User talk:Shenme/Archive2

Archive from February 2007 to March 2007

You ask what is behind all the attacks on me on Trotskyism. This is a concerted campaign by a group of right-wing Zionists, apparently associated with Steven Plaut, who object to my editing of the Plaut article. So far, using a total of 75 sockpuppets so-far identified, they have defaced at least 87 separate Wikipedias pages with anally-obsessed personal abuse directed at me. All procedures to put a stop to this have so far failed, and they continue at the rate of two or three user ids a day. RolandR 13:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per your comments "your enthusiastic opposition, without discussion other than snideness, is perhaps more revealing than you'd like". If you will notice that I did indeed add my thoughts in the discussion page. And just because something has "been there for awhile" does not mean that it is correct or relevant. Perhaps You would reconsider if I added my own line in that mentioned Naturalist David Attenborough mentioning that beetles are proof that a got cannot be? My point is that I should not have to read about the religious thoughts of a certain scientist who studies beetles. Jtflood1976 22:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)Jtflood[reply]

Hi Shenme,

I removed the two lines you requested here [1] -- see if that works. Cheers! Antandrus (talk) 05:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My most massive thanks! Removing those lines allowed me to login again, and then semi-revert to using the old popups.js with the fix referencing a prior copy of it. Thank you! Strangely enough, though, now that everything is 'alright' again, I think I'll tip-toe quietly away and hope nothing else breaks tonight! ;-)

Thank you again, Shenme 05:23, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. Good to see you editing again from your own account :-). I just flagged down Antandrus as the last admin I saw making an edit to an article on my watchlist. Great that he could help. Best wishes, WjBscribe 05:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out. I actually reviewed that edit but by mistake approved it. Anyway please keep an eye on this ip if you can, he is attacking User:Tulkolahten and has been blocked for the very same actions two days ago on different ip. There is no doubt it's the same person. It's very difficult to deal with him. I'm off to bed. Thank you.--Pethr 06:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, in this edit, you added a report to WP:AIV with the {{user}} template instead of the correct {{userlinks}} template. Because of this, it was not able to be correctly handled by the HBC AIV helperbots, and was inadvertently removed by them as if it were part of another report. I re-added the report with the correct template, and it was subsequently removed (intentionally, this time) by the bots, because the user in question has been blocked. I just wanted to bring this to your attention so that you can use the correct template in your reports in the future. Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia! —Krellis 18:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The instructions about which templates to use are contained in a comment in the page's source, which you should see when editing the page (or the "User-reported" section). That way they don't clutter the actual rendered page, and the intent is for them to be relatively easily visible to someone making a report. If you have suggestions as to how they can be better presented, they're always appreciated, making it easier for editors to file correct reports is always something we're trying to do. —Krellis 19:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm so sorry about the mis-link of hard labor - although I admit when I read your message it did make me chuckle (is that wrong?). The tool does let you see the context of the word it suggests the link for so I must have just accidentally clicked "yes" instead of "no". I promise to be on my guard in the future. I found the tool through a link on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikify#Tools page as I'm a member. It analyses any wikipedia article and suggests links which you can either accept or reject - very handy for new articles, particularly where they use a lot of imported text. Although of course, it can't account for human error! Madmedea 21:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to be late to answer your question. As far as I know there's no category for EEZ disputes. Since I don't know how many EEZ disputes exist (Exclusive Economic Zone is not helpful), I'm not sure creating it is a good idea. --Kusunose 05:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry but I am Czech and they are "czechs" doing their propaganda of german insulting use of short term. 71.99.120.132 06:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, an in-line comment <!-- is ended with -->. By trying to end it with !> you made the article disappear! (wow)

Second, why wouldn't you put the comment into the article's talk page? That way people could discuss... Shenme 01:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC-6)

Oops. Shows you how often I work with HTML. Must be rusty. I didn't even think about using the talk page. I should have. That makes more sense. Will (Talk - contribs) 07:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have voted for 4. Lunar libration Shenme 08:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.

Three reasons why I have changed Chaim to Haim:

1. When adding a link to Herzog's page to the official Knesset website (as a former MK) I noticed that he is called Haim on there. The same goes for Weizman (who also has only one "n" - though for some reason his nephew's name (Ezer Weizman) is spelt correctly on Wikipedia. This would suggest it is the "official" transliteration.
2. To make it consistent - I believe there are more people with the Haim spelling on Wikipedia than Chaim. See Haim Ramon, Haim Revivo, Haim Saban, Haim Magrashvili, Haim Yavin. Also, the "Haim" spelling appears to be gaining favour, with all but one of the "Chaims" on the Chaim page being deceased.
3. Simply, it is the correct transliteration. The "ch" transliteration of ח (Hebrew letter Het) was most likely developed by Yiddish/German speakers, as for them it is correct, as "ch" in German (as in Ich) has the same sound as Het (this is probably also why "Chaim" seems to be used for older people's names rather than younger ones as these days more Israelis speak English than Yiddish/German). However, as I'm sure you're aware, there is no equivalent in English (ch being used for words like Church), and therefore we use "h" at the start of a word or "kh" in the centre/end. In addition, the letter H is the actually direct descendent of the Hebrew letter Het (well, its Phoenician cousin, but it's effectively the same alphabet) via the Greek letter Eta.

Hope this makes you less disturbed! Number 57 23:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have pointed out a flaw in point 1! Well, sadly one cannot rely on Israelis for consistency (note different spellings of Haim in [2] and different spellings of Weizman in [3]). I also have seen Petakh Tikva spelt at least 4 different ways on road signs in the country! Anyway, I believe points 2 and 3 still make a strong case for the change. We need some consistency and it would be a bit stupid to have some people called Chaim and others Haim when it is the same name (and Haim seems to be winning these days) Number 57 23:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

for reverting vandalism on my user page! Natalie 01:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

for pointing out my mistake regarding the Epistle to the Romans link edit. I have corrected it. But I disagree with you regarding the boredom page.Andycjp 13:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I was under the impression that the specific user (apparently a Czech) was trying to insult me, or my knowledge, by posting that. -- Hrödberäht (gespräch) 04:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I do my best. Sometimes complex vandalism can be easy to miss. Be sure to give warning messages so we can establish a paper trail. Admins are more likely to block habitual vandals if they have been warned enough, so always warn each vandalism with an appropriate message. Happy vandal fighting and happy editing! --Jayron32 04:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for fixing the GunBound article! It's good to know more people like you are helping out. There's been a lot of vandals set loose lately. KajiTetsushi 06:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there Shenme. You were correct about my spelling of Minorities! Thanks! I am dyslexic and don't always see missing i's etc,etc. I am in the process of updating the article today and will run a more thorough check, when I'm done.

Fluffball70 11:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and thanks for the catch! I had another go at it, and this time I even managed to identify the Roosevelt in question as Franklin Delano, Jr. --Rallette 15:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! Good thing you left a note on my talk page; my e-mail provider marked your message as spam and I never would have seen it if you hadn't. I never would have figured out who you are from your user page either here or at Commons, but of course I recognized your e-mail address once I saw it! Hope all is well with you & J. —Angr 08:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I should hope so! It's three in the morning where you are, and you have church tomorrow! ;-) —Angr 08:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

O wow, no I didn't - it's gone now! Thanks for catching that!Daniel()Folsom |\^T/|\_C/|\^U/|^{(Can you help me with this?)} 20:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, would you want me to set up an archive technique on your talk page - an archive of a talk page is used for storing old discussions - and making your current talk page easier to read. Sometimes users do this themeselves, but there's this "bot" that will archive things that haven't been responded to x number of days (as in say you or I don't repsond to this "Muslim Article" for 4 days, it would be archived). I can set one up and explain it really easily if you want me to.Daniel()Folsom |\^T/|\_C/|\^U/|^{(Can you help me with this?)}

If you would visit the page as well, it would become obvious that the user is a sockpuppet of a different user (probably User:Bbarnett), as discussed on the talk page. This troll was determined, however; he reverted back. --Hojimachong^talk 04:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it great to reduce the size of a page for a good purpose!? I also like this new template because it takes some stuff out of editors hands so they are less likely to screw it up! Thanks again for the note. /Timneu22 01:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I reverted it just fine in two steps, but someone beat me to by a half-second on the second one. Maybe you could be a little less quick on the lecture next time. --Walor 04:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I actually use a greek letter, Xi, for my signature. I didn't realize it symbolized something else as well, so thanks for letting me know. ΞΞΞ 01:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the help desk you said you suspected insertion of AFDed material. Can you link me to an AFD or give me more detailed info? - Mgm|^(talk) 11:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if this will help you, but if you can guess the exact title of the deleted article, go to the logs page Special:Log and trace any discussion on it there. - Fayenatic london (talk) 15:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the "dessert" part is a joke from the comic, and a bad one at that. —Skope (talk) 20:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've no soft spot for collection agencies, ever since I was mistakenly pursued by one. But in this case I was going to tell the user on the user talk page to seek legal counsel; I was then distracted by an urgent real-life business. In any case, I don't want the person to loiter around Wikipedia if their mother is in jail. Xiner (talk, email) 01:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am a total novie here; I will try to develop the "stub" I believe you mentioned and go from there; if RJASE1 will allow me too; I don't think that "new ideas" catch on very quickly here: but to "balance things you have to add "other" points of view so the reader can reflect and weigh the information to develop their own critical faculties and thus their own judgment: which is best done when all points of view that have a title to the rest can have their say: especially when it is nothing new: only a new explanation.```` —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Unicorn144 (talk • contribs) 02:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I do apologise for any inconvenience. The error has been fixed to the correct link. I better check that the person has not had a prior RfA before compiling the recently new administrators. I do thank you for picking that up. Many thanks, Extranet ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 11:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have a good question at Talk:Alpha beta ... omega. It is incredibly unlikely someone would type that in, correctly. I wonder if it would make any sense as the target/result of a search? Wow, the things you find ... Shenme 05:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's now nominated for deletion. (Dorks.) Also, THANK YOU for your work on Wikipedia as a gnome. I have great respect for you and your work. OverMyHead 15:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If they are looking for an organization with a wikiarticle, then they'll find out what Sigma Chi means. But if they search for a society that doesn't have an article, or a combination of letters that is not the name of an organization (and therefore has no article), I don't think a redirect to the Greek alphabet will help much. OverMyHead 08:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed you participated in at least one of these three deletion discussions:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of African Americans (3rd nomination),
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Chinese Americans
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Caucasian Americans (second nomination).

All three discussions have similar issues but are leaning in different directions, so you may want to participate in the others, if only for the sake of consistencey and to avoid accusations that Wikipedians are being unfair to some group or groups (which is something that concerns me). I'm asking everyone who participated in one discussion to participate in the others. I apologize for bothering you if you already have participated in the others. Best wishes, Noroton 04:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Based on your comment on the help desk (on keyboard shortcuts), I've refined my tools page to be more useful. (Thanks, by the way!) Come to think of it, what the page really needs is a good proofread. You wouldn't mind giving it a once-over, would you? It's at Wikipedia:Tools/Optimum tool set. Feel free to edit directly, or leave comments on its talk page, whichever you prefer. The Transhumanist   05:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Shenme - I appreciate your diligence. Maias 05:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...following that Indian marketer around. That kind of exploitation of Wikipedia makes me see red. Murdockh 09:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe. No problem about the erasing. I tend to veer towards a certain 1940's German police-organization when my temper gets up (or so my girlfriend tells me) so someone keeping the humor and context alive is good. :) Murdockh 10:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, after they responded on their talk page, they vandalized the article website. I gave them a final warning on their talk page, using the Test4 template, and if they vandalize or spam again before I go to bed, I will ban them. Academic Challenger 10:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've been an admin for a couple years now, and my user page has actually been vandalized dozens of times, some of which are really shocking. It happens to most people once they become active in fighting vandalism. My reading software does not actually recognize smilies and other symbols like that, though it recognized yours because you used the word instead of the symbol. Academic Challenger 10:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• You may use the templates uw-spamX (where ${\displaystyle 1\leq x\leq 4}$). Use less Test4 tags as they are not descriptive. - Microtony 10:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Synthesisworld has now been blocked by another admin who believes that he had already received enough warnings before his last one. It looks like he wasn't learning anyway. Academic Challenger 10:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well the main reason I don't keep up with those pages is because if I did, I'd have so many tabs I couldn't tell which one was which (I use flock, which lets you have as many tabs as you want - but they get really really small, and occasionally go off the scren if you have like 20+ - which I would). Vandalism is a frequent thing on Wikipedia, but thankfully we have a huge amount of editors that watch the recent changes section (like you) and get those thing reverted. As far as reviewing changes goes - while that does seem like a good idea - sadly we don't have enough editors to do that and still keep an eye on recent changes - so huge slips may go unnoticed - so while some editors do do this, some do not. It's kind of like having a hundred users who follow their own philosophy. One thing I occasionally do is just read a wide variety of articles, and go through their links to pages - thankfully that allowed me to revert this edit (scroll down a very small amount, and then try scrolling over) - which had been up for over seven hours. Hope that answers your questions, but feel free to ask me any more (or to clarify some of ths)Daniel()Folsom |\^T/|\_C/|\^U/|^{(Can you help me with my signature?)} 15:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I forgot to mentions - occasionally, with a page like that one above (see the vandalism link) - I'll watch the page, In case you didn't know this can be done by going to the top of the page (where the edit this page button is) and going four over (the order is: page, discussion, edit this page, +, history, move, watch) and clicking watch. That means that any edits to that page will show up when you click "my watchlist" (which is at the top right, the order should be (for you): Shenme, my talk, my preferences, my watchlist, my contributions, log out).Daniel()Folsom |\^T/|\_C/|\^U/|^{(Can you help me with my signature?)} 15:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re. atomic bomb use: At the time there was no notion that A-bombs should be used only against powers that had (or were about to have) their own A-bombs. The bombs were used against Japan in order to shorten that part of the war, which was deemed to otherwise require massive casualties (including Allied and Japanese troops as well as Japanese civilians) to bring to a conclusion. Whether or not Germany had an A-bomb had nothing to do with those considerations. Anyway, it had no connection with Einstein, whose involvement was essentially just the Szilard-Einstein letter. — DAGwyn 19:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edit to Rebecca Brown (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // MartinBot 21:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well yes, I can see that WOO HOO FOR THE WILD THORNBERRIES MOVIE must be preserved for the ages. Shenme 15:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you be a little more explicit in your edit summaries? While I appreciate your restoring the See Also section back, it took forever to find where it had been removed. By that point, I'd seen so many unhelpful edit summaries I was rather upset. An edit summary of "rm some" (another editor's) is about as helpful as a random scream in the dark, and as unnerving.

I guess I can understand why you could characterize this as vandalism. I wonder if that editor has ever read Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. Good grief, is this torture Albert Einstein month? (suitably stretched out over time, as it were ;-) Shenme 02:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why it was necessary to find who moved it. I wasn't able to find who did it, so I gave up, and just restored it from a sufficiently early history. I assumed it was vandalism, because there was no reason for it to be removed.SuperGirl 11:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can find it at Talk:Muhammad in a section called The merits of undue weight. WilyD 13:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Shenme, you seem like a reasonable editor who is concerned about upholding the basic principles of Wikipedia. I'm not trying to defend Tilman or Orsini but as you pointed out you don't know everything that has happened prior to your arrival on the AfD. I fully understand that you do not want to spend the time going through the history to get more information, and I don't blame you. I'm hoping though that you are willing to learn a little bit more, to complete the picture. Justanother, like many people, is very sensitive about his religious beliefs and the public perception of said religion. He seems to spend a lot of time removing information from Wikipedia which could create a negative perception of Scientology, sometimes at the expense of valid information. While I sympathize with his motivations, they should not be allowed to stand in the way of a valid Wikipedia article. If you have a moment, please take it to look over the articles he edits: Special:Contributions/Justanother. Justanother's method of editing has prompted Tilman to state in the past that Justanother should be banned from editing Scientology related articles, many times. Over time the statement got shorter as it was repeated to Justanother more and more. As a result, Tilman comes off looking somewhat intolerant by saying that Justanother should be banned. I had a similar experience when I explained that I thought Justanother was violating WP:CCC in my voting statement. I forgot that dozens of people who didn't know the history of our interactions would read it too. If I had expanded on my statement like it was the first time I was making it, the overall intention I attempted to convey would have made more sense and seemed less hostile. I honestly think Tilman made the same mistake, and Justanother used the error to paint a half-picture of Tilman's behavior. Justanother has done this with other editors, including myself, either mistakenly or intentionally. As an example I present this: Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Barbara_Schwarz__.28history.7CWatchlist_this_article.7Cunwatch.29_.5Bwatchlist.3F.5D link to the COI noticeboard entry I made about him and my concerns regarding his WP:COI. Justanother made claims that I intentionally misrepresented his behavior, which I think is obviously wrong given the links I cited. An editor who only reads that statement, but doesn't investigate the evidence I provided, could honestly come to the conclusion that Justanother is right.

Since Justanother accused Tilman of wanting to ban him for no reason, he's once again misrepresenting the intentions of an editor addressing inappropriate behavior by Justanother. Please understand I mean no disrespect to you, I don't fully read up on every situation I comment on so I could very well have done the same thing you did in assuming Justanother to be correct. I'm sure that Orsini's comments were meant to illustrate how Justanother's deceptive accusations can fool an editor who does what he/she should by following WP:AGF. He could have certainly made that clearer to avoid possible offense to you, which is why I say I'm not defending anyone because everybody has made mistakes in this (myself included).

I apologize for making such a long winded statement on your talk page. This situation appears to be heading toward a disagreement over some simple mistakes and misunderstood comments meant for others, which is what this post is meant to stop. I am also not saying that what Justanother has done is inexcusable, there are many who would react as he does toward those he thinks are attacking his religion. I just happen to strongly disagree with him on whether or not his reasons the Barbara Schwarz article should be deleted are coming from a NPOV on his part. Anynobody 04:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(I don't usually post a response in two places, but in the interest of resolving a misunderstanding I am in this case.)

It's funny you should mention a WP:RfC, while the AfD discussion was confined to the talk page of Barbara Schwarz that is exactly what I attempted to do. Justanother asked an admin to delete the RfC I set up against said admin's advice discussing Justanother. The RfC had been approved by a second uninvolved admin, when the first admin deleted it at Justanother's request. Here is some background on the admin's talk page User_talk:Bishonen#The_deleted_RfC. I'm not accusing the admin of knowingly working with Justanother to silence the RfC anymore, I think I bruised her ego by going ahead with the submission despite her advice. I tried bringing this up on the admin noticeboards, but nothing came of it as I'm starting to suspect my COI noticeboard posting will. I've also asked a couple of editors to try to set one up again with me, no dice. I've resigned myself to making another attempt after the AfD is finished, regardless of the outcome. Rest assured I find the constant accusations of violations by both sides irritating since nobody seems to want to back up their beliefs but me.

I've had difficulty WP:AGF on the part of Justanother since that time, if somebody else wanted to put my behavior on a RfC I wouldn't mind. I honestly think I can explain my actions to a neutral observer, I suspect (and again it is only a suspicion) that Justanother can not and that is why he has avoided any discussion about his behavior. I could be wrong of course, and I'm prepared to accept that. I know many others have long since abandoned assumption of good faith on his part, which is why you see "editor should be banned" comments. Anynobody 06:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I note your response to User:Jersey Devil here [4] and I am wondering as to what grounds you appear to have made a presumption of bad faith on my part (intentional misrepresentation) rather than an error made in good faith on my part (mistaken presumption). It was not my intent to misrepresent your edit, and I apologize for my mistake. I look forward to your reply. Regards, Orsini 05:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Think I should ask User:Transhumanist to approach a publisher? :-) Seriously, I didn't understand your edit summary on Talk:Polar Bear. If you simply have concerns about abuse of the article, does that also bring the fear someone may claim WP:OWN problems on your part? I'm beginning to worry that simple English is going to have to be enforced for all talk pages soon. Shenme 03:40, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I got too attached to that page on my watchlist, and worrying myself over the behavior of certain editors there, and so I decided I'll not stand in the middle anymore. Xiner (talk, email) 03:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've got a random mix of vandalized pages on my watchlist, which means I end up wondering about the utility of erecting a brick wall between Korea and Japan (especially if no one could agree where to put it). However, at least the wall would have a side for each to put their own label on, producing a solution to one problem.

BTW: There's a message for you on Cremepuff222's talk page. (And I can't believe somebody put a db-nonsense on a user talk page (User talk:PizzaBurgerJuice). :-o Shenme 03:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, thank you for letting me know. Hopefully it'll be taken care of now. Xiner (talk, email) 12:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. While it is totally appropriate for you to rethink your wording, it is also strongly suggested in policy guidelines (see WP:TALK#Own comments) that you strike out rather than remove your previous verbiage so as not to cast replies to the original verbiage in an odd light. So your correction should look like this (italics optional):

For what it's worth, I believe that Orsini did completely misinterpret misread my comment, which was a face-value opinion.

I saw something about adding another timestamp to your sig but I have not yet totally figured out that nicety. I will though. Well, thanks for your continued self-honesty. I do not expect you to figure out the "wall-of-words" though I do think that Orsini is an interesting cat given his next-to-nil editing activity. Obviously, he is not here to edit articles and we see here what effects he is really interested in creating. But again, I would not expect another to involve themselves in this smelly mess. Unfortunately, as a Scientologist of 30 years, I have to do what I can about the propagandizing advocacy and soap-boxing in the Scientology articles along with the gross misundertandings of what Scientology is and how it works. Take care my friend. Guess my note ended up being not so "quick". --Justanother 14:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks. To see something in practice, doesn't necessarily mean it is a recognized guideline. So now I know yet another page to read - thanks. I love how it says use "Show preview" . Ha! I've kept pages open for more than an hour, trying to "say it right".     It ... doesn't always work ... :-(     Shenme 04:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the rather extreme userpage vandalism you experienced - wish they did a better job of minding the store at WP:AIV. RJASE1 ^Talk 05:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A one-day block for that kind of abuse - nice to know how hard they are on blatant vandals. RJASE1 ^Talk 05:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Shenme, thanks for catching and reverting that userpage vandal. AntiVan 06:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick note of thanks for reverting the vandalism on my talk page by 81.77.130.11. I'd removed and warned the user about making a personal attack yesterday afternoon and as such he must have felt I deserved the abuse. I note he did the same when you removed the attack on my talk page. Again, thanks for your efforts, it's nice to see he is now blocked. Adambro 12:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I use HughesNet to connect to the internet and it switches IP addresses on me constantly. Very annoying, and it definitely doesn't help when vandals who have the same service cause trouble. --66.82.9.92 08:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, understood. Big brouhaha when a single IP was blocked because of vandalism, that was used for all access for a whole country (Dubai, I think). Sorry for un-intended pain. Shenme 08:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Shenme,

Yes, this one's trouble. I'm willing to assume "clueless newbie who hasn't quite understood our policies" for a little while, but the userpage notice, unfortunately, along with the talk page blanking, suggests that this editor is walking a short plank (number 9 and number 18 apply, if I may be so bold).

It's probably ANI-worthy, especially as Samlikesfish (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) seems to be a sock/meatpuppet (note the similar tactic of using misleading edit summaries to annihilate entire sections of unfavorable commentary). Antandrus (talk) 16:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for correcting the spelling error on my userpage. Can't believe I never noticed it all this time.  :-) Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 14:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is the new and improved version of the Barney & Friends vandal. They still won't respond to messages but they do sometimes leave an edit summary. They sometimes make what look like good edits but then start adding "Sesame Street" stuff to Barney articles. Very weird. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 23:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since you were so helpful with the RfC/N, could you comment on the COI/N? --Ronz 20:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No Problems. I guess I didn't see the age and the credibility of the request, my error of judgement there =] Have a nice night. = Boochan 00:50, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No it's not a reason to delete the section. Me and user Publicus are checking all of the data and adding the numbers all of the numbers are verified. The four links that are broken it's just that the sites were Reuters or AP sites and they change over time but in the first week they don't change and it was confirmed then. It only hurts the real figures when it is deleted.Top Gun 22:56, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]