At the help desk, specifcally here, in response to the question you gave a welcome message with heaps of information, but missed answering the actual question. I think the welcome message for newbies at the help desk can be overwhelming and unhelpful, maybe we could work on a welcome template specifially for the help desk? -- Commander Keane 12:47, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the work, and don't worry about losing any of my deathless prose. Honest to God (sorry), I don't know how I got involved, except extreme irritation, since I have no strong feelings on atheists or geeks. Geez, it's not as if they're the first batch of self-righteous types intent on using Wikipedia as some kind of soapbox/promotional vehicle. -- Calton | Talk 08:12, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
P.S.: I think Marcperkel's complaint has something to with the The God Who Wasn't There article, since he seems to reacted extremely badly to it being listed on the Copyright Violation page, haranguing the guy who listed it ( User :Doc Glasgow?) on his Talk page.-- Calton | Talk 08:17, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
I see you said (before Gabriel deleted your comments) that he only had three reverts in 24 hours. Please see a list of them at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Gabrielsimon#Evidence of disputed behavior at # 26. By my count he has at least four if not five, but he tries to split them up and make other edits at the same time so as to confuse the comparisons but always manages to revert the same basic chunk. I'd appreciate it if you relook at it. DreamGuy 09:35, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
DreamGuy must be in love with me or something, he cant stop thinking or talking about me. lol Gabrielsimon 09:40, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
also , it might be good to look and check the edit summaires of Dreamguys in relevence toi his accations of my violations, because for one thing, if its about my RFC page, and it was tonight, that wasnt even me, as i explained on the talk page, and which i am very embarrassed about. for other 3rr accusations , please check for bait9ing in the edit siumam,ries, on Dreamguys part ( rude and insulting edit sumaries)
thanks! Gabrielsimon 09:43, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
(and pleae check my talk page for something slightly important) Gabrielsimon 09:46, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my user talk page! FreplySpang (talk) 17:30, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks but I was already able to get the list. I realized I had added all the mayors to the List of Irish-Americans so I was able just to get them off there. 64.108.222.252 06:54, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
Now that the TfD on {{ nn-bio}} has been closed I have renamed all the speedy deletion templates to names that start with "db-" as discussed in that TfD discussion. I have also cleaned up all double redirs and fixed all coumentation pages I know of. The only template not conforming is {{ delete}} because it is currently protected. I hope this meets your concerns in this matter. DES (talk) 23:54, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
If people look for information on a topic, it should not direct them to your talk page. 69.216.240.155 05:11, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
The copyright infringement for Medical Alert you mention is simply wrong. The site you point to as the copyright holder has no copyright for the term "medical alert". In fact, the [www.medicalert.org MedicAlert Foundation] is the holder of the copyright. However, they have permitted the [www.consumeradvisorycouncil.org Consumer Advisory Council] to use their trademark where it serves to help resolve consumer confusion between medical alert alarm systems and MedicAlert bracelets. What's really alarming is that instead of pointing consumers to either the MedicAlert Foundation or the Consumer Advisory Council, you have pointed them to a site that copied most of its text from the Consumer Advisory Council Medical Alarm FAQ.
Okay, you win. If you'd rather degrade the value of Wikipedia by sending consumers to a Google Adsense site, so be it.
I'll start doing that from now on and go back to older articles I created and add it. I also see you've added them to a lot of articles, so thanks, that's good work. 69.216.240.155 07:37, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
I noticed you did the other half of the latest page move vandalization reverts. Thanks. JesseW 19:06, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
Category:Millennial Wikipedians has been listed on categories for deletion. Since you are using it on your user page please weigh in on the vote and that of the other generational categories here. Thanks. - JCarriker 20:01, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
Hi, I'm just letting you know that I'm nominating this template for deletion, because I feel it to be redundant with tests 1-3, can be considered "biting the newbies", and causes confusion when someone clicks the section edit link. Feel free to weigh in on the TFD. -- Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 04:31, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
Hi, I thought you might like to take another look at this article, post re-write. -- Doc (?) 00:47, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
Hi.
I want learn Klingon as you. Do you know any webpage where learn Klingon? Thanks Reignerok 00:09, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
Check out the Jesus article and edit it to keep it focused on Jesus and a biographical account of Him. Watch the Jesus page to keep it focused on Him. Thank you. Scifiintel 21:41, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
I've just been reading your suggestions to fix Wikipedia, and while you've got some good points, others strike me as downright odd. Arbitration members are not allowed to vote in cases which they are a party to already. Wikipedia does not have a policy of removing citations from articles, and actively encourages their addition. Policies are already reviewed and voted upon by the community. Hmm. Ambi 03:15, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Check the history. I didn't sign it either! WAS 4.250 03:41, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
FYI RecentChangesCamp Tedernst | talk 22:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Bummer. There is a conference wiki that I'm sure will be very active during the event and people might also do things through IRC, so check that out if you're interested. Tedernst | talk 22:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
I recall reading on Wikipedia Review a comment about an editor other than Jimbo who did substantive editing of his own page, whos edits were brought to the attention of admins who turned a bind eye to it. On the off chance you know which post i am talking about, I'd very much appreciate a pointer. --- Charles Stewart 09:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi there. In the TfD for this, you said we should keep it because we need a small template for long-term protection. But, as I said in the debate, we already have {{ sprotected-small}}, which doesn't have the misleadingly titled name of the nominated template. Indeed, the notion of a semi-permanent semi-protect should not be enshrined in a template as there is no basis in policy for it. For George W. Bush we should simply use the correctly named and worded {{ sprotected-small}}, don't you agree? - Splash talk 15:42, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi Blu Aardvark, glad to see you did not permanently leave Wikipedia. I was wondering why my Template:Current event template redirect wasn't working, couldn't see the obvious! :) — Quarl ( talk) 2006-01-15 13:36 Z
Thanks for taking note of The Arcata Eye and Plazoid pages.-- Metatree 00:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Have a great day :) -- sannse (talk) 10:15, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
That was really funny, gave me a good chuckle. You should have just crossed it out and left it in. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 11:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Were you referring to this: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Catholic Alliance of Wikipedia-like vote stacking? -- Mistress Selina Kyle ( Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 11:50, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi, you recently commented on bible-verse articles, and may therefore be interested in commenting about a proposed policy covering roughly 50 specific verses:
-- Victim of signature fascism 20:25, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Blu,
I noticed you changed the logo for the Ubuntu Linux User Box. Why? The usage policy on Ubuntu's offical site clearly allows for such use. Besides, the logo is just that, a low-resolution image of a logo, which is allowed under fair use. I am aware that some discussion has been going around about "fair use" images in user boxes. If you changed the logo to Tux because I labeled it as a fair use image and not with some other licensing information, I'm sure I can find an appropriate image copyright tag. -- Jcarroll 06:50, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Please review and adhere to WP:NPA, WP:CIV, and WP:WQT. Please re(?)-familliarize yourself with Wikipedia policy. Thanks in advance. El_C 13:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia Review is not a "neo-Nazi" "Wikipedia hate site". There are no neo-nazi's on the forum - at least, no open neo-nazis - and it's not a "hate site" - it's simply highly critical. You were banned from the site for trolling, no other reason. If you want to hold that as a badge of honor, it's your perogative, but I would request that you at least be honest about it. Oh, and before you call 207.118.103.139 a sockpuppet of Internodeuser, you should do a whois on it. It's a CenturyTel IP, and geolocates to Canyon City, OR. It's not an Internode IP, geolocating to Melbourne, Australia. Seriously.
Hey, why did I get banned from the Wikipedia review? Couldn't you stomach my criticism of your users nastiness about our admins? And how, pray tell, does this give you the high moral ground to complain about blocking on Wikipedia? - Ta bu shi da yu 21:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the correction, didn't mean to stick a talk page note onto his user page. Deadsalmon 02:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry that you find my version of the template insulting; I imagine you have no idea how insulting the present version is to every admin whose only transgression has been to interpret policy as best they can. Am I to understand that you no longer assume good faith? Mackensen (talk) 16:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
A further question. If you're so pissed about admins ignoring policy, do you intend to prove these violations and hold us horrible bastards responsible? By all means, file a Request for Arbitration. Call for my head. Otherwise, I'd ask that the black armband come off, because it's not accomplishing anything except stirring up factionalism. I'm here to write an encyclopedia. Are you? Mackensen (talk) 16:37, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
If you continue to add links to your website on Wikipedia pages, I will consider blocking you for disruption, whether you're adding or restoring them. If you need to direct someone to a page, you can add the nowiki tag, but you seem determined that the links should be live, which suggests you're spamming. Please review WP:NOT. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Also, please consider WP:CIVIL: "Whereas incivility is roughly defined as personally targeted behavior that causes an atmosphere of greater conflict and stress". And consider the section headed "Removing uncivil comments". Try to be kind, Jeff. Being determined to retain incivlity really isn't very kind. Grace Note 05:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
I have removed the comment. I don't want to see you blocked over this, Jeff. It's nonsense. Please don't personally attack SlimVirgin again, whatever your views on her are (and whatever they are, a template talkpage is not the place to express them). And beware breaking the 3RR over this page, please. Consider that a warning if you like. Jeff, you're very heated. Please consider a deep breath and a step back. Grace Note 05:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
As you continued to restore the link after being warned, I have blocked your account for disruption. The block is a very brief one, but if this behavior continues, the blocks will increase in length. The website you are trying to link to is, first of all, one that is run by you, which makes your attempts to include links to it inappropriate. In addition to that, it contains some very serious libels about editors, including that one editor, whose real name is revealed, is a pedophile, which is the kind of stupid attack that could get someone killed. That is another reason it will not be linked to from Wikipedia. I repeat: this is an encyclopedia, not a children's playground, not a link repository, not a userbox project, and not a venue for your personal attacks. If you assure me that you will stop creating live links to this website on Wikpedia, and will stop helping others to do so, I will be happy to unblock you. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:56, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
I'd like your thoughts on a brainstorm I've tried to articulate here: User:Leifern/Adminwatch idea. And feel free to spread the word. -- Leifern 16:55, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
This user thinks it is ironic that thanks for supporting Cyde's successful RFA came in the form of a userbox. |
Here's a userbox for you. -- Cyde Weys 04:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
I do hope you find the peace you need in your break, and the stress goes away soon. Try to hang in there. - File:Ottawa flag.png nath a nrdotcom ( T • C • W) 04:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Please drop your prejudices and retain some objectivism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephenjh ( talk • contribs)
You have been blocked for 1 week for violations of WP:NPA in regards to your WikiBreak parting message. -- Cyde Weys 21:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Your request to be unblocked is denied. First of all, you're purportedly on a WikiBreak, so why do you care if you're blocked? (See, perhaps, meatball:GoodBye.) Second, your block was justified by your behaviour, so don't expect it to be removed quite so quickly. Some indication that you understand why you were blocked, that you understand that your block was justified, and that you will not engage in such behavior in the future would be a good start. Kelly Martin ( talk) 22:02, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I've removed the discourse that was in the place of this section, since user talk pages are not intended to mirror the Arbitration Committee nor is Wikipedia a soapbox for users' points of view, as per WP:NOT. I have also protected this page, since it seems that leaving it open to editing merely shall foment further disagreement between Blu Aardvark and his opponents in the ongoing dispute. I will remove the page protection when Blu Aardvark's block expires. -- NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 02:43, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm truly sorry to hear you've got stress up the wazoo and then some. Don't let it all offset your confidence—you're valuable to Wikipedia. I hope you feel better. ^_^ -- The i kiro id ( talk/parler/hablar/paroli/说/話) 02:05, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Just hang loose for a while, and when the block expires, take some time in the coffee lounge ;). Think of it as a vacation, not a block. I don't know if that helps, but it's the best advice I got.-- The i kiro id ( talk/parler/hablar/paroli/说/話) 02:30, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Frankly, I can't be bothered reading the whole post on ANI. FWIW, I have always felt that this user was redeemable. I think the question is, 'does he wish redemption'. I invite Blu to post here, indicating what behaviour we can expect if he is unbanned. Then perhaps we'd have more to go on. -- Doc ask? 21:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
I have unblocked this user (as one of the two primary "victims" of his personal attacks, I feel this is my right). I agree with Doc that I feel he is redeamable. He has agreed to be on his best behavior, and that's good enough for me. Raul654 00:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Is this edit you, and do you want it readded? Can't help with the block problem, unless you want me to post on AN or someone else's talk page but {{ unblock}} would accomplish the same, mostly. Kotepho 07:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
{--Discussion with Malber archived to history--} {--Further trolling removed--}
I added the deleted sections to your archive 2 assuming you would do this yourself if not blocked. No need to reply unless you strongly object to this action. NoSeptember talk 13:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi. We never interacted before, but you've generated a lot of attention lately. Just so I can understand a little better why you've come back, could you comment on the following posting of yours on Wikipedia Review?
Have things changed since then? Thanks, — mark ✎ 08:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia Review was initially founded in November 05, or perhaps earlier. I joined the initial WR in December. Selina joined it in January, shortly after the userbox fiasco.
The site was relatively small and exceptionally non-notable at the time, hosted on a proboards server. The administrator of the forum was "Igor Alexander" (quite probably the same person as User:Amalekite), who appointed me as a global moderator over the forum in mid-December, and later passed partial adminship to me. In early 2006, a poster using the screenname "jackwelsh" (who is quite probably the "Disruptive Apartheid Editor" whome Jayjg describes on a user subpage) joined Wikipedia Review, and began posting some comments of an anti-semitic nature. I chose not to take action, because I did not see his posts as "hate speech" particularly, and although they were offensive, were not offensive enough to warrant taking action. This created some conflicts between myself and some Wikipedia editors who were active there at the time (including El C), who felt that I should have banned him and deleted his posts rather than allowing him the privelage of posting there, and that my refusal to do so was an indication that I was either anti-semitic myself, or at least nazi-apologetic. In response to this conflict, and the hateful attitude expressed towards Igor by many members of the forum (since it was assumed that Igor was Amalekite, and that Amalekite was Alex Linder), Igor "reclaimed" the forum, banned many participants there, and used the board as an apparent platform for neo-Nazi politics. However, Igor explained his intentions to me by private corresponse, and I defended him because I understood and respected his explanation. This, of course, heightened the conflict between myself and users who assumed that I held neo-nazi viewpoints. (For the record, I don't. I do, however, believe firmly in free speech, even if the speech is unpopular or even offensive. I do recognize reasonable limits, however. If a neo-Nazi is explaining his beliefs in a coherent, civil manner, I see no reason why that is unnacceptable. If they are calling for the blood of Jews, there is a problem with that.)
I believe it was in late January I created my first sockpuppet accounts, which were used as a form of experiment prompted by discussion with Lir. Orange Flowerpot, Another Orange Flowerpot, and related accounts were used to leave messages of a nature similar to posts by Lir on Raul654 and Snowspinner's talk pages. The results of the "experiment" were posted on Wikipedia Review. Technically, this was sockpuppet abuse, but I felt justified because it seemed the only way to test certain presumptions about how Wikipedia functioned.
Wikipedia Review moved to its own domain and away from Igor's adminship in mid-February. Appointed as admins over the site were myself, Lir, Qwerty, and Selina. Blissyu2 declined adminship.
(More to follow)
Hello,
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Blu_Aardvark. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Blu_Aardvark/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Blu_Aardvark/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, -- Tony Sidaway 23:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I have unblocked you to participate directly in your arbitration. You can edit only arbitration pages and your own user pages. Fred Bauder 22:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I think I have cleared this now, let me know if it hasn't... Ian13/ talk 13:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I would like to thank you for giving wikipedia another chance. You had many reasons to walk away, yet you didn't, and it shows a lot of character to persist at improvement. Even if this does not turn out for you, you have shown many wikipedians that not all banned users lose faith and walk away. You broke the mold. Please keep in mind that not every wikipedian is trying to cross-examine your actions, many are just in disbelief that such a turn-around could be considered genuine.-- The ikiroid ( talk· desk· Advise me) 22:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- 2006-06-08 08:11 < karynn> Werdna: blu is perfectly civil until he turns on you.
- 2006-06-08 08:11 < ambi2> well, blu is. indeed.
- 2006-06-08 08:11 < karynn> but he doesn't hide his antisemitism very well.
Ahem. The things that you discover from Brandt's little chat searcher.
Consider this post a confirmation that the Arbitration Commitee is free to drop this case. I have no interest in returning, ever, when people are going to talk shit like this, attack me for no reason whatsoever, ban me without cause from IRC channels or wiki discussions, paste libelous accusations around the place.... no. I'm done with any contributions here, period. The fact of the matter is, you've made it very clear that I'm not welcome.
However, I request a full written apology from User:Kelly Martin, User:Cyde, User:Rebecca, and User:Bumm13, in addition to any others who have thrown around such accusations or otherwise acted in an unwarranted abusive manner towards me. I don't honestly expect that any of these users are going to be mature enough to realize that they have acted in an abusive manner, but I nonetheless request an apology from these users. You may contact me via Special:Emailuser.
No, I am not an anti-semite, and I am sick and tired of users who try to paint me as one. Those accusations are hurtful and flat-out false. Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 11:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't know if you'll ever get to revert vandalism ever again, but I saw you're on RC patrol, so here's a helpful code to add to your monobook. It makes vandalism reversion a lot easier.
// Script from [[User:Lupin/recent2.js]] document.write('<script type="text/javascript" src="' + 'http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User:Lupin/recent2.js' + '&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s"></script>');
Anyway, good luck.-- The ikiroid ( talk· desk· Advise me) 01:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
You've been blocked for violating the terms of your unblocking. The terms were to only edit your statement, as well as your userspace, but according to your contribs, you have violated this. Didn't you know?-- The ikiroid ( talk· desk· Advise me) 02:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
In response to the following message on
WP:ANI:
Yup, here, both in content and in edit summary, invoking WP:IAR. Problem is, there is a massive difference between ignoring the rules and ignoring specific instructions by ArbCom.
Actually, there is no difference. From the version of WP:IAR that I was familiar worth, one of the purposes behind the concept in the first place is to avoid the red tape and bureaucracy of Wikipedia for the purpose of constructing a quality encyclopedia. The very defination of ArbCom is "bureaucracy". My edits that I made were constructive, and beneficial to the cause of constructing a quality encyclopedia.
Now, to be fair to Cyde, the block was within policy, and I don't object to it on any purely technical grounds. However, the block was clearly not made in good faith, even if it is defensible by Wikipedia's policies on ArbCom proceedings. I don't care if I am unblocked - blocking me is only superficially effective anyway, as I can make either good or bad-faith contributions even while blocked - but Cyde shouldn't try to kid people into thinking that his actions were in good faith. He's had an issue with me ever since I opposed him on his RFA. His initial one-week block of my account for "personal attacks" was made in bad faith, and his lies on WP:ANI and elsewhere were also made in bad faith. I still stand that Cyde does more harm than good as an admin, and the project will improve dramatically once he is desysopped.
Even worse than the block, however, was the fact that another user went by and reverted some of those constructive contributions - one of those contributions involving the removal of text that violates copyright, and another contribution adding a note that an article on a real person was unsourced. Those reverts were innappropriate, even if defensible by the banning policy. I have restored those edits. If reverted again, I will leave it be, but I do caution FeloniousMonk or other over-zealous admins to think before reverting. Is Wikipedia an encyclopedia, or an MMORPG? You decide. -- Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 00:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
A final note: One has to admire the irony that a contributor recieved an indefinate block after removing copyvios and reverting vandalism. Most indefinate blocks are handed out for precisely the opposite reasons. Something to think about. -- Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 00:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree with you here. It doesn't make sense to revert good edits just because they were made by a banned user. But at the same time, it doesn't make sense not to block a user violating ArbCom sanctions just because they happen to be making good edits at the present time. I hope you understand. -- Cyde↔Weys 04:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Of course, his final actions were nothing more than an attempt to sow confusion by playing the "Ohh look at me, I'm making good edits but you're blocking me anyway!" card. That is to say, he wasn't editing because he truly cared about making the encyclopedia better, only to try to make us look bad. --Cyde↔Weys 04:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
I wasn't doing anything to sow discord or confusion. It's interesting how you expect me to assume good faith of your actions, but you cannot assume good faith of mine. Please note, I have no hard feeling against you for performing the block, and you were technically justifiable in doing what you did - but you were still in the wrong.
I was editing to edit, to improve the encyclopedia. To go out with a bang, but on a different note than last time. Yes, part of it was a social expirement of sorts, to see who would block me for what reason, and when, but primarily, I was interested in making some positive contributions, if for no other reason than to detract from the cherry-picked evidence (and flat-out falsehoods) on the ArbCom page.
And still another part of me had to laugh at the irony of it all. I was well aware that I would likely get blocked for my contributions, but I have to admit that I chuckled when someone actually did perform such a block. Because according to the central Wikipedia philosophies, it made no sense whatsoever. According to the overdeveloped bureaucratic and legalistic structure that Wikipedia has devolved into, however, it was perfectly justifiable. I think this final block in and of itself speaks louder than any of my contributions on Wikipedia Review ever did. I'm only curious now to see who decides to listen to the facts and try to improve things, and who decides to hold their ears and scream until I go away.
Wikipedia is broken. It has failed to live up to it's ideals, and is devolving at a rapidly-accelerating pace. In a sense, it has reached Eternal September. The longer Wikipedia's critical flaws are ignored, the more serious they will become, and the harder it will be to recover from the mess. Unfortunately, the preferred method is to ignore the cesspit that lies underneath your handful of featured articles and well-developed egos, and instead brag about how big Wikipedia is getting, failing to realize all the while that the bulk of Wikipedia is unreliable, unsourced, and badly-formatted, and the content undergoes constant vandalism, pointless revert wars, and worse.
There is a saying to the effect that if an infinite amount of monkeys pounded on a infinite amount of typewriters, they would eventually produce the complete works of Shakespeare. This is not true. They would produce Wikipedia. -- Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 09:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Blu Aardvark started off, as many of us do, as a good earnest newbie Wikipedian. He did a few questionable things and got a taste of some of the Wikipedia community's officiousness. He did not handle it well and flamed out in a puerile fashion. He then co-founded a criticism site, quite likely with good intentions, but just stood by when it got out of hand and other members launched some vicious attacks. He had a change of heart and tried to come back to Wikipedia, but the community was unforgiving and reacted with anger. This time he left with class and maturity, trapping us in our own officiousness in a nice coup de grace. It sounds as if he has matured and learned from the debacle; let us hope that, in time, the Wikipedia community will as well. Martinp 04:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
This case has closed and the final decision is published at the link above.
For the cabal. -- Tony Sidaway 00:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Please note that I have just changed your block to one year per the ruling. Ian¹³ /t 11:45, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Blu, I'm marking my calendar to email you in 3-4 weeks. Like I said before, try not to do anything that will completely burn your bridges to Wikipedia. You are upset now, but later you may change your mind and want to comeback. Take care, FloNight talk 18:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
At the help desk, specifcally here, in response to the question you gave a welcome message with heaps of information, but missed answering the actual question. I think the welcome message for newbies at the help desk can be overwhelming and unhelpful, maybe we could work on a welcome template specifially for the help desk? -- Commander Keane 12:47, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the work, and don't worry about losing any of my deathless prose. Honest to God (sorry), I don't know how I got involved, except extreme irritation, since I have no strong feelings on atheists or geeks. Geez, it's not as if they're the first batch of self-righteous types intent on using Wikipedia as some kind of soapbox/promotional vehicle. -- Calton | Talk 08:12, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
P.S.: I think Marcperkel's complaint has something to with the The God Who Wasn't There article, since he seems to reacted extremely badly to it being listed on the Copyright Violation page, haranguing the guy who listed it ( User :Doc Glasgow?) on his Talk page.-- Calton | Talk 08:17, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
I see you said (before Gabriel deleted your comments) that he only had three reverts in 24 hours. Please see a list of them at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Gabrielsimon#Evidence of disputed behavior at # 26. By my count he has at least four if not five, but he tries to split them up and make other edits at the same time so as to confuse the comparisons but always manages to revert the same basic chunk. I'd appreciate it if you relook at it. DreamGuy 09:35, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
DreamGuy must be in love with me or something, he cant stop thinking or talking about me. lol Gabrielsimon 09:40, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
also , it might be good to look and check the edit summaires of Dreamguys in relevence toi his accations of my violations, because for one thing, if its about my RFC page, and it was tonight, that wasnt even me, as i explained on the talk page, and which i am very embarrassed about. for other 3rr accusations , please check for bait9ing in the edit siumam,ries, on Dreamguys part ( rude and insulting edit sumaries)
thanks! Gabrielsimon 09:43, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
(and pleae check my talk page for something slightly important) Gabrielsimon 09:46, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my user talk page! FreplySpang (talk) 17:30, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks but I was already able to get the list. I realized I had added all the mayors to the List of Irish-Americans so I was able just to get them off there. 64.108.222.252 06:54, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
Now that the TfD on {{ nn-bio}} has been closed I have renamed all the speedy deletion templates to names that start with "db-" as discussed in that TfD discussion. I have also cleaned up all double redirs and fixed all coumentation pages I know of. The only template not conforming is {{ delete}} because it is currently protected. I hope this meets your concerns in this matter. DES (talk) 23:54, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
If people look for information on a topic, it should not direct them to your talk page. 69.216.240.155 05:11, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
The copyright infringement for Medical Alert you mention is simply wrong. The site you point to as the copyright holder has no copyright for the term "medical alert". In fact, the [www.medicalert.org MedicAlert Foundation] is the holder of the copyright. However, they have permitted the [www.consumeradvisorycouncil.org Consumer Advisory Council] to use their trademark where it serves to help resolve consumer confusion between medical alert alarm systems and MedicAlert bracelets. What's really alarming is that instead of pointing consumers to either the MedicAlert Foundation or the Consumer Advisory Council, you have pointed them to a site that copied most of its text from the Consumer Advisory Council Medical Alarm FAQ.
Okay, you win. If you'd rather degrade the value of Wikipedia by sending consumers to a Google Adsense site, so be it.
I'll start doing that from now on and go back to older articles I created and add it. I also see you've added them to a lot of articles, so thanks, that's good work. 69.216.240.155 07:37, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
I noticed you did the other half of the latest page move vandalization reverts. Thanks. JesseW 19:06, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
Category:Millennial Wikipedians has been listed on categories for deletion. Since you are using it on your user page please weigh in on the vote and that of the other generational categories here. Thanks. - JCarriker 20:01, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
Hi, I'm just letting you know that I'm nominating this template for deletion, because I feel it to be redundant with tests 1-3, can be considered "biting the newbies", and causes confusion when someone clicks the section edit link. Feel free to weigh in on the TFD. -- Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 04:31, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
Hi, I thought you might like to take another look at this article, post re-write. -- Doc (?) 00:47, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
Hi.
I want learn Klingon as you. Do you know any webpage where learn Klingon? Thanks Reignerok 00:09, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
Check out the Jesus article and edit it to keep it focused on Jesus and a biographical account of Him. Watch the Jesus page to keep it focused on Him. Thank you. Scifiintel 21:41, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
I've just been reading your suggestions to fix Wikipedia, and while you've got some good points, others strike me as downright odd. Arbitration members are not allowed to vote in cases which they are a party to already. Wikipedia does not have a policy of removing citations from articles, and actively encourages their addition. Policies are already reviewed and voted upon by the community. Hmm. Ambi 03:15, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Check the history. I didn't sign it either! WAS 4.250 03:41, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
FYI RecentChangesCamp Tedernst | talk 22:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Bummer. There is a conference wiki that I'm sure will be very active during the event and people might also do things through IRC, so check that out if you're interested. Tedernst | talk 22:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
I recall reading on Wikipedia Review a comment about an editor other than Jimbo who did substantive editing of his own page, whos edits were brought to the attention of admins who turned a bind eye to it. On the off chance you know which post i am talking about, I'd very much appreciate a pointer. --- Charles Stewart 09:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi there. In the TfD for this, you said we should keep it because we need a small template for long-term protection. But, as I said in the debate, we already have {{ sprotected-small}}, which doesn't have the misleadingly titled name of the nominated template. Indeed, the notion of a semi-permanent semi-protect should not be enshrined in a template as there is no basis in policy for it. For George W. Bush we should simply use the correctly named and worded {{ sprotected-small}}, don't you agree? - Splash talk 15:42, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi Blu Aardvark, glad to see you did not permanently leave Wikipedia. I was wondering why my Template:Current event template redirect wasn't working, couldn't see the obvious! :) — Quarl ( talk) 2006-01-15 13:36 Z
Thanks for taking note of The Arcata Eye and Plazoid pages.-- Metatree 00:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Have a great day :) -- sannse (talk) 10:15, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
That was really funny, gave me a good chuckle. You should have just crossed it out and left it in. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 11:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Were you referring to this: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Catholic Alliance of Wikipedia-like vote stacking? -- Mistress Selina Kyle ( Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 11:50, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi, you recently commented on bible-verse articles, and may therefore be interested in commenting about a proposed policy covering roughly 50 specific verses:
-- Victim of signature fascism 20:25, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Blu,
I noticed you changed the logo for the Ubuntu Linux User Box. Why? The usage policy on Ubuntu's offical site clearly allows for such use. Besides, the logo is just that, a low-resolution image of a logo, which is allowed under fair use. I am aware that some discussion has been going around about "fair use" images in user boxes. If you changed the logo to Tux because I labeled it as a fair use image and not with some other licensing information, I'm sure I can find an appropriate image copyright tag. -- Jcarroll 06:50, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Please review and adhere to WP:NPA, WP:CIV, and WP:WQT. Please re(?)-familliarize yourself with Wikipedia policy. Thanks in advance. El_C 13:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia Review is not a "neo-Nazi" "Wikipedia hate site". There are no neo-nazi's on the forum - at least, no open neo-nazis - and it's not a "hate site" - it's simply highly critical. You were banned from the site for trolling, no other reason. If you want to hold that as a badge of honor, it's your perogative, but I would request that you at least be honest about it. Oh, and before you call 207.118.103.139 a sockpuppet of Internodeuser, you should do a whois on it. It's a CenturyTel IP, and geolocates to Canyon City, OR. It's not an Internode IP, geolocating to Melbourne, Australia. Seriously.
Hey, why did I get banned from the Wikipedia review? Couldn't you stomach my criticism of your users nastiness about our admins? And how, pray tell, does this give you the high moral ground to complain about blocking on Wikipedia? - Ta bu shi da yu 21:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the correction, didn't mean to stick a talk page note onto his user page. Deadsalmon 02:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry that you find my version of the template insulting; I imagine you have no idea how insulting the present version is to every admin whose only transgression has been to interpret policy as best they can. Am I to understand that you no longer assume good faith? Mackensen (talk) 16:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
A further question. If you're so pissed about admins ignoring policy, do you intend to prove these violations and hold us horrible bastards responsible? By all means, file a Request for Arbitration. Call for my head. Otherwise, I'd ask that the black armband come off, because it's not accomplishing anything except stirring up factionalism. I'm here to write an encyclopedia. Are you? Mackensen (talk) 16:37, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
If you continue to add links to your website on Wikipedia pages, I will consider blocking you for disruption, whether you're adding or restoring them. If you need to direct someone to a page, you can add the nowiki tag, but you seem determined that the links should be live, which suggests you're spamming. Please review WP:NOT. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Also, please consider WP:CIVIL: "Whereas incivility is roughly defined as personally targeted behavior that causes an atmosphere of greater conflict and stress". And consider the section headed "Removing uncivil comments". Try to be kind, Jeff. Being determined to retain incivlity really isn't very kind. Grace Note 05:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
I have removed the comment. I don't want to see you blocked over this, Jeff. It's nonsense. Please don't personally attack SlimVirgin again, whatever your views on her are (and whatever they are, a template talkpage is not the place to express them). And beware breaking the 3RR over this page, please. Consider that a warning if you like. Jeff, you're very heated. Please consider a deep breath and a step back. Grace Note 05:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
As you continued to restore the link after being warned, I have blocked your account for disruption. The block is a very brief one, but if this behavior continues, the blocks will increase in length. The website you are trying to link to is, first of all, one that is run by you, which makes your attempts to include links to it inappropriate. In addition to that, it contains some very serious libels about editors, including that one editor, whose real name is revealed, is a pedophile, which is the kind of stupid attack that could get someone killed. That is another reason it will not be linked to from Wikipedia. I repeat: this is an encyclopedia, not a children's playground, not a link repository, not a userbox project, and not a venue for your personal attacks. If you assure me that you will stop creating live links to this website on Wikpedia, and will stop helping others to do so, I will be happy to unblock you. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:56, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
I'd like your thoughts on a brainstorm I've tried to articulate here: User:Leifern/Adminwatch idea. And feel free to spread the word. -- Leifern 16:55, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
This user thinks it is ironic that thanks for supporting Cyde's successful RFA came in the form of a userbox. |
Here's a userbox for you. -- Cyde Weys 04:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
I do hope you find the peace you need in your break, and the stress goes away soon. Try to hang in there. - File:Ottawa flag.png nath a nrdotcom ( T • C • W) 04:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Please drop your prejudices and retain some objectivism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephenjh ( talk • contribs)
You have been blocked for 1 week for violations of WP:NPA in regards to your WikiBreak parting message. -- Cyde Weys 21:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Your request to be unblocked is denied. First of all, you're purportedly on a WikiBreak, so why do you care if you're blocked? (See, perhaps, meatball:GoodBye.) Second, your block was justified by your behaviour, so don't expect it to be removed quite so quickly. Some indication that you understand why you were blocked, that you understand that your block was justified, and that you will not engage in such behavior in the future would be a good start. Kelly Martin ( talk) 22:02, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I've removed the discourse that was in the place of this section, since user talk pages are not intended to mirror the Arbitration Committee nor is Wikipedia a soapbox for users' points of view, as per WP:NOT. I have also protected this page, since it seems that leaving it open to editing merely shall foment further disagreement between Blu Aardvark and his opponents in the ongoing dispute. I will remove the page protection when Blu Aardvark's block expires. -- NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 02:43, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm truly sorry to hear you've got stress up the wazoo and then some. Don't let it all offset your confidence—you're valuable to Wikipedia. I hope you feel better. ^_^ -- The i kiro id ( talk/parler/hablar/paroli/说/話) 02:05, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Just hang loose for a while, and when the block expires, take some time in the coffee lounge ;). Think of it as a vacation, not a block. I don't know if that helps, but it's the best advice I got.-- The i kiro id ( talk/parler/hablar/paroli/说/話) 02:30, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Frankly, I can't be bothered reading the whole post on ANI. FWIW, I have always felt that this user was redeemable. I think the question is, 'does he wish redemption'. I invite Blu to post here, indicating what behaviour we can expect if he is unbanned. Then perhaps we'd have more to go on. -- Doc ask? 21:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
I have unblocked this user (as one of the two primary "victims" of his personal attacks, I feel this is my right). I agree with Doc that I feel he is redeamable. He has agreed to be on his best behavior, and that's good enough for me. Raul654 00:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Is this edit you, and do you want it readded? Can't help with the block problem, unless you want me to post on AN or someone else's talk page but {{ unblock}} would accomplish the same, mostly. Kotepho 07:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
{--Discussion with Malber archived to history--} {--Further trolling removed--}
I added the deleted sections to your archive 2 assuming you would do this yourself if not blocked. No need to reply unless you strongly object to this action. NoSeptember talk 13:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi. We never interacted before, but you've generated a lot of attention lately. Just so I can understand a little better why you've come back, could you comment on the following posting of yours on Wikipedia Review?
Have things changed since then? Thanks, — mark ✎ 08:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia Review was initially founded in November 05, or perhaps earlier. I joined the initial WR in December. Selina joined it in January, shortly after the userbox fiasco.
The site was relatively small and exceptionally non-notable at the time, hosted on a proboards server. The administrator of the forum was "Igor Alexander" (quite probably the same person as User:Amalekite), who appointed me as a global moderator over the forum in mid-December, and later passed partial adminship to me. In early 2006, a poster using the screenname "jackwelsh" (who is quite probably the "Disruptive Apartheid Editor" whome Jayjg describes on a user subpage) joined Wikipedia Review, and began posting some comments of an anti-semitic nature. I chose not to take action, because I did not see his posts as "hate speech" particularly, and although they were offensive, were not offensive enough to warrant taking action. This created some conflicts between myself and some Wikipedia editors who were active there at the time (including El C), who felt that I should have banned him and deleted his posts rather than allowing him the privelage of posting there, and that my refusal to do so was an indication that I was either anti-semitic myself, or at least nazi-apologetic. In response to this conflict, and the hateful attitude expressed towards Igor by many members of the forum (since it was assumed that Igor was Amalekite, and that Amalekite was Alex Linder), Igor "reclaimed" the forum, banned many participants there, and used the board as an apparent platform for neo-Nazi politics. However, Igor explained his intentions to me by private corresponse, and I defended him because I understood and respected his explanation. This, of course, heightened the conflict between myself and users who assumed that I held neo-nazi viewpoints. (For the record, I don't. I do, however, believe firmly in free speech, even if the speech is unpopular or even offensive. I do recognize reasonable limits, however. If a neo-Nazi is explaining his beliefs in a coherent, civil manner, I see no reason why that is unnacceptable. If they are calling for the blood of Jews, there is a problem with that.)
I believe it was in late January I created my first sockpuppet accounts, which were used as a form of experiment prompted by discussion with Lir. Orange Flowerpot, Another Orange Flowerpot, and related accounts were used to leave messages of a nature similar to posts by Lir on Raul654 and Snowspinner's talk pages. The results of the "experiment" were posted on Wikipedia Review. Technically, this was sockpuppet abuse, but I felt justified because it seemed the only way to test certain presumptions about how Wikipedia functioned.
Wikipedia Review moved to its own domain and away from Igor's adminship in mid-February. Appointed as admins over the site were myself, Lir, Qwerty, and Selina. Blissyu2 declined adminship.
(More to follow)
Hello,
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Blu_Aardvark. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Blu_Aardvark/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Blu_Aardvark/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, -- Tony Sidaway 23:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I have unblocked you to participate directly in your arbitration. You can edit only arbitration pages and your own user pages. Fred Bauder 22:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I think I have cleared this now, let me know if it hasn't... Ian13/ talk 13:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I would like to thank you for giving wikipedia another chance. You had many reasons to walk away, yet you didn't, and it shows a lot of character to persist at improvement. Even if this does not turn out for you, you have shown many wikipedians that not all banned users lose faith and walk away. You broke the mold. Please keep in mind that not every wikipedian is trying to cross-examine your actions, many are just in disbelief that such a turn-around could be considered genuine.-- The ikiroid ( talk· desk· Advise me) 22:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- 2006-06-08 08:11 < karynn> Werdna: blu is perfectly civil until he turns on you.
- 2006-06-08 08:11 < ambi2> well, blu is. indeed.
- 2006-06-08 08:11 < karynn> but he doesn't hide his antisemitism very well.
Ahem. The things that you discover from Brandt's little chat searcher.
Consider this post a confirmation that the Arbitration Commitee is free to drop this case. I have no interest in returning, ever, when people are going to talk shit like this, attack me for no reason whatsoever, ban me without cause from IRC channels or wiki discussions, paste libelous accusations around the place.... no. I'm done with any contributions here, period. The fact of the matter is, you've made it very clear that I'm not welcome.
However, I request a full written apology from User:Kelly Martin, User:Cyde, User:Rebecca, and User:Bumm13, in addition to any others who have thrown around such accusations or otherwise acted in an unwarranted abusive manner towards me. I don't honestly expect that any of these users are going to be mature enough to realize that they have acted in an abusive manner, but I nonetheless request an apology from these users. You may contact me via Special:Emailuser.
No, I am not an anti-semite, and I am sick and tired of users who try to paint me as one. Those accusations are hurtful and flat-out false. Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 11:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't know if you'll ever get to revert vandalism ever again, but I saw you're on RC patrol, so here's a helpful code to add to your monobook. It makes vandalism reversion a lot easier.
// Script from [[User:Lupin/recent2.js]] document.write('<script type="text/javascript" src="' + 'http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User:Lupin/recent2.js' + '&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s"></script>');
Anyway, good luck.-- The ikiroid ( talk· desk· Advise me) 01:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
You've been blocked for violating the terms of your unblocking. The terms were to only edit your statement, as well as your userspace, but according to your contribs, you have violated this. Didn't you know?-- The ikiroid ( talk· desk· Advise me) 02:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
In response to the following message on
WP:ANI:
Yup, here, both in content and in edit summary, invoking WP:IAR. Problem is, there is a massive difference between ignoring the rules and ignoring specific instructions by ArbCom.
Actually, there is no difference. From the version of WP:IAR that I was familiar worth, one of the purposes behind the concept in the first place is to avoid the red tape and bureaucracy of Wikipedia for the purpose of constructing a quality encyclopedia. The very defination of ArbCom is "bureaucracy". My edits that I made were constructive, and beneficial to the cause of constructing a quality encyclopedia.
Now, to be fair to Cyde, the block was within policy, and I don't object to it on any purely technical grounds. However, the block was clearly not made in good faith, even if it is defensible by Wikipedia's policies on ArbCom proceedings. I don't care if I am unblocked - blocking me is only superficially effective anyway, as I can make either good or bad-faith contributions even while blocked - but Cyde shouldn't try to kid people into thinking that his actions were in good faith. He's had an issue with me ever since I opposed him on his RFA. His initial one-week block of my account for "personal attacks" was made in bad faith, and his lies on WP:ANI and elsewhere were also made in bad faith. I still stand that Cyde does more harm than good as an admin, and the project will improve dramatically once he is desysopped.
Even worse than the block, however, was the fact that another user went by and reverted some of those constructive contributions - one of those contributions involving the removal of text that violates copyright, and another contribution adding a note that an article on a real person was unsourced. Those reverts were innappropriate, even if defensible by the banning policy. I have restored those edits. If reverted again, I will leave it be, but I do caution FeloniousMonk or other over-zealous admins to think before reverting. Is Wikipedia an encyclopedia, or an MMORPG? You decide. -- Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 00:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
A final note: One has to admire the irony that a contributor recieved an indefinate block after removing copyvios and reverting vandalism. Most indefinate blocks are handed out for precisely the opposite reasons. Something to think about. -- Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 00:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree with you here. It doesn't make sense to revert good edits just because they were made by a banned user. But at the same time, it doesn't make sense not to block a user violating ArbCom sanctions just because they happen to be making good edits at the present time. I hope you understand. -- Cyde↔Weys 04:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Of course, his final actions were nothing more than an attempt to sow confusion by playing the "Ohh look at me, I'm making good edits but you're blocking me anyway!" card. That is to say, he wasn't editing because he truly cared about making the encyclopedia better, only to try to make us look bad. --Cyde↔Weys 04:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
I wasn't doing anything to sow discord or confusion. It's interesting how you expect me to assume good faith of your actions, but you cannot assume good faith of mine. Please note, I have no hard feeling against you for performing the block, and you were technically justifiable in doing what you did - but you were still in the wrong.
I was editing to edit, to improve the encyclopedia. To go out with a bang, but on a different note than last time. Yes, part of it was a social expirement of sorts, to see who would block me for what reason, and when, but primarily, I was interested in making some positive contributions, if for no other reason than to detract from the cherry-picked evidence (and flat-out falsehoods) on the ArbCom page.
And still another part of me had to laugh at the irony of it all. I was well aware that I would likely get blocked for my contributions, but I have to admit that I chuckled when someone actually did perform such a block. Because according to the central Wikipedia philosophies, it made no sense whatsoever. According to the overdeveloped bureaucratic and legalistic structure that Wikipedia has devolved into, however, it was perfectly justifiable. I think this final block in and of itself speaks louder than any of my contributions on Wikipedia Review ever did. I'm only curious now to see who decides to listen to the facts and try to improve things, and who decides to hold their ears and scream until I go away.
Wikipedia is broken. It has failed to live up to it's ideals, and is devolving at a rapidly-accelerating pace. In a sense, it has reached Eternal September. The longer Wikipedia's critical flaws are ignored, the more serious they will become, and the harder it will be to recover from the mess. Unfortunately, the preferred method is to ignore the cesspit that lies underneath your handful of featured articles and well-developed egos, and instead brag about how big Wikipedia is getting, failing to realize all the while that the bulk of Wikipedia is unreliable, unsourced, and badly-formatted, and the content undergoes constant vandalism, pointless revert wars, and worse.
There is a saying to the effect that if an infinite amount of monkeys pounded on a infinite amount of typewriters, they would eventually produce the complete works of Shakespeare. This is not true. They would produce Wikipedia. -- Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 09:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Blu Aardvark started off, as many of us do, as a good earnest newbie Wikipedian. He did a few questionable things and got a taste of some of the Wikipedia community's officiousness. He did not handle it well and flamed out in a puerile fashion. He then co-founded a criticism site, quite likely with good intentions, but just stood by when it got out of hand and other members launched some vicious attacks. He had a change of heart and tried to come back to Wikipedia, but the community was unforgiving and reacted with anger. This time he left with class and maturity, trapping us in our own officiousness in a nice coup de grace. It sounds as if he has matured and learned from the debacle; let us hope that, in time, the Wikipedia community will as well. Martinp 04:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
This case has closed and the final decision is published at the link above.
For the cabal. -- Tony Sidaway 00:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Please note that I have just changed your block to one year per the ruling. Ian¹³ /t 11:45, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Blu, I'm marking my calendar to email you in 3-4 weeks. Like I said before, try not to do anything that will completely burn your bridges to Wikipedia. You are upset now, but later you may change your mind and want to comeback. Take care, FloNight talk 18:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)