User talk:Indubitably/Archive 43

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Indubitably. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

→

Can you assist?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism#Please_assist.

Thanks much! 207.237.61.26 (talk) 07:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for three months. لenna vecia 07:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Awesome. Thanks much!

PS- The World AIDS Day article is going to be hit hard by vandals today and I'm not sure how to do anything about it, can you help protect it? Thanks again. 207.237.61.26 (talk) 08:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

OMG, I'm sorry, but already http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:24.164.80.168 has vandalized World AIDS Day (and then un-vandalized it), this person has been warned about vandlaism repeatedly on their page. 207.237.61.26 (talk) 08:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I've posted a protection request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, hope that helps. Ϣere Spiel Chequers 09:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

It was declined, but I've watchlisted World Aids Day. Ϣere Spiel Chequers 10:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

The IP noted was last warned like three weeks ago. A final warning should not have been dropped as you did, as IPs change. So the user you warned is not necessarily the user who was last warned. لenna vecia 13:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I see that there have been "disruptive edits" adn warnings on at least 5 occasions on that IP, to the Missy Elliot and Playstation3 and Sparta articles, all since September. I'm not the most experienced editor, sorry. How many warnings does a person get? 207.237.61.26 (talk) 16:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Typically, a series of four escalating warnings. However, they need to be relatively close together as far as time issued. If a user is given three warnings in one day, doesn't edit for a week, then comes back and makes another poor edit, the series usually starts over, or goes back down to level two. It depends on the edits, the number of previous warnings, and (honestly) the mood of the editor issuing the warning. However, IP editors are a bit different than registered editors. IPs change, which is why we block IP for a matter of hours or a few short days, usually. So warnings to them really need to be in the span of a day or two. Otherwise, you may be warning someone else. لenna vecia 16:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I understand. Sorry about that. PS- There have been several vandals on the World AIDS Day page, as predicted. Happend every year on WAD. 207.237.61.26 (talk) 21:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

(<--) I think I reverted some vandalism while using Huggle earlier, but I also saw constructive IP vandalism. This is, in my opinion, sort of like the TFA protection policy, which is that we don't protect the main page article while it's featured, because it sort of defeats the whole anyone can edit thing. A lot of people are going to be visiting the WAD article today, so it's probably best not to protect as long as the vandalism is getting reverted quickly. لenna vecia 21:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I disagree somewhat, though. A quick review of the article and related discussion page shows easily that every Nov 29 - Dec 2 this article gets pounded. As smoeone with HIV, it sucks that Wiki allows it. EVERY YEAR. Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ruslik0#World_AIDS_Day . 207.237.61.26 (talk) 05:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

I'm all huggled out, I've been waiting for someone to take over for almost two hours (x_x) --Closedmouth (talk) 14:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

O snaps. Next time, just drop a note! لenna vecia 14:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

But it's so addictive. I was telling myself, "Man, I really need to stop, just ping some people to take up the slack," but I was really thinking, "No way, man, don't make it stop, I'm on a fucking roll tonight!!" Damn you Gurch. Damn you to hell. --Closedmouth (talk) 14:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Hahaha... I'll be sure to pass on the message to gurch. XD He is, indeed, brilliant. لenna vecia 14:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Edits to the Co-operative Insurance

Hi!

The edits I was in the process of making were not vandalism - I was sorting out some double redirects. Thanks! Rubisco (talk) 14:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

While I'm here. Double redirects are handled by bots nowadays. Not that fixing them is bad, just not really necessary. And blanking the page doesn't help anything. --Closedmouth (talk) 14:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Rubisco. Sorry about that. As Closedmouth sort of blunty noted, blanking pages with no edit summary is typically viewed as vandalism. Best to replace the link rather than blank and then fix. Either way, edit summaries are always good! I struck the warning, tho. Thanks for letting me know. :) لenna vecia 14:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for help with Thegreatestmoever

Hiya, I've been keeping an eye on User:Thegreatestmoever for a few days now, they seem to do some decent edits but mixed in with a load of vandalism. I've already given them a level 1 warning, as has another person, which they blanked (and I briefly restored, because I was under the mistaken impression that users weren't allowed to blank their warnings), and then as you probably saw gave them a level 3 warning today for further vandalism, as the second user to give a level 1 stated that they'd likely have used a level 2 if my warning hadn't been blanked before they came along. You've now added to this with a level 4 warning, and as you're an administrator I'm just wondering - do I still need to report this user to WP:AIV if they continue their vandalism, or are you now keeping an eye on them, ready to block? That, and thanks for the help! :) Xmoogle (talk) 15:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Hm. I apparently reverted my reply when I reverted Thegreatestmoever. Well, anyway, doesn't matter now, he's blocked indef. He did make a good point, tho... I need bewbs!! XD لenna vecia 15:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Aw. I feel your pain, I could use being less flat chested myself! And I'm quite amused that he called Jac16888 the "big smelly lesbo bitvhhh" when I'm the very tall (but hopefully not smelly) lesbian who's been keeping an eye on him for quite some time, reverting his edits and giving him warnings, and I've suffered no abuse at all for it. I think his insult targetting system needs recalibrating! Xmoogle (talk) 15:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Ahahaha... ah, good times! XD لenna vecia 15:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

By the way, just so you know, I fixed the unblock template that Thegreatestmoever tried to put on his talk page (which has since been declined)... I think I felt kind of sorry for him, even if the reason given appeared to be untrue... hope it wasn't a problem to be fixing this template for him, like, against any rules or anything? Xmoogle (talk) 16:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

That's perfectly acceptable. What a joke that thread turned into, by the way. Haha. لenna vecia 16:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, with all these wikiwords flying about (wikistress, wikibreak, etc), there needs to be a new one if it doesn't exist already - wikilols... PS, I love how your talk page is formatted, I may just have to steal some of the code for my own! Xmoogle (talk) 16:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I found the "big smelly lesbo bitvhhh" comment very funny, certainly a new one I don't think I've ever been called that before, although he seemed to be a bit mixed up since I never gave him a last warning--Jac16888 (talk) 17:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think he knew what was going on. He just knew he was surrounded by females, and apparently thought they were all lesbians. >_> لenna vecia 18:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

:O

(cur) (last) 15:56, December 1, 2008 Jennavecia (Talk | contribs | block) (55,820 bytes) (Reverted edits by 64.115.219.114 to last version by (HG)) (undo)

You just gave away my secret! I thought no one would ever figure out that I am WP:HG...

<CURSE YOUUUUUUUUUU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 16:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Dude... considering how often you beat me to reverts, I think it's obvious you're HG. >_> لenna vecia 16:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Current revision as of 12:57, 1 December 2008 J.delanoy (Talk | contribs | block [rollback] m (→:O: I didn't realize how much I mauled this page with all those <big>'s. Sorry)

You ought to be ashamed of yourself! لenna vecia 18:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

ashamed? this is awfully weird.

Sluggy Question

Why was my addition of a review considered vandalism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.157.179.168 (talk • contribs) 11:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a blog site. It's not a place to drop your personal opinion or negative, unsourced comments about living people. لenna vecia 16:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

It was in the critical reception portion of an article, I assumed it was ok to post reviews of the comic. I was attempting to link the reference as well, I am a bit new at this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.157.179.168 (talk • contribs)

Please sign your posts using four tildes (~~~~). Let's review what you posted:

:John Solomon of Your Webcomic is Bad and You Should Feel Bad has this to say about Sluggy Sluggy Freelance as "Sluggy Freelance is and always will be a bad webcomic. It has bad art, bad writing (despite a few good jokes and a few more good jokes that were turned into terrible jokes by overplaying them) and almost three hundred thousand words of backstory for you to enjoy before you even come close to understanding what the fuck is happening. That's pretty much the hallmark of a bad webcomic."

Our critical reception sections are for notable reviews. Is John Solomon or Your Webcomic notable? Judging by the language of the review, my guess would be no. لenna vecia 16:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

He has be cited in two other webcomic articles Dresden Codak and The Wotch#cite note-js attack-27 70.157.179.168 (talk) 16:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Not anymore. We don't cite blogs. لenna vecia 16:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

My mistake sorry about the error. For future notes does that include commercial blogs like engadget.com? 70.157.179.168 (talk) 16:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

It depends. See WP:Reliable sources. لenna vecia 17:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for you help and sorry for my confusion. 70.157.179.168 (talk) 20:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

No problem. لenna vecia 20:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

"Disgustingly Uncivil"

I'm touched that when the words "disgustingly uncivil" are used the first thing that comes into your mind is me. ;-) [1]

(If there's some acane rule about having links to that site on wikipedia, then please just delete the link.) --Malleus Fatuorum 16:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

If there is a rule about linking to WR, someone can bite me. As far as that thread, hahaah... well, when I read "disgustingly uncivil", you are not the first to come to mind, however, when Alex is speaking about prolific content contributors who happen to be appreciated by SandyGeorgia, you do come to mind. :D <3 لenna vecia 16:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

PS. It's certainly true that I don't understand a world in which a comment like "Bigger amount of posts, wouldn't make your claims look more credible, actually" results in a warning for a personal attack. (No, it wasn't me who said that.) --Malleus Fatuorum 16:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Given who's saying it, I kind of assumed your "disgustingly uncivil friend" was me. Although if he's refering to an uncivil friend of Sandy's who gets leeway not granted to others because of his contribution history, I think I might be able to work it out. (Speaking of civility, read this lurch over the line into insanity. Even by the standards of my talkpage, this is above-and-beyond.) – iride scent 16:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Malleus: Who issued an NPA warning for that? I srsly need to lay a smackdown with a clue-by-four.

Iri: Hmmm. I would think a reference to my disgustingly uncivil friend would be someone else entirely. But, yes, he was speaking of Sandy's friends. Your talk page is a circus, by the way. لenna vecia 17:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

The world has gone mad.[2] Sandy and I have had our disagreements, even recently, over the behaviour of a certain administrator in relation to this article. So I'm not entirely certain she would count me amongst her friends anyway; I'd settle for not being on her list of enemies. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 18:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Just in case the pair of you missed it. – iridescent 18:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Funny, when I think of Lara, "sexily uncivil" comes to mind... ;)--Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

0.0 ... Thanks. ;) لenna vecia 18:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I want to know more about JENNA!

can i comment on this page jennavecia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.145.221.112 (talk • contribs)

Please sign your posts using four tildes ~~~~. What is it you would like to discuss? لenna vecia 18:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

are you a real person? 78.145.221.112 (talk) 18:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)are you a real person?

No, I'm a machine. لenna vecia 18:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

are you being sarcastic? i mean, do you like work for wikipedia? 78.145.221.112 (talk) 18:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm part machine. I'm not telling you which part, though. HalfShadow 18:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

78.145.221.112 (talk) 18:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)i do not understand you. and why is your name now 'halfshadow' wheredid jenna go?

I can confirm she's a machine. We all take turns servicing her. – iride scent 18:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Really? I though we...Oh yeah. Service. Gotcha. HalfShadow 18:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

(EC x3) I'm not an employee. I don't think machines normally get paid. :/ Please add the tildes to the end of your post. لenna vecia 18:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps this is an artificial stupidity test? --Malleus Fatuorum 18:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

are you all like proper geeks that edit wikipedia all day? no offense but i'm just interested! :D woops forgot the 'tidles'78.145.221.112 (talk) 19:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC) nobody reminded me before jenna did.

I prefer the term "nerd". لenna vecia 19:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

No offence take. BTW. you passed the test. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 19:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

And I'm just wondering if Jenna needs servicing. I've got my tool kit and my plumber's snake. HalfShadow 19:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

0.0 Where's the_undertow when I need him? لenna vecia 19:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

why have other people joned the converstion? i only want to talk to jenna! i'll call you nerd if you prefer it (: where you from then? like what country? x 78.145.221.112 (talk) 19:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, these peeps? They're my adoring fans. XD Where am I from? Stamp on my back says "Made in Malaysia". لenna vecia 19:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

oh very good. and why wont you just blatiently tell me what counrty your from? is it america? 78.145.221.112 (talk) 19:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

You know that picture isn't actually her, right? This is her actual photo. – iride scent 19:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

(EC) Tildes at the end, tildes at the end! Sing it wit me nao! Tildes at the end! Heeeey! Hoooo! Tildes at the end!

Uhm, why do you think I should feel obligated to answer personal questions, particularly when the answers are on my user page? لenna vecia 19:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

IRI! YOU PROMISED YOU WOULDN'T.... grrr. We're not friends anymore... >_> لenna vecia 19:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

personal? its just a country, and i thought my friendly manor may have welcomed you to tell me. i'm willing to answer any questions you may have for me. do you even know my name jenna?78.145.221.112 (talk) 19:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Because I'm not just a mechanical Barbie, I'm a psychic mechanical Barbie... er Ken. لenna vecia 19:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC

whats an IR? why arent we friends?

Everyone on Wikipedia is everyone else's friend. We're like hippies, or a colony of sewer-rats. – iridescent 19:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

OOOH! OOOH! Can I be the Rat King? Please? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

(EC) IRI = Me screaming a nickname for Iridescent. I've always considered us like... bees or ants. Massive group working together for a Queen... not that I'm calling Jimbo a Queen, I'm just saying... lots of workers under one leader... ya know. لenna vecia 19:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

ECK! I was just going to say, "Who sits GCSE's in the beginning of December? Exams are in late January and the Summer". Oh well. — Realist² 19:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

You can find out in three hours. – iride scent 19:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah, one of those editors. — Realist² 19:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I just realized that that picture is from the future!! لenna vecia 21:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Arh! Another person who thinks "consensus" is more important than fact. This issue has even sunk a few recent RfA's I can think of. I swear that whole consensus thing is overrated. To clarify I'm talking about the seriously boring Michael Jackson saga. — Realist² 22:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

– iridescent 23:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

That is going somewhere on my userpage, awesome. — Realist² 23:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

It's one of the images you have a 1/27 chance of seeing each time you visit my talkpage. You obviously don't visit enough.☹ – iridescent 23:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I thought you changed those manually... — Realist² 23:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

click and keep pushing F5 to work through the full set, if you really care. I'll warn you there's nothing very exciting there. – iridescent 23:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I'm easily entertained, I thought they were good, I had seen most of them but the consensus image was a new one for me. I'll just stick to an image of two girls fighting on my talk page. — Realist² 23:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Iri, you didn't tell me you had uploaded the images of us brawling... you're spilling all of our naughty secrets! لenna vecia 04:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Where does Commons find these things? – iridescent 14:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

(<--) I don't even want to know... لenna vecia 14:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Be more careful!

You really need to keep the kids away from the computer. – iridescent 21:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

That wasn't one of my kids. They're too busy cleaning. That reminds me, I need to find my checkbook. >_> لenna vecia 21:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah, sorry

I screwed up the history of the Wyss AfD; I was removing that edit manually while you were doing so administratively, it seems. Can you fix the history for me? Muchas gracias, Skomorokh 22:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. :) لenna vecia 22:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I now have a mysterious restored. null edit to my name. All good! Skomorokh 22:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for participating in my RfA

I just wanted to take a moment to say "thank you" for taking the time and effort to participate in my recent RfA. As you may know, the discussion closed 66/0/1 and I'm now a holder of the mop. I will keep working to improve the encyclopedia and appreciate the trust which you have placed in me. - Dravecky (talk) 23:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Help with a proposal

Hi JV. I came across this when an admin was explaining why images used on the Muhammad article are used. The explanation is succinct, and sheds light on the censorship policy. It goes on to list other images that may be offensive. I find this a problem.

This is technically still the talk page of Muhammad. So having these links is like having them on <insert religious icon here>'s talk page. It seems to add insult to injury. If I visited the Moses talk, or Jesus talk, and found this, it would be sort of like saying, well if you find that offensive, here's more...
There is no discussion page for the FAQs -- consensus seems to be formed in the edit summaries. Anyone who has tried to remove the links to 'obscene' images get reverted, but there is no real discussion.

I want to stress that this is still the talk page of Muhammad, and although the explanation of using his image seems quite in line with policy, I just don't see why 'what else might be inflammatory' belongs on the talk page of the article. In fact technically, I think talk pages are just supposed to be about article content, and I see this as not qualifying and in bad taste. I just think the links to image links should be gone. I don't really know the forum for this, so here you go. Sorry to pass off my mess, so to speak, but I could use some direction. ^Law_shoot! 03:42, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. I agree. I'm actually a little surprised to see such images linked to that page. I mean... wow. Particularly the pornographic images. How disrespectful. Considering the lack of a talk page for that page, I'd say it would be best to bring it up on Talk:Muhammad or in the AN/I thread. Uhm... I'm actually going to bring this up on AN/I to get an idea what others think. If we're directed back to the article talk, then we'll go there. لenna vecia 04:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm getting ready to go to bed. I posted about it in the AN/I thread here. If you're going to be around for a while, keep an eye and comment as you feel appropriate. Perhaps notify the editors with significant edits to the FAQ. If not done tonight, I can do that in the morning. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. لenna vecia 04:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Les' copaque production

Hi, you speedied an article with alternative capitalization. I'm inclined to let the article stay or put it through AfD, but it's your prerogative to speedy this if you like. - Richard Cavell (talk) 08:42, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I speedied that one, too. The only EL was the company's website, and the details of how he and his wife took talented blah blah... He's been informed twice before that he should not be making such an article, which is blatant advertising with fluffed wording. Hopefully he stopped before he gets blocked. Thanks for the note. لenna vecia 13:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello Jennavecia, my name is Ehsan, and I work at Les' Copaque Production. An associate of mine, Ida Rahayu was the one who posted the post about our company. Now I would like to assure you that we did not intend the post to be an advertisement of any sort, but since 2 products from our company, Upin & Ipin and Geng The Adventure Begins are already posted, not to mention a post about our company on the Malay Language version of wikipedia, we thought it would be fine for us to have our biodata on Wikipedia too. If it is not too troublesome for you, can you tell me why was the post is thought of as blatant advertising? We are trying to change the post to not be such, but since this is our first time posting something on wiki, I feel we do need some help with it. Thank you.

Also, I apologise if this is not a place to ask for such things. This is my first post on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ehsanazhar (talk • contribs)

My best recommendation to you is to look at articles of companies similar to yours. Read about conflicts of interest, our requirements for using reliable sources for the purpose of verifiability, and our expectations for articles to be written in a neutral point of view. لenna vecia 18:32, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Alan J. Baverman

Hi, thank you for your assistance on this article in the past. It appears that there may be some vandalism to this site. Please review and please provide comments. It appears that certain documented information keeps being removed even though it is sourced from a reliable entity (the U.S. Circuit Court).

Thanks you. Judicial information (talk) 22:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

The information removed should be restored. CNN.com and The Houston Chronicle are not self-published sources. لenna vecia 18:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your review and input. Is there anything that can be done to prevent future vandalism? The article discussion page provides some insight. As always, you input and efforts are greatly appreciated. Judicial information (talk) 23:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Just revert, block, and warn (okay, the last one is really ignore, but you really should warn. :) If vandalism becomes unmanageable, you can request protection. لenna vecia 23:50, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

U of C, CS

If you could take a look at the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs page. The section titled "future growth and expansion" is not cited at all. I feel that it is not encyclopedic and should be removed pending a citation tag.Keystoneridin (talk) 05:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Have you attempted to find a source? Also, when requesting others view pages, as a courtesy, you should link those pages. لenna vecia 06:00, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The whole article is pretty much unreferenced. Why pick out that one section? I tagged as necessary. لenna vecia 06:05, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Brenda Song

Hi, Jennavecia; I'm not sure why there are still issues at Brenda Song. I had hoped that by mostly ignoring some of the earlier well poisoning and incorrect statements that were being thrown about on GA pages (there and at some other GA pages as well) it would have died down by now so that Gimmetrow could peacefully get back to the sigificant amount of productive work that he does. It's not pleasant for anyone to get poked over and over in an episode that seems neverending. I hope we can all work towards reducing the tension that has accumulated there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

It's down to Gimmetrow now. If he can manage to get himself back in gear, then great. If he can't, then I'll be asking for him to be removed from the admin corps. --Malleus Fatuorum 06:32, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean, Sandy. Gimmetrow has failed to acknowledge that his behavior has been less than appropriate. And his reversion of my cosmetic changes to this article have not helped the way he is perceived in this situation. Reverting established editors and content creators without any sort of discussion is rude, and it stinks of OWNership. لenna vecia 06:35, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Jenna, an unnamed admin accused me of OWNership when that admin erred and misread my edit, after I pointed out as nicely as I could that the admin had misread it. Twice. Consider carefully who might be abusing the established content creators in this case. Gimmetrow 06:48, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I just saw this. Are you serious? I have a name, Gimmetrow. It's Jennavecia. Or you can call me Lara if you prefer. Now, when you say "as nicely as I could" are you referring to your original wording or revised wording? If the latter, you really shouldn't be referencing it. If the former, it's a good example of the problem here. I try not to revert established users without either a detailed edit summary that clearly explains why I've reverted them, or without talking to them about it first. Pretty much the same goes for good faith edits by new users. It's a personal policy you may benefit from considering. لenna vecia 07:21, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to have to use preview more. Sorry. By "as nicely as I could", I meant this edit, and then this edit. You accused me of OWNership because you misread my edit at the same time you were defending an editor in conflict with me. It's possible you only came to the article because of that conflict. This is a good example of the problem as I see it: I've made plenty of gestures and other editors have continued the drama. Do you want to resolve this conflict peacefully, or not? Gimmetrow 08:11, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

What I'm hoping for is below, in my message to Sandy. Bullet list. لenna vecia 21:18, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I haven't checked the history so don't know what reverts might have occurred, but WP:CITE is the guideline that discussess not changing an established citing method without first discussing on talk and gaining consensus. Gimme (and many others) avoid reflist|2 because of the browser errors it can cause and because it adds nothing for the majority of our readers (IE doesn't recognize the two columns, I've never even seen them), and if that is the established citation method on the article, it shouldn't be changed per WP:CITE. I just glanced to see what was up with the whole GA issue, and it seems that there are two new editors now involved (I saw Ling.Nut and Jclemens), so it might be a good step for the editors who aren't getting along to try to just stay away from that article and let the others handle it. I'm not sure why this Brenda person is so exciting, but perhaps I'm too old to get it ... and there are so many other articles to edit that I don't see the benefit in everyone congregating there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:51, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

See, why couldn't he have said that? It's unfortunate that you can't see it. |2 saves a lot of space and it looks much better. It's also used on pretty much every article I've edited with more than 10 references, and I can honestly say it's been a really long time since I've seen a polished article without it.

Anyway, Sandy, I can understand your point. My involvement is due to the fact that Gimmetrow felt it appropriate to threaten to remove Malleus from the sweeps, a process I got started. So while I took about a year off from the project, I've kept an eye on progress, and considering the staggering amount of reviews he's done (about 5% of the more than 3,000), I have an issue with that threat. Not only because Gimmetrow has no authority to make such a threat, but because it's disruptive and an abuse of position. It is a serious issue that Gimmetrow refuses to acknowledge this. And that's just part of the problem. لenna vecia 07:02, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Well, trying to get editors to acknowledge things in the midst of an editing tug-of-war doesn't often pay off. Imagine doing similar with Malleus :-) I'll catch up with you tomorrow; it's way past my bedtime and my husband finally got home from a very delayed flight. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:06, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I look forward to it. My view is that when an admin abuses their position, it's best to fess up ASAP. Anyway, sleep well. لenna vecia 07:10, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Why these continual half-truths? Why the refusal to face the very clear facts? I have never even read this bloody Brenda Song article, yet Gimmetrow feels able to accuse me of having some kind of COI, personal attacks ... but that's OK because he's a friend of SandyG, who hasn't even bothered to check the facts before dropping her opinion. --Malleus Fatuorum 07:33, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm off to bed as well, but here is the timeline as I've gathered so far. I'm still missing discussion, I need to get the GAR info in there. If there's anything missing, feel free to add it. لenna vecia 07:58, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey - long time etc. Thanks for helping out with this article and the unhappy interactions surrounding it. As I'm sure you appreciate, it's a story with two sides, misunderstood intentions on each, escalation of antagonism, and so on. I'll try to fill in as best I can. Geometry guy 18:45, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I would appreciate it, G'guy. So good to see you again... Paris has been but a memory.... لenna vecia 19:04, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah, Halcyon days! The notebook is good. If I spot gaps, I'll let you know. Geometry guy 20:28, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

I must say, this is a disturbing situation. I got busy with an event I waited ten years for, and to come over at the end of that and find this is a real downer. I originally stopped by to inquire over a six-week-old situation between two good editors that was still escalating and to see if we could do anything to deescalate it, perhaps by encouraging distance. Obviously my query hasn't helped (a day later, there's a page full of diffs on each party, looking like this tiff isn't headed towards deescalation), so I'll be bowing out and hoping some sense of proportion is restored and that this blows over. I don't know what half-truths Malleus is referring to; perhaps he genuinely didn't see the well poisoning and personal attacks on me across many GA and talk pages or perhaps there are more pieces I'm not aware of. The entire situation seems particularly disporportional when I compare anything said by Gimme or Malleus to the blatant untruths and personal attacks from other parties against me that went unaddressed during all of this, and which I intentionally avoided, hoping all of this would just blow over. In relation to the trash talk that I let slide, I don't understand the reactions that I'm reading here. Malleus asking about an "excutioner's axe" and "punishment", and removal from admin corp being mentioned ?? Executioner's axe for what? Is there dirt I haven't seen on other pages? And removal from admin corp for what? Where is the abuse of admin tools? Lara, you asked if there were gaps in your notebook: I don't pretend to have followed it all. Once I saw everyone involved was overlooking blatant personal attacks, while being so offended over far lesser posts, I tuned out. I did notice, though, that your notebook says: "Gimmetrow threatens to block the users he is in conflict with", when I don't see any such statement in the diff you gave, so it might be helpful to rephrase that to reflect what he actually said (and in fact, what did happen, Gimme ended up blocked). If anyone at GA had raised an eyebrow about the very real personal attacks that were leveled at other parties throughout all of this, I might consider taking all of this more seriously. Absent that, I see a rather childish tempest in a teapot, and I'm very sorry that my concern was unhelpful and appears to have caused even further escalation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:46, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Sandy. You may or may not be aware that I highly value your opinion, so I'm glad to have heard from you regarding this situation. I've had a very narrow focus in my review of this situation, and have just today started getting into the talk pages, so I am not clear on the personal attacks you are speaking of or from whom they came, and I feel bad that I may have overlooked them. I'll look into it more and would appreciate any further detail or links you are comfortable giving. As far as my notebook goes, I'm not sure where I'm going with it. I started it as really what the name of the pages implies, notes. I didn't know what had happened, so I decided to build a timeline. Unfortunately, it revealed itself as a bit of a bigger deal than I realized. There's a lot of inappropriate admin weight being thrown around by Gimmetrow and very little acknowledgment of error. However, I believe I just read a post from him wherein he admits he was upset... hopefully there's something about overreacting. Regardless, to specifically address one of your concerns above:[3]

::Kindly fix the damage on the talk page. If I interact with either Million or Peanut right now, there is a fair chance a few people will get blocked. You could, for instance, set up a GAR. Gimmetrow 21:26, 21 October 2008

So it's not only a matter of abusing his admin position ~~by threatening to block those whom he is in a dispute with~~, but also when it's over something he should have, and still at this point could have, done himself to begin with. My greatest concern here is the cherry topping of Gimmetrow not acknowledging any of the several errs made. And don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Malleus is without fault here. I'm just more concerned with the behavior of the admin, who I think should be held to a higher standard. As far as where it's headed, I couldn't tell you. Malleus made a comment about desysopping, how serious the comment was is not clear to me, but it is an unrealistic notion and I think that's clear to anyone. A saving grace is that admin tools were not used. Only an abuse of position, which is not regarded as an issue to most around here. So I'm hoping some discussion can clear things up. The most important thing in this situation is the assurance that such events, such threats, will not happen again in the future. An agreement to:

not attempt to rewrite or erase part of an article's history,
not edit war those attempting to fix it,
not make empty threats about removing project members ~~or blocking aforementioned editors~~,
not continue to show OWNership issues of Brenda Song, and
not criticize others actions when his own are no better, or arguably worse, in any given situation.

I value our content creators far too much to let these type of actions slide unchecked. Too many prolific editors have been run off by abusive admins. If I can prevent an instance of this, I will. It's not only that I want to keep Malleus in sweeps and the GA project, because he is brilliant there, but I want to keep him writing as well. I hope you understand my position, and in digging through pages, I found an edit from you that gives me the impression that you know exactly how I feel.[4]

And for Malleus, there's a serious need to cut down on the insults and inappropriate use of edit summaries, the exaggerations and escalation of drama. But, as I say, for my concerns here, it's about the abuse of administrative position, and anyone else is free to take a different focus. لenna vecia 06:42, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The more I read Gimmetrow's "Kindly fix" post, the more convinced I am that it was never intended as a threat to block. The post shows exceptionally poor communication skills, and was quite understandably misinterpreted as a threat. However, if one imagines Gimmetrow were not an admin, the post makes perfect sense. The "few people" it refers to clearly includes Gimmetrow himself, so he isn't seeing himself as the blocking admin, merely as a stressed editor in conflict. The third sentence shows that the other two were not meant with malice. Geometry guy 07:05, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

That's a good point. I'll amend as necessary. There's still an abuse of position, however, but it is good to realize there was no threat of blocks. لenna vecia 07:14, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

If I took time to deal with every personal attack leveled at me, I'd never get anything done. Admittedly, the ones involving GAs were over the top, but since others choose to overlook them, so will I, because I've got work to do. I wasn't asking for your help and I don't want to create that distraction; I was only pointing out an uneven standard as it impacts how seriously I'm willing to take this entire tempest in a teapot. I just went to WP:GA, WP:GAN, and WP:GAR and see nothing named "Sweeps", so I don't know where to find these other issues. I'm only familiar with the two that impacted me. I'm not seeing the admin weight being thrown around by Gimme: as you said, there was no abuse of tools. I work with him a lot, and I read his comments very differently than you do. I don't see a threat to block in the statement you quote; Gimme was the one who ended up blocked. I don't see abuse of tools, I don't see any ownership at Song (Gimme's edits were rightfully in accordance with WP:CITE), and he paid for trying to fix articlehistory and the GA nom his way with a 3RR block, in a situation where even GA people don't seem to have decided what the correct procedures are, and his 3RR is unrelated to admin tools. Maybe it's because I've been subjected to so much abuse for as long as I've been on Wiki, but I'm just not seeing serious issues here. This is a situation that might benefit most from everyone puting down the sticks, and focusing instead on the real problems on Wiki: childish behaviors (which we're seeing here) and truly abusive admins and editors. I'm sorry I wasn't more helpful; perhaps I should have stuck with my initial instinct to ignore this whole mess. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:44, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Clearly we see this situation from different views. No use of tools does not mean no abuse of position. I think the page shows a definite issue with abuse of position and I was not speaking of the CITE issue (though I did not find anything on that page regarding whether or not splitting reflists was a matter of consensus), rather the fact that he did get so upset over the review to the point of attempting to remove it from the history, edit warring to keep it removed and referring to those attempting to fix his mistakes as vandalizing the page. The fact that he reverts seasoned editors without discussion is another example of an ownership issue. And the fact that so many here do not see an issue with admin abuse when no use of tools was used is a problem in and of itself. Such abuse runs content contributors off, and it's my opinion that, considering what we do here, content contributors are worth much more than admins, particularly those who put their suitability for the role in doubt. لenna vecia 07:52, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and this is sweeps. And this is what Gimmetrow threatened to put an end to. لenna vecia 07:57, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

This is what abusive admin action sans tools looks like,[5] and I've recently seen equally bad personal attacks leveled at me, unaddressed by some of the same parties hollering abuse here, so that makes it hard for me to give this tempest a lot of weight. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:03, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Other stuff exists, I know. And FM is no longer an admin as you know, for he was pulled from him pedestal for abusing his position and tools. If you are not interested in helping with this situation, Sandy, I understand. I know you and Gimme are close, coupled with the abuse you've noted above, it's completely understandable. And should I see PAs being thrown at you in the future, I'll be sure they do not go unchecked. I, however, fear that this tempest is going to lead into a bigger mess in the future if left unchecked now. لenna vecia 08:09, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe FM was desysopped for what he said to me: ArbCom decided they had to do something because of the outcry, so my guess is that they sacrificed FM instead of SV. I don't think for a minute anyone cared a year later about what FM did to me, any more than any admin cares to deal with the personal attacks that have been in plain view throughout this GA affair. Anyway, I understand if you feel there's a bigger problem: so do I, but I submit that, in this case, the flashlights are being pointed at the wrong dark corners, and Gimme and Malleus got caught in the crossfire. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

LOL

WP:CUTEGIRL. Official policy. --Closedmouth (talk) 06:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Hahhaaha, uhm... wtf? XD ... er, thanks?! :p لenna vecia 06:43, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I can't take the credit unfortunately. --Closedmouth (talk) 06:48, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, ahahaha. Gurch! XD <3 لenna vecia 07:05, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, is that what got him blocked? – iridescent 21:25, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

My gurch is blocked?!? OH NOES! لenna vecia 05:47, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Reallikeunreal

Hi I have recently noticed an account being created for vandalism purposes. Could you alert other Admins so the account is blocked. I suspect they will also try to make another one after the block. It is called Thegreatestmoever3. Could you assist me in blocking this account as I also understand you have has disputes with Thegreatestmoever before. Thank you Reallikeunreal (talk) 12:33, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Nothing listed at Special:Contributions/Thegreatestmoever3. You sure that's the right name? GlassCobra 21:17, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Look at the requester's contribs, Glass. لenna vecia 04:11, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

When is my trial due to begin?

When's my trial due to begin?[6]. I only ask because I'll need to buy a new suit, so a little bit of warning would be good. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:52, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

MF---there isn't going to be a trial, they were simply going to throw you in water and see if you float like a duck---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 21:09, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Time will tell. Can the record show when Gimmetrow started throwing his blockhammer around?[7][8] --Malleus Fatuorum 22:48, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to hang around waiting for the inevitable executioner's axe. An environment which rewards liars but punishes straight-talkers is not one I have any time or respect for. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:33, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Malleus, shut up. You can't leave. I'll find you and beat you into submission, and let me tell you, I'm a bitch to be reckoned with when I'm armed with a whip. That said, I had not seen these threats of blocks. This situation does not get better as I go through more pages. Thank you for pointing this out. And stop fanning the flames, Malleus, it doesn't help the situation. لenna vecia 03:49, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Malleus, you are right, of course. I do not believe he is gone. But I think he (the person behind the wiki name) is way more sensitive a human being than he wants to let on.

The whole issue with Gimmetrow was immensely depressing, as Malleus did nothing wrong until he began to lose patience in the end. Gimmetrow's article was failed (perhaps too quickly) but that is not a reason for Gimmetrow, the admin, to repeatedly vandalise the article history. Those purporting to be helping Gimmetrow by arguing about the stupidity of the GAN process and taking Brenda Song to GAR actually prolonged the situation, none of which was the fault of Malleus. I think it is poor behaviour on the part of partisan editors to blame Malleus while continuing to see no wrong in Gimmetrow's behaviour.

I don't think Gimmetrow has "poor communication skills". That editor is quite competent and able to express points of view more than adequately. I am at a loss to understand the dumping on Malleus for this incident, especially by another "superior" editor, of whom Malleus has always been extremely supportive. Malleus has done much excellent work for this "superior" editor. I can understand why he is fed up over this. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 19:33, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm so not in the know. What I know of the situation is on that notebook. Who's placing blame on Malleus while placing none on Gimmetrow? Please direct them to my notebook and hopefully they can pull their heads out of their respective asses long enough to get a clue. From those I've spoken to, there's been no blame placed on Malleus, at least not solely. لenna vecia 21:00, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Mattisse has a unique ability to read things on pages that were never written. I could waste enormous amounts of time and provide legions of such examples, but why bother when one will suffice. Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations/Archive 10#Brenda_Song When pressed or shown that her information is inaccurate, I have never seen her retract or strike. So, Mattisse: who is "dumping on Malleus"? Who are "those" who took Brenda Song to GAR (Jbmurray is *one* person)? Who is "arguing against the stupidity of the GAN process?" As you were told at WT:FAC, put up some diffs or stop stirring the pot with misinformation. Innocent editors are getting tangled in the messes you leave when you post misinformation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:10, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

(<--) Hmm, yes, I just read over that discussion. I had not previously seen it. Mattisse, kindly high-tail it off my talk page unless you've got diffs to back up whatever claims you feel so inclined to make. And, just to state for the record, the article should have gone straight to GAR when there was a disagreement on the outcome. The eventual listing on GAN should have been for the day the GAR closed, which should have been weeks before it actually was, not backdated to the GAR which, from what I've seen, Gimme did request and should have started himself. لenna vecia 00:00, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Good first step, Lara; if you've got months to spend on it, there are boatloads of same. I don't know if Malleus willingly or unwittingly overlooked the level of personal attacks and inflammation going on at Mattisse's talk page, if that influenced him, or if he missed the things she has done at FAC, FAR, GA, RFA and editor reviews, but insisting that Mattisse back every allegation she makes with a diff may cut through some of the ugliness and misinformation that is being slung around all of these processes and possibly fueling these disputes. I unwatched Malleus's page when this business moved in; it needs to stop, not only for Gimme and Malleus, but for all of the processes being affected. If you want to see something really ugly, try Cosmic Latte's editor review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:13, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Wow. Good times. I like loaded question #2. The "have you stopped beating your wife?" one. Some others were almost as good. لenna vecia 01:11, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I hope you're seeing now why I tried my hardest to stay uninvolved and ignore all of this; it has the appearance that someone would just love to suck us all under in some grand drama, and it really impedes getting any real work done. That is merely the tip of a very large iceberg, and I'd like to stay focused on FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:13, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Allright, after a wasted 24 hours, I'm unwatching the whole bunch. I haven't read FAC all day, and I've seen this happen before with the same editor, who makes the imbroglio so large, and across so many pages, and creates so much drama that all productive work ceases, and those who love drama are thrilled with the result. If you want to take it on, it will take months. I honestly cannot do my "job" on Wiki and also deal with every bit of misinformation that is posted about me or GANs, FACs, FARs et al across multiple pages, so I'd prefer to just not see it. Most people know the truth anyway. Unwatching now, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:12, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

A favour?

I've never been happy with these "please don't go" topics, and even less so when they appear on my own talk page. Can it be protected? I realise that'll mean I can't edit it either, but I'd rather that than see more pointless discussion about a fait accompli which will likely leave nobody smelling of roses. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:47, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I can't speak for Lara, but personally I'm reluctant to. There are lots of legitimate reasons why someone would want to post on your talk page (for example, to issue a warning should something you wrote be up for deletion, to raise an issue regarding something you wrote, to mention that you've been named as a party in a RFwhatever…), and being unable to edit your page would potentially put people in an awkward position where they'd be unable to show they tried to discuss something. If you add:

|algo = old(1d)

|minthreadsleft = 0

to your Miszabot configuration, and remove the current |algo = old(14d), that will force the bot to clear any thread more than a day old off your talkpage, effectively killing any conversation before it has a chance to spiral out of control, while still allowing you to read and reply to anything necessary, and without stopping people from being able to "go through the motions" of contacting you, should they need to; this is why even "never coming back this side of Ragnarok" users such as Larry Sanger are unprotected. See the recent history of User talk:Giggy for an example of this in action. – iridescent 23:33, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I'll do as you suggest. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:47, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

(EC)You do realize that I can still hit up your talk page and whine, right? Oh shit, I just realized that I semi'd. Damn it. BRB. لenna vecia 23:35, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

(What are the chances that I EC on my own talk page twice in a row with one sentence replies? Apparently high.) Hmm. Actually, Iri makes a good point. This would be much easier if you just didn't leave. Go with that option. لenna vecia 23:38, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, like I said earlier, I think the flashlights are being shone in the wrong places. When stories are being told about two productive editors, one saying he's leaving Wiki and the other referred to as "wikiemasculated", it's become a problem. I suggest starting with a good review of this for an idea of the sorts of issues affecting GAs, FARs, FACs, RFAs, and editor reviews, and the level of personal attacks and misinformation that have persisted for a very long time. If I'm reading the comments on Malleus' talk page correctly, it looks to me like there's probably a good dose of the usual backchanneling going on as well; asking for diffs to back allegations has never been successful, but we can still try. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:46, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

U haz a sekrit admirererer

[9]. Don't know who this guy is, but he sure has a thing for you! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:53, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... I wonder if my parents would fund a bewb job for me... I hadn't thought to ask... I doubt it, but that would be boss. O, but don't feed the trolls, Jayron, especially the stupid ones with weird fetishes. I mean, rape me with his foot long sub? That's just weird. لenna vecia 19:26, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

You never did answer his question, either. – iridescent 19:30, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

ROFL. I never see this stuff. I don't have my own page watchlisted. Uhm... hahahaha... hold on, "blojobbbing" has to be the funniest looking non-word word I've seen in a long time. It looks like a snow sport, though... don't know why. O, but to answer the questions, uhm... no, more than you've got, yes, I thought it was already established that I'm a lady of the night? Sigh, he can't keep up with his own conversations. Sad, really. That reminds me, I have to go turn on my crimson porch light. لenna vecia 19:36, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

And by the way, this was not necessarily vandalism... ;) Haaaay-eee! لenna vecia 19:38, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Holy shit. I was clicking back and I hit the edit where Jay protected my page for excessive vandalism, so I hit the history tab and BLADOW! A whole page of vandalism and reverts! Hahahaha, that's hilarious. I had no idea. لenna vecia 19:45, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

It's worse for girls. I assume most vandals are guys. So they vandalize, get reverted, go to the userpage of the user who warned them, and if it's a guy sometimes they ignore, sometimes they say "fuck you", or something similar. When the person who reverted them is a girl, their "Internet male"-ness kicks in and they are compelled by their subconscious instincts to either show off by being all "macho" and vandalizing, or they talk about sex. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 19:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that's just vandals; you just summed up the way Wikipedia talkpages work. – iridescent 20:05, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Thanks for the Psychoanalysis, Dr. Delanoy. Hahaha... you're probably right, though. And it's quite amusing if you look through the IP vandalism, there's one that talks about women being inferior to men, about how women are stupid, blah blah, whatever. And there's one that says I should get a life. The irony is great... I've got male vandals that probably can't spell their own name right, telling me that women are stupid and I need to get a life, meanwhile, they're spending their time vandalizing an encyclopedia and showing signs of an inferiority complex by exaggerating the size of their presumably unimpressive member. لenna vecia 20:10, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

To pile on the irony still further, looking at the last fifty edits to your user page only one vandalism lasted more than ten minutes and on average they were reverted within two minutes; and usually by blokes without you even needing to know it happened. I wonder whose page gets cleaned quicker, yours or Jimbo's?... Ϣere Spiel Chequers 00:54, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Good question. I checked. His. Vandalism usually gets reverted in a minute or less on his ~~talk~~ user page. The longest standing vandalism that I noted was four minutes with one exception. Someone added, as if it were Jimbo's words referring to the community, "I love you guys." That stood for 44 minutes. Still, it's good to know that my page has been vandalized a couple dozen times in the past couple of weeks or so, and I had no idea. :D لenna vecia 00:59, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm 44 minutes. May I have your permission to do the obvious experiment? Ϣere Spiel Chequers 01:05, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Hahaha. لenna vecia 01:27, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks like I have a secret admirer as well, this time on my editor review page: [10] At least Gogo Dodo cleaned up the admirer's mess. However, it took almost five hours for someone to notice the vandalism. Willking1979 (talk) 23:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

If it's any consolation graffiti in Real Life usually lasts longer than 5 hours. But it does illustrate a problem we have with our focus on keeping article space clean - if you search for rude words elsewhere on the Wiki such as in user space you can find Graffiti that has been there for months. Also some does get past the hugglers, I recently trawled through all the articles that included the word poop and about thirty involved old vandalism. Ϣere Spiel Chequers 10:10, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Voting

I do not repond positively to threats on my talk page from ST47 or anyone else. Why should I? I was told by an admin that I could place my votes on the ballot, understanding they will not be counted. There was discussion and agreement about this on the Elections talk page before it was done. You can check. NOBODY told me to mark them in any particular manner, so I copied what I found in the ballot.

According to ST47, it appears almost anybody but me can say almost anything they choose, no matter how offensive, on the ballot. I have been an active contributor to Wikipedia and to the Elections talk page. You can check. So far I have found mostly hostility and incivility here, despite my considerable efforts. The only exceptions are a Barn Star, three editors and two admins since I started here in late September. Is this how civility is encouraged in Wikipedia? Surely there must be some standard of reasonableness here? Mervyn Emrys (talk) 20:13, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you're upset with me. I just clarified something for Elonka. You're not eligible to vote. You realize this, correct? Elonka told you to make your opinions know anyway, knowing that they won't count toward to vote, and your previous votes have been indented by changing the # to #:. This leaves your comment while removing it from the count. You understand that, correct? Assuming all those things are understood, why then do you continue to make your comments using a # when you know that includes the vote in the count, alerts admins that you are not eligible, and then forces those admins to stop what they are doing to go indent your vote, when all this is avoided by you simply placing the : after the # as you have been requested?

I don't think it's a matter of incivility. ST47, from what I read on your page, was very civil in his requests, which you have apparently ignored. I also see no hostility, rather frustration. It's really as simple as just putting a colon after the pound sign. Please do that for future votes and you'll encounter no more issues. لenna vecia 20:25, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Please look at the statement above: "NOBODY told me to mark them in any particular manner" before those votes were posted, which was some time ago, if you look.

Please see comments of UltraExactzz on Eligibility at ACE2008. This is nothing to threaten anybody about. ST47 was aware of the discussion about my eligibility BEFORE he made his recent threatening post on my talk page, because ST47 participated in those discussions. I'm getting a bit tired of having people jump on me for doing what I was told to do here, and for not doing what I was not told to do. I'm not stupid, and don't much care for being lectured to as if I am. See my user page. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 20:34, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you're stupid, and didn't intend to give such an impression. I'm discussing the matter with Elonka now to get a better understanding of what's going on. لenna vecia 20:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

My apologies. Having gotten some of the back story, I realize you've had a rough ride here at Wikipedia so far. Personally, I think you should be eligible to vote considering the combined edit counts of your two accounts and your reason for having had to create a second account to begin with. Again, my apologies for adding to your stress. لenna vecia 22:04, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry I snapped at you. Please accept my sincere apology (I grovel in mortification...). I assume you were only trying to be of some assistance, and I appreciate that. I offer no excuse, because there is none, but if you wish to see reasons, just look at the current RfC for Talk:Law, or the recent RfC on SlrubensteinII, both of which affected me greatly. Things seem to have a way of snow-balling in Wikipedia. Again, I hope you will find a way to forgive my transgression. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 00:33, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, I understand. No need to apologize to me. Let me know if you need anything. It would be my pleasure to help out any way I can. لenna vecia 00:54, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Please see Eligibility: Mervyn Emrys at WT:ACE2008. Thanks again for the suggestion. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 04:26, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Commented. Good luck. :) لenna vecia 06:06, 12 December 2008 (UTC)