User talk:Isotope23/Archive 11

Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17

Example games

Hi,

Regarding your "amnesty" for example chess games (Talk:Gothic chess#Example game), there are still examples at:

• Dice chess
• Grid chess
• Maharajah and the Sepoys
• Omega chess
• Seirawan chess

There's also Category:Chess games; I'm not sure whether they'd fall foul of how-to policy, though.

Without wanting to seem lazy, I'd prefer it if an admin made a decision on whether these should be removed, given the hassle that Gothic chess has resulted in. Oli Filth 18:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• I'm planning on opening a request for comment when I get back.--Isotope23 ^talk 04:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Pint taken Sir —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Santini2007 (talk • contribs) 15:13:08, August 19, 2007 (UTC).

Abusive language - 2

This user repeated his abusive language. Special:Contributions/24.86.110.10. Again the case of "Kurven" (twisting the name of Mir Harven to "Kurven", literally meaning "whore"). He openly admitted that he refers to him [1]. "'MIR KURVEN..OOPS, 'HARVEN' ".
That IP-user writes with capital letters; I don't have to explain what kind of behaviour is that.
Further, he uses derrogative terms, "KURVEN..OOPS, 'HARVEN' IS NOT ONE PERSON, BUT A GROUP OF CRIMINAL CATHOLIC FUNDAMENTALISTS".
Further, he calls other users "ONLY RETARDS LIKE HIM...AND THOSE FEW OTHER CRO-NATIONALIST RETARDS...".
I've copied his texts and pasted them here in the form this vandal/troll has used. And there's more. Similar message was sent to... user Zenanarh's talkpage. Kubura 07:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Similar "language" and phrases uses this user Special:Contributions/24.86.127.107, see this change [2] from March 23, 2007. In that edit, he wrote insulting text pointed to user Ante Perkovic ("That mental patient Ante Perkovic...". These are personal attacks. Kubura 08:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Barefoot

What's with me and feet? User:XenaLite is 'spamming', if you can spam a wikilink, barefoot on a whole bunch of pages, in many cases without a good reason and without engaging on the talk page. I've left him/her numerous messages to no avail. Any suggestions? WLU 02:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm on a wikibreak and am only checking in occasionally. It looks like FisherQueen got out her cluestick and gave them a gentle rap with it. If the linking continues I'd inform her about it.--Isotope23 ^talk 17:00, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

What is "notable" Mr. Isotope23  ?

aka: as the world turns 101 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Notability#Proposal_to_stop_deleting_non-notable_content —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 61.177.180.195 (talk) 02:26, August 20, 2007 (UTC)

...and it looks like that proposal is going down in flames.--Isotope23 ^talk 14:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

...Not really. Aamof, it will gain momentum as more people understand how people like you work.

Selective subjectivity will fail as many of you have learned. 125.123.34.100 15:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

From our friends at Wikipedia:

125.123.34.100 16:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

...and nobody has actually provided any evidence of "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". It has nothing to do with "selective subjectivity"; it has everything to do with your inability to provide real, concrete, multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable secondary sources. Stop trying to make the same tired old arguments based on the same sources that just don't cut it. Do what I've suggested countless times: find better sources. Unless you have new sources I have no interest in having the exact same conversation with you that we've had countless times, no matter where in the world you happen to be. Enjoy your trip.--Isotope23 ^talk 16:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

• TBA, Mr. Isotope23. 125.123.34.100 16:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

• I await with utmost anticipation.--Isotope23 ^talk 16:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Again, more socks

User:BarryBonds800 is clearly a sock puppet of User:Starwars1955. Please block him. Thank you. –King Bee ^{(τ • γ)} 10:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi I23, I've also a question of sockpuppetry - User:XenaLite and User:Underdog is Here both appear to be socks of User:Creepy Crawler. What do I do about socks? Report to AIV? How much proof is required? WLU 00:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

...*foot tapping impatiently*... WLU 19:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

See... this is why you create a new header instead of tacking your comments onto someone else's higher up the page. It gets lost in all the other chatter...--Isotope23 ^talk 19:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh wait... were you expecting an answer about where to report a sockpuppet? --Isotope23 ^talk 19:35, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I expect admins to cater to my whims; isn't that what all those fancy tools are for? Thanks for the guides, I'll look it up.

BTW, I always check back on my history to my last contribution, but I consider myself a very thorough person. Sniff I say, sniff. Thanks again. WLU 20:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I look at history too, but when there are several things I miss stuff sometimes. I chalk it up to a short attention sp... hey what's that over there?--Isotope23 ^talk 20:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Not on my page

You have brought dispute to my page in the form of a threat to block me. Should you read my announcement there you will understand why I delete that. Should you inform yourself properly about the reversions concerned you will be able to administrate properly. Since other administrators are involved I don't expect to be able to give you any particular attention. Cuddlyable3 21:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't a threat and you are absolutely free to remove my comments, but you are now blocked 8 hours for disruptively removing those comments. Continue to do so and you will be blocked for longer.--Isotope23 ^talk 01:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions other than sandtrout?

All I can see to do at this point are RFC/U's, though one of the most problematic editors already has one. I don't think we can keep all the Stephen Barrett-related‎ articles permanently protected. --Ronz 00:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

True... let me think on this a bit. Maybe you'd agree with this and maybe you won't... but from an outsider perspective, most everyone involved there has a POV... the problem is that a few editors (and it actually is a smaller subset of the people involved) are being disruptive in pushing that POV.--Isotope23 ^talk 01:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Some editors feel it's more important to get their point of view into the article than it is to follow wiki policies and guidelines. At least one editor has admitted that this is what he sometimes does. A couple of editors, including the one that admits to pov-pushing, claim that their violations of policies and guidelines are justified because others are pov-pushing. It's all very childish, but it's been incredibly hard to put an end to it. Anyone new who comes along is just accused of being another pov-pusher. --Ronz 04:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

You also know the problem

Please have a look [3].Tx --Giovanni Giove 22:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I really, really, urge you to open an RFC about this. There is massive POV pushing on Dalmatian related articles from a variety of editors pushing a variety of POVs. Pretty much the only way this is going to be permanently dealt with is by following the WP:DR process... Steel or I blocking a few editors on one side (or even all the disruptive editors on these articles) is a band-aid; blocks and page protections have done nothing to get to the root of the problem.--Isotope23 ^talk 00:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I have opened a RfC for Zadar and Republic of Ragusa, but there are nearly all the articles about Dalmatia involved in the dispute. I have no idea how I shall do a general RfC. Meanwhile, you might warn user:Raguseo to stop with indiscussed&unsourced edits. Thank you. --Giovanni Giove 09:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. This isn't just a content dispute; this has ranged more into an editor behavior problem as well; the content dispute should be able to be worked out... the fact that it seemingly can't be resolved in good faith by the editors involved indicates this is as much a user issue as a content one. Tell you what... why don't you add the articles involved here. I'm going to start compiling a list of editors involved as well as edit diffs. I need to consult with someone here as to whether a blanket "Dalmatia" related User RFC is the way to go here. If not then most likely I will ask ARBCOM to look into the editor behavior issues here.--Isotope23 ^talk 13:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Sicko

I've replied via e-mail. Maxim_(talk) 14:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

User:DIREKTOR

I beg you to check ASA the detsructive behaviour of User:DIREKTOR. Among all his POVs against the RfC on Zadar. I've deleted my name from RfC, imposed by another user, and deleted it from a comment, because a RfC MUST be anonymous and neutral. User:DIREKTOR has started another edit war to make my name visible. He is also imposing new edits under RfC, again using edit war. Feel free to give me some suggestions about my behaviour. Thank you. --Giovanni Giove 20:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

This is completely fucking out of control. I'm going to initiate an ARBCOM request tomorrow.--Isotope23 ^talk 20:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Everything was fine until this guy returned from vacation or finally got unblocked, or something. He's on, well he's on something for the last couple of days, and is editing and reverting without sources everything he can get his hands on. The man simply will not stop. I did not do anything but stop him from editing other people's comments on the RfCs (some people mentioned his name and he started editing other people's words to his liking). He posts a Request for Comment and then edits the article in accordance with his personal beliefs, in hope that that way his version might stick and that other Wikipedians might be persuaded that those who tuch his (unsourced and undiscussed) views are vandals, or Nazi/Communists, or something (not the first time he tried this)... Do not let him biase you. He has been blocked for this sort of behaviour before and has a very strong POV. DIREKTOR 22:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I did report him, like you advised. Perhaps you could add your oppinion (if you've had time to form one) on the AN/I. I really hope this might finally bring a solution, or at least make him stop. DIREKTOR 00:22, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jmfangio-Chrisjnelson

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jmfangio-Chrisjnelson. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jmfangio-Chrisjnelson/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jmfangio-Chrisjnelson/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel 00:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Giove's tactics (sorry to bother you again)

I am sorry, but if you recall, I did not drag you into all this. It was Giove simply pursuing his standard "modus operandi" with people he thinks he can sway or that he thinks have sympathies for his "plight". Besides this his tactics include starting RfCs immediately after editing articles in hopes that he might be able to convince others (preferrably Admins) that anyone who touches his version afterwards is an agressor or vandal and he an advocate of "peace". That's the way he tries to make things stick. He then uses painfully obvious and childish sockpuppets, like the one that stated the "FASCIST ITALY was great" on my talkpage, or the one that filed a complaint against me, an apparently independant bystander that symply could not stand my tyrannical ways any longer, imagine. Just take a look at the new victim he thinks might be biased in advance: Steel359. I of course will not stand by and let him slander me, so I have to respond. And so it goes on... This has to end! I hope at least the ARBCOM will do something. DIREKTOR 00:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I ask you TO SOURCE your accusations: that I used sockpuppets (something that acctually I never did). On the contrary you must aplogize. Futhemore: try to dicuss the articles and present the sources that you claim to have ant that you never present. Stop to be concerned with personal attacks, insults, and accusations. --Giovanni Giove 10:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Do not be comical. I am all too familiar with your pattern of mistakes in sentence construction. And your response also obviously reveals this. Next time add more outrage, Pippo. DIREKTOR 18:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Are you very very lonely or what?

Isotope23 do you have some deep need for me to pay attention to your finger wagging about WP:civility on my page or what? It's an excellent essay BTW but are you a self-proclaimed expert on the subject or what? Are you a Martian virus bot that cunningly infiltrates Wikipedia posing as a harmless schoolboy while concocting an unbelievably fiendish plan to suck human brains, or what? Those are all questions and nobody but you (?) know the answers. They are not characterisations. If you can't or won't learn the difference, and therefore react with indignation to a question not addressed to you...well then that will stay on the record and maybe someone will favour you with a characterisation.Cuddlyable3 08:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

And do you know the difference between polite discussion and incivil/sarcastic comments? Keep on making these statements and that warning might not be severe enough... --DarkFalls ^talk 09:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

What an elightening comment, Cuddlyable3. This continued uncivil behavior in an uncooperative manner will not serve you well on Wikipedia --Hu12 10:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

The only question I have is why their handle is "Cuddly"...--Isotope23 ^talk 13:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Are you lonely? I'd be glad to give you a hug. A very civil hug, since, as you know, I am never, ever uncivil. What, never? Hardly ever.-FisherQueen (Talk) 13:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Aw, thanks. I'm not lonely. I'm a loner, Dottie, a rebel. Of course I've never found you to be incivil FQ.--Isotope23 ^talk 13:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello FisherQueen I am a good friend of any lover of Gilbert & Sullivan's operettas. I will match your H.M.S. Pinafore with my Mikado, which it happens I was singing this moment. The lyrics are in my head (quite a pleasant experience) because I am involved in putting subtitles on a DVD of the operetta for a norwegian audience. Count yourself welcome on my page for chat. I don't expect to overstay my welcome (?) here on Isotope23's turf since we two got off to a bad start (sigh). Oh yes, to lonely people everywhere: a cuddle is a non-sexual intimacy and everyone needs them now and then. Especially me now that some would have me languish "in a pestilential prison with a life-long lock, awaiting the sensation of a short sharp shock". Friend Hu12 I fear is sharpening his axe (though he does have a witty talent for sarcasm, if you look hard for it). As for me, I know equations mathematical both simple and quadratical, I am the very model of a modern wiki-radical! Cuddlyable3 14:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

My talkpage is a pretty free place Cuddlyable3; I don't keep personal attacks against other editors here if they ask to have them removed (simply as a courtesy), but you are free to post here and say whatever you wish in regards to me or my actions... I don't have any problem with criticism. Personally I don't feel we got off to a bad start per se... personally I have nothing against you. Look if you want to delete whatever I post on your page unread, you are free to do so. I'm not following you and waiting for you to screw up so I can laugh gleefully whilst I block you. I don't have the time or desire to do that. You stopped removing text from article talk pages, so as far as I'm concerned this is resolved. I pointed out WP:CIVIL because I have no idea if you were aware of the policy. My point was simply this; while I'm not planning to block you, some of the rhetoric and characterizations I see you making in regards to other editors are consistent with the sort of things I've seen other editors eventually get blocked for. That isn't a threat or even so much a warning as it is an observation and a caution. You certainly don't have to listen to me if you don't want to. My point stands though, I see things ending badly for you at some point in the future if you don't curtail some of the hostility you seem to exhibit in some of your communications with other editors. We don't have to all like each other, but we can at least be civil.--Isotope23 ^talk 15:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Isotope23 for your effort to be tolerant. I hope I have answered your question about my choice of name. The idea that I delete anything from my page unread is hard to support. I wish you would see the policy at the top of my talk page as what it is, just a non-threatening anouncement of how I wish to keep that page. Civility is a wonderful thing. One assumes good faith until proven wrong. Cleaning up the rubbish i.e. vandalism (and OT personal attacks arising on article talk pages are vandalism) does more for Wikipedia than civility though. There is work to be done.Cuddlyable3 10:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I did some deletions

I am sorry, but I've again removed personal attacks against me on the RfC about Zadar mto save the RfC (I think this is my right). Meanwhile, user:DIREKTOR added insulting comments against me in the RfC about the Republic of Ragusa, so that I suppose that this RfC is actually failed. Please, tell me if and where my behaviour was incorrect: iin any case I will do what you will suggest me to do. Thank you.--Giovanni Giove 10:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

There he goes again. This one really needs to read up on what pesonal attacks really are, because I feel like making one right now! He actually removed complaints from people aginst his editing their comments. Can you believe that? DIREKTOR 20:35, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

This is for ARBCOM to hopefully sort out now.--Isotope23 ^talk 20:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Right, I'll ignore his future posts on your talkpage. If I may say so, I think you would do well to do the same. DIREKTOR 20:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

For blocking him, I don't know the protocol on whether one can block someone vandalizing one's own user page or whether that's a conflict of interest, even though I have only made the final revert by way of edit there. Seems best to leave that to others unless I'm sure. Carlossuarez46 19:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

No problem, let me know if it continues after the block.--Isotope23 ^talk 19:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Request for moderation action

1) user:DIREKTOR in this page has accused me to be a multi-sockpupper, worst of all he has done the same in one RfC. Asked to apologize he has confirmed the accuse.
2) He goes on in posting INSULTS and false accuses against me, in the RfCs, such us in the talk pages of the disputed articles.
I ask to stop him and to consider a proper punishiment. I ask DIREKTOR to apologize.

I finally ask if I have the right or not to remove insults&personal attacks. If yes, the user has not right to reintroduce them with massive reverts.
B0ecause you are a moderator I really need your action. Thank you.
N.B.: tommorrow I will write for the ARBCOM.--Giovanni Giove 21:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Please see the essay Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks. There is no clear policy and guideline on this. Removal of others comments, especially on article talkpages, tends to be controversial unless they are clear personal attacks.--Isotope23 ^talk 00:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

DIREKTOR is a flamer and insults always Italian people and army in his messages: he is a communist banned in some forum and blog of internet. You can block DIREKTOR or open articles foibe massacres and Tito for unlogged users. LEO, 25 August 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.33.95.202 (talk) 18:20, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

Heeeeeezzz back !!!!!!!!  ???

wt? Deleted but not stirred? Do we have such a force, they ask? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.77.16.170 (talk) 04:25, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

Right... please don't make me have to put a template at the top of this talkpage that says "If you wish to leave a comment here, please try and make sense."--Isotope23 ^talk 11:03, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Sock

User:NativeMagic, sort-of diff, better diff WLU 12:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Blocked.--Isotope23 ^talk 11:40, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Illuminati

That user you recently reverted on Illuminati, Master115 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), was most likely a new sock of Truesalomon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). IPSOS (talk) 13:08, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

The long standing problems with the user named InfoCheck

Some information of which you might not be aware.

http://www.gothicchess.com/nalls.html

That person has long since engaged in repeated attacks against me, the game of Gothic Chess, and my patent. This is the reason I consider him an adverse candidate and a person that should be prohibitted from posting material to the Gothic Chess article.

GothicChessInventor 20:42, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I was aware of the allegations about that user's identity. WP:CN is the correct place to request things like topic bans.--Isotope23 ^talk 11:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Muckrakerius

I suspect you already know who this is, please remember that ColScott/Don Murphy has been banned from Wikipedia. Saturday ^Contribs 18:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I've had my suspicions about him for a while, he is planning on a new name. I doubt that concerns you, but he is planning on contacting your employer (if you have one). See this thread if you wish. Saturday ^Contribs 18:28, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks... I'd already seen that. I'm my own boss so if he wants to contact me and complain about me I'll be sure to give myself a hearty reprimand.--Isotope23 ^talk 18:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Quackwatch

The article Quackwatch which was protected by you, seems to fullfill the criteria of Blatant advertising. It is seemingly advertising for the organization and nothing else. It lacks a long list of "must have" but most of all lacks purpose other than to provide a plataform to the said organization. The organization also lacks notability given that as much as they may refer to magazine articles, they are not involved with or recognized by public interest organizations or beyond a limited interest community and limited geographical area. If the article was not protected, speedy deletion should be requested through template or to sysops members of our project, because it seems that the article's protection provides a de facto immunity from templates, I am hereby requesting speeedy deletion to you who placed the protection in first place. I am acting within the scope of WP:MED given that so called "quackery" is by definition and practice a marginalization tag given by medical science to those procedures or apparatus failing to meet approved criteria. We hope to keep articles about what is and what is not medicine as neutral, encyclopedic and free from demeaning terminology as possible, limiting also the self advertisement of self appointed vigilante groups. Thank you for a reply to my talk page Jenny^Len☤ 19:06, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Jennylen must be either joking or an active denialist. Quackwatch is one of the foremost medical skepticism outlets on the whole Web! Digwuren 19:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Er, no. If you want this unprotected, please request this at request for protection. I don't see any grounds for a speedy deletion here. It's a messy POV battleground, but not a speedy candidate.--Isotope23 ^talk 00:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Requested unprotection at request for protection, the article is {{db-advert}} Daoken 10:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification, I see. Well, I would ask you to tag it for AfD on the grounds of self advertising, perhaps also about reliable sources because most sources are themselves and a few magazine articles. The main thing is to see if it comes out a real article from there a bit more serious and less blown up in own importance or if there is no content available more than from the primary source for a WP compliant article.Jenny^Len☤ 13:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I have done that, please review if it is correct. Thank you, let me know how I can be of further help Jenny^Len☤ 14:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the update, protected is fine with me and I think excellent move after seeing the history of the article. I have no inclination about the very existence of that article as far as is compliant and encyclopedic, perhaps the AfD helps to more authors or editors get involved and something good comes out of it, if not, the deletion will have grounds. Let me know if at any time I can help anywhere. Jenny^Len☤ 14:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Talk:COPD

Hey Isotope,

I don't know if something went funny with the move or what, but people are posting on Talk:COPD rather than Talk:Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. I lack the knowledge (and possibly access) to fiddle with it. Would you, could you, should you? WLU 11:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Fixed.--Isotope23 ^talk 13:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

RfA

I've noticed your message today; I've been working on Croatian wikipedia these days, so I was few days off en.wiki.
You've caught me by surprise. At least, you could announce this RfA to me, so I can plan my time. If you have send this message a week later, I'd be on vacation, and I wouldn't be able to see nor write/respond anything. At least, you should wait for my notification "I'm informed about RfA", and than "the time can go" (usually, as I know, notified users have to notify that they saw the message about RfA, otherwise, RfA fails, as I saw on some cases here).
One important thing. I think you should report... no, you must put the article Jakov Mikalja on that RfA also.
It's exposed to heavy vandalising and edit-slaughter by user:Giovanni Giove (edit-slaughter: while opponents respect the rule "don't do anything on the article till consensus made on Rf..", at the same time, vandal-slayer freewillingly and with attitude "who-cares-for-idiots-that-obey-the-rules-and-do-nothing", edits the article the way he wants it to be, or POV-ize it). Recent edit without discussion is [4], and after user Zmaj's revert (note: rv back - user Giovanni Giove reverted the edits of a total of 8 editors), he again made his actions [5]. Both his actions were made Aug 27. Of course, he gave no explanations on talkpage. I can copy this on RfA, wright?
Now, to business.
How many times do I have right to give statements on that RfA case? Or, how many time do I have for statement? It'd be fair if my time counts from today, Aug 27, 17:17.
Thanks for patience while reading this. Sincerely, Kubura 15:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• I did inform you here. This arbitration has not yet been accepted, so you still have time. If you want to make a statement at the request you can certainly include the Jakov Mikalja article as another that should be considered; please note thought that this arbitration is strictly about editor behavior issues, not article content. At this point you can make a brief (500 word) statement at the arbitration request. As far as I know there is no set amount of time you have to make a statement, at this point it is simply being established if there is enough of a reason for ARBCOM to get involved here. If this case is accepted it will move to an evidence gathering phase where you can make additional statments and present evidence that you wish the committee to consider.--Isotope23 ^talk 15:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I've correctly deleted the edits of banned user Afrika Paprika (intermediate edits were not important as each one can verify). BTW Kubura is actually famous for his undiscussed edits and for its extreme nationlistic ideas.--Giovanni Giove 15:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Tv.com

look on tv.com, it shows the last two episodes, catch up

Yes, and this isn't tv.com... this is Wikipedia, where we don't subscribe to crystalballism.--Isotope23 ^talk 15:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Request for a partial protection

For Giacomo Micaglia and Marko Marulic, because of edit war by the banned user:Afrika_paprika--Giovanni Giove 15:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

No, the edit war is caused by YOU. Marulić was Italian as much as Dante Alighieri was a Croat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.172.192.243 (talk) 15:47, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

Please make a request at WP:RFPP.--Isotope23 ^talk 15:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The user is clearly a sockpuppet. See [6].--Giovanni Giove 15:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah it is a clear IP range. Blocked as a sock of a banned editor.--Isotope23 ^talk 15:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Isotope I beg of you please stop this madman. He is the one changing the article about the Marulić not me. How long will this person be allowed to vandalize and POVicize articles? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.172.239.165 (talk) 15:59, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

You are banned Afrika... that means you are not allowed to edit. My blocking you isn't in any way a judgment or endorsement of either of you or your edits. Until you are unbanned you cannot edit here... end of story. Sorry. Beyond that, all I can say is that there is a current Arbitration request filed on this and hopefully that will garner some sort of resolution in this situation.--Isotope23 ^talk 16:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes I am banned and troll like him can go run around freely....nice one. He was blocked more than once for his edit-warring, he uses numerous sockpuppets, he has been warned dozens of times and yet nothing. How long? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.172.224.72 (talk) 16:06, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

1 time as new user 2 time for errors, always becuase of you:) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Giovanni Giove (talk • contribs) 16:27, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

User:DalmatinoA

The alleged sockpuppet of user:Afrika_paprika (see:User_talk:DalmatinoA), has started an edit war together Afrika Paprika, in Giacomo Micaglia, Marko Marulic and Talk:Croatisation.--Giovanni Giove 16:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted this persons aggresive edits. He was already warned by Zmaj. --DalmatinoA 16:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

You are a banned user and you have no right to edit here.--Giovanni Giove 10:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Quackwatch protection

Hello Isotope23. Would you have any objections if I unprotected the Quackwatch article. It's been protected for a month, and while it will still be a controversial article, I think it could do with some editing at this time. I've arrived here partly through the earlier request at RFPP. Thanks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Moving comments from main to talk

It was User Leuko who first took up moving comments from the main page to the Talk page; I was editing in accordance with what he had done to my comments. Will he be publicly warned as well? Italia^vivi 21:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

So you additionally closed the AfD in their favor, and still haven't warned the other user who was moving comments to the Talk page. Charming. Italia^vivi 20:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

And FYI, you're not even merging/redirecting the content to the correct article. Did you seriously review the discussion? Italia^vivi 20:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I didn't close it in anyone's "favor"; I implemented a solution based on the discussion. The merge to an incorrect article was a mistake on my part. I had multiple windows open while I was reviewing and I edited the wrong one. Someone has already corrected this.--Isotope23 ^talk 20:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you intend to warn the other user who was moving comments to the Talk page, Isotope? Could you explain why you warned for this and not that? Italia^vivi 20:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Isotope, have you reviewed the diff I provided? I am interested in knowing if it is your intent to let the situation stand with only my having been warned. If my moving a comment to talk earns a warning, but another user doing it (prior to my move) was just fine. Italia^vivi 02:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I have reviewed the diff.--Isotope23 ^talk 06:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

And? Italia^vivi 16:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

...and the WP:AN report is closed. Time to put down the stick.--Isotope23 ^talk 17:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

So you ignore it for two days, then accuse me of "beating a dead horse" when I finally press it. Thanks for the fair even-handedness with your warnings, Isotope. Italia^vivi 20:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

sockpuppets

I hate sockpuppets. I saw that User:BaldDee had been accused of being a sockpuppet. So, I looked at some of their edits. Whoever is behind them seems to have a distinct personalbity. My limited experience with sockpuppets is that they don't have distinct personalities or backstories.

I saw you blocked them

So, what does someone do if they are not a sockpuppet, but share an IP address because they are merely another wikipedian's roommate? Geo Swan 01:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Yep, I blocked preventively to sort this out. I agree with you, this is probably a separate individual, making this a likely meatpuppet situation. Basically when you have two individuals working in tandem to get around WP:3RR or !votestack, the best course of action is to block and warn. If the accounts continue to meatpuppet, one or both can be blocked indefinitely. If 2 individuals share an IP but are generally doing completely different article edits or are not acting abusively, then there really is no problem.

Since User:BaldDee has claimed they don't know User:KennethStein, and the checkuser statement by Morven makes this highly unlikely, I've blocked pending a conversation with User:BaldDee about this. The "indefinite" part of that block isn't meant to be infinite at this time, I just didn't want to set an arbitrary time at this point.--Isotope23 ^talk 13:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Moved comment

Hi! contacted DarkFalls with the problem, but he's gone to bed, it seems. So now I'm asking you for help. I tried several times, but Giovanni just won't listen. Can you explain to him that he should abide by Wikipedia rules? --Zmaj 16:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Well the thing is that Afrika is banned, so his comments can be aggressively removed. That is part of being banned. I'll look at the other removals.--Isotope23 ^talk 13:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, are you sure? Honestly, such procedure seems quite unjustified, even for banned users. And WP:TALK allows nothing of the sort. --Zmaj 14:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm absolutely sure. See WP:BAN#Enforcement by reverting edits & WP:BAN#Reincarnations. Banned editors are not allowed to edit any page, be it article, talk, or wikipedia space, while they are banned. It may not seem fair, but it is policy. Their edits are reverted, and their accounts are blocked. I choose not to remove Afrika's comments here, but if I wanted to I would be well within my rights to do so.--Isotope23 ^talk 14:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I saw it only now. --Zmaj 15:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, now Croat users are trying to block me for breaking of the 3RR, see [7].user:dr.Gonzo has been informed that my behaviour was regular. I think nothing will happens, anyway (pleas) have a look.--Giovanni Giove 19:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

thank you--Giovanni Giove 21:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)