral. I request a nuetral admin to review the block, not a troll such as yourself. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 22:10, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
After those personal attacks, I am extending your block to 1 month --Doc ask? 22:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK Since your latest posts indicate a slightly cooler tone, it is probably worth an attempt at going the extra mile. Socks stink, but talk is normally good, so I'm going to unprotect your talk page for now so a conversation becomes possible. Any further socks (even that old one you've spoken of), or anything that even smells of a personal attack and it will be protected again (and I'll be watching offsite too). But let's see if we can't cool things by some civil discussion. --Doc ask? 10:38, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discourse here removed

[edit]

I've removed the discourse that was in the place of this section, since user talk pages are not intended to mirror the Arbitration Committee nor is Wikipedia a soapbox for users' points of view, as per WP:NOT. I have also protected this page, since it seems that leaving it open to editing merely shall foment further disagreement between Blu Aardvark and his opponents in the ongoing dispute. I will remove the page protection when Blu Aardvark's block expires. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 02:43, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Sorry 'bout the stress, dude

[edit]
Perfectly percolated Esperanza blend coffee, just for you!

I'm truly sorry to hear you've got stress up the wazoo and then some. Don't let it all offset your confidence—you're valuable to Wikipedia. I hope you feel better. ^_^ --The ikiroid (talk/parler/hablar/paroli/说/話) 02:05, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just hang loose for a while, and when the block expires, take some time in the coffee lounge ;). Think of it as a vacation, not a block. I don't know if that helps, but it's the best advice I got.--The ikiroid (talk/parler/hablar/paroli/说/話) 02:30, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Block/unblock

[edit]

Frankly, I can't be bothered reading the whole post on ANI. FWIW, I have always felt that this user was redeemable. I think the question is, 'does he wish redemption'. I invite Blu to post here, indicating what behaviour we can expect if he is unbanned. Then perhaps we'd have more to go on. --Doc ask? 21:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have unblocked this user (as one of the two primary "victims" of his personal attacks, I feel this is my right). I agree with Doc that I feel he is redeamable. He has agreed to be on his best behavior, and that's good enough for me. Raul654 00:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have you discussed this action with the other involved parties? -Will Beback 00:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Workshop

[edit]

Is this edit you, and do you want it readded? Can't help with the block problem, unless you want me to post on AN or someone else's talk page but {{unblock}} would accomplish the same, mostly. Kotepho 07:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that was me. Thought I was logged in. Go ahead and re-add it. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 07:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

[edit]

{--Discussion with Malber archived to history--} {--Further trolling removed--}

I added the deleted sections to your archive 2 assuming you would do this yourself if not blocked. No need to reply unless you strongly object to this action. NoSeptember talk 13:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I appreciate it. (By which I mean, it's exactly what I would have done) --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 18:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

?

[edit]

Hi. We never interacted before, but you've generated a lot of attention lately. Just so I can understand a little better why you've come back, could you comment on the following posting of yours on Wikipedia Review?

Whether banned or not, I have no intention of legitimately contributing to their "encyclopedia" ever again... not after the way I have been treated, at least.
Oh, I may eventually come back, as a sockpuppet, and make some legit edits, but I honestly do not plan to. The ones in charge of the place are disruptive, abusive, and just flat-out rude, and I have no desire to be a part of that.

Have things changed since then? Thanks, — mark ✎ 08:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To an extent, yes. I've worked out or gotten over my disputes with mosts of the people I have had conflict with. The others, I feel I can avoid. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 17:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your response. I think it's going to prove quite difficult to avoid some people here, but I wish you good luck. — mark ✎ 16:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline

[edit]

Wikipedia Review was initially founded in November 05, or perhaps earlier. I joined the initial WR in December. Selina joined it in January, shortly after the userbox fiasco.

The site was relatively small and exceptionally non-notable at the time, hosted on a proboards server. The administrator of the forum was "Igor Alexander" (quite probably the same person as User:Amalekite), who appointed me as a global moderator over the forum in mid-December, and later passed partial adminship to me. In early 2006, a poster using the screenname "jackwelsh" (who is quite probably the "Disruptive Apartheid Editor" whome Jayjg describes on a user subpage) joined Wikipedia Review, and began posting some comments of an anti-semitic nature. I chose not to take action, because I did not see his posts as "hate speech" particularly, and although they were offensive, were not offensive enough to warrant taking action. This created some conflicts between myself and some Wikipedia editors who were active there at the time (including El C), who felt that I should have banned him and deleted his posts rather than allowing him the privelage of posting there, and that my refusal to do so was an indication that I was either anti-semitic myself, or at least nazi-apologetic. In response to this conflict, and the hateful attitude expressed towards Igor by many members of the forum (since it was assumed that Igor was Amalekite, and that Amalekite was Alex Linder), Igor "reclaimed" the forum, banned many participants there, and used the board as an apparent platform for neo-Nazi politics. However, Igor explained his intentions to me by private corresponse, and I defended him because I understood and respected his explanation. This, of course, heightened the conflict between myself and users who assumed that I held neo-nazi viewpoints. (For the record, I don't. I do, however, believe firmly in free speech, even if the speech is unpopular or even offensive. I do recognize reasonable limits, however. If a neo-Nazi is explaining his beliefs in a coherent, civil manner, I see no reason why that is unnacceptable. If they are calling for the blood of Jews, there is a problem with that.)

I believe it was in late January I created my first sockpuppet accounts, which were used as a form of experiment prompted by discussion with Lir. Orange Flowerpot, Another Orange Flowerpot, and related accounts were used to leave messages of a nature similar to posts by Lir on Raul654 and Snowspinner's talk pages. The results of the "experiment" were posted on Wikipedia Review. Technically, this was sockpuppet abuse, but I felt justified because it seemed the only way to test certain presumptions about how Wikipedia functioned.

Wikipedia Review moved to its own domain and away from Igor's adminship in mid-February. Appointed as admins over the site were myself, Lir, Qwerty, and Selina. Blissyu2 declined adminship.

(More to follow)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Blu_Aardvark

[edit]

Hello,

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 23:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you aren't unblocked to make a statement there, you could probably just write it here and someone would move it to that page.-- The ikiroid  02:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocked for arbitration

[edit]

I have unblocked you to participate directly in your arbitration. You can edit only arbitration pages and your own user pages. Fred Bauder 22:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The block is still active. According to User:Raul654, there appears to be a mediawiki bug affecting names with spaces. Unblocking "Blu Aardvark" does not unblock "Blu_Aardvark".
In addition, there is now an autoblock on #181484, associated with my IP. "06:19, 6 June 2006, JoshuaZ (Talk) blocked #181484 (expires 06:19, 7 June 2006) (Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "Blu Aardvark". The reason given for Blu Aardvark's block is: "Reblocking -I don't want to wheel war, so this is going to be my only block in the m)"
If you, or another admin, could assist in this, that would be greatly appreciated. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 06:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An unblocking admin must unblock "Blu_Aardvark" (with the underscore) or the unblock fails. I won't do it because I promised El_C I wouldn't use my admin privileges any futher in this matter. Raul654 15:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have cleared this now, let me know if it hasn't... Ian13/talk 13:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Thank you for persisting

[edit]

I would like to thank you for giving wikipedia another chance. You had many reasons to walk away, yet you didn't, and it shows a lot of character to persist at improvement. Even if this does not turn out for you, you have shown many wikipedians that not all banned users lose faith and walk away. You broke the mold. Please keep in mind that not every wikipedian is trying to cross-examine your actions, many are just in disbelief that such a turn-around could be considered genuine.--The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 22:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no longer planning on returning, ban or no ban, sockpuppet or no sockpuppet. While I do appreciate your encouragement on my behalf, the messages sent by a powerful subsection of the community are pretty clear. I believe bumm13, in his bad-faith judgement, explained it best -#wikipedia: You have parted the channel: requested by ChanServ: "Is_not_welcome_here_added_by_bumm13_on_6-15-06".
I don't intend to contribute to a project where I am not welcome. That's a waste of my time, and it's a waste of the project's time. The arbitration committee may not have made a final decision just yet, but I can read from the voices who have contributed to the proposed decion so far the message that I am not welcome. That's what a ban of a year is a statement of, and I'm no fool. That's what selectively applied evidence that is also misleading or just plain false is a statement of, and I can read the message plain as day. While that ban has not been finalized just yet, it is all but certain that it will be, and I'm not going to waste my time trying to grasp at the wind.
It is a shame that in this case the Arbitration Committee would listen to the voices of the lynch mob rather than to the ideals of the project, but I suppose I shouldn't be surprised. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 09:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to rest on this for a bit. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 12:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IRC

[edit]
2006-06-10 22:36 < Bumm13> how nice, Blu_Aardvark decided to pay us a visit...
2006-06-10 22:37 < karynn> bumm13: it's always nice when the antisemites stop in
2006-06-08 08:11 < karynn> Werdna: blu is perfectly civil until he turns on you.
2006-06-08 08:11 < ambi2> well, blu is. indeed.
2006-06-08 08:11 < karynn> but he doesn't hide his antisemitism very well.

Ahem. The things that you discover from Brandt's little chat searcher.

Consider this post a confirmation that the Arbitration Commitee is free to drop this case. I have no interest in returning, ever, when people are going to talk shit like this, attack me for no reason whatsoever, ban me without cause from IRC channels or wiki discussions, paste libelous accusations around the place.... no. I'm done with any contributions here, period. The fact of the matter is, you've made it very clear that I'm not welcome.

However, I request a full written apology from User:Kelly Martin, User:Cyde, User:Rebecca, and User:Bumm13, in addition to any others who have thrown around such accusations or otherwise acted in an unwarranted abusive manner towards me. I don't honestly expect that any of these users are going to be mature enough to realize that they have acted in an abusive manner, but I nonetheless request an apology from these users. You may contact me via Special:Emailuser.

No, I am not an anti-semite, and I am sick and tired of users who try to paint me as one. Those accusations are hurtful and flat-out false. Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 11:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blu Aardvark, do not burn your bridges to Wikipedia. Please reconsider your comment on the RFAr and revert it. I would support a mentorship in 3-6 months if you are interested and WR.org is functioning more like a critics corner than a rumor mill. I agree that some comments made in IRC are troublesome. Unfortunately, many people are trashed in #Wikipedia channel. It is a systemic problem and you should not personalize it. regards, FloNight talk 12:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All right. I'll give it some extra consideration. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 12:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RC help

[edit]

I don't know if you'll ever get to revert vandalism ever again, but I saw you're on RC patrol, so here's a helpful code to add to your monobook. It makes vandalism reversion a lot easier. 

// Script from [[User:Lupin/recent2.js]]
 document.write('<script type="text/javascript" src="' 
             + 'http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Lupin/recent2.js' 
             + '&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s"></script>');

Anyway, good luck.--The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 01:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You've been blocked

[edit]

You've been blocked for violating the terms of your unblocking. The terms were to only edit your statement, as well as your userspace, but according to your contribs, you have violated this. Didn't you know?--The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 02:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly I don't think he cares ... the one-year block is coming down from ArbCom any hour now (three motions to close so far and four have it). --Cyde↔Weys 02:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I knew. I chose to ignore that. You can't say that my contributions weren't helpful. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 12:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


In response to the following message on WP:ANI:

Yup, here, both in content and in edit summary, invoking WP:IAR. Problem is, there is a massive difference between ignoring the rules and ignoring specific instructions by ArbCom.

Actually, there is no difference. From the version of WP:IAR that I was familiar worth, one of the purposes behind the concept in the first place is to avoid the red tape and bureaucracy of Wikipedia for the purpose of constructing a quality encyclopedia. The very defination of ArbCom is "bureaucracy". My edits that I made were constructive, and beneficial to the cause of constructing a quality encyclopedia.

Now, to be fair to Cyde, the block was within policy, and I don't object to it on any purely technical grounds. However, the block was clearly not made in good faith, even if it is defensible by Wikipedia's policies on ArbCom proceedings. I don't care if I am unblocked - blocking me is only superficially effective anyway, as I can make either good or bad-faith contributions even while blocked - but Cyde shouldn't try to kid people into thinking that his actions were in good faith. He's had an issue with me ever since I opposed him on his RFA. His initial one-week block of my account for "personal attacks" was made in bad faith, and his lies on WP:ANI and elsewhere were also made in bad faith. I still stand that Cyde does more harm than good as an admin, and the project will improve dramatically once he is desysopped.

Even worse than the block, however, was the fact that another user went by and reverted some of those constructive contributions - one of those contributions involving the removal of text that violates copyright, and another contribution adding a note that an article on a real person was unsourced. Those reverts were innappropriate, even if defensible by the banning policy. I have restored those edits. If reverted again, I will leave it be, but I do caution FeloniousMonk or other over-zealous admins to think before reverting. Is Wikipedia an encyclopedia, or an MMORPG? You decide. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 00:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A final note: One has to admire the irony that a contributor recieved an indefinate block after removing copyvios and reverting vandalism. Most indefinate blocks are handed out for precisely the opposite reasons. Something to think about. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 00:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you here. It doesn't make sense to revert good edits just because they were made by a banned user. But at the same time, it doesn't make sense not to block a user violating ArbCom sanctions just because they happen to be making good edits at the present time. I hope you understand. --Cyde↔Weys 04:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, and on a purely procedural level, the block was within policy and within process. However, don't kid people that it was also in good faith. You and I both know better.

Of course, his final actions were nothing more than an attempt to sow confusion by playing the "Ohh look at me, I'm making good edits but you're blocking me anyway!" card. That is to say, he wasn't editing because he truly cared about making the encyclopedia better, only to try to make us look bad. --Cyde↔Weys 04:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't doing anything to sow discord or confusion. It's interesting how you expect me to assume good faith of your actions, but you cannot assume good faith of mine. Please note, I have no hard feeling against you for performing the block, and you were technically justifiable in doing what you did - but you were still in the wrong.

I was editing to edit, to improve the encyclopedia. To go out with a bang, but on a different note than last time. Yes, part of it was a social expirement of sorts, to see who would block me for what reason, and when, but primarily, I was interested in making some positive contributions, if for no other reason than to detract from the cherry-picked evidence (and flat-out falsehoods) on the ArbCom page.

And still another part of me had to laugh at the irony of it all. I was well aware that I would likely get blocked for my contributions, but I have to admit that I chuckled when someone actually did perform such a block. Because according to the central Wikipedia philosophies, it made no sense whatsoever. According to the overdeveloped bureaucratic and legalistic structure that Wikipedia has devolved into, however, it was perfectly justifiable. I think this final block in and of itself speaks louder than any of my contributions on Wikipedia Review ever did. I'm only curious now to see who decides to listen to the facts and try to improve things, and who decides to hold their ears and scream until I go away.

Wikipedia is broken. It has failed to live up to it's ideals, and is devolving at a rapidly-accelerating pace. In a sense, it has reached Eternal September. The longer Wikipedia's critical flaws are ignored, the more serious they will become, and the harder it will be to recover from the mess. Unfortunately, the preferred method is to ignore the cesspit that lies underneath your handful of featured articles and well-developed egos, and instead brag about how big Wikipedia is getting, failing to realize all the while that the bulk of Wikipedia is unreliable, unsourced, and badly-formatted, and the content undergoes constant vandalism, pointless revert wars, and worse.

There is a saying to the effect that if an infinite amount of monkeys pounded on a infinite amount of typewriters, they would eventually produce the complete works of Shakespeare. This is not true. They would produce Wikipedia. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 09:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Provocative epitaph to Blu Aardvark as Wikipedian

[edit]

Blu Aardvark started off, as many of us do, as a good earnest newbie Wikipedian. He did a few questionable things and got a taste of some of the Wikipedia community's officiousness. He did not handle it well and flamed out in a puerile fashion. He then co-founded a criticism site, quite likely with good intentions, but just stood by when it got out of hand and other members launched some vicious attacks. He had a change of heart and tried to come back to Wikipedia, but the community was unforgiving and reacted with anger. This time he left with class and maturity, trapping us in our own officiousness in a nice coup de grace. It sounds as if he has matured and learned from the debacle; let us hope that, in time, the Wikipedia community will as well. Martinp 04:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This summary is mostly accurate, except that I did not cofound the board. I joined an older board, and retained a nuetral stance on Wikipedia. I got a taste of the Wikipedia community's officiousness after I joined the forum. I helped to found the second board, but I was involved with Wikipedia Review long before I had a conflict with any Wikipedians. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 01:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Blu Aardvark final

[edit]

This case has closed and the final decision is published at the link above.

For the cabal. --Tony Sidaway 00:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't even have to click that link. I know that the ArbCom members are fucking liars already. Cherry-picked, selectively endorsed evidence, and much of it isn't even true to begin with. You'd think that ArbCom would be able to at least hold a pretense of nuetrality, but they can't even manage that.
The final decision can safely be read, "the encyclopedia comes second". It's the wishes of the elite few that come first. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 01:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I have just changed your block to one year per the ruling. Ian¹³/t 11:45, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alrighty. Not that either matters much, in either case. The whole point in selecting a ban of a year is to discourage a user from ever coming back. That's why the arbitration comittee goes for the maximum length whenever possible. Maybe I'll be back when the ban expires, maybe not. Maybe I'll wait a few weeks, and come back under a new sockpuppet - maybe not (technically, that's against the banning policy). I'm not sure what I want to do, but I do intend to wait at least a month before making any decisions. It is regrettable, however, that the arbitration comittee was so hard-pressed to find evidence of abusive actions on my part that they resorted to falsifying and misrepresenting the actual facts. I never encouraged Amorrow to stalk AnnH - I encouraged him to, if he was going to sockpuppet around bans - be constructive. I did once refer to Jayjg as "Jewjg" offsite, but that was in an off-hand manner, and wasn't strictly intended as a personal attack, and definately not intended as a slur. It was also nearly three months ago. But the arbitration comittee doesn't care about the facts, only the result that they get to hand down. Which is sad, really, because they are *supposed* to have the best interests of the project at heart. Only one of them was able to even hold a pretense of nuetrality, and he was in a position where he had to recuse himself. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 12:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do always think that if you want a user to come back - then a year is too long. Ian¹³/t 13:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
After your split with Zordrac and Selina's site, I really hoped that you would get probation. I hope that you learn something from this and that you do return. It would be good to work with you on the project some time in the future. I also think that a forum for serious and open discussion about the project is a good thing. I hope that you put the new forum back up. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 14:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I would personally object to any forum. It is easier to keep all discussion intermal to Wikipedia (ie, the main site, and at a push the mailing lists and IRC). Ian¹³/t 15:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You can't really stop an external forum if someone wants to set it up. I had higher hopes that Blu would keep the new one clean. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 17:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I know - but people who make them commonly arn't liked here. Ian¹³/t 20:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blu, I'm marking my calendar to email you in 3-4 weeks. Like I said before, try not to do anything that will completely burn your bridges to Wikipedia. You are upset now, but later you may change your mind and want to comeback. Take care, FloNight talk 18:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Blu_Aardvark/Archive_2&oldid=1052647393"