I wanted to inform you about a votation that is going on on the US Invasion of Panama article about the results. Please vote for what you think is the best option. 201.218.86.201 ( talk) 16:28, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
... but I'll keep the blocking for a week, since some es: administrators are suffering blackmail and other vandalism from the Arcor network. I definitely agree with you in this measure being an overkill, but I don't know what other thing to do. Sorry -- Ecemaml 08:09, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Hello, Añoranza. Please complete the TfD and CfD procedures for the "War on Terror" items. (See
Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#How to list templates for deletion and
Wikipedia:Categories for deletion#How to use this page.) If the proper subsections do not exist (I can't find them. A link should be in the CfD/TfD notice.), no one can make comments nor vote on whatever changes you wish to implement. Just an FYI. Hope this helps. --
PFHLai
08:52, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
The page protection has nothing to do with any edit war. I didn't even know there was one. It is due to ongoing vandalism by an abusive user who has created several hundred throwaway accounts with which he posts an administrator's personal information into articles. After going through the trouble of removing those edits from the page history, it would be wise to semi-protect the page for at least a while, if only to delay having to repeat the process. — May. 7, '06 [08:21] < freakofnurxture | talk>
You've asked why I prefer opera. You might be a Firefox fanatic, but I am not. I've used Opera before there was a Firefox. Firefox's font rendering looks bad on my laptop with a 16:9 monitor aspect ratio. Opera does mouse gestures, has more features by default, and is more polished than firefox in its current state. I don't hate firefox, I put it on my parents computer but Opera meets my needs better than firefox. BigE1977 21:52, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Honestly I don't think its worth your time to go through Zero's entire intro and deal with everything piece by piece. I would just revert it back to the version it was before he started this whole mess. -- Mr. Tibbs 02:26, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
I didnt take part in the debate to delete the category war on terrorism. I think the debate was politically motivated. The term is a policy of the current administration of the US govenrement that has had both negative and positive consequences. If you dont like the consequencesyou should add that to the discussion rather than deleting the category which will be usefuil for future research into the effectiveness of hte War on Terror. Mrdthree 02:29, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
TO keep things civil I have started a discussion on the talk page of the article in question Talk:Iraq_War#Anoranza_Please_Read. If you can respond so we can make sure you no longer feel like your information is left out I think it would contribute greatly to the 2nd paragraph. Thank you -- Zer0faults 15:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
If you are happy with the intro as it stands, I am as well. Nice to finally reach a concensus as its mainly your edits. Cheers for diplomacy -- Zer0faults 16:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
This should be reflected in the intro. Añoranza 16:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Replied in appropriate location. All further replies will be there. -- Zer0faults 16:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Thought you might want to see
this.
Nomen Nescio
Gnothi seauton
21:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Note to self: Zer0faults abused checkuser Añoranza 12:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Please could you comment about your edit on the International Criminal Court page, as per my talk page note. Thanks AndrewRT 00:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Fixed your link on the above page, when using IMDB tag, you do not put the tt from the beginning of the title id. For example, your movie was "tt0105089", you remove the "tt" and are left with "0105089" as your ID. -- zero faults |sockpuppets| 16:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
You have been temporarily blocked for violating the
three-revert rule at the article about
Dick Cheney. After the block expires, please refrain from engaging in edit warring. I recommend you use the talk pages of articles you are editing if the edits are contentious.
JDoorj
a
m
Talk 01:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
First of all, a warning is in place before a block, second, you should learn to count before blocking others, third, it is obscene to block others you are in a conflict with.
Añoranza
02:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Do not remove warnings from your talk page. I have struck through the portion to which you object. JDoorj a m Talk 02:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Attacking other user's intelligence is a personal attack and you will serve out your block. Do not replace the unblock template. If you do so, your page may be protected as well. Thank you. Sasquatch t| c 03:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Don't you realize? Every time you comment from your IP, your block gets automatically reset. Admins aren't involved in that. Just calm down and walk away. Come back in a week once you've thought things through. Because you know what? If I were an admin I'd have blocked you myself. Personal attacks are not tolerated. Just because an admin made a mistake in blocking you for 3RR doesn't give you the right to insult them. He tried to fix things. I've seen a lot of admins here who wouldn't even listen to your protestations that you hadn't violated 3RR. He listened and unblocked you, and then you insulted him. So come back in a week and consider this a lesson learned, ok? Kasreyn 09:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
[1] and at Mr. Tibbs' user talk page. As can be easily verified, the IP is from another country, http://ws.arin.net/cgi-bin/whois.pl gives:
As posting in other users' name in order to defame them is a severe violation of wikipedia policy the IP should be blocked indefinitely. Sorry if this is a wrong suspicion, but as few people will have noticed my case I would like to know if this was user Zer0faults who is from New York as well, as he writes on his page.
Furthermore, as I have done nothing wrong and no evidence of any wrongdoing has been presented, I protest my block. A cynic remark about someone who abused his admin powers in no way justifies a one week block. The user blocked in spite of a conflict of interest and in spite of the fact that I had not violated the rule as he claimed. He did not apologize and instead threatened me and invited others to block me. Añoranza 10:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
There even is a second vandal posting "in my name". That one had even posted "in my support" revealing he was someone else at other pages: "I support Añoranza and the fight against Imperialist propaganda."
As this was given as the reason for my block [2] I protest it. I also protest the admin not checking who posts at his page, although I admit I would not have thought of the possibility someone doing something that stupid either.
Bhadani has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{ subst:smile}}, {{ subst:smile2}} or {{ subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!
-- Bhadani 14:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
The above IP was actually an open proxy as can be seen by the say it adds slashes to apostrophes. It has been blocked indefinetely but it still could be you and I see no evidence that sways me too much to the contrary. Sasquatch t| c 22:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
This is your last warning. If you restore the unblock template one more time, I will protect your talk page. I suggest you just serve your time and think of contructive things you can do once you come back. Thanks. Sasquatch t| c 22:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Please continue smiling. I found your smiles really enchanting! -- Bhadani 12:11, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
I only included Wuterich's age because I could not find the birth date, it's better than no info. Joshdboz 14:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
There are a number of very odd things happening around fringes of the Rex/Merecat story, and I certainly don't understand them all. One is Thewolfstar, who considered Merecat a friend and ally; she has been banned but has created a number of sock puppets and is now using open proxies to post comments. (Misconfigured proxies often leave extra backslashes after apostrophes, you can see this in some of the edits of 70.87.34.82 ( talk · contribs) ). The use of all caps and the language of the last post is a characteristic of Thewolfstar when she is pissed off. There are a number of posts about Thewolfstar on WP:ANI in the recent archives and the active page; here is a post where she is caught using another open proxy at The Planet [6].
Of course, one strange thing about the Merecat situation is how did Thewolfstar suddenly find all these open proxy servers at Merecat's old ISP? It is a coincidence or did he set something up for her? (Thewolfstar is definitely a real person, a middle-aged lady in upstate NY with an 18 year old son who also edits; several admins have spoken on the phone with her).
Another strange thing is why is there an anonymous user posting from a range of Koren IP numbers insisting Zer0faults is a Merecat sock. That's your correspondent above, 221.146.211.193. At this point, Zer0faults has been checked 3 times and no evidence has appeared, so I think continuing to make a big deal of it would be counterproductive. (I personally don't put a lot of credibility behind anonymous accusations leveled at registered users.) I have no idea who used that ChoiceOne account to forge your sig; it doesn't seem to be an open proxy. The problem is that if it is a dynamic IP number (that is, assigned to different users daily or even hourly at random) there might be multiple established users who have used that IP in the last month and to disclose them all (and presumably round them up for questioning) would be a gross violation of their privacy, not to be undertaken except in case of serious, prolonged policy violations. (Of course the incident was serious to you, but there were only 2 edits on one day, so not serious enough to violate multiple users privacy.) Hope this helps. Thatcher131 00:20, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree in principle with the need to call articles by names that are international recognisable and do not embed POV into the title, however your commit messages make no mention of a policy, and can be seen as a reduction of information (see Operation Iraqi Freedom), so it appeared that you were acting as a one man army. I apologise if any commit comments offended.
You obviously believe in this strongly ... why join WikiProject-Military history to tackle the problem with a diplomatic approach and the assistance of others. They have rough guidelines on article names, but currently they do no have a list of articles that dont follow this guideline. Creating such a list as part of that project will allow a systematic improvement to take place.
Also, why not start by explaining on Military operation how these code names are arrived at, and provide examples. It would be good to see examples from various countries and US administrations, and thus back up the propoganda argument you make. Jayvdb 00:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
You have made a number of link changes from Operation Iraqi Freedom to the Iraq war. While this change achieves the goal of removing the propoganda from the linking article, it also reduces the amount of information (there were two major operations in Iraq) . Also, if there is another Iraqi war, the link will need to be updated again to 2003_invasion_of_Iraq. Jayvdb 00:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
The issue isn't really your changes so much as your methods for making them; you really should be discussing things—preferrably as general guidelines—first, and making edits to hundreds of pages second. Doing it the other way tends to be counterproductive at best (the ArbCom made a very insightful ruling in one case that "[he was] arguably completely technically correct — but he interacted so negatively with others that he actually convinced people he was not") and blows up into a repeat of the Danzig/Gdansk or AD/CE bloodbaths at worst. Kirill Lokshin 00:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
I am sorry to arrive so late in discussion, but some of the articles I have recently worked on have been involved in this quite extensive edit war. If there has been an exhaustive discussion and consensus reached already, please point me in that direction. Otherwise, I think you (Añoranza) need to calm down a bit. I completely understand that military operations are given codenames that reflect a bias, but that is the official name regardless. If an article is discussing the operation specifically, not just in general terms, it is probably informative to the reader to know its official name; not doing so would be a form of politically-correct self-censorship. Again, please point me in the right direction if there has been a full discussion about this, but all I've seen is nothing but edit after revert after edit between Añoranza and Zer0faults. My concern has been that many well written articles have been caught in the cross hairs. Joshdboz 02:19, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.
Wikipedia guidelines dictate that you assume good faith in dealing with other editors. Please stop being uncivil to your fellow editors, and assume that they are here to improve Wikipedia. Thank you.
Please do not clasify others in negative terms, stating things like "well known for the trouble he starts" is disruptive. [9] -- zero faults |sockpuppets| 01:13, 18 June 2006 (UTC) Please do not remove warnings from your talk page or replace them with offensive content. Removing or maliciously altering warnings from your talk page will not remove them from the page history. If you continue to remove or vandalize warnings from your talk page, you will lose your privilege of editing your talk page. Thanks.
Perhaps instead of threatening users and placing NPA tags, you will take a discussion here seriously and allow people to comment here and listen to suggestions. -- zero faults |sockpuppets| 04:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
I am tired of this, remove all the NPA tags if you want, the point has been made repeatedly, I will bring this issue up again if you want to accuse others of removing tags you place on their page. Furthermore I think you should talk to the admin above and maybe you can see the other sides point of view, or maybe talk to the editors above that are telling you mass edits are not appropriate, or maybe just make a post on the military page as reccomended and just get a policy put in place. Good night Anoranza I will see you on the RfC talk page Monday as I think this warrants another day cool off between us. --
zero faults
|sockpuppets|
04:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. I am inclined to agree with you that operation names are not only biased but should be used sparingly. But if you want to change nearly every reference in wikipedia, you should definitely draw up a set of guidlines to follow yourself and for future editors. If it is agreed upon, then you won't have to worry about people reverting all of your edits. For instance:
Thanks for the smile. I wish you a peaceful and constructive wikilife. -- Bhadani 14:19, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Stay away from my talkpage, I'm not interested in your comments anymore than you are interested in mine, I know mine will be deleted from here, just as you know your's will be deleted from mine. So let's just save each other the effort and stay away from each other's pages. ←
ΣcoPhreek 03:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC) No discussion, compromise, or understanding can come from this stupid idea. I was just frustrated. ←
Σc
o
Phreek→
04:55, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
I am more than willing to try and work out a compromise to the situation. How about this as a compromise? For me it keeps the operational name in place without causing a redirect plus for others it acknowledges the bias and propaganda aspect of operational names.← ΣcoPhreek
Hello,
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Añoranza. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Añoranza/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Añoranza/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, -- Tony Sidaway 01:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the courtesy of letting me know that you used my edit in your arbitration case. For what it's worth, I have no problems with you using it. :-) -- Deathphoenix ʕ 19:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Bugman94 should get you started on the reason.
The disruption was abuse of the {{ helpme}} template, something that blocking can't prevent (hence the page protection). If you need to leave an important note on the talk page let me know.
I can give you a fuller explanation should you like it, just give me a buzz :-) -- Commander Keane 03:17, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Añoranza, stop removing names of operations which you deem to be "propaganda" from articles without discussing the matter on the talk pages of the respective articles. You've been told about this before. Such action is disruptive, and future such edits without discussion will result in a temporary block. JDoorj a m Talk 04:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Regarding (rvv, a POV-tag stays until consensus is to remove it. If consensus was there is POV you would just change the POV and never need such tags)... you're right, I didn't think of it that way, thanks for clarifying. ← Σc o Phreek→ 04:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
![]() |
You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. |
Apparently mediation does not improve the current conflict I have with this user. Since I am at my wits end I have filed a case at ArbCom. This is to notify you should you wish to comment there. Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 11:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
This case has closed and the final decision has been published at the link above.
To summarise, Añoranza is banned for one week and the principals in this matter are encouraged to enter into good faith negotiations regarding use of propagandistic operational codenames for which there are neutral alternative names in common use.
For the Arbitration Committee. -- Tony Sidaway 21:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I have nominated Ehren Watada, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ehren Watada. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Niteshift36 ( talk) 23:26, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Ehren Watada. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and " What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ehren Watada (2nd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. -- Erwin85Bot ( talk) 01:12, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
13:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
I wanted to inform you about a votation that is going on on the US Invasion of Panama article about the results. Please vote for what you think is the best option. 201.218.86.201 ( talk) 16:28, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
... but I'll keep the blocking for a week, since some es: administrators are suffering blackmail and other vandalism from the Arcor network. I definitely agree with you in this measure being an overkill, but I don't know what other thing to do. Sorry -- Ecemaml 08:09, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Hello, Añoranza. Please complete the TfD and CfD procedures for the "War on Terror" items. (See
Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#How to list templates for deletion and
Wikipedia:Categories for deletion#How to use this page.) If the proper subsections do not exist (I can't find them. A link should be in the CfD/TfD notice.), no one can make comments nor vote on whatever changes you wish to implement. Just an FYI. Hope this helps. --
PFHLai
08:52, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
The page protection has nothing to do with any edit war. I didn't even know there was one. It is due to ongoing vandalism by an abusive user who has created several hundred throwaway accounts with which he posts an administrator's personal information into articles. After going through the trouble of removing those edits from the page history, it would be wise to semi-protect the page for at least a while, if only to delay having to repeat the process. — May. 7, '06 [08:21] < freakofnurxture | talk>
You've asked why I prefer opera. You might be a Firefox fanatic, but I am not. I've used Opera before there was a Firefox. Firefox's font rendering looks bad on my laptop with a 16:9 monitor aspect ratio. Opera does mouse gestures, has more features by default, and is more polished than firefox in its current state. I don't hate firefox, I put it on my parents computer but Opera meets my needs better than firefox. BigE1977 21:52, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Honestly I don't think its worth your time to go through Zero's entire intro and deal with everything piece by piece. I would just revert it back to the version it was before he started this whole mess. -- Mr. Tibbs 02:26, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
I didnt take part in the debate to delete the category war on terrorism. I think the debate was politically motivated. The term is a policy of the current administration of the US govenrement that has had both negative and positive consequences. If you dont like the consequencesyou should add that to the discussion rather than deleting the category which will be usefuil for future research into the effectiveness of hte War on Terror. Mrdthree 02:29, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
TO keep things civil I have started a discussion on the talk page of the article in question Talk:Iraq_War#Anoranza_Please_Read. If you can respond so we can make sure you no longer feel like your information is left out I think it would contribute greatly to the 2nd paragraph. Thank you -- Zer0faults 15:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
If you are happy with the intro as it stands, I am as well. Nice to finally reach a concensus as its mainly your edits. Cheers for diplomacy -- Zer0faults 16:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
This should be reflected in the intro. Añoranza 16:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Replied in appropriate location. All further replies will be there. -- Zer0faults 16:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Thought you might want to see
this.
Nomen Nescio
Gnothi seauton
21:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Note to self: Zer0faults abused checkuser Añoranza 12:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Please could you comment about your edit on the International Criminal Court page, as per my talk page note. Thanks AndrewRT 00:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Fixed your link on the above page, when using IMDB tag, you do not put the tt from the beginning of the title id. For example, your movie was "tt0105089", you remove the "tt" and are left with "0105089" as your ID. -- zero faults |sockpuppets| 16:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
You have been temporarily blocked for violating the
three-revert rule at the article about
Dick Cheney. After the block expires, please refrain from engaging in edit warring. I recommend you use the talk pages of articles you are editing if the edits are contentious.
JDoorj
a
m
Talk 01:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
First of all, a warning is in place before a block, second, you should learn to count before blocking others, third, it is obscene to block others you are in a conflict with.
Añoranza
02:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Do not remove warnings from your talk page. I have struck through the portion to which you object. JDoorj a m Talk 02:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Attacking other user's intelligence is a personal attack and you will serve out your block. Do not replace the unblock template. If you do so, your page may be protected as well. Thank you. Sasquatch t| c 03:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Don't you realize? Every time you comment from your IP, your block gets automatically reset. Admins aren't involved in that. Just calm down and walk away. Come back in a week once you've thought things through. Because you know what? If I were an admin I'd have blocked you myself. Personal attacks are not tolerated. Just because an admin made a mistake in blocking you for 3RR doesn't give you the right to insult them. He tried to fix things. I've seen a lot of admins here who wouldn't even listen to your protestations that you hadn't violated 3RR. He listened and unblocked you, and then you insulted him. So come back in a week and consider this a lesson learned, ok? Kasreyn 09:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
[1] and at Mr. Tibbs' user talk page. As can be easily verified, the IP is from another country, http://ws.arin.net/cgi-bin/whois.pl gives:
As posting in other users' name in order to defame them is a severe violation of wikipedia policy the IP should be blocked indefinitely. Sorry if this is a wrong suspicion, but as few people will have noticed my case I would like to know if this was user Zer0faults who is from New York as well, as he writes on his page.
Furthermore, as I have done nothing wrong and no evidence of any wrongdoing has been presented, I protest my block. A cynic remark about someone who abused his admin powers in no way justifies a one week block. The user blocked in spite of a conflict of interest and in spite of the fact that I had not violated the rule as he claimed. He did not apologize and instead threatened me and invited others to block me. Añoranza 10:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
There even is a second vandal posting "in my name". That one had even posted "in my support" revealing he was someone else at other pages: "I support Añoranza and the fight against Imperialist propaganda."
As this was given as the reason for my block [2] I protest it. I also protest the admin not checking who posts at his page, although I admit I would not have thought of the possibility someone doing something that stupid either.
Bhadani has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{ subst:smile}}, {{ subst:smile2}} or {{ subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!
-- Bhadani 14:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
The above IP was actually an open proxy as can be seen by the say it adds slashes to apostrophes. It has been blocked indefinetely but it still could be you and I see no evidence that sways me too much to the contrary. Sasquatch t| c 22:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
This is your last warning. If you restore the unblock template one more time, I will protect your talk page. I suggest you just serve your time and think of contructive things you can do once you come back. Thanks. Sasquatch t| c 22:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Please continue smiling. I found your smiles really enchanting! -- Bhadani 12:11, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
I only included Wuterich's age because I could not find the birth date, it's better than no info. Joshdboz 14:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
There are a number of very odd things happening around fringes of the Rex/Merecat story, and I certainly don't understand them all. One is Thewolfstar, who considered Merecat a friend and ally; she has been banned but has created a number of sock puppets and is now using open proxies to post comments. (Misconfigured proxies often leave extra backslashes after apostrophes, you can see this in some of the edits of 70.87.34.82 ( talk · contribs) ). The use of all caps and the language of the last post is a characteristic of Thewolfstar when she is pissed off. There are a number of posts about Thewolfstar on WP:ANI in the recent archives and the active page; here is a post where she is caught using another open proxy at The Planet [6].
Of course, one strange thing about the Merecat situation is how did Thewolfstar suddenly find all these open proxy servers at Merecat's old ISP? It is a coincidence or did he set something up for her? (Thewolfstar is definitely a real person, a middle-aged lady in upstate NY with an 18 year old son who also edits; several admins have spoken on the phone with her).
Another strange thing is why is there an anonymous user posting from a range of Koren IP numbers insisting Zer0faults is a Merecat sock. That's your correspondent above, 221.146.211.193. At this point, Zer0faults has been checked 3 times and no evidence has appeared, so I think continuing to make a big deal of it would be counterproductive. (I personally don't put a lot of credibility behind anonymous accusations leveled at registered users.) I have no idea who used that ChoiceOne account to forge your sig; it doesn't seem to be an open proxy. The problem is that if it is a dynamic IP number (that is, assigned to different users daily or even hourly at random) there might be multiple established users who have used that IP in the last month and to disclose them all (and presumably round them up for questioning) would be a gross violation of their privacy, not to be undertaken except in case of serious, prolonged policy violations. (Of course the incident was serious to you, but there were only 2 edits on one day, so not serious enough to violate multiple users privacy.) Hope this helps. Thatcher131 00:20, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree in principle with the need to call articles by names that are international recognisable and do not embed POV into the title, however your commit messages make no mention of a policy, and can be seen as a reduction of information (see Operation Iraqi Freedom), so it appeared that you were acting as a one man army. I apologise if any commit comments offended.
You obviously believe in this strongly ... why join WikiProject-Military history to tackle the problem with a diplomatic approach and the assistance of others. They have rough guidelines on article names, but currently they do no have a list of articles that dont follow this guideline. Creating such a list as part of that project will allow a systematic improvement to take place.
Also, why not start by explaining on Military operation how these code names are arrived at, and provide examples. It would be good to see examples from various countries and US administrations, and thus back up the propoganda argument you make. Jayvdb 00:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
You have made a number of link changes from Operation Iraqi Freedom to the Iraq war. While this change achieves the goal of removing the propoganda from the linking article, it also reduces the amount of information (there were two major operations in Iraq) . Also, if there is another Iraqi war, the link will need to be updated again to 2003_invasion_of_Iraq. Jayvdb 00:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
The issue isn't really your changes so much as your methods for making them; you really should be discussing things—preferrably as general guidelines—first, and making edits to hundreds of pages second. Doing it the other way tends to be counterproductive at best (the ArbCom made a very insightful ruling in one case that "[he was] arguably completely technically correct — but he interacted so negatively with others that he actually convinced people he was not") and blows up into a repeat of the Danzig/Gdansk or AD/CE bloodbaths at worst. Kirill Lokshin 00:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
I am sorry to arrive so late in discussion, but some of the articles I have recently worked on have been involved in this quite extensive edit war. If there has been an exhaustive discussion and consensus reached already, please point me in that direction. Otherwise, I think you (Añoranza) need to calm down a bit. I completely understand that military operations are given codenames that reflect a bias, but that is the official name regardless. If an article is discussing the operation specifically, not just in general terms, it is probably informative to the reader to know its official name; not doing so would be a form of politically-correct self-censorship. Again, please point me in the right direction if there has been a full discussion about this, but all I've seen is nothing but edit after revert after edit between Añoranza and Zer0faults. My concern has been that many well written articles have been caught in the cross hairs. Joshdboz 02:19, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.
Wikipedia guidelines dictate that you assume good faith in dealing with other editors. Please stop being uncivil to your fellow editors, and assume that they are here to improve Wikipedia. Thank you.
Please do not clasify others in negative terms, stating things like "well known for the trouble he starts" is disruptive. [9] -- zero faults |sockpuppets| 01:13, 18 June 2006 (UTC) Please do not remove warnings from your talk page or replace them with offensive content. Removing or maliciously altering warnings from your talk page will not remove them from the page history. If you continue to remove or vandalize warnings from your talk page, you will lose your privilege of editing your talk page. Thanks.
Perhaps instead of threatening users and placing NPA tags, you will take a discussion here seriously and allow people to comment here and listen to suggestions. -- zero faults |sockpuppets| 04:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
I am tired of this, remove all the NPA tags if you want, the point has been made repeatedly, I will bring this issue up again if you want to accuse others of removing tags you place on their page. Furthermore I think you should talk to the admin above and maybe you can see the other sides point of view, or maybe talk to the editors above that are telling you mass edits are not appropriate, or maybe just make a post on the military page as reccomended and just get a policy put in place. Good night Anoranza I will see you on the RfC talk page Monday as I think this warrants another day cool off between us. --
zero faults
|sockpuppets|
04:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. I am inclined to agree with you that operation names are not only biased but should be used sparingly. But if you want to change nearly every reference in wikipedia, you should definitely draw up a set of guidlines to follow yourself and for future editors. If it is agreed upon, then you won't have to worry about people reverting all of your edits. For instance:
Thanks for the smile. I wish you a peaceful and constructive wikilife. -- Bhadani 14:19, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Stay away from my talkpage, I'm not interested in your comments anymore than you are interested in mine, I know mine will be deleted from here, just as you know your's will be deleted from mine. So let's just save each other the effort and stay away from each other's pages. ←
ΣcoPhreek 03:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC) No discussion, compromise, or understanding can come from this stupid idea. I was just frustrated. ←
Σc
o
Phreek→
04:55, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
I am more than willing to try and work out a compromise to the situation. How about this as a compromise? For me it keeps the operational name in place without causing a redirect plus for others it acknowledges the bias and propaganda aspect of operational names.← ΣcoPhreek
Hello,
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Añoranza. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Añoranza/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Añoranza/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, -- Tony Sidaway 01:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the courtesy of letting me know that you used my edit in your arbitration case. For what it's worth, I have no problems with you using it. :-) -- Deathphoenix ʕ 19:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Bugman94 should get you started on the reason.
The disruption was abuse of the {{ helpme}} template, something that blocking can't prevent (hence the page protection). If you need to leave an important note on the talk page let me know.
I can give you a fuller explanation should you like it, just give me a buzz :-) -- Commander Keane 03:17, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Añoranza, stop removing names of operations which you deem to be "propaganda" from articles without discussing the matter on the talk pages of the respective articles. You've been told about this before. Such action is disruptive, and future such edits without discussion will result in a temporary block. JDoorj a m Talk 04:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Regarding (rvv, a POV-tag stays until consensus is to remove it. If consensus was there is POV you would just change the POV and never need such tags)... you're right, I didn't think of it that way, thanks for clarifying. ← Σc o Phreek→ 04:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
![]() |
You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. |
Apparently mediation does not improve the current conflict I have with this user. Since I am at my wits end I have filed a case at ArbCom. This is to notify you should you wish to comment there. Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 11:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
This case has closed and the final decision has been published at the link above.
To summarise, Añoranza is banned for one week and the principals in this matter are encouraged to enter into good faith negotiations regarding use of propagandistic operational codenames for which there are neutral alternative names in common use.
For the Arbitration Committee. -- Tony Sidaway 21:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I have nominated Ehren Watada, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ehren Watada. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Niteshift36 ( talk) 23:26, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Ehren Watada. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and " What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ehren Watada (2nd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. -- Erwin85Bot ( talk) 01:12, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
13:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)