User talk:Walton One/Archive 5

Thanks!

Sent you info plus forwarded six short emails. Sincerely, Mattisse 18:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I've replied. You've got mail! Mattisse 19:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Again

More mail - do check! --Mattisse 20:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I have apologised to SilkTorj [1], I hope appropriately. I just want this to end. I no longer care about statements, retraction of statements, etc. I want to feel good about people and not cause distress. The Starwood case is over now and I am in the clear. I pray that we all move on. You have been a wonderful Advocate. Please stay my Advocate. (Usually I am not in trouble like this so I will not be a burden on you. The only worry is the remaining sock puppet, but as someone pointed out to me, he is already in trouble having moved on to other targets. But if it should reoccur, I wish for you to help me. ) Sincerely, Mattisse 01:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

hi

hi i saw your name on a list of experienced people and i want to know if you can adopt me please. thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shadow master66 (talk • contribs).

Smile

Kntrabssi has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

What I posted on Mattisse's page

Mattise, Jefferson Anderson has posted on my talk page that you are accusing him of being a sockpuppet when ALL evidence shows that he is as of this time not a sockpuppeter. This needs to stop please or I will be forced to report it to SYSOPs as it is starting to cause a member some stress. If I find evidence, conculsive edidence that he is in fact using a sockpuppet I will hav ea check user done. As of now I'm AGF in Jefferson Anderson. (I have cross posted this to your advocates page as well) Æon ^{Insanity Now!} 02:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

RFA

Ah, darn. Looks like my RFA didn't succeed. No doubt I'll take another run at it in a few months when my edit count isn't such an issue. Thanks for the vote of confidence. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 03:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Replied

You have mail. --Mattisse 11:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

P.S. When I am threatened with being reported to SYSOPs, what is that? What is SYSOPs? --Mattisse 12:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Question

I am being accused of accusing Jeffery Anderson of being a sock puppet by his Advocate. I looked at the links on the Advocate's page and I do not understand how I am accusing his Advocee of being a sock puppet. Is it that I cannot mention the word sock puppet, even in defending myself from the charge? Or that I cannot explain to SilkTork the reasons I did not receive his emails and therefore, why he and I may have a misunderstanding? Or that I cannot give links to SilkTork that I had given him previously in an attempt to explain that I was not hiding information from him? Please explain the parameters of what I can and cannot say to SilkTork or others about my own situation. The links on the Advocate's page all pertained to my problems with SilkTorn. Should you be threatening SilkTork along the same lines as the Advocate is me? This is all very strange. Is it possible for you to ask the Advocate not to post on my page anymore, but to deal through you first? I thought that was the agreement. This is upsetting. Sincerely, Mattisse 13:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Mail

Let's just deal by mail for the time being. I'm not doing anymore posting for a while. Just going to work on Dinesh's articles where I don't have to worry and I am safe. Sincerely, --Mattisse 13:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

how do i make it so my name appears at thee end whenever i write anything

you have mail

--Mattisse 18:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

To follow up with you

Hello Walton,

In regaurds to Mattise and Jefferon Anderson I have respectfully requested she leave him alone in the caution. I would not like to get a SYSOP involved in this (because I think BOTH sides would come off it fairly bad) She as also posted a rather interesting note on my talk page (I was not aware that there was an agreement between us as far as I knew that was between her and Jefferson Anderson.) Æon ^{Insanity Now!} 03:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

You have mail

--Mattisse 12:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

You have important new mail. --Mattisse 17:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

You have more important new mail. --Mattisse 18:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

mail

--Mattisse 19:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I replied too! But no need to answer just to answer. --Mattisse 20:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Shirahadasha RfA thanks

Thanks so much for taking the time to comment on my my RfA, which was successful. I learned a lot from the comments, I appreciate everything that was said, and I'll do my best to deserve the community's trust. Thanks again! And thanks for your kind words and support. --Shirahadasha 04:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Hi Walton One/Archive 5 and thank you for your support on my recent request for adminship. Unfortunately, the request failed, however I aim to improve the concerns that were brought up and hopefully bring myself up to the standards of admin. Once again, I thank you for your support. --Kz^{Talk• Contribs} 12:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations

It seems you are [2] now a sysop. Congratulations, proceed with caution and I'm sure Warofdreams will be around shortly for more information. Teke 18:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely - as Teke says, congratulations, you are now an administrator! If you haven't already, now is the time look through the Wikipedia:Administrators' how-to guide and Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me, or at the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Warofdreams talk 18:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Nice one. The final tally was 68/12/8. :) Good luck. Acalamari 18:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Click this link!!! Enjoy your wheel warring, and welcome to hell :-p --Deskana (fry that thing!) 18:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Congrats! —AldeBaer 19:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Congrats!!

I hereby present you the mop and bucket!

Congratulations my friend, you passed! Good luck as an admin!  :) Kntrabssi 18:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Offer of a lifetime

Are you tired of writing in a neutral point of view? Do you think sourcing is just a waste of time? Have you realised by now that you are the carrier of the One Truth^TM and that everyone else around is an Inferior Being^TM? If you answered 'yes' to these questions, then today's your lucky day! You may have been tentatively selected as a preliminary candidate for membership in The Cabal! To receive your very own lapel pin, a free copy of Master and serf: sysops and the rest, and a 3-month trial subscription to Martha Stewart Living, just follow these three easy steps:

1. First, block Jimbo. Don't worry, he loves it!
2. Then, delete the main page ... no one reads it anyway.
3. Finally, speedy delete Wikipedia under WP:CSD#G1 ... a collaborative encyclopedia that anyone can edit ... yeah, like that'll ever work.

Respond within the next 10 minutes, and you'll be entered to win an romantic vacation package in the heart of romantic Baghdad with a companion of your choosing. Call now! Don't delay!

Restrictions may apply. Offer valid while supplies last.

Congrats

Congrats on the successful RfA. I do believe you'll do very well. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Good luck to you! --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

-- Black Falcon 20:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Rosencomet

I have refrained from getting involved for a while in this Mattisse thing, having had more than my fill, but there comes a time when I can't keep silent. She has caused me a great deal of trouble in the past, and is continuing to harrass Jefferson Anderson (who has nothing to do with this message) and calling him "the last remaining sock-puppet" associated with the Starwood Festival arbitration, now closed. Well, Jefferson Anderson was NEVER involved in that fiasco, but was dragged into it by Mattisse, her MANY sock-puppets, and those fooled by her manipulations.

I say that knowing I can be accussed of not AGF, but frankly no one who reviews the Starwood case could expect any such assumption on my part. Not only did she use multiple socks to barrage my work with tags, deletions, vote-stacking and such, she actually created fake articles linked to the Starwood article and used them to rally support, calling them evidence that "the Starwood folks are at it again." I simply cannot understand why Ejakati was driven off Wikipedia, but Mattisse has not been blocked or even reprimanded after, IMO, much more egregious behavior and a pattern of instigating battles and bad will. (It seems any opposition, and often the opponents themselves, of Mattisse conveniently vanish from Wikipedia somehow.)

It is my belief that the "last remaining sock-puppet" is not at all gone, but as supported by checkuser evidence from Fred Bauer, is Mattisse editing as User:BackMaun and User:Alien666 and who knows who else. BackMaun, in typical Mattisse sock-puppet (and Timmy12) style "I don't understand why people are accusing me of being the bad person" language, refuses to honor requests not to post messages on my talk page, and is stalking and bad-mouthing Jefferson Anderson. I also recommend a checkuser on User:RasputinJSvengali, who's editing history is suspiciously similar.

I would advise anyone considering taking the side of Mattisse in any conflict to first discuss her past with Steve Caruso (whose contentions, if not his choice of words, I concur with) and some of the others who have tried in the past, and view the history of some of the previous conflicts she has been involved with. I truly am exhausted with the games she plays and the animosity she helps promote between editors who might otherwise cooperate peacefully with each other, and I feel that something should be done to address the systemic contentious atmosphere that surrounds her interaction with so many editors. I am powerless to do anything about it, and simply wish to be left alone. I wish Jefferson Anderson luck in his desire for the same. Rosencomet 21:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

From downunder

• Congratulations on your adminship fromdownunder too. Best wishes. --VS ^talk 21:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Congrats! I wasn't sure who Walton monarchist89 was, but once I saw your colored Walton signature, I knew that it was you. I changed the lead in your RfA in hopes that others would quickly see that it was you as well. (One slight note, you did not sign your post on my talk page. If you made the same post on other pages, you might want to correct that.) -- Jreferee 17:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Omitting the signature was a harmless error and shows that you are human. I don't think anyone will see it as a negative thing. Again, congrads on your adminship. -- Jreferee 18:00, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey

Hey I'm back sooner than I thought I would be, looks like there is another editor with issues with Mattise. I'm begining to worry about all this bad faith that is flying around. Æon ^{Insanity Now!} 01:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

QE II

Lol, ok, I wish her a happy birthday, though I'm not as loyal to the Crown as my late grandmother was (weird actually, taking into acount that she was German and only visited London once in her life). —AldeBaer 12:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

LOL, look where I had inadvertently posted... —AldeBaer 12:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Although I'm a full-blooded Republican, if there ever can be a justified need for a monarch, Lillibet II would be the first choice. Btw, congrats on your RfA - "God Save Our Gracious Jimbo." Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 14:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Congrats! Perhaps with the extra buttons, you can assist Her Majesty's Secret Service  ;-) JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 21:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

And since all admins are apparently under the control of the US Government, that'd be the ultimate conspiracy. --Deskana (fry that thing!) 20:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Belated congrats, for you and Her Majesty. :-) Húsönd 22:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Happy Birthday

Happy birthday to the Queen on my behalf. I couldn't find her userpage, so I'm leaving my wishes here. Abeg92We are all Hokies! 17:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Happy Birthday to Her Majesty, from an argentinean user (yes, but what?) --Neigel von Teighen 11:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

You're Welcome.

You're welcome. :) I am glad you are now a sysop. Acalamari 20:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Walton, I wasn't sure that you were ready, but 68 others obviously do (congratulations!) I'll be delighted to be proven wrong. All the best with the shiny buttons, mate! – Riana ^ऋ 02:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, and have fun with the tools. Just a couple notes on the note itself: For the future, you'll want to make sure that you sign posts like that, so that archiving bots send your notes to the archive after X days. It also appears you're missing a </span> tag, which causes text following it to appear in Verdana font-face. Not a big deal, but something you should know. Ral315 » 04:45, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations

I just came by to congratulate you on your recent promotion. You deserve the tools, and will use them for the very best purposes im sure. Good luck as an addmin! —ÅñôñÿMôús _{Dîššíd3nt} 04:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I second that. Cheers :P PeaceNT 05:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey, congrats! Sorry I missed it, I would have supported but I guess I didn't even glance at RfA all this week. Anyway, I'm glad you passed. Peace, delldot talk 19:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey Walton congrats! I missed it too because I was on a school trip in another state. Hopefully you will use the tools justly and rightly. Wooyi^{Talk, Editor review} 22:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

FYI

You may wish to see this comment I posted to Fred Bauer[3].Rosencomet 21:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Since Fred Bauder offers Check Users upon reqiest without the usual red tape

Should we not ask for some? Seems that he does not require justification and his "evidence" was enough for User:William M. Connolley to issue threats without investigation, why on utilize this service? Sincerely, --Mattisse 03:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I have asked Mattisse to apologize to RosenComet for any inconvenience and move on. I am concerned that she is aggravating the situation by focusing too much on accusation, well founded or not. Fred Bauder 14:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

User:William M. Connolley good person to ask to issue threats without knowing background

He does so upon request with little information. I think we should take the offensive, since that has been so effective for User:Rosencomet. If you bombard these people enough, they do what you say. I didn't do that before (stupidly though it was unethical -- but it works!! Sincerely, --Mattisse 04:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC) me 11:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Concerning Mattisse and Rosencomet

Dear Walton,

I must say that I feel you have mischaracterized both my activities and the results of the Starwood arbitration. I say this without any reason to believe that it was not in good faith, nor have I any problem with you. On the contrary, I hope you will not find yourself in the same position that several others who have tried to help Mattisse without a full understanding of the histories involved have been. I would just like to have you see things from the other side and make what I would consider a more balanced and/or objective judgement.

It is true that I was cautioned not to edit the Starwood articles aggressively or engage in revert wars over them. This is an entirely different issue. There was never any evidence to connect User:Jefferson Anderson to the Starwood issue at all or to sockpuppetry of ANY kind, although User:Mattisse kept trying and seems to continue to do so, as does User:BackMaun (who I consider to be a suspected sockpuppet of Mattisse, along with User:Alien666, based on checkuser evidence). Mattisse was more than just accused of sockpuppetry; it was determined that she used as many as eighteen sockpuppets[4], and not only edited with them but created false articles which she attributed to me and others she characterized as "Starwood folk" on the talk pages of others. These actions and others she initiated were part of a campaign (IMO) which rallied editors who would have otherwise been uninterested in my work to oppose my editing, engage in revert wars, and act in an uncivil manner to me by making it appear that there were a host of editors who already had a problem with my work. (She began this barrage within 10 days of my first edit, and I will grant that inexperience led me to react in an angry and inappropriate manner at times. I also accepted help from wherever I could find it; I had no idea at the time what a sockpuppet was, whether hers or Ekajati's.)

You said: *Mattisse herself was also accused of sockpuppetry at one stage. However, she has informed me that those sockpuppets were a result of her grandchildren using her computer, and has assured me that they had nothing to do with the Starwood case (as can be confirmed by looking at their contribution histories). See Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Mattisse. Reviewing the evidence, I do not believe that she was guilty of inappropriate editing behaviour.

I urge you to re-examine the entirety of the evidence. It had EVERYTHING to do with the Starwood case: I could show you dozens of instances (assuming all the evidence is still there; some seems to have been deleted), including revert wars, nonsense edits to break links, vote-stacking, and fake articles attributed to "the Starwood folk". I don't think anyone accepts the claim that her grandchildren, using the other 17 sockpuppets, targeted the same articles; and even if true this is a tag team about which the arbitration stated that two or more editors working in tandem on the same articles may be regarded as one. Although no action was taken against Mattisse, it is partially because she claimed that her problem was with Ekajati, 999 and Hanuman Das, and CLAIMED that she had no other interest in the case once they were blocked and was dropping out of it. (This did not prevent her harassment of me and anyone supporting me on several occasions since.)

As Thatcher has said, Mattisse's claim that her only sockpuppets were her grandchildren is contradicted by the evidence. Please read the Workshop page, especially here and here. There is a checkuser that was run by bureaucrat Rdsmith4 in September and documented on Mattisse's talk page but not in the RFCU case. These sock puppets edited the Starwood matter disruptively as shown on the workshop page. Thatcher131 15:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

You said: *Rosencomet, without being contacted by myself or Mattisse, contacted me on my talkpage at around the same time he contacted you. I do not know why he is participating in this dispute, which was previously between Mattisse and Jefferson Anderson. He has been civil towards me, but has made negative comments towards Mattisse.

I contacted you because you are acting as her advocate, and I don't operate in secret or e-mail accusations off the talk pages. As to why I was involved in this dispute, there are a number of reasons. First, Jefferson Anderson has regularly been accused and, IMO, harrassed by Mattisse over the Starwood arbitration, when he was NEVER a part of it nor even edited any of the articles related to it. Second, it was the behavior of BackMaun and Alien666 I was trying to track; it just seemed to me that the root of the problem MIGHT have been that they were socks of Mattise, and I wanted to find out if it was so. Being her advocate, it seemed you should be apprised of this possibility. Third, Mattisse kept bringing up my name and Starwood in the contention between her and Anderson. Fourth, BackMaun kept doing the same thing.

In any case, I can't see that my asking Fred Bauer for a checkuser on Mattisse, BackMaun and Alien666 can be construed as a hostile act. If they were separate, the checkuser would confirm it, and Mattisse should welcome that. As it is, Fred Bauer said the checkuser showed that they "share an IP from time to time". I had not requested any action against her up until now based on this information, though I did inform both Khabs and Jefferson Anderson of these results, openly on their talk pages. At this time I would like to formally ask you/her to assert whether they (and RapsutinJSvengali) are sockpuppets of, grandchildren of, or in any other way under the direction of Mattisse, or if she has any knowledge of a connection between them and Timmy12 (who should also be added to the checkuser list). If so, I would like to see them treated the same way as Ekajati, 999, and Hanuman Das were treated. If not, it may be useful information for the future.

Thank you for your time and patience. Please understand that I have nothing but well wishes for you; I just want the unpleasantness to stop, and I believe Jefferson Anderson deserves some support in this matter, too. I know how it feels to have to stand alone when your work is arbitrarily messed with and you are accused of that which you did not do. Rosencomet 17:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Please see the uselessness of trying to deal with Rosencomet

[5] What more is there for me to do? Sincerely, --Mattisse 18:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I thank you, Walton, for your words and the spirit in which they were given. There was no need to strike anything; I hoped to further inform you about the issue, and you heard me out and addressed my information in good faith. I appreciate it greatly.

As to Mattisse, it is far from useless to deal with me, but fair is fair. I can only accept an apology if she retracts her statements about me, and ceases bad-mouthing me. If she won't, all the claimed regrets in the world amount to nothing.

What more can she do? She can state categorically if she has any connection to BackMaun and Alien666 (who, according to a checkuser, sometimes share her IP), and/or RasputinJSvengali, or if she knows of any connection between them and Timmy12 and/or anyone acting at her direction and/or in cooperation with her and/or from her IP. I would also like her statements supported (or not) by a checkuser. (Run one on me as well; I'd like to stop this "army of sockpuppets" talk.) And if she is using sockpuppets to mess with editors again, as she did in the Starwood case, she should be treated exactly as Ekajati was (no matter how prolific an editor she may be). If not, she should be happy to have it supported independently.

By the way, I have left a note on Category talk:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Ekajati I would like to have someone address, though it's a minor issue and I don't know who it is proper to send a request to. Rosencomet 19:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, I have no desire to make a big deal of the Ekajati list thing. I just thought it was repetitious, but it certainly isn't important.

However, the BackMaun issue is still happening. He/She posted on my talk page on April 20th and twice on the 21st, and about me on User:William M. Connolley's talk page on the 21st. I don't know if this kind of thing will EVER stop unless he/she/they are made to operate by the same rules as everyone else. And I don't want to leave Jefferson Anderson high and dry: BackMaun has been battling him on T. J. Anderson, and accusing William M. Connolley of "doing the bidding of Jefferson Anderson" and saying things like "Before you start issuimgs warning on behalf of Rosencoment and his army of Sockputtets and on the suspected list of sockpuppet friends" on April 21st on his talk page (and other less coherent stuff, deleted by Connolley). If BackMaun is Mattisse, this is very relevant to his case. Are you saying I should not pursue the whole BackMaun/Alien666/Jefferson Anderson/Me thing, or that there's a different way to go about it? And does Aeon's statement "washing my hands of the whole thing" mean Jefferson Anderson is now without an advocate? Rosencomet 19:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record, here's something from the arbitration you might want to look over. [6] I just discovered that the evidence of the Musart page has disappeared from User:Flinders logs somehow. If that can happen, what else has disappeared? I also found out that Children of Earthmaker was created by Mattisse sock User:Gjeatman, with additional link to Association for Consciousness Exploration added by another Mattisse sock, User:NothingMuch. The creation of her socks spread from May 25th, 2006 (NothingMuch) to Sept. 2nd, 2006 (AgastNeey, AwfulMe, BlackHak, LiftWaffen, and LymphToad), with others created in July and August. How long until the last one stopped, I don't know. Have more been created or revived, like BackMaun? That's what I want to know. Rosencomet 21:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Central Lonsdale

Hello... thanks for the note. I restored the speedy delete (which was initially placed by Rackabello here) primarily because it appeared to have been dismissed without comment by another editor, and secondly because the material would be better as a part of the main City of North Vancouver article. It's certainly not a big deal, however, and I appreciate the note informing me that this doesn't fit the CSD A1 requirements. I'll keep an eye on the page, as I'm involved in the area articles, and see if it develops any further. If, as I suspect, it doesn't go anywhere, then perhaps a merge or an AfD might be in order. Thanks again! --Ckatz^chat_spy 19:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

thank you

thank you for adopting me me 08:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Your spanish user page

Your spanish level is really great! Where did you learned it? I'm argentinean and, thus, a native speaker, so just tell me if you need some help. (I don't edit on the Spanish WP because I like to practice my English... a weird decision?)

Your userpage is really good written, the only mistakes are:

"Soy inglés y tengo mucha experiencia editando la Wikipedia inglés" inglesa (you need feminine gender)

"(dónde me llamo Walton_monarchist89 y tengo más de 3500 ediciones)" donde without accent ("dónde" is interrogative: "¿Dónde está Nicolás?"); but, in this case, en la cual or en la que would be more preferred, as "donde" is mostly used for physical places...

"Mi español no es perfecto, pero bastante bien." bueno; you need an adjective. "bien" is an adverb.

"Para ayudar, quiero traducir artículos de la Wikipedia inglés (que tiene más de 1500000 artículos) en español." Perfect!!

"Mis temas preferidos incluyen la política, la historia (inglesa o americana) y la monarquía (de esa afición viene mi nombre de usuario). Soy conservador y derechista" Perfect!! (wow, "de esa afición viene..." is excelent and stylish spanish)

Así que, ¡no está mal!... ¡Está realmente muy bien! ¡Ánimo y que sigas practicando la Lengua Madre!

Un saludo (ah, message written in standard spanish; if you want to learn "rioplatense" instead, tell me) --Neigel von Teighen 13:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Just want to know how to find my AMA case

I have lost the bookmark again and cannot find it after looking. Where does one go to find these cases? Thank you. HeadlessJeff 18:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Read ing Fred Bauders talk page

I see you have backed down and do not understand the issues involved. Hopeless. I am hoping to be banned and doing what I can to make it happen. HeadlessJeff 19:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

It is all such a pointless joke that it is hard to take seriously. We are all fools. HeadlessJeff 19:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I guess I accidently posted on my own page

Do you want me to move my answer here, or are you willing to look there? HeadlessJeff 20:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

My "case" is marked "closed" for what that is worth

Really I have been planning today to self destruct and get kicked off Wikipedia. If there is an alternative, I certainly will consider it. However, if it means another 10 months of harassment then no. Sincerely, HeadlessJeff 20:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

P.S. This may sound naive but I have never encountered real evil until here, even though my profession was dealing with violent and murdering people. I am pessimistic about Wikipedia. My own grandsons did me in here, one about your professed age, almost 17. If you can change my view of the world now, I would be oh so greatful. Remember, we are being stalked. --HeadlessJeff 20:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

for what it is worth

[7] Rosencomet is accusing me again of being a sock puppet. That is the kind of statement the Advocate gave me the nasty message for, threatening to report me to the authoritis. I don't know if you feel like doing the same. Sincerely, --HeadlessJeff 20:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

No, I am not. Once again, all I have done is to ask Fred Bauder how one requested a checkuser on BackMaun, Alien666 and you. He went ahead and did one, and said it showed that the three of you "shared an IP address from time to time". This, along with the similarity of editing histories and the hostile behavior towards the same people you seem to have a problem with makes me pose the question which you have never squarely addressed: what connection, if any is there between you three, and what if any connection do you know of among any of them and Timmy12 and RasputinJSvengali? I am not accusing, I am inquiring. Repeatedly. Wherever I can. All I want is for the truth to be revealed, and the appropriate action to then be taken. Rosencomet 20:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

did you get my post

about Rosencomet's accusations of sock puppet on Thatcher 131 page, the same thing the other Advocate threatened to turn me into the authorities for. There was a Check user done between Mattisse and Timmy12 which was negative, but I can't find it right now. Do you feel like threatening Rosencomet the way I way threatened? They are on a roll now and the authorities are on there side -- always have been as far as I am concerned. --HeadlessJeff 20:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

P.S. That is why I don't care if I get banned. It would be a blessing. I have put too much hard work into editing and writing articles here, and now I resent the effort I put into it. --HeadlessJeff 20:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

what about the questions I asked you on your talk pag?

No answer. --HeadlessJeff 20:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Suspected Sockpuppet: Mattisse (4th) case

I have opened this case, having seen too little real action taken on this situation, and not wishing to be told once again that it is too late to investigate the issue. [8]

Admin Coach

I saw your name listed under Admin Coaches. I was wondering if you would want to be my coach? Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť^(Talk) 01:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Alright. Thanks! Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť^(Talk) 23:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

YI can't find a outline of the rules for WP:AFD. WP:DP doesn't list the reasons for why an article should be deleted. --Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť^(Talk) 21:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Found what I was looking for. Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť ^{Talk to me} or _{Need help?} 03:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Fred Bauder does not AFG me nor does Thatcher who recommends I desert my account of 18,000 mainspace edits

No use to talk to him. It will probably make things worse. Jefferson Anderson blanked parts of my user page yesterday and Thatcher131 was unwilling to help.

Jefferson Anderson has assumed a new identity. Thatcher 131 recommended that I do the same. He does not seem to realise that for a person with 18,000 mainspace edits, many intense work on feature articles, and the creation of hundreds of articles from scratch since May of 2006 it is not quite the same thing as deserting an account of a few months standing, the creation of one article, no intensive work on Feature Articles and mostly harassment of others.

What do you think of this advice? Sincerely, Mattisse 16:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: Admin coaching

No offense, but are you really sure you should be admin coaching having only been an admin for a few days? --Deskana (fry that thing!) 17:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

(Replied on Deskana's talk page.) Walton ^{Need some help?} 18:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thatcher131 obviously has not compared our edit histories and is going on the words of others. He is misinformed in many ways but does not see to have insight into this. He is assuming I am guilty. He has never had AGF toward me from the first. However, so many have rallied for me and assured me they will watch, even if Admins and such do not, that I almost feel good now. Thank you so much. I value you greatly. Sincerely, Mattisse 18:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Please delete it.

Please deletle it I plan to do something else with this page. Thank You it was a mistake I made(XGustaX 19:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC))

Thanks can you delete the talk page too. Oh its because I plan to do something a little different first, before redirecting. Thank You. (XGustaX 19:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC))

Your welcome. Thank you. Have a good day. (XGustaX 19:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC))

Thatcher131's suggestion that I desert my account was a very foolish one

I am insulted by such a suggestion. It demonstrates his ignorance of the difference between my edit contributions and those of Jefferson Anderson and his ilk. I am floored by the suggestion, it is so out-to-lunch. I have no intention of deserting my account. It was an extremely dumb suggestion. To me it shows he is just plain out of touch. As far as changing names, my name is highly thought of in editing circles. It is only Admins and others who do not value writing and editing who enjoy making my life painful. I have gotten many, many emails of support and advice. They all say there is no way "they" can really harm me -- they can try to make my life miserable only. I have been warmed by the support of the "unimportant" folks that I have received. No one has suggested that I change my name. Sincerely, --Mattisse 21:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

That was a one paragraph suggestion in a ten paragraph e-mail. I suggested that she either needed to drop her old grudges completely and demonstrate by her actions that she has moved on, or she might open a new account for a fresh start, while her current account is still in good standing. Thatcher131 23:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Tidle things

Tildes? i guess looking at the buttons below, it makes sense now, it does say "Sign your username: Shadow master66 01:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)", so really that makes sense. Shadow master66 01:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Walton, thanks for participating in my successful RfA. You expressed concern about me not answer the questions; I've written some brief reflections, including an answer to Question 3, in case you're still worried: User:Ragesoss/RfA. --ragesoss 07:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

"Canceling out" other people's votes

Look, this is a very, very bad idea, and at some point someone with less patience than me is going to come along and really yell at you for it. So I'd suggest you stop it now. And you may need to read Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. --Cyde Weys 19:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Notability

First, thanks for the help. I've been trying to write articles for Wikipedia over the past year. Finally, I've been adding them. I appreciate the guidance, really. I added a "hangon" to the Ameritest company page you tagged for deletion because I have TONS of 3rd party sources to cite: ARF, ESOMAR, Harvard Business Review, Quirks, Advertising Age, etc. I'll add them this week. No problem at all. And, I didn't mean for their page to sound like an advertisement. I worked for them 2000-2003 and believe in them strongly. A latent bias must have shown through. Yikes! Do you think it still reads like an advert? A lot of editing has been done to it already. Thanks for taking a look.Freckles.10.6.2005 00:58, 28 April 2007 (UTC)