User talk:Woohookitty/Archive3

Now Emico's back in full force, flinging insults left and right and the worst thing is that he thinks he's doing nothing wrong. For his own good and the good of Wikipedia, we need to find a way to protect that article and stop this once and for all.--Ironbrew 07:00, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If that disruptive anonymous is Emico, I concur. We can't progress with people like that who dominate and insult others who work by consensus. --Jondel 07:23, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's been about two weeks since the anon/emico has appeared. I've gone ahead and taken Jondel's advice at the INC talk page and unprotected the article. But if by any mysterious chance the anon comes back and goes crazy on the article, I may still need your help. --LBMixPro^{<Speak|on|it!>} 01:24, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Woohookitty, I know you're an admin and have been active in this article, here is a list of sockpuppets/reincarnations that keep vandalising this article:

Perrruot Perrrot Pherrrro Usammey

Any help would be much appreciated. Thanks.

It is not a vandalism, but a content dispute. There is no basis to exclude Brazil and South America and include India, which has economy of size of Brazil and lower human development index. My opinions are discussed in talk page which cannot be said of the two of you. There are other people with differing opinions. Reverting pages without discussion is much closer to "vandalism" definition. It was suggested that much to space is devoted to potential powers (not by me!) on talk pages, so I have suggested that only links be posted. This was reverting, without reply on talk pages. Clearly, I am not a vandal, and I suppose you two have different opinion on Brazil, but it is against policy here to abuse admin powers to enforce someone's POV (which moreover stinks of racism) Perroot 20:57, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, please enable editing (unprotect) to my home page so I can update it, thank you very much. Mr. Transit 12:30, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

He's misunderstanding things here, I blocked this sock a few hours ago, but someone must have not have gotten the memo. I'm blocking again and trying to figure out whatever the hell happened here. user:EddieSegoura is a newcomer to the Nth Degree, he has no malicious intent here from what i've seen. karmafist 04:04, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your name mentioned in dispatches, informing you as a courtesy. User Talk:CyclePat

Hi, if you have a chance, could you take a look at Talk:Healthy diet? User:Spum has gone completely overboard with the personal attacks, and he's even gone so far as to blank his user and talk pages just to attack me [1] [2], at one point even redirecting his user and talk pages to my user space [3] [4]. He was warned by MarkGallagher [5], but now Spum is reverting my copyedits to Healthy diet and replacing them with a "draft" version of an article that he claims he owns. This is all very strange, as Spum was very friendly on my talk page only a few days ago [6]. --Viriditas 13:51, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your helpful comments. --Viriditas 01:50, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I believe I mentioned the ownership issue twice on Talk:Healthy diet. Spum (talk · contribs) has been warned about personally attacking me more than six or seven times now, so I would appreciate if you would keep an eye on his contribs, as well as the progress on that page. Spum believes there is a "personality clash", but given the fact that our discussions have involved his personal attacks and my attempts to bring him back on topic, I don't see what "personality" has to do with this. Thanks again. --Viriditas 10:39, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Get ready to pounce: Spum has labeled you a "KITTEN-THING". [7]  :^). --Viriditas 11:41, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In his defense, I think it was an attempt at humor. He hasn't yet reverted my latest copyedits to Healthy diet and he has recently appeared slightly apologetic on my talk page, so I'm hoping he won't be blocked just yet (even though he has made many nasty attacks against me). I would recommend keeping a close eye on his contribs for any further infractions, but your opinion may be more or less charitable. Perhaps a final warning would be in order? --Viriditas 11:57, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I can't make heads or tails of what Spum is doing on his user page. It seems like he is justifying the use of personal attacks as legitimate discourse. This is a very unfortunate turn of events. --Viriditas 23:54, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your ideas sound good. It might be best to have other admins comment, as well as get involved for good measure. Spum appears to think that personal attacks are a normal part of a discussion and should be condoned as part of a "healthy" argument. --Viriditas 04:25, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Woohookitty. You're completely right, but I'm quite upset and fed up. As I told you, insulting is for free (you can see a recap on all the insults I've received from Gibraltarian in my draft of the request for arbitration that Spangineer has suggested me: User:Ecemaml/Request_for_Arbitration). Sorry again :-( --Ecemaml 17:38, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Woohookitty. Thank you for your understanding. I've just put a request for arbitration. It's in Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Gibraltarian. Any help or opinion will be indeed welcome. --Ecemaml 07:19, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Woohookitty. I misunderstood the process. I'll rework the request to make it compliant with the process --Ecemaml 09:25, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your help. I hope my request as is now makes sense. On the other hand, I'm an administrator in es: and I'd like to tell you that I'm learning a lot about how to deal with these issues (we haven't implemented a mediation/arbitration process yet, which leads to never ending edit wars). I'm especially quite impressed by the guidelines in NPOV and citations. Although we've translated the NPOV guideline, the rest of them are not translated neither implemented. Once this process ends, I'm planning to translate and promote those guidelines and policies and push for the implementation of a mediation process (apart from translating back the final result of the Gibraltar-related articles). Thank you again for your time and help. --Ecemaml 09:46, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just for my information... what would happen if no arbitration is got? Which further actions will be taken? --Ecemaml 10:06, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, Woohookitty (and sorry to bother you again). Four Arbitrators have voted for the acceptance. I've read the Arbitration policy but I'm not sure about next steps. Should I open a new article with evidences or will arbitrators themselves give us some guidelines to continue? Best regards --Ecemaml 12:25, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Woohookitty. Your message has been quite clarifying. But I've got a question. It seems that most of the decisions that the arbitration team make are related to blocking and banning on edition. However, although I think that Gibraltarian possibly deserves any of such measures, I'm actually most interested in obtaining good articles. Is it possible to assign a people to neutralize editions from both parties guaranteeing NPVO, proper sources and citations and so on?. Best regards --Ecemaml 17:20, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was meaning to leave you a note sooner. Sorry if I came across as perturbed in my last message; I was stressed out with dealing with those guys and let myself get a little carried away. My fault entirely. Anyway, it looks like this argument is going to arbitration, so I'm not exactly sure what to do. The arguing on the talk page didn't get anywhere, but I don't think the edit war will resume. At least, I hope it doesn't. I've unprotected the page, but I'm going to keep an eye on it. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 20:03, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I was sitting down to do some work on this project and found it deleted. This article was the summation of a great deal of work as I also added much of the actual art files to the artist's articles themselves as well. I am not trying to dispute the fact that it was deleted but I would like to have a copy of the article so that I could use it to perhaps create a visual timeline of american art history rather than a comprehensive list. Again, I just want a copy of the wiki text of the article so that I don't have to start from scratch and only an admin can get to it. I'll be sure to save a local copy of my work in the future. ~ Cobalty 12:25, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Right - Okay, i'm not here to snipe, or do any personal comments, because it now seems that as soon as i mention someone's name, i've got so much brass near my rear end that i could play the star spangled banner. Now, i'm not trying to even snipe or anything at Viriditas, and now already - i'm being called a troll, told i'm a classic case of this that and the other, i've being falsely accused of being against all wikipedia editors, despite the fact that i only had a quarrel with Viriditas, and the system in general - the comment about you was made because you're obviously not a kitten, and that i had forgotten your nickname - Thing is just like "thingy" where i come from, if it's a major insult where you are, then i'm sorry but that's homogenous, and not my fault.

I know the rules are in place, and other things - and i now feel i cant actually criticise something somebody without the ever looming threat of being banned undefinately from the wikipedia - and for what? I've tried to change things to the way that academic standards dictated - headers, phrases and other things which are good reference material, and i get posted back saying "it's not a book, people chang things, deal with it" - What does that mean? that standards are nothing because in the end of the day, i can change academically weighted material because it looks nicer?

I'm told the "errors jump right out of the page", okay i see the grammar, that's a given, but the rules on editing aren't specific enough for me to even see the kind of high level errors he is talking about. Do i use some really redundant case for typing up articles? or am i missing something here? Do i require to type it up as a homophonic cipher? What do i have to do to stop this from happening? It seems as soon as i ask this, all i am asked to do is read this page, which i've already done, then when i reply i get warned for things i have no comprehension why - nothing gets done if you sugar coat things all the time, neither does it when people argue, but then again, even Jimbo Wales argues that people being people will argue over things.

But yet, when i see silly little snipes by Viriditas "I'll help you use the compare selected versions key", and escalations of things i have done - snipes at him become snipes at EVERYBODY. I shouldn't even need to use the compare button, WHY, after so many hours of work, should i have to compare 10-20 edits when he can surmise it; e.g - "This doesn't comply with x part of this rule, because of this" - and we can get on with the work? I'm seriously sick of being pointed to policy, because it quite frankly fails to satisfy information i require in such times.

Spum 13:20, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you interpreted a genuine offer of help as a snipe. It wasn't. Perhaps it could have been phrased differently, and for that I apologize. If you have a particular problem with my edits to the Healthy diet article, I would be interested in discussing it and resolving it on the talk page. --Viriditas 23:59, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclining toward an indefinite block because he seems to be here to cause trouble, has zero understanding of our policies, and makes a mess of articles he edits, yet appears to have no insight into the fact that he's doing this, which means it can't be corrected. However, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt for a little longer, but I'll block if there's another personal attack or pointless diatribe. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:33, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds about right to me. Sorry to butt in! · Katefan0^(scribble)/my ridiculous poll 05:36, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That was my plan, Slim and the peeping tomette. :) Yeah I agree. The thing that's most troublesome to me is this idea that telling him that he isn't following a particular policy is a personal attack. If that's the case, then what's the point of having policies? And now he's basically not allowing anyone to talk to him. So I'd agree with ya. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 05:49, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I know the name "itisaneggpudding" sounds like nonsense, but it really was an article, I wasn't sure if you deleted it cause of the name or if you actually did read it and still had the same opinion, so if you could answer this for me, that would be great. Thanks.

FYI, Coldron000 is probably Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Wikipedia is Communism. EiE

Hi Woohookitty!

Now, I know I am going to regret this, but maybe this user deserves a second chance. His first edits were quite fine. While of course he was overzealous, I think he can learn his lesson. He was not trying to harm Wikipedia and it was not that much of a problem to revert his edits. I'd suggest putting him on a one- or two-week ban is enough, I'll keep an eye on the articles and if he starts wreaking havoc again he can be banned again. -- Mkill 16:31, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mkill - do you think that was really necessary or appropriate? You sound as if I've just vandalised an article....This was clearly not case - all I did was put up a bunch of posts on the discussion board (i.e. I tried to garner some opinion), and when no visible objection was forthcoming, I proceeded to rename the title of the page - it was not really a renaming, but more of an addendum to the name. I remained sensitive to both sides of the argument.

And Thanks Woohookitty - you have restored my faith in the policing practices of Wikipedia. Cleric71 03:08, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Woohookitty . Gibraltarian, now anonymously (212.120.229.182) has removed again the {{disputed}} template from both History of Gibraltar and Disputed status of Gibraltar. I don't want to enter again in an edit war so this this message is just for your information. Best regards --Ecemaml 16:59, 3 December 2005 (UTC). PS: I've also answered to your last arbitration-related message above.[reply]

As it was removed anonymously and as that IP address belongs to the [Gibtelecom] ADSL pool, anyone in Gibraltar could have edited the page, anyone apart from me that is; I have no problems with you disputing things about Gibraltar, indeed since the Government of Spain disputes the existance of Gibraltar and the Gibraltarians nothing surprises me. --Gibnews 01:18, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know where you get the "we" from, as that is certainly not policy, and I would appreciate your not interfering. The egregious racist vandalism deserved a permanent block, but I did not do so. I belive a month is a valid block. User:Zoe|^(talk) 06:42, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I got snippy. A full night of vandalism fighting will do that to you. User:Zoe|^(talk) 06:47, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Spum (talk · contribs) has just uploaded an image which violates and infringes on the Dilbert copyright (it happens to be the current comic strip found here). I've placed the image on imd and I've removed it from his user page. --Viriditas 14:39, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I do still believe that this merge can be removed at anytime for the creation of an article because the rfd deals with deleting the article and not expanding it. And according to WP:RFD, If a short stub was deleted for lack of content, and you wish to create a useful article on the same subject, you can be bold and do so. --Pat 16:43, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, I just need some protection from a couple of aggressive editors on the article Veganism and related ones.

A couple of pro-vegans are hell bent on a) abusing me, b) removing sections that they don't like and c) using usernames that are inappropriate.

User:Canaen and Anon with IP address User:64.105.20.237 have indulged in personal attacks calling "Ignorance of Idleguy" etc. on edit summaries and talk pages. 64.105.20.237 is also using an offensive username to sign off his posts like "Anti-idleguy" or "Idleguyspal" in this talk page and in Talk:Environmental vegetarianism almost always mocking me, which i personally feel are abusive.

If you take a look at it you'll know that it was already protected from these semi-vandals but they are still back to their old ways, especially removing the "environmental criticism" in the article just because I've written it from the perspective of the developing world. I've tried to explain that the systemic bias has to go, but they are behaving in an arrogant manner despite other editors reverting their blanking edits. Canaen also has the guts to run for adminship after all this Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Canaen.

I hope you can either lock the article or block these two for a while. Pleease help. Tx Idleguy 08:46, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes tx for taking time to respond. Actually the section in dispute has been in there for quite some time (a few months/weeks) and there was no problem until these two entered and decided to delete it. Infact, they were trying to take that section out without arriving at a consensus on the talk page where I had clearly put forward my points in detail. Idleguy 10:29, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also it seems you have inadvertedly locked to the version of Canaen which obviously has the environment section removed. If you could, please try to revert back to a previous clean edit and lock it, else it could give the wrong impression to these two. Tx and sorry for the hassle. Idleguy 10:32, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if you would bother to read the Protection Tag, Idleguy, that would be a quite POV action on the part of this Admin, and clearly not neutral. I would have a big problem with that.

Hi... I've been harassed by this user as well. My contributions to Veganism have been reverted by this individual without consensus, and I've been subject to personal attacks on Talk:Veganism and my user talk page. He is editing in bad faith and misrepresenting other editor's positions to support his POV. In addition to User:Canaen and ip 64.105.20.237, he uses User:Mitsu, User:Bob3 (blocked) and the ip's 212.18.228.53 and 81.187.71.200 (among others) for sockpuppetry. This guy's been a thorn in our sides for at least a week, and the recent lock of Veganism has lead him to escalate his incivility on talk pages. Thanks for your help, Skinwalker 18:52, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Skinwalker, I don't believe that I've ever talked to you, or replied to any of your posts. Once more, I am Canaen, Canaen, and only Canaen. Please do not confuse me with others, and do not claim negative interactions when said interactions never existed. I do not take kindly to false accusations. Canaen 09:18, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The saddest joke of these two trolls is that all the contributors that he lists are not the same person. And I know because I am (only) one of them! They may know all the buzzwords like 3RR, vandalism and sockpuppet to make a reasonable looking complaint to mom - and generally get in there first to make their complaint - but what the gang of them won't take on board is any sound, balanced, intellectual discussion of the failures of their reversions. How long can a reasonable community take such "ignorance"? And I use the word ignorance correctly. We have tried and tried and tried.

Different contributors have gone round this time and time again with them ; rice and soya are not synonymous, nevermind directly relevent to veganism. Idleguy is the queen of the crop, he has had it pointed out time and time again that the statistics he is stuffing down our throat are relative to industrial meat production, the antithesis of veganism. And yet he uses it to justify an environmentalism critique of veganism !?!. He has been invited to make a genuine environmental critique yet ignores it merely making complete revision of the article to suit himself. The consensus on the discussion page was time and time against his edits.

How long can reason stand aside? Veganism brings up big issue for folks. These plaintiffs seem to make a sport of goading us and yet still go complaining to admins when they dont get their own way. And now they are organising the spoiling of Canaen wish to be an admin and enroling others to spoil his/her chance. Does this all seem right to you?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.18.228.53 (talk • contribs) 

Spum (talk · contribs) apparently can't stop the attacks. See the latest here:[8]. --Viriditas 10:41, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help and advice with this. Grant65 | Talk 11:28, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"If Viriditas was a woman, i would have more children than i have." LOL!! I can't say I follow what it means, but Viri may need to watch his back. ;-D I agree with you that the time for leaving the building is rightly fast approaching, if not long overdue. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:43, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for deleting the above even before I cd submit it with the CSD tag!! ;) btw, the contributor IP 83.100.168.41 has been a habitual offender - you can see User talk:83.100.168.41; Pl. block the IP asap. Thanks, --Gurubrahma 13:24, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I cautiously ask that you keep an eye on the goings-on there. I am suspicious that there might be some sock-puppet action in the works, and I'm pretty sure that it's going to be flooded with Anonymous IP and brand-shiny-new account voting. Not accusing anyone, but the potential is there.

Thanks. Tom Lillis 13:59, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Right, i'm just going to do this, seen as i've considered i might as well follow guidelines, etc. But, the thing which I find quite strange is the fact i've not been reading through the style/editing/etc/ guidelines, and i have no idea where Viriditas is getting some of the points he is getting, nevertheless, for the sake of me not having anything misconstrued, i think i'll just refrain from mentioning his name, because it seems that gets me blocked.

Well, anyway, if Viriditas posted which bits needed cleaning / referencing (i still have no idea why it's been flagged as bad referencing) then i'd be glad to fix it up. Still, i'd love it if when something was changed, the reason was discussed on the talk page, rather than just saying what's happening - the template does that for me (cleanup, or others). I don't want to own the article, nor am i over-posessive of it - The main thing i wanted to do was make it academically referencable, but i've been told a few times "Hey, it's wikipedia, people change articles" - Which seems a bit juxtapositioned to the actual policy where articles should be referenced, but still, i think i'll just continue on anyway, but still, if someone would explain it to me, then i'd love to hear it.

I'm not being sarcastic, or satirical, and i'm actually saying "please" dont take this as a personal comment :-/ Spum 14:01, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. I am awaiting the return of our network administrator so that I can check the logs and narrow down the culprit. —Theo (Talk) 14:46, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

...I didn't tell anybody specifically about my poll! Everybody that voted on the page just happened to see the "my ridiculous poll" tagline (which I've now shortened to "mrp" because the old version was too long). So maybe I should be tweaked at you for not noticing it faster!  ;) · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 22:40, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, he's always been slow. Check this out: April 21, 2005, Katefan0 joins my fan club/cabal/guest book/thingy. September 6, 2005, Woohookitty signs, noting "I didn't know you had a club!" Sound familiar? Katefan0's RFA: Dmcdevit supports, as #6, at 17:52, September 5, 2005. 11:29. Woohookitty supports, #22, on 6 September 2005 (UTC), saying "You didn't tell me you were up for a vote!" Sound familiar? Dmcdevit's RFA: Katefan0 supports #20, at 15:48, July 19, 2005. Woohookitty supports, #37 at 06:07, 23 July 2005 saying "You didn't tell me you were up for an adminship." Sound familiar? Now let's look at this poll. Dmcdevit makes his first (rather witty) comment there at 01:14, December 2, 2005. Woohookitty comments at 22:36, December 5, 2005, saying "Kate didn't tell me about her little 'poll'". Now you know why it sounded familiar! :-) Dmcdevit·t 23:22, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is all very interesting. Cat, what do you have to say for yourself? · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 15:36, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I stumbled upon Bob Newman yesterday, and made a feeble stab at cleaning it up, but ended up feeling overwhelmed by the sheer scale of its fatuousness. So I browsed the Cleanup Taskforce lists for a familiar name with at least some relevant interests. I didn't want to just assign it, though, thus this post. So please take a look-- maybe you'll see a way to attack this, or someone who would be good at it? TIA, --Mwanner | Talk 18:01, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I discovered that the whole Civilian Career section was a copyvio, so removing that has cut the article down a bit, though if he ever checks back on the article he's likely to claim that he has the right to release the copyright (it's from [9]). Unfortunately, I haven't found any other copyvios online (though it wouldn't surprise me if some of this stuff appears on book jacket blurbs somewhere). -- Mwanner | Talk 00:11, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! We need you to protect the page. According to the Wiki's rules[[10]], that Wikipedia is not a propaganda machine I ask you to look at the followings pages: (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=81.182.194.197) he makes everyday since a week. He changed more IPs until now.(user:81.182.194.197 user:81.182.104.136 user:81.182.195.63 user:81.182.20.159 user:81.182.108.116 user:81.182.194.197....) He called others fascists... Please do something. -- Bonaparte talk 19:02, 6 December 2005 (UTC) A! Forget to tell you, in his edits he put a film which is the propaganda tool for nazi and fascists movement. -- Bonaparte talk 19:03, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The articles in question are:

• Second Vienna Award (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Greater Hungary (political concept) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Vienna Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Treaty of Trianon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Thanks, Izehar (talk) 19:29, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes these are. Thank you Izehar! -- Bonaparte talk 19:32, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, do that please. Maybe someone will look at it. By the way, thank you! -- Bonaparte talk 19:48, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thankx! I remember you from Moldovan language page when you did a great job, now the things there are better. See you!-- Bonaparte talk 20:02, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The arbitration committee has reached a final decision in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rex071404 4 case. Raul654 20:13, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; it's been rather chaotic there since the ill-advised rough consensus vote a few hours ago. I've contacted the editors about formal mediation, we'll see what happens. // Pathoschild 20:33, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Has UsedtobeAnonymous exhausted three reverts? Dominick ^(TALK) 20:44, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think Kaliz has, Dominick. Might want to count them up. Used2BAnonymous 21:13, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Woohookitty. First of all, thank you for your support. Regarding your suggestion, I'm afraid that he's rather focused on Gibraltar-related articles. He also vandalized the article Spain including facts related to an inexistent dispute between France and Spain regarding the enclave of Livia and violated the copyright in Royal Gibraltar Police, removing five times the copyright notice that I placed. Beyond that, I don't remember, though I can make a research on his history.

On the other hand, Gibraltarian keeps on removing the {{disputed}} template in History of Gibraltar and Disputed status of Gibraltar. It seems rather childish, but I don't know whether a protection would be better until the arbitration makes a decision. It's going worse since he sometimes removes the template anonymously. A pain in the neck, I'm afraid to say.

Well, I don't bother you more. Today's a bank holiday in Spain (Constitution Day) but tomorrow I'm back at work. I'm going to sleep :-) --Ecemaml 22:11, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Woohookitty.

Thanks for deciding to refrain from reverting some heavy editing I did on the Sant Baljit Singh article. This article had been in the AfD process, but was resurrected pending heavy editing. In the AfD discussion, I spelled out my intention of heavy editing to elicit approval from the article's original editor and those interested.

When the AfD was closed, I commenced my pre-announced editing. I removed the broken reference links (which previously had been unauthorized original web publications of copyrighted materials verbatim and in full) as well as verbatim quotes. With what was left, I condensed down to the bare minimum facts.

Thanks again.

Just a note of thanks for dealing with the WP:CP case. Good of you to do that. I'm curious, were you just looking through the recent entries on WP:CP, or did you see it on RC, or what? JesseW, the juggling janitor 08:18, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello, I judge people by their edits to articles and how they debate on the talk page, not by whether the claim to be "flaming liberal" or not. Anyway, please help me add clarity to the intro and article, I believe the intro currently misstates or understates the critics' view, the act was and is a significant government subsidy of the nuclear power industry and the fact that the act eliminates or lessens the public's right to seek civil law recourse is a key critical one and we should state it directly, "...does not adequately protect the public" is itself woefully inadequate. zen master T 17:08, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mike, because I am arguing that interested parties should not initiate page protection, I need to make you a party to the RfC. I think it's inappropriate and not contemplated by policy for a participating editor to declare an edit war (when none exists), to declare therefore a "cooling off period" (without bothering to discuss it), and to proceed to advertise for conspirators. The issue remains the block, not the people. The resolution requested is to unblock the page, not to sanction those responsible. Thank you for your cooperation. Benjamin Gatti 02:11, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I was looking for a little help to prevent a recreation of a page. I got your name from the Cleanup Taskforce The article Sanket Alekar is a confirmed prank, and has already been listed and deleted before. I know that there is a way to prevent the recreation of a deleted article, but I can't find the relevant literature to enforce it (plus I don't have too much time on my hands these days). Would you be willing to prevent its recreation? Thanks & regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 04:20, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. :) I had the impression that the deleted page could be protected. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:57, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for re-adding the template, I made a mistake. I thought it was added by vandal Ruddyburdon aka Everton Toffees Fan aka GWR FM Bristol - The Better Music Mix, who added a lot of templates to different pages and also to Bogdanov Affair once. Thanks again. Mushroom 13:22, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Gatti 15:10, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.

The article Andrew Susser was deleted earlier this year (Log entry), has it been completely deleted, or is there old backups which I can retreive the article from (just for personal storage)? The reason I ask you is that your name is in the log. Thanks a lot.--Jerryseinfeld 15:26, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(Response to answer in User_talk:Jerryseinfeld) -- Okay, thanks a lot, could you include the latest (last) copy of Mike Mayo to?--Jerryseinfeld 15:43, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I got em, thanks (sorry about the e-mail problem). Is there also copies for images? Like the Susser image File:233-biz.jpg?--Jerryseinfeld 16:11, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It was still on answers.com, problem solved. Kind of boring that it was deleted, I'll have to try it in an all securities industry encyclopedia. The article is here, he joined all high-yield shop Golden Tree Asset Management after that incident.--Jerryseinfeld 16:32, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually being serious there; I don't want to say anything about my personal views until it gets accepted. I was actually going for a 24 thing, though...I was waiting for Raul654 to set me up in a torture chamber :) Ral315 (talk) 05:24, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sheffer_stroke

I have seen that you have protected the page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Logical_nand&redirect=no

I think you have some opinion about the requested move from "Sheffer stroke" to "Logical nand", and could you also protect the page "Sheffer stroke"???

Couldn't you see the vandalism on the page "Sheffer stroke" is very serious!!! Please protect the page "Sheffer stroke" for security!!!

You unprotected Gregory Lauder-Frost, seemingly without notice. Please explain. El_C 10:58, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PAA was unprotected this morning. Dmcdevit knows. Simesa 13:28, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, WP:CVU states that page overloading, warrants an indefinite block. IMHO a quicker solution that protecting the page. Cheers, —R. Koot 13:36, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Due to the evident edit war [[11]] I would like to ask you to protect the page in the current version for at least 24h. It was proven that the IPs was from a user user:Node ue who was just making trolling and a edit war!([[12]] [[13]] [[14]]) The page is Moldovan language. In this way we can easily talk on the talk page issue by issue.-- Bonaparte talk 20:27, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Remington is quite elitist.

Also, change the protection tag on Jake's user page to Vprotect!Ahshi 20:30, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for keeping an eye on it! --Viriditas 10:30, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

oh sorry. i didn't know you all were that serious. i'll try to play along

Hi, Woohookitty. I'm afraid you're right. However, I didn't expect other thing from Gibraltarian. My impression is that Gibraltarian is a fanatic, not interested at all in wikipedia as encyclopedia but as propaganda platform. I've got to recognize that I'm probably biased, but I do try to apply the NPOV and look for sources that support what I consider one of the POVs without removing the "opposed" POV.

Apart from the Gibraltar-related articles, we've had a new incident with him in es: with regard to Falkand Islands. As you probably know, Falkland Islands are subject to a dispute between UK and Argentina. We're discussing how to name the article on the capital name. Its official name is Stanley, but there is an exonym in Spanish for the city: Puerto Argentino. However, such exonym is not widely used in Spanish-speaking countries (since it was created upon de Argentinean invasion in 1982). We finally reach an agreement on the name of the article: it would be es:Puerto Argentino/Stanley (Argentino first following an alphabetic order; we created such a convention for the lakes in the Chilean-Argentinean border, each of which have a different name in each country). Well, apart from not taking part in the discussion (as usual), Gibraltarian kept on removing the agreed name from the Falkland article leaving only "Stanley". That's the usual way of behaving for him.

The problem is that Gibraltarian will simply keep on vandalizing the articles anonymously. As far as we know, his ISP dynamically assigns IP addresses so that he may use any of the 8,000 public IP addresses the ISP has been assigned. It's not sensible nor fair blocking the whole IP address range so that we keep an eye in the likely articles he vandalizes and block the involved IP address for a time. It, at least, prevents him from editing articles for a day, but the next day a new IP address has been assigned and we have the problem again. A mess, as you can see.

I'll keep you informed. Best regards --Ecemaml 19:02, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just for your "fun". You can take a look at the history of Disputed status of Gibraltar. Four removals of the {{disputed}} template with three different IP addresses on Dec 11th, all from the same Gibraltar's ISP (see here). The usual tactics by Gibraltarian :-( --Ecemaml 08:08, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Depending on the situation, I may or may not comment. I certainly will remember that the P-A mediation is continuing, though. Ral315 (talk) 00:14, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad to see you protected the Infobox_film template, but could I ask you to put it back to an older version without all the newly added fields? This is adversely affecting hundreds of film pages, I've listed a few random ones on the talk page. Thank you. Turnstep 02:06, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick reply. So where do we go from here? Turnstep 02:41, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again, will do. Turnstep 02:56, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Before you locked this article the vandals removed a refrence on the article, could you please revert to that edit thanks 205.188.116.130 05:22, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The entry should not be reverted as it does not accurately depict the messageboard. First of all, I would not expect a messageboard to have an entry on a wiki, and secondly, if it did, it should be put there by the board administrator (myself), not a user who has been banned. Whelck 05:36, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

with the amount of vandalism that the page was receiving prior to the lock it is only fair that it be restored to the authors last edit prior to the lock.

I can't put the wiki entry for www.ufck.org on the articles for deletion list due to it being locked. Whelck 05:51, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. I removed the speedy deletion template that was inappropriately applied. I figured I'd give it some time to turn into something, but I don't think it's worth it. If you want to unprotect it, I'd be happy to do the work of putting it up on AfD (and monitoring it for vandalism, of course). —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-12-11 05:53:35Z

it had potential until it started getting vandalizedBBwoman1 05:58, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really understand why my protection request was rejected. If you think my archive should be protected instead, after the offending material is moved there, I would be agreeable. Otherwise, what is such a move supposed to achieve? I don't feel that is right to attempt to defuse the situation, since the posts in question were a calculated and sustained attack, which has since been subject to a futile attempt at concealment. I don't feel that a gesture from me would have any reforming effect on the user/s involved in this case. (By the way, a sysop, User:Gurubrahma is also investigating this and related matters.) Grant65 | Talk 06:14, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am rewriting the manslaughter page so that it is more comprehensive and providing it with references as requested by the tag (English law only, I regret to say). I dumped the Road Traffic Act 1991 provisions into a separate page because: (a) it is not manslaughter but an offence in its own right of lesser seriousness; (b) it is purely an English law element whereas I thought manslaughter should be more generic; and (c) including the information under the manslaughter heading would make that page rather longer than I thought appropriate. But if you think this is better subsumed into manslaughter, I will happily comply. David91 07:52, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your understanding. I think it would be better to leave it as a free-standing page for now. Although, if some U.S.-based lawyer could be persuaded to write something on vehicular manslaughter, we could do a comparative page. David91 08:00, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that made me laugh! · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 16:41, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few other gestures I've wanted to use lately. · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 16:59, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

iversity of Miami protection== Its good you protected this site, its becoming ridiculous- but its protecting vandalism to a degree. The criticism section has been removed without dialogue or thought, though it has been repeatedly atempted. I have treid to contact these people through their IP pages, and their Wiki names (though often they are anonymous), and have had no response. Its not that dialogue has not been tried, its that the people who delete the section refuse to respond. With that note, I believe the criticism section should be put back up unless someone can give a good reason for not doing so relativly soon.

Again, every fact and qoute is refrenced in detail and are completely accurate. Is there a reason why we should protect the vandalsim that has occured to it?

jcdpi

Thanks for putting the protection on. This seems like an awful silly argument I have gotten in the middle of, but then again, most of them must seem silly, right? --rogerd 23:16, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Benjamin Gatti has been accepted. Please place evidence on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Benjamin Gatti/Evidence. Proposals and comments may be placed on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Benjamin Gatti/Workshop. Fred Bauder 03:57, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

FYI...User:Canaen has initiated a meatpuppet campaign to remove criticism from the veganism article. [15] [16]. --Viriditas 07:26, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You probably remember the anonymous attacks that Idleguy was being subject to in various places. Well, Skinwalker appears to be the latest recipient [17]. I don't have all the facts, so I'm hoping you'll contact him if you have the time. Thanks for your help. --Viriditas 14:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WWK, thanks for stepping in. I intend to file a user conduct RfC later today. Would you be available to look over my RfC before I post it? This situation has seriously gotten out of hand. Cheers, Skinwalker 16:44, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You are right this situation has gotten out of hand. Viriditas and Skinwalker continue to dole out their lies and play Wiki legalese to push their agenda. You are being sucked in and manipulated Woohookitty. We have suffered too long with these guys vandalism and personal attacks. May be you are just friends with Viriditas

Time and time again we have tried to engage them in direct discussion, Viriditas just plain ignores it. All 3 just reverese any edits that do not suit their pro-meat agenda. Idleguy trying to use statistics targetted against the meat industry against veganism, Skinwalker trying to use data about anorexics which did not mention vegans at all.

This accusation of meat puppetry is the low stoop so far. They are scrapping the barrel in order to find someway of silencing the informed debate. Skinwalker has repeated his erroneous, unsustainable accusations time and time again but they are wrong - and I can write that confidently as one of the other wholly independent defenders of the vegan page from their attacks. My involvement came before Canaen's and will continue after. I have never read his journal And for the record, I do not have a fixed IP. 195.82.106.62 19:26, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry - its alright, just a little bit annoying. Is there any way i'd be able to have them separate? I'll be going through articles listed in the category shortly. Spum 12:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Woohookitty. I'm writing to you looking for directions, since I don't want to enter a new edit war.

As you can see in Talk:Disputed status of Gibraltar, I've listed the disagreement points providing the arguments and sources why I don't think they are true. Such a list has been available for more than two weeks. Gibraltarian hasn't provided any argument but the usual personal attacks. Only Gibnews has objected to two specific points.

Having considered that, I've reworked the article, explaining what has been done [18].

As usual, the article has been reverted without any explanation (by a Gibraltar-based IP address that I'm completely sure is Gibraltarian) [19]. The revertion includes, as usual, the removal of the {{disputed}} template. What can be done to prevent a new edit war?

Many thanks in advance --Ecemaml 13:14, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently disputing those things asserted by Ecemam1 which I have personal knowledge of having lived the last 25 years of the history of Gibraltar as an active participant. Over the last few years my contributions to Wikipedia have been anonymous and have been limited to tidying up wording and expanding some sections. Communications in Gibraltar being an area of expertise. Items removed in both the English and Spanish version have been the unfounded allegations of state criminality which have offended many and were covered in the local media. This may have attracted the attentions of others less careful and experienced, there may be only one user called Gibraltarian but there are many Gibraltarians who resent continued defamation in the media by Spanish sources.

The earlier material presented by Ecemami has been sent to the president of a historical organisation Europa Historical Society as they have experts in the period outside my competence. Because the perspective of Ecemam1 has not currently been disputed by myself does not imply its acceptance.

Regretably much of the published material in Spain is outright lies. To this day Spanish politicians continue with this practice example and locally there is a view, based on experience that anything that originates from Spain about Gibraltar is propaganda designed to support an antiquated territorial claim aimed at turning back history 300 years and imposing something on the Gibraltarians which they simply will not accept.

It is only this year that the Spanish Government have admitted that the Gibraltar Government even exists and have conceded that it must form part of any discussions - so far despite a number of rounds of talks this has not produced any tangible result and Spain continues with many of the restrictions introduced by the fascist dictator Franco. Given there are real reasons for misstrust, it is easy for people here to write off anything by Ecemam1 as 'another day, more shit' and delete it, even if he has genuine merit.

He is as much a victim of the Spanish persecution of Gibraltar as the rest of us. --Gibnews 10:20, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I beat you to the block - still at least they're blocked now... -- Francs2000 15:25, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Woohookitty, for supporting my RfA - I swear, I wasn't already an admin! But now I'll do my best as an admin to help the reality of Wikipedia live up to the dream. BD2412 T 15:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. I know I wasn't the best of people, but i think that the WP:NPA should be expanded slightly, and cleaned up - it is a bit messier than you-know-what. I just think that me, of all people can actually share experience of NPA and expand the article so people actually get more info out of it. So, am i allowed to edit the article? Spum 17:41, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You removed the {{vprotected}} from George W. Bush, but didn't unprotect it. If we protect an article, we need to explain to our visitors why. Thanks, TacoDeposit 19:13, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We've got a couple of different IPs, and possibly a registered user, working on this article, repeatedly reverting information about fines this company has received for misleading clients.

1. (cur) (last) 14:57, 13 December 2005 65.105.237.226
2. (cur) (last) 09:03, 13 December 2005 67.186.196.85
3. (cur) (last) 21:57, 12 December 2005 Alaska1050

Are you in a blocking mood? :-)--SarekOfVulcan 23:07, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I protected the page and added a note to the talk page. Thanks for the heads up...always appreciated. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 23:42, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I would have bothered the previously-blocking admins, but they seem to be on WikiBreaks. --SarekOfVulcan 23:49, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. I apologize if I offended you or made the situation worse than it already was. That was never my intention and I like to think I learned a great deal about Wikipedia from that experience and am a better Wikiepdian for it. I made mistakes and for that I am sorry. No hard feelings for your oppose vote. I was not surprised that it came up (see my answer to number 3). Thanks again and have a good one!Gator (talk) 01:01, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I understand. The whole thing is water under the bridge to me. No hard ones.Gator (talk) 01:11, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed you protected that page. I also left a message on the Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Computer_science and waited for your response. In the mean time, a reply was made to the 3RR violation report: Wikipedia:Administrators'_oticeboard/3RR#User:Powo. You protected the page with Powo's version, which I claimed to be unsourced, and Powo's only listed source was one about "computing" and not "computer science."

This seems to be vague on what actually is a revert or edit war. Some take revert as completely identical and others take them as partially. It is obvious Powo wanted a certain sentence stated one way even after 3 revisions. Other things were changed, so the reverts weren't "identical" reverts as policy stated. It seems people can get around the 3RR by the added little extra changes that make reverts not completely identical. The reply on the 3RR reports seems to suggest the page shouldn't be protected, but dispute resolution should still be followed.

Just my 2 cents. — Dzonatas 03:13, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

When you unprotect Computer Science, the list of sub-disciplines of CS needs to be fixed so that "formal grammar" is no longer a discipline of computer science (one could add "formal language" to the "Theoretical computer science" or "Mathematical foundations" section, either of which makes more sense). - Connelly 22:39, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for reverting vandalism on my user page. keep fighting the good fight, :-) Alhutch 08:53, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

lol. good job.--Alhutch 08:55, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I filed a user conduct RFC on Canaen.[20] Cheers, Skinwalker 19:15, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I posted this to Skinwalker's discussion page. Canaen and Skinwalker is entirely wrong. So wrong as to being deliberately dishonest.

So what is your relationship with Viriditas?

This matter will not resolve itself without reasonable discussion. They can try to use all the dirty tricks in the book they want, threats, insults, provocation, banning. It wont work because they crossed the line of common decency first and they continue to cross the line. Why, we even had Skinwalker editing off comments from a third party from Canaen's home page now!

Is that right?

• == Response to the lies in your RFC ==

Hi

I posted this response to your RFC on Canaen.

I would like to point out that in British English the word nark is non-pejorative and I understand that it has an objective meaning something akin to a " snitch " in American. That is, meaning someone that makes, often erroneous, allegations to authorities in order to personally benefit themselves in some way.

The funniest thing for me is that you are busy digging a hole in your own canoe because your allegations are lies. You are entirely wrong. I know this because I know who I am and I know with whom I have and have had connections and I take a very minor little offence at being accused by the likes of you of being something I am not. I state " very minor little offence " because you and your views genuinely are so unimportant.

You are an individual of very little decency and integrity. I do not state this as an insult but as an objective statement. You have been told on many occasions that I have no connection with this or these other individuals and yet you not only continue to go on making such allegations but you even use them as the ground to make an attack on another individual. Don't worry, Karma will come and get you in its own time. 195.82.106.78 21:54, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Quote from Vegan talk page ==User conduct RFC==

Please be advised that I have filed a user conduct RFC on you. It can be found here. Cheers, Skinwalker 19:27, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just out of interest, who do you think this nark Skinwalker is and why is he so motivated to go about doing what he is doing? I put this record up in the open for you and them to see because I have no and have had no connection with you nor any of the journal pages and, frankly, I take offence at being called a meat or sockpuppet of yours when I am not. I am sure that you are just or even more upset as being accused of a connection with me when you have none.

Unfortunately though, that is the depth of Skinwalker's lies and the shallowness of Skinwalker's integrity.

• Where he has no grounds he invents them and he is, oh, so clever at playing WikiTricks with all these technical terms and methods.

I am starting to feel like a Jew in Nazi Germany being hunted down, connected to individuals which I have no connection with and their so-called crimes and accused of crimes which are not mine.

And what of Viriditas? He just seems to get off on throwing around his weight whilst avoiding entering into the actually factual discussion.

For the record - and let them love every minute of their persecution syndrome, let them avidly copy and paste and make little weblinks to this as they are so good at Wikitricks - I am a vegan of 20 years or more standing and, arguably, MacDonald of Clanranald. I became involved in editing the vegan article before you returned to it recently. I am entirely responsible for kicking this whole thing off because I refused to let Idleguy get away with his ridiculous domination of the article and I put Skinwalker in the same category for his anorexic stuff.

From my point of view, my objections are largely literary. The article became too bloated and required editing down. It is merely meant to be a definition of what vegan is. I don't see any point in actually engaging in those that oppose veganism. I don't even support vegan's trying to counter counter-vegan propaganda on the Wiki. It is best to keep it short and simple and give a few links so that folks that are interested can go find out more.

I approached Skinwalker reasonably and got the same sort of response as you did, see ; [21]. When Viriditas started to engage in his revisions without consultation, I tried to engage him in reasonable discussion, see ; [22]. But he just ignores it.

Fine. I showed respect, they showed themselves for what they are.

I find it weird in a way that individuals can become so obsessed by something that they obviously do not love but instead want to demean or destroy - and that means you now - and are willing to invest so much time and energy into it.

I could understand it if Skinwalker was a paid employee of the meat industry - he says he has professional scientific interest in animal husbandry. That would just make him a paid publicist. But if he is doing this and attacking you in his own free time, I pity him deeply.

"What were you doing all this evening on your computer, darling?" His wee wifie asks him.

"Oh, I spent hours trying to stomp on vegans on the internet, made a really good complaint against one and tried to mess up their article with references to anorexics who think they are vegetarians "

"That's nice."

195.82.106.78 04:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't use my talk page for stuff like this. I don't have any "relationship" with Viriditas. I've helped him with 2 issues in the last what...3 weeks? Before that I didn't know of his existance. I help people who ask for help. I don't have "relationships" with them. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 04:07, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Vernal lds temple.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page to provide the necessary information on the source or licensing of this image (if you have any), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

You tagged this image as PD but there is no source to verify. Uploader is absent. -Nv8200p talk 02:46, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your input to an RfC at Talk:Depleted uranium would be appreciated. DV8 2XL 04:09, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support. I have been trying to move this article from an anti-DU pamphlet to a real Wikipedia entry but I have been facing a lot of opposition. DV8 2XL 07:17, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. Just wondering if you'd be willing to put your input into a section of this RfC. Particularly, what is now listed as numeber 5., where he points out that you blocked me. If you still believe me on the issue of my identity, I would think that claim negated. Thanks for reading. Canaen 04:17, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This RFC is nothing but an ad hominem attack on Canaen by Skinwalker and Viriditas based on bogus lies.

Please note, e.g. ;

The LiveJournal refered to is dated 2005-12-03.

I am one of those contributors mentioned above and have point out to Skinwalker, the author of this attack, many times that I have no connection to the accused. As someone accused of being a meatpuppet, please note my contribution to Skinwalker discussion page, here ; [23]. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASkinwalker&diff=29046153&oldid=22008974

• It is dated 23 November 2005

Please also note my contribution to Viriditas discussion page, here ; [24] Viriditas

• It is dated 22 and 23 November 2005

• Noto Bene, they predate the Livejournal by 10 days, and note the initial tone of Skinwalker response. Viriditas just ignores it and any consensus on the vegan talk pages to continue making his own personal revisions without consultation.

I hope this undercuts the credibility of Skinwalker ad hominem attack on Canaen under the guise of a RFC. I state what I have always stated that I have no connection with Canaen or other users however much Viriditas enjoys using the word meatpuppets to insult vegans.

I have to draw the admin's special attention to the deliberate and implicit insult within the name calling of unconnected vegans by Viriditas as meat puppets or " Mr Meatpuppet " as he now puts it.

Most vegans and vegetarians would consider it as distasteful as "niggerpuppets" would be to African-Americans people. See here ; [25].

Thanks for the information. BTW, would you mind putting my user and talk page on your watchlist in case they are vandalized again? The "vegan smegma" comments that Skinwalker and myself received yesterday were quite cheeky. --Viriditas 15:23, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bug you again. User:195.82.106.78 is repeatedly vandalizing my user page with a rant about "vegan smegma" and a picture of an erect penis.[26] The last instance of vandalism occurred 15 minutes ago. Can something be done about this? Cheers, Skinwalker 18:37, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for blocking that guy. However, he's been blocked before, under a different ip,[27] and he just comes right back with another ip in the 195.82.106.xxx domain. Either it's a dynamic ip, or he's using multiple computers on one subnetwork. Regards, Skinwalker 00:19, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as I have said many times before, I don't have a fixed IP and so I get whatever the PPP server doles out to me. It'd be hard to justify banning an entire ISP just because a couple of folks don't like a taste of their own medicine.

Now, Michael, I am perfectly capable of playing nice. *IF* your two friends Viriditas and Skinwalker and their stooge Idleguy are going to climb down to a point of humility as well and work within the consensus of the discussion page. A deliberately oppositional POV is not a NPOV. Actually, I'd like to add intelligence and integrity to humility and I will match them. I make it clear, what I chose to do was a reasoned reaction to unreasonable behaviour on their three behalfs. The Wiki will go nowhere is folks refuse to engage in reasoned discussion and join in with consensus instead just slamming insults, using clever wikitricks to try and ram home their POV and making block revisions which is what we were suffering.

What a tiresome waste of energy it is when folks use those tactics, and how else do you expect other folks to react under a barrage of repeated dishonest accusations? To defend Canaen, I state clearly - again - that I have no connection with him at all.

This is where it all approximately started; http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Veganism&oldid=29045261, It would hard to criticism that as either a bad edit or the immediate response calm and reasoned; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Skinwalker#Vegan. Sadly, with the unprotecting of the article, Viriditas has already started to repeat their behaviour of revision without consensus and refusal to engage in actual reasoned discussion which is where they started ; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Viriditas#Vegan

212.18.224.118 08:19, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just to confirm - in the spirit of reasonableness and honesty - yes, I am the same person that was banned earlier. If you check both IP ranges you will see that they belong to the same ISP.212.18.224.118 08:28, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mr. reverto was most likely an account created by User:133.20.16.171 (based on both user's edits to Mr. Roboto and its talk page. Should any action be taken against this address as well to prevent more account creation? Mike5904 02:15, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Bigdaddy1204 (talk · contribs)--Um 23456789 03:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

please check your email, I just sent you a message... thanks 172.140.219.7 04:21, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to ask you why you added the {{bv}} tag to a user that had only made a few edits. Perhaps you should start by welcoming them to Wikipedia before you skip a few levels in the "test" hierarchy. Thank you, JHMM13 (T | C) 05:54, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

K, thanks for the reply! I was just making sure :-) JHMM13 (T | C) 06:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WooHooKitty,

I saw an edit by you on an article that I had authored. I am not sure as to whether you are inviting me for helping out with "someone else's wiki syntax" or is it that the tag is something that you often leave behind as an admin.

Regards,

Me

Well, your efforts are appreciated. Don't let it get to you. This has been going on for quite some time. As long as you take a glance every now and then at the mainspace articles (and their talk pages), we should be in good company. Again, thanks for keeping on top of this situation. BTW, I've pretty much confirmed (through edit histories) that 195.82.106.65 (talk · contribs), 212.18.228.53 (talk · contribs), Mitsu (talk · contribs), 195.82.106.78 (talk · contribs), 195.82.106.176 (talk · contribs), 212.18.224.118 (talk · contribs), and 212.18.228.53 (talk · contribs) are the same user. --Viriditas 08:41, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's the same ISP. See [28]. --Viriditas 09:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There's another one @ THE CRUMBLING STEELFRAME OF INDIA. 68.39.174.238 13:49, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

POLICING UNDER POLITICAL PATRONAGE IN INDIA - not convinced these are speedy candidates, but seem to be, so I'll leave it to you :-) Dan100 (Talk) 14:08, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ROLE OF POLICE IN THE RECONSTRUCTION OF INDIA The new one... 68.39.174.238 14:09, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NEED TO LIBERATE LAW ENFORCERS FROM UNHOLY ALLIANCE IN INDIA Dear [who/whatever]! It's the B-Movie Book Bandit! 68.39.174.238 14:13, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

POLICE UNPROFESSIONAL IN INDIA HELP! It's an INVASION!! 68.39.174.238 14:16, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. If he could make legitimate contributions to the existing articels that'd be great, but the fact that he hasn't responded to warnings worries me... 68.39.174.238 14:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You missed the latest original research: Role of Popular masses and Women in the French Revolution! 68.39.174.238 14:46, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I sent you the message with the title 'Query' from my room mates account by mistake. Sorry. I was checking up this page for any vandalism and found your edit with a tag in it. Wondering if you wanted me to join in the 'cause'.

-- Heavynash 14:12, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Heya Jimbo, juet letting you know that we've come to a pretty solid consensus (98 support votes to 4 opposing) on a proposed Semi-protection policy. We feel with all of the heat we're facing right now, it might be a good time to enact something like this. Please check out the discussion and give any input that you can. It'd be much appreciated. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 04:19, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Has someone talked to Brion about implementation?--Jimbo Wales 15:10, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Brion has commented briefly [29], so he is at least aware of the proposal, and has presumably read the front page. Note that the comments he made were on those features we presently opted to avoid for exactly the reasons he mentions. -Splash^talk

We've talked most with Ævar, another developer, to try to make it as easy to implement as possible. All we need now is "Royal Assent" now. Titoxd^{(?!? - did you read this?)} 18:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In recent days, the number of times Gibraltarian (a/k/a 212.120.*.*) has reverted this page to his preferred version has swelled to 32, and it looks like things aren't getting any better. I suspect that if this page is not protected, that number may very well swell to 50 by Christmas. Therefore, I urge you to protect this page ASAP, and let it stay that way until a temporary injunction is issued and/or the RfAr case closes.

Please revisit your nomination for deletion. The article creator saved and brought it to your attention before writing the most important paragraph. This was actually a precedent-setting United States Supreme Court case. It could get speedied if you withdraw. Cheers, Durova 17:13, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd appreciate it if you took a bit more time to read completely what is on a page before completely throwing it away. I refer to your completely trashing the A Conservative Version page (without even, for example, checking the "What Links Here"). Thanks. Brusselsshrek 10:23, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi woohookitty (good name!). ive just restubbed Tebulosmta - please dont use subst with stub templates. it makes the articles harder to edit. thanks :) BL kiss the lizard 10:34, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

sorry bout that. dont think of it as a yell - just a lizardy purr :) BL kiss the lizard 10:42, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I noticed you speedied the Tim Butler article. I was thinking about adding a mergeto tag (or merging it myself) as the article was linked from The Psychedelic Furs, for which some of the information might have been suitable. Could you check the content of the deleted page please and see what could be put into the band's article? Thanks --Whouk (talk) 12:28, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. I'll probably copy some of the biog across and redirect. --Whouk (talk) 12:36, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you warned User_talk:195.225.176.35 to stop blanking Human sexual behavior. He's done it again. Please block him. Can you also semi-protect that page? It seems prone to vandalism. Jehochman 15:27, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted a page start, because it was "just an image". What do you think the chances are I will ever visit that page again and post a good image to support an article that may develop there? -Edbrown05 21:14, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Woohookitties · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 05:40, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

damnit, my plans are ruined. --kizzle 06:07, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you Douchebags...er...I mean...Microelectric Circuit Engineers...would be encouraged to know how WELL my PHASE II- STOP THE FUNDING plan has worked in forcing Wikipedia to change.

See the link below:

http://wikipediaclassaction.org/

Yours Truly,

Big Daddy

ps I told you it wasn't nice to be mean to Big Daddy...

WHK, have you ever browsed around on Wiktionary? It's a wonderful resource. · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 19:25, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So does that mean if I call the phone # I can talk to you BD? --kizzle 20:29, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, are the threats on that website authentic, or is this just an intimidation page? --TML1988 01:51, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the support. Cheers, -Willmcw 07:21, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Woohookitty. It's really a pity that Gibraltarian has been blocked, not because he didn't deserve it (he indeed did) but because I did expect some kind of civilized discussion could take place. But Gibraltarian has proved beyond any doubt that he's got to working in forum with a lot of noise and bombastic statements and not to a place as wikipedia, with its own rules.

Well, I'll go on working in the articles. I've even created a new one, Disputed status of the isthmus between Gibraltar and Spain, hoping that Gibnews will be able to play in a more civilized way.

BTW, Gibraltarian goes on vandalizing the articles (last time as 212.120.229.168). What can be done? You've talked about a "range block for a short time" but such a measure makes me always fell unconfortable (since other innocent wikipedians may be blocked just because of this vandal). Is there any other measure that can be taken (I ask that because we have the same problem in en: and I'd like to know whether other possibilities may be used). Best regards --Ecemaml 07:33, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

09:46, 19 December 2005, as 212.120.230.167. --Ecemaml 10:00, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thx for the heads up. I asked on IRC if there was such a list, and nobody seemed to know. However, judging by Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Bogdablock, it appears that quite a few of the Bogda-socks are not on the list. Perhaps they should all be listed on the face of the template, in really small print, then the template transcluded onto the page you linked to, in lieu of manual listing? — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 18:41, Dec. 19, 2005

But unless after that RfC the user will be blocked for good. I don't see another answer. Or maybe Jimbo will see this. Bonaparte talk 18:46, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, For better or worse I've added List of streets in Paris, France in alphabetical order into Portal:Paris. That gets the size down to something manageable. As people have pointed out, there are quite a few red links but I prefer to see that as lots of room for expansion :-) I certainly wouldn't do this for anywhere other than la belle Paris. Dlyons493 Talk 20:58, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I saw you're (like me) listed in this category which is up for deletion. Hoped you'd like to vote in favor of keeping it... Thanks! Larix 02:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As you know, User:CyclePat added a bike, the CCM light delivery safety, to the motorized bicycle article, which was removed several times as having no demonstrable significance. He then created a fork, timeline of motorized bicycle history with the CCM light delivery safety in it; it was removed as having no demonstrable significance. He then suggested coming up with a list of motorized bicycle, so he could put it in there. Now he's created a gallery of motorized bicycle, and not content with that he's put a picture of the CCM light delivery safety in motorized bicycle and will not allow it to be removed.

As always with Pat, he accuses those who dispute his additions of POV (obviously Pat has no POV issues at all, how could anyone think that?)

The pictures in the article at present are an 1897 machine showing the genesis of the motorized biclcye and motorbike; a VeloSolex (mentioned in the article), a Derny (mentioned in the text), a Whizzer aftermarket conversion (mentioned in the text), a Giant LaFree (mentioned in the text) and a Powabyke (mentioned in the text). Each picture illustrates a particular theme: aftermarket conversions, hub motors, whatever.

But Pat wants that f***ing CCM Light Delivery Safety in this article, and he doesn't seem to care how it's done.

I am tempted to raise an RfC because I am so angry about it, but I hope you can talk me out of it. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 09:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That was braver than I'd have been :-) The man is utterly exasperating. He also has a habit of rewording stuff in incredibly idiosyncratic English. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 21:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Digging around, I find you cleaned up a load of pagemoves on these pages at the end of November. Unfortunately, you didn't completely solve the problem - the pre-Reformation bishops seem to still be missing from all the articles (you reverted to a slightly later version, I guess), along with occasional interwiki links and so on. I'll have a go at sorting this out tonight - is there anything you think I need to know about the situation before I jump in with both feet? Shimgray | talk | 18:25, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it seems the problem is that a different editor purged the lists of pre-Reformation Bishops (as they were "Catholic") a short while beforehand, so it wasn't immediately obvious where the correct version was. Well, at least it'll give me something to do over coffee. Shimgray | talk | 18:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that was fun. All sorted now - there's a lot of individual Catholic diocese articles left orphaned, but frankly I can't be bothered finding them and no-one will link to them, so may as well just leave them. A couple of pages were heavy-handed reverting - lost a couple of tyop corrections and so on - but at least the data is back. Hopefully, he won't come back and do it all again... Shimgray | talk | 23:08, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Could you take a look at Conspiracy theory in regards to Zen-master's probation [30]. I'm quite involved in a dispute with him at the moment and can't be considered a neutral admin. However, I do think his recent reverts and edits may be grounds to ban him from the article for a month or so. Thanks. Carbonite | Talk 20:51, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

He recently told me to recuse myself for explaining Karmafist's last 3RR block to him. :-) He's entirely too much of a wikilawyer for me, but as there are hundreds of other admins, I'm fine with not touching it. I saw that his last four blocks were all for his actions at conspiracy theory, [31], so I think it's time. Dmcdevit·t 21:43, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've just posted a request at WP:ANI (see here). Carbonite | Talk 21:49, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And what "actions" would that be? Since becoming aware of it I've been following the WP:0RR. zen master T 21:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Who handles "In The News" on the Home Page? There's a major upcoming issue, a Libyan Supreme court hearing on death sentences for Bulgarian nurses, now coming up Christmas Eve. Trial of five Bulgarian nurses and a Palestinian doctor in Libya -- I'd like to alert the editor. Simesa 20:52, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Check the log. I think it's my ADD kicking in again. Uggh. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 11:27, Dec. 21, 2005

No I'm saying I have tabbed browsing and attention deficit, and simultaneously speedy deleted one substub as nocontext, then redirected the second one to the first one without noticing. I need a wiki break I think. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 11:34, Dec. 21, 2005

Three of the editors involved (one of who I also have a contentious dispute with, on a different subject) were placed on probation by Arbcomm on December 4, 2005 w/regard to disruptive editing on articles relating to China Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Instantnood 2. Is it appropriate to suggest that, in this context, stronger action is appropriate? Monicasdude 16:16, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that Gibraltarian's situation has only gotten worse over time. In the past two days alone, he has reverted History of Gibraltar seven times, and Disputed status of Gibraltar five times. In his most recent edits, he has once again called Ecemaml a troll and his views "racist". I believe it is about time to act. I would recommend protecting these two articles once again, and, if necessary, extending the protection to the talk pages. If that doesn't work, then it would be time to block all IPs between 212.120.224.0 and 212.120.231.255 for a time, at least until G's arbitration case closes, since it appears that this IP range has either not been used by anyone else on Wikipedia, or has not been used to make any "unrelated" edits on Wikipedia, or both. --TML1988 21:49, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at these diffs (note the timestamps): [32], [33], and [34]. Oh, and also [35]. Blackcap (talk) ^{(vandalfighters, take a look)} 08:19, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yeah. It's completely f—ing fantastic. It's incredible how fast it's been moving, and now, whamo! Here it is! Blackcap (talk) ^{(vandalfighters, take a look)} 08:45, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

O.K. I'll have to take a look in a day and see what the history looks like. Whatever the results, they'll be worth posting on SEMI's talk page. Blackcap (talk) ^{(vandalfighters, take a look)} 08:52, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Woohookitty,

I notice you have removed the protection template [36], but the page was not unprotected. I'm not sure if you forgot to unprotect or something, but I've added back the template for you.

- Cheers, Mailer Diablo 14:06, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Patience? Me want now!  :] Heh. Sorry, didn't mean to spook those who are already skittish about the new policy. However, I do think that once they have time to work it through they'll see that the 'scary' concept of "permanent semi-protection" is better than the existing situation of "permanent protection" for some pages. I can wait. :] --CBD _☎ ^✉ 14:41, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've raised this question here, as now it's actually real and happening I expect more people will want to comment. Dan100 (Talk) 14:52, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is. I've certainly come to much better understand the philosophy than when I first read the proposal page. We evidently need to conduct a public education campaign about how it was we managed to secure agreement for the proposal on such a wide basis. That 'grilling' I wrote way back when this all started is probably worth revisiting and writing a bulleted-opposite of it in #What Semi-protection is not. I guess if we round up a couple more admins to work hard on inducting the community gently into how we can reach peace on the use of sprotection we might be able to allay the worst of the assuming the worst. Fun for Christmas... -Splash^talk 16:24, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to wish you and your family a Merry Christmas and a BD-free New Year - Guettarda 16:46, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you and those you love are at peace during this ancient time of hope and celebration. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 17:38, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This guy is back, with the usual personal attacks and reversions. He's added wikistalking to his bag of tricks, it seems. I posted a notice on AN/I[37], but I thought I should drop you a line about it as well. Cheers, Skinwalker 18:41, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also, do you think Veganism is a good candidate for semi-protection? I realize that semi-prot is still sort of in beta (or alpha!) test, but we've been dealing with a persistent and aggressive user of anonymous ips there. I'm not sure what he's doing qualifies strictly as vandalism, but semi-protection does sound pretty attractive as a possible damper on his behavior. Skinwalker 20:11, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw the strangest thing: [38]. There's... almost no reverts. Did I just step into an alternate reality? Where's Rod Serling? Blackcap (talk) 01:21, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please reprotect the Gerard Way article? The only edits to it are vandalism from anonymous IP addresses, and not enough people are watching it to prevent the vandalism from lingering for hours on end. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:23, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Michael! Can you tell me please the IP of user:ßonaparte? He vandalized my user page. -- Bonaparte talk 17:08, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

195.82.106.69 (talk · contribs) is continuing with the personal attacks, vandalism of the user [39], and article RFC [40]as well as vandalism of talk pages [41], violation of 3RR on Veganism (using multiple accounts like 195.82.106.47 (talk · contribs), 195.82.106.47 (talk · contribs) and 212.18.228.53 (talk · contribs) to revert six times in 24 hours), as well as graduating to wikistalking my contribution list [42] and harassment on my talk pages [43] and in edit summaries. Admin intervention is requested, as the anon's behavior is gaining momentum and shows no sign of slowing down. Regarding the reverts, I have made the relevant entry at WP:AN/3RR, but I feel this situation is out of control as the user will not abide by Wikipedia policies. --Viriditas 02:30, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help. As we both assume the CheckUser will come back negative (but the results will help confirm evidence under discussion) I would like to know how to split Skinwalker's RFC on Canaen. If they are two different users (and it certainly appears that they are), I don't think it is fair for Canaen to bear the brunt of the anon's bad behavior. Should the RFC be split, and if so, what name do I choose for the RFC title (as the user in question is known by many account names and IPs)? From what I can tell, Canaen has attempted to separate himself from this user (although he has also invited the anon to continue using his talk page). In his defense, Canaen does not seem to be malicious like the anon and has expressed goodwill and good faith towards other users, with the occassional personal attacks against Skinwalker, Idleguy, and myself, which for the most part seem to have ceased. --Viriditas 04:08, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, Happy Holidays and Happy New Year! --Viriditas 04:21, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that the anon has been disrupting the INC article again. Could you put a semi-block on the article, and see how that turns out? --LBMixPro^{<Speak|on|it!>} 13:00, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

[44] Blackcap (talk) 18:46, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

differences and all ... Benjamin Gatti

You said:

 + == OK == 
 + Show me the falsehoods I entered. I was taking overly complicated language and attempting to condense it a bit. Sentences with 5 clauses in it aren't clear and concise enough for our purposes here. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 05:47, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply] 

You asked to be shown the falsehoods you entered and then retracted the demand on the grounds that you were tired of arguing. That is unfortunate. I am complying with your deleted request anyway because you went well beyond condensing overly complicated language and shortening sentences that are too long; instead you replaced statements which were correct (though, as you legitimately complain, too long) with statements that were simply wrong. This is not editing; this is vandalising. It would have been proper for you to ask for clarification instead.

The Constitution is "autochthonous" (a constitutional term of art also used in Malaysia and meaning, literally, "aboriginal," indicating that legal continuity with the former metropolitan power was severed and the Constitution enacted by a constitutional convention of the newly independent state). It is also "entrenched," which means that it encompasses the idea of judicial review.

• No, it doesn’t mean that at all. Judicial review means review of administrative action by the courts, for such flaws as denial of natural justice or ultra vires. “Entrenchment” of a Constitution means that it overbears ordinary statutes; otherwise any later-enacted statute would effect a pro tanto repeal of any inconsistent provisions. This is the case with New Zealand’s Constitution, which is not entrenched but is itself an ordinary statute.

The Constitution declares the "underlying law" -- that is, the separate common law of Papua New Guinea -- to consist of the Constitution, "customary law" derived from the "custom" of the various peoples of Papua New Guinea, and the common law of England as it stood at the date of Papua New Guinea's independence on 16 September 1975. Decisions of the British House of Lords, the English Court of Appeal, the English Queens Bench Division and other English courts up until Papua New Guinea's independence are. This reflected the fact that Papua New Guinea -- at least, Papua, the former British New Guinea -- was in law a British possession albeit administered by Australia as an External Territory. In other words, Papua New Guinea would utilize the common law traditions it had inherited from the United Kingdom.

• This is true, but it is not what was said immediately previous but “in other words.” What was said immediately previous was that the case authority of the English courts up until 1975 is binding upon the courts of Papua New Guinea but the case authority of the Privy Council and the Australian courts is not.

It is entirely proper to clarify infelicitous prose and shorten sesquipedalian sentences. It is not proper to delete statements which are correct, though not as clearly made as they could be, and replace them with statements which are clearer but are also wrong. Masalai 19:18, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Have a great break. We're looking forward to your return. Cheers, -Willmcw 10:42, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Woohoo! Finally, my turn to shine! Be back soon, though! Meowly yours, Kitty 10:58, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. May you find what you're looking for. Blackcap (talk) 19:02, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be here when you get back, with a big bottle of something from New Glarus waiting. If that's not enough, then here is the obligatory hammer: if you don't hurry up, I will kick your ass. · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 05:36, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I saw you unprotected George W. Bush, but it was subsequently re-semi-protected by User:Dan100 right afterwards. On second glance, it's probably better to wait until after the holidays to unprotect it, since any data we gather about unprotection now, during Xmas low season, is likely not to be terribly revealing. Just wanted you to know, in case you didn't notice. Thanks. Fuzheado | Talk 23:01, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your attitude and behaviour are a disgrace, and prove you unworthy of Adminship. You are protecting the racist Ecemaml, and automatically rejecting my posts as "vandalism" regardless of content. You know nothing about the issues, as you yourself acknowledge, but have clearly taken sides. Ecemaml is a troll and a racist. And YOU are aiding and abetting him. This MUST stop.

You do NOT have "Gibraltarian and the Gibraltar articles", you have ECEMAML and the Gibraltar articles. HE is the one vandalising. You took sides, which as a "police officer" you should never do. You allowed a racist free reign and vioalted the principles of WP and basic common decency. You have proved yourself unworthy of the post of Admin.

It is NOT a rant it is a factual analysis, which you dismiss out of hand as you have no answer to it. This is precisely my point. Without ANY knowledge of Gibraltar you dismiss anything I edit as "vandalism" based on the complaint of a fascist inspired racist, Ecemaml. You are proving my point for me. Gibraltarian

I'm keeping this here because you keep pasting it anyway. You are not being unblocked by me. Yelling at me and continuing personal attacks isn't exactly going to get you unblocked. And you know what, Gibraltarian? I don't see any admins overruling me. They certainly could. Doesn't that tell you something? --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 16:12, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Remember how you added the Gerard Way page to the wikipedia-en-vandalism watchlist so it didn't need to be semi-protected? Can you please do the same for the Stile Project article? It was left in a vandalized state for almost 2 days straight last week. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:15, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*cough* and all this from a brand spanking new user?--152.163.100.72 07:34, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Also seems quite convinced of some sort of 'class action law suite' being organized against wikipedia, likes to use this in edit summaries for some reason--152.163.100.72 07:51, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am not making any legal threats, I am no position to sue Wikipedia and no desire to do so. I cannot sue anyway for an article defaming someone else. However, it is clear that publishing libel about prominent figures is going inevitably to be a major challenge for Wikipedia. I'm not making it up, check it out at wikipediaclassaction.org. I came to Wikipedia to see whether it was as bad as its reputation. I'm afraid to say it's worse. The article on Bill O'Reilly has been much improved but I suspect it will not last long. If anyone is in charge around here I suggest they pay careful attention to the article, it could well be the catalyst for the end of Wikipedia. I wish it were otherwise, I really do. Fluterst 08:38, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The presence of so many articles is no defense to a libel lawsuit (nor the moral issues of spreading falsehoods about people) I'm afraid and that's what people of high rank (not sure how that all works but I assume that includes you) in Wikipedia should be concerned about and not waiting for shmo's like me to address. I don't doubt the intentions of all those people who've created nearly a million articles, they're obviously good but those in charge are failing to address the real issues involved in smearing people. I think this something all involved must think about. Fluterst 09:26, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have no association with the class action lawsuit against wikipedia at all including their lawyers etc., although I am aware of the suit (from their website) and believe it should encourage all those involved in wikipedia to act more judiciously. In fact I am sure it will when they file the action, my point is that it would be great if things could improve before then to minimize the damage. Some internal reform would be much better prior to any court case. Fluterst 09:43, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Flueterst, the website you quote itself refers to a news article on another website, which itself makes subscription charges for information articles. Is this perhaps a commercial competitor of wiki making allegations against it? I have no legal opinion on the status of wiki, but as an american institution I would be surprised if it did not enjoy freedom of speech protection. Your proper recourse would be to trace the people inserting edits on wiki. Wiki has sophisticated rules to encourage accuracy, but mainly it just provides a noticeboard. Are people liable for defamation if someone paints grafiti on their wall? Sandpiper 19:08, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The first amendment has long stood to protect the right of individuals to openly criticise public figures. Certainly Bill qualifies as a public figure. The lawsuit would have to find (on the part of those named) a concerted effort to knowingly, intentionally, and maliciously publish falsehoods. I doubt that anyone who is an official at WP (which may include admins, crats, and Arbcoms) has made an effort to intentionally publish known falsehoods. WP is as much a victim of the slander as is anyone else, and the fact that WP is more vulnerable to attack than say dead trees, in no way increases their culpability. Benjamin Gatti 19:21, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was not told about the plans for deletion and wish to be told in future as there was no chance for any rebuttle Mike 09:00, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I know you participated in the recent semi-protection development. While I waas all for the technical feature, I didn't do much for it because, frankly, I thought it would just be another Wikipedia:Per-article blocking. Seems common enough that one of these recurring ideas pops up and gets a lot of supposrt, but the developers don't implement it. So now, pleasantly impressed, I'm wondering if per-article banning really could become reality. What do you think? How would we go about starting it up again? Dmcdevit·t 09:29, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to bother you with this, but I came across what may be a case of a knowledgeable Wikipedia user who has been creating multiple user accounts for the purpose of getting pages deleted. The two accounts that I know of are User:DisposableAccount and User:Paulcardan. Paulcardan was involved in an editing dispute at Democracy & Nature and managed to involve several administrators including User:SarekOfVulcan with the dispute, eventually leading to a vote for deletion. User:DisposableAccount was created as a puppet with the account's first edit being a comment added to the Democracy & Nature article's vote for deletion. After that effort to delete Democracy & Nature failed, DisposableAccount initiated a vote for deletion against a related article. The bickering then progressed to here: Wikipedia:Deletion review/The International Journal of Inclusive Democracy. What bothers me about this is that Paulcardan/DisposableAccount seems to be efficiently manipulating the article deletion system in order to settle a content dispute. Most of the administrators who have become involved in this dispute do not seem to notice or care that this is happening. I think these two user names themselves are both violations of Wikipedia policy, one being a statement (see the comments at User:DisposableAccount) and the other being a pen name of a real person. Could you look at the current deletion review? I'm worried that these user accounts may be for a single Wikipedia user who may be in the habit of making many such accounts in order to get Wikipedia articles deleted. --JWSchmidt 19:16, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Because all of the IP edits to that page were vandalism, going back a long way. Please unprotect if you feel differently. --Celestianpower ^háblame 22:03, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you listed a semi-protected userpage in the semi-protected article section and I had already listed it in the username section. Where should it be? In both sections, or just one? I know that User:OwenX's semi-protected userpage is in the userpage section. Maybe we should divide the userpage section into semi-protected and fully protected. Izehar 23:12, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

When will you clean that page up.King of the Bill 23:44, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't be too worried about sprotecting Ecemaml's talk page if it got bad enough that he wanted it, but I really don't think that sprotecting aricle talk pages of articles that are already protected should ever be done. An anon would quite literally be unable to fix an article or ask on its talk page. Looks like reverting and short range blocks are the only way to go. If those IPs you gave me are correct, it looks like blocking them permanently would affect several thousand addresses, which would be serious. It occured to me that if we had per-article bocking, we could simply indefinitely block that range from the affected pages without much collateral damage. Hrmph. As long as he's outside of the article space and not escalating, he's not doing much damage other than wasting our time. Though I hate having the articles semi-protected for so long... Dmcdevit·t 01:12, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not the best way to make your name as a new admin--I have arrived just in time 04:13, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

what the hell is that? you launch a personal attack against me? then delete it? with another personal attack?--I have arrived just in time 04:31, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How is that a "personal attack"? Guettarda 04:36, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted your last edit, which was, clear and simple, an attack. If you want to post here, be civil. Blackcap (talk) 05:04, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, now that I look at the history, you beat me to it. But this is unacceptable. Blackcap (talk) 05:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting that this short-lived account also edited Bill O'Reilly and Ann Coulter. SockCheck anyone? Dmcdevit·t 05:13, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Try David Gerard. Blackcap (talk) 05:15, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure, I was going to suggest you block him myself. Good on ya—you have my support (for whatever that's worth). Blackcap (talk) 05:15, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I'll do that. I'm guessing it's User:Fluterst, but we'll see. Damn. David is on Wikibreak. I'll try one of the others. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 05:20, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I do not accept your ban against me, as it is the obvious result of personal/political bias--I have arrived just in time 05:30, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about changing the block - I restored the original - Guettarda 05:40, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The technical evidence indicates that User:Fluterst and User:Z1xcvbn extremely unlikely to be sockpuppets of each other; the non-overlap in their edit times is explained by other facts. As for User:Z2xcvbn, it's obviously a sockpuppet of User:Z1xcvbn, I don't think it's even trying to hide that, is it? Jayjg ^(talk) 05:44, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Why would anyone try to hide an unjust block like that? being blocked for ones personal/political beliefs is like a badge of honor round these parts--I am the one, the only, Woohookitty/Archive3 06:01, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I need advice. I protected Macedonians (ethnic group) due to a revert war (and pointed the parties to WP:DR on the talk page), but I hadn't noticed that both ringleaders had been blocked for 3RRvios on that article. Should I unprotect the article? Izehar 12:49, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find or think of a proper barnstar for that, so I figured the Wikidefender fit best, I absolutely regret my RFA votes in the past, in retrospect I should have given you strong support and Carnildo neutrality (he means well, but often gets under peoples' skin in his fair use paranoia crusade among other things). Thank you for your assistance, please let me know if I can help you in the future. karmafist 20:20, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I've seen it happen all too often with Admins who have a vested interest in things(like Carnildo with Fair Use), perhaps the most blantant of which was Tony Sidaway's rfar against himself in regards to him deleting a Wikiproject he didn't like on mfd 9 times after seeing it undeleted again and again so it could finish its time on mfd. karmafist 23:20, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes when you're in the heat of things, it's easy to forget that, I felt the same way Tony did when Pigsonthewing terrorized countless users with his campaign of rudeness and obstinence to the point where several people left or felt too insecure from harrassment to edit in their own user names anymore, while even the arbcom didn't stop him. Eventually, people saw what I was going through with him, and began to keep a sharp eye on him. I think he's gone for good by now, but there are so many more like him. karmafist 23:31, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 00:00, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Don't think his statement can be construed as violating the arbcom decision. He was just making a statement. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 00:09, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If this and this were "personal attacks" worthy of blocks then so was the above. As for 'statements'... everything is a statement. In my opinion the one above was untrue and malicious. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 00:19, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

sigh --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 00:34, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

P.S- I tried getting a peer review for List of Bountyheads in Cowboy Bebop, but so far it isn't helping much. Do you mind taking a look? karmafist 23:31, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I see you got Gibraltarian, he seems up there on the list. Lately i've had a minor one from USENET named rbj basically doing nothing other than skulking around talk pages trying to screw me over. Sigh. We should just burn USENET with fire, it seems to breed WP:CIVIL violators like him. karmafist 23:41, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

since Karmafist seems to forget we have contrib histories, i invite you to check it (mine, that is), Woohoo. i have recent contribs to the DTFT and related Fourier Transform pages and talk pages. but Phroziac's and Karma's uncivil behavior. remember karma attacked me most rudely 3 hours after i let Phroziac have the last word - i was dropping it and they decided that wasn't good enough and rubbed my nose in it, and that is why i took action against Karmafist primarily and Phroziac secondarily - all this USENET bashing was purely Karma's idea, i only responded to it. you guys are going to have to learn to differentiate a lie from truth. you have this wonderful edit history mechanism here at WP, so it is not impossible to do so. r b-j 01:42, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a part of this. I never have been. I get a sockpuppet attack last night for questioning why someone was saying I was doing personal attacks. All I literally said was "Personal attacks? On whom?" and it got me nailed all night and now this. I'm not checking any contribs. I can't remember karma attacking you because I'm not involved. Yeesh! --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 01:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

to your talk message on Karmafist's talk --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 23:26, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I was kind of irritated when I saw that a while ago too, but I didn't realize they had all been protected so recently in one go. That's senseless. Most vandals wouldn't know how to find them, and if they could, the chances of them finding a particular one of those hundreds is so slim. Let's say I look at the histories of 4 random templates there, [45], [46], [47], [48], (this is true, these are the first ones I randomly picked), I find that the last edit before protection in each of them was a productive non-admin one. And I see almost no vandalism in those for histories at all. The fact that {{opentask}} was protected, which is regularly updated by non-admins (I used to do it before I was one, too), makes me think this was done blindly. I'm all for unprotection of most of them. But it's also a big task and an important issue, so, other than individual requests, I'm not comfortable doing it until we have more community input. Perhaps a post to WP:AN for more exposure than a RFPP request? Dmcdevit·t 01:04, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks (for the above).

Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 01:55, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a dispute. I am simply asking editors for a source that substantiates an allegation they are making. They refuse to do this, and now you have frozen the article in a version that probably contains falsehoods, and certainly unsubstantiated allegations. --Leifern 01:55, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to see you go, for the record, I believe your protection was good and want to thank you for your help.

Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 03:28, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I will probably put it back up, thanks again! :) Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 04:13, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

		An Award
		For always doing the right thing, and remaining neutral in the face of mud-slinging adversaries (and sticking to policy!), I, BorgHunter, award the Original Barnstar to Woohookitty for his great work on page protection, on this, the 29th day of December, 2005 (UTC). —BorgHunter (talk) 03:36, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work by you and Mikeblas on this article, which I had tagged as speedy. At the same time, I tagged Madame Amberly, The Evil Twins, Evil Crash, and Ebeneezer Von Clutch, as it looked like the user was adding page after page of utter nonsense. I don't have a clue about this stuff, and it looks like gamecruft to me, but since you took the time to clean it up I suppose I'm wrong. So I'm guessing these are all related, and I will un-tag them, and if either of you have an interest, I'm sure you can add some context. thanks! bikeable (talk) 06:07, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, you're a seasoned admin vet and all that. As a newbie admin, I need your assistance. Can you review my actions at User talk:BorgHunter#RJII (and below two sections), Economic fascism, Economics of fascism, and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:RJII? Am I doing the right thing? I'm having doubts, and James James is making sense. I'm not sure I did things exactly best. Thanks in advance! —BorgHunter (talk) 06:27, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to have complicated things. I'm going to cool down a bit ;-) I'm sure BorgHunter has done his/her best in absolute good faith, but you're supposed to take sides over 3RR! And it's probably not great to protect an article and its POV fork! It's all sortable though, so like I say, I'm going to cool down and not say anything else.James James 06:31, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine if you don't want to do it any more, I know I've gotten my fair share of grief over it (like that RFAr from Ben for one). But I just thought I'd tell you that I liked having someone who seemed to know exactly what they were doing, and exercised judgment just as I would have. Often other admins are much too quick to protect, which is one of the reasons I watch it. But, being a wiki, it'll go on without you, I promise. :) By the way, if you are looking for some article work to do, would you mind taking a look at one I'm working on? My first foray into translation is at User:Dmcdevit/Workshop. (And if you know any Spanish, my remaing problems are here.) 07:33, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that was good. If you have anything else where that came from, by all means go ahead. :-) Dmcdevit·t 06:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It was a bit of a WP:BOLD move, but I felt that having those templates, which are transcluded onto many pages, were a big risk to a smart vandal. I have no problem with being reverted (which I know I have been on a few of them), but I feel that a lot of them, including all of the copyright notices and many of the "book reference", etc. should stay protected. And the fact that many hadn't been touched seemed to say to me that there was no need to really edit them further. Ral315 (talk) 11:35, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine...for what it's worth, I'm willing to revert them all myself if it seems like the majority of people are against this. Do you know if my protections are being discussed anywhere else? Ral315 (talk) 11:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wherever you'd like...AN or AN/I both seem like best bets. Ral315 (talk) 11:48, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Replied; thanks a lot. Going to bed now :) Ral315 (talk) 12:02, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, i guess i calmed down and got over myself a bit. I'm pretty impressed that people have been alright with me actually, and are asking me for my expertise, as well as recognising me for it; which is what i have wanted slightly since i came here to the wikipedia; but nevertheless i'm glad people know of my ex-profession and status.

Well, yep - i'm usually nice when i'm not complaining for things; i'm usually quite passionate about things which can be why i'm a bit headstrong at times, but, i mean well :-) Spum 16:32, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, well, I nominated two Rfas today alone, so it's easy to get confused as to what WP: page i'm at sometimes. Just don't be surprised if I go over there and Support your decision to protect. karmafist 02:24, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Kitty, perhaps I was not too clear on the RFPP page -- what I meant was there is a lot of user pages that have been semied. [49]

I was running through the list last night just to see if any inappropriate semi-ed are around and I noticed the whole bunch of (user) talk pages are listed as semi in the above page. I thought they should (mostly) be unsemied.

Let me know if you need more clarification. novacatz 02:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip. Sorry for being a nazi about the sprots and prots. novacatz 02:42, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick request. Range blocks by nature are subject to collateral damage, so we need to be on the lookout for people who are blocked, and unblock them. Thing is, the "email this user" option is only available for users with accounts (log out and try!). So all potential anonymous editors that are blocked couldn't contact you. If I remember correctly, you should include contact information, like "blocked because of ... contact me at woohookitty AT email DOT com," or whatever, in the block reason field. Could you reblock with that (if you are not already considering ending the range block)? Thanks, and off to bed with me. :) Dmcdevit·t 06:59, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Since you asked, my User page is protected because it was vandalized several times. Besides, I do not see any reason why editing it should be open to other users. olivier 09:55, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that in "cleaning up" this portion of the article on PNG you didn't actually clean so much as dirty, if you'll forgive the phraseology. The article as you have re-written it is now incorrect. It would be better to scrap it altogether than to insert falsehoods and misapprehensions, surely. Masalai 17:04, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We read on your talk page a serious problem/question raised by JWSchmidt (19:16, 27 December 2005) concerning the Inclusive Democracy pages. In light of abuses of manipulation and unquestioned following by certain administrators who, as JWSchmidt pointed out, did not seem to pay proper attention to our allegations about the role of User:DisposableAccount and PaulCardan --and more recently Llbb who was denounced as a sockpuppet by FreakOfNurture-- and went along with the deletion requests by one and the same person with the sole aim to delete all references to Inclusive Democracy from Wikipedia , we the members of the EB are asking you to:

a)  investigate and trace the IP of the above users for any similarities in the addresses they use 

b) investigate and trace the IP of the person who vandalized the alleged copyright violation page of ID with pornography which went unheeded by the administrators and c) take action for all Inclusive Democracy pages not only be restored, but also protected from vandalism. Please note that we possess evidence that Paul Cardin is the pseudonym used by a disgruntled ex member of Democracy & Nature and the Inclusive Democracy group who, once he left the journal and was condemned by every other member of our organization, used any means available to him in order to defame Inclusive Democracy. We have therefore every reason to believe that it is the same person who has exploited his knowledge of Wikipedia regulations to delete any trace of Inclusive Democracy from Wikipedia, despite the fact that this conception, as well as its founder, have separate long entries in other Encyclopedias (e.g. the Routledge Encyclopedia of International Political Economy) and biographical dictionaries (International Authors and Writers Who’s who, Dictionary of International Bibliography, The Cambridge Blue Book) etc. Thanking you in advance. Editorial Board of the International Journal of Inclusive Democracy User:john sargis 15:03, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Michael, I'm not sure if you've been following this farce, but I'll just correct John sargis (talk · contribs) here a bit, just in case. First of all, Inclusive Democracy was not vandalised with pornography (or anything else, for that matter) at any point. I went through all the fifty deleted edits and none of them was vandalism (the article was a copyvio all the time though). I've informed him of this already, but he chooses to ignore me because he's convinced everybody's got political motives against him. He's also free to recreate the article based on non-copyvio material, since the page is currently unprotected, but he hasn't done that yet.

The only related page that's currently deleted, The International Journal of Inclusive Democracy, was validly deleted within process. Mr Sargis chose to contest that on a lengthy subpage of WP:DRV (Wikipedia:Deletion review/The International Journal of Inclusive Democracy), where he based his entire argument on appealing to the political opinions of Freakofnurture (talk · contribs), who closed the original AfD for that article.

Another related article, The International Network for Inclusive Democracy, is currently under AfD, and Mr Sargis has continued his rants there. He's also been making continuous personal attacks against me and Freakofnurture, including one on a page in my user space [50]. It also seems likely that this edit was done by a sockpuppet of his. - ulayiti (talk) 01:13, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Ulayiti, together withFreakofnurture (talk · contribs),continuing their biased attacks against anything related to Inclusive Democracy, support now in a scandalous way Paul Cardan who, acting as a the worse kind of agent provocateur, posted a comment tonight on the AfD related to the Network, clearly insinuating that an insulting message by a Marx marvelous was posted from someone related to the Inclusive Democracy Network. As a member of the Network I can assure you that nobody from us posted this insulting message and we demand that the administrators check immediately whether Paul Cardan, DisposbleAccount, Llbb and now Marx marvelous is one and the same person using multiple accounts to defame the Netwpork and have all pages related to Inclusive Democracy deleted--a game in which the two administrators mentioned above, deliberately or not,play on his side. A Member of the Network for Inclusive Democracy, 01:52, Dec. 31 2005 (UTC)

Please don't have a discussion like this here. I'll wait for the checkuser and then I'll go from there. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 01:54, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I just read the scurrilous attacks on http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_International_Network_for_Inclusive_Democracy&diff=next&oldid=33296818, and I assure you it's not my sockpuppet as you think. That's not my style. I'll attack your philosophy, religion, presuppositions, logic, and inanities, but I don't need to resort to such disgusting things. Someone with a deep knowledge of computer science did the porn w/o leaving a trace. There was a pornographic vandalism on the page that cited the copyvio. User:john sargis 23:46, 30 December 2005(UTC)

Hi WHK, I noticed that you archived soome old unprot requests on the RFPP page. In doing so, you took away the entries of Ken K. and Gerrard W. - I would prefer that they stay since the resolution was not a firm 'no' but a 'lets wait a few days'. Keeping the entries on the page will make it easier to track. Please consider returning them to the page. novacatz 03:56, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Noticed your back and forth on the Strabane thing. Must be really borderline! :) Take care, novacatz 04:26, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

because your talk page is always on the top of my watchlist... --kizzle 04:44, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wookookitty, sorry to hear that you give up. I know that being an administrator is a very hard task. I've called fascits, communist, racist, censor, prepotent, but yeah, being an administrator is also having a responsibility with the community.

BTW, the edit war has begun again with a new Gibraltarian sockpuppet (Gibo1. Who can block him (other that you)? Best regards and happy new year. --Ecemaml 10:19, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there mate, i heard somewhere that you've left? Well, don't know if it's true or not, but have a Happy New Year, anyway :-) Spum 11:50, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, don't worry about it - that's why i dont want to be an Admin... It makes it difficult to tell who is genuine towards you, and who isn't, plus having power gets boring as well. :-) "meow meow meow meow" Spum 11:57, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to say thanks for all your help in the past. Have a great new year's. --Viriditas 12:03, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

lol—the preceding unsigned comment is by anon (talk • contribs)

per here.... εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 20:11, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just ignore the Gibnewses of this world. They aren't worth it. Mark¹ 20:25, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 21:33, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot be serious! Take a Wikibreak, take a vacation, take a valium, but do not take a powder, please! KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:15, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Take a deep breath and enjoy the holidays this year, don't let one user drive away one of the finest admins we have. I've tremendously enjoyed the few interactions I've had with you, both on l'affair BD and sucessfully developing semi-protection into policy. Your commitment to making Wikipedia a better place is an example which other admins should look up to. To let one nitpicking user drive away such a benefit to the community as yourself would truly be a tragedy. Keep things in perspective and realize all the positive interactions you have had with other people here. So take a Wikibreak, enjoy New Years, and realize that life is full of people that can bring you down, but you have friends who will be there to help you bounce right back. And clearly from the comments being posted on your page, there are many of us who got your back. --kizzle 22:43, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gallery of motorcycle trikes, retaliation for deletion of the other gallery. Has made Comons category, so I don't care overmuch. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 23:25, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think we probably should. I for one am going to stop unprotecting it, since there are a couple of admins who seem to reprotect it very quickly (and almost blindly). I do not think the consensus is with them, and I do not think the consensus is with non-perma protect either. What we do with a no consensus on protection I'm not sure, but instinct says we don't perma-protect in the same way we don't delete. On the other hand, I can see the strenght of the protectionist argument, but have in mind the numerous concerns about precisely this state-of-affairs expressed in the straw poll. (And I won't entertain the weak IAR arguments that some have been producing for that: consensus is not a R to be Ied).

There has already been a wider discussion or two: one on Talk:George W. Bush which was as inconclusive as the one on the VP. The older one on AN/I was resolutely against indefinite protection, but that was when only full-protection was available.

I'm not sure how to go about producing a useful discussion. -Splash^talk 03:47, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted a comment regarding the Gibraltarian situation on the Noticeboard page. I think it sums up my opinion regarding the subject, and my attitude towards your service to Wikipedia. Daniel Davis 04:42, 1 January 2006 (UTC) (Doom127)[reply]

File:Moving-camera.gif

--CylePat 05:01, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]