User talk:Mjk2357

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Hurufism and Lettrism[edit]

Please see my comments on the Hurufi talk page and explain your deletions. Fanx


I am a member of an organization (Cardinales) for which you've requested deletion. Let's discuss because none of the members are happy about your request. What qualifications do you have to make such a request? The members want to know.

While I'm sure that the Cardinales are a fine bunch of guys, that doesn't mean your organization belongs in an encyclopedia. An entry on Wikipedia should have some academic, historical or current events interest. So while Skull & Bones would qualify, unfortunately I don't believe that your group does. Maybe if you sign up a few Presidents as members...
Some tips: Sign your comments, and if you post something on a talk page, it should go at the bottom. Thanks!
Mjk2357 00:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


Mjk2357: While your enthusiasm for improving the anti-intellectualism article is commendable, as an editor it is very difficult to follow your changes when you make so many edits to a single article. You may wish to consider copying the article into an outside editor and changing everything in one pass. Just a little piece of advice to save everyone a little strife. Cheers and welcome to Wikipedia! Semiconscious · talk 19:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I didn't think I was going to make so many edits, but every time I thought I was done I saw another 1,000-word rant or weird reference added by that anon guy... guess I should read through the whole article first! Mjk2357 05:40, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Hey man, no worries; I liked you edits a lot, so don't get the wrong idea. It was just hard to follow them all, you know? It's a tough article to work on really, because it is inherenytly POV in a sense. Your edits were very well done. Semiconscious · talk 10:16, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks... I think the article needs to be divided up into subarticles... too lazy to do it right now though.

Mjk2357 15:28, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Mixcoatl.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Mixcoatl.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me or ask for help at Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags. Thank you. -- Carnildo 10:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

No personal attacks[edit]

Please do not make any personal comments attacking other editors, such as by calling them "LaRouchoids" and "LaRouche troll". Sure, some editors make problem edits, but we should keep our focus on the behavior, not on the persons. Let's all stay friendly. Cheers, -Will Beback 09:48, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

The unknown masters[edit]

You royal bastard! That was supposed to be my article! I even had the extract from Morning of the Magicians copied into my userspace so I could use it as a source. Damn you! --maru (talk) contribs

Actually I didn't see your To Do list until after I'd created the article, so it's not really a poach! Anyway, there's still a lot of work to be done on it. Quite an interesting legend - I always thought it would make a good beach novel a la the "Da Vinci Code."
Mjk2357 06:49, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


Please read "Doomsday" ISBN 1841932388 MapleTree 21:05, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:728x90B.gif[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:728x90B.gif. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 22:04, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't spam[edit]

Please don't spam Wikipedia:Spam. I am advising you to no longer post any more messages to my user talk page, if you do I will report you to the admins. Thank you MapleTree 10:52, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I didn't post messages - I reverted to show a critical message that you had deleted, which you have now deceptively reproduced here to make it look like it was intended for me, not you. I'd report you except I know a bunch of users already have. Stop wasting people's time. Mjk2357 15:51, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


Thanks very much for the information about Advameg. It's interesting that the site may have a right-wing bias; I wouldn't have guessed that from the spam I removed. I haven't removed all their spam yet, and some of their links actually provide useful content (such as ―Wmahan. 14:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

An admin told me he wants to delete the Advameg page. He didn't really give a good argument as to why. If you could, please monitor the page and if it goes up for AfD vote for its inclusion. I'll help you get rid of their spam if I have the time. Thanks! Mjk2357 16:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


You deleted an article that is the subject of an ongoing AfD debate. This is a clear violation of policy. Please contribute to the AfD debate instead of deleting the article unilaterally. Mjk2357 03:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I deleted the page because it appears to have been created primarily to disparage its subject. Please read WP:CSD G10. Pages which meet Categories for Speedy Deletion do not warrant an AfD. Best, Firsfron of Ronchester 03:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Funny, milliseconds before you deleted it someone else said it should be deleted because it was advertizing for Advameg! Really it's sad that Wikipedia has gotten to the point where you're so scared of getting sued anything negative is getting deleted. By your logic I should go delete the Enron article too. Mjk2357 03:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
The article begins with "Advameg is an Illinois- or possibly Indiana-based internet company and a known spammer of Wikipedia." If the opening sentence begins with an attack, there is no reason for it on Wikipedia, per WP:CSD G10. Happy editing! Firsfron of Ronchester 03:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually that was an old version I mistakenly restored after someone else had bypassed AfD and nuked the article. The original sentence was changed after complaints. Would you object to the article being restored with a different starting sentence and going through normal AfD? Considring other people have messaged me saying the article is too pro-Advameg (???) I think there's some debate here. Mjk2357 03:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I certainly don't object to recreating the article, as long as the elements which led to its demise are not included in the new article. We can include both positive or negative observations, provided they are sourced and presented with a WP:NPOV. If you're willing to work out the kinks, I will certainly restore. Best, Firsfron of Ronchester 03:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I will restore with the changed first sentence. Personally I think every company that holds a top-5000 Alexa domain should have at least a stubby article. There are a ton of links on Wikipedia - there's debate as to whether or not they are legit or spam. Users should know about the company behind them to make their own decicions. Mjk2357 03:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Good luck on the re-write. :) Firsfron of Ronchester 03:50, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Sigh... endless Advameg debate[edit]

By creating the Advameg attack article (currently deleted) this user has violated all three main Wikipedia principles: Neutral point of view, Verifiability, and No original research. Afterwards, this user has violated the Wikipedia rule of not-recreating articles deleted by admins three separate times: This user has been banned from the's forums (, where he used the username mjk1093, for multiple rules violations (IPs have been provided to the Wikipedia administrators to verify that this is the same person) and decided to use Wikipedia to get his revenge on the company that owned the site. The company he attacked is the first ever officialy recorded benefactor of the Wikimedia Foundation - The article he created was full of inaccuracies, unverifiable assertions, and personal attacks and was quickly deleted by various administrators. If this user is not banned by an administrator reading this, please be warned of all his future actions, as it has been proven that he has a malicious intent. 10:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Um.... I have not been banned from city-data, I just logged in there. If you don't believe me I'll give you my password. I don't post there anymore but I wasn't banned. See my conversation with the administrator above. He agreed to let the article go through regular AfD. I am a long-established user. You are an anonymous IP address. Please identify yourself! Mjk2357 11:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Also, check the city-data form and you will see I am far from the only user with complaints, unless you've deceptively deleted those messages too. There are numerous racist messages on your boards. Anti-racist responses are deleted. Given it's made so many people mad I'll live with the article deletion but the borderline-fraudulent activities of your company will come to light - though not here, apparently. Mjk2357 11:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually I checked and now they have banned me. But my other comments stand. I was not banned until I said something negative about the company on another website. Not exactly best practices. Mjk2357 12:13, 25 October 2006 (UTC) has left negative messages on User:Wmahan's page. Wmahan has been instrumental in fighting Advameg's spam. Draw your own conclusions. I am living with the article delete but I will still delete their spam where I see it. Mjk2357 13:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
You were banned from the forum before, you just were able to log in (and as you stated in the attack article your messages were not visible, so you knew that you were banned). Thank you for admitting that you were a member of This is the proof that you have KNOWINGLY created an attack piece in revenge and that you violated all three principles multiple times: neutral point of view, verifiability, and no original research, and that you have violated rules on not-recreating deleted articles. As a previous Wikipedia contributor you have been aware of these rules, so your intent was to maliciously damage the company (and by your comment here, it still is). People like you should be prevented from being to able to edit any articles, because you damage the reputation of the whole community by abusing your privileges. Unrelated to the main point, one of the rules that is followed on that forum is that "Racism or hate speech of ANY sort will NOT be tolerated." 17:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Still you have not identified yourself or who you are associated with. If I was trying to hide my identity I wouldn't have chosen such similar names! And no, my messages were still visible to me but only when I was logged in. When I wasn't logged in - only then did my messages mysteriously dissapear. When I logged back in they were back. Obviously they were visible only to me so that I wouldn't know action had been taken against my posts. This is deceptive and borderline fraudulent.
If you are deleting racist messages now, I'm glad. You certainly weren't doing that before. The Google Cache will provide verifiability if anyone cares enough about this nonsense to check. You know that I am far from the only one with complaints about your company. There is a reason Advameg is listed in the Wikipedia anti-Spam campaign! I did not list it - it was listed longe before I knew who your company was. So if that was original research it wasn't by me. As for NPOV I tried to include the fact that not ALL of the sites held by Advameg appear to be racist. It tried to be balanced but frankly there is not much good to say about your company. If you have some good things to say it would have been better to add them to the article than engage in a deletion war which you have won because of clueless users who actually thought I worked for Advameg and was promoting your comapny and that the page should be deleted because your company's HQ is uncertain (??) Mjk2357 18:33, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
One last thought: If you would not treat your users so shabbily, I never would have done a WhoIs on city-data and I never would have found out about your (shabbily-received) sweepstakes and your spamming. A lesson in customer relations, perhaps. Because of, in my opinion, users ignorant of guidelines, you have won the delete war. But talk pages are for free discussion, as is my blog, as is Reddit, so don't think you can get away with deceptive behavior and spamming w/o someone calling you on it. Like I said, I'm far from the first person to complain about Advameg. You were listed on the anti-Spam campaign a long time before I found out who you were.
(Since your IP is Naperville, IL I assume you are Advameg or a rep of the company.) Mjk2357 18:56, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
You're trying to distract from the main issues, which are your multiple content rules violations, multiple article-recreation rules violations (there is no such thing a deletion war, unless one user violates the rules - it was you who did it), lies, and attempting to use Wikipedia to get revenge. I'm sure no veteran Wikipedia reader will be swayed by complaints about "racist" or "disgruntled" users among 10,000s registered users on's forum, because the very same users are the bane of Wikipedia and any other popular site that allows user contributions. Also, your usernames on both sites were chosen before you decided to start your attacks, so you couldn't change them. And please identify your full name, since you had no problem listing that information about Advameg and since some random username is obviously meaningless and provides less identification than even the IP. 19:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
So your goons can harrass me in real life? No thanks. You provide your full name since you represent a company. I believe I was not in violation of the rules. However I will let the article be deleted as I said since I was outvoted. Since you are new to Wikipedia you don't know but there is very much a thing as a deletion war. Also, promoting commercial websites via Wikipedia is also forbidden. According to the anti-Spam campaign (see you have done this. But since you obviously know something about the Internet you should know it is very easy to create a new user name if you want to do anonymous attacks - you can even buy established user names easily on eBay if you want to create a "history." Obviously I have not done that.
If you can explain to me: 1.) Why your company is listed in the anti-spam campaign (not by me), and 2.) Why my messages were visible only when I was logged in, we can both go back to more important things like life! Mjk2357 19:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
It was you who whined about the IP being used, while hiding behind a much more anonymous username and it is you who is obsessed with Advameg. Do you deny that you violated the rules to get revenge? This has been proven without any doubt - admins have said that recreating deleted articles is against the rules and you have broken all three main content rules. If you have any pride left, you should take your own suggestion and get a new username, because your username's reputation is now non-existent. Did you read about Advameg's contributions to the Wikimedia Foundation in August 2004? You're the one that's new here and banning you for breaking the rules, as you were on (you were banned using the "Tachy Goes To Coventry" vBulletin banning option, look it up) is a good option. However, a better option might be to leave this profile up as a hall-of-shame example to all abusers of Wikipedia editing privileges. 22:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikpedia is not for sale to spammers![edit]

At last some honesty - you admit I was banned in a way to make my posts invisible but so that I didn't know I was banned. This is deceptive and fraudulent. You also admit your association with Advameg, which hardly makes you neutral. I believe you're so worked up over this because we anti-spammers are threatening your revenue stream. You didn't deny your violation of the rules - promoting a commercial website through linkspan. Why? Because you did it. After conversations with admins I have agreed to leave the article deleted, though I deny that it should have been.

And, as a (purported) newcomer (I think you are really Zdrv - who was warned for sockpuppeting), I'll let you know that a donation to Wikimedia by one of your front companies is not a bribe that allows you to violate the Wikipedia rules. Wikipedia is not for sale to spammers. To quote an admin on your own talk page: "I'd be suspcious of an anon IP whose only posts are requests to block another user." You're not going to get me banned or hurt my reputation. I am proud of this thread - it shows I have stood up to spammers and their bullying tactics. Once again, had you not been deceptive on City-data I would never even have found out about your spamming, so you only have yourself to blame. Mjk2357 23:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

You're not answering any of the questions raised about your deceptive and revengeful behavior. You're trying to make some outrageous claims that half the Wikipedia conspired to get Advameg's very high quality long-established sites listed. Why should you not be banned? You have been exposed and you're trying to divert attention once again. Your attack article was full of lies, you couldn't even get the simplest facts like the name of the company or the websites owned correct. Sample statement from your "article" that will be obviously incorrect to anyone that knows anything about how popular ad-supported websites make money: "Its business model is unknown but is believed to involve sweepstakes." Such behavior should not be tolerated anywhere. I think this will be clear to any impartial observer and they will now know to watch out for you. 23:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm not saying some of your sites were not listed legitimately. Even the anti-Spam campaign says: "Some of these sites were listed by long-established users." But certainly not all of them. Any listed by Zdrv or one of his sockpuppets (i.e. - you!) can be deleted under policy. As far as my being banned, the admins disagree with you. The admins are usually pretty fair. I had a debate with a Nobel prize winner on Wikipedia (look it up!) and I won. What chance do you have? I'd give it a break. Why are you so worked up if I'm just a random nutcase as you claim? The anti-spam campaign is threatening your "business model," (such as it is). That's why you're sitting here a 8 PM arguing with me instead of out doing something useful like creating good articles. Why don't you make an Advameg article yourself? Oh that's right, spammers don't like to draw attention to themselves.
Also, where are the ads on city-data? I don't see any. There aren't any on the forum at least. All I see are fishy sweepstakes offers. I know rates your sweepstakes on the low end, that's all. I've made no other accusations about your sweepstakes.
I will end this discussion as useless unless you answer the following questions:
1. Explain how you got listed as a spammer by several long-established users, including User:Wmahan, as a sockpupetter by User:Petaholmes and as a "suspicious IP" by User:NawlinWiki if your behavior here has been legit.
2. Explain why you think, as an anon IP, you can block a long-established user who has accepted the decision of the admins?
If you are not willing to dialogue on these points I will ignore you as User:Firsfron has already suggested we do. Mjk2357 00:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
You are still trying to divert attention from your actions when the facts are clear and indisputable: the only reason you created the false Advameg attack article was to get revenge after being banned from the's forum. Your weak attempt to align yourself with some anti-spam campaign and to change the subject won't fool anybody. Why aren't you answering any of the questions about your malicious actions? It's not a surprise you can't see ads, since you couldn't even see the right name of the company or the sites it owns. Your obsession with the company was shown when you continually tried to bring the article back and had to be put in your place by admins. Using an IP is much less anonymous that using a username. You're digging your own hole with your every attempt to tarnish the company and I love the fact that your statement about "fraudulent" activities will be archived by Wikipedia for future use... 01:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
One last time, this is how it went: I was treated deceptively on city-data, which you yourself have admitted. So I did a WhoIs on your company to see what the deal was. I then found out you'd been listed as a spammer on Wikipedia. I researched some more and created the article. Yes the article has been deleted but the admins have also referred to you as "suspicious" and have told me to beware of you and not give you any personal info. Why do you think that might be?
You also lied to the admins in saying you'd deleted the "worst" of my posts when in reality they'd all been effectively deleted through the Bad-Faith Coventry method, which by the way good admins don't use. As you know I have experience as a moderator and an admin on other sites. When we block people we tell them.
You have not denied linkspamming, because you have done it. You do not deny being a sockpuppet, because you are one. You're too smart to lie but you keep dodging the issue yourself. Go away you are starting to smell very very socky. Make some real contribs to Wikipedia like I have then maybe I'll waste time with you - that is if you don't get banned for the 14th time for being a sockpuppet. Mjk2357 01:24, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Once again, stop changing the subject. I also note that you deceptively changed the heading of this section on your user talk, which was about banning you from Wikipedia for multiple rules violations. Please explain this action. Your worst posts have indeed been deleted through a regular method, so that's another lie. Here are the undisputed facts for any person that will view your talk page:
1. Mjk2357 has been banned from's popular forum for multiple rules violations and in revenge created an Advameg attack page on Wikipedia.
2. The attack page has contained numerous unsupported lies and inaccuracies. It has violated neutral point of view, verifiability, and no original research.
3. After the attack page was deleted by admins four times, Mjk2357 has recreated it three times, violating Wikipedia rules.
4. Mjk2357 has shown absolutely no remorse for rule breaking and in fact has continued to attack the company on Wikipedia.
Mjk2357, do you dispute any of these four statements? If not, then the matter is settled and Wikipedians will judge your actions on their own merits. 02:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

<------Since I was not banned, nor will I be, and this conversation is mainly about Advameg, the change was legit. It is my talk page. The mirror discussion on your talk page you may title as you wish. Now I am doing you the favor of responding to your points. If you don't then respond to mine above, this conversation is done. Here are my responses.:

1. Yes, I was banned - without anyone telling me. As for my "worst" posts, I'd love for you to reproduce them here and the Wikipedia community can judge how bad they were. But wait, you can't, you deleted them. In contrast other users warning of "black gangs taking over" and non-existent "race riots" in schools that never had riots and all did not have their posts deleted. If you don't think that is racist than we'll have to agree to disagree.

2.There were no lies an inaccuracies. Unless you are doing more deceptive deleting, anyone can check the city-data form and see the racist posts that were not deleted. That also covers verifiability. No I am not a fan of Advameg (obviously), but I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt with qualifiers like "possible" and "allegations." I also said some of the other domains you held did not appear to be racist and in fact presented a positive view of African-Americans.

3. Two of the deletions were not by admins - and one of the times I had placed a "hold on" tag which is supposed to stop deletions until an admin can review it. A regular user deleted the article for the weird reason that the HQ of Advameg was uncertain. Another regular user deleted it because he thought the article was pro-Advameg, believe it or not. Once I read my messages from the admins I let the article stay deleted. Have you stopped your spamming after being contacted by admins? No, you've used sockpuppets.

4.I will never have remorse about attacking spammers. That having been said, unlike you, I accept admin decisions. Talk pages are not part of official Wikipedia article content. Users are allowed to express their feelings freely on talk pages - which we both have done.

Now that I have answered your points please answer mine:

1. Are you the user Zdrv or have you ever used sockpuppets? Are you responsible for the nearly 100 instances of linkspam attributed to Advameg by User:Wmahan?

2. Did you lie to the admins when you said only my worst posts had been deleted, keeping in mind a Conventry action is an effective deletion - that is not disputed anywhere.

3. Have you promoted your own business on Wikipedia? This is a clear rule violation.

4. If you are acting in good faith, why have the admins called you "suspicious" (User:NawlinWiki) a "spammer" (User:Wmahan) a "sockpuppeteer" (User:Petaholmes) and warned me not to give you any info about myself? (User:Firsfron) Mjk2357 02:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The change of the title is a perfect example of your dishonest attempt to redirect the debate from your lies. How many times have you tried to put out some lie that was subsequently squashed and proven false without anymore comments from you regarding it? I can list many such examples: "business model believed to involve sweepstakes", "I have not been banned from city-data", "I am a long-established user. You are an anonymous IP address," while hiding under a username that is much more anonymous than an IP and while knowing that Advameg contributed to Wiki before you, complaining about "racist" messages when the forum rules specifically state that they are not allowed and knowing that these are user messages (just like on Wikipedia, where no other users are responsible for your attack page), "because a large part of their traffic comes from their Wikipedia links" - another lie. Even worse are your debate skills: "Have you stopped your spamming?" Your attempts to redirect the debate from your disgraceful actions will be as futile as your attempts to tarnish the company's reputation by creating an attack article. You did not address any of the points raised:
1. You say "Yes, I was banned" when the main part of the original statement was "and in revenge created an Advameg attack page on Wikipedia." Did you miss it somehow?
2. Yes there were lies and inaccuracies. For lies you had incorrect and unsupported accusations of political agenda, accusations about inability by people with complaints to reach the owners ("About the Forum" has numerous answers by the Administrator and Moderators to people with complaints), and previously mentioned lies about "business model believed to involve sweepstakes." For inaccuracies, you had the wrong company name, wrong registrant name, wrong location, and a website listed as owned that is not. Please answer how these not violate all three principles: neutral point of view, verifiability, and no original research.
3. Yet again, you try to do your best to miss the point. Is the recreation of articles against the rules or not? Did you do it or not?
4. Another evasion of the question. The point was that you have shown no remorse about repeatedly and knowingly breaking Wikipedia rules to get your revenge for being banned.
Please answer the questions directly without evading them this time. This is a discussion about your actions and you're not helping your cause by attempting to change the subject. 03:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
You have not answered my questions so you are the one changing the subject. I am allowed to do what I want with titles on my talk page, as you are with yours. My status as a long-established user shows that I am not in the habit of violating rules. Once the admins informed me I was violating the rules I stopped. You, on the other hand, have not stopped spamming, sockpuppeting, or, evidently, trolling.
I asked for my comments to be moved to the "About the Forum" section! - but instead they were deleted. There should be records of this on your site. According to, is registered to Advameg. If it is inaccurate take it up with them, not me. Once again, not original research on my part. If you are not Advameg it's quite suspicious your ISP is right next to their headquarters.
I don't know what your business model is. I believed it to involve sweepstakes because that's all I could find out about Advameg. Where are these ads you speak of? I can't find them on city-data, at least not in the forum.
One more thought... If Advameg is a long established user, where is your long-established account? Answer - nowhere, because you have used at least 14 sockpuppets to cover up your spamming! Admit it, you've been warned far more than I have.
Anyway, you are not engaging in a two-way dialogue. The position of the admins is clear - the article cannot be recreated by me, but also your behavior is "suspicious" and I get the benefit of the doubt as a long-established user. Case closed. If you don't want to answer my questions as I answered yours, then this conversation is over 67.whatever, or should I say Zdrv. Night! Mjk2357 04:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
You have not just tried to change the subject, you literally did it with your replacing of the subject heading. Could it be because your actions are indefensible and you're trying to deflect the issue? I'm sure most Wikipedians will see right through how a self-described "long-established user" was somehow unaware of all three main content rules and of the deletion rules and of not-creating an attack page rule and had to be "informed" about violations by admins after committing them repeatedly. I doubt anyone reading this is interested in internal workings of city-data's forum, but it is obvious that posts in the wrong forum and other posts may be moved or deleted as needed. Ads are displayed under the first post of a thread in the vast majority of threads. If you admittedly have no idea what the business model is, why did you attempt to include it in the article? And why did you try to include some imagined political leanings of the company? The only inaccuracy you decided to argue (note that I didn't count it as a deliberate lie) was using the wrong name of the company, which was noticed by another user and subsequently corrected. It is very interesting how you're suddenly "tired" of the issue after being exposed as a disgruntled banned poster, when you were obviously not too tired to create an article with more errors than sentences and to attempt to resurrect it multiple times, while arguing with others about it, when that fact wasn't known. You seem to be unable to debate the issue without personal attacks: "That's why you're sitting here a 8 PM arguing with me instead of out doing something useful" or calling the company "racist" and "fraudulent" and without grade-school debate tactics such as "Have you stopped your spamming?" or "So your goons can harrass me in real life?" after asking for the identification yourself. The admins have tried to warn you not to dig your own hole, but you've already done it with these accusations. 09:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
I never started threads so I guess I never saw the ads. Sorry about that. But, as you offer sweepstakes, the phrase, "your business model includes sweepstakes" is indeed accurate. Funny how sensitive you are about sweepstakes! Wonder why? Furthermore, no admins have contacted me since the AfD. Mjk2357 11:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Incorrect. Sweepstakes can not produce any revenue for a U.S. entity that runs them and in fact cost money for prizes: Sweepstakes. This can be confirmed by reading the rules on city-data's sweepstakes page. Ads are visible when simply reading threads (unless some sort of an ad-blocker is used), there is no need to start threads to see them. 05:35, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


My Final Word: Zdrv, you have been banned and/or warned for spamming multiple times. Me? Zero. I'll let that speak for itself. If anyone is interested in this thread (unlikely!) they can research the debate for themselves. Mjk2357 11:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

My Final Word: The facts of Mjk2357's actions are displayed for everybody to judge for themselves, so I won't be writing here anymore (unless some strange reverts start happening...). 05:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Good, I'm glad this is resolved. I will not recreate the Advameg article if that's what you mean by "strange reverts." However I reserve the right to delete your linkspam. If you do not believe the links to your own company that you and your sockpuppets have created to be linkspam, please read the policy. It clearly is spam. You could also take up the issue with User:Wmahan who has listed you as a Spammer. Mjk2357 11:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

<----Update: Zdrv has restored my posts - hopefully as a peace offering! If anyone actually reads this and wants to see what the fuss was about go to I don't think my posts were out of line - you be the judge. Also you can see my rep was >10 which means more people approved of my posts than disapproved. Mjk2357 20:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Advameg article[edit]

Hi Mjk,

Thanks for your notes on my page. However, I removed the last few, as they did not appear to be addressed to me. For the record, the Speedy Deletion of an attack page listed on AFD does not violate policy: pages which meet therequirement for Speedy Delete can be deleted at any time. You have thousands of good edits to Wikipedia, so this one incident certainly doesn't warrant a block: just please don't create articles with POV slants and which appear to attack the subject of the article. You are certainly right not to give out your personal information (to an IP!), and what you did or didn't do on another site has no bearing on Wikipedia. I recommend that you disengage this conversation, and go back to what you were doing before: editing articles. Best, Firsfron of Ronchester 19:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this "mysterious" IP (aka Advameg) has not addressed the legitimate points I have raised, so I consider the conversation to be unproductive. However I would not like the "last word" on your talk page to be an attack on me by an anon IP, so please either add your two cents or let me add my response. However, it's your talk page in the end.
I do not believe the article met the criteria for speedy delete. The criteria listed given for the three deletions were as follows 1.) Article was anti-Advameg (debatable - I included some good points and some caveats). 2.) Article was pro-Advameg (contradicts #1) 3.) Company's HQ was uncertain (that one just stumps me!). However I don't plan to waste all my time battling this company. Given the petty scale of their operations (to date) it doesn't seem worth it. However I do reserve the right to remove their spam where I see it.
As this IP has revealed itself as a rep of Advameg I am requesting a warning or a block because Advameg is in clear violation of policy - promotion of commercial websites via linkspam. Obviously they are attacking me in part because a large part of their traffic comes from their Wikipedia links. They seem like the suing type so no way am I giving out my name!
P.S. - this IP is the probable operator of the sockpuppets at IPs:,, and The spam project also refers to a page called "suspected sockpuppets of Zdrv" but this has been deleted (wonder why??) Mjk2357 20:22, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for telling![edit]

Xizes 02:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. Happy editing. Mjk2357 03:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


What is Neotribalism? Please reply Xizes 00:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC).

Read the article! Neo-Tribalism Mjk2357 12:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Read it AstroBoy 01:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Survey Q[edit]

Have you ever been to the southern hemisphere, click here to reply.AstroBoy 01:46, 11 November 2006 (UTC) Deadline for entries is December 15th

evolutionary psychology reference[edit]

In the "neo-tribalism" article you have stated that recently some supporters of neo-Tribalism have put forth the argument that their ideas have been scientifically proven by the discipline of evolutionary psychology. Do you have any examples/sources of that? I would appreciate it if you could provide some for me. Cheers.

I did not find a source from an evolutionary psychologist. Do you know of any renowned authors from this field that endorse neo-tribalism? Also, I was more looking for "radical neo-tribalism" references, rather than the moderate type. Thnaks for the references. I will also check the David Ronfeldt author.Maziotis 21:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:100front.jpg[edit]

Warning sign This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:100front.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.Betacommand (talkcontribsBot) 01:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

nom fr cfd[edit]

thought should inform you, have nominated Category:Emergent_philosophy for cfd at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_June_11#Category:Emergent_philosophy ⇒ bsnowball  16:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Currency Image:100front.jpg[edit]

Hi, To assist global anti-counterfeiting efforts you may wish to consider marking images of banknotes you upload as "Specimen" in some way, if those banknotes represent legal tender.ShakespeareFan00 15:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Producerism.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Producerism.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 05:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Geology of Susquehanna River[edit]

Hi, ages ago - to be precise on October 4 2005 - you added the geologic history of the Susquehanna River ( Can you please name a source for that? We are trying to confirm the article on de-WP and can't find anything on that issue online. Can you recommend some printed sources? TIA --h-stt !? 13:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I saw it on local TV a few times here in the US. Here is an online reference: There is another from a local paper here

but you have to pay to get it

Found both of them - The Sunday News article is available on Lexis-Nexis. And unfortunately none is a decent source be our standards. Thanks for your effort, I'll try to get literature on the geology of the area myself, as there seems to be nothing good online. Have a nice weekend. --h-stt !? 05:48, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
There is a local TV program on air every now and then here in America that talks about the geology of the river, but I forget the exact name. It is a PBS (Public Broadcasting) program - maybe you can look that up. It aired on WVIA recently. Mjk2357 (talk) 03:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. here (p.4) is a source for the Early Cretaceous age (110 million years ago) which admits that is is speculative. But I was unable to find anything academic that goes beyond that. The Sunday News article too calls it not that established, albeit a "classic explanation". Let's see, I'll put the Sunday News article in for a start and try if I get anywhere further. Thanks again for your help. --h-stt !? 11:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


I've been working on improving the Posthumanism article. Your comments would be appreciated on its talk page. --Loremaster (talk) 23:54, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Biased editing of Technological Utopianism by Loremaster.[edit]

Biased editing of Technological Utopianism by Loremaster.

Due to your past contribution to Technological utopianism, you may currently want to help editing the Technological utopianism article because currently only one editor is contributing to the article. The Singularitarianism Article could also benefit from your help.

I feel Loremaster is editing Singularitarianism and Technological utopianism in a biased manner in accordance with his Save The Earth propaganda. Loremasters's ideology seems to verge towards Neo-Luddism. Here are the damming facts Loremaster has stated in discussion:

Loremaster says he is:
"...critical of techno-utopianism in all its forms."
Loremaster wants people to:
"...stop indulging in techno-utopian fantasies... that we can all focus on energies on saving the planet."
Loremaster sees his editing as a 'fight' and he states:
"Although I am convinced that the world is in fact heading toward an ecological catastrophe, I think it can be averted and my optimism makes me want to fight to do do just that." (talk) 12:13, 18 December 2010 (UTC)JB

  1. LOL
  2. Despite the fact that I openly admit to being a technorealist who is critical of techno-utopianism in all its forms, I have let never this point of view influence any of my edits or reverts of the Technological utopianism or Singularitarianism articles. On the contrary, I am the person most responsible for expanding the former article with content some would argue is “pro-techno-utopian” (i.e. passages from James Hughes' book Citizen Cyborg).
  3. I find it disgusting that would take comments I made out of context to falsely make it seem I see my editing of any article as part of my fight for the environment.
  4. In light of this outrageous act of bad faith, I will do everything in my power to get this jerk banned from Wikipedia.

--Loremaster (talk) 00:49, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Syncretic politics[edit]

Hello Mjk2357. You edited the Syncretic politics article at at 20:40, 31 October 2005 to argue that “some have attempted to achieve centrist goals (i.e. modest health-care reform) using radical methods (such as destroying the two-party system.” Could you provide an example of the people who attempted to do this? --Loremaster (talk) 02:32, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:49, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Glykon-statuette.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Glykon-statuette.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

  • make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
  • Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly hi! 20:41, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Category:Economic disasters has been nominated for discussion[edit]

Category:Economic disasters, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:49, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

File:728x90B.gif listed for discussion[edit]


A file that you uploaded or altered, File:728x90B.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:35, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Mjk2357. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Mjk2357. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)