User talk:SchmuckyTheCat/Archive 3

Welcome to my talk page. I recently archived a few years worth of people's comments. And then I did it again! Feel free to leave me messages or even flaming bags filled with poo.

You DO NOT have any new messages (last change). So, don't click either of the blue links in this box.

So I'm no wiki pro

The page was biassed, you seem to think its ok to say "SOME call it the miserable edition" But i cant say a "FEW" think it was great ??? What is a page that doesn't show both sides of argument ? Do I have to source every name of anyone who feels that way to prove it to you If it wasn't written well then clean it up, give it a new place, but dont kill it out right It was not a rant, this is a rant Just go to microsofts website and count the patches if you feel I was wrong about it's updates What do you think the lack of them are. That ME was the worst OS ever made ??? Or that just maybe there was not to much that needed fixing, other then driver updates At least mention the very small life line, 2 other major releases, and no one really writing drivers for it just might have helped give it a bad reputation Or is it that you are the end word as for as computers go, You dont even mention a few of it's other updates/features, like smartdrive being built in to IO.SYS and 3 registry files instead of 2, etc etc etc And lastly, it replaced 98 SE, not 98, and was pretty much just SE with driver and stack code from 2000, But other then that it was exactly SE with a slightly different desktop, way more drivers, and the few things you did mention. Maybe if the fools that bought computers learned how to use them less people would have had problems with ME. The system I'm using now, "ME" has crashed about once in 6 years. It is not using one 98 driver...

Friendly objection

Hi, I added the link to the Capital Hill massacre page. Although I agree that you can google the lyrics, the song is nowhere to be found on any official or unofficial fan sites, including lists of rare songs, etc. I can only find it on generic song lyric pages. I added this because I found it disturbing, but I'll leave it up to you.

No poo for you

Just a note to let you know that there's a Checkuser request right now for your account and the IP's that spamvandalized a bunch of "ED v. MONGO/ArbCom" dispute participants, including yours. I have added some of the IP's to the case. Thank you.. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 05:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: "Squidward"

If it's not you, it's not you. Wiki-stalking me will not do you any good.--Konst.able^Talk 06:25, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

huh? wikistalking? I read AN/I. I "squidwarded" because someone said that word in an edit summary brings bot attention. My career makes squicking automated tasks an irrestible attraction. (and as to SPUI, I wish he'd figure out how to get along with people.) SchmuckyTheCat 06:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Likewise for me, Schmucky, though in my case it felt to me more like trolling on your part. Thanks. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 06:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Keep it spinning, Ryan.

Notice

Note that our User:Instantnood has gotten to reverting articles right after the one week ban, including the article in which he was gulty of breaching the 3RR ([1], [2], plus [3]. More may be on the way. Note that he has recently launched a "new initiative" in justifying all his revert warring by claiming there is a new "standard" in refering to the "Hong Kong Special Administrative Region" only as the "Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China". [4] Utter nonsense, but yeah, what else can we expect from a desperado.--Huaiwei 23:01, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I have also dropped a notice in the admin's talkpage User talk:Joelr31. Our friend goes about acting pitiful, whining about his innocence and attempts to justify his chronic obsessive reversion behavior yet again.--Huaiwei 23:06, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

cute wikilinking. SchmuckyTheCat 03:00, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Notice #2

Our User:Instantnood is now into weekend wikiwars, with a stagering range of reverts ignited in a matter of hours alone. Do note his recent foray into disruptive editing, which is most clearly evident in [5] and [6]. Also note that he is now persisting in using his latest revert excuse...that "official full names" should be used everywhere.--Huaiwei 14:17, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

You clearly are missing something. I never said "official full names" should be used everywhere. Rather, I said full name or short name. Can you name any country which its partial full name is used, instead of its short name or full name? As for coast guard, I was only applying your logic. I have no strong opinion on whether the article should cover those not named coastguard or not (though it's always better to provide all relevant information whenever possible). — Instantnood 14:47, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Missing what, my dear friend? Your logic? Just what is a "partial full name", may I know? And why bother asking me to name a country with such a characteristic, when the entity in question is not a country anyway? Meanwhile, thanks for your confirmation that you are practising disruptive editing! :D--Huaiwei 15:35, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I have to elaborate what a partial full name is. It's always important to maintain the quality of any article. You can't remove some of the coast guards because of their names, while keeping the others regardless of their names. — Instantnood 16:40, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh yes you jolly well have to, because no one can comprehend your lame reverting excuse. Meanwhile I am removing that entry from a section in which all entries are refered to as coast guards, and the descriptions are clearly meant to demonstrate the differing meanings they can have in different contexts around the world. How does the HK entry contribute to that section when it is not significantly different from the entries already listed, is not a major player, and is not even remotely referred to as a coast guard? If you want to be disruptive and play your "consistency only when it suits you" game, be my guest. I will be expecting to see you changing all names of political entities throughout wikipedia to their "full names".--Huaiwei 16:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Your vote on the AFD

I noticed that you voted a keep on this page. I'm not trying to sway you from your vote, but is there another reason you could put for the keep besides 'I like big butts and I cannot lie'? If you could put another reason there it may help other editors see your point of view. Thanks- CattleGirl ^{talk | e@} 04:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

What makes you think you know what's best for everyone who wants to know more about the USB connectors than what is there, without my additions of the other Mini-USB connectors? As long as what I add is correct, and properly documented, why deprive the world of it because it's not as usaeful as other info? I am about to add more info, and I no longer think they are non-standard as I am finding more and more products that use them (and yes, I'm keeping a list of links to the sources of that info).

BTW, there are errors in your Pictures page.

Jim

Greetings

[7]: So, I see your reports of your departure were, as Mark Twan would say "greatly exaggerated". Good to see you are stil here. But I won't be asking you for directions to Dick's. - Jmabel | Talk 05:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

RFA Thanks

Thanks!
Thanks for your input on my (nearly recent) Request for adminship, which regretfully achived no consensus, with votes of 68/28/2. I am grateful for the input received, both positive and in opposition, and I'd like to thank you for your participation.
Georgewilliamherbert 05:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

You

are hopefully a regular contributor to Uncyclopedia. You're hilarious. 82.93.133.130 12:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

No. They are an unfunny ripoff of ED.

Notice

Check out User:Michael G. Davis contributions in the space of just about 2 hours since registering (from [8] to [9]). Seems suspicious? ;)--Huaiwei 00:43, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

And lo-behold! Our best friend appears right at about the same time! [10]--Huaiwei 00:47, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmm...

Would you care to explain what...

This [11] was a rather humourous vandalism of my page. I wish I had a Praise Allah key on my keyboard. I'd be hitting it as hard as I could. Maybe that's what broke it.

... is supposed to mean? -- tariqabjotu 17:18, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Look at the diff. Someone vandalized my page to say I broke my "Praise Allah" key. SchmuckyTheCat 17:21, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah... I see that. But the image? -- tariqabjotu 17:23, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

A reference to the show Aqua Teen Hunger Force that was deleted long ago, ruining my joke. SchmuckyTheCat 17:32, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

And, if you are wondering about my "wow" comment, it's not about you, it's a reaction that what you said needed saying at all. SchmuckyTheCat 17:36, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

SDT Disambiguation

I hadn't realised that there were rules about adding disambiguation pages where only one of the options was a valid link.

Would my edit have been acceptable to you if I hadn't included the link syntax around Service Descriptor Table? DVB digital television is becoming a hot topic and doing a wikipedia search for SDT would be nice to give its digital TV definition.MendipBlue 14:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! (zoom zoom)

Thanks for your Zoom Zoom support at my RfA! To confirm your assumption: This user drives a Mazda RX-8. Any advice is welcome as I learn to use the new tools, and as a fellow administrator, would be much appreciated! Thanks again, and forgive my use of this dorky message box :) -- Renesis (talk) 00:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC) P.S. — are you a fellow Mazda owner?

Welcome back!

Yo, Schmucky! Been way too long!! How's the fellow gearhead? - Lucky 6.9 05:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

SARS

Re [12] - Please note SARs ≠ SARS. — Instantnood 07:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

oh.

Re [13] - Please note SARs are not SARS. — Instantnood 21:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

List of cities in the PRC

Re [14] - Please read each of my previous edits and the edit summaries [15]. Thanks. — Instantnood 08:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

no, use the talk page of the article for your problems. Wikipedia is a community effort and edit summaries are not meant to be conversation. SchmuckyTheCat 08:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry

My apologies for wasting your time by creating the nonsense category Wikipedians who stop the cars and wave in the children. Please accept this peace dove.

Wdflake

Foie gras

I love it. I enjoy eating it. I also bought my girlfriend a beautiful fur coat. Anyways, I have enough on my hands battling the anti-evolution trolls, but good luck in standing up to the POV nonsense of the PETA crowd. As an MD, I know that without research on animals, there would be a lot of dead people. Though I shouldn't value one over the other, I'm going to go with saving people's lives as a higher calling. And eating a great fois gras is one of life's dear pleasures. Orangemarlin 03:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I've amazingly stayed away from creationists here. And for no good reason, I have not eaten foie gras except some bad paté nearly 20 years ago. I think I'll have some within the week though, just out of spite for the people I'm arguing with.

Thanks for the comment. SchmuckyTheCat 04:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Please make sure you get the foie gras from a nice Perigord canard...I think they really make sure there are extra grain feedings prior to slaughtering of the duck.  ;) Orangemarlin 18:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Definition in santorum

It's not cited. Don't revert the page until a proper citation is given.

Regarding reversions[16] made on December 2006 to Talk:Foie_gras

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.

Please stick within 3R, even for such things as GA tags; it helps avoid confusion

William M. Connolley 11:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

FYI

[17] — Instantnood 21:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion on moving pages

Just a bit of advice for you on the move controversy re Transfer of the sovereignty of Hong Kong: In the future, if you move a page, and someone moves it back, don't revert the move. At that point, it's best to take it to the article's talk page and try to reach consensus. Edit-warring is bad, but move-warring is worse. Again, not a warning, just a suggestion. Thanks. | Mr. Darcy talk 00:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Foie gras mediation request

Hi! I'm writing to let you know that I've opened up a mediation case (Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-12-27 Foie Gras controversy) in which you are listed as a participant. Please read me comments in the mediator's response area there, and we can decide on a text for the article. ST47Talk 23:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

A doubt

Hello, Schmucky. I have a feeling that Zelig33 might be a sock of Benio76. Same languages on their userpage, similar writing style and attitude. Do you know what the process would be to find out for sure? If you think they're not the same person and it's not worth checking, please also feel free to let me know.--Ramdrake 20:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Noting that I've seen this. WP:RFCU is a serious step which I'd rather not take without proof, as there are stringent requirements on cases. Zelig does indeed look like a single purpose account, and the times of editing look similar. Do you want to RFCU? The page lists WP:AN/I as an alternative, and there may be a way to determine it without doing that, possibly through writing style - typos, grammatical errors, and the like - all of which would be excellent for RFCU. ST47Talk 01:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Cochinita pibil

I'd appreciate it if you were to stop reverting Cochinita pibil to the state where it contains a recipe. I have now explained completely in that article's talk page as to the reasons for the recipe being excluded. Please do not include the recipe again. Thank you. --Andyroo316 04:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

re FCKGW

Uh, well, that was bold and then some... I guess in this case it works out OK though. Herostratus 03:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Macau/o

Re [18] - If you accept it is just a spelling difference, and if you acknowledge that neither spellings is rarely used, why would you insist to use one only of them on Wikipedia? — Instantnood 20:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Because in wikipedia, the Macau article is spelt as such, and represents community concensus [19] [20] [21] [22] in wikipedia to spell it that way, even after taking into account all points raised in support of either spelling. An obsession with conscious deviation from this concensus represents open defiance and calls for disciplinary action. Clearly, SchmuckyTheCat is much more responsible and reasonable than what you expect of him.--Huaiwei 20:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Farm Sanctuary

Hi. I see you and another editor have been reverting each other on the article Farm Sanctuary. Before this becomes a full scale war, please come by the talk page of the article. (This exact same message was posted on the other editor's talk page also). Natalie 21:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Diaspora

The Joint Declaration used "resume" and "restore", instead of "return". The UK recognised/s the PRC to be a successor of the ROC and Qing (Ch'ing), and the sole representative of all China. This was/is the view of the British Government. Wikipedia should, however, remain silence on whether or not this view is valid and correct. — Instantnood 21:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The point here is that the entity in question was China, and not specifically the PRC, the ROC, or the Qing Dynasty. And when the word "China" is in reference to a country, it is of no consequence just what government is installed to govern it. The reference to the country remains the same.--Huaiwei 00:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

3RR on Farm Sanctuary

You have been blocked for committing a WP:3RR violation on the article Farm Sanctuary. This was determined on the basis of the following 6 edits committed in a twenty-four hour period: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. Should you continue to edit in this disruptive fashion following the expiration of your block in 48 hours, you shall face even longer blocks. To contest this block, please email me, send a message to unblock-en-l, or add {{unblock}} to your talk page. AmiDaniel (talk) 04:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Uh, I discussed this with other people before continuing the reverts and was assured that this was not 3rr worthy.

1. Farm Sanctuary is sending their employees and volunteers to Wikipedia. That's a clear violation of WP:COI when they are removing information from their own organiztion article just because they don't like it.
2. Having employees and volunteers of a single organization perform edits is just meat-puppetry. Brooklyn5, FarmSanctuary, and the IP editor are all from Farm Sanctuary.
3. The employees were adding bogus protected templates to the article after removing what they didn't like. That's vandalism, and other people were issuing the same warning: [24]
4. The employees were removing sourced information. I even let stand the removal of an unsourced paragraph, mentioned it on the talk page, found the source, and then replaced it as sourced.
5. I'm a long-standing contributor. If admins punish a long-standing contributor for insisting that the Public Relations Department of a lobbying group comply with out policies then we can just throw out the idea that editors matter. Corporations can run rampant because they can pay people faster than Wikipedia can replace volunteers.

SchmuckyTheCat 05:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Please stand by, I've asked the blocking admin to comment. Sandstein 09:12, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked Brooklyn5 for 48h and FarmSanctuary indef (username), but I prefer not to block one party and unblock the other, if you see what I mean. Hopefully AmiDaniel will get your message. yandman 16:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm also going to wait for the blocking admin to comment, but I have some reservations about this block, subject to that input. In the meantime, I'm closing out a frivolous objection to your username at WP:RFC/N. Newyorkbrad 19:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

re:rfcn: oh geez. SchmuckyTheCat 19:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for not commenting earlier--this is the first chance I've had to respond. The accusations you raise about corporately instigated meat-puppetry are quite stern, and upon closer examination I must say that they appear to contain some validity. The username User:FarmSanctuary does certainly suggest that there may be some truth to what you say, the account User:Brooklyn5 seems to be a single-purpose account, and the other anon involved in the edit war has only edited Farm Sanctuary. Had I investigated this more closely earlier, I likely would have made a different call on the matter. This is not, however, to say that I endorse the actions you took--in cases of suspected meat-puppetry, your best bet is to contact an administrator, preferably by posting at WP:AN/I, or to open an WP:RfC. Repeatedly reverting an article, regardless of who's right and who's wrong, will get you nowhere except blocked. This is a fact I thought you would have learned through your past experiences, and I hope that you may learn it now. I would highly suggest that you open an RfC on this article, and that you refrain from edit-warring with these users in the future regardless of the circumstances. Edit warring is never excusable. AmiDaniel (talk) 02:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

P.S. The autoblock should now be removed. Please let me know if it is not. AmiDaniel (talk) 02:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Revert, hello?

Who made all those controversial edits, in the first place? Who disagreed with preserving status quo ante by action? Who's breaking Wikipedia official policies and guidelines? What I have been doing is to preserve status quo ante and adhering to Wikipedia official policies and guidelines. — Instantnood 19:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Request for correction

You cited this edit in your statement [25] that it was " absolutely unacceptable POV warring ". The real side of the fact was that category:Macau was already in category:special administrative regions of the People's Republic of China. I thought it was not necessary to be in both. I could have been wrong, but that's obviously not an " absolutely unacceptable POV warring ". — Instantnood 21:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

SchmuckyTheCat = Spiderman

Please don't tell me about emotions when you are cold as stone yourself. If you prevent me writing the truth about Foie Gras you accept the torture.

With great power comes great responsibility

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Beostaerling (talk • contribs)

User_talk:Swingers#Patent.2Ftrademark

It would appear that their mark is actually valid. I do not see how that has any impact on us, but for the sake of accuracy you may wish to amend or remove your comment. Thanks. --Gmaxwell 20:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Your reversion on List of Internet phenomena

I'm not going to edit List of Internet phenomena further until I see what some others have to say, but I hope you can understand that there are WP:LIVING and privacy concerns about some of these entries (not just Peppers). Your comments will be welcome on the talkpage discussion assuming somebody starts one. Or, maybe I should have just let you get username-blocked last week instead of speedy-closing it. :) Regards, Newyorkbrad 17:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

iawtc?

I haven't run across that abbreviation before. What's it mean? -- Jay Maynard 13:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

i agree with this comment. SchmuckyTheCat 15:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Demographics of mainland China move request

You should make your support clear for this move you proposed. —  AjaxSmack  10:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/FarmSanctuary

The above checkuser request needs some more specific evidence. I've tried to add some stuff but as you filed the case it would be best if you added it. Cheers. MER-C 09:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Vote-stacking

One can't help but think. I'm frankly getting pretty fed up of these bursts of activity to Save the Mainland, especially when there seems to be no thought of pulling similar stunts at CfD: looks to me a case of doing it where they can get away with it, rather than any sort of consistency. DRV here we come, I think. Alai 23:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

using your real name on Wikipedia

Please show me the rules in Wikipedia that prohibit one user from referring to another user by a non-offensive name simply because that user doesn't prefer being called that name. I'm not saying there is no rule against this - perhaps it comes under some other heading. I just want to know the rules so that I don't break them, despite what someone may or may not prefer. Thanks.GingerGin 18:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL. SchmuckyTheCat 20:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:HARASS: "Posting of personal information. Posting another person's personal information (legal name, home or workplace address, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, regardless of whether or not the information is actually correct) is harassment, unless that editor voluntarily provides or links to such information himself or herself. This is because it places the other person at unjustified and uninvited risk of harm in "the real world" or other media. This applies whether or not the person whose personal information is being revealed is a Wikipedia editor. It also applies in the case of editors who have requested a change in username, but whose old signatures can still be found in archives." Newyorkbrad 20:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

db-reposts on "mainland China" categories

It appears you {{db}}'d Category:Transportation in mainland China and Category:Airports in mainland China as "{{db-repost}}" and Category:Cinema of mainland China with "db|recreation of previously deleted material". However, none of these appear to have been deleted (much less debated) prior to their having been speedied in response to your nominating them for such. Were you construing them to have been a "repost" of some related-but-not-identical category, or what? Alai 23:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

There was a massive "creation/rename" proposal a long time ago. Isntantnood proposed dozens of these and the idea that "mainland China" was appropriate for anything was soundly rejected. It led to the first ArbCom case.SchmuckyTheCat 23:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The second seems to have previously existed as Category:airports of mainland China. Did the other two exist in some earlier form, or were they not in fact "reposts" at all? Alai 01:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Airports was proposed by 'nood to be renamed from PRC. When the move was rejected, he made it anyways, then started writing new articles and moving uncategorized stubs into it. If you can read the old deleted talk page there, you'll see the most asinine excuse for category creation, ever. Then it was deleted. The recent recreation and deletion was after this.

Cinema - Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(Chinese)/NPOV/China_or_PRC_vs._mainland_China#Cinema_of_China, Talk:Cinema_of_China#List_of_film-related_topics, Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(Chinese)/NPOV#..of_China_or_..of_the_PRC_.E2.86.92_..of_mainland_China 'nood wanted the article and category to be distinctly and exclusively scoped to the mainland. It was part of his massive rename proposal, which was completely aborted. So I don't think it ever existed to have a deletion record, but neither was there support for its creation as long as Cinema of China existed - in which case the initial creation would be a "re-post". If creation of it was discussed and rejected, it shouldn't require a new discussion to get rid of it when a proponent creates it anyway. Arguing otherwise is wiki-lawyering of the worst kind.

Transportation is also in there in the rename proposals. Note a bunch of this was so overwhelmingly verbose I can't even read it. Same as above, creation or rename was rejected.

Arguing about this was a massive flamefest that went on for six months in 2005 and didn't end until ArbCom ended it. The current situation (entirely seperate PRC and ROC categories, PRC being the parent for any administrative division that warrants a sub-cat) has mostly evolved out of those old discussions. There are obviously still people that don't like it, and occasionally there are big flare-ups from newcomers about Taiwan/ROC naming (I avoid those). 'nood though never accepted any of it, and he still fights over it and makes wormy excuses to create rejected things. Any time the creation/renaming of anything "XX of mainland China" is proposed it is rejected, but it has obvious proponents. When they get created anyways, it's a big flame-fest watching them get deleted with 'nood always filibustering and arguing with every single person who comes to the discussion. Personally, I think the current situation is clean and logical and changing it isn't opening a can of worms, it is opening a wormhole to filibustering hell.

The actions by the crowd that has shown up in Instantnood's absence is beyond suspicious. There is a really strong correlation between when Instantnood gets banned and when they show up to make edits he would. They probably aren't socks, but they are communicating, and logging in serially (Passer-by edits for a few hours, then Privacy, then Michael G. Davis, with little or no overlap). SchmuckyTheCat 05:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

P.S. After thinking about this I wanted to also add that I try to Assume Good Faith, really. But editing in this area is nearly impossible without running into political editors and there are always fishy sock puppets around. For example, look at these Special:Contributions/Trendsure, Special:Contributions/Quitepick. There is no way those are new, or different users. Users like that show up a lot and often times "sleep" for a while so they can do page moves and edit sprotected pages. Sneaky things like edits to images Image:Hong Kong Location.png don't show up in watchlists, and is another method for the POV warriors to make changes. Most established editors here are a little aggressive in watchdogging POV edits. So hopefully there is some understanding that when a "new" user comes along and makes detailed changes to complicated nested templates, reverts to particular POV versions, and then claims ignorance about why certain categories don't exist I'm reluctant to waste time re-hashing arguments they are certainly aware of. SchmuckyTheCat 06:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the response (which I've only just noticed, due to its quaint location). I don't agree that a rejected move means that creating an additional category at the target should be automatically speediable. Just creating something ab initio doesn't require an explicit consensus, and until such time as it's created, and then there's an explicit consensus to delete it, there can't really be said to be a consensus for it not to be there. (I don't claim this is an ideal state of affairs, just the actual one.) The rest of your comments I wouldn't necessarily take issue with... Alai 06:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Freddy

Well, considering there's no contact information of any kind, I don't think this is particularly problematic. You may want to point such people at the Wikipedia:Username policy, which has a section explaining the consequences of using your real name. It's simply a choice people make. >Radiant< 09:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Powerpuff Girls

If you fail to give a valid reason on the talk pages for your revert of my edits by 22:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC) (tomorrow), your edits will be reverted back. Marcus2 22:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

You don't tell me what to do. For the love of God, my mother has told me that she knows the show wasn't that big, and she said she would never steer me wrong. Marcus2 22:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

These are not reliable sources. You really don't know what you're talking about. People bend the truth sometimes. Marcus2 23:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Revert wars

Please kindly accept the reality that you are the person creating the "war", for you were the one who removed a sentence without first proposing in the talk page. You have the burden to have your proposal discussed and agreed by the community before you actually make such changes. — Instantnood 19:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Categories

Re: [26] - I did not mean to add these articles to any categories. I was undoing user:Secrecy's vandalisms. Please be reminded to be careful with your accusations. — Instantnood 21:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Those edits are not related to any " enforcement of ArbCom sanctions ". They are simple vandalism, no matter you've recognised already or not. — Instantnood 22:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Transport

Could you please kindly explain these reverts? The PRC ministries of communications and railways, and the CAAC do not oversee transport in the special administrative regions. Hong Kong and Macao are not part of the National Trunk Highway System network. Metros are also railways. Cathay Pacific also holds 20% stake in Air China (they hold each other), and China Eastern is also held by the CAAC. — Instantnood 22:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Intentional typo

Re [27] - Please be reminded (well, again) that special administrative regions (SARs) and Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) are not the same thing. — Instantnood 22:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Privacy

The above user is now engaging in ferocious activity in areas which are severely testing the effectiveness of the arbcom rulings. I believe quick, decisive action will need to be taken soon, before complete mayhem arises again. I, for one, am seriously trying extremely hard to respect the arbcom's rulings, but I find it woefully inadequate in containing obvious attempts to circumvent it.--Huaiwei 16:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Post it on WP:ANI as WP:POINT disruptiveness. I am too busy to deal with WP at the moment. SchmuckyTheCat 16:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Global edit summary

Privacy made 250 edits re-organizing everything related to China without consensus. I'm not putting up with that. I'm using the browser modification twinkle to revert most of them. There is no way I'm taking the time to make 250 distinct edit summaries. If Privacy wants to global changes, he needs to make big big discussions and get big big consensus. Others (*cough* he might be the others *cough*) have tried to make this argument for organization and entirely failed. He can't just impose it by fiat. SchmuckyTheCat 15:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, Privacy is contained. He is one of those people who thinks being right is more important than getting people to agree with you; in his case he believes that what he has read in the naming guidelines and a few small discussions on DRV and CFD mean he can ignore people when they object. Now that there are two of us reverting him he has learned that he can't do anything alone. And he is not good at making friends. I pretty much knew this would happen. --Ideogram 03:57, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

RFCU

I saw you added users to the case I started, but if possible, please include your reasoning of why the three users you added may be sockpuppets. Thanks. --WinHunter ^(talk) 00:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome!

Thanks for welcoming me. I wasn't really worried about it, but thanks.Ronar 07:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked for violation of the three-revert rule at Category:Hong Kong media. I am especially concerned by your use of automated tools to revert non-vandalism edits, and misidentification of them as vandalism. None of the edits you reverted were vandalism. If you wish to request review of this decision, you may email me or place {{unblock|reason here}} on this page. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

If Pointe is indeed the same user as Instantnood, as SchmuckyTheCat has alleged on ANI, then these would be reversions of edits by a banned user and exempt from 3RR. I'm leaving a note for Seraphimblade. Newyorkbrad 00:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

As NYBrad has raised this issue, I've unblocked you while that issue is sorted out. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not terribly familiar with Instantnood's style, but at a glance they're pretty similar. I've sent it to checkuser to get sorted. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

If a similar situation should unfortunately arise again, mentioning in the edit summary that you believe you are reverting a banned user may prevent future misunderstandings. Newyorkbrad 01:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I wish TWINKLE had an edit summary feature. The one click revert is too attractive when faced with someone who can make dozens of edits in the span of a few minutes. What about what I did last week (this has already been a recurring situation), where I put a bolded notice of "Global Edit Summary" both here on my talk page on on ANI? SchmuckyTheCat 01:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

It's certainly understandable that you didn't think to post a preemptive notice on the 3RR board as well. Newyorkbrad 01:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

HA! Actually my bad for deciding to get groceries while Pointe played games thinking I'd come back after he was finished, rather than engage head-on. I would have noticed the 3RR request and made a statement. :) SchmuckyTheCat 01:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

That was pretty silly considering I had just as many reverts as you did and I used the summary "banned" in my edits. Seemed like the situation was pretty clear. — MichaelLinnear 01:18, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, apparently at least one admin (not me) didn't spot it at first...... Newyorkbrad 01:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Nope, that would be me. *smacks self on forehead*. It is looking quite a bit like the two are the same, just looking for that good old smoking gun. :) Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Meh, no permanent harm. I wonder about the RFCU results though, he may have learned to trick it. SchmuckyTheCat 01:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

 Confirmed[28]

Blocked indefinitely, and obviously your 3RR block is cancelled. Newyorkbrad 03:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's settled then. Sorry bout that. I think NYBrad had a good idea earlier, where in at least one revert you might instead want to use undo (which lets you leave a summary) and note you believe the person to be a reincarnation of a banned user. That'll tend to get it investigated faster, too. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:39, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

np. And, fwiw, I [29] did [30] have [31] a few edit summaries that at least pointed to what was going on. I'll be sure to be more blatant next time. As a question, last week the puppet was User:Privacy and if you look two sections above this one on my talk page you see a bold line that says "global edit summary". If a similar line regarding Pointe has been the most recent thing on my talk page today would you have noticed? SchmuckyTheCat 04:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I very well may have. Just do keep in mind, we don't all know the profiles of all abusive or blocked users, so if you have good reason to suspect someone is a sock of one and are acting on that basis, it's always a good idea to note that, especially in cases like this one where what's being done isn't obvious and blatant vandalism. Regardless, however, I should have looked closer, and I do apologize. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:52, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Noah & Trivia

Just what are you trying to say? I(as well as others, believe the "Popular culture" section in the "Noah" article are relevant. I did not delete anything, you did. Rather than arbitrarily deleting, it should be discussed first. Consensus is more desirable.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Musicman88 (talk • contribs)

Wikipedians by religion

(Per this edit summary, and this comment.)

In reading your talk page, I think it's fair to say that you are acquainted with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, such as Consensus, WP:USER#Removal, and for that matter, No personal attacks. But if not, I've provided those links for you.

To be clear: You are going contrary to consensus by adding yourself to that category. (As I've noted in my edit summaries, it's an April 5 WP:UCFD discussion.) This is not a red-linked category of which you commented on your userpage. Please feel free to add yourself to an appropriate sub-category of Category:Wikipedians by religion.

However (as I presume you know), if you continue to re-add yourself to Category:Wikipedians by religion, I'll be forced to block you for disruptive editing. - jc37 01:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

What consensus? A handful of people discussing something in their Own Private Idaho does not create a consensus. WP:USER provides nothing to say that a group of users can come along and make demands about what my user page does or does not say: there is nothing polemic or disruptive about my user page, nothing about that category comes close to meeting WP:USER#What_can_I_not_have_on_my_user_page.3F. The disruption caused by other editors making demands that other editors conform to their ideas of what a user page should contain, outside of that guideline, is (choose your favorite Orwell, Kafka, PK Dick, etc here).

That you tried to remove this from my page a few months ago and I refused, and then you found some other outlet to "enforce" your need to get other people to conform to what you want, indicates you have a personal interest in my removal of this from the page. For you to threaten admin blocking because I don't conform to your ideas is abusive of your administrative authority. The only person I'm disrupting is you, and it's my user page. Go away and find something better to do. SchmuckyTheCat 14:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Further, 95% of your last 200 edits from the last two weeks is centered around enforcing crap on other people's user pages. Get over it and make some namespace edits. Find something better to do. SchmuckyTheCat 14:36, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, no. For one thing, I didn't nominate the category. I might suggest that you WP:AGF, but then, as I noted above, I'm fairly sure you're well aware of such guidelines and policies.

As for: "A handful of people discussing something in their Own Private Idaho does not create a consensus." - You comment there as well...

I'm ignoring the rest of your accusations and such at the moment, since, I simply think you know better. - jc37 17:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you know better too. Nothing about my user page violates WP:USER#What_can_I_not_have_on_my_user_page.3F. That guideline shows wide consensus. A discussion in an obscure forum, with no notification to interested parties, by a half-dozen people, that is not consensus. There wasn't even a notice on the category. [32])

You have turned WP:POINT on its head. You've come here to disrupt my user page, then state that my keeping it the way I like it is what is actually disruptive that you'll block me for.

Catch-22...says you've always got to do what a Wikipedia administrator tells you to.

But some policy says I can go home with forty missions.

But they don't say you have to go home. And regulations do say you have to obey every order. That's the catch. Even if the administrator were disobeying the policy by making you fly more missions, you'd still have to fly them, or you'd be guilty of disobeying an order of his. And then the rest of the administrators would really jump on you.

(with apologies to Joseph Heller) SchmuckyTheCat 18:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Please see comments at WP:ANI [33]. CMummert · talk 16:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Please remove the category from your user page. If you do not do so in a reasonable period of time, I will remove it and protect your user page. CMummert · talk 02:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

CMummert, Why do you hate America?

Please stay civil. If you really insist the deletion debate is invalid, then why don't you try to get it overturned? That would seem to me to be a better route than where this is heading. Just some friendly advice. VegaDark 08:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Instantnood

Hi Schmucky, I noticed that you recently had a runin with this individual and that he was using socks to circumvent Wikipedia's policy. My question for you is this- given that Instantnood's background details a MASSIVE history of rulebreaking, disruptive behavior and all-out disregard for Wikipedia's standards, is a one-month block truly going to solve anything? We're talking someone who has been blocked for various infractions no less than 20 seperate times and seems to show no intent to change their behavior. Ex-Nintendo Employee 11:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

A one month block should be a month of editing peace when editors can accomplish things without disruption. I am unsure as to what an appropriate future is considering that he no longer follows the rules and uses sockpuppets. SchmuckyTheCat 14:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Another sock

Seems like User:Profession is another sockpuppet of our good ole nood? He apparantly is still very much active using all of these socks, irrespective of any bans or multiple bans.--Huaiwei 15:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Take a note of it. I'm really waiting for these sleeper accounts to get disruptive before acting. SchmuckyTheCat 16:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I suspect another one User:Lothringen (why would a supposedly new user suddenly be able to write a beautiful article, and plant that article solely in a certain category?). This even after an indefinate ban.--Huaiwei 16:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Check for this article on zh and see if it is a translation. 'Nood liked to translate and bring articles here and complain once editors changed it from the zh text/categories/etc. It's obvious an unformatted text dump from somewhere. Make sure it is not a copyvio and start making it a normal wikipedia article, in appropriate categories, etc.

Try and assume good faith of new users - go so far as to {{welcome}} them. Keep a list if you want but wait until suspected socks do something disruptive. Once they start revert warring and mass category changing start ringing alarms. SchmuckyTheCat 16:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and remember that after about a week new users can do page moves and edit s-protected articles. Watch for that. SchmuckyTheCat 16:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

so here's my question

If I nominate WP:UCFD for deletion at WP:MFD, what do you think are the chances that we (not just you and I but the community in general) can have a sane and civil deletion discussion without too much bad blood? — coelacan — 17:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Esperanza, Harmonious Editing Society, it's all been done before. Drama ensues before during and after. SchmuckyTheCat 17:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The drama already exists. That's why you're on ANI right now. I want to lock the doors on this smoke filled room. But okay, assuming you're right and there's likely to be heavy theatrics... second question: do you think it's likely to be deleted? I am willing to write the script and begin the first act if there's a good chance for this to end as something more than a tragedy. — coelacan — 18:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't really know whether it is likely. I've given up predicting the outcome of XfD. It's obvious those discussions are rarely based on policy and existing consensus and more about emotion, power, and authority.

80% of it is make-work (like combining two non-controversial categories) and implementation is gnomish. If that is the way people want to volunteer their time, whatever, but I can't believe there are people voted in as administrators that spend hours a day for weeks on end who care that much about user pages. It's the 20% of it that involves doing stuff "because this is the way they like it" rather than what users have specifically chosen that is the problem. That's the real problem: busy-bodies deciding in a vacuum what is good for everybody else beyond what existing guidelines and consensus exist. NONE of it has anything to do with writing an encyclopedia. These things are trivialities. MfD gets user pages when they rise to the level of being divisive or polemic if someone hasn't already brought it to ANI for speedy. If these trivial UCFD discussions were brought to MfD the answer would be "this isn't important enough to care about, go away" and that result might not be a bad thing. Merge to MfD! SchmuckyTheCat 18:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I think this is worth attempting. I am going to contact the admins who close discussions there, to explain my reasoning beforehand, and thereby hopefully mitigate discord. I've also been personally frustrated with UCFD in the past, but airing that won't help, so let's both try to keep our comments impersonal. I'll let you know when the MFD opens, probably within 24 hours. — coelacan — 19:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I await. SchmuckyTheCat 19:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Re your email, sorry, I can't. By WP:PROT if there is edit warring you can take it to WP:RFPP but I do consider myself a party to the dispute so it would be inappropriate for me to do it myself. — coelacan — 05:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Juan, crazy screaming guy

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Juan, crazy screaming guy, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Kaori 22:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The individual is noteable, Kaori. The article contains a LOT of references- including Seattle Weekly and The Stranger. Those are both noteable newspapers in print in the Seattle area. It would seem that the article follows all of Wikipedia's guidelines for inclusion. Ex-Nintendo Employee 01:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

It's a weird case: someone who is basically famous only for being visible. I'm sure more Seattlites (and certainly more visitors to Seattle) would recognize him than would recognize the mayor. (I'd always referred to him as "the Frye Apartments guy" because his written rant starts by complaining about his eviction from there.) I could go either way on whether he deserves an article, but he certainly meets our standards in terms of sufficient numbers of generally reliable and reputable sources that have written about him. Frankly, I'd rather see an article about this relatively harmless crazy than another article about a serial killer whose name I'd rather see blotted out entirely. - Jmabel | Talk 05:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Columbia City

Replied on my talk page. - Jmabel | Talk 05:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

User Category for Discussion

Hello, please note that following its speedy deletion, I have asked for a deletion review [34] here. Cheers!--Ramdrake 21:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Hello SchmuckyTheCat, thank you for supporting my RfA!
I was promoted with a final tally of 68/12/0.
Also, please wish a Happy Birthday to Her Majesty the Queen. Vivat Regina!

WP:AIV report of Michael G. Davis

I have removed your AIV report of Michael G. Davis (talk · contribs). AIV is generally only used for clear-cut cases, and it is ill-suited for detailed discussions of whether someone is a block-evading sockpuppet. Please re-list the user at WP:ANI, providing full evidence, and you and admins can discuss whether or not this really is a sockpuppet. —dgies^t_c 23:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: Political divisions of China

The article has always resided there, except for very brief periods of time when it was moved w/o discussion or consensus. I don't see the discussion that led to the deletion of material from that page.--Jiang 23:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Marist College / Corrigan Article

S, would linking to the Marist College "Mathematics in Action" (http://www.academic.marist.edu/mwa/wsdln.htm)site that discusses how Washington State encodes DL IDs be "legal" under Wiki rules? It is an on-line source, so there might be some debate there, but it is one put out by a college, which ostensibly must verify the content. What is your take?Jodyw1 19:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

• I don't know, actually. SchmuckyTheCat 19:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:1 Taiwan Yen Note, 1944, serial 569143.PNG

Hello, SchmuckyTheCat. An automated process has found and removed a fair use image used in your userspace. The image (Image:1 Taiwan Yen Note, 1944, serial 569143.PNG) was found at the following location: User:SchmuckyTheCat/Images. This image was removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image was replaced with Image:Example.jpg, so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image to replace it with. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 21:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use images

What is the error? I've found one that did not show up, and I've modified it to fix that. It should be fine now. Ah I see, money. Yeah thats already been fixed. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 22:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Your note

You should be more careful. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

It took me a minute to figure what you're on about. I've no beef with you. We've got fundamental disagreements about the direction of the project, but I have so little interaction with you that I'll just ignore it as always. Keep on truckin' SchmuckyTheCat 19:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nimis (artwork)

Hi. I was still writing my nomination when you commented, and it had tagged with {{sectioninuse}}. If you'd like to read and comment on my now completed nomination please feel free. Cheers. (No reply needed). --kingboyk 17:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

noted, I reverted what I was trying to do when I saw you were fixing it. SchmuckyTheCat 17:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I saw that later, thank you. --kingboyk 19:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Yoghurt

I want to start out by saying I'm really sorry that this happened - I did my best to stop it (since the discussion has happened so many times), but sadly I have been overruled by 4 people who are obsessed with name changing (regardless of whether or not I agree with them). There is a new debate on the Yoghurt talk page about the move - I just felt it would be best if most people who had voted in the past knew about this.danielfolsom 00:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Macau International Airport.jpg

Hello, SchmuckyTheCat. An automated process has found and will an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that is in your userspace. The image (Image:Macau International Airport.jpg) was found at the following location: User:SchmuckyTheCat/Images. This image or media will be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. This does not necessarily mean that the image is being deleted, or that the image is being removed from other pages. It is only being removed from the page mentioned above. All mainspace instances of this image will not be affected Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 19:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Mediation

A request for mediation has been filed about the article "Yoghurt" here. The following have been listed as participants:

• Cultural Freedom (talk · contribs)
• Danielfolsom (talk · contribs)
• GTBacchus (talk · contribs)
• Serge Issakov (talk · contribs)
• Mets501 (talk · contribs)
• SchmuckyTheCat (talk · contribs)
• Mark (talk · contribs)
• Antonrojo (talk · contribs)

Please visit the request page to indicate your acceptance of mediation. I urge you to accept, as it doesn't seem like we're getting anywhere arguing on the talk page. —METS501 (talk) 02:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Yoghurt. For the Mediation Committee, ^demon[omg plz] This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

This message delivered: 04:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC).

Seattle

I recently learned that you were part of the Seattle meetup 4. Despite our differences on the matter of mainland v.s. not, let me know if there's a meeetup 5.

Cheers. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 13:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Micronation Wikiproject

I've published a proposal to gauge the level of interest in setting up a micronation Wikiproject, which I thought might be of interest to you based on your past contributions. Comments and suggestions are welcome: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#Micronations --Gene_poole 01:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff

Hello,

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee,

David Mestel(Talk) 18:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Strange-watchlist-item.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Strange-watchlist-item.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 18:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Your note

I did. Many times. I think we are going around in circles. Crum375 00:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I did. Many times. And I am not adding any new information - only reinforcing what was said many times by others. In this case my edit summary says it all. Crum375 00:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Question

Since you're an administrator for the website encyclopedia dramatica, don't you think your efforts to protect linking to wesbites that attack people are biased? You can respond here to keep all this in one place. I'm going to be real busy for a couple days, so I won't be responding quickly.--MONGO 04:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Since you have a subject page on ED, don't you think your efforts to remove any and all linking to websites that annoy wikipedians are biased? SchmuckyTheCat

Yes, lets discuss my subject page there. You're an administrator on that site. Why don't you remove the harassment that page presents about me? Eh? I've heard the excuses before, something about you not being "able" to. Sure. There is a big difference between annoyance and wrongful accusations. I'm not the one (you are) who wants to link to websites that attack people. That represents a big problem in my mind and is harassment, in and of itself.--MONGO 17:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not the one (you are) that wants a draconian policy based on URL and not based on a common sense perview of the content of the link.

"Don't like it" isn't any more a deletion criteria on ED than it is on WP. It's not my business to delete it, it is the business of the ED community. Take your business there.

I don't support linking to attacks. The doublespeak phrasing "wants to link" of turning my opposition to a wording of "attack sites" into support of "attacks" is not welcome here, or anywhere. SchmuckyTheCat 17:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your assistance.--MONGO 06:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

soy...

Ok Schmucky that's absolute crap and you know it. First of all, it's not original research - even the version you linked to says "soyogurt or soyoghurt" - so even he's not debating that the word exist. Secondly, it's not coincidence that you supported yogurt for the article title - is it? --danielfolsom 22:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Alright - I still think that it's insane - but I'm going to mos to make sure my opinion is backed up, because I'm 99% positive that the guideline stressing consistency does not succumb to how popular a word is. --danielfolsom 22:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Please come back when you have figured out a guideline like the MoS does not supersede the prohibition against making shit up in the no original research policy. Soy yogurt is a recent phenomenon and entirely different thing than yogurt. You don't just make up new words for this new product to coincide with the archaic spelling of yoghurt used on Wikipedia when those words are not actually used in the real world. Wikipedea describes, not prescribes. SchmuckyTheCat

I wasn't even the one who used the word - I reverted the guy who changed it - after the guy had been reverted twice by two different editors. Maybe if you actually checked histories and didn't "make shit up" you would know that. --danielfolsom 23:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah - you're version uses the word! Seriously - you kept the word in there - as I mentioned above. Try to actually respond to arguments rather than making shit up. -danielfolsom 23:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

what. [35]. SchmuckyTheCat

Ahh, sorry - while talking to the older=wiser person, I realized that what I thought was a type (him leaving out the o in soygurt) turned out to be what should've be in there. So I reverted him thinking that it was a typo and improper use - which makes me wonder - who put "soyoghurt" in - because I just reverted to them ... well anyways, sorry for the confusion about that. I'm fine with soygurt or soyghurt in there. --danielfolsom00:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Windows ME codenamed Georgia

I cited three or four sources, and if you google "Windows me" + "codename georgia" you will get hundreds more. Pick one to your liking, but please don't keep people dumb. Tell them the truth. It was codenamed Georgia, and I wonder what's wrong with that in your opinion ?

Also compare the French Wikipedia: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Me

... and the German Wikipedia: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_me

Both articles concur with me on this issue.

Don't believe everything you read on the Internet. Find a reliable source, not just a bunch of random Google links. SchmuckyTheCat

Something interesting

I'm currently banned from participating on any ALF-related page until Saturday,[36] but this link may interest you: [37] —Viriditas | Talk 20:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

More? Less?

Really, I'm confused about the whole barebacking article. The heterosexual version is less dangerous, and yet it talks about the risks? And what the heck is its counter part? Please advise.

Please advise me, that is. This is my account.Elektrosev 21:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)Elektrosev

Yes, hetero vaginal sex is less dangerous than homo anal sex yet still carries risks. SchmuckyTheCat

On request for adminship

See Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/SchmuckyTheCat. TwoSessions 19:09, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Point? SchmuckyTheCat

What?? TwoSessions 19:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

TwoSessions is nominating you to become an admin, Schmucky! --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 00:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, the nominator is a troll. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 05:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

No worries, I read that with the sarcasm you intended in the first place. SchmuckyTheCat

my RFA

Thank you for supporting my RFA. I hope I will live up to your expectation. Let me know if you need any help, or I make any mistake. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 23:42, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Impudent snobs

This might be a bit more clear if the phrase "Impudent snobs" was mentioned in the Spiro Agnew article. It's not, which leaves the impression that it's not notable as a quote of his. Is it something that should be in the article? Leebo ^T/C 04:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I find it sad to even be asked that question, and clearly, those asking it, should not be editing it, lest they be the subject of it. SchmuckyTheCat

There's no need to be cryptic and, as I get the impression, condescending. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask why the quote, which you found notable enough to redirect to Spiro Agnew, was not mentioned in the article. If you do not wish to answer that question, then you could choose to simply ignore it. Leebo ^T/C 11:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Commercial use of Image:Windows-3.2-desktop.png

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Image:Windows-3.2-desktop.png, by Tyomitch (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Image:Windows-3.2-desktop.png is an image licensed as "for non-commercial use only" or "used with permission for use on Wikipedia only" which was either uploaded on or after 2005-05-19 or is not used in any articles (CSD I3).

If you created this media file and want to use it on Wikipedia, you may re-upload it (or amend the image description if it has not yet been deleted) and use the license {{GFDL-self}} to license it under the GFDL, or {{cc-by-sa-2.5}} to license it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license, or use {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain.

If you did not create this media file but want to use it on Wikipedia, there are two ways to proceed. First, you may choose one of the fair use tags from this list if you believe one of those fair use rationales applies to this file. Second, you may want to contact the copyright holder and request that they make the media available under a free license.

If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. This bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Image:Windows-3.2-desktop.png itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. If you have any questions about what to do next or why your image was nominated for speedy deletion please ask at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thanks. --Android Mouse Bot 2 13:21, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Commercial use of Image:Windows-3-2-help-about.png

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Image:Windows-3-2-help-about.png, by Tyomitch (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Image:Windows-3-2-help-about.png is an image licensed as "for non-commercial use only" or "used with permission for use on Wikipedia only" which was either uploaded on or after 2005-05-19 or is not used in any articles (CSD I3).

If you created this media file and want to use it on Wikipedia, you may re-upload it (or amend the image description if it has not yet been deleted) and use the license {{GFDL-self}} to license it under the GFDL, or {{cc-by-sa-2.5}} to license it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license, or use {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain.

If you did not create this media file but want to use it on Wikipedia, there are two ways to proceed. First, you may choose one of the fair use tags from this list if you believe one of those fair use rationales applies to this file. Second, you may want to contact the copyright holder and request that they make the media available under a free license.

If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. This bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Image:Windows-3-2-help-about.png itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. If you have any questions about what to do next or why your image was nominated for speedy deletion please ask at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thanks. --Android Mouse Bot 2 13:21, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Insect fighting

Hi, I saw that you created the Cricket fighting article and wanted to inform you that Insect fighting is on AfD. A speedy tag was placed on it as a hoax, but I recommended that the user place it on AfD. There was and probably still is some crap info in insect fighting, and I was wondering if there was anything you could do with this article. I'm not really sure if it should be deleted or not as of now, I haven't really searched for sources. As you have created the cricket fighting article, I have come to you as an expert of sorts involving all things bug combat related.  :-)

Your article seems much better written than insect fighting, so maybe we could do without insect fighting, but I'm not sure. If you have time let me know what you think. daveh4h 18:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for commenting. daveh4h 17:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Episode pages

Will you join the fight to save Wikipedia episode articles? :) Angie Y. 02:45, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Awesome! Yes. SchmuckyTheCat

User:TTN and User: Ned Scott are clearly pissing editors off, aren't they? Angie Y. 17:49, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes. SchmuckyTheCat

So join us - User:Matthew, User:Tvoz, User:Chris 42, User: Vilerocks, myself, and the many others that have had our work VANDALIZED by these two. :) Angie Y. 21:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, where at? SchmuckyTheCat

Wikipedia talk:Television episodes and User:TTN Angie Y. 23:37, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

link removals

dear sir, i was updating links that have been on those pages for over a year with new links to the exact same content. clearly you didn't bother to check the new links before you rolled them back. you only saw that i had changed/added several links in a short period of time and considered it spamming. the reason being that i have been blocked from wikipedia for almost three years because i reside in china. this was my first opportunity to make these changes except when i am able to visit hong kong. the links i added were content-rich travel articles to those destinations. read my bio and you'll see i am clearly an expert on said subjects. because i choose to contribute valuable information via links as opposed to directly on wikipedia (which i obviously have not been able to do) i should not be branded a spammer. you have wasted my time and made my return to wikipedia quite unpleasant, in addition to removing updated information that would be considered valuable to readers of those pages. please reconsider your rollbacks to my future contributions. thank you.

Note

I reverted MONGO's edit to your userpage, it was not breaking any rules, and Fred Bauder even said that he had no problem with just a blurb on a about-me section of a userpage. As for calling it a hate site, and thus implying something about you, that is totally inappropriate, same with what he said at the state terrorism page. I hoped people would have moved beyond the past by now. By the way encyclopedia dramatica got mentioned in a new york times article about wiki drama [38]. --MichaelLinnear 21:32, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Kwik-E-Mart

Just thought I'd give you a heads-up that I've used your photograph of a Kwik-E-Mart in a work that I have released under the GFDL. Thanks for contributing to the body of free content and free knowledge. --Cyde Weys 20:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

RfC for Angie

Currently an RfC is taking place involving Angie Y. (talk · contribs), here. Your opinions are welcome.

Seraphim ^Whipp 14:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for the kind words. I am definitely considering all comments, regardless of their ultimate !vote. -- But|seriously|folks  17:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi again. I just wanted to let you know I was inspired by comments made by you and a few others at my RfA to contribute what I hope is useful article content. I talk about it here. I'm not expecting to sway your vote with one more stub, but I wanted you to know that I am taking your views seriously. Thanks again for your input! -- But|seriously|folks  03:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I am encouraged by your kind words, for which I thank you. I don't have a lot of experience in monkey dances. Maybe I'll take an Arthur Monkey class before the next one . . . -- But|seriously|folks  16:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Please vote for whether Gun Nut deserves deletion or not

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gun_Nut --BillyTFried 23:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

BOT problem

Hello

That is a bug in all interwiki bots check the bug report here..hopefully it will be fixed soon..--Alnokta 14:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka 2

Thank you for taking the time to participate at the discussion in my Request for Adminship. Unfortunately the nomination did not succeed, but please rest assured that I am still in full support of the Wikipedia project. I listened carefully to all concerns, and will do my best to incorporate all of the constructive advice that I received, into my future actions on Wikipedia. If you can think of any other ways that I can further improve, please let me know. Best wishes, Elonka 04:18, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Whoops

I know it sounds odd, but I was trying to establish if this "new user" has that level of "aggresiveness" which we have come to be very familar with. I suppose that latest round of salvo has proven beyond reasonable doubt his true identity.--Huaiwei 16:51, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh I see. Will do that from now then. Meanwhile, your reversion at List of artificial islands was delibrately to that point? I have half a mind of removing dumb entries again...--Huaiwei 16:55, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Sure. Till then!--Huaiwei 17:06, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Now I understand. ;) Think I shall leave the entire episode alone while it gets sorted out, and just drop a note to you should I encounter anything (if you havent noticed already!). Thanks!--Huaiwei 00:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Will do. And I realised its quite easy to catch socks actually...just set a trap for them and here they come! :D--Huaiwei 01:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Qaka

Regardless of whether or not Qaka is a sockpuppet, aren't his translation requests perfectly valid?[39] Those are two very notable topics, actually. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not being very discriminate in what I'm removing. I have no interest in making distinctions between useful and non-useful edits, otherwise what is the point of them being banned? Feel free to restore valid edits using your own name.

Also, there is no question Qaka and Iianq are current socks of Instantnood. They are returning to articles he edit warred on and making the same edits. The highlight giving up their sock relationship was when Iianq signed a contribution with the signature of Qaka.

If the pattern holds, there are another two or three that are currently quietly making a few dozen minor edits to articles that won't get noticed. When Qaka and Iianq get removed, he'll switch to them. Everytime he makes mistakes that reveal his current socks, it turns out they have been planted there a few months earlier. SchmuckyTheCat

Oh I had no idea that he's a suspected sock of Instantnood. Anyway, I've added new article requests (instead of translation requests) for those two articles.[40] Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for helping with the cleanup by spotting valid edits. Sorry if I wasn't clear on who the puppetmaster was. SchmuckyTheCat

List of islands in the South China Sea

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on List of islands in the South China Sea. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors.

3RR. Qaka 20:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Go away troll. SchmuckyTheCat

3RR reports by Qaka

I'm going to say please stop edit warring with Qaka. I understand that you believe that editor to be a sockpuppet, but until that is established by an admin, your reverts of Qaka's edits is seen as disruptive. Instead of spending your time violating 3RR by reverting Qaka, you could have simply filed a suspected sock report at WP:SSP. Thanks for your consideration in this matter.-Andrew c ^[talk] 21:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to let Instantnood make thousands of edits for a few weeks while SSP, which is ineffective and slow, twiddles and takes a few weeks. I report to ANI that a new Instantnood sock has shown up and I do the right thing. He's banned with the blessing of ArbCom after several cases before them. I'm not going to re-prove every allegation every time he re-appears. Permanently banned users can be reverted on sight, by anyone. If there is a problem with that, bring it ArbCom. SchmuckyTheCat

But it hasn't been established that Qaka is banned. We can't just go around letting user break rules because of their personal hunches. Please wait for admin recognition of the sock beforehand. Like I said, your time would be better spent demonstrating to the admins that these users are in fact socks. This way, if confirmed, you won't have to bother wikistalking and reverting these users, because they will be blocked from editing.-Andrew c ^[talk] 22:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not "a hunch". Qaka gave himself away because Instantnood can't help but wiki-stalk Huaiwei and I. Admins don't have super-powers to recognize socks. Established users who've been going back and forth with a particular banned user for three years probably can figure out their socks. If I had an admin button to ban him, nobody would question it. Admins block accounts as socks on much flimsier evidence than I could ever present against an Instantnood sock. When I still have some questions about whether it is a sock, I don't war with it. That's happened for a few weeks with Qaka. After I've confirmed it, I announce it publicly, and I revert it. I'm not going to sit around and let a banned user piss all over the project to wait for some process - which will probably get ignored. Bring it up with ArbCom if you think banned users deserve something better. SchmuckyTheCat

I'll check into it, but waiting to revert probably isn't a bad idea. The edits can always be quickly reverted using rollback if it's determined that the editor is a sock of a banned user. (Also, SSP has anymore been staying to about the 10-day window, and you can request checkuser as well.) Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

SchmuckyTheCat's reversions were acceptable, Qaka is a sock of Instantnood just like he said. I closed the 3RR report. Picaroon (t) 02:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Signature

Is there a reason you don't use time stamps?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC)