User talk:Woohookitty/Archive6

Thank you

Thank you very much for protecting my user page. It means a lot to me. Pg8 15:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

a case of blocking

Please see Talk:Heisei#Future Japanese dates. `'mikka (t) 16:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

User:His excellency

Not too surprising, he's not shy about accruing those who are quick to look with disfavor in his regard (on all sides). His block is rather a pity though... as in my view he was just beginning to genuinely make an effort to improve Dhimmi following User:Aminz's lead. Still you can guess what my view is from reading the "Mr. Walking contradiction" section of his talk page. I really have mixed thoughts in his regard. I think he makes valid points and when he puts his mind to it he does so with some eloquence but then there's another seemingly more dominant side that just spews out beligerent statements against a wide spectrum of people. Having read User:Tom harrison's WP:PAIN report and subsequent responses, I think you are fairly correct that he likely wants to be blocked. He constantly talks about abandoning Wikiepedia and encourages others to do so, maybe the block was what he was looking for to finally clench his departure. I can honestly say that if he'd just cease with the drama and the polemical statements and just freaking edit and do so calmly and consistently while assuming good faith on the part of fellow editors he'd make a serious impact (for the better) on Islam related topics. Somewhere he manages to have some charisma... but squanders it with the polemics. Thanks for notifying me of the block. If he requests unblocking, his request should be carefully evaluated despite his previous block log as Ambidhrohi , I say this because despite his changing usernames he did show who he in fact was and didn't just sockpuppet monger Wikipedia... and to me that deserves some respect. Netscott 03:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying. But he really needs to learn civility. In his email to me requesting an unblock, he talked about how he wasn't personally attacking anyone and yet what was the subject line of is email? "Unblock me, you moron". --Woohookitty^(meow) 04:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, seems to be further evidence of a perhaps latent desire to stay blocked. One thing I'll say in his defense is that my last comment on his talk page was although censored fairly brutal (verbally trying to knock some sense into his head there) and so his response to it wasn't all too surprising and in fact he managed to remain relatively civil in comparison to what I was saying in my self-censored (not really) way. He knew that gift-for-living-with-us comment was rather off I believe. With an email like that I wouldn't expect you now to do anything more regarding his block but perhaps you understand slightly better my view on it. Netscott 04:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Towards fairness I would suggest you post a review of his block on WP:ANI or WP:AN so that others can express their views on it. Netscott 04:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Woohookitty, H.E. may be sometimes uncivil, but his presence was useful for the Dhimmi article. He WAS helping us towards NPOVing the article. He has a point but he sometimes doesn't express himself in an appropriate. His opinion about Bat Ye'or, but not his undiscussed removal of her quotes, can be backed up. Bernard Lewis doesn't "seem" to approve her scholarship. Lewis actually never quotes her though admits her significance as someone who writes about Dhimmi. It is unfair to have a huge chunk of an article based on a controversial person, especially when the quotes are written as "X is so" rather than "Y says X is so". H.E. to my view has a very right to be upset but he is not controlling himself. I think one week is a little bit long for him since we need him on Dhimmi article. Also, I don't think nominating an article for deletion is a good reason for blocking someone. There are people who were thinking that the sources are misquoted. I am not saying the article should be deleted but that he "has" a point. In anycase, he just suggested the article for deletion, not that he actually deleted the article. If you could conditionally suspend his penalty, I would be thankful. Thanks , --Aminz 05:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Not a single doubt that the charge against him is valid, but maybe it was better if he would have got some warning. But that's only me; I maybe biased since I feel he was doing some productive work. But again that's only what *I think*. --Aminz 05:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• I believe you did the right thing there Woohookitty, hopefully User:His excellency will snap out of the polemical tirade business and use that energy to really improve the project. It'd suck to have to revisit this nonsense again. Thanks. Netscott 14:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

His Excellency again

Woohookitty, would you consider posting your block on ANI for review? I don't think I've seen somebody blocked for AfD'ing an article before, and only very extreme cases of personal attacks are criteria for blocking. Btw, I don't know whether you were influenced at all in your decision by Timothy Usher's comment on WP:PAIN that his much-pasted examples were "most of them made after [HE's] last block". Please don't be, as it's not true. None of them were, as you can easily verify from the date stamps. Thanks for considering it. Bishonen | talk 04:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC).

Tom harrison indefinitely blocked His excellency at 18:09 18 June. Five of eight (= "most") diffs referenced on PAIN came after that block. Bishonen's block, as shown in the log, was intended to un-indef-block him, and hardly counts as a "new" block. I suppose if one takes this block reduction to technically be his "last block", then none came after it. In other words, Bishonen shortened his indefinite block in full knowledge of what he'd posted since then.Timothy Usher 05:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Not to clog up Woohookitty's page with posts not directed to him, I have responded to Timothy Usher on his own page. Bishonen | talk 18:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC).

Apologies

I apologize if I misrepresented your motives. I really was talking about "we administrators" and not "that Woohookitty" when I said that a person blocking after being insulted is getting revenge or holding up a level of contrition as a trigger for unblocking. I understand your frustration and sincerely applaud your efforts, and certainly I wasn't aiming at you in particular. I worry a great deal that our dispute resolution's sluggishness has led us, like water hitting an obstacle, to flowing around it. This has meant that we have (most of the time correctly) identified the bad guys and acted with long term blocks. This particular user is a very bad egg, from all the evidence I've seen, but a content dispute escalated into his losing his manners altogether and turning to the Dark Side, as it were. I don't think we're going to get him back on the right side of the law, but when I started reading AN/I again after a while away from it, I noticed that we were really going ape with the indefinite blocks. My arguments aren't designed to be making a point: they're genuine. We need other systems for community blocks than ArbCom, probably, but until we develop agreement on them, we really are better off, I think, going through them than around them. That's beside the point of this message though: I came here to apologize if I was offensive in my characterization and especially for my inadequately expressing the fact that my scold was aimed at all of us and not personally at you. Geogre 20:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Jordan (model)

Hi -- I am fairly new to WP; I realized after I saw your edit summary on WP:AIV that there was no point in listing vandalism predating the prior warnings. However, there is one edit there that I reverted. Can I assume I should have added a warning there and then waited before listing? I've been hesitant to leave warnings as I'm not an admin; is it OK for editors to leave warnings even if they are not admins?

Also, I'd like to ask where I can read policy on what to do about this kind of persistent vandal -- this person repeatedly pastes identical text over this article and has done so for over a month. Should that lead to Jordan (model) being a semi-protected page? I recall reading that marginal celebrities were exactly the sort of page that was expected to need semi-protection.

Thanks for any help. Mike Christie 03:06, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! That's exactly what I needed to know; I appreciate the help. Mike Christie 03:23, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

thanks

thank you for telling me. I will be on rc patrol :)  Dure  (T)X(E)X(C) 21:45, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Gibraltarian's IP range - larger than we previously thought

FYI, after extensive Whois searching, I have determined that Gibraltarian's possible IP range is much larger than what we previously thought. His ISP, Gibtelecom (formerly Gibraltar Nynex Communications), uses the IP ranges 195.244.192.0/19 (195.244.192.0 to 195.244.223.255) and 212.120.224.0/19 (212.120.224.0 to 212.120.255.255), which is much larger than the 212.120.224.0/21 range that we are familiar with. In fact, if you look at the recent history of the pages (and talk pages) he frequently targets (both here and on the Spanish Wikipedia), you will find numerous 212.120.236 and 212.120.237 IPs, as well as some 195.244 IPs, that exhibit behavior typical of G. Although I realize you've largely curtailed your involvement in this matter, I believe it is worth noting this new discovery. 16:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup Taskforce

I added rosetta stone to your desk. This is an important article (in my opinion). Someone seems to have added a block of new text in the middle. I added it to your desk as History. Please tak a look at it or let me know and I'll reassign it. Thank you. RJFJR 21:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Man!!! you do not seem to be getting the point, i made a page Faculty of Technology and Engineering which was auto changed to Faculty of Technology and Engineering, The Maharaja Sayajirao UNiversity of Baroda, i mean that is too long a string for anyone to actually find it.. i only tried to revert back the mess up someone from your Team did.. and i get the message that i am violating wiki rules..

sucks majorly...

aditya

82.203.3.9

82.203.3.9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - you only blocked for an hour- do you think this is a shared IP? Petros471 08:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

OK then, we'll leave your block as the one in place. Petros471 09:10, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Ben Wallace

i appreciate the edit-protecting, however part of your reason for doing so has raised a question.

what reason would there have been to do a double-block? the edit histories clearly show the Skankboy was being antagonistic while i was simply adhering to my duties as a member of the Recent Changes patrol. Drmagic 02:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Peterklutz

Hi, Woohookitty. I've shortened Peterklutz' block to the original three days, because I don't think he was necessarily aware he wasn't supposed to blank his page. He'd never been warned about it AFAIK. I hope you don't mind. Bishonen | talk 10:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC).

Sigh. Peterklutz did not waste a moment to resume his editing war -- deleting information wholesale from the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi article he doesn't like. Askolnick 12:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Woohookitty, I did see your warning to Klutz. Thanks. Askolnick 13:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

the 3RR

so the 3RR applies even to members of the recent changes patrol? Drmagic 12:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Major18

I believe it is more than clear from recent edits ("they" are both suddenly claiming my username is racist) that User:Major18 is a sockpuppet of User:Mechanismtongs. Would it be possible to increase the block on User:Major18 to match that of User:Mechanismtongs? Cheers --Pak21 15:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Talk-page blanking

(From User talk:Bishonen): Considering your block was a day after the 72-hour block, you just blocked someone two days for blanking their talk page. I don't understand that. What is so inflammatory about blanking one's own talk page? Who does it hurt? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 01:03, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Blanking one's talk page is a method that many use to erase warnings and such. It is a common tactic of people such as Peter as well as vandals. --Woohookitty^(meow) 10:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

And...? This isn't a vandal who's being reported on WP:AIV; this is an abusive pov-pusher who already has at least one admin following his every move. Blanking his talk page isn't going to "throw anyone off the trail". Blanking his talk page is in fact one of the more civil talk page edits he has recently made. Could you think about ratcheting down your threshold for what merits a block extension, please? Letting people vent a little when they are blocked seems like part of fair treatment to me. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 15:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Stub

Hi. Why did you remove the {{US-tv-prog-stub}} from the America's Got Talent article? FellowWikipedian 20:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Kurt reloaded

Hi Woohookitty,

Just wanted to know if you still kept an eye on Kurt Leyman.

Because he started his usual pushing on some pages I have on my watchlist, especially this completely silly removal of "Nazi Germany" and stuff from Battle of Königsberg. I think you should talk to him again... <_< -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 10:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Bad Usernames, where to report? :(

I noticed your edit summary - removing both usernames. they have yet to post. really wish we'd find another spot for username issues. not empty. Should I start a header for a page to report bad usernames? Hopefully with your assistance. And I know of that page to discuss inappropriate usernames but that takes too long for blatant violations of WP:USERNAME.--Andeh 11:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

So if someone makes a username called "Im a vandal hahaha" I have to wait for them to vandalise before I report them. Seems a bit silly to me, if I reported them at WP/I not only would it take longer but it would clog up the page with such minor incidents. What to do? :\ --Andeh 11:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

They were usernames to attack the admin CanadianCaesar. But attacks aren't technically vandalism according to the vandalism policy..--Andeh 11:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Well if I continue to add newly created users that are blatant vandals you won't get mad will you? :).--Andeh 11:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I guess you removed the two I reported because you didn't know it was an attack towards an admin. Well the reason I put was :-D and :-\, last time I do that then..--Andeh 12:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup Taskforce

Have you had a chance to look at the articles on your desk? Rosetta stone is kind of new and the other might be ready for closure. RJFJR 17:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Impersonators

I'm sorry, but I feel the need to comment on this edit [1]. Wether or not you remove them from AIV, it would have been good if you had blocked them first- there's a tradition that attack accounts get blocked, whether they post or not. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 23:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

• • Because I should add, I feel quite insulted by the removal. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 23:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

From my talkpage

Btw, we also have this, where he clearly doesn't want your help. I protected his talk page. I know. You don't care for that always. But I figure that doing it for a few hours won't hurt. Apparently he's really angry and hepped up at the moment. I don't think a little time to cool off will hurt anything. I'll unprotect it in 6-7 hours, if that. --Woohookitty^(meow) 10:19, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Sure. Did you see my e-mail, Woohoo? Bishonen | talk 11:45, 9 July 2006 (UTC).

RfC on Gibnews

A request for comment has been filed against Gibnews (talk · contribs). Due to your past involvement in Gibraltar-related articles I believe you should probably provide your own view and/or sign & endorse existing views. 21:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/His excellency

Hello,

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 08:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Celebrity Fit Club Advice

Hello Mr Woohoo. Could you offer some advice on the celeb fit club talkpage? My first view of it almost turned my stomach. I saw the programme and it was good. I even lost some pounds (and had a laugh). I made some changes you might want to have a look at. Tell me if I'm headed in the wrong direction. The article needs a lot of change. But I'm overwhelmed by it. Would you offer some short and specific ways forward on the talkpage there? Matlee 10:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Woohookitty. I have a far better idea of how to clean it up now. Matlee 09:03, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

attempt to be a letter

Hi,

A page History_understanding was deleted because of attempt to be a letter. It is ok, but in was not my intention to write a letter so I will change it or move elsewere. But how can I get my content back ?

Technical tag on "Bijective proof"

Allo! Back on 2006-01-06, you added {{technical}} to Bijective proof. I would like to address your concern, but I'm not entirely clear about what it is. Could you come by Talk:Bijective proof to discuss? -- Stebulus 20:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Stacey Dash

I was just wondering why you took the stub tags off of Stacey Dash? It's still a stub. I revamped it and put categories in it, but there is still not a whole lot of info on it.--Jaysscholar 15:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Blocked user: Theonlyzarni now using sockpuppets

Hello, earlier today you blocked Theonlyzarni in response to personal attacks and general disruption noted at the Personal Attacks Intervention Notice Board. I believe he is now using sockpuppets to continue editing in the same malevolent fashion at the same pages. His most recent one was A Hitler here, where in the same series of edits, he used this sockpuppet as a strawman to call his previous edits "stupid" and then, at the same time manually signed similar attacks and arguements with his blocked User name. I'm usually very patient and have ignored him for quite sometime, but he refuses to get along or abide by the rules.--WilliamThweatt 16:09, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Greetings!

Woohookitty I had not "spoken" to you in some time, (and actually have not annoyed anyone, to the best of my knowledge!), and wanted to say hello, and that I am glad you are still around. Katefan0's departure shocked and saddened me, as I am sure it did a lot of other people. Glad you are still here! old windy bear 14:14, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Shiny Shoe Music

An article you contributed to, Shiny Shoe Music, has been nominated for deletion. You may wish to comment on the nomination. See WP:AFD#How_to_discuss_an_AfD.2FWikietiquette.—msh210℠ 19:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello

It's not a good idea for you to remove your own requests from WP:PAIN. Let an admin do it. Is it a hard policy? No. But letting someone else do it helps you to avoid revert wars like the one you got into with jossi. In other words, it keeps you out of trouble. And if you ever have problems with something an admin does, take it up on the administrator's noticeboard. WP:PAIN is to be used for alerting admins that there are personal attacks going on, not to object to personal attack notices. --Woohookitty^(meow) 02:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for looking out for peace. The issue Jossi complained of (diff) wasn't that I removed my own request. I removed someone else's request - two other people bickering anonymously from IP-addresses about a subject I have never participated in and have no interest in, and after I (hopefully) resolved it (since it hadn't reached admin seriousness yet). Perhaps Jossi wasn't clear on the policy, as he originally formulated a complaint against me, and then changed his mind and reverted the complaint out of existence five minutes later. Probably just a genuine misunderstanding that corrected itself. Reswobslc 02:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Bona fide editing

Hello Woohookitty - You commented on my talkpage about not all Hong Kong citizens being banned. Did you mean I am a sock or meatpuppet? Please clear this up for me. I am trying to make bona fide improvements according to your suggestions. Do you have recommendations for me? Hylas Chung 03:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello Woohookitty. I notice your Woohookitty article says you are a mentor of NLP. I think you might want to change it now. I made a reply (request) on my talkpage about NLP. Do you think I should wait or try to clear it up with the usercheck? The first usercheck said "inconclusive". I do not know what it means for my case. Hylas Chung 03:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

User:SuperDeng avoiding blocks by using sock puppets

I've already notified Alex Bakharev, but just in case he'll be on a break: See this newly created user User:BobShoe and his edits: the style/grammar suggests it's SuperDeng again. The odd English sentences and grammar mishaps by Deng (a classic example:[2]) are very much similar to those written by this 'new' user [3]. I think a Usercheck could make things clear. I'd really be surprised if it wasn't a sock puppet. --Constanz - Talk 08:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

H.E.

Thanks for your message. I appreciate your advice, but ... now I have to spend ages going through all the various edits that H.E. made and that Pecher has said were abusive. Plus showing that I made similar edits and/or mooted them on the talk page, and how that was dealt with. The trouble is, that it encourages people to rake up old quarrels. I am finding it hard enough to work constructively with some of the people involved in this article as it is. And although I have learnt a lot in a few short weeks here, I will still find it difficult to navigate around and track everything I need to. Itsmejudith 08:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Very helpful, thanks.Itsmejudith 08:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Beaver Dam

I hope when you move there you can add some to the article on the city. From the name it sounds like a nice place but you can't tell from the article.Itsmejudith 09:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Help on diffs

Woohoo, Judith is asking for a help page about how to make appropriate links and diffs for her evidence. I've referred her to Help:Diff, but I really wish that was more helpful than it actually is. If you know of a better page, could you post it directly to Judith, please? Bishonen | talk 22:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC).

Deng

I really do not know what to do with him. I do not feel he is in the same league as User:General Tojo or User:Bonaparte or User:Roitr, etc. He is edits are in good faith, his personal attacks are reasonably mild, he does not post copyvio, does not use multiple accounts to abuse voting, etc. His POV is close to mainstream in most cases. His main problem is his disregard of the rules and assumption of bad faith from the other users. I do not know how to measure the second, but two months of bun without using socks is probably a good measure of accepting the rules. So I would just reset the timing for each sock found, unless his behavior (or rather the behavior of his socks) would deteriorate futher (then, yes, indef ban would be the only cure). abakharev 23:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• Then two months and permaban would make any difference. He would now and then use sockpuppets to avoid blocks and I will reset his blocks. abakharev 04:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Wisconsin

Go Wisconsin! -- Al™ 06:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Evidence

Counts of relative participation on the opposing sides of a long-running controversy in which POV-pushing is rampant might not be diffs of people doing bad things, but if the ArbCom chooses to ignore it, then they don't really want to get at the obvious root of the problem. Thanks for your suggestion, though; I know you mean well. Publicola 11:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe so; I hope not. I wonder if by "formal" you mean "set in the rut of treating all serious problems as if they were caused by ban-worthy bad behavior of individuals instead of large numbers of minor NPOV infractions among groups." If so -- if they don't want to look at the possibility that the Jewish/Muslim bias problems on Wikipedia, and the resulting outrage caused in an occasional Muslim, are a result of large numbers of infractions and not bad individual actors -- then there's nothing I more I can do, is there? Publicola 12:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Diffs

I think I have sorted this now. Hypnosadist left a note on my talk page saying how to do it, which was very nice of him since we are coming at this ArbCom case from different directions. You can see from the Addendum bit in my evidence whether I've got it right or not. Itsmejudith 12:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Great name

Hi, Woohookitty! I just wanted to say that I think you have the second coolest username on Wikipedia :) Thanks for your edits to Eurovision Song Contest some time ago.. do you have an interest in the Contest, or were you just randomly stumbling across articles? EuroSong ^talk 14:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Hah! Seems we think alike... :) If you notice the WikiLink I made in the word "second" in my post right here... you will see that we thought the same independently :) EuroSong ^talk 14:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for warning on protected talk page

Thank you for warning user:Taeguk Warrior. I appreciate that.--Questionfromjapan 07:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Kurt again....

This time it is a 6RR (yes that's right, six reverts in 24h) on Soviet partisans.

A case was filed at WP:AN/3RR, can you take a look at it? WP:AN/3RR#User:Kurt_Leyman_reported_by_User:Irpen_.28Result:.29

TIA, Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 20:41, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Update: make it a 7RR <_<. Please block him. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 21:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Re-update: Kurt thinks he is being stalked on his talk page and think Alex is not neutral (which is false). Please explain Kurt how things work. :) Thanks, Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 11:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hi Woohoo,

I just wanted to extend my personal thanks for all the work you put into the stubsensor cleanup project. Some times I think you single-handedly keep wikipedia clean. :-) Triddle 18:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Irgendwer

Regarding Irgendwer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), I've decided to come directly to you rather than repost on WP:PAIN - since you removed the report. When I saw the report I restored the warnings Irgendwer removed and explained to him why he should not remove him, however he continued to be confrontational. Another user also discussed the issue with Irgendwer. Although just confrontational at first, Irgendwer is accusing myself of saying things I didn't, and has now made a personal attack against me by calling me a troll. Please take a look at his talk page to see the discussion. Given the fact that when myself and another user tried to talk to him about the situation, he made another personal attack, I think a block is justified to send him the message that his actions will not be allowed, as talking to him has gotten us back to square one. Paul Cyr 22:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know whether or not his first language is English, but his latest comments seem to be made for the sole purpose of mocking me. Paul Cyr 00:02, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Paul Cyr 17:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Irgendwer uses sockpuppet Bbnsv to cirumvent ban?

Apparently, soon after being blocked, Irgendwer created a new sockpuppet, Bbnsv, and started a revert war at Minarchism on an issue in which Irgendwer expressed previous interest. In short, Irgendwer inserted a request for citation, which was provided by Luna Santin, and then reverted by Bbnsv with no explanation at first, and then finally a few comments written in Irgendwer's distinctive style utilizing personal attack. See "How old are you?" at Talk:Minarchism#Do_You_want_an_answer? This is from wp:sockpuppet:

Users who are banned from editing or temporarily subject to a legitimate block may not use sock puppets to circumvent this. Evading a ban in this manner causes the timer on the ban to restart, and may further lengthen the ban.

--Serge 15:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I should point out that I'm not totally sure about Bbnsv -- it's suspicious, to be sure, but I would like to assume good faith if we can. On the other hand, when User:Username entered already in use. (contribs) shows up at Talk:Libertarianism and immediately picks up the argument right where Irgendwer left off, using some of the exact same mannerisms as Irgendwer specifically, spelling "democracy" as "democrazy" [4] [5]...well, it gets hard. I personally have no experience in finding or dealing with socks; being an admin, I'm hoping you can look into the matter, act and/or advice me/us as to what we should be doing. Thanks in advance, apologies for dragging you into this again. Luna Santin 09:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Would a request for Check User be warranted here? Paul Cyr 23:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Irgendwer has continued his personal attacks under his new account.[6] What length of block comes after a 24-hour block? — Saxifrage ✎ 16:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

How would you call this post. Constructive? LOL --Username entered already in use. 17:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Irgendwer has moved to Forget it. (talk · contribs). — Saxifrage ✎ 22:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the protections, and the checkuser. I'm half-guessing this is in response to my post at AN/I, but if not I should point it out here. Anyway, thanks for your continued involvement. Luna Santin 10:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Now he's editing as Ööööö (talk · contribs). (NOte that those are German versions of the :o smilie.) He doesn't seem to comprehend that evading a block with a new account is not tolerated, or maybe that blocks apply to users, not accounts. An explanation might be in order? — Saxifrage ✎ 18:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Checkuser

Thanks for setting that up! I almost did a couple days ago and balked at the setup requirements (I've been a busy critter in real life). Another you might want to add to the request is Vahonia (talk · contribs), who shares Irgendwer's characteristic combination of political views and particular grammatical errors.

Incidentally, I don't think we need to hurry the checkuser-capable users on this. Irgendwer is very identifiable due to the fact that he only cares about Libertarianism, Minarchism, Liberalism, and other magnet articles. Any sock he makes is impossible to hide due to his agenda, conveniently for us. — Saxifrage ✎ 16:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer...

...to the range block explanation. I think I get the gist, although I'm not solid enough on the details to attempt a range block myself. (It's quarter to four in the morning where I am, and binary conversion requires more brain cells than I tend to have going at this time of night.) But when I'm more awake I'll give it another look and see if I can suss it more thoroughly. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Fullstop

Thanks for the advice, but i have already reported him to an admin. And he was the one sending all kinds of unreal attacks in Parsi talk, i merely gave them back to him :). --Spahbod ☼ 11:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, but how about the words: Spahbod's sad assertion and quite sad really and nasty trolling which he said in Parsi talk among other attacks? could you please at least send him a warning so he understand thats wrong. --Spahbod ☼ 12:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Libertarianism protection

Could you change the protection on Libertarianism to semi-protection? That would prevent anons and new accounts from editing and so lock out the sockpuppets, while letting others get on with it. — Saxifrage ✎ 15:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Racist Attacks

Wby do do you feel it is okay for members like MichaelZ to make racist remarks, and then if someone points it out, that personal is making a personal attack? 75.3.11.87 19:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea who that even is. --Woohookitty^(meow) 02:51, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Newuser123

Thanks. He/she was starting in on my page too. *sigh*. SB_Johnny | ^talk 11:24, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Tennis vandal

Thank you. I appreciate your help. Igorrr 12:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

My Talk Page

Unprotect my talk page. 75.3.11.87 15:07, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Now that I can edit again, I will no longer need to use my page for personal attacks, I will make the personal attacks on the talk pages of the people I choose to attack. 75.3.11.87 03:04, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

just kidding. 75.3.11.87 03:04, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

You forget to block?

[7] You forgot?--Andeh 16:26, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Can't see the point really, seeing as he is acting as a persistent vandal on their first edit.--Andeh 16:31, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Nitcentral article

Hi. There is a motion afoot to delete the article on Phil Farrand's website, Nitcentral, as you can see here. If you have an opinion on it, can you chime in? Thanks. Nightscream 17:21, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Stub removal

Hi. We are both members of the Stub sensor stub removal project. I dont know when there will be more stubs to remove through the project, but if you are interested, there is a newer project here: User:Eagle 101/Big Stubs/List. SynergeticMaggot 07:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Yep, i'm still here.. just busy at the moment.

Hello there Micheal. Yep, i'm still here abouts, just currently working on a big project for a major retailer, which i've managed to get dragged into by one of my ex business partners. Hopefully i'll be back to wiki-editing in a while, and hopefully adding quite a lot of info to a lot of medical articles; I've added a few bits of info here and there, and corrected some inaccuracies in those articles, but i've been too busy to do anything like i was doing in the old days. :-) Regards to you! Meow indeed! The magical Spum-dandy 17:15, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Mywayyy reports on AIV

Hi, thanks for your note regarding my "Mywayyy" abuse reports. I know it's not a classic case of WP:AIV, but using AIV for the purpose has worked fairly well in the past. What makes it less suitable for WP:ANI, in my view, is its short-term and routine nature. We've typically been getting two or three fresh IP attacks from that banned user per day, and I think it would strain people's patience to have all these alerts on ANI. I don't really know what else to do. What do you think? The guy is extremely stubborn and has explicitly stated his intention of continuing his reverts forever until he wears down his opponents' patience. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Thanks for the pointer. How would the "Long term abuse" page work for attracting short-term admin attention? Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Bahnstah

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		Since my first contact with you, I've been very impressed by the way you handle yourself. I don't know when you got your last star, but a quick glance at your talk archives implies: too long. Your hard, tireless work, keeping content disputes under control, mitigating vandalism, with the Cleanup Taskforce, and in general keeping Wikipedia running, clearly qualify you for the Working Man's Barnstar. Luna Santin 12:18, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Halle Berry

Just to let you know, the second that article is unlocked, I'm reverting it right back to where it needs to be. Have fun in your whitewashed world. I'll see you soon.

PS: Since you seem to have fallen off the short bus om your head, there's a HUUUUUUGE difference between telling someone to die and telling someone that you're going to kill them. In the future, try a little less admin badge polishing and a little bit more reading. MThompson 12:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Mywayyy

Hi there! This is the banned-thanks to Future Perfect at Sunrise user Mywayyy. I would like to explain a few things. First of all I have nothing against FPS, even though, he has treated me unfairly. He should strongly consider removing that PERFECT from his name. Anyway the thing is that there are some articles regarding Greek islands and other cities that this guy constantly keeps adding Turkish names. This is totally unacceptable for two reasons: First there is absolutely no reason for adding those names. There is neither Turkish population or any cultural significance to justify such a thing. For Xanthi article for instance, where there is a Muslim minority i havent changed anything because it is right to have a Turkish name there. The second reason is more serious: This user does not show the same stance when Greek names are removed from Turkish articles. He only cares how to add Turkish names to Greek articles. I have tried to speak to him but he believes he is the god of Wikipedia and can just solve things by accusing me of vandalism. When HE reverts why isnt HE beiing accused of vandalism and its just me?? I dont think that a content dispute should be dealt as vandalism. Then most of Wikipedians would be like the biggest vandals.Regards! Mywayyy88.218.47.184 12:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Bothering

Because your cute and cuddlywuddly and we won't let you go! Besides, you'd feel guilty if you ever went away. In any case, PennyGWoods and company have been checkusered to death, the Singapore IPs all blocked for a week, and the latest reincarnation was on an open proxy, now blocked. Cross your fingers... Dmcdevit·t 03:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

More Kosovo weirdness

We've had some disruption on Kosovo, Kosovo Liberation Army and Template:Kosovo-InfoBox from an anonymous user who's been using multiple proxy servers to make highly contentious edits and personal attacks against me. It would appear that the person responsible is the operator of the Tonycdp account. I'd be grateful if you could check my reasoning on User talk:ChrisO/Tonycdp and let me know what you think. If I'm right, the user in question has clearly been acting dishonestly and disruptively; the question is, what should we do about it? -- ChrisO 18:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry, it's been dealt with now. :-)

I promise

I promise not to make any personal attacks on my talk page. 75.3.11.87 00:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

AIV

I was under the impression that it's still perfectly acceptable to block a particularly egregious vandal/linkspammer without warning; in this case, it was an IP which had inserted hundreds of gay porn links into an article. --Emufarmers^(T/C) 08:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I suppose: Of course, I added that IP to the list about an hour before you removed it. >.< (Not an attack on you; just meaning to say that it was certainly ongoing and blatant at the time when I reported it.) I guess there aren't so many admins on at this hour. --Emufarmers^(T/C) 08:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: VandalBot

Sorry, I forgot to check the block log before reporting.--1568 08:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:AIV User:Downyourpants

Re: [8] see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#Second opinion on carrotjuice.com. Femto 21:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm iffy on it because I see good edits after the early spurt of links. --Woohookitty^(meow) 21:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

And in (almost) each edit they added links to pages on the same server, with little content but lots of link partners. Femto 21:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Personal attack

I complained about a personal attack, an ongoing one, involving LGagnon. Please attend to that. I am also seeking mediation/arbitration in this respect. I stand by all my comments/edits.AOluwatoyin 09:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)AOluwatoyin

Tots TV vandal

This is mostly an FYI. The anon you blocked this morning was not just some random vandal. It was the Tots TV vandal. This vandal is a long-term (over 6 months now) subtle misinformation vandal. He is on a dynamic IP, so his IP shifts every few days. He can be easily identified, because he makes the same edits to certain pages every time. Boy/girl change to the Tots TV page is his signature change. Warning this vandal is useless. (Not a criticism, as you had no way of knowing.) Protecting or semi-protecting his targets is also mostly useless, as he'll just move on to other targets, and return to his favorites when they are eventually un-protected. I generally revert every edit he makes and block his current IP for a week, which is effectively a block until he next shifts on his dynamic IP. Given that he's a subtle misinformation vandal, I consider even the edits that are not obviously vandalism to be suspect. If you want to help watch for him in general, mark a few of the pages he targets for watching, and you'll soon see the patterns to his edits. Anyway, this was mostly an FYI to let you know who it was that you were dealing with today. - TexasAndroid 12:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Response to Your defence of LGagnon.

Please check appropriate, relevant and significant details before you post messages to the contrary at my User Page. That should be a basic minimum for any Administrator, I should think.

At the Ayn Rand Talk Page you will find evidence of my attempts to talk to Lgagnon. Just infra I post here a copy of my Memo to the Wikipedia Board articulating my frustration in this regard.

Sir(s)/Madam(Mesdames):

I continue to have problems with LGagnon at Wikipedia. He sends me the most ill-written messages. It is almost impossible to wade through the bad grammar, misspellings/typos; etc to get his point. He indulges the most foul personal attacks with regard to everyone, even Wikipedia admins, referring to the latter as "vandal-coddling." He never backs up his unthinking assertions. He simply asserts.

Why does Wikipedia continue to indulge one -- but one -- lamentably under-educated vulgarian in this regard, to this degree? What could possibly be the explanation????!!!!!!!!

Please, Please, Please respond. I have tried to reason with the lad. I tried humour. I have issued warning after warning. He is as osmotically impervious to the ratiocinative as he is to any other recognizably human mode of intervention.

Anthony Oluwatoyin (Wikipedia user name: AOluwatoyin).

AOluwatoyin 19:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)AOluwatoyin

Fictional Personal Attacks and Real Harassment

You just left a comment on my page asking me to stop attacking people. My sole activity on Wikipedia for the last few weeks has simply been responding to comments on that page. Since the last time an administrator left a comment telling me that a statement I made in the Wolverine article was viewed as a personal attack I have not made a comment that could even remotely logically be construed as one. I have stated that person's who claimed I made a personal attack since the first incident I was warned about were being dishonest and are harassing me as there is no reason for them to leave comments on my page almost every single day over an event that happened over a month ago.

Harassment IS against wiki regulations. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you were mislead by someone who made a complaint and distorted the context. There is no reason to repeatedly threaten and warn someone for an event that occured over a month in the past. I also do not appreciate my liberty to express myself civilly being infringed upon. If someone tells a lie on my user page about me or something I have done, I will state that it is a lie. That is NOT a personal attack.70.121.181.235 21:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Is this a privacy violation?

Could you take a look at these edits? (spanning multiple diffs) I don't know who the person they're discussing is and I don't know why they're discussing him, but the posting of personal information concerns me. Perhaps this person has their information posted somewhere on Wikipedia and this isn't a new breach unwanted by them. If it's not though, .27 needs a bit of a talking-to. Thanks. — Saxifrage ✎ 05:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Susan Polgar reversion

Note that the personal info you removed was just about certainly added by Amorrow himself, so it's not something to freak out about (though it still shouldn't stay). Phr (talk) 06:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

You should mention in your email to the oversight committee that the editor was probably Amorrow. Also, he has been inviting contact off-wiki. I think your removing the edits was fine. I'm not convinced it's worth oversight getting involved, but I'd explain the situation fully and leave it to them. Phr (talk) 06:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Strange Request

Hey, can you do me a favour... I'm curious to know whether a pro or an amateur won the WSOP main event (I laid 1.5 to 1 an unknown amateur would win). But I don't want to know WHO specifically won it, because I want to watch it when it airs on ESPN, so I don't want to look it up myself ;-) I asked someone who doesn't follow poker but he since he doesn't follow poker so he couldn't tell me whether the winner was an amateur or not... he said he thought he was an amateur... Can you do me a huge favour??! of the strangest nature... Could you tell me...

1. Was the main event winner a pro or an amateur!? 2. What place did Alan Cunningham finish (I am 90% sure he was at the final table, because I came across a spoiler...) If he wasn't at the final table then don't bother.

I am sorry this request is so strange...!! PLEASE PLEASE DO NOT TELL ME WHO WON!! I could find that out myself. Thanks - Abscissa 17:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Awesome!! Thanks so much. I'm not quite sure what a "newish" pro is but I guess I'll find out soon! :-) Thanks again. - Abscissa 18:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

May-be I'm getting paranoic, but...

May-be I'm getting paranoic, but again I've met a user with some banned user SuperDeng's characteristics: firstly, the choice of articles and the everlasting emphasis on German cruelty (of course, many edits may be basically right, but no sources are provided). True indeed, User:Daborhe's language seems to be superior compared to Dengs, but

• still those uncapitalised first letters in article space contributions

• and extremely long sentences, where strange misspelling occur [9] [10], (plus form 'dosent').

Having met SuperDeng and his tricks/POV before, again I think it's likely to be he.Constanz - Talk 07:38, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Han (surname)

Why did you de-stub my page? I'd understand if you removed only the chinese stub, but the korean part of the article has nothing.

stubsensor cleanup project is back

Howdy, I'm just letting you know that stubsensor is back with the most current dump file. The cleanup project is at Wikipedia:Computer help desk/cleanup/stubsensor/20060810. Thanks for your help from the last time! Triddle 00:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

August Esperanza Newsletter

Program Feature: To-Do List The Esperanza To-Do List is a place where you may list any request, big or small, for assistance. If you need help with archiving your usertalk, for example, all you need to do is list it here and somebody will help you out. Likewise, if you need help with some area of editing on Wikipedia, list it here! Again, any matter, trivial or not, can be placed on this page. However, all matters listed on this page must not be of an argumentative nature. You do not need to be a member of Esperanza (or this program) to place or fulfill requests on this page. If you don't have any requests, consider coming by and fulfilling a few! This program has not been very active, but has lots of potential! What's New? In order to help proposed programs become specific enough to make into full-fledged programs, the In development section of the proposals page has been created. Proposals that are promising, but need to be organized in more detail are listed here. Please take a look at what is there, and help the proposals turn into programs. To improve both the layout and text of the front page, in an attempt to clarify the image of Esperanza, the front page is going to have some redesigning take place. Please take your creative minds to Wikipedia:Esperanza/Front page redesign to brainstorm good ideas. Many thanks to MiszaBot, courtesy of Misza13, for delivering the newsletter.

The last AC meeting (full log) In order to make sure all users who join Esperanza are welcomed, a list of volunteers who are willing to welcome new Esperanzians is at Wikipedia:Esperanza/Members#Esperanza_welcomers. Please add yourself if you are interested; we want to make sure all new Esperanza members are welcomed! The In development section of the proposals page has been created. Proposals page: Some proposals have been moved to the aforementioned "In development" section, some have been left as a proposal, and others have been archived. For those proposals that were a good idea but didn't necessarily constitute a program, General Esperanzial Actions has been created. Two small pieces of charter reform will be decided on in a straw poll at Wikipedia talk:Esperanza/Governance. One involves filling the position of any councillors who may leave, the other involves reforming the charter. Until cooperation with the Kindness Campaign is better defined, it remains as a proposed program. There is a page for discussing the front page redesign. Signed... Natalya, Banes, Celestianpower, EWS23, FireFox, Freakofnurture, and Titoxd 05:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Although having the newsletter appear on everyone's userpage is desired, this may not be ideal for everyone. If, in the future, you wish to receive a link to the newsletter, rather than the newsletter itself, you may add yourself to Wikipedia:Esperanza/Newsletter/Opt Out List.

BigDaddy777 / 68.40.168.173

Please note, this sockpuppet has decided to come back and make some edits on Talk:Ann Coulter. I'll let you be the judge if it's worth blocking yet again. --StuffOfInterest 15:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Bogus Report on WP:PAIN

Hey Woohookitty, would you be able to take a look at the bogus report against me on WP:PAIN. A user seems to be on a vendetta. Paul Cyr 18:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The issue has been moved to WP:AN/I. Paul Cyr 18:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

stubsensor

Hi, I saw that you completed a section I was working on in the stubsensor project. It's nothing big, but I kinda wanted to finish that myself. I know you didn't mean anything by it, and you're just helping out anyway. But in the future, try to let people finish sections they've already claimed. :) Lauren 21:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Help

Hi Woohookitty, Please help us. Today Alniko has again started vandalizing the pages of Thiruvananthapuram, Kochi and Kerala.

-- Sathyalal Talk to Sathya 05:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:PAIN

It doesn't matter. The admins have done nothing so far about the 3-ring circus at the Ayn Rand articles, so I don't think I'm stopping them from doing nothing by pointing out that they do nothing. -- LGagnon 05:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

At the moment, I can't say for sure who the anon is. Still, a check user would help. -- LGagnon 15:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

88.82.76.122

Hi, Woohookitty. Thanks for blocking 88.82.76.122 re Emmalina. Just to clarify, the user was already warned for making the same edit last night. The user added naked photos, the address, and phone number of a living person, which are now in the article's history... is it possible to permenantly remove that content? Thanks. Fireplace 12:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Stub Sensor

Hi. I see you are doing a bunch of stubs tonite too... figured I would let you know there are a bunch of French provinces on there and I was trying to hit them all but I need to get to bed. On my talk page there's a 'stubs' link at the top that has some AWB settings that may help clean those articles... — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 06:15, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Alniko (KALM new id)

Hi Woohookitty, Thanks for the help exerted to stop the vandalism in the pages of Thiruvananthapuram, Kochi and Kerala. But now he has created a new id KALM and started the same job again, mocking all of us. Can you please do some thing to stop this.

-- Sathyalal Talk to Sathya 10:17, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Woohookitty, Thank you for your immediate help in this regard.

-- Sathyalal Talk to Sathya 10:49, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello! Could you take a look at 203.199.213.66 (talk · contribs)'s edits? From his past and new edits, it is evident that the ip belongs to Alniko. TIA. -- thunderboltz^{a.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK}13:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC)~

Hi Woohookitty,

Sorry for troubling you again. As Deepu mentioned, Alniko has started editing from IP 203.199.213.66. I wonder he is trying to tease all of us in wiki by changing his ips.

-- Sathyalal

The His Excellency case

I am wondering if you and the arbcom can clarify something on the proposed decisions page. Do these sanctions cover just the His excellency account or do they cover the His excellency account and the previous account that the user edited under? Otherwise, I'm afraid of H.E. simply switching accounts. What's on the page now is not clear. --Woohookitty^(meow) 19:49, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Covers any account he edits under. Fred Bauder 20:55, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Fred. That's standard protocol for our decisions (and so if it's not clear it's because it's assume), or they would be pretty ineffective. Dmcdevit·t 05:17, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Appropriate templates for vandalism

On this edit of yours: yes, I did know of that template. I've never used it, and unless I'm forced to use it I have no intention of ever using it. Here's my reasoning.

But that matter aside, thank you for your good work fighting people whose spare time and energy hugely outbalance their intellectual capacity. -- Hoary 10:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry for blowing my top in the 2002 Gujarat violence/2006 revision article. It's just that User Geek1975 has been valdalizing the article with nonsense that is not present in the articles he cited.Netaji 11:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

No, sir it does not. The article says that the military stood by and did nothing (allegedly). It does NOT say that they took part in the activities. Geek1975 is engaging in subtle anti-India polemicism.Netaji 11:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad we agree. Please monitor the article so that neither of us go out of hand. Thanks.Netaji 11:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Request

I would request you to let me know your opinion on the vandalism charges and warnings left by Netaji on my talk page and the attempt to delete / strike out my response to his comments on his talk page. There is a past conflict between us and I have responded to him on the above issues, but would like to know your opinion as in the emotionally charged atmosphere I think I am also not always rational. Haphar 13:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Could you send the mail again ? I get a lot of spam and deleted some stuff just before I saw your message. thanks. Haphar 14:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes I agree with that, but it is very hard to be civil to someone who has called me names, taunted me, used a sockpuppet to do the same, been happy over having me killed by terrorists as well as had islamist terrorist kill/maim/rape my family. Also a person given to making false insinuations and claims , including issues regarding his own talk page as it evident here [11] and the lie is nailed here [12]. More frustrating was small blocks with little or no warnings issued to him by an administrator, ( at least in my opinion). The user also uses deletion of comments, his own if they incriminate him as well as others quite often. I do not know why the system has been so tolerant of such a disruptive force, thanks to him I have become disruptive too as have others he has had these battles with. Do look at some comments of his on his earlier user page too [13]Haphar 14:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi there. It's good to have another person on the case, I've been the only one now since early July and perhaps my judgment needs a bit of refreshment. I was loathe to take bold action except for the most overt instances of abusive behaviour since there was so much sniping on all sides that it was hard to keep accumulating count of all the jibes, which you cited, are pretty common amongst this group. I have two separate archives (16 and 17) as well as a big chunk of 14 on this stuff. You should probably dig up what some of the other guys have done, they are regularly scrapping around also, throwing bogus allegations around very consistently, like Alniko's claims of vandalism, for instance. Please tell me what you are thinking and thanks again for the Alniko stuff. Blnguyen | rant-line 01:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your apportionment. You can see this by checking the respective marks that I left on their block logs. For example of ridiculous and unnecessary exchanges of fire, see Talk:Hindutva#Wikindian.27s_disgusting_attempts_to_excrete_hate amongst the rest of that page. Also it seems that when Subhash gets blocked and then rails against it on his talk page, the others always have an uncontrollable urge to respond despite the fact that he is blocked (which should say something...) - you can see more nonsense on Talk:Babri mosque, Talk:Californian Hindu textbook controversy aside from the specially made archives which I organised...Blnguyen | rant-line 04:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest you tread cautiously. Haphar, BhaiSaab, Geek, CiteCop, Wikindian etc. all have grudges against Netaji. They will flood pages Netaji edits with POV. They are merely trying to get him out of the wayBakaman _Bakatalk 04:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

From what I can see I suspect Bakasuprman to be a sockpuppet of Netaji... let me see if I can find evidence --Geek1975 06:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks...

...for weighing in here. I appreciate it -- I still haven't completely figured out how to deescalate things on this article.... BCorr|Брайен 15:42, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Blanking spree

That would be me. Take a little while at looking at the Leigh_Brackett_Solar_System#The_Worlds_of_Leigh_Brackett articles and you will surely agree they need that : what on earth are we having copies of the Mercury infobox, with scientific data from the 21st century on a Mercury in the fiction of Leigh Brackett article? And for that matter: post-1940s photos? Morwen - Talk 09:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikifying M. Krishnan Nair (doctor)

Hi, you marked this article as already being wikified. Check this edit out. It needed quite a bit more work to wikify it. For example I tagged it for copyedit (some of the grammar is suspect) there were quite alot of wikilinks to add and one of the section headers needed formatting. Just for future reference :D Its better to do few Good edits than loads of cursory ones... --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk)(Review me) 21:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppet of User:Subash_Bose

Hi, I have tagged user Bakasuprman as SockPuppet of Subash_Bose... I have provided evidence... is there anything else I need to do? Thanks. --Geek1975 08:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I think I might require your assistance... the above page seems to have gotten a little messed up after my posting the evidence... I cannot do an "edit this page" or edit a sub-section.... is it supposed to be like that? :-( --Geek1975 08:52, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again. Any idea who user:128.83.131.139 is... he's doing quite a lot of POV manipulation to the Gujarat article --Geek1975 10:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not a sockpuppet. Geek is merely trying to get Hindu users out of the way. Bakaman _Bakatalk 16:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The 128.83.131.139 IP is same as University of Texas, Austin and the edits smell of Neta.People dont want to get Hindu Users out of the way.They just want the Priory of Sangh to stay away just as they would like the British National Party to be away TerryJ-Ho

I dont care about the UTEX IP. I'm talking about my account. We don't want Muslim League bothering us either.Bakaman _Bakatalk 21:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

What of Indian National Congress

TerryJ-Ho 22:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

?

I had been accused of inciting trouble by Neta, In my response I gave my logic,and i objected to his language and asked him to refrain from using such language there was no attack. There was just one post and there is no "since then" too. Not even and changes made to any editing that Neta has done in the past. So where was the personal attack ? The posts on the talk pages had been made on 24th July and after an admin who had been notified did not act on them. Haphar 11:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I understand where you are coming from, with Blnguyen it's more to show that he has ignored issues brought to his notice, while he has been pretty free with minor transgressions of anyone opposed to Neta. (Even to you all his posts are about how the others have behaved.) A moot point to consider is why so many users get pissed off enough to gun for Neta ? I do not want to dwell on the topic anymore for now. I will get back later with more details rather than general comments. I will not act in haste, I will take some time off this subject and then return. Thanks for the advice. Haphar 15:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

There are an equal amount of users who don't support making wiki a soapbox for peoples anti-Hindu hatred. Also Haphar, you deserved a block for calling me a sock when I have 500 more edits than you and of course baiting Neta countless times.Bakaman _Bakatalk 22:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Let me ask a couple of questions. How appropriate is this ? [14].This request is put in by an admin. My issue is that my name is there in an accusation unrelated to the case, and the admin puts the comments verbatim. I suspect the admin to be biased and have said so, and he goes and does this. Also these comments by Neta are again accusatory, so his battle is being fought by an admin.

Now some quotes from the same admin to another user on another topic

"Administrators who using aggressive phrasing are an unfortunate fact of life, as admins generally as a rule do not block each other unless something horrible happens, or there is a clearcut numerical criteria for doing so like WP:3RR. It's pointless complaining about admin civility unless they use racist/bigoted language or swear and use personal attacks. Try and maintain high personal standards for yourself.

Don't bother trying to report this, being abrasive isn't really punishable (not for admins anyway)."

So admins do not have the civility rule to follow ? Also should the admin not be following the diktat of getting this issue under control and not helping in posting unsubstantiated accusations in an already heated case ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haphar (talk • contribs)

Well, you can name me Haphar. Please stop twisting my words. Where do I condone incivilty and personal attacks or where am I using them myself, as you seem to imply that I feel that I am above the law. I advised Hari not to got to ANI because the admins would just kick him. Blnguyen | rant-line 01:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Could possibly be a case of Wiki-Stockholm Stockholm syndrome if Admins become reluctant to using their rights in toto TerryJ-Ho 19:05, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah well that favors you doesn't it? You got three hours for calling me "paid agent", "fascist", and a "Hindutva POV Pusher".Bakaman _Bakatalk 22:07, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Continue this somewhere else please. Thanks. --Woohookitty^(meow) 05:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I would, but people with about 1/20 as many edits as me continue to call me a sock/meat puppet.Bakaman _Bakatalk 01:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

No "but". --Woohookitty^(meow) 01:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I like butts. --kizzle 07:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Peterklutz' latest sockpuppet?

Woolhookitty, Peterklutz may be back edit warring over the TM, Maharishi, and Yogic Flying articles under the possible sockpuppet name of "Peterjoe." Bishonen will be in Denmark until next week, so when you get back you might want to check this out. Askolnick 04:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Help on Robert Spencer

Would you please have a look at Robert Spencer. Some editors keep removing sourced material on Robert Spencer. (The controversy section). Thanks. --Reza1 18:58, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Kurt again....

Hi Woohookitty,

Kurt is back to his usual disruptive edits. Just back from his block, he started an edit war on Benito Mussolini and edited a lot of articles in a no-consensus way. I don't know what to do with him at this stage. What do you think?

Best, Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 01:10, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

"he started an edit war on Benito Mussolini" I did not start the edit war. Look at the talk page. Also, I don't know who this Ironplay is, but he has a strange habid of reverting articles I edit. As a matter of fact, his behaviour is strangely similiar to SuperDeng's. I would be thankful if Grafikm would see things more clearly. Do you really think that I like being banned? Of course not. I don't like reverts war either. I'am trying to improve my own behaviour. Kurt.

Kurt, I'm more than willing to assume good faith from you, but in some cases, it is quite difficult. Regarding Battle of Smolensk (1943) for instance, you should have posted on the talk page beforehand if you doubted something. It is an FA, so it was reviewed and any information posted there was verified and sourced. However, you still had to go through four reverts before actually reading the section explaining your doubts and accepting the whole thing. It is specifically indicated on the article's talk that I maintain the thing, so if you have doubts or questions, drop me a message instead of engaging into revert wars... That's what the talk page is for, especially on high-quality articles such as FAs.

Woohookitty: Sorry to clutter your talk page, but I think it is important -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 11:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Revert stub removal

Hi,

I've recently reverted your stubsensor removal of the stub templates on History of optics. This article is sorely incomplete and needs attention.

Please be more careful with your removals.

Thanks --SteveMcCluskey 13:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Email

It says on your userpage that the email link is working, I tried sending a mail but got a message that the user has not specified an email id. Can you do something about it ? I wanted to discuss an issue. Haphar 06:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Sent Haphar 07:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Richard Family page

I appreciate what you are saying but I no longer want to contribute to your site. I am not offended that my article is being deleted. Infact I am requesting Immediate deletion of my article from this site. My issue is with your standards here. I have noticed that Stavros Niarchos III has a page here. Other then the fact that he is currently sleeping with a so-called " celebrity " I dont see his significance. However it is irrelivent I am again requesting an Immediate deletion of my article from this site. Since I dont antisipate there will be any problems prosessing my request I will thank you in advance for your time and effort. Good Day.Vaio12 03:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Woohookitty

Thanks for being a good and honest admin. And anyone with a name like Woohookitty has gotta be cool. I mean this sincerely. Thanks again. Whiskey Rebellion 21:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

cool...and meow! Whiskey Rebellion 00:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

template question

Woohoo, I have a question. Should a template be included in an article that is not specifically included in the template itself? Justforasecond is being blocked for 3RR, but it involves his removing {{Christianity}} from Jews for Jesus. Can you tell me where the policy is on this? I can't find it. Thanks. Whiskey Rebellion 20:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey, Woohoo, thanks for your responses. I can see it both ways, too. One thing I did was click some of the links in the infobox itself. One link was to denominations which did include a piece about Jews for Jesus. I personally don't know, though, if it is accurate to call Jews for Jesus a denomination of Chrisitanity. Thanks again. Whiskey Rebellion 01:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Can you kiss it and make it all better...

I think I made a boo boo... I was playing around in the sandbox and made a template called "ontopic" which did not exist, then I edited it and inserted some nonsense... But now I think I might have permananantly created a wikipedia template called "ontopic" with garbage in it... could you please delete it ;-) ?? sorry to trouble you, I know that AS A FELLOW POKER PLAYER you will have lots of time to kill since you just folded some unplayable cards and you have a bit of time to kill ;-) - Abscissa 02:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Woohoothanku

Hi Woohookitty, Thanks for the assistance and for explaining this to me because I thought wikify meant that it would go in a category where people see it to make improvements, etc. Also, sounds like redirecting will be easy, thank goodness. :) By the way, I have 2 cats (my husband says I love them more than I love him) and I collect Hello Kitty stuff, so I am partial to your user name. Happy Woohoowiking to you, KarateLadyKarateLady 12:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Again, a personal attack

Now he's insulting my grammar and typos in a seemingly desperate attempt to put some form of personal attack in every comment. He also makes a lame excuse for his previous personal attack, which only makes it look like more of a personal attack than it originally looked like. -- LGagnon 13:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. I appreciate it. -- LGagnon 22:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Need help on Amnesty International

Hi, Woohoo. I was wondering if you could check into something for me that it is a quite serious matter. At Amnesty International User:Donnachadelong keeps reverting edits made by me and User:Humus sapiens, and others in an obvious effort to keep facts out of this article that s/he doesn't like. She admits that she works for this organization (on her page) but insists on editing it anyway in a way that shows that she has an obvious agenda. She attacks me repeatedly and wrongly on talk:Amnesty International and insulsts Humus sapiens in his/her edit summaries. On September 3, yesterday, she reverted our edits 10 times [15]. I would be grateful if you would look in on this situation. Thanks kindly. Whiskey Rebellion 04:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Woohoo! Whiskey Rebellion 04:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Ha. Whiskey Rebellion 04:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Steve Irwin

Sorry but while you were protecting it I was adding [[Category:Entertainers who died in their 40s|Irwin, Steve]] to his categories but submitted after protection. Could you add that for me thanks? --- Lid 05:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Oops I just saw it was the article talk page, not administrator talk page, to get new edits on the page, I've never had to deal with a page being fully protected before. Sorry about using your talk page. --- Lid 05:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Protection

I don't think it's necessary to lock down a page just because it becomes a current event. And if the vandalism can be solved with semi-protection we should go to that first rather than jumping immediately to full protection. --Cyde Weys 05:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

70.135.108.251

Thanks so much my pal! If you ever need anything, hit me up on IRC! :) --CableModem 11:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Unprotection of Diana Irey

In fact, when JzG semi-protected the article, he claimed that an anonymous editor had failed to discuss or debate the changes made. However, if you'll review [the Talk page], then you'll find that said anonymous editor — me — had been for a time the only person discussing or debating things, and had created and been the creätor of and principal contributor to most of the sections of the discussion page. Further, if you'll check JzG's other edits at the time that he imposed the semi-protection, then you'll find that he used my alleged failure to discuss or debate as an excuse to undo edits by non-anonymous editors — surreptitiously and thus without discussion or debate! These matters are further labored on the Discussion page for the article. —12.72.70.103 11:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Sydney Harbour Bridge

You and I have both removed vandalism from the above article today. Our vandal has left an abusive comment in the history which I'm sure many of our readers would find offensive. As an admin, I was just wondering if you have any way of removing it? amitch 11:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

BubbaQuinn block

Hi there. Could I ask you to reconsider your indefinite block of BubbaQuinn as a vandal-only account. I don't think that 4 vandalistic edits on one day constitutes grounds for an indefinite block. In time the user might realise they were being an idiot and start to contribute constructively; if they don't, then an indefinite block can always be imposed later. Regards, The Land 11:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Steve Irwin

Hello,

You removed "Within minutes of his death, his Wikipedia article was vanadalised; this was picked up by several news agencies [16]." because it mentioned Wikipedia and was self reference. While this is true, it is valid because it (the vandalism) made the news, and is considered surprisingly important by some people. Therefore, please reinstate it. Cheers, 84.9.85.122 11:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I see nothing majorly wrong here Ansell 11:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Except the Essendon prolific statement. Ansell 11:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the self-reference issue, naturally we as Wikipedians consider things relating to Wikipedia to be notable more readily than the outside world would tend to do; because of this, we have to be careful to avoid excessive self-reference because that is a bias. On the other hand, the mainstream media is tending to find Wikipedia more notable and relevant these days, so there are occasions where we can't avoid self-reference if we don't want to cultivate a bias against Wikipedia on Wikipedia! But we have to be careful to set a high enough bar for such references that we only include them when they're truly important to outsiders. I'm not sure one news story happening to mention the article vandalism qualifies, though if this gets widely picked up by the media it might be another story. *Dan T.* 12:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Not Spamming

Hello,

The external links I have added to the C.S. Lewis Society of California are not spamming. Each relates directly to program areas of this web site. If there are any that you find questionable, please advise and I will be delighted to explain the matter. --Shadow the Dog

Au Contraire

Hello,

I understand your point, but this would be like having a web page on Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations, claiming that an external link to a site on Smith himself or a society devoted to analyzing Smith's work would be inappropriate, expecially if such sites have many articles that focus on the book in question.

If on the other hand an external link were added to the Wealth of Nations site that was on a site on say Charles Dickens, Winston Churchill, Queen Elizabeth, or the GDP of England, then I would see the inappropriateness.

The Lewis site is one that would be of obvious use to anyone exploring the Lewis book pages on Wikipedia, especially in Lewis's case in which his overall approach to a book like Mere Christianity or The Abolition of Man is a theme that runs throughout almost all of his other work and his life itself. In Lewis's case, he authored many books, and hence the relevance of the Lewis Society external links to many of them. Other authors on Wikipedia either did not author so many works or Wikipedia has chosen not to feature separate pages on each work. In addition, Wikipedia usually distinguishes between external links and reference links, and I have only suggested adding the Lewis Society link to the former.

Again, I do not see that adding the Lewis Society qualifies as spamming. It is obviously germane information and clearly pertinent for anyone interested in the topic of a web page on Lewis's work. Moreover, no real spammer would take the time to argue for such a linking and only on such a very specific subject area that anyone would clearly see is relevant.

The same also holds for links for the Independent Institute site which again relates to very specific topics for which the Independent site features many thousands of articles. It is an obviously pertinent source of information on these exact subjects. --Shadow the Dog

Apologies

Apologies for the comment:P Do you think you could have a look at Khatri for an sprotect? it would be helpful, I'm not sure exactly what the vandalism is, but I've had it explained to me that the changes the vandals make often use Hindu insults, and TBH, anyone who proclaims they are showing the truth is suspect to the max. HawkerTyphoon 09:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Just an aside: He also hits Kshattri at the same time. I'm thinking of investigating on WP:ABREP, but we'll see what happens. HawkerTyphoon 10:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, sleep would be nice. But no time for that now. Good luck with your edits, and Thankyou :) HawkerTyphoon 10:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

More vandalism.

Swedish language is experiencing a rather obvious WP:POINT-related revert war by the same IP-range as before. How about semi-protection of the Swedish article and a block of User:ALDRI MER 1814!? The user doesn't seem to be interested in any kind of self-scrutiny.

Peter ^Isotalo 10:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Re:Subhash_bose

Yeah man, things have been getting out of hand there. I still feel a bit of loyalty to the user who took me under his wing when I was a wikiNoob. I hope he changes after the break for his sake.Bakaman _Bakatalk 01:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Hipcrime (Usenet)

Could we get an sprotect, he's on his 3rd proxy of the day.--Crossmr 05:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

er 4th...--Crossmr 05:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm glad the request I made not that long ago to have it sprotected was denied...;) --Crossmr 05:18, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

excessive reverts and personal attacks

Hey Woohoo, I left a similar request on Samir's page but think he's off the wiki. We have a problem over at anarchism. User:Donnachadelong is reverting like mad. He's also doing nasty edit summaries and personal attacks on talk:anarchism. So far today he has already done 17 edits, [17] many of which are reverts of edits that he doesn't like because they don't coincide with his personal idea of anarchism, which is clear POV pushing. As you know, he already has been warned for excessive reverts (10 edits at Amnesty International on Sept. 3 [18]), so he's not new at this revert thing. Nor is he a stranger to personal attacks. Please see talk:Amnesty International, and has been warned for that, too. Can you check into this at the anarchism article. Thanks, Woohoo. Whiskey Rebellion 20:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Last time I checked it was 31 edits today. Justforasecond got blocked innuerable times for doing 4 reverts. I will admit that both of us, Donnacha and myself, got incivil, though. Whiskey Rebellion 03:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Sorry to bother you again with all this. Whiskey Rebellion 04:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

Er, wow! Thank you for the kind words and pointy present. It means a lot coming from you. :-) Dmcdevit·t 22:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

job

Sounds like some jobs I've had, (cleaning up messes), and the pay wasn't much better than you're getting either. Whiskey Rebellion 04:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to congratulate you on some great efforts

Over the past few months I have been doing some Wikipedia edits myself and noticed how well you happened to have handled the rude situation in the discussion section for the Halle Berry page with PennyGwoods, to which I contribute some comments in case you noticed. He/she was rude and didn't need to be behaving the way he/she was and I would like to congratulate you for your acceptable and generally level-headed handling of the situation. Congrats goes to you! :) I would also, seeing as how well you handled the situation, like to ask for your future assistance in the creation of an article that I and some other Wikipedians have created that has already been deleted twice for reasons of advertising and non-notability. When I get enough notable info for it to go back up again, I would love to have your assistance in making it Wikipedia friendly as I am admittedly a rookie at Wikipedia editing and have had trouble trying to understand what constitutes the reasons for my articles' deletion. This won't be for a while though. Thanx for your time. Also on a lighter note, it was a coincidence but I also seen your contributions to the Steve Irwin page by chance. It's a small world isn't it? Vgamer101 04:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

The anarchism article and it's history

Hey, Woohoo. Thanks for your fairness. I'm not sure if there is a possibility, either. There is a very real and a very old problem on the anarchism article. I have been leafing through the old anarchism talk archives and the debate over whether anarcho-capitalism should be allowed in the article has been going on since 2004. I am serious! Look at this: Talk:Anarchism/Archive5 and it can be found on every page since, I think. This is clear and simple ownership of the article. The communist anarchists will not let any serious edits in if they are about individualist or especially anarcho-capitalist anarchism. It doesn't matter how well the edits are sourced. Nothing matters but keeping U.S. libertarian anarchism out of this article, because the communists insist that it is not valid...on and on. It has ended up, for a long while, being a bickering bitch fest, and nothing ever changes. It is just plain wrong. And if a person looks back in the archive history it is real easy to see that most of the insulting and personal attacks have been made by several of them at once against one an-cap or just plain U.S. anarchist. You can't win over there unless you are communist. This is clear. Whiskey Rebellion 05:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Woohoo, I don't know the procedure here. What do you suggest..arbcom case or mediation? Should we get a meditator? I don't even know if a mediator for an article is the same as a personal mediator. Isn't the 31 reverts a serious infraction of policy? I don't know. This whole thing is actually getting me depressed. You're right about a cooling off period. It won't solve a thing in the long run, though, like you said. Well have a good night, if you still can. Thanks again. :) Whiskey Rebellion 05:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Hullo, Woohoo. It took me some time to get some stuff together. Now that I looked at it better, myself, I can see that it wasn't mostly reverts, but edits. Here is what I got..a lot of POV and one revert. Sorry about that. But still look at the bias. (Remember, this goes on all the time. This is just one editor.)

[19] revert

[20] knock-down an-cap

[21] knock-down an-cap

[22] knock-down individualist an"

[23] Big knock-down an-cap"

[24] more Big knock-down an-cap"

[25] "POV"

[26] "POV"

Whiskey Rebellion 06:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

This is unbelievable, virtually all of those were backed by cites, were adding balance or were simple sub-editing. I also do not accept that the statement that got me banned was uncivil, it was absolutely factual - he did bring the argument over gun control over from the AI article. Donnacha 14:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Most of what Whiskey has written above is rather skewed imo. First, most of the editors on the Anarchism article who are attempting to prevent ancap POV pushing, of which there is a consistent and malignant history, are NOT communist anarchists. Whiskey continuosly and erroneously identifies everyone who disagrees with him as communists and has often alluded to "communist plots/conspiracies." I am not a communist anarchist but rather an anarchist-without-adjectives, which means i am accepting of all forms of anarchism as to be otherwise would be contrary to the basic principles of anarchism. I am a US anarchists and most US anarchists are not of the ancap variety as Whiskey might lead you to believe. There aren't even many non-US folks editing the article as far as I know. I am in opposition to DTC, Whiskey, etc as editors becuase they are attempting to coopt a page for their own purposes without consensus. We are not trying to expel ancap from the article at all. Furthermore, when it comes to personal attacks, Whiskey and DTC accused me several times of being a sockpuppet. That is probaly the worst kind of attack and I proved it false easily, but i don't see any admins blocking them. While I feel a cooling off period is a grand idea and I have been mainly abstaining from the article this week anyhow, my primary concern is that you as an admin remain fair and impartial despite that you seem to already have a relationship with Whiskey. Lastly, Donnacha's edits above were mostly appropriate. Piece, Blockader 16:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for your intervention regarding TamilLand's disruption of the LTTE article. Addhoc 13:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Good you blocked user TamilLand - he has not added anything of value, not engaged in discussion neither on the article's discussion page nor his own. He was a pain, thanks again for blocking him! Ulflarsen 13:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

the anarchism chaos

Woohoo, just here to thank you for your help. What goes on there, and has for so long, is serious. I feel kind of bad because this time I did contribute to the battle and hostility on the talk page. I don't blame you if you block me, too. You are a good admin..a fair and balanced admin. That's what an admin should be in my book. Again, sorry for the trouble and thanks. Whiskey Rebellion 18:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

New baseball article improvement drive

Baseball

Greetings fellow WikiProject Baseball member! Just a quick note: there is now an article improvement drive just for baseball-related articles at WP:BBAID. Please take a look and vote on an article or add one of your own. Once an article has been agreed upon, feel free to stop by and lend a hand in getting it to featured article status. Hope you can participate! —Wknight94 (talk) 00:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Banned user

The user ALDRI MER 1814! seems not to have understood that he is blocked from wikipedia and unfortunately some users have not noticed that either and continue to engage the user in discussions on Talk:Riksmål. The user has since his ban issued war threats. I am giving you this heads up since you blocked him and might have some ideas as to how to deal with him further. Inge 14:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Baseball scorekeeping

Greetings. I've seen your name on quite a few baseball-related pages lately, and also noticed that you are part of the cleanup taskforce. The current article on this topic (linked above) has been tagged for about three months, and the example has several blatant errors. As a former official scorer, and still "the guy with the clipboard" at my local park, I've completely redone it in my own userspace (User:Dakern74/Baseball_scorekeeping). Except I've had trouble rounding up volunteers to look it over and provide any feedback. I didn't want to just replace the existing page without a couple other sets of eyes. If you get a chance, could you browse my rewrite and let me know what you think? Much appreciated. -- dakern74 (talk) 04:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Deletion review for Piotr blass

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Piotr blass. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. GRBerry 21:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

He's at it again

AOluwatoyin just got back, and he's made another personal attack, using his usual "you're as untalented as a freshman" theme. -- LGagnon 00:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Woohookitty, I'm a neutral observer in the LGagnon/AOluwatoyin dispute but due to past problems with LGagnon I've been watching her/him like a hawk in recent months, and I would suggest s/he is one of the worst offenders regarding personal attacks on Wikipedia. My suggestion to you is to remain neutral in this dispute. I read the so called "personal attack" as referenced above and in my view it is valid constructive criticism, if somewhat terse. C'est la vie!. As an administrator you must act in an impartial manner. When there is any doubt whatsoever that a personal attack has occurred or if it not highly egregious or threatening in nature, then it is your duty to err on the side of caution and defend freedom of speech. Remember, freedom of speech in its very nature often involves some people taking offence. LGagnon is capable of fighting her/his own battles with written argument. S/he must be advised in no uncertain terms that it is unacceptable to keep running to an administrator looking for a block everytime someone challenges or criticises her writing. I'm certain you are aware of the inherent dangers in appeasing such behaviour. It is anti-intellectual in nature.--207.161.6.149 01:44, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

You are a sock puppet account, and a very obvious one at that (you don't even write differently). You're just making your situation worse. -- LGagnon 01:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I am absolutely not a sock puppet for AOluwatoyin. I am a neutral oberver who has been closely following this dispute, again, because I have had problems with LGagnon in the past, though note that I argued my point and did not request any sort of block be applied. Isn't calling someone a sock puppet simply on a wild guess with absolutely no substantiating evidence a personal attack in and of itself? Indeed, it's rather libellous. --207.161.6.149 02:06, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to butt-in but I heard the word "libellous". This sounds like a job for CheckUser! (queue Superman music) —Wknight94 (talk) 02:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

First of all, you wrote in the same exact style as him here. Second of all, you make the same exact personal attacks as him there. At best, you are asking to be banned for just that personal attack, at worst (and most likely) you will be banned for both unethical sock puppetry and personal attacks. -- LGagnon 02:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I really do not know what personal attack LGagnon referring to. I am not AOluwatoyin, and I wish s/he would stop threatening to ask an administrator to ban everybody who s/he has a disagreement with. It's absolutely ridiculous and anti-intellectual. I did not write the "personal attack" that one is directed to in the link. I made a comment regarding his earlier comments on LGagnon's talk page. I do not think advising someone to act in a more civilised fashion and to be more careful with their spelling and grammar is a "personal attack", it is merely good advice, which by all means should be heeded. I'm wondering if LGagnon actually knows what a personal attack is? Now, what I would suggest is, that accusing someone of being a sockpuppet without any foundation whatsoever is a personal attack. Just so we know what the poicy is, appended below is Wikipedia's guide to personal attacks:

Specific examples of personal attacks include but are not limited to:

Accusatory comments such as "George is a troll" (or as per LGagnon, "you are a sockpuppet"), or "Laura is a bad editor" can be considered personal attacks if said repeatedly, in bad faith, or with sufficient venom. Negative personal comments and "I'm better than you" attacks, such as "You have no life." Racial, sexual, homophobic, ageist, religious or ethnic epithets directed against another contributor. (Disagreement over what constitutes a religion, race, sexual preference, or ethnicity is not a legitimate excuse.) Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views — regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme. Profanity directed against another contributor. Threats of legal action. Threats of violence, including death threats. Threats of vandalism to userpages or talk pages. May be direct or indirect. Threats or actions which expose other Wikipedia editors to political, religious or other persecution by government, their employer or any others. Violations of this sort may result in a block for an extended period of time which may be applied immediately by any sysop upon discovery. Sysops applying such sanctions should confidentially notify the members of the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee and Jimbo Wales of what they have done and why. Posting a link to an external source that fits the commonly-accepted threshold for a personal attack, in a manner that incorporates the substance of that attack into Wikipedia discussion. Suggesting a link applies to another editor, or that another editor needs to visit a certain link, that contains the substance of an attack.

Also, just for the record, asserting that a statement is libellous does not in and of itself threaten legal action.

Finally, if I write in a similar style to AOluwatoyin I thank you for the compliment. He is an excellent writer and an esteemed intellectual. --142.161.176.66 05:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Please don't do this here. Thanks. --Woohookitty^(meow) 05:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Disruptive and nasty editor at talk:anarchism

Hey, Woohoo. We were doing really well at talk:anarchism and discussing article changes with civility and respect, until an anonymous editor: 69.164.74.68 came into the picture. He is being really nasty and insulting. Can you come over there and check into it? Thanks a lot. Whiskey Rebellion 02:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Thewolfstar

It has already been presented a number of times on WP:AN/I, with very little disagreement. A simple comparison between the contributions -- especially talk page discussions -- of User:Whiskey Rebellion, User:Thewolfstar, User:KingWen, and User:Lingeron is quite enough. --69.164.74.68 12:38, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Aaron S. and the guards of Anarchism

I just found where you are saying that you think I'm Thewolfstar. [27]

You said that, "Thewolfstar was blocked indefinitely for constant incivility." I am not at all uncivil. And you said "And Whiskey didn't really deny being Thewolfstar" Look at my talk page and look here. [28] [29] I denied being Lingeron or Thewolfstar. I didn't even know what they were talking about for a while. And I've already told people that I've known markup language since I was a kid. Wikipedia didn't invent this markup. It comes from html and css. I'm telling you right now that I am not Thewolfstar, Lingeron or any other user.

So you ignored what was an actually really nasty, insulting comment: Talk:Anarchism#Article_needs_a_lot_of_work"I am not any one of the editors who are editing this article. You speak of accusation as if it is an inherently bad thing; it is not. I accuse you of bringing substantive discussion of this article to a standstill and replacing it with barely pseudo-intellectual theoretical discussion that belongs on an Internet BBS. This may hurt your feelings and upset you. Allow me to thinly sugarcoat it in bureaucratic Wikipedia platitudes: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. :) Perhaps we should discuss the article at hand, and not engage in theoretical discourse. :) I am not accusing you of doing so, as I would not want to assume bad faith! :) But maybe you should shut up. :) Happy editing! :)" --69.164.74.68 01:43, 11 September 2006 (UTC)", and instead got a checkuser for me who you are thinking is Thewolfstar? I have never said anything even remotely close to that kind of rudeness or meanness. I also read your comments to AaronS at the An/i AaronS was downright insulting to you when you blocked him and behaved just like a spoiled child. And 69.164.74.68 01:43 sounds just like him. He has the same snide way of talking, which he uses toward everyone he wants to get out of the way of his article, (anarchism)..or to admins who admonish him.

Look at what DanT says about editing this article User_talk:Dtobias "Been there, done that... not particularly eager to jump into that snake pit again. *Dan T.* 20:31, 10 September 2006 (UTC)". Look at the anarchism talk pages. This has been going on for a long time. Every anarcho-capitalist that tries to edit is accused of being a sockpuppet of Hogeye, RJII, or Thewolfstar. Vision Thing was accused of it. That'sHot was accused of being Thewolfstar or RJII. TheIndividualist was accused of it. I was also accused of being maybe Hogeye or RJII. Do You see a pattern here? They are locking this article down and not allowing any libertarians edit it. I even found where The Ungovernable Force was trying to get RJII banned to begin with. Two-bitSprite left Wikipedia because of all the accusations and bickering. (See his page and parting comments.) For two years now. Two years. Somebody has to do something. You have just helped them keep this article locked down by ignoring their personal attacks and listening to their accusations instead. Whiskey Rebellion 04:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

the checkuser

Oh. I apologize, Woohoo. I thought you were saying that you thought I was thewolfstar. It is good that they get a checkuser. I am upset about AaronS and The Ungovernable Force. The Ungovernable Force put a template on my page that says I am a suspected sockpuppet of Thewolfstar. I took it off, because an admin says you don't have to keep it there. Can you look at the talk page and the last few archives of talk:anarchism. I'm not kidding, Woohoo. It's outrageous what they are doing. Thanks a lot. Whiskey Rebellion 05:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Aaron isn't even around anymore. I responded to the issue about the tag on my talk. I have very strong reasons to suspect you are a sock Whiskey, and I have the right to put that tag on your page. People have had the tags placed on their page for much less. Anyway, I've barely been involved in the anarchism discussion the last few days. I only got back involved very recently and have been pretty fair I think. If you Woohoo think I've been grossly uncivil, please tell me. I think Whiskey is blowing things out of proportion though, at least with regards to me. I think any close look at the current talk page will show more than anything that Whiskey's comments are virtually identical to Lingeron's, which only furthers suspicion. Ungovernable Force^{The Wiki Kitchen!} 05:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Peter Brock

This edit, although not paticuarly constructive - was correct. He did act in Bridgestone ads and there was a lizard (gecko) in them. JUst thougth you might like to know. Viridae^Talk 08:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Indian religious battles

Hello. Could you look at the inane sparring between Baka and Haphar on Subhash's talk page again? Haphar didn't seem to take my request to stop this sort of argument too well. Thanks, Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 02:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Could you guys all stop sparing for at least a day? It's just incredible to me. --Woohookitty(meow) 11:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Haphar"

Absolutely.- But only for 1 day. :-). Haphar 19:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

False accusations and a thanks

You're the first to get my new Wolf-Catcher Award! Thanks! Ungovernable Force^{The Wiki Kitchen!} 03:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

FYI, the accusation Whiskey Reb makes on their talk page about me making a negative comment towards you on my mood meter is false. I had commented about abusive admins, and was purposefully vague to avoid making an attack on anyone, or even revealing what issue I was discussing. Whiskey Reb is saying it was directed towards you, but it absolutely was not. It didn't even involve the anarchism page (although the other comment I made at the same time did), and as far as I know, I made that comment before you even got involved. It was days before you protected the page. It was a totally unrelated issue. BTW, it's not on my page anymore (as I just updated my mood meter to express my happiness with the recent developments). Still in the history though if you want to see it. I didn't want to argue it on Whiskey's page because I'm afraid responding would just provoke them.

As for the other comments they make, I trust you will be disregarding them completely--thewolfstar always makes these same protestations when caught with a sock (look at Lingeron and KingWen's talk pages). You probably knew that already, but I thought I'd make sure just in case. Anyways, thanks again. Ungovernable Force^{The Wiki Kitchen!} 03:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Eh? [30] Ungovernable Force^{The Wiki Kitchen!} 06:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

School IP's

If they go on a rage why not softblock... a strong majority of the legit editors from schools are using an account anyways, blocking while allowing logged in users to edit seems to be the best way to handle the kids who act up. -- Tawker 12:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, you have a good point there. I based my "majority of editors using accounts" based on the extremely slim margin of good edits on most of those IP's (maybe 1 in 100...) - IP range blocks are usually avoided (we even manage to keep AOL clean half of the time) and it seems to work. As long as the rule of TB2 (getting on it's repeat vandal list usually blocks someone) works to to stop damage rather than pre-empt all is well :) - Thanks for the note -- Tawker 16:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Closed move

You closed the discusion on Croatian War of Independence, but you didn't remove the template from the top. Could you do that? If I did it, I'd probably be acused of... whatever. --Dijxtra 14:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Socks

Could you ask haphar to stop calling established users socks? [31] [32] [33] and when he actually told me to "get a life" [34].Bakaman _Bakatalk 01:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, actually he "claims to have" stopeed calling me a sock of Subhash_bose though he says "you have been accused of being a sock" (meaning he really wishes to believe it). Most of the diffs are relating to User:Hkelkar and User:Subhash_bose and how Haphar still thinks they are the same even though this was disproved by chechuser.Bakaman _Bakatalk 02:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks and request further help on Khatri

I want to thank you for protecting the Khatri page.

There is one individual who is still keeps trying to redirect the Khatri article to another misleading article Kshattri he has created.

He has recently done it done using the login Onestone. I believe that he is the same person with logins

• Ikonoblast
• Holywarrior
• IQKapoor
• Vikram Idiot Singh

etc.

--ISKapoor 01:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Ikonoblast is Holywarrior (under a new name from WP:USERNAME). Vikramsingh is totally different.Bakaman _Bakatalk 01:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Move of Roman Catholic Church in Canada

You wrote: I rejected the move. 2 problems. First of all, we already have a Roman Catholicism in Canada article. And secondly, we do have Roman Catholic Church in... articles.

Yes, the Roman Catholicism in Canada article exists, in fact that's why I put in the move request. That article is a stub, it needs to be deleted before the other article can be moved - I said this in the move request. It's obvious that the norm is "Roman Catholicism in X" for the name - I'm not going to count them but it looks like 90% that way. The other 10% should be moved too, but this article needs special attention because of the stub article in the way. Gimmetrow 11:21, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is hell

And the admins allow it to be such. I'm taking no more messages from anyone until the admins end their "blame the victim" attack on me and stop the harassment. -- LGagnon 22:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

AOluwatoyin isn't the only problem. His sock puppet anon has been harassing me, and nobody has done anything about him. I've tried PAIN as usual, but my entry was deleted by an admin immediately. I'm told to use DR, but I've got even less results from them. Then there's arbitration, which I trust even less. I don't want to go to them because I'm pretty sure they'll get a direct order from Jimbo to have me banned without anything close to a fair trial or good excuse (it's his encyclopedia, and his cult under the microscope; why wouldn't he want to ban a person who wants to expose the ugly history of the cult he follows). -- LGagnon 13:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

The above comments go beyond what can be tolerated in this forum, and I've posted them to Jimbo's talk page. It is clear that LGagnon is continuing to indulge in the most foul personal attacks with regard to everyone, even Wikipedia admins, referring to the latter as "vandal-coddling", and now our esteemed founder. He never backs up his unthinking assertions. He simply asserts. Also his revert of everything on his talk page, and what is now written there, is very much against the spirit of Wikipedia. I realise you're buddy buddy with this user, but enough is enough. Time for a fairly substantial block so the user gets the message that this type of behaviour can no longer be allowed to continue. --207.161.2.112 19:16, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

I wanted to thank you, now that I'm temporarily around again, for protecting anarchism and keeping a closer eye on it. Also, I would like to thank you for helping to deal with User:Whiskey Rebellion/User:Thewolfstar. I know that we have disagreed in the past, but I sincerely feel that you're trying to do the right thing, so keep it up. --AaronS 01:28, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Apology accepted. :) I know that you were acting in good faith, so no harm done. Like I said, you're doing a good job, and I'm sure that you'll continue to do so. --AaronS 03:26, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppet?

So, User:LGagnon calls me a sockpuppet, then, when I post a message defending myself on his talk, he can just revert it and call it harrassment? Is it against Wikipedia standards to revert his talk page to include my defense of myself? Normally, I wouldn't do such a thing (and I have no intention of doing so if it is against Wikipedia standards), but I have a problem with allowing his baseless accusations to stand uncorrected. LaszloWalrus 05:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of socks, would you mind imposing a semi-protect on the Category:Objectivism? Banned User:Alienus has been reverting my edits without comment using anon socks usually merely summarizing his edits as "rv v." Thanks. LaszloWalrus 05:41, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. LaszloWalrus 13:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Anarchism

Do you think it might be time to unprotect the anarchism page now that whiskey's gone. Might as well get as much productive editing in now as possible before another sock shows up. Ungovernable Force^{Got something to say?} 06:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Cool. BTW, it looks like Tony turned down Aaron's request to reopen his case (hard to tell for sure if that's what is meant or not). I just posted a message there in his defence. I don't know for sure what your feelings are on the probation, but I'd appreciate it if you offered your thoughts. Thanks. RfAR/Intangible Ungovernable Force^{Got something to say?} 06:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Civility Issue

Hi, I saw that you mentioned something to another editor that gave the impression that reverting other people's comments is generally a not acceptable. Someone has deleted my comments which is not only uncivil in and of itself, but is also apparently an attempt to hide his other uncivil behavior.

When I mentioned his incivility on his talk page, he first responded trying to make people think I was infinitely more uncivil than him, which is simply not the case. He then deleted the entire section, even though I did not say anything to warrant this reversion. Everything that even hinted at his uncivil behavior was removed. I was wondering if you would mind taking a look at what he rolled back, as well as a comment he put on my talk page and tell me what you think/take action if necessary.

I thank you greatly for reading this section, and any help or advice you could give would be much appreciated.

• Reversion of comments that address his uncivil behavior
• Comment he made on my talk page

Markovich292 03:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

User Markovich has been filing bogus reports on users, first on user:Thuran X and now on me. The one being uncivil all along was Markovich himself. Btw, he fails to mention he deleted my comments on his user-page. Deleting irrelevant bad faith comments like Markovich is doing is allowed. I've removed this section, and the whole talk is being disucssed at one place, not twice - which is unproductive. Amoruso 15:24, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

look at his audacity : [35] unbelievable. Amoruso 15:26, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I hate to bother you again, but I just don't know what to do. Amoruso is continuing to be uncivil. As you can see, he keeps saying that I am being uncivil, all while making snide comments himself. He didn't even handle your comment on his userpage in a civil manner. [36]

Beyond that, he wrote these later:

• [37]
• [38]

Also, I was wondering if you could give your opinion on the diff that Amoruso provided above. As it says within the new material, I removed it as a personal attack, and now Amoruso is using that as an excuse to blank out my completely civil messages.

Just so you know all of the details, here is the so-called "bogus" "harassment" in connection to his comments on ThuranX. Other admins have agreed that it is probably uncivil at the very least.

Thank you for all of your time and help in this matter, Markovich292 22:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

MY God you're just unbelievable Markovich. Is there anyone in the world that HAS being civil to you ? You're way too touchy you should have that checked out before going around accusing everyone in wikipedia. Just leave me alone, don't personal attack me - these accusations in adminstrators' pages constitute extreme personal attacks , don't vandalize my page, and relax. Amoruso 22:41, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing "UNCIVIL" in what I wrote not here not on my page and not anywhere. It's all in your head. Btw, your contiuing filing and complaing to adminstrators is extremely worrying. If you read the wikipedia guidelines, you'd see that handling "personal attacks" this way are only the last resort after continuous harsh personal attacks. Nothing not by me not by anyone else towards you even came close to that threshold. You're violating wikipedia policy and indeed you're harrassing me. This is closing to wikihate and wikistalking and you should cease immediately. Amoruso 22:43, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Interestingly, Markovich has now even blamed the mediator of AM case as being uncivil. (!) This I'm afraid is somewhat of an obsession by now. Amoruso 23:05, 16 September 2006 (UTC) [39]

Here is why that is: [40] Markovich292 23:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

This is even more worrying to me since Markovich has been extremely uncivil in the original page and instead of looking at the mirror, goes on a spree blaming the whole world. Comments like ":Did you even bother to read the source assosciated with that quote?" are not civil. [41] but were said by Markovich. Accusing other of "off topic rambling" is not civil either, and "If you don't understand that, I'm not going to take the time to explain it further." not either [42] but markovich said them freely. "Maybe if you actually answer my question I will do the same for yours." is pretty snappy as well. Telling someone "You were, and still are, the one who is acting in bad faith." [43] is wrong too, climaxing in things like "Either way, your hyperbole is both unfounded and childish. Markovich292 03:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)". It seems Markovich feels wikipedia is simply his turf. Amoruso 23:15, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

For the record:

• In the first example, what Amoruso fails to mention is that I asked him to read a source, and all he did was respond to WikiQuote.
• He previously stated that I have a "one-man-vendetta" and said "it's more arrogant than anything. And these attempts of yours to change the discussion are not serious." Those comments obviously are not related to the issue and therefore off topic rambling.
• That is quite civil and totally within policy to say considering you have clearly made comments that were not assuming good faith. Markovich292 01:27, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
• The "unfounded hyperbole" comment was to ThuranX because he said "Listen, genius, I couldn't change your mind with a bone saw and an icecream scoop." Markovich292 01:32, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

You two both need to take a break from each other. --Woohookitty^(meow) 01:07, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

We actually had such a break. Here is the second thing Amoruso said when he returned: [44] Markovich292 01:30, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I asked him to leave me alone and take a break from me. I don't even care about the MA anymore, I just want him to leave me. Btw, the hyocrisy continues : he removed all my post and warning in his page : [45] can you actually believe that ? He comes to you complaining that it's not ok to delete comments of pages, and then he does it himself violently and rudely. Unbelievable. Amoruso 02:10, 17 September 2006 (UTC) Anyway, since he's obviously endorsing this now, I'm deleting his whole section from my talk page and putting it behind me, hopefully he can do the same and stop harrassing me. He should find other victims to harrass such as Thuran X or the mediator or whoever he wants. Amoruso 02:13, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

If you'll notice, I removed the retaliatory warning that you made after you removed my original warning. Since you wouldn't keep my legitimate civility warning, why should I keep yours that was only made to retaliate? All of your other legetimate comments were left intact, so you can't use that as a justification to delete my comments at will. You especially can't delete the warning given by Woohookitty.

I would never think to delete posts by Woohookitty, or by Mantanmoreland (main comment) there who laregely refuted your bogus allegations. Only bad faith comments were deleted. Amoruso 06:21, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

You have falsely accused me of lying on more than one occasion, so I have no reservation about calling you on your blatant lie above: "he removed all my post and warning in his page." Go ahead and refer to the diff you yourself provided above. Markovich292 04:48, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Tut. Take it off this lovely man's talk page, if you want my opinion. HawkerTyphoon 02:41, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I would like to apologize for this issue spilling over onto your talk page. All I wanted to do was get your opinion and/or assistance in sorting this out, but I should have seen it coming that Amoruso would turn this into some kind of battleground. Markovich292 04:48, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

How lovely, personal attacking again in a disguise of an apology... Amoruso 06:23, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually it is a sincere apology, followed by reasoning why I first made a comment here, followed by me pointing out that it was not I that caused this situation on his talk page. I refer you to [46] and [47], the comments by you that caused this. Now, you can take your own advice and stop this behavior, and stop using this page for your tirades. Markovich292 06:57, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

You need to apologise to me for your personal attacks and look at all the trouble you've caused instead of keeping inventing blames. You're personal attacking me and falsely accusing me of being uncivil on this page and then say I'm to blame because I refuted your allegations against me ? Unbelievable indeed. Next time I'll just let you create blood libels on anybody you like. Amoruso 07:04, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

First, it is not a personal attack just because I point out poor behavior on your part. Second, I'm pretty sure that any neutral observer, including Woohookitty, can plainly see that I am not falsely accusing you of incivility. It is quite clear for example, that you are indeed to blame for bringing your incivility here, because you were not just trying to "refute my allegations" by saying things like:

• "MY God you're just unbelievable Markovich.
• "Just leave me alone"
• "It's all in your head"

I now realize that you are going to continue this incivil behavoir whenever you can, and attempt to pass yourself off as blameless. Even when I say something completely civil, you respond with incivil behavior and I will not take part in this anymore. It is time for me to be the bigger man; whatever lies you concoct, whatever false accusaions you make, and whatever incivil comment you add here, I am not going to respond. Markovich292 07:40, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Get away from each other. I am very close to blocking you both for incivility. --Woohookitty^(meow) 11:16, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

'Cult' Issues

Hi! I was wondering if you could excersise your judgment at this article? Newly created users and the like are removing all references to the church being a 'cult', which AFAIK are legitimate references. HawkerTyphoon 12:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

AFAIK, It's all coming from one IP in Polandish (Wroclaw?), belonging to a University or the like. I suspect it's a sockpuppet, as they use the same edit summary a fair bit, and they are all single-use accounts. I've tagged User:Andala as the master - hope that helps. HawkerTyphoon 13:08, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Anarchism (again)

You might want to take a look, there's a new edit war going on. A new "anarcho"-capitalist is trying to make wholesale changes (surprise, surprise). Donnacha 18:41, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Sock-oh-rama (again)

You've seen this, right? Bishonen | talk 11:49, 18 September 2006 (UTC).

Removal of prod tags

You recently removed the prod tags from the following articles: Bosworth Commuity College and Bradbury School citing the reason "does actually exist". I never asserted that they did not exist, I only asserted that they were not notable, and certainly no assertion of any notability existed (or exists) in those articles. I would not have thought the existance of an entity sufficient for its inclusion in wikipedia. There are many, many things which exist. I won't contest your removal of these tags if you sincerely believe these schools to be that notable, but I am concerned that wikipedia should not become a directory for every school/church/shop/bar etc. I have, of course, looked at WP:SCHOOL and see nothing there which suggests that these schools could be considered notable. Robotforaday 12:21, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, while I'm keen to see wikipedia avoid becoming a dumping ground, I'm not so keen as to become bogged down any more in the kind of wikipolitics that dominate afd discussions, so I'll stick to using my time editing and let the chaff pile up. Robotforaday 18:12, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Anarchism and Globalization

Can you express your opinion on reliability of these Donnachadelong sources, i.e. are they in accordance with Wikipedia policies? -- Vision Thing -- 18:50, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Why

Please, explain to me why I am being punished by the admins. Why am I subjected to harassment without anything being done to stop it. I have no trust for the admins anymore after the way they have treated me, and the fact that they allow others to harass me has only made me hate them. Now, my talk page is no longer allowed to be a civil place; now, by decree of the admins' absolute power, I am forced to put up with harassment from anyone who wants to harass me. Wikipedia is looking more and more pathetic with each passing moment of editor abuse. -- LGagnon 02:04, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Incivility/Personal Attack

I sincerely hope this does not turn into a situation on your page like it did before, but Amoruso has again made an incivil and completely untrue accusation. I will not sit idly by and let Amoruso get by with this kind of hostility that can easily be classified as a personal attack. There is not even a single sentence about the issue on wikipedia, it is all spiteful remarks directed at me. [48]

Thank you for your past input and any help you may provide here. I hope this can be resolved justly and fairly. Markovich292 02:14, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

This is not a personal attack Markovich. It's based on what user:Humus_Sapiens exposed about your behaviour and it made in a civil manner - also pointing out your blatant personal attack against Humus Sapiens (coming after similar behaviour against Thuran X, me, the mediator and others...) I really do think you're facing the possibility of long term ban for distrupting wikipedia and throwing accusations around and distrupting adminstrator's pages. You are abusing the WP:No personal attacks policy. Amoruso 02:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Pointing out than an actual personal attack was just recently made by you against me, and was acknowledged as such by Adminstrator user:Avraham here : [49] . So please stop as I do not appreciate your attacks against me and your false allegations. Amoruso 02:59, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

In the interest of having all the data, here is the rest of the comments on that issue that Amoruso omitted: [50] As the rest of the discussion points out, it was certainly not a personal attack and is irrelevant to this issue.

I would also like to ask about wikistalking and harassment. One such behavior that I am wondering about is him following me to this page last time just to make inflammatory comments ([51], [52]). Amoruso also continues to maintain that I made racist remarks ([53]), which is completely untrue.

Further incivility:

• [54]
• [55]

Your comments are so non factual and baseless that they're not worth a response even. You really need some amazing amount of arrogance for someone like you who constantly harrassed me to complain that my response refuting your claims and showing your bad faith behaviour and lies on this page is harrassment or wikistalking (!) unbelievable. The only one wikistalking is you, like explained before. Stop with your flames, false allegations and trash talking other wikipedia users. You have been extremely offensive to a number of users on this issue. Enough is enough. Your comments above show your own incivility and bad faith behaviour. You can't tell people around what to do. Your behaviour is negative. And your remarks were interpreted as racism very justly by Thuran X. "You people" comment was obvious like he explained. Amoruso 03:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Good catch!

Kitty's got claws! Nice work on that "Jackie Spratt" block. Bit of a POV rant, no? Anyway, thought I'd scratch you behind the ears for that. Take care! - Lucky 6.9 07:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and before I forget...

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For your best efforts in keeping Wikipedia attack- and vandal-free... keep your finger on that delete button! :)

...one well-deserved Barnstar. - Lucky 6.9 07:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Ain't it the truth? The concept exists; people need to learn to live with it. There are articles on a gazillion subjects that I find distasteful...and every one of them has a place here. My pleasure to take time out to recognize your efforts. - Lucky 6.9 07:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Fun with Halle Berry/Storm/Controversy section

Just a heads up--the page isn't even on my watchlist, but I check it periodically. User:207.68.239.252 may be Penny. Croctotheface 10:05, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Monarch articles

Could I direct you to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles)#Monarchical titles. I believe the moving you are executing is a mistake. :) Inge 10:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Please stop. This needs more discussion. If you are going to go against a agreed convention you should have more than three voices of support. You should have moved William I of England first to find out if the moves are justified. Thank you. Inge 10:29, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think 3 voices consists a consensus. Remember the survey is not really a vote. You can go against a majority in a survey. In addition an overall consensus has been reached on wikipedia dictating how monarch articles are to be named (linked to above) and if you are to go against that you certainly need more than three voices. Inge 10:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm so sorry! I didn't mean to discourage you. I think you are doing a good job. Being eager to get things done is a good quality. Sometimes things move slower in the less core articles, therefore discussions and surveys need more time to settle before action is taken. Inge 10:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I thought I could do them for you so the work wouldn't be too much. Inge 11:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, the issue is still open so I might be proven wrong in the end :). Don't be afraid to be bold and do stuff you might not be 100% sure about. If we all went around being afraid of making mistakes nothing would get done. We can always undo things and I think you handled this situation very well (and I don't mean because I got my way) :) Inge 11:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Orkney situation

I have been observing this for a while and I think it is time for someone to intervene. I have posted an entry on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/History and geography about it. It seems one or more users from Orkney is trying to convey a special Orkney identity in articles relevant to that island group and one user is doing his very best to keep any such information out. That has been going on for quite a while and on many articles, but it seems to be culminating now. It seems to me both/all user have stepped over some lines, but my general consern is that this topic is so marginal that this might go on and on without any administrators noticing. The articles might get one-sided and we might loose the few contributors from Orkney. What do you think? Inge 12:10, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't mean to nag, but this situation was reported (by one of the users in conflict) on the incidents noticeboard and some interesting sugestions and comments were given. But it all fizzled out and noone took an initiative so the conversation is now archived here and nothing was really done to solve the problem. Inge 09:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Personal Attacks

That is ridiculous. I have never attacked Bdean. On the other hand, he has already e-mailed me 3 times only promoting disturbing political spams and treats. He has also going around Wikipedia mocking at the fact that I got banned (highlighting the word "Messhermit got banned" [56][57][58]) . Messhermit 12:42, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe that if you read the conversation that you have posted on my talk page; you will realize that I did not engage in any type of flame war/insults to Bdean. However, Bdean is the one that is attempting to make me look as the "bad" element on this dispute. To go around wikipedia posting "T-shirts" for sale [59] (as far as I know) is not neutral. Making false statements and hide himself as an IP [60] to accuse me is rather suspicious. Do I have to e-mail you what he e-mailed to me? Messhermit 12:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

If possible, I request an answer. Messhermit 12:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

• That is because one of the 3 e-mails was a treat with my own ArbCon.
• If you look closely to the dates, he did not bother to answer me even after I tried to contact him before this whole mess started.
• He was using loaded terms as "Dictator" and "Crisis of the Peruvian State" (just to name a few).
• He was using Wikipedia for commercial purposes (the "T-shirt issue")
• He was using his own personal opinion, backed with his own personal investigation (Bdean1963 using Bartolomew Dean's publications)
• Asking for sources when he feels like and removing things that do not suit his POV.

With the things that I have mentioned above, it is more than clear that he was also incivil to me. He is clearly pushing a POV (calling me "Fujimorista"). I have not invented this details. That is the work of Bdean1963. Answer me as soon as possible. Messhermit 13:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Dear Woohookitty: many thanks for your constructive response to Messhermit. I appreciate your assitance--User:Bdean1963 19 September, 2006

I'm taking a short Wikibreak. I will not respond to comments like the one above. Thanks for responding to my comments. Messhermit 18:42, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

The situation

Thanks for your support. I'm not mad at you for not being available all the time; I understand you can't be. My problem is that, when you or some other unbiased admin are not available, I'm stuck with admins who seem to have a vendetta against me as my only hope. By the way, I didn't recieve any e-mail from you; it may be a bit delayed (that happens now and then). -- LGagnon 12:45, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:PAIN

I agree with your comment on WP:AN, Woohookitty. You've got a good point there.... --LiverpoolCommander 14:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Axam

Hello, I had reported User:Axam on the Wikipedia:Personal attack intervention noticeboard, and you had noted that he had already been blocked (for a 3RR, and not for personal attacks), and moved him to the "open cases". After returning from the block he has blanked his talk page warnings, and posed "what a great nerd you are" [61]. -- Jeff3000 14:54, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

The personal attacks have gone very far at this point. First of all I'm a Baha'i living in Canada, and this user has made reference to Hojjatieh, a very anti-Baha'i organization in Iran that has persecuted the Baha'is in Iran. He first wrote "Say, do you know about the Hojjatieh Jeff?" [62], he then wrote: "How's Canada? is it a good country? I should visit sometimes." [63], and then "There shouldn't be too many Baha'i'communities in Canada, in a few cities perhaps, like Toronto, Ontario, or in Nova Scotia. Must not be hard to find people." [64] and finally "::::I sense fear in your tone. Your action is more uncivilized than any of my tone. Provocative and coward. Hidding behind friends to make a stupid illogical point. I will be visiting Canada Jeff. Trust me it's easy to find people." [65]. This is a direct personal attack, not only in terms of words, which I can easily forget, but much more. You can check my words to him on his talk page, all civilized, but he has continued his attacks. What can be done about this. -- Jeff3000 15:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Personal Attacks?

Thanks, your comment would have been much more meaningful if that was still on my page, but it was deleted a while ago. But thanks for trying. :) --Thankyoubaby 15:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Abuse of Position

You are abusing your position and allowing your close friendship with another editor to interfere with your duty as an administrator to act in an impartial manner. You cannot ban user AOluwaytoyin simply because fair commentary in defence of him has been written on your and another editor's talk page. Demonstrate exactly where a personal attack has been made. It is User:LGagnon who has made continual attacks against Wikipedia admins and even the President (in fact you warned him yourself not to write in such a hostile manner and not to threaten to revert comments on the talk pages of other editors) yet you have never seriously considered that he be banned? Are you prepared to provide an explanation for this? About the legal threat accusation. By my count AOluwaytoyin made one threat and in my view had a right to be angry after wrongfully being accused of using sock puppets. You ought to read Wikipedia's policy on legal threats. The policy is that after careful consideration and in view of all the circumstances an editor may be suspended, and he already has for 10 days. For you to suggest that you intend to unilaterally ban him indefinitely is an absolute abuse of the authority that you have as an administrator. You should do the honourable thing and resign your position effective immediately. --209.115.235.79 17:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Dude, you really have no clue what you're talking about. Just because I act civilly with him doesn't mean we're "close friends". It means that I'm obeying the civility policy. There's no conspiracy here, and there's especially no conspiracy between me and the admins as a whole (if you, AOluwaytoyin, have been paying attention, you know I don't trust most Wikipedia admins). And, while I don't remember insulting the President on Wikipedia, I don't see how insulting Bush constitutes a policy violation. -- LGagnon 02:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I realise that you live more than 1,000 miles apart and that are not physically close, as in you don't hang out together, but Woohookitty has chosen to block others for far lesser breaches of Wiki policy than what you have committed. Favouritism has quite clearly been demonstrated. Oh, I suppose saying that someone has "no clue" is "acting civilly". Oh yeah, OK, whatever! Not that you will believe this but I am not AOluwaytoyin, and I wasn't the one that put the warning box on the top of this page, though I did write the abuse of position comments above which I stand by. I wasn't referring to the President of the United States, and you very well know this, but to the president of Wikipedia; you know the "cult" accusation? Anyways, I've grown rather bored with this dispute. I will continue defending the rights and honour of persecuted minorities and individuals (ie. AOluwaytoyin) and the right of freedom of expression but I am tired of you two, as you don't or are unable to participate in reasoned debate or argument, just block, ban, silence. --142.161.184.39 18:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, by the way Woohookitty, check the IP address for the individual who placed that box at the top of this page and compare it to the IP address of the person who wrote the "abuse of position" comments (ie. me) and you will see that they were not written by the same people. You sent them to LGagnon accompanied by the comment "Good Grief" and insinuated that it was the same person, which is incorrect.--142.161.184.39 18:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes but you added to the box. So there's really no difference. --Woohookitty^(meow) 05:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

And I always find it interesting that the people who say I'm showing favoritism never have actual hard proof. And it's always incorrect anyway. I have exactly one person on Wikipedia that I consider a friend (dmcdevit). That's been deliberate. It makes it much easier to be impartial. I had absolutely no contact with LGagnon before the last few weeks. And that goes for just about every person that I've been told I'm "favoring".

As for what you said up above, I find it interesting coming from someone who keeps changing IP addresses. You aren't exactly holding yourself accountable here by doing that. I'm pretty sure you are AOluwaytoyin. All you are doing is attacking LGagnon and myself just like you were as AOluwaytoyin. I don't see useful edits. Just attacks. --Woohookitty^(meow) 05:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

No, you're absolutely wrong again. I am not AOluwaytoyin. But whatever, who cares what you think. Of course I'm not allowed to write what I really think because you'll say it's an attack. How is adding to the box the same thing as writing it in the first place? And writing "this should remain indefinitely" is an attack? In my view that box should have remained there. You should have responded below it as to why you thought what was written was not true, not just reverted it. That's what I would have done. I never revert anything anyone writes, but I do provide argument as to why I disagree and 9 times out of 10 I get no further response because argument has tremendous power to sway people. You think everything is an attack, don't you? I don't understand why you two are so hypersensitve! Did you watch too much Barney in your youth? (Ooops, you'll think that's an attack, I know it. In my view it's a simple question). It's so ridiculous. I don't change IP addresses, whenever I do an edit I am assigned an IP address. Sometimes it's the same for a period of time, other times it changes. I do not want to set up an account because a) I see no reason to, I'm not that vain that I need to have my own user page (it blows me away that some people tell the world practically everything about themselves on their user page, don't they realise that this can be used against them later in life?), and b} I strongly value my personal privacy and with respect to the net I am a big believer in anonymity. Also there's no requirement to set up a user account so quite frankly you had no business even making that statement. What you're implying is that anon users have no place on Wikipedia which is absoutely against policy. Just for the record, I've done several hundreds of useful edits and in fact have wrote dozens of articles from scratch, so be careful what you say if you have no idea what you're talking about (oh no, you will consider this another attack, yet I was told I didn't have a clue and you thought that was perfectly OK). You're "pretty sure" I'm AOluwaytoyin? Well I'd like to hear your evidence (or "hard proof" in your terms) because I'm certain you have none indeed. You're making accusations based at best on a hunch. Whatever you do with your life, stay away from both the legal field and politics!!!!! --206.45.164.87 19:07, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

*tap tap* Is this thing on?

Hey make sure you use edit summaries. I was already to go off to AfD with one of my prods that I was sure you removed just to find out you were just putting a category on the page. TTFN. Whispering^(talk/c) 18:18, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

No apology needed

I can be an ornery bollix when I want to be! Donnacha 20:10, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind that I cleared the rubbish from the top of your page, I was just passing on the favour as it had previously been done for me. Donnacha 20:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

My block a week ago

After a severe rush of blood to my head last week, where I fired off an appeal to you and then had the real world interfere with me, you blocked me for three hours. Now, this is all in the past and I appreciate the relative inseverity of the block. But I want to raise to your attention two issues: you didn't answer my question (and I'm afraid that no easy answer presents itself) and that I don't feel bad for having made the comments I did. I'll address the second issue first: I presume you took offense at my calling DTC a monomaniacal liar. I assume the block was because this is, as I admit, a rather adverserial thing to do. Fair enough. But his single-mindedness is easily seen by looking at his contributions, and the fact that he's a liar must have become apparent by now - a good example is the diff he offers immidiately after my comment in question where he says I crippled the an-com section (when I gave it a marked improvement, I believe, and it's obvious I didn't "cut it down"). This leads to the real question: what are we supposed to do? DTC is too smart to do obvious vandalism (well, unless he did something lately) and his gamesmanship is something remarkable. I've repeatedly asked him to play nice, but he won't. I've used every channel available to me, other than RfC's (because this article has had many, to no effect) including a report of a 3RR violation and an AN/I report - both ignored. --GoodIntentions^talk 03:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I'm painfully aware of how overloaded you must be. I'm delighted that you've even attempted to administer our little shitstorm and hope that we don't drive you away too quickly. --GoodIntentions^talk 03:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)