This is an archive of my talk page from March 2006. Please add new messages to my current page.
The two articles I am banned from, the edit-war have continue.
Why ?
Because ArbCom fail to address the reall issues of complete failure of NPOV and DR policies.
No real ffort was made to resolve these disputes. Instead it was jumped to ArbCom (to get rid of me) but no real resolution will take plave until ArbCom will become serious and take some of the steps I suggested (including deleting an article that can not become NPOV after 3 years of edit wars.
I'd appreciate it you would review the debate over whitelisting a site you added to the blacklist recently. Thanks in advance for your time. uriah923( talk) 21:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
A comment from an uninvolved party, namely myself: Something to keep in mind, I think, is that ZAROVE claims to be a reporter and also a dyslexic. I'm not convinced that one or the other isn't a lie, just because I would find it very hard to believe that ZAROVE would be able to file stories that did not require massive re-editing if he was dyslexic. Usually, an ability to write well and properly is mandatory to be a reporter of any note.
As for dyslexia, the Wikipedia article on dyslexia says nothing about typing problems (unless you count fine motor, but ZAROVE is systematically making the same mistakes over and over again, which makes it less than random), and nor does it say anything about randomly capitalizing words when typing. The mechanism of typing is not the same as that of writing, either.
Furthermore, if he does indeed have a problem and is yet a reporter in spite of all this, I don't think he would be spot-on for work and then suddenly regress when he got home and was on WP. So there's clearly some inconsistencies here that ZAROVE is trying to exploit for his benefit in some way, shape, or form. MSJapan 00:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for supporting me in my request for adminship! It ended with a tally of 39/5/4, and I am now an admin. I'm glad to have earned the trust of the community, and I will make use of it responsibly. Of course, you can let me know of any comments or concerns you have.
With a million articles in front of me, I'd better get mopping.
rspeer /
ɹəədsɹ
05:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your kind words on my talk page. Nach0king 09:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
The statement was accurate in its entirety, and the people contacted were a small part of those affected. Why do you think this is inappropriate? StrangerInParadise 00:06, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Why are you going out of your way to tell me not to reveal Cotman's information now? That issue is weeks old, and I assured him I wasn't going to reveal any of his personal information then. Is someone going around impersonating me and revealing Cotman's information? Furthermore, no one did anything about my similar complaint about Justen - why is Cotman's information being protected, but not mine? -- Pansophia 19:13, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
With regard to the Arbcom sanctions proposed against me in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway/Proposed decision, you stated that you were "Still thinking about these" [1].
I have some concerns about these remedies. The proposed remedy that I find most problematic (put forth by User:Dmcdevit) reads: "Crotalus horridus is prohibited from creating or editing userboxes (either templatized or hard-coded into a userpage". The problem I have with this is that I have about a dozen userboxes, and this would heavily restrict my ability to edit my own user page. No one has ever claimed that my user page was disruptive - see User:Crotalus horridus - none of the controversial user boxes (political, religious, etc.) are there, nor is anything else that violates Wikipedia policy. I would appreciate if you would either modify this remedy so that it doesn't affect my ability to edit my own user page, or (preferably) vote against it entirely.
I also have problems with the second remedy, "Crotalus horridus is placed indefinitely on Wikipedia:Probation." This simply isn't justified based on the evidence, which shows only a handful of isolated instances where I admittedly acted unwisely (as virtually all Wikipedians do from time to time). It should be noted that the other party to arbitration, User:Tony Sidaway, has stated that he feels that these remedies are unnecessary [2]. I'm also concerned that these findings against me, as the plaintiff, will have a chilling effect on individuals who want to bring well-founded arbitration cases in the future, since no editor is perfect and almost anyone has some edits that could be construed as disruptive or as violating Wikipedia policy.
I'd appreciate if you could take these concerns into consideration when casting your votes on the arbitration case. Thank you in advance for your time. (Full disclosure: I have made a similar request of User:Fred Bauder. Since you are both Arbitrators and this case directly affects me, I believe it is legitimate to make these requests in this manner.) Crotalus horridus ( TALK • CONTRIBS) 20:35, 6 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 04:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't want to add to the confusion, which is why I'm posting here rather than somewhere in the RfA pages, but I question whether proposed principles 2 and 7 are really what was intended.
(It might be best to delete this section after you reply. I don't want to be argumentative, but some of the (proposed) principles here are changes in policy.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
I've come to the conclusion that your vote in [3] was a violation of Wikipedia policy, although I presume it was well-intentioned and inadvertant. Nevertheless, I would like to re-open this RfAr. How can we do this? Wyss 22:00, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
I just read Mindspillage/admin for the first time. It reflects my own sentiments nearly perfectly. I'm glad I'm not the only one! Also, while I see you around all the time, of course, I've never before visited your userpage, and I only just now found out your gender. Huh. Strange how one makes assumptions that nearly everyone one meets online is male. moink 10:07, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Hello, you recently protected the Opie and Anthony article to stop an edit war (that I was unfortunately part of). I am requesting your assistance and/or guidance at resolving this issue. I posted an RFC but there has been no response. The crux of the issue is not POV/NPOV but a fact in dispute. One camp is claiming that Anthony (one half of the DJ team) is currently dating a woman named Melinda, aka "Lobster Girl", who performed oral sex on a former intern of the show. There is no dispute that this occurred, the only issue is whether Anthony is in a relationship with her. There doesn't seem to be much wiggle room here, he's either dating her or he isn't. The protected version of the page includes the claim that there does exist a relationship. I'd like to resolve this one way or the other, and it doesn't seem like that will happen without outside help, so anything you can offer would be greatly appreciated. The relevant discussion on the talk page is at "Spaz and Melinda's lobster encounter". Thank you! Tufflaw 16:07, 13 March 2006 (UTC) By the way, you may want to check out the website here [6] where there is a sort of "call to arms" for vandals to attack this page. Tufflaw 16:08, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Good morning, Mindspillage! I would like to ask that you unblock the Opie and Anthony page, at least temporarily. There has been a major news development in the radio industry that can be found here... http://www.fmqb.com/Article.asp?id=186874 ... that needs to be touched upon. I hope you'll take it into consideration. Payneos 03:39, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Saw your page "content issues" on meta... I don't know if you're into humor, but just in case you're in the mood... after the article "Cum fart" survived AfD, some of us, not having any other recourse, had a bit of fun with it on the talk page... here: Wikipedia:So Long, and Thanks for All the Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense#Excerpts from talk page for the (now-deleted) article "Cum fart" (CAUTION - EXTREMELY OFFENSIVE PICTURES, though.) Herostratus 02:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, I just announced a 48 hour wikibreak (with the option of it being shorter if I care to surf WP on my blackberry.... can you cure my wiki addiction :) -- Tawker 08:12, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways, from comparing articles that need work to other articles you've edited, to choosing articles randomly (ensuring that all articles with cleanup tags get a chance to be cleaned up). It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 13:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Couldn't resist another pun, eh? [7] "Just" one more ... Not sure what I mean, whatever... :-) Antandrus (talk) 04:58, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi Kat, I have been following the disputes which are on the subject of uranium. Please could you tell me when it is likely that the ArbCom will have decided what the outcome will me.
I have noticed that the debate has at times gone to dire depths with some mud slinging, I think that some parties (DV8 2XL and James S.) are unable to discuss things.
I do not know what the rules on it are, but during the arbitration I have entered into a informal discussion with James S (I hope that I have not broken any rules by doing so), while I have somethings which I strongly disagree with James about I think that me and him might be making some progress towards a solution which would be reasonable to both of us. Other than bans and the other punishments which have been proposed, do you have any things which are more positive.
User:Ted Wilkes has again violated his probation. Although he is "banned from making any edit related to a person's alleged homosexuality or bisexuality" (see [8]), he edited the Boze Hadleigh article heavily dealing with the homosexuality or bisexuality of celebrity stars, thereby denigrating the author and reverting the edits of another user. See [9]. Based on recent checkuser evidence, Ted Wilkes, Danny B. (usurped) and Karl Schalike appear to be the same. See [10]. As both Danny B. (usurped) and Karl Schalike have contributed to articles related to the alleged homosexuality or bisexuality of famous personalities (see [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], etc. etc.) thereby violating the probation of Ted Wilkes (see [21]) more than five times, Ted Wilkes, who has wasted the time of many users, administrators and arbcom members, should now be blocked for one year or hardbanned indefinitely, especially in view of the fact that he also seems to be identical with multiple hardbanned User:DW alias User:JillandJack. See [22]. The arbcom ruling says, "Should Ted Wilkes ... edit any article from which (he is) banned (he) may be blocked for a short period, up to a week in the case of repeat offenses. After 5 blocks the maximum block shall increase to one year." See [23]. On 28 February 2006, administrator Jtdirl admonished Ted Wilkes not to breach arbcom rulings again: "You have now made 3 breaches of the arbcom ruling, the two that caused this weeklong ban and the one that caused the earlier ban. If you make 2 more at any stage before the expiry of the arbcom ruling, or its amendment, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia for one YEAR. " See [24]. Onefortyone 16:31, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi Kat. Do you remember Image:Rhythmicgymgroup.jpg & Image:Rhythmicgymnastics.jpg from last September? Your last edit left their license in question. As you can see, I already deleted the second one — and I should not have — but it can be resurrected from the photographer's website. Actually, that one was a mosaic of five of his photos, and I'm also curious if he gave permission for that number of images. What would you like to do at this point? × Meegs 08:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
For the userpage theme which I stole without even asking. How rude of me. ZoFreX 17:11, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Could you take a boo at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Jason Gastrich#confused by remedies ? Should the ban be concurrent with the rest of the remedies? Is that what you guys meant to do? Is it more of a drowned AND hung remedy, or did you mean all the other stuff to start after the ban lapses? Thanks! (you can answer here, I'm stalking, er I mean watching... or there, maybe better? dunno.) ++ Lar: t/ c 05:40, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
I've requested a peer review of Trobairitz, I'd appreciate any comments you have. Don't know if you're into medieval music specifically, but it's pretty interesting stuff. (BTW, "some of my best friends are bassoonists") Mak emi 07:25, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
I have never pointed out a violation of any part of the parole except comments on me, nor do I intend to. However I do think it's somewhat unreasonable to ask me to not point out and request input on that point. And even there, I do not go looking for it. But RFAr and its talk are on my watchlist, and it's rather hard not to notice them there. Phil Sandifer 16:50, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
I am the wife of User:Danny B. (usurped), as he advised the Wikipedia Welcomer User:Wiki alf and we log in from the same office computer. We don’t contribute all that often and so it came as quite a surprise to Danny to find himself blocked by you and this message on his user page:
Because you provided no explantion for your actions on his talk page, it took me some time to track it down. At the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard [25] you wrote:
I note that this statement by you was posted immediately after Danny complained on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents [26] about vandalism by Onefortyone which you did nothing about.
However, at Wikipedia:Requests for CheckUser/Archive/March 2006 User:Sam Korn who did the checking said only:
Your action appears to have been based on a message left on your talk page by User:Onefortyone [27], someone on probation who I see has been banned by User:Stifle from editing certain articles for a time as result of his repeated violations of his probation and someone that numerous others have complained about. ( User:MrDarcy, User:Arniep, User:Lochdale, User:Func, User:DropDeadGorgias and if I looked a little further, I'm swure I would find plenty more).
Mushroom, I think it is right to assume that a Wikipedia:Administrator has the responsibility for stating facts, not making quick guesses to spin there own version of what User:Sam Korn who did the checking said. Your rush to judgment has forced me to do a lot of searching all over Wikipedia for no reason. I will unblock my husband and place copies of this message on the talk page of each member of the Arbitration Committee.
Just for the record, because my husband has an interest, I am the one who pointed him to the non-encyclopedic material being pushed by User:Onefortyone after I came across a nonsensical contradiction in on of the articles he edited. I also come from a small city with one of the highest number of writers per capita in Canada and where Wikipedia has a high profile and where I know from the local newspaper(s) and business/social associations that there are a number of Wikipedia editors. - Cynthia B. 19:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi. My friend, Tony the Marine suggested I contact you and User:Linuxbeak (and follow your advice) regarding Carolyn Wood. If you could take a look, I'd appreciate it. Thank you Joaquin Murietta 06:32, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Kat,
The article "Societal attitudes towards homosexuality" is being used, not for the benefit of the reader, but to promote the agenda of a well-organized group of gay advocates. I can provide you with many examples if you would like. I have gone through all of the proper channels to raise a red flag about this.
The first item on the "workshop" page is a request to "remove the article" [35]. But, so far, that option has not been added to the "proposed remedies" section of the "requests for arbitration" page [36].
I hope that you will seriously consider adding this remedy to "proposed remedies" section, as that is the only remedy that will actually correct the problem.
Best Regards, Lou franklin 03:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm just curious as to what brought around the deletion and selected revisions of the Calli Cox article. Since nothing was documented on the talk page, I figure I would ask you directly. Feel free to reply at your earliest convenience. :-) -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 19:02, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for voting on my RfA. It passed with a consensus to promote of 45/7/1. To those of you concerned about the fact that I am a relative newcomer, I encourage you to poke me with a sharp stick if I make a mistake. Or better yet, let me know on my talk page, and I'll do my best to fix it. Mak emi 04:48, 25 March 2006 (UTC) p.s. Go Musicabal!
Greetings, saw you in the rule-room, and just dropped in to say a big hello. And, I came to brighten up and lighten up your page. And, I know you well - do you know me? I am a thief, and shall steal the bright blue box which you have kept at the top. -- Bhadani 16:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Can you give me source code of your move bot User:Craggs Vale? I plan to move about 500 pages en another wiki, it could be very useful.
They caught us (erm, I mean me). It must have been the Fiona Apple connection, or maybe the neo-Nazism. ;-) (Wow, that's a cool tool.) Antandrus (talk) 21:54, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Needed three endless free evens. The effervescence thee sent me re the strengths: cheers! Feel sheer glee! Extended feeble self-esteem (even preened)! Needed defenceless sleep: thee helped me enter week's rest! Ever, BertG ♬ speech!
Face it, nobody knows where this picture came from originally. After some research, however, I am pretty sure that the picture rights were released. If we change it to that tag, will it need a source? Krashlandon (e) 22:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry to spam your talk page, but this seemed serious enough to directly put on your talk page. I have evidence that AiG has actively had employees push their POV on the AiG page and possibly on related pages. I have added a new evidence section in the Agapetos arbitration to that effect, explaining the evidence. Due to the very serious nature of this accusation and its possible implications for Wikipedia, I decided to directly alert all of the ArbCom members. JoshuaZ 01:56, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
I tried to login to help respond to letters but found that my ticket had expired. I would be grateful if you please advise how I could get a new ticket. Thanks for your help in this matter. Capitalistroadster 08:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Several months ago you deleted a page on The Da Vinci Game, largely because the game had not been published yet. The game is now published and widely available in the UK, Australia and New Zealand and I would therefore like to reinstate the page. Be most grateful for your support on this, I've submitted it as a Request for Arbitration on the page below.
Thanks in advance, Aminto. [37]
This is an archive of my talk page from March 2006. Please add new messages to my current page.
The two articles I am banned from, the edit-war have continue.
Why ?
Because ArbCom fail to address the reall issues of complete failure of NPOV and DR policies.
No real ffort was made to resolve these disputes. Instead it was jumped to ArbCom (to get rid of me) but no real resolution will take plave until ArbCom will become serious and take some of the steps I suggested (including deleting an article that can not become NPOV after 3 years of edit wars.
I'd appreciate it you would review the debate over whitelisting a site you added to the blacklist recently. Thanks in advance for your time. uriah923( talk) 21:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
A comment from an uninvolved party, namely myself: Something to keep in mind, I think, is that ZAROVE claims to be a reporter and also a dyslexic. I'm not convinced that one or the other isn't a lie, just because I would find it very hard to believe that ZAROVE would be able to file stories that did not require massive re-editing if he was dyslexic. Usually, an ability to write well and properly is mandatory to be a reporter of any note.
As for dyslexia, the Wikipedia article on dyslexia says nothing about typing problems (unless you count fine motor, but ZAROVE is systematically making the same mistakes over and over again, which makes it less than random), and nor does it say anything about randomly capitalizing words when typing. The mechanism of typing is not the same as that of writing, either.
Furthermore, if he does indeed have a problem and is yet a reporter in spite of all this, I don't think he would be spot-on for work and then suddenly regress when he got home and was on WP. So there's clearly some inconsistencies here that ZAROVE is trying to exploit for his benefit in some way, shape, or form. MSJapan 00:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for supporting me in my request for adminship! It ended with a tally of 39/5/4, and I am now an admin. I'm glad to have earned the trust of the community, and I will make use of it responsibly. Of course, you can let me know of any comments or concerns you have.
With a million articles in front of me, I'd better get mopping.
rspeer /
ɹəədsɹ
05:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your kind words on my talk page. Nach0king 09:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
The statement was accurate in its entirety, and the people contacted were a small part of those affected. Why do you think this is inappropriate? StrangerInParadise 00:06, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Why are you going out of your way to tell me not to reveal Cotman's information now? That issue is weeks old, and I assured him I wasn't going to reveal any of his personal information then. Is someone going around impersonating me and revealing Cotman's information? Furthermore, no one did anything about my similar complaint about Justen - why is Cotman's information being protected, but not mine? -- Pansophia 19:13, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
With regard to the Arbcom sanctions proposed against me in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway/Proposed decision, you stated that you were "Still thinking about these" [1].
I have some concerns about these remedies. The proposed remedy that I find most problematic (put forth by User:Dmcdevit) reads: "Crotalus horridus is prohibited from creating or editing userboxes (either templatized or hard-coded into a userpage". The problem I have with this is that I have about a dozen userboxes, and this would heavily restrict my ability to edit my own user page. No one has ever claimed that my user page was disruptive - see User:Crotalus horridus - none of the controversial user boxes (political, religious, etc.) are there, nor is anything else that violates Wikipedia policy. I would appreciate if you would either modify this remedy so that it doesn't affect my ability to edit my own user page, or (preferably) vote against it entirely.
I also have problems with the second remedy, "Crotalus horridus is placed indefinitely on Wikipedia:Probation." This simply isn't justified based on the evidence, which shows only a handful of isolated instances where I admittedly acted unwisely (as virtually all Wikipedians do from time to time). It should be noted that the other party to arbitration, User:Tony Sidaway, has stated that he feels that these remedies are unnecessary [2]. I'm also concerned that these findings against me, as the plaintiff, will have a chilling effect on individuals who want to bring well-founded arbitration cases in the future, since no editor is perfect and almost anyone has some edits that could be construed as disruptive or as violating Wikipedia policy.
I'd appreciate if you could take these concerns into consideration when casting your votes on the arbitration case. Thank you in advance for your time. (Full disclosure: I have made a similar request of User:Fred Bauder. Since you are both Arbitrators and this case directly affects me, I believe it is legitimate to make these requests in this manner.) Crotalus horridus ( TALK • CONTRIBS) 20:35, 6 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 04:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't want to add to the confusion, which is why I'm posting here rather than somewhere in the RfA pages, but I question whether proposed principles 2 and 7 are really what was intended.
(It might be best to delete this section after you reply. I don't want to be argumentative, but some of the (proposed) principles here are changes in policy.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
I've come to the conclusion that your vote in [3] was a violation of Wikipedia policy, although I presume it was well-intentioned and inadvertant. Nevertheless, I would like to re-open this RfAr. How can we do this? Wyss 22:00, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
I just read Mindspillage/admin for the first time. It reflects my own sentiments nearly perfectly. I'm glad I'm not the only one! Also, while I see you around all the time, of course, I've never before visited your userpage, and I only just now found out your gender. Huh. Strange how one makes assumptions that nearly everyone one meets online is male. moink 10:07, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Hello, you recently protected the Opie and Anthony article to stop an edit war (that I was unfortunately part of). I am requesting your assistance and/or guidance at resolving this issue. I posted an RFC but there has been no response. The crux of the issue is not POV/NPOV but a fact in dispute. One camp is claiming that Anthony (one half of the DJ team) is currently dating a woman named Melinda, aka "Lobster Girl", who performed oral sex on a former intern of the show. There is no dispute that this occurred, the only issue is whether Anthony is in a relationship with her. There doesn't seem to be much wiggle room here, he's either dating her or he isn't. The protected version of the page includes the claim that there does exist a relationship. I'd like to resolve this one way or the other, and it doesn't seem like that will happen without outside help, so anything you can offer would be greatly appreciated. The relevant discussion on the talk page is at "Spaz and Melinda's lobster encounter". Thank you! Tufflaw 16:07, 13 March 2006 (UTC) By the way, you may want to check out the website here [6] where there is a sort of "call to arms" for vandals to attack this page. Tufflaw 16:08, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Good morning, Mindspillage! I would like to ask that you unblock the Opie and Anthony page, at least temporarily. There has been a major news development in the radio industry that can be found here... http://www.fmqb.com/Article.asp?id=186874 ... that needs to be touched upon. I hope you'll take it into consideration. Payneos 03:39, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Saw your page "content issues" on meta... I don't know if you're into humor, but just in case you're in the mood... after the article "Cum fart" survived AfD, some of us, not having any other recourse, had a bit of fun with it on the talk page... here: Wikipedia:So Long, and Thanks for All the Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense#Excerpts from talk page for the (now-deleted) article "Cum fart" (CAUTION - EXTREMELY OFFENSIVE PICTURES, though.) Herostratus 02:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, I just announced a 48 hour wikibreak (with the option of it being shorter if I care to surf WP on my blackberry.... can you cure my wiki addiction :) -- Tawker 08:12, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways, from comparing articles that need work to other articles you've edited, to choosing articles randomly (ensuring that all articles with cleanup tags get a chance to be cleaned up). It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 13:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Couldn't resist another pun, eh? [7] "Just" one more ... Not sure what I mean, whatever... :-) Antandrus (talk) 04:58, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi Kat, I have been following the disputes which are on the subject of uranium. Please could you tell me when it is likely that the ArbCom will have decided what the outcome will me.
I have noticed that the debate has at times gone to dire depths with some mud slinging, I think that some parties (DV8 2XL and James S.) are unable to discuss things.
I do not know what the rules on it are, but during the arbitration I have entered into a informal discussion with James S (I hope that I have not broken any rules by doing so), while I have somethings which I strongly disagree with James about I think that me and him might be making some progress towards a solution which would be reasonable to both of us. Other than bans and the other punishments which have been proposed, do you have any things which are more positive.
User:Ted Wilkes has again violated his probation. Although he is "banned from making any edit related to a person's alleged homosexuality or bisexuality" (see [8]), he edited the Boze Hadleigh article heavily dealing with the homosexuality or bisexuality of celebrity stars, thereby denigrating the author and reverting the edits of another user. See [9]. Based on recent checkuser evidence, Ted Wilkes, Danny B. (usurped) and Karl Schalike appear to be the same. See [10]. As both Danny B. (usurped) and Karl Schalike have contributed to articles related to the alleged homosexuality or bisexuality of famous personalities (see [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], etc. etc.) thereby violating the probation of Ted Wilkes (see [21]) more than five times, Ted Wilkes, who has wasted the time of many users, administrators and arbcom members, should now be blocked for one year or hardbanned indefinitely, especially in view of the fact that he also seems to be identical with multiple hardbanned User:DW alias User:JillandJack. See [22]. The arbcom ruling says, "Should Ted Wilkes ... edit any article from which (he is) banned (he) may be blocked for a short period, up to a week in the case of repeat offenses. After 5 blocks the maximum block shall increase to one year." See [23]. On 28 February 2006, administrator Jtdirl admonished Ted Wilkes not to breach arbcom rulings again: "You have now made 3 breaches of the arbcom ruling, the two that caused this weeklong ban and the one that caused the earlier ban. If you make 2 more at any stage before the expiry of the arbcom ruling, or its amendment, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia for one YEAR. " See [24]. Onefortyone 16:31, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi Kat. Do you remember Image:Rhythmicgymgroup.jpg & Image:Rhythmicgymnastics.jpg from last September? Your last edit left their license in question. As you can see, I already deleted the second one — and I should not have — but it can be resurrected from the photographer's website. Actually, that one was a mosaic of five of his photos, and I'm also curious if he gave permission for that number of images. What would you like to do at this point? × Meegs 08:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
For the userpage theme which I stole without even asking. How rude of me. ZoFreX 17:11, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Could you take a boo at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Jason Gastrich#confused by remedies ? Should the ban be concurrent with the rest of the remedies? Is that what you guys meant to do? Is it more of a drowned AND hung remedy, or did you mean all the other stuff to start after the ban lapses? Thanks! (you can answer here, I'm stalking, er I mean watching... or there, maybe better? dunno.) ++ Lar: t/ c 05:40, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
I've requested a peer review of Trobairitz, I'd appreciate any comments you have. Don't know if you're into medieval music specifically, but it's pretty interesting stuff. (BTW, "some of my best friends are bassoonists") Mak emi 07:25, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
I have never pointed out a violation of any part of the parole except comments on me, nor do I intend to. However I do think it's somewhat unreasonable to ask me to not point out and request input on that point. And even there, I do not go looking for it. But RFAr and its talk are on my watchlist, and it's rather hard not to notice them there. Phil Sandifer 16:50, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
I am the wife of User:Danny B. (usurped), as he advised the Wikipedia Welcomer User:Wiki alf and we log in from the same office computer. We don’t contribute all that often and so it came as quite a surprise to Danny to find himself blocked by you and this message on his user page:
Because you provided no explantion for your actions on his talk page, it took me some time to track it down. At the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard [25] you wrote:
I note that this statement by you was posted immediately after Danny complained on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents [26] about vandalism by Onefortyone which you did nothing about.
However, at Wikipedia:Requests for CheckUser/Archive/March 2006 User:Sam Korn who did the checking said only:
Your action appears to have been based on a message left on your talk page by User:Onefortyone [27], someone on probation who I see has been banned by User:Stifle from editing certain articles for a time as result of his repeated violations of his probation and someone that numerous others have complained about. ( User:MrDarcy, User:Arniep, User:Lochdale, User:Func, User:DropDeadGorgias and if I looked a little further, I'm swure I would find plenty more).
Mushroom, I think it is right to assume that a Wikipedia:Administrator has the responsibility for stating facts, not making quick guesses to spin there own version of what User:Sam Korn who did the checking said. Your rush to judgment has forced me to do a lot of searching all over Wikipedia for no reason. I will unblock my husband and place copies of this message on the talk page of each member of the Arbitration Committee.
Just for the record, because my husband has an interest, I am the one who pointed him to the non-encyclopedic material being pushed by User:Onefortyone after I came across a nonsensical contradiction in on of the articles he edited. I also come from a small city with one of the highest number of writers per capita in Canada and where Wikipedia has a high profile and where I know from the local newspaper(s) and business/social associations that there are a number of Wikipedia editors. - Cynthia B. 19:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi. My friend, Tony the Marine suggested I contact you and User:Linuxbeak (and follow your advice) regarding Carolyn Wood. If you could take a look, I'd appreciate it. Thank you Joaquin Murietta 06:32, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Kat,
The article "Societal attitudes towards homosexuality" is being used, not for the benefit of the reader, but to promote the agenda of a well-organized group of gay advocates. I can provide you with many examples if you would like. I have gone through all of the proper channels to raise a red flag about this.
The first item on the "workshop" page is a request to "remove the article" [35]. But, so far, that option has not been added to the "proposed remedies" section of the "requests for arbitration" page [36].
I hope that you will seriously consider adding this remedy to "proposed remedies" section, as that is the only remedy that will actually correct the problem.
Best Regards, Lou franklin 03:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm just curious as to what brought around the deletion and selected revisions of the Calli Cox article. Since nothing was documented on the talk page, I figure I would ask you directly. Feel free to reply at your earliest convenience. :-) -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 19:02, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for voting on my RfA. It passed with a consensus to promote of 45/7/1. To those of you concerned about the fact that I am a relative newcomer, I encourage you to poke me with a sharp stick if I make a mistake. Or better yet, let me know on my talk page, and I'll do my best to fix it. Mak emi 04:48, 25 March 2006 (UTC) p.s. Go Musicabal!
Greetings, saw you in the rule-room, and just dropped in to say a big hello. And, I came to brighten up and lighten up your page. And, I know you well - do you know me? I am a thief, and shall steal the bright blue box which you have kept at the top. -- Bhadani 16:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Can you give me source code of your move bot User:Craggs Vale? I plan to move about 500 pages en another wiki, it could be very useful.
They caught us (erm, I mean me). It must have been the Fiona Apple connection, or maybe the neo-Nazism. ;-) (Wow, that's a cool tool.) Antandrus (talk) 21:54, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Needed three endless free evens. The effervescence thee sent me re the strengths: cheers! Feel sheer glee! Extended feeble self-esteem (even preened)! Needed defenceless sleep: thee helped me enter week's rest! Ever, BertG ♬ speech!
Face it, nobody knows where this picture came from originally. After some research, however, I am pretty sure that the picture rights were released. If we change it to that tag, will it need a source? Krashlandon (e) 22:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry to spam your talk page, but this seemed serious enough to directly put on your talk page. I have evidence that AiG has actively had employees push their POV on the AiG page and possibly on related pages. I have added a new evidence section in the Agapetos arbitration to that effect, explaining the evidence. Due to the very serious nature of this accusation and its possible implications for Wikipedia, I decided to directly alert all of the ArbCom members. JoshuaZ 01:56, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
I tried to login to help respond to letters but found that my ticket had expired. I would be grateful if you please advise how I could get a new ticket. Thanks for your help in this matter. Capitalistroadster 08:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Several months ago you deleted a page on The Da Vinci Game, largely because the game had not been published yet. The game is now published and widely available in the UK, Australia and New Zealand and I would therefore like to reinstate the page. Be most grateful for your support on this, I've submitted it as a Request for Arbitration on the page below.
Thanks in advance, Aminto. [37]