User talk:Sarah/Archive5

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

Giovanni33 proposal

Hi, Sarah. Since you recently got (slightly) involved in the case of Giovanni and his puppets, I thought I would direct you to new discussion, in case you have missed it. Jayjg has now confirmed through checkuser that Professor33, NeoOne, and CleanSocks are all sockpuppets of Giovanni33.[1] [2] Giovanni has now come as close as I think he can come (without losing face) to admitting sockpuppetry. He has agreed here that it doesn't pay, and has asked to be unblocked on certain conditions which, if enforced, would make the use of sockpuppets completely futile. I've made a proposal here, at the Incidents Noticeboard. Also, this section of Danny's talk page gives a summary of this history and contains links to all or nearly all the places where it has been discussed. The blocking admin has indicated that he will consider unblocking early, and I'd be happy with that, but I think we need to work out the conditions that Giovanni agrees to first. Assuming that the sockpuppetry stops, I'd also be happy with removing the puppeteer tag from his own user page, in order to help him to make a clean start, free from any unnecessary humiliation. Don't feel you have to get involved, but if you have time, a comment at the noticeboard would be welcome. I'm hoping to have this sorted out as soon as possible, because I need to go on wiki-break to finish some writing. Cheers. AnnH 06:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, Sarah. I knew you weren't an admin, though I'm sure you'd sail through an RfA. (I remember being impressed at the time with your calm message to Count Of The Saxon Shore at the time that he was trying to nominate Robsteadman's user page for deletion.) In the meantime, don't forget that the "lesser mortals" are always welcome to join discussion at admin noticeboards. In fact, it's one of the things that gets potential admins "known" by the community. Cheers. AnnH 11:16, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


Happy to do so, Ms. Ewart. -- Samir धर्म 07:48, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Won't he ever stop?

Won't Pnatt ever stop vandalizing this place? Good work keeping up with him and reporting him to WP:AIV! —Mets501 (talk) 02:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I know! I'm hoping he gets bored with it very soon. Thanks for blocking him so quickly. Last time he did this it took ages to get him blocked. Cheers, Sarah Ewart (Talk) 02:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
No problem! It's fun; I just became an admin last night. —Mets501 (talk) 02:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I just semi-protected Australia and Macquarie Dictionary now to hopefully stop this vandalism. I can't believe I didn't think of that sooner. —Mets501 (talk) 02:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

According to Pnatt's userpage history he has Obsessive Compulsive Disorder. That may explain his rampant vandalism patterns on Wikipedia. Aussieguy 03:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Here's proof...

I've responded to your email. —Mets501 (talk) 03:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Why did you revert?

Why did you revert my edits here...
and here...
Aussieguy 05:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: Aussieguy

Duly blocked. He had violated 3RR in any event. Happy editing, --cj | talk 06:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


For your kind comment! I'll need a week or so to pluck up the courage. --Guinnog 07:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


Thanks for stepping in at User talk: :-) —Mets501 (talk) 13:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


Good luck on your RfA. -- Samir धर्म 07:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

A&R Address

yeah, it's a bit of a weird one. I mean, it bothered me enough to query him even though he had quite a reasonable looking reference! Usually it would be 110 A, 110 B etc I'm sure I've never seen anything like 110 1/2 outside of "platform 9 3/4" on Harry Potter... Garrie 01:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Michael Jackson Nicknames


I reverted an edit to remove King of Pop yet again, and explained in edit summary, it's since been re-reverted. Fancy a quick word with the editor? [3] -- Funky Monkey  (talk)  22:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Very well, the "nicknames" can go, but I don't see a reason for removing the other sentence, especially since it is sourced....and the source is more than credible. If your problem was simply the nicknames, why take a chop at the other sentence? I will put it back in.UberCryxic 22:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Consensus is the same as it was when we were all involved in the last issue. Cryxic has now broken the 3RR. I'll leave a message on his talk page. Do you know someone willing to revert, I only like to do it once in 24hrs. -- Funky Monkey  (talk)  22:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I have not violated 3RR. One has to make more than three reverts to an article with a 24-hour period, whereas I've only made three. And the last one was not a real revert.

Speaking of that sentence, why was it removed? I do not see what the problem with it is. Can you explain this to me? To my reckoning, it doesn't violate NPOV, it is sourced, and is pretty much legimiate (or should be).UberCryxic 23:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The address is this:

The title of the article: Michael Jackson

The opening paragraph: "Michael Jackson is a singer, songwriter, dancer and celebrity icon with a vast catalog of hit records and countless awards to his credit. Beyond that, he has transfixed the world like few entertainers before or since. As a solo performer, he has enjoyed a level of superstardom previously known only to Elvis Presley, the Beatles and Frank Sinatra."

How is that about James Brown?!?!?!?!

It deserves to be in the lead because it gives readers a good idea of the stature of Michael Jackson as it relates to music.UberCryxic 23:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Why did you say the article was about James Brown? Was the link bad or something? If so, please let me know so that I can get the correct link, but for me that one takes me to the Michael Jackson page in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.UberCryxic 23:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I fully agree with you about not injecting personal opinions into the article. This is exactly what the page says: "As a solo performer, he has enjoyed a level of superstardom previously known only to Elvis Presley, the Beatles and Frank Sinatra." That's the opinion of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, which presumably should dwarf ours by miles. I will take this up to the talkpage and wait a few days. Thank you for your help.UberCryxic 23:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I have opened it up for discussion now. After two or three days, if there are no major problems with it, I will put the sentence back in. Do you agree with these terms?UberCryxic 23:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

What section would you suggest?UberCryxic 23:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I will note how the discussion "goes," though at this point I realize it is already fait accompli against the inclusion, mainly from your personal opinions, however. According to WP:V, I am within my bounds to include the information (as long as it's an opinion, theory, etc. that comes from a reputable source), and will do so at a place outside the lead if that is your wish.UberCryxic 00:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok fair enough. That's actually a good point; it should not be written in a way that hides the basic contentions being raised here. So how about a simple, "According to the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, [the rest here]..."? That pretty much eliminates all POV one can think of and includes an important source.UberCryxic 00:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok then. I will wait a little. After that, I'd rather give you the honors of writing the statement since you could probably phrase it more professionally. Thank you.UberCryxic 00:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks for your great help! Although I must say, a paragraph is way more than I'm asking for. All I really want is to include that statement somewhere in the article. I feel the lead would be most appropriate, but I'll defer to you on placement.UberCryxic 02:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

It's at the end of the second paragraph in the lead, where it talks about him being inducted in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.UberCryxic 03:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

How long do you think we should wait?UberCryxic 03:36, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

All-right awesome. Hey thank you for being such a great administrator, in sharp contrast to the allegations that Wikipedia administrators are abusive or dictatorial. You've been cool enough to make me think about flirting with you, but then I figured it might not be appropriate. I think we'll just be Wikifriends!UberCryxic 04:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Haha! about operating under the wrong impressions. Oh well. This just means that now I can hit on Peta. Hehe...UberCryxic 04:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Oooo one final thing. Peta suggested that I ask some some more people to review my current FAC Tahirih Justice Center. It has gone significant improvements since being nominated and I'd appreciate it if you gave it a look and let me know what you think in the nomination page. Thank you!UberCryxic 04:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Your concerns


I have been looking through the logs of discussions of friends, when I saw the discussion of my leaving(!) Wikipedia. Thanks for showing the concerns. Actually it was my birthday on 2nd August, and I planned to write the "Away" message after returning from the party. But these things are very much unpredictable and by the time I came back, I was so tired that I went to sleep. I had to leave early morning of the next day, so I couldn't leave a message then. Thankfully, I had informed quite a few Wikipedians (Samir, Nirav, Sir Porpington, Dwaipayan, Deepu Joseph, etc.), and my leave was quickly attributed correctly on my talk page. Thanks again, both for the concerns and showing confidence in me. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 10:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

David Oberklaid


In the light of the above and as the article is completely unreferenced, I have deleted it. Content is available on request if you want to work on it in user space. Tyrenius 14:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the mistake

Thanks for pointing out the mistake I'd made. It's easy enough to do, really. Should all be fixed now. LinaMishima 16:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The Deal

Here's the deal on 3RR - it only works when others 'team up' on someone. A change is made - it can be discussed, or whatever. But when you are the one who's changes or contributions are 'reverted', and you want to initiate such change, then who is right and who is wrong? The one who offered the contribution or the one who initiated a 'rev' to suit themselves? Too many times I have seen things incorrectly perceived and then the 3RR issued out threateningly (even in cases of direct manipulation, slander, and outright insult). I've seen an insulting person get a contributing person banned because of this. Amazing, isn't it? Because someone says that you cannot remove the insult - so the rev goes back and forth when a person is trying to remove an insult. Go figure. Rarelibra 16:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

It is also difficult to take some things in Wikipedia seriously, or to continue efforts, when you have intelligent, researched, and - at times - "SME" contributions that are quickly 'reverted', 'overturned', or denied because of a 'consensus' or differing opinion by someone else. I can understand when it is outright graffiti or vandalism, but I'm talking about standardizing input, contributions, etc. to avoid things such as biased opinion (which exists on the Australia page - when they say you must only use "Australian" English). Rarelibra 16:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


Don't lecture me until you learn more about me. I am award-winning in my industry and I work on a regular basis with the United Nations Cartographic Group. I think I have valid input. Read above - hard to take things serious when you have such as yourselves going around quoting rules and not assuming good faith at the efforts of others. Rarelibra 16:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Honestly? I don't have time for this. It will become my 'opinion' against that of the 'regular' contributors as such stated. Consider this - working with countries and administrative levels, I can visit 20 or 30 country pages in ONE DAY. As such, I have been able to make small (and numerous) changes at many of the various pages, be it alphabetizing, name changes, formatting, maps, etc. So I am then not qualified as a 'regular' for a page like Australia. But in my overall edits, do I not qualify on the topic of standardization (American spelling - ha!)? So you see, I do not wish to discuss... they want it that way, fine. But that doesn't mean that most of the other countries will be standardized. Life is too short and the world is too beautiful to stress over what a 'consensus' feels should be displayed on an Internet page, you see? Cheers Rarelibra 16:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
No, I disagree. You PERCEIVE it as egocentric and arrogant and such. But then again, contributions on the Nissan Maxima page were seen as too "American" and not including a 'world' viewpoint, thus, were criticized. And if I were to state what you said on my talk page, with the focus on the Maxima in North America (where it is still produced), I would be labeled and told not to do so. So it is a two-way street. It is far from being egocentric and arrogant - be careful of accusatory or insulting phrases, as you may be perceived as being the 'arrogant' or 'egocentric' one. Enough of this. I'll just be an outside viewer. Too many times people cannot agree and continue to revert to their own 'consensual' liking. That is the failure of Wikipedia. Besides, it only takes so long before someone comes along and completely changes what you've worked so hard at, right? Especially if they are a 'regular' contributor as to a SME contributor. Read the history of the formatting discussion I had - the claim is to have a capital letter and then smaller-case letters (such as "Administrative divisions") when TRUE manuals of style state the proper use would be "Administrative Divisions". So when a 'consensus' says one thing contradictory to true or official standards, then what? Rarelibra 17:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I was very surprised when I saw that! Rarelibra seems to have a very different understanding of how Wikipedia works, which would explain why s/he finds our requests so offensive and doesn't understand them in the spirit intended. (Apparently, the US govt manuals of style are the "true" manuals of style, too!) JPD (talk) 17:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Please - this isn't a discussion or debate on the differences between American English, Australian English, Canadian English, or the "Queen's own" English. I haven't been to Australia, but from what I've seen (and people I've known or currently know) it is a great country in itself. I am not the typical "American" that drives an SUV, lives in a god-awful large house, cares only for world domination, and fails to recognize that the world is a large place with lots of learning. In fact, I am embarrassed and sickened at the examples that my fellow Americans portray to the world (though you find such thought processes in almost any country in the world). I am, however, a person who has served a government that I disagree with (for a country I love) for several years now - who has been sent overseas to do an administration's bidding while trying to stay focused on keeping sane and ignoring the fact that most of the rest of the world hates the iconic American only for being American. So I apologize for my reactions - as such - I hate being 'accused' of an ego-centric thought process or approach. Simply put, I speak languages and travel the world so that I retain some culture with which to try to identify with others. That put, there isn't an overall 'expert' with all of the answers - on the issue of style, however, wouldn't you agree that it makes perfect sense to capitalize correctly across a title? Other manuals that state differently argue the case of logic itself - it doesn't even look correct with one capital letter and others as lower case. But I digress.
My approach is that each and every country either has administrative divisions that can be logically defined and presented or, in some cases, are so small that they don't have administrative function. When a person doesn't know the name of the definitions, it is difficult to search the contents or page to find. Having a standard approach is what I was trying to do, but that went out the door when others in a 'consensus' decided differently. I can live with that. We all have our little corners of influence. JBD - be careful in your wording about US govt manuals of style are the "true" manuals of style, too! because, again, are you trying to be insulting or ridiculing to me? Like I said, at the end of the day, I'll pop open a cold one and not worry about this. Not like my gravestone will read "immensely skillful in Wikipedia", right? Rarelibra 17:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


Hi, Sarah. In short, Cerejota is pushing his POV, and is gaming the system with his reverts. He's out of reverts, yet he continues to revert to previous versions, which as far as I can tell, means he has reverted at least five times in 24 hours. A link to 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict is already in the article (linked in context, in the appropriate section as "ongoing conflict with Hezbollah in Lebanon" in reference to the JF). The only reason Cerejota is linking to 2006 Israel-Gaza conflict is because he wants to, and I've asked hin not to edit the article based on his POV. This began when I originally added a link in the see also section to August 1999 Los Angeles Jewish Community Center shooting, which for some very strange and unknown reason, made him extremely upset, leading him to engage in wild, trollish behavior, as evidenced here, even though my addition of that link was supported by references, whereas his changes are not. Worse, his reverting of the lead is actually a major distortion of the article, as the quote in the lead is not a quote but a paraphrase of something a witness said. I fixed the article by placing the full alleged quotes in the context of the events themselves. I feel that my version sticks to the facts without placing undue emphasis on dated material by placing time-sensitive information (which is already out of date) into the appropriate sections. The current version fails on many levels. I prefer this particular version because it sticks to known facts within a chronology that does not date, and does not attempt to take any particular side. —Viriditas | Talk 13:18, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Check your e-mail. —Viriditas | Talk 09:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I did not overwrite - I deleted

I did not overwrite a discussion. I removed it per WIki guidelines on bio (it says ON TALK pages too).jawesq 15:27, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


HI Sarah. I understand your confusion. I changed from Gfwesq when I realized my husband was still logged in. We are not sockpuppets, and I would never attribute what I say to him. Thus, I changed it. I wish there were some other way of identifying independent users than this, but I don't know how. If you want any further confirmation, please email me and I will explain (privately via email). I have had problems with a person accusing gfwesq and me of being sockpuppets because we share similar interests (we are both lawyers) and therefore both edit law articles. However, in the midst of the attack, some admin from En-1 came on and said that we should be allowed to be married and edit similar articles where our interests overlap. I have not been on Wikipedia for over a week, and still am not sure whether I want to continue. Articles like the Jim Shapiro one make me question whether or not it is a waste of time - they are a lawsuit waiting to happen, anyway. And other articles I have noticed over the last few months were also long diatribes against lawyers and the law, that may be appropriate in a political rag, but not an encyclopedia.

Second, I removed the sections that were factually untrue and that were judgmental and inflammatory -- including where I quoted the same paragraph to show the author's bias. This is per the WP:Bio guidelines as the tag says on the talk page.jawesq 15:35, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes I did mean George Herbert Walker. Pity he is not an admin. He was the most reasonable.jawesq 15:48, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I will p;ost in discussion (as I did the last time) regarding the reason for removal, in addition to posting the reason in the edit summary. THe paragraph with 'illegal' was not just factually incorrect, but it was also a posterad for the author's intent for writing the article - pure hatred and judgmentalism. A poor reason for an encyclopedia article, although this is by no means the only example of that.jawesq 15:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Chaser8 spammer

Thanks for undoing the work of the Chaser8 spammer. I often find myself having to deal with a serial spammer and know what an unwelcome chore it can be. Nunquam Dormio 17:11, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


What are they? Where did that offensive photo come from? Ottawaman 01:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

wow; i can't possibly relate to anyone who would misuse that photo in such a way. Ottawaman 01:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Why are we still talking about that? FellowWikipedian 19:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

James Shapiro

Thanks for your comment on the discussion page. Your version is better than what exists now, but I still think the intent of the original article was and is gratuitous lawyer bashing -- as you can see from "WAS" last comment. I personally think this lawyer looks pretty sleazy, but -- and a big 'but'-- why is there such a desire to publicly excoriate him? Do we have articles on offensive doctor advertising, or doctors that had their licenses suspended? Gee, I can give you the name of one.... Only his license was not supsended, it was revoked for far worse things than Shapiro was guilty of doing.jawesq 07:02, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


As you might know it's on SPEEDY A8 and says "commercial content provider", which is generally interpreted as a content provider which is a commercial concern, as opposed to a charity or a blogger for example, and not that you have to pay specifically to access the content. Another issue is that there's a backlog with all this stuff and the last thing the Foundation wants is copyvio material hanging round, so some admins have been keenly following the spirit of the law generally. Tyrenius 02:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I'm not quite sure what you mean, but basically if it's a copyvio, we just don't want it, and it will be doing everyone a big favour to draw attention so it can be despatched with the utmost haste. That's my interpretation anyway, and I will defend it on the basis of Wiki's true interest. But come back if that doesn't clarify the question. Tyrenius 02:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

What I don't understand is "copyvios ... which have no non-copyvio version." What is a non-copyvio version?

But to answer your example, firstly all material is copyright whether it's from a commercial or "non-commercial" provider. In fact, I suppose one could argue that there is no such thing as a non-commercial provider, because anyone could potentially make money from whatever they're created. The thing is that anyone can sue or demand payment if you use their material, so the longer it's hanging around the more potentially dangerous it is. HRT can claim a commercial damage because their unique copyright material is no longer unique if it's on another site, and that diminishes the value of their site.

I think established practice is now getting more ruthless about deleting copyvios. Personally I would say you are doing the right thing, and I would be prepared to defend that very strongly. However, you may want to put it somewhere to a wider forum, and I'd be very interested to see the outcome. There is now a bit of a freak-out about copyvios, and I think you're more likely to get a negative response from letting them linger. As for whether I'm "legalistically" in the right, well I don't honestly see that as the priority.

Tyrenius 03:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, this is on the speedy notice: "A commercial content provider is an entity directly engaged in making money from the content."

Tyrenius 03:22, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Right, I understand that now. I think your original comment about experienced admins says it all. In fact I saw one comment the other day that, due to the massive backlog and the need to protect wiki from copyvios, he didn't bother with WP:CP any more, but just deleted on sight. That's what I'd do. You've then got to have the confidence and understanding of why it's right and to say that to someone who's following the letter but defeating the purpose. Tyrenius 03:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Just wanted to say that you had explained OK but because I don't do a lot of copyvio stuff I had not interpreted it correctly. I thought you meant another concurrently existing version (with a slightly different name or something). Tyrenius 19:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

PS My suggestion on changes.[4] Tyrenius 20:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


Hi Sarah,

Thanks for the comments and the advice on my talk page. It's so nice to know that someone else can see this guy for what he is! Be prepared, though, he may come after you next ;-) Congirl 11:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)Congirl

Again, a million thanks for your comments. It's felt like a losing battle with this guy. I know he's a little off (hell, he was little off 15 years ago!) and the only reason I responded was to draw him out further and make sure people could tell he was irrational. So your noticing of his pattern has really helped. I can't wait until he moves on ... I'll be taking you up on the offer of removing my name from the talk page. Thanks for the encouragement, Sarah! Congirl 17:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)Congirl
OK, I just woke from a nap on the couch and thought I was dreaming... but it is true, you fixed it! YOU ARE FANTASTIC! THANK YOU!!! Congirl 03:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)Congirl
Yeah, I guess I got guilty there at the end, too. Sorry about that. Hey - are you responsible for getting Tyrenius to add that HUGE warning at the top of the page now? Because that is beyond perfect - and if that doesn't stop him, I don't know what will! Thank you, thank you, thank you! Congirl 12:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC) Congirl
OK, you can email me now.

You've got a Thank you card!



just wanted to say it to ya! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mumbaki (talkcontribs) 05:25, August 8, 2006 (UTC)

  • In recognition of your mature and calm handling of the situation, I'd like to present you with the following:
The Firm but Fair award
I award this Firm but Fair award, for your great effort in encouraging and enforcing civility on Wikipedia. 14:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


You said you were stuck on this. I suggest a bit more in the legal implications sections, also putting in material about his philanthropic charitable activities, and maybe a bit about how he hasa been perceived on blogs (i.e. not used as a source of info about him, but as a source of info about the bloggers' perceptions of him). Even in its present state, I suggest this should now be uploaded as the article, and the existing one perhaps stored on a sub-page of the article talk page, so that the material there is accessible for anyone who wants it. The bulk of the material on the legal implications could be put in a separate article Advertising legal practices in the US. Tyrenius 08:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

His philanthropy is mentioned in one article at least in Rochester Democrat and Chronicle[5] and also on his promo site [6], where it states:

He completed a donation of $823,000.00 for a new YMCA. "The Hammer" has donated thousands of books to school children who could not afford books. "The Hammer" has also donated tens of thousands to help build schools for children. Shapiro has donated thousands more to help children read.

"Completed" could mean he topped up to that amount, rather than gave the whole amount himself. It doesn't say what books he donated to schoolchildren. Maybe it was "Sue the Bastard"?! Tyrenius 09:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

David Tench

Thanks for the note, Sarah. Heh heh, I can't believe I'm putting up such an impassioned defence for a show which looks so awful! I just saw the ad tonight and have no interest in watching it whatsoever. Take care, --Canley 11:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


Sarah, if you get this note in time, I wondered if you might consider changing your vote here; quite a few have including your "per"s. I don't think he'll make it anyway. Excuse my impudence if you feel this is out of place; I don't know the user at all, FWIW. --Guinnog 13:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


, :O OMg thank u soo much :) it's my first barnstar :D. I won't forget this, when Im rich and famous ;) Thanks :) --Deon555|talk|e|Review Me! :D 07:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

lol im patient dont worry :P :). Hey did u hear im looking at making a bot =D. Some absolute excellent editors are helping me with a few things, cause im still learning python.. but yeh :D im excited as. --Deon555|talk|e|Review Me! :D 07:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Well since my python skills are umm how can i put this.. non-existent? Eagle_101, me and a few other wikipedians have turned it into a Wikiproject :) Wikipedia:WikiProject_AfD_closing. still fun :) and my edit count hit 1000 today =D.--Deon555|talk|e|Review Me! :D 12:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Done :) [barnstar] --Deon555|talk|e|Review Me! :D 00:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
PS :P, I dun no about the whole melbourne function, im *under 18* and would feel a little awkward :/ --Deon555|talk|e|Review Me! :D 00:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

RE: Hey

I didn't get your email - Cartman02au 09:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

That would have been my address, unfortunately I am not at home at the moment (I thought you used my gmail address, sorry bout that) - Cartman02au 10:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


I made this, what do you think, Mate? Eh? Now you can collect all your Stars into a neat box.

As for the removals going on in the Talk page. The removals I am talking about seem to come from the anon IPs with strong accusations. Are these edits being dumped into both user talk pages, or just Ottawamans? I feel lots of this dumping by Anon IPs is nothing more than One UPminship. I wonder if Ottawaman in related to this? Pete Peters 03:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

This entry's history log seems very confusing. Though, I wouldn't be suprised if many of the Pro Ignatieff editors are doing the edits from Ignatieff's leadership campaign headquarters. I was tipped off that Ottawaman might be related because his need to cry foul at the Administrator intervention against vandalism and for his desire to revert back to his version calling it consensus version. I recommend CJCurrie to resolve this, I have declared him the Wikipedian authority of Canadian Politics :) Pete Peters 03:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I updated Your Medal Chest. Pete Peters 13:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


Somewhere or other in BLP or VERIFY or RS, it says judicious use can be made of the subject's own website. I think prefacing it with "his website states..." or else making that clear in the notes (which I think you have already) is the way forward. The newspaper is the one that requires payment. I thought you accessed it already? Tyrenius 04:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

You should have an email with 3 good texts to use in the article. Please confirm it's come through OK. Thanks. Tyrenius 05:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Talk pages

What I posted was:

Talk should not be amended or removed, either your own or someone else's (with the exception of libel, gross abuse etc, when a placeholder giving relevant information such as [libel removed] should be substituted).

What you removed obviously falls under gross abuse, so you can move it. It doesn't belong on the page. Tyrenius 05:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Defender of the Wiki

Hey, I know this is totally ridiculous giving two barnstars in less than 24 hours, but the first I meant to give you a little while ago, and now I feel your sterling effort on Ignatieff cannot go unrecognised and needs a suit of armour! These will definitely have to last you now... Tyrenius 07:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

They'll have to last you for a while now, as I'm sure you'll continue to earn them. (And I am looking forward to J--you-know-who!) Tyrenius 11:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


Javsav 10:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps he shouldn't make unproductive reverts to my article edits, and then I'll consider not making unproductive edits to his editor review. But I do not review the edit as unproductive. I truly think he is a bad editor. He asked for opinions and I told him mine. This isn't Nazi Germany. Javsav 10:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

When did I ever imply that I had a high IQ? I think you'll find that it was Deon who boasted to have one in the range of 140. Javsav 10:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind way in which you retracted your statement Javsav 10:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Your statement was, "You are bad." This is not a review: it is simply a personal attack and of no help to an editor seeking to improve. I have deleted your second comment, which repeated the first. If you continue merely to attack the editor, you will be blocked. Preferably, consider what part of the the editing you consider bad, why you consider it bad, and, crucially, what steps the editor can take to improve that area. If there is more than one area, then detail them separately, or, if there is general advice, then again frame that in a way that will help the editor to improve. The aim of the review is to provide a supportive response for people that need some objective insight and assistance. Tyrenius 10:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


I guess so. It's totally useless and also misleading. I've removed it. Tyrenius 11:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

my editor review

Hi Sarah, thanks heaps for removing all that vandalism from my editor review. I explained to the user I was using a VP-like application and I didnt realise it wasnt vandalism. Thanks for ur help :) --Deon555|talk|e|Review Me! :D 11:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Dynamic IPs and Ottawaman

I've run ARIN Whois lookups, which show that all the IPs belong to Bell Sympatico in Toronto. Bell assigns a dynamic IP to each user when they log in, so I'm afraid the best we can do is leave messages on Ottawaman's account and continue to revert edits to the Talk page. At least the current protection prevents actual article edits. On that note, I suppose I really should get an account. :) 12:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


It's just the code from a barnstar with the text and image changed. No template. 03:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


Glad you liked the Hammer videos, Sarah. On the subject of drafts, I've decided to set the Ignatieff page on the right foot and spent some time wikifying all the references. The results can be found here: Talk:Michael_Ignatieff/Drafts. Since I'm still a new/anonymous user, I can't actually post the changes, but I think they'd be a good start. Anyway, I was wondering if you'd be willing to post the them me. The article itself is identical (well, I changed one grammatical mistake), but now, the references are properly formatted. -- 04:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Oops. Hadn't actually noticed the difference. I'll wait until the page is unprotected.

Rove McManus

What's with deleting the link I put on the Rove McManus page? It is a relevant site that documents the controversy that the subject faces. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) .

Apology? Where is it?

I do not remember anyone receiving any apology from regardless of Sarah Ewart's assertion of repeated apologies. Perhaps Tyrenius or Sarah could direct me to those "repeated" apologies? Ottawaman 17:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I feel you should folow up on the deletion of

Hi,Sarah, You are making a lot of edits on my discussion page so I hope you do not mind a few from me here. You are expressing the opinion that the use of the template has been apologized for and that should be the end of discussion about it. I am trying to say that imo the template itself is offensive to disabled children,their families, and any civilized person. I certainly believe that this template must be deleted as soon as possible and I certainly find it offensive as I personally know a family with a retarded child. I think it is quite wrong to just look at that template as a tool for personal attack and address it solely from that perspective; I think the greater harm is the hurt feelings caused by ridiculing disabled people and particularly children as the photo in that template clearly does. In my opinion the designer of that template is clearly a vandal. Could you perhaps track down who designed the template and also get it deleted? Ottawaman 18:20, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

re: Missed Message


Haha yeah I'm only 14 :) --Deon555|talk|e|Review Me! :D 23:20, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Reply on User_talk:Deon555
lol :) i guess im *such a good liar* haha a great thing to know :P. L8R --Deon555|talk|e|Review Me! :D 08:07, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

In response to your note to me

I didn't see any other way to contact you, so I am posting here. You have been deleting the links I put up on various pages like Methadone, heroin, glue sniffing, etc. Your complaint was that I was "spamming" because I (according to you) posted pages to a personal or commercial site. Wrong on all counts.

In the first place, the references I posted are among the best ever written on the subject and are used as basic references at colleges and universities around the world. Simply put, if you article doesn't include these references, then your article is lacking.

In the second place, my web site is used as a basic reference at hundreds of colleges and universities throughout the world. Yes, it is a personal web site, and it does contain advertising (though it doesn't sell anything) just like lots and lots of other sites. That doesn't change the fact that the references I provide are the best in the world.

In the third place, most of the pages I referenced here don't even contain advertising.

In the fourth place, there have been many links to my site from for many years now. You are the first person who has expressed a problem with them. Maybe that's because the other admins actually looked at the references provided and recognized them for the important research that they are.

I respectfully suggest that you stop this constant deleting of the best references on the subject. I also suggest that before you consider deleting anything you actually read it and see whether it is really relevant and important to the subjects.

I also respectfully suggest that because 1) my references are entirely legitimate and appropriate to Wikipedia and 2) your actions were ill-considered and 3) you destroyed the work I did -- that you restore the changes I made.

BTW, did I mention that my web site has also been referenced by major goverment commissions around the world and was the basis for the four-hour History Channel special "Hooked: Illegal Drugs and How They Got That Way"? Let me assure you that this not your typical "personal site". If you want to check out the search engine rankings, I am often ranked as being as credible as Wikpipedia. (Maybe because a lot of the info in Wikipedia came from my site.)

Thank you for your cooperation.


You will have to go back and edit all of those pages. You see, they all link to my site. You will have to have those articles up there with some mention like "The full text is on the web somewhere but our silly rules prevent us from telling you where it is."

Now the irony to this whole thing is that I PUT THOSE THINGS ON THE WEB. You wouldn't have two words to say about them if I hadn't. (There are more like them, BTW. That's because I put this research up while Wikipedia was still someone's wet dream.)

Are you beginning to feel like your "rules" may be just a little silly? If you like, I think I could make a good public argument why not linking to the full text of the thing the article is about is a bit silly.