User talk:Wfgh66/Archive 1

Hi there, I think the Evola line was added recently. I have not looked at this page gor a while. It might be worth including if it's a notable view, but not in the intro to the article. Paul B 14:57, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, I've removed it for now. Thanks for the commnts. Paul B 14:59, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot 01:16, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

blanking

Please do not delete content from pages on Wikipedia. Your edits do not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox for test edits. Thank you. Use Talk:André Douzet to discuss your complaints against the article. ··coela can 08:54, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then you should discuss your complaints at Talk:André Douzet, the article's talk page. If you have evidence that some Wikipedia users have a conflict of interest, you can report it at WP:COI/N. But please do not blank the page. ··coela can 09:13, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care whether you put up the banner or not. I care about whether you blank the page, and whether you discuss problems on the article's talk page. Get outside input by using WP:RFC if you need to. Unless you play by the rules instead of blanking pages, then yes, we will "allow the believers in pseudo-history to run the show on Wikipedia". ··coela can 09:30, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Hang on a moment. I'll get involved. ··coela can 09:39, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have warned the IPs that are blanking your talk page content. I expect one of them will do so again, probably soon. When they do, don't revert. Come to my talk page and leave me a note, and I will handle it. Or, if I am away from the computer and not responding to you, go to WP:AIV and make a quick report there. The reason I'm asking you not to revert is because you may be in danger of breaking the WP:3RR rule.

Anyway, in the meantime, would you please go to WP:COI/N and make a report about the problem as you've observed it? Thanks, ··coela can 09:45, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Now give it some time; you have probably attracted the attention of several editors who can help, but it may take a few days to gat things moving. And as above, if someone blanks your content from the article talk page again, let me know. ··coela can 10:10, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, it's preferable if you don't add a new section to talk pages every time you leave a message for someone. You can just leave your new comment inside the same section as the old one, and this makes it easier to follow the one conversation. Thanks, ··coela can 10:13, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your AIV report

Because it wasn't related to simple vandalism, I moved it here. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 10:04, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP

You are violating this core policy with your insertion of text that can be considered libelous. PLease stop before you are blocked. Thank you. Jeffpw (talk) 10:09, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article in question is being contributed by followers of a recognised hoaxer and charlatan. This issue was dealt with yesterday by Wikipedia. Thanks. Wfgh66 (talk) 10:12, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of the dispute, and repeat once again that you are inserting libelous text into the entry about a living person. you WILL be blocked if you continue. Please understand that I take no position in the article, but am simply adhering to policy. By the way, the article is nominated for deletion, a move I support. Jeffpw (talk) 10:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andre Douzet has not provided any evidence to substantiate any of his claims. More to the point, an "Egyptian relic" that he once presented to an individual as being "discovered in Rennes-le-Chateau" was pinpointed as originating as a nick-nack sold in Airports. How then can the word pseudohistorical be regarded as being "libellous" here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andr%C3%A9_Douzet How? Wfgh66 (talk) 10:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because you haven't supported it with a reliable secondary source. Do that and I won't bitch about the edit. Jeffpw (talk) 10:32, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How can a person who attended a Douzet conference - where Douzet promised to present his evidence - and who asked for the evidence, and Douzet ducked the issues, be described as a secondary source? What is a primary source? I am involved in the Rennes-le-Chateau/Priory of Sion genre as a critical researcher and Andre Douzet is recognised as a charlatan and a hoaxer. Douzet is unable to substantiate any of his claims and allegations. His supporters are a minority and are representative of being the type of people who enjoy believing in pseudohistorical claptrap. Gosh, those individuals promoting Douzet on Wikipedia have vested interests in selling books, magazines, and promoting the myth of Rennes-le-Chateau on the Internet.Wfgh66 (talk) 10:34, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Find a newspaper or magazine which says so. Until you do it is considered libel by Wikipoedia to say it. This is clearly defined in WP:BLP, which I suggest you read. Jeffpw (talk) 10:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, how can the following article found on two French websites be dismissed as unreliable? Translation below.

http://www.octonovo.org/RlC/Fr/ctrb/ctrb07.htm

http://www.renneslechateau.com/francais/octonovo.htm

Yes, I saw that on the talk page. Please add that as a source and I won't fight you on it, though I reiterate: it is not a news source, and BLP material should be of higher caliber. To make a ref, simnply add <ref> then the title and the url, then</ref> If you need help on that I'll jump in. In any event, this entire discussion is going to be moot soon, as the article looks sure to be deleted. Jeffpw (talk) 10:46, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Won't the article just re-appear again following its deletion? Let's get things straight - if at any time in the future Douzet produces his evidence to back-up his claims then I will immediately detract all my criticisms and so will many others - but Douzet has been making these type of claims since about 1999 and so far nothing is forthcoming.Wfgh66 (talk) 10:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose the article could be protected against recreation, but I doubt that will happen, at least at first. If it does, however, I suggest you come more prepared with reliable sources to refute his claims. Once again: I have no problem with you adding the word "pseudohistorian", but I *do* have a problem with it appearing without a reference to support it. Jeffpw (talk) 10:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not allowed to comment that allegations and claims cannot be substantiated relating to living persons on Wikipedia? That means they are on a winner all the time. Wfgh66 (talk) 11:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you are obviously not reading the policy and/or my comments clearly. you are indeed allowed to say that, as long as there is a reliable source to back it up. Otherwise you are merely slinging mud and exposing Wikipedia to legal threats. The WP:BLP policy exists for just this reason. Find a source which says the guy is a charlatan and we will all be happy. If you can't find one then the word "pseudohistorian"--no matter how accurate--will have to be excluded. Jeffpw (talk) 11:09, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The person's inability to produce evidence is not a reliable source that he is a charlatan? I always thought that in historical research the burden of proof rested upon the person making the claim and not vice-versa. I could write an article about myself on Wikipedia claiming to have discovered the power of perpetual motion and claiming to keep it to myself, possessing the evidence locked-up in some imaginary safe-deposit box. Nobody will be able to criticise me because that would be libel.Wfgh66 (talk) 11:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3RR warning

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on André Douzet. 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 that gains a consensus among editors. — Athaenara ✉ 12:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Wfgh66 has only reverted content twice today; his last revert was a rtewrite of the article, which still won't keep it from deletion. S/he has been told many times how to conform to policy about the content, but hasn't attempted to do so yet. Jeffpw (talk) 12:10, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Identical reverts are not the only sort of disruptive editing to which the three-revert rule applies. — Athaenara ✉ 12:30, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wfgh: Are you aware of Articles for deletion/André Douzet? — Athaenara ✉ 12:08, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

André Douzet

André Douzet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I noticed your (appropriate) deletion of the "pseudohistory" terms from the article; I was tempted to do that myself. On the talkpage there are links to sources that purport to lay a factual basis for that assertion,with an English translation. I don't speak french, so was hesitant to add that as a source, depending on the translation of an involved editor. If you happen to speak French, perhaps you could try to verify that? Jeffpw (talk) 12:19, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am involved in the Rennes-le-Chateau/Priory of Sion genre as a critical researcher and Andre Douzet is recognised as a charlatan and a hoaxer. Douzet is unable to substantiate any of his claims and allegations. His supporters are a minority and are representative of being the type of people who enjoy believing in pseudohistorical claptrap. Gosh, those individuals promoting Douzet on Wikipedia have vested interests in selling books, magazines, and promoting the myth of Rennes-le-Chateau on the Internet.Wfgh66 (talk) 10:30, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no reason to doubt you, but there is a lack of available reliable sources discussing the dispute, as identified at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/André Douzet, and Wikipedia is not the place to blaze that particular trail. Guy (Help!) 17:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You do not need to be an administrator to move articles unless there are complications.-- and if you are quite sure there is actually consensus. See WP:MOVE for instructions. DGG (talk) 01:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rosslyn

Unfortunately, if no one has mentioned it, neither can we... that would be a WP:NOR violation. I happen to think you are absolutely correct in your analysis, but Wikipedia isn't the place to publish it for the first time. Blueboar (talk) 22:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even though the books have been published, we can not state our own conclusions about them... we can only repeat what is stated in published sources... either what is stated in the books themselves, or what is written about them in another source. Please take a look at Wikipedia:No original research to learn more. Blueboar (talk) 22:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way... I totally agree with you... 99% of the stuff written about Rosslyn is absolute pseudo-historical crap, and aplaud your desire to debunk the myths. My point is that, unfortunately, we can not include our own conclusions to do so, no matter how logical they may be. We have to cite reliable sources that have done the debunking for us. While we can say is that the first source to mentions the whole "bloodline of Jesus" theory was Holy Blood Holy Grail, and that others (including Nevin Sinclair) have repeated and expanded upon the theory since that book's publication, we can not draw the obvious conclusion and say that HBHG "inspired" these other authors unless we can cite a reliable source that has concluded this fact for us. Blueboar (talk) 23:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rose Line

I do realise this wasn't vandalism. However, it is difficult to determine that when you don't use an edit summary. I'm afraid I know precisely nothing about the subject and so can't comment on your point's veracity. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 22:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I say, I really can't comment on the content. If, however, the concept doesn't exist at all, I'd suggest the page should be a redirect to Da Vinci Code rather than having basically no content and no possibility of adding more. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 22:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Look, I'm not really all that interested in that page; as I say, I know nothing about it. I reverted your edit because I thought it was vandalism; I was wrong. I am really not the person to talk to about this. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 22:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing at Rose Line. 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. Wednesday Next (talk) 23:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You don't get it do you. Rose Line is NOW a popular term for the Paris Meridian. That is a fact. It may also have been coined by Brown, but you have no citation for that. You need one. Also, I will now be reporting you for 3RR and you WILL be blocked from editing. Wednesday Next (talk) 23:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Completely wrong: the only people who identify the Paris Meridian with the "Roseline" are those who take The Da Vinci Code seriously - this identification is derided by everybody else including those who wrote

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89glise_Saint-Sulpice%2C_Paris Wfgh66 (talk) 23:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You don't get it. You do know what the word "popular" means, don't you? Wednesday Next (talk) 23:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Popular" ONLY amongst one group of people - the fans of The Da Vinci Code and universally rejected and derided by informed researchers.Wfgh66 (talk) 23:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have a citation. That is sufficient. Why don't you take a break from edit warring and find a citation for Brown coining the term. Interestingly enough, the term was used before Brown for the bloodline of Christ. You are probably right that he coined its use with respect to the Paris Meridian, but you can't just baldly state it in the article without a citation. Wednesday Next (talk) 23:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your "citation" does not provide a historical reference, and now the Roseline for you suddenly becomes the "bloodline of Jesus Christ" --- what next? Wfgh66 (talk) 23:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The citation is ONLY FOR THE FACT THAT IT IS A POPULAR TERM, you idiot. The statement it is attached to makes no other claims. Wednesday Next (talk) 23:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "popular term" exists within the context of a limited amount of people - fans of The Da Vinci Code --- where the term "Roseline" was first created. The popular term in question was first conceived by Dan Brown. Wfgh66 (talk) 23:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to ADD THAT to the article. Along with a citation supporting. Please don't remove other cited statements. Wednesday Next (talk) 23:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have yet to make a cited statement. The source by Philip Coppens that you are using does not provide a historical reference so the continuous reference to his book is meaningless. Wfgh66 (talk) 23:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not making a claim to historical use. I am only making a claim about current popular use. The reference supports that. Wednesday Next (talk) 23:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stop being a WP:DICK. Wednesday Next (talk) 23:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is your reference? Wfgh66 (talk) 00:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's yours? Please show some reference that states either that Dan Brown coined the term or that it wasn't used before Dan Brown. You can't claim either in the article without citation. Wednesday Next (talk) 00:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You need to provide a reference for your claim that "Roseline" is a "popular term" for the Meridian - yes, amongst the fans of The Da Vinci Code - and yes, derided and ridiculed by historical researchers who know it is a load of boloney. Find a reference that the Meridian was named the "roseline" before 2003 in The Da Vinci Code there are thousands of reference books on the Meridian - find ONLY ONE that describes it as the "Roseline". Wfgh66 (talk) 00:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't argue that the source of the popularity of the term is Dan Brown. The statement that it "is" a popular term NOW is obviously true and is cited. That statement doesn't claim that it is historical, so you can't remove it on that basis. You can add a statement to the fact that the usage is not historical, but you have to provide a citation for that. Wednesday Next (talk) 00:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have to provide a citation that the "Meridian" was called the "Roseline" before Dan Brown - if you can't do that then it would only be fair to accurately state that the designation has only been in existence since 2003 and only been taken seriously by fans of The Da Vinci Code and by absolutely nobody else. Wfgh66 (talk) 00:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NO I DON'T BECAUSE THE STATEMENT DOESN'T MAKE THAT CLAIM. IT IS PRESENT TENSE. ASSHOLE. Wednesday Next (talk) 00:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AND YOU ARE WELCOME TO SAY EXACTLY THAT, BUT ONLY WITH A CITATION, GET IT? You can't say yourself that it was not used before Dan Brown. You must find a third party reference that says it was not used before Dan Brown. Or can't you? Because if you just said that and cited it the problem would be solved wouldn't it? Can't you find such a citation? You are the one that wants to add it. You are the one who has to cite it. Wednesday Next (talk) 00:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where's your citation that the name "Roseline" exists outside the context of The Da Vinci Code? Does Philip Coppens give a citation to "Roseline" other to The Da Vinci Code in his book? Wfgh66 (talk) 00:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was popularized by The Da Vinci code. It is now a popular term. Please do ADD about it being coined by Brown, with a citation to that effect. Clearly you want to do so. I personally don't have a citation for that. You must, since you claim to know it to be a fact. You can't prove a negative. You can't just baldly assert that it wasn't used before Brown. You have to provide a citation that Brown coined it or that it wasn't used before Brown. Don't you get it? I have no argument with you adding that, but you have to cite it. Wednesday Next (talk) 00:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have to qualify your statement that "The Roseline is a popular name for the Meridian" with information that it is a recent designation - otherwise you will lead uninformed people to wrongly believe that it was a designation older than 2003. Wfgh66 (talk) 00:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But my source doesn't state that. Sure, it should be added, and if you want to add it, find a source that states what you want to say. You are actually wrong about Brown coining it. He got it from one of his sources. It may very well be recent, but claiming it was coined by Brown is false. So do your research and put in the correct facts when you find out what they are, and not before. There is on hurry. Wednesday Next (talk) 00:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What was Dan Brown's source? You must know it, since you mention it. Name the source. Wfgh66 (talk) 00:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Figure it out yourself. You've pissed me off, asshole. Wednesday Next (talk) 00:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All you had to do was mention Dan Brown's source. Wfgh66 (talk) 00:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And all you have to do it provide a source that says it was Dan Brown. Which you keep refusing to do. Why should I pony up when you won't. Wednesday Next (talk) 01:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bunk

Adding your own personal uncited bunk to an article does not debunk it. Please stop adding uncited and unproven facts to Rose Line. If you've got a citation that someone besides yourself says only Dan Brown's followers use the term, then and only then can you add it and the citation that supports it. Until then, it's just your own say so. You've proven to me that you don't know anything about the actual origin of the term and are simply adding your own personal beliefs about it to the article. If you had researched it, you'd be able to provide citations .Wednesday Next (talk) 01:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Provide Coppens' reference not just his book, and provide a source for your claim that "Roseline" is a "popular name" for the Meridian outside the context of The Da Vinci Code.

Wfgh66 (talk) 01:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. I don't have to. My statement is support. You have to provide a reference for the fact that you are trying to add. Surely you can find a source? Wednesday Next (talk) 01:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What you're saying is that you cannot find a reference to the Meridian being called the "Roseline" before The Da Vinci Code Wfgh66 (talk) 01:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying. I have no interest in saying that it was used before the Da Vinci Code. You are the one who has an interest in saying that it was not. The burden of proof is on you. You are trying to add to the article. You are the one who must provided a citation for what you are trying to add, namely that it is only used by Dan Brown's followers. "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds material. Wednesday Next (talk) 01:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You should therefore qualify your description "popular" as being RECENTLY POPULAR (ie, from 2003) - "popularity" can define millenia. The name "Roseline" has not existed for the Meridian even for one decade. People visiting the article who have not read The Da Vinci Code will have the assumption from your vague statement that the Meridian was designated as "The Roseline" since before 2003, which is misleading. Wfgh66 (talk) 01:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Surely if that is really the case, which I don't know for sure myself, then you should be able to provide a source which says just that. Go ahead, prove it to me. Wednesday Next (talk) 01:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see my work is done. Bye. Wednesday Next (talk) 02:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your note

Ahem. Protecting a page during an edit war is not an endorsement of the current version. m:The Wrong Version is perhaps a more humorous take on this. Wikipedia:Protection policy is the serious story. ~Eliz81 ^(C) 02:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for WP:3RR violation. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

Ronnotel (talk) 03:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Weekend Next" has been engaging in vandalism on a series of Wikipedia articles - all I did was restore the Wikipedia articles as they existed prior to their being vandalised. He has been targetting all references and links to the website http://www.priory-of-sion.com and the links to that website were not all placed by me!

Here are the Wikipedia articles that "Weekend Next" has been targetting and all I have been doing is restoring them:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Plantard http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B%C3%A9renger_Sauni%C3%A8re http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rennes-les-Bains http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippe_de_Ch%C3%A9risey http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priory_of_Sion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Lincoln http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%A9rard_de_S%C3%A8de http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosslyn_Chapel http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Meridian

As for resolving disputes in the Talk Page with believers in the myth - this is more than impossible. When it comes to Rennes-le-Chateau, Pierre Plantard, Jesus Christ Bloodline, Priory of Sion --- there is no resolution because the believers are fanatics. Please don't bank on the Talk Page because that will never work. I know that from a decade of experience with believers.Wfgh66 (talk) 03:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Emails

I received your emails, however I'm afraid I'm not able to help. My sole action here was to review the WP:3RR complaint that had been filed. I determined that an on-going edit war was occurring, and in order to protect the encyclopedia, I imposed a short block on both you and User:Wednesday Next. I have no opinion on the validity of the link you believe should be included in the text. However, I would ask that you carefully review WP's policies on reliable sources, linking to external sites and what WP is not. You may find more information on why your changes are being reverted by other editors. You are welcome to continue editing when your block is over. However, I should warn you that if you continue to edit war, you may be blocked again. Ronnotel (talk) 13:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than sending me emails, it's better if you reply here. I'm watching your page so I'll see your response. Even though you're blocked from editing the rest of WP, you still have the ability to post to this talk page. In regards to your query, I think the best place for you to start is to read about WP:CONSENSUS, which is really the only way to add content on WP. If you don't have consensus, any content you add may be removed or changed. If your good faith attempts to reach consensus are unsuccessful, there are various methods to help resolve disputes. You can read about these at WP:DR. Good luck (remember, please post your response here, email should be reserved for special situations). Ronnotel (talk) 15:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thanks for your response. When the believers in mysteries become active, consensus is an impossibility especially in this particular subject matter - believers simultanaeusly claim to be "skeptical" whilst in the process of promoting their mysteries - a recognised trait known to all skeptics. That's why I raised the point. When the Block expires the same problem will re-appear because the type of discussion you are referring to just won't materialise. Wfgh66 (talk) 15:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quick note: Complex abuse should not be reported to AIV.

February 2008

Thank you for making a report at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn against, and report vandalism. Your report was not a case of obvious vandalism, and as a result, the user has not been blocked and the request may have been removed from the page. Next time please use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents for reporting a complex abuse or refer to Wikipedia:Resolving disputes if you have a dispute with the user. Thank you. —slakr^\ talk / 05:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, dude, dude, calm down. You already have a thread at ANI, so there's no need to go around posting. —B o L 05:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, I've now removed your posts from WP:AIV twice: [1] [2]. Please consider checking the page history when looking for who removed what and why. Cheers =) --slakr^\ talk / 05:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop posting your question to multiple forums. Its not a good idea. I, and several other, editors have responded to your questions at WP:ANI. Please keep the discussion there. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.priory-of-sion.com

Accounts

Wfgh66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
Rocky2276 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
Wfgh447 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
195.92.168.167 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot) ^[3]
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, please do not add promotional material to articles. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" is strongly discouraged. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you.
If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam);
and you must always:
avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially neutral point of view, verifiability, and autobiography.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Business' FAQ. For more details about what constitutes a conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest. Thank you. --Hu12 (talk) 05:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]