User talk:Woohookitty/Archive2

Congratulations! It's my pleasure to let you know that, consensus being reached, you are now an administrator. You should read the relevant policies and other pages linked to from the administrators' reading list before carrying out tasks like deletion, protection, banning users, and editing protected pages such as the Main Page. Most of what you do is easily reversible by other sysops, apart from page history merges and image deletion, so please be especially careful with those. You might find the new administrators' how-to guide helpful. Cheers! -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 6 July 2005 05:27 (UTC)

Woohoo! (Sorry, I had to.) Congrats. :) --Dmcdevit July 6, 2005 05:31 (UTC)

Jumping right in. Just what I'd expect from you! --Dmcdevit July 6, 2005 05:41 (UTC)

Uncle Ed just told me - Congratulations! Well-deserved! Simesa 6 July 2005 12:14 (UTC)

Hi. You don't know me, but I saw something you wrote:

he's probably going to continue to find "loopholes" in the policies of Wikipedia so he can be POV while pretending to be NPOV

Ahem. There are no loopholes in Wikipedia:NPOV. I am a co-author and maintainer of that page; if you see a loophole, please show it to me, so I can sew it up.

It's all right to include a point of view in a controversial article, provided:

1. Nothing in the text implies that Wikipedia endorses that POV
2. The article specifies who asserts that POV

Now, I know a bit about nuclear power - the science, from two years of undergraduate physics classes; as well as the politics, from general reading - and quite a bit about NPOV policy. I also have been successful at mediating article disputes at Wikipedia. So I might be able to help you. Uncle Ed July 6, 2005 11:32 (UTC)

...... · Katefan0^(scribble) 21:31, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I'll try to tell you about it, admin friend. I just transwikied it to wikiquote, and so now it can be deleted per the VfD ruling (Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Reactions by world leaders to the death of Ronald Reagan). It's quite long overdue, as the VfD was in May! Thanks in advance. --Dmcdevit·t 05:36, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

Woohoo! (can't help myself) So reliable... --Dmcdevit·t 06:40, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

Check your user page. You may not know me well but I've certainly noticed your contributions :) With respect, Redwolf24 03:57, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

... thanks for that! You didn't have to. Very nice and much appreciated! · Katefan0^(scribble) 14:30, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Hry, there, it's me. I just saw Wikipedia:Requests for comment/SNIyer1 and thought you might be interested in commenting. I have seen some of your revert wars on my watchlist. Anyway, happy editing. --Dmcdevit·t 21:43, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

(I'll respond here to not muck up the the other discussion) Thak you for the congratulations :). I have in fact done some VfDs, but only ones that ended in speedies or unanimous keep/deletes. I plan on getting into it more, but lately I've been plowing through Category:Pages on votes for deletion and finishing all the incorrect nominations. You wouldn't believe how many people make a subpage, but never list in in the daily log (gotta be at least ~20%). I've seen some from April and May, and even as old as January. Up to the Ms now. I'll close some VfDs tonight too! Well, carry on! --Dmcdevit·t 04:37, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Oops. You might have noticed fewer there. I actually did the end a while ago to mix it up. While there'll be some new ones there, it's probably gonna be more productive to start at T and go up. PS, I've got it down to an art: once you open a page in the category, click on what links here. This is the fastest way to find out, because it should link to some daily VfD log, if it doesn't, it should be listed. Thx! --Dmcdevit·t 06:32, July 27, 2005 (UTC) (Although it's not really a big deal if you're closing old ones along the way, too. So, whatever. Good idea, I should've been doing that too. --Dmcdevit·t 06:34, July 27, 2005 (UTC))

Well, it's got a redir from the main template namespace. So if I read the history right, it was probably created as a joke in the template namespace, then TfD'd. The TfD decision was to BJAODN, so it was moved there, but the category was never taken out (that's where you saw it, right?). So I've just removed the category, and we'll let the BJAODNers have their fun. (Actually I'm tempted to use that one on the next article I VfD...) --Dmcdevit·t 21:33, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Hi, thought you should know. The PAA and Nuclear Power articles got unprotected, and the edit war in Nuclear Power has Ben pissed and he wants to end Mediation with PAA. I left Uncle Ed a note. Simesa 20:58, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was just under 24 hours, so I re-reverted the article back to Ben's last. But we still have a problem - are we in Mediation, or has Ben dropped out and the article is open to all edits? (until I can get it to Arbitration) Simesa 20:35, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think Ed dropped out. I'm not opposed to mediation if there is anything left to mediate. As I see it, I've won all my points. So aside from keeping you all in check, What's the point of mediation? Does it end? how? when? Are we supposed to be converted and agree? I think we have to let Ed get through his Breaching experiment and then if he's not bitter and disolusioned he might dain to mediate agaiin, but I think he's lost some momentum here lately. Why don't we all just get along? Benjamin Gatti

It appears, from Ed poor's discussion page, that he believes he is being booted from being a sysop and admin. This leaves us with no Mediator for Price-Anderson.

By [1], the numbers have changed for Price-Anderson - coverage for facilities and activities licensed before 2026, required primary insurance to $300 million each, and secondary assessments to $95.8 million each. These numbers should go into the article - but I hesitate to start the edit-warring again. Katefan0 and Woohookitty, advice? Simesa 20:24, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Since there's already a discussion going on Wikipedia talk:Cleanup Taskforce, I replied there. -- Beland 02:03, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You attached a {{unverified}} tag to Image:UK satellite TV evolution.JPG. While I did not put a tag on the image, in the summary text I did identify it clearly as an original powerpoint drawing by myself. Mark83 17:35, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Help! An admin might know the answer to this.

User Vertigre moved the Talk:Nuclear power page to an archive - and redirected the talk page to the archive! Can you do this in Wikipedia? Thanks, Simesa 19:55, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Triple Help! I don't know what user Vertigre was trying to do, but now Talk:Nuclear power and Talk:Nuclear power/archive6 are emptied with no history and Talk:Nuclear power/archive5 is just flat gone! Can you restore Talk:Nuclear power and Talk:Nuclear power/archive5 back to their condition an hour ago? Simesa 20:12, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your hard work! Benjamin Gatti reverted your Archive6 but I made a new one (successfully, as best as my testing shows - my first archive!). Thanks again, Simesa 22:07, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You Woohookitty! I was recently on the internet and found a listing about my father (Don Craig Wiley) on Wikipedia. I saw that you were the last to update the listing and I appreciate your work in commemorating the contributions that my father made to late 20th century molecular biology. There was one thing that was troubling that I was wondering if you could fix. His listing is listed as John Craig Wiley, and his name was Don Craig Wiley as it is said in the body of the description. I created an account, but I am not able to move or rename the article. I was wondering if you would be able to do this? I appreciate this and I want you to know that the seemingly small things that people sometimes do can make a giant difference in the lives of others. I look forward to showing Don's grandchildren that he is represented in this ecyclopedia.

Fixed by me as practice - my first Move and fix links!. Simesa 06:15, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

At Gkhan's RFA, I noticed you voted, "Oppose. Man, you need more experience. If you don't have 2000+ edits, I wouldn't bother applying here. --Woohookitty 06:05, 19 August 2005 (UTC)". While you're certainly well within your rights to consider more experience necessary to earn your vote, I was a bit surprised by the comment about not even bothering to apply. I haven't been too active on WP:RFA; has it really gotten so difficult to attain adminship? I was nominated right when my edit count reached one thousand, and no one even mentioned anything about lack of experience. I thought there were others, too, who attained adminship with edit counts in the low 1000s. Perhaps I am mistaken. Or did you mean that this user specifically would need many more edits, either because of other criticisms or because it was a self-nomination? — Knowledge Seeker দ 18:38, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

The author's given clearance - see Talk:Michael Andrew. Personally, I think a VfD as advertising would be the best thing to do with it. Tearlach 12:37, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to let you know before I do anything that I plan to add back the concept you deleted from the Busch Stadium article. Although the "best multipurpose stadium" is opinion, it is a very widely held opinion that Busch Stadium was the best or one of the best of the lot. See [2] and [3] and [4], to name a few. Given the very low opinion of the multipurpose stadium in general, the phrase "best multipurpose stadium" is not much a compliment, but I think it does add appropriate information to the article. If you have any strong objections, please let me know. I am also going to post this same message on the article's Talk page. -- DS1953 14:53, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

We appear to have a user (71.111.210.100) repeatedly blanking large portions of Nuclear power. Could you check and, if it occurs again, block the user? Simesa 20:21, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

...still having fun? How's the new job? · Katefan0^(scribble) 20:24, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

;) Glad to hear it. You can see what fun I'm up to at WP:RFAr. · Katefan0^(scribble) 02:34, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

I think that the reason for making "achievements" a separate article is that the main article is already very long (and can take quite a while to load). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:04, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel strongly about it to move it back myself; we'll see if anyone else does. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:34, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I copyedited The Philadelphia Story today. =) GluttonForPunishment

Hi, I saw that you added a public domain notice to media:Venter-janich2.jpg, however I'm not certain that the author really intended to release the photo into the public domain when he wrote "uploaded to Wikipedia with permission". Could you double check? Thanks and cheers, AxelBoldt 04:30, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I can certainly remove the copyright notice from this particular image, but if you added imprecise or unverified copyright notices to other pictures as well, it would be good if you could remove them all, since this is pretty serious business. Cheers, AxelBoldt 04:50, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Almost to 20, quite a cabal I've got going. Haven't talked to you in a while. Have you been away? I'm only at 7200, even though I got here two weeks before you! I'm going on Wikibreak to try to keep my sanity. Could you take a look at this thing (if you feel like more torture): User:Uriah923/ON? Seems like lately everyone just wants to propose a vote (which is evil) so this was nice. Then there was this too. Sheesh, I need a break. Nice to not feel alone though, so thanks for the note! Dmcdevit·t 16:54, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

I went to vote on the VfD for List of songs played on Radio Disney and saw that voting was already closed. The message you left at the top says that voting was closed almost 2 months ago, however, and the result of the debate was to delete the article. So now I'm confused. Is the article slated for demolition or not? If not, why does the VfD page say it is? --Icarus 22:54, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Strange. I could have sworn the link was still blue when I posted this question. Maybe my computer's cache was out of date, or maybe it was just one of those strange, unexplainable computer mysteries! My question, however, was how long it takes for an article to actually be deleted after a VfD is closed with the result being that the article should be deleted. --Icarus 17:06, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. It's an odd one. The maturity of the guy's communication does not match the maturity of the essay. I can't find anything on google though. The JPS 10:01, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your support for my RFA. It made me feel all warm and fuzzy inside, like a.... like a... kitty. · Katefan0^(scribble) 21:41, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Hello,
Saw your post on the Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Baseball where you said you were an admin etc., etc. Well you brought it up, so here it goes. Can you tell me if putting this image on each team's page is a copyright violation and did I upload it correctly? If copyrights are not your forté, can you point me to someone whose forté they are? Have a good one!--CrazyTalk 01:22, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image File:AKW-LeibstadtCH.jpg was deleted without comment and therefore pulled off of Nuclear reactor and Nuclear power by user:Mel Etitis (an admin). Could you restore the image? Simesa 11:47, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I see now that the image had no source information given. I will track back to see who entered it. Simesa 12:07, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've substituted a similar image from Commons, but it may have source problems also. I am trying to get a different picture. Thanks, Simesa 22:05, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that your comments on my talk page "I'm sure you will now call me a Commie pinko liberal for daring to contradict you." were marginalizing and disrespectful. It is especially egregious since I've never ever spoken a word to you in my life. I hope all administrators aren't this insulting. Big Daddy

I'm sorry, but the comments in boldface above were deliberately insulting and taken as such. I have no idea who you are and where you're coming from. As a friendly suggestion, I'd work on making a better first impression. They say they're often quite lasting. In your 2nd attempt at communicating to me, you wrote a lot of words when a simple "I'm sorry for cheap shotting you without provocation" would have sufficed. If this is your idea of building community, it's not the community I suspect Jimmy Wales envisioned when he started Wikipedia...Big Daddy (on the road)

I'm trying to analyze User:BigDaddy777's behavior in context, based on the RfC. This is very hard, because the RfC quotes him out of context; I can't fairly analyze a quote that way. Working through the threads to do post mortems is extremely time consuming.

Would you please send me one or two links to a discussion of some length, representing BDs worst behavior? It should include more than just one or two isolated remarks.

Please leave it at my talk page under User talk:Paul Klenk#BG777 Worst-Of Threads, trying not duplicate a thread submitted someone else. I will continue to sort through the RfC, but one or two links would be a great help. Thanks.

paul klenk ^talk 07:48, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding. I am sorry my message was confusing. I was hoping I did not have to go into length. To answer your questions:

I am looking for a section in time of talk page history where BD gave one of his "worst-of" performances. Perhaps you could indicate this with a beginning link, and tell me how many hours I should look at in that thread, say, 10 AM Sept 3 to 8 PM Sept 3. The problem I am having with tons of isolated quotes is, I have to do all the work to find out the context of the remark. I cannot evaluate someone fairly based on a ton of quotes, taken out of context, listed on a page. If it were you being evaluated, you would want someone to know why you said what you did, who you said it to, what the comments followed, etc. etc. The RfC does not provide this very well. It is asking people to "take their word for it" that, in context, the remarks were unjustifiable.

I actually took it upon myself to carefully review two very long threads of conversation involving BigDaddy. Although I saw many of the behaviors the RfC complains about (and I believe BD should shape up), his comments really didn't seem so bad compared to what other people were slinging at him. Mostly he was making colorful but well-worded arguments, defending his case, and objecting that people were not addressing the arguments (they weren't). Instead they were objecting to how he was wording them, and whining a lot. After spending two hours doing a very detailed analysis, comment by comment, on each side of the arguments, I couldn't believe how little was there, but couldn't bring myself to search and search for something with more weight. That's why I asked you to. Out of respect for the process, I thought it only fair to let someone from that page really prove their case. Tons of isolated quotes do not prove this case.

I left my request on the talk pages of 1] the three original signatories, Hip, Kizz, and Calico, plus a bunch of co-signers on the list below -- but not all. I just ran out of time. If I missed a person in particular, such as Kate, it was not for any particular reason. I someone did not endorse the RfC, then I did not leave them the message.

paul klenk ^talk 11:03, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider undeleting the wiki entry on Roger Federer's playing style. Federer is considered by many to be technically the best player to ever play the game of tennis. This entry was a very well researched look into the game that is so admired. 68.74.240.2

"The result of the debate was delete." Shurely you mean "...keep"? — JIP | Talk 11:51, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ben is again declaring that we're post-mediation, and introducing strongly POV statements.

I'm inclined to agree that we need a new mediator, as Uncle Ed has resigned his bureaucrat status and seems to be less involved overall. Simesa 14:46, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

hm...... you're right. Isn't that curious? Maybe it's because I smell better. · Katefan0^(scribble) 18:29, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it's the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen. Go look at it. · Katefan0^(scribble) 19:30, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Since you endorsed the original RfC [5], I thought you might be interested to know that since the dispute resolution process has stalled due to BigDaddy's refusal to respond to this RfC, some are now questioning whether an RfAr should be filed.[6] Your comments on this new issue would be appreciated. 69.121.133.154 05:15, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A prior nomination for Kari Byron occurred during July 12, 2005. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Kari Byron and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kari Byron. Just letting you know. I don't know if you want to correct the nomination or what... but the old one should be shoved in an archive or something. --AllyUnion (talk) 04:16, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Kari Byron is a nomination from July 3, 2005 14:26 (UTC).
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kari Byron is a nomination from 11:20, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

We are moving all subpages out of the Wikipedia:Votes for deletion to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. --AllyUnion (talk) 00:44, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Per community consensus, Arbitration has been requested against BigDaddy777. Please add any details or comments you feel are appropriate. Mr. Tibbs 04:41, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WoowooKitty writes: "And if you were actually civil to people like kizzle and others, you wouldn't even be up for an arbcom. Just a heads up. --Woohookitty 06:15, 3 October 2005 (UTC)"

Hmmm..Civility. You mean like writing a complete stranger "I'm sure you will now call me a Commie pinko liberal for daring to contradict you."? Just curious... Big Daddy. Well, at least I know that comment wasn't disrespectful. Because...well....you told me it wasn't. Big Daddy 10:58, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You know when you 'garbage collect' like that on a rfa page, it kinda reminds me of how the POV warriors collect a litany of slams against Karl Rove in an attempt to poison his page. Isn't that coincidental? Your pal, Big Daddy. Ps But, I thought you were "Only trying to help!' lol! Bummer, that I sniffed you out from day one, huh? Big Daddy 12:10, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Two votes a consensus does not make. -St|eve 20:46, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/BigDaddy777 has been accepted. Please place evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/BigDaddy777/Evidence Fred Bauder 15:05, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That evidence was not presented there by Paul, it was presented by me. And you have attrtibuted my comments erroneously to him. Please revert. Update: did it myself. Thanks. -- RyanFreisling @ 04:02, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, both of you -- it sounds like you're working it out. If I do need to do something, drop by and let me know. Thanks. paul klenk ^talk

All taken care of - thanks Woohoo. :) -- RyanFreisling @ 05:06, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there Woohookitty! I'm watching the RFAr on BigDaddy with interest, so I'm also watching his user talk page at the moment. Specifically, he keeps removing your comments. Whilst you're completely within your rights to inform him that comment vandalism is unacceptable, and that he shouldn't be removing comments which are negative towards him. I realise you've been here longer than me, and I don't doubt you've had more experience in dealing with controversial users, but I hope you wouldn't mind if I suggested something? I don't think anything positive will come from warning him time and time again over his treatment of comments on his talk page. It's cyclical, and I think it might be a better idea to hold off on doing that whilst he's still in RFAr. This comment was left as friendly advice, so please don't take it as me being rude or condescending - just my opinion on dealing with users that create problems. By the way, sorry to see your WikiStress is at 'Pretty Stressed'! Have a nice soothing cup of tea. On me. :) --Sanguinus 05:02, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No prob, kitty. Take care and thanks! :) -- RyanFreisling @ 05:13, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I also think that six images are so much for an article with such a length. However, this does not justify your vandalism. If you may decide which ones are pepresentative of CPI(M), for example a column in Kerala, one poster in Urdu, etc., go for it but if you cannot decide, don't ever touch it please. Behemoth

Hi, 66.173.55.245 was threatened with blocking in April by a sysop, but has since resumed marking up articles. He inserted a stupid statement in nuclear power plant today and, when I checked to see if he had vandalised other sites, found he had hit four in September and August. I left a detailed message in his Talk, but he bears watching. Thanks, Simesa 19:14, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why so stressed? Come on, man, don't burn out! We need you. Maybe you just need a laugh? Okay, I'm on a wikibreak now, but tell me if you need support or anything, or just want to talk. :) Regards, Dmcdevit·t 06:20, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Figured it was that. I've been watching that from a distance. I was briefly involved in that whole mery bunch when Paul Klenk filed a 3RR against Ryan Freisling, and Kate decided to protect rather than block. I agreed and somehow we both ended up being attacked for it. For what it's worth, I think it's a pretty clear-cut case (ie, temp block follwed by NPA parole kind of thing). Especially since that was the fastest I've ever seen a case accepted. My RFAR against Ril is two months old, too. Oh and I would just ignore his rantings. They're really just hurting him (and quite funny if you just step back). Sometimes I listen to Michael Savage just to get my blood boiling and so often he can be so wrong it's funny (and/or vomit-able) but, you know. Just try to come up for a breath of freah air every once in a while, okay? Dmcdevit·t 06:48, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PS, you might want to propose a temporary injuction if that's how that is supposed to work. Even an injunction against removing/altering others' comments would mean something. Good luck with this. Dmcdevit·t 07:47, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I move we reject this brain-dead proposal. (I'm only trying to help you here, WoohooKitty)Big Daddy 08:46, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's more than a tad unfair and against the spirit of Wikipedia to post on my talk page when you know darn well that if I post on yours, you will delete my post? --Woohookitty 09:12, 8 October 2005 (UTC) No, not really. But thanks for asking! Take care, Big Daddy 09:14, 8 October 2005 (UTC)\[reply]

Ps Not that I mind, because I'm only trying to help but didn't you just get done writing this??

And this is my last response to Big Daddy. --Woohookitty 07:47, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

The reason I ask is that the arbs might find your entire testimony lacking credibility if they discover that your words from just 90 minutes ago have no meaning...Big Daddy 09:26, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes from the man who continually retracts and adds to his posts. And you took it completely out of context. I meant for that particular topic. And you know it. --Woohookitty 09:55, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It seemed pretty definitive so, no I didn't take it that way. Hopefully the arbs will though. Good luck with that. Take care, Big Daddy 10:16, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ps I'm glad you saved me the trouble of having to remove this latest post of yours to my Talk Page: "Yes on that particular subject. Sure. Take it out of context. Love people with scorched earth policies. And btw, I am going to keep readding this to your talk page. I've reached the limit of my tolerance with this.--User:Woohookitty 09:45, 8 October 2005 (UTC)"

I wouldn't want the arbs to see this as some may interpret that statement as a demonstrable lack of civility. And isn't that what you were trying to accuse me of? Thanks again...Big Daddy 10:19, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ps I'm glad you saved me the trouble of having to remove this latest post of yours to my Talk Page: "Yes on that particular subject. Sure. Take it out of context. Love people with scorched earth policies. And btw, I am going to keep readding this to your talk page. I've reached the limit of my tolerance with this.--User:Woohookitty 09:45, 8 October 2005 (UTC)"

I wouldn't want the arbs to see this as some may interpret that statement as a demonstrable lack of civility. And isn't that what you were trying to accuse me of? Thanks again...Big Daddy 10:19, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I kind of wish you'd stop blaming me for your indiscretions. It's the 2nd time you've done it this week. Take responsibility for your actions. Why did I say that I was going to keep readding it to your talk page? Because you completely violated policy by taking a post on your page and moving it onto mine! You didn't mention that, now did you? No. Instead you made it sound like that I was being beligerant or something. You were the one who violated policy. I was just calling you on it. But nothing is your fault is it? This from the man who has been violating policy for well over a week now by continually removing and altering posts on his talk page...and who now is moving comments from his talk page onto other people's talk page. You violated civility long, long before I did. I'm just responding to your actions. But to your mind, you've never been uncivil. You've yet to apologize for *any* of your actions or to take responsibility for them. But yet...this is my fault? You were uncivil from the first day you started here.

And the evidence page against you has many, many examples of your uncivility. Out of all my 10,000 + edits on Wikipedia, I've probably been uncivil 10-11 times...maybe a bit more...but it's always been in response to people attacking me or people who did not deserve attacking like Katefan0. You? Let's see. We are now well over 200 pieces of evidence on the evidence page and almost every piece of evidence has you either violating policy or being decidely uncivil. You've alienated or upset just about every person you've dealt with...even a fellow conservative (Jdavidb) who is just trying to help you collaborate peacefully with everyone else. Your only supporters are paul klenk and gator1 and even they aren't altogether thrilled with your conduct. Several times, paul's warned you to stop being so belligerant.

And let's see. You've also mocked the process of arbitration several times. You posted a diatribe to your talk page a few days ago where you essentially claimed that the only people who ever get called into arbitration are conservatives. You made it sound like this is some sort of witchhunt...as if BigDaddy777 is just a poor child who is being picked on by the big bullies of Wikipedia. All of the evidence on the evidence page doesn't lie. And we're not done yet. There's a gap of about 3 weeks that Mr. Tibbs hasn't even filled in yet. And you refused to comment on the request for comment that opened for you. In addition, you've said that the only time this process is used is to stop people like yourself.

So who do you think the arby folks would listen to? Let's see. I made several attempts to help. Let's look at my first post to you. I wrote you a nice note about how you really need to get along with people and if you work within the system, you will get done what you want. And then I said I'm sure you'll call me a commie pinko liberal. The only part you looked at was the last part. First of all, you completely ignored the rest of my post. And as for my comment...HELLO...do you think I just got that out of thin air? We should count how many times you've used the word "liberal" to describe people who have criticized you. Just on the evidence page, we're over 100 references to "liberal". But somehow I'm the boogy man because I point out something that you were going to do if I hadn't said anything about it. You did it with everyone else. Why would I be any different?

Anyway, so will they listen to...the respected admin with over 10,000 edits and who has worked hard to keep Wikipedia as clean of fancruft, copyvios, etc, as he can...or the man who has barely been here a month...who has all of 1,300 edits and almost 20% of them are being used as evidence against him in an arbitration case...who mocks the arbitration process...who blatantly violates policy by continually removing or altering posts on his talk page (which you do NOT own. No one owns their talk page)...who generally doesn't edit in good faith...who has alienated many people, including some of his fellow conservatives...who picks fights...who doesn't take responsibility? Hmmmm.

As for this uncivil stuff, again, I didn't make this up. It's not like I sat around and went "ok how can I attack BigDaddy today". It's *all* from what you have done. I didn't make up any of the stuff I just said. We have evidence up the wazoo of everything I just said. But somehow I'm the boogie man. Me and kizzle and everyone else. We're just out to get poor BigDaddy? Where is the evidence? Nearly everything we've said or done has been in response to something you have said or done. We didn't just make any of the evidence up.

And you know what? If today, you decided to reform...if we went 2-3 weeks without you deleting comments on your talk page (or moving them to other talk pages), attacking people as "liberal hacks" or "Stalkers", people would forgive you. That's what you don't get. You mentioned earlier how I revel in putting up evidence against you. No I do not. We're not out to "get" you. If you stopped these actions, we'd forgive you...including me. What's galling people is that you are continuing to act like you have been. If you started to behave, this would all be forgotten. I have no idea why you don't understand that. Look at jdavidb. He's a conservative and yet he works within the system. Hell, he was elected an admin not that long ago. If we really were so gung ho to "hang conservatives", do you think we would've done that? Think about it.

And now I really am done with responding to you. If you reform, we will leave you to your marry way. I wish you'd listen to that. --Woohookitty 11:05, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the liberals in here couldn't even last 24 hours without reverting not only my legitimate edits to maintain their POV, but reverting back to their long standing pattern of making vicious personal attacks despite my declared truce. That's all the evidence I need...Big Daddy 22:51, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I never saw your stress. If you'd like help, PLEASE email me, I hope we can talk something over. Redwolf24 (talk) 23:24, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the worst actor in the history of Wikipedia, bar none. Any help would be appreciated. We have over 400 pieces of evidence against this guy. That's 400. For a man who has been here a month. --Woohookitty 23:42, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Holy hell! Seems like a ban would be clearcut... I myself probably would have blocked for disruption. Now then, why are you so affected by it? I deal with trolls often, but that's never what stresses me, the only stress I get is when someone respected seems to target me. Redwolf24 (talk) 23:47, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bleh. Should have contacted the cabal and I'd be glad to get rid of him for disruption and other shenanigans. Don't worry about trolls, they get bored. Remember, the community is here for you :) Redwolf24 (talk) 00:12, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As an uninvolved editor, I have blocked him for a week (User talk:BigDaddy777#Block) for disruption. See also my reason Special:Log/block. Note that I read his talk page, and his contributions before blocking, so I think the block should be counte fairly. Redwolf24 (talk) 00:22, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck with that, I give it about ten minutes before he tries to edit a page, realized he's been banned, then comes back on as either BigDaddy (talk · contribs) or Gator1 (talk · contribs), (neither of which are his sockpuppets of course (;) and explains that Bigdaddy is just a victem of the cruel, cruel world that is the liberal media controlled wiki, etc, etc, et al, and so on, and so on...--205.188.116.130 00:34, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen this mentioned before as likely. So, just for the record, I'm quite certain that Gator1 is not a BD puppet; please don't block Gator on those grounds. ... Thank god for Redwolf, I was just about to boil over. Derex @ 10:05, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

---

no, it was for BD. when he starts calling good people racist, then i've had it. i left a note over at the arbcom talk. will be back when the troll is gone, if that ever happens. it's just not fun with him around, and i do this for fun. Derex @ 00:21, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also blocked BigDaddy, and check your email. And I guess you can kiss me ;-) Redwolf24 (talk) 00:37, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'll sure as hell buy a round of beers for you. Need to ascertain your gender 'afore the kiss though :) Derex @ 00:40, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, didn't you know that blocked users can edit their talk page? But his abuse there led to me blocking indefinitely. So you reblocking was unneccesary. Now kill off that stress? :D Redwolf24 (talk) 00:49, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I see your post to my talk. Don't worry I've been watching his talk, and I agree. I blocked him before you left that note. Redwolf24 (talk) 00:50, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You might also want to take care of this little gem BigDaddy000 (talk · contribs), looks like a sleeper big daddy--64.12.116.72 01:18, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I hear you're rather stressed, so I thought I'd leave a cup of coffee for you. ;-) Let me know if I can do anything. -- Essjay · Talk 00:57, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, how's about lowering that stress now? And I'm also free to talk more openly through email :) Redwolf24 (talk) 01:02, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to see you're better :) As for myself I'm... close to going RickK. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Redwolf24. Redwolf24 (talk) 03:04, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than having him blocked, why not ask the ArbCom to do that via a temporary injunction?

Robert McClenon 21:18, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your request for mediation. I will be taking the case. See Talk:Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act. Ral315 W_S 03:55, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for cleaning up the broken red links Woohookitty =) School and work have kept me too busy lately. I'll probably keep the double redirects coming though, they don't take that much time and its fairly infrequent. I hope to be able to really contribute again some time in the future. Triddle 16:08, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to say thank you for your additions to the Smash TV article. You enabled me to find this game when my other resources were at a loss. It's amazing to me that a free resource would list where to find this game for the Xbox and that someone would take the time to make that information available.

Thanks again! --Mercutio 19:53, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Woohookitty, I think you need to reed articles carefully before deleting them. There's a fine difference here between various wine and if you can't tast it you shouldn't be critizing about it. Ie.: your suden deletion of electric bicycles page without any critical feedback is quite childish. This is an internatianally recognized new vehicle type. Actually it is Moped is no longer a recognized vehicle in the Canadian Vehicle Safety Regulations. I don't go deleting the MOped Article now do I? --CyclePat talk 01:30, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Woohookitty, The last comment I wrote to you yesterday, afformentioned, was in anger. This is because I can't understand why someone would delete such an article (unless they haven't read it). Had you read it, you would have understood that this article was still under construction... you also would have understood that an electric bicycle is a vehicle class (in Canada) within itself. I believe you miss understood the entire basis of the information that was published. This information, was but a miniscule section of the entire article of ELECTRIC BICYCLES... like many encyclopedia articles would do, for exemple the New Grove Dictionnary and the definition of the United states of America - sub category: the Constitution. The entire text of the constitution is found within the pages of the encyclopedia. The urtext (as we would say in music) and facimile is also there.

The Irony of you deleting the "electric bicycle" article is that, with the afformentionned in consideration and that "Moped" has been removed as a vehicle class in the vehicle safety regulations of Canada, perhaps we should consider deleteting the article on MOPED's. Moped is an absolete term that should no longer be used in Canada. (The Irony behind that is that everyone still calls it a moped in many areas). Electric biycle is a type of vehicle that can be called Power-assisted bicycle (such as in Canada).... etc..

This being said, just as much as it doesn't make sense to remove the MOPED arcticle. It doesn't make sense to remove the "electric bicycle" article. (even if it is incomplete)

In response to your letter you wrote:

You're a newbie, so I'm going to try to just explain some basic principles of Wikipedia. The main one is, do not take possession of articles. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. This means that your articles will be edited, guarenteed. So the articles are not yours. They belong to everyone.

• (Perhaps edited but not completelly removed without any logical explanation)

Secondly, please read What wikipedia is not. The main thing Wikipedia is not is a indiscriminate source of information.

• (actually NO, I believe the information I chose was quite discriminatelly chosen for it's appropriateness to it's relevancy towards electric bicycles within my region - Canada Ontario. If you feel this needed more elaboration perhaps you should start writing.)

Articles on here are like encyclopedia articles. In other words, they are descriptions about other things.

• (exactly an electric bicycle in Ontario is like a moped. An electric bicycle in Canada, Quebec, BC is a Power-assisted bicycle. In the UK, whatever (still working on that), In the US (whatever someone will add there part) They will add their COLABORATIVE EFFORT!!!)

In this case, the article should be a description of electric bicycles and then possibly a short section on the laws involving electric bicycles.

• (exactly what I was doing until you deleted it. The laws describ the bicycle quite clearly. (I can't go putting my own opinion in an article that hasn't been published)(read the wiki rules)

It should not be just a law on electric bicycles or a collection of laws on electric bicycles.

• (Understood... so does that mean we delete electric bicycles? Still don't make sense. There are dream maker and dream breakers and to me you feel like a dream breaker. Perhaps instead of deleting an article if you sat down and wrote a little into it you would be helping out a lot more.)

There is actually a wiki just for documents like that called Wikisource. Maybe you should utilize that for this particular topic.

• (sounds interesting I'll check it out but I imagine that would be like a work sited thing) (Dunno I'll check it out but that's off topic from why the article was deleted)

The reason why I redirected the article to Mopeds is because the moped article actually describes what electric bicycle type vehicles are and how they operate. The electric bicycle article as it existed did not do this.

(Saying that an electric bicycle is a Moped (in Canada) is a miss classification. The only place I know that does that is Ontario... The article actually elaborated on that if you had read it carefully. Are you from Ontario by chance?)

It merely talked about a law on electric bicycles.

• (Actually almost all the information in the article was STATED and quoted from the law. There is no talking here.)

Another point is that articles need to be general. In this case, the article was basically just about Canadian law.

• (As I said, I'm from Ontario, that's my region that I know most. AS you said... this is a Colaborative work. Why don't you add your part for your region?)

The articles on here need to be much more general than that.

• (That's your personal opinion)

Again, it would need to be something like a description of electric bicycles, how they operate, how widespread they are, etc.

• (Great. Then you agree that electric bicycle should have it's own space. I'll be waiting for you to add the afformentioned sections. ie.: a description of electric bicycles, how they operate, how widespread they are.)

Finally and this is the #1 rule of Wikipedia, be bold. In this case, it is not as if my decision to redirect the article is "final". Nothing on Wikipedia is final. You could have very easily reverted my changes. I will tell you how to do that in a second. Beware, though, that if you or others don't fix the article so that it's more encyclopedic, someone else will do exactly what I did.

• (Thank you! I'll be putting it back up soon. Unless you read this and do it before me)

Anyway, to revert a change, all you need to do is... Like I said, you may revert my change if you wish, but again, if the article isn't made encyclopedic, someone else will do that exact same thing in a few days, tops. --Woohookitty 02:06, 18 October 2005 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:CyclePat"

• Wow, what a destructive community. WHat about helping each other out. I feel you opinion and views of the wikipedia are very pesimistic and it would be nice to meet someone that is a little more optimistic.

--CyclePat 22:24, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

---

Material like you put up belongs on Wikisource, not Wikipedia. Wikisource is for laws. What you put up is basically the law in Ontario.

• Perhaps but the article is much more than that and includes a summary of BC, Quebec, USA, United Kingdom definition of electric bicycle. How will that work?(though perhaps I elaborated more on Ontario laws, BUT THIS IS A COLABORATIVE WORK... every AREA is supposed to add their part) (It is also a what I believe a stub to bicycles. seeing the history of Mopeds it should be a stub to bicycles too) And as a matter of fact what I have done is a summarize the law. I didn't copy the entire H.T.A.. I meticulously chose the pertinent subsections with various laws for this type of vehicle. That being considered. I believe that I have follow "policy" (which b.t.w. is not, how did they say it, something like "the engraved rules"). That is because [[7]] (wikipedia is not a mirror section 3) I believe I do follow the rules that say... "Complete copies of primary sources should go into Wikisource. There's nothing wrong with using public domain resources such as 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica to add content to an article." These rules are followed because I do not make a complete copy of the primary source (I summarize it via quoting all appropirate sections) and I use public domain resources. I also "Avoid including entire texts of treaties, press releases, speeches, lengthy quotations, etc. In an article of a treaty, for example, summarize the treaty and then provide an external link (or, if the treaty is on Wikisource, an interwiki link) to the actual treaty." Though lengthy quotations is all upon interpretation. However...

That's great, but Wikisource is the place for laws and full documents, not Wikipedia.

• Okay! I understand. Policy does sugest law not be enumerated. So we're going to put these "enumerated laws" summarizing the use of electric bicycles in the various jurisdictions, such as Ontario, but also BC, QUEBEC, UK, USA on the wikisource in one easy accessible spot!!??!! Great!! I wish I had the know how to do that right now. (more the patience to learn how!). I think is sounds appropriate.

Moped is an example of an encyclopedia article. That's the basic form the electric bicycle article needs to be. And this is not just "my opinion". Source material like yours is not allowed on Wikipedia.

• Well source material is allowed... laws like mine aren't allowed.

Here is a place that explains that fully. It's official policy. It's not just my opinion. I'm trying to be nice here. I'm going to do something called transwiki, which means moving your article over to Wikisource. It has a place there. It doesn't have a place here. I'll give ya the link once I have the material on Wikisource. --Woohookitty 02:23, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:CyclePat"

• Thank you

--CyclePat 05:51, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Japanese emperor double redirect that you fixed will actually be correct, once all of the articles themselves have been moved to the proper titles (about 100 out of 125 have already been moved). Anyway, there are a lot of such double redirects for the Japanese emperor articles, and I just want to make sure you don't waste any time on them unnecessarily. Thanks -Jefu 13:58, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rex071404 (talk · contribs) just thought I'd bring this to your attention--anon editor 01:50, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at the edit history of anon editor for evidence of sockpuppetry, harrasment, etc. Also, I am NOT "bigdaddy" I was on a self-imposed ban which had offical ArbComm sanction. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 03:20, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your offer of help on my talk page. Yes, I do have questions re cleaning up double redirects - I'm feeling a bit silly, to be frank.

An example:

The Main Event results is listed as a double redirect that needs cleaning up.

I click, and it takes me to 'WWF The Main Event results' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Main_Event_results, (redirected from The Main Event results). This is a redirect page which points to WWF The Main Event.

I can't see how to clean up the first page, to my chagrin. What do I do to point The Main Event results to WWF The Main Event? Answer this, and I'm away.

Many thanks, Colonel Tom 11:03, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Ah. Thank you. I click on the redirect. Je suis un goose. Cheers for that. --Colonel Tom 11:54, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note. I am pretty sure that George W. Bush and Ann Coulter get much harsher treatment than say John Kerry (see Kerry talk page for details). Let's stay in touch - perhaps we can help each other understand how to better reach agreement with opposed editors. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 06:55, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Woohoo, thank you for your help with the double redirects. I don't have another cute award to hand out but I do have my sincere thanks. Sometimes I think you single handedly keep Wikipedia clean! ;-) School and work have kept me busy but I hope that when I get the spare time again that we'll be able to work together. Take care. Triddle 09:16, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again Woohoo; I had an idea, I'd like to see what you think. First off let me start with a little back ground info: One of the major reasons I created the computer help desk was for automated cleanup of articles. Unfortunately it can only be automated in some cases but in those cases it makes the job very very quick (far faster than any human could do the same chore). Check out the difference between: this and List of Middle-earth articles. The computer help desk is supposed to be the bridge between people who discover articles that need machine cleanup and the people who can write the software to do it.

In the instance of these cases it makes sense for a person to write a program to do it, even if the request has to wait for a while. When I get the free time I'll check the list and see what I can do. In the long term I hope other people will also join the project and help out as well. In the short term I'm the only one who has the dedication so far. In any case I'm still interested in keeping the computer help desk going with the limited time I do have for it.

This is where the partnership comes in: if you (or anyone at the cleanup task force) finds an article that looks like a computer could clean it up you can place a note at the computer help desk and eventually it'll get looked at. This is better than a single person spending the time to cleanup a long article because many programs could be written in the same time it would take for a human to manually clean up the article. Does that make sense? Feel free to leave me any questions if you are interested. If so I think you would make a good liaison to help communicate the usefulness of this approach to the cleanup task force.

Thanks for lending me your eyeballs! Triddle 03:32, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As for CP, yeah, you're right. He even quoted himself inside the original article as an owner of a bike shop. So. With the signature thing, no, I don't type it every time -- and it's not a stupid question! You can set your signature preferences by clicking on "preferences" on the top of the screen. The screen that pops up, there's a box entitled "Nickname," that's where you can set it. The raw text of my sig file looks like this: · [[User:Katefan0|'''Katefan0''']]^{[[User talk:Katefan0|(scribble)]]} Also make sure you check the "raw signatures" box. · Katefan0^(scribble) 16:10, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to document those ebike changes more carefully this time to eliminate the (fud?). Please check my references carefully before deciding whether or not to revert? :-)

Thanks for showing me (by example) how to "wikify". Next time I will RTFM. Good work. Thanks.

64.230.66.98 16:55, 27 October 2005 (UTC)Your reversion overwrote changes I made just prior to your reversion. How can I re-create those edits without re-tytping or cutting and pasting form old versions?[reply]

lol. thanks for joining. the other categories that came close; leftist and progressive wikipedians are too broad. leftist could indicate anarchists for example and progressive can include conservatives as long as they favor reform. see you around the wiki! --Phil 12:03, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please revisit this afd. It was for the four articles listed just after the section header (Bar Fibre (Leeds), The Bridge Inn (Leeds), The New Penny (Leeds) and Queens Court (Leeds)), not the redlink you added after closing. (That article never existed.) —Cryptic (talk) 12:35, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to help. Not tonight, but maybe tomorrow, when I'm a bit less tired. · Katefan0^(scribble) 05:48, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NP. I tend to agree. Difficult to find a compromise when the other party isn't truly trying. Surprised I'm typing as well as I am at the moment! Just got back from a Halloween party. · Katefan0^(scribble) 05:54, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you're still around, you should hop on IRC. Shenanigans. · Katefan0^(scribble) 06:04, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I guess so. Whichever one houses the #wikipedia channel. Currently far from sleep; too wound up. · Katefan0^(scribble) 06:13, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up. I'll look at the RfC and see if I have anything to add. Simesa 11:04, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you probably should know that Ben has already "responded" on your draft RfC page, and filed two RfCs of his own - possibly trying to scare you off. Simesa 04:15, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mike, Just a personal aside. I'm not offended by your RfC, or any of your edits; I disagree with you profoundly on a few issues, but that is as far as it goes. I expect you to advocate for your positions - whatever it is, and I'll be more than content to advocate for mine. And RfC is as good a place as any, and yes, I will challenge your position vigorously where I disagree, and yes I will counter character assasinations in kind, but I'd just like to say, for all that, I don't take it personally, how you take it is up to you, ;-) Benjamin Gatti

Hi, I hope I don't interrupt anything important here, but you recently deleted a typo I noticed, and now I again need help wrt deletion of a page. Have a look at 'Category:British World War I weapons' and 'Category:World War I weapons of the United Kingdom' (Why can't I link here?), I think they are redundant. However, I couldn't make heads or tails of how categories work, and I couldn't find neither on the categories list. Could you give me a hint here? --Yooden

It wasn't a problem for me to leave the room for five minutes...no trouble. Ral315 (talk) 07:41, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your comment on my user page. NO, it was my belief that you deleted important information pertinent to the discusion of deleting the article of electric bicycle. However, then I noticed you moved it to another location, the remove the redirect, which someone might confuse my opinion on the subject of deletion the article vs my opinion of deleting the redirect. --CyclePat 07:42, 6 November 2005 (UTC) b.t.w. shouldn't this be on the discusion of deleting the redirect?

I'm not an expert, but I think this is the problem with your AfD relistings. Adding a nomination doesn't create a sub-page on the AfD day. It just retrieves the content from the nomination's page. When you close them and add the nomination to another AfD page, it will display a closed nomination. For example, Jarle Roar Sæbø2 is closed on today's AfD. From watching other admins, I think you just say "relisting" below the comments and the AfD will be closed on all pages it is listed on when it is finished. I hope this is accurate/makes sense. :-) Kjkolb 11:09, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I meant when the nomination is finished and it is closed by someone, there isn't another open nomination somewhere because it was listed on more than one day. I think there might have been one or two that were closed yesterday too, if you haven't fixed them already. Talk to you later, Kjkolb 11:40, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need to create a fresh discussion page. Just re-transclude the original. Uncle G 13:05, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I trust you are doing you best to have an arms lenght opinion. I am very glad to see you are helping out, specially on the wiki page motorized bicycle. I'm sure others are also happy to have your support on many other pages. I do not wish to leave wikipedia. My expert advice on the subject of electric bicycles (though most of the last edits have been elegantly phrased by your click of administrators). There is a conflict of personality, you are a taking charge (I imagine you are a technically inclined person, you love making edits, you are all up for being in charge and making sure people stay in line)(Often this character can been seen as someone that is autocratic from my characters point of view and a conflict often exists.) I am an artist (I have new ideas, I might not be able to word them properly so the technically incline can understand and can be easily disregarded, I'm often regarded as skimpy from your point of view). In my HR course I remember seeing something along these lines (I'd have to actually pull my books out if you want to go more into detail but if there is anything you don't agree with please tell me). When these two personality clash it can be overwhelming for the artist. However in an organization (such as our article creation that we are working on), it is necessary to have artist employees. Actually it is even suggest that the artist be in charge if possible. This being said... *You might have noticed I haven't added anything or very much to the article in a while. I have added many comments to suggest what changes should be done and allowed others to do the change. I hope this clarifies any issues. --CyclePat 17:51, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Woohookitty,

You've shifted the November 1st AfD discussions to Old on 6 Nov, 17:10 (UTC).

Please avoid doing that in future, as many of the day's discussions actually did not had the 120 hours' (5 days) maturity. The AfD bot specifically does this process automatically and ensures that all discussions had passed the full 120 hours before shifting the discussions to Old.

I've got into a minor trouble over this, but I point no finger and accept full responsibility for this myself. Let us just learn something from this and be more careful the next time round. :)

- Best regards, Mailer Diablo 17:07, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I copy here for your convenience the discussion between two of your admin colleagues, which seems actually to be about your work. I request you check its accuracy, and (unless we are confused about the facts) get back to me about whether any more controversial cases were affected by premature designations by you as Old -- as some of them may (in contrast to the one i noticed) deserve remediation.
--Jerzy•t 17:33, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your calling of the result on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alireza Rahimi Boroujerdi -- one of the many neglected task categories. I note, however, that you did so 112 hours after my nomination. That's 8 hours short of five days of time, clearly short of any fair interpretation of the "five days" of the policy.

I think, in light of the uncontroversial nature of the deletion, that this needs no remedy. (In more contested cases, i would reopen it for one more full UTC-midnite-to-midnite day -- and harbor misgivings about there being some basis for an aggrieved participant to argue that anything short of 120 uninterrupted hours is insufficient!) In future case like this one, however, i urge you to be as far above reproach as "Caesar's wife" must be, in this activity that can be among the most inflammatory that admins are called upon to perform. In fact, the interpretation i favor and strictly adhere to myself is that 5 days means the passage of 6 UTC midnites. My logic is that this

• avoids slip-ups by letting those calling results process a full one-day subpage, based (usually) on the fact that the day of month has increased by 6,
• yet ensures that any user can avoid missing the chance to participate in any AfD debate, unless they let 120 hours or more pass without checking AfD.

You will note that such a standard of accessibility was cited as grounds for the sensitive decision for reduction of the length of debate to five days.

I hope you'll act in the future to ensure a firm basis for user's confidence that the timing, at least, shows a conscientious concern for doing deletions fairly and "by the book".
--Jerzy•t 15:45, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jerzy,

Thanks for your message.

Basically I rely on two tools, 1. WP:AFD/Old and 2. WP:AFD to determine whether the discussions are placed under Old and can be closed.

Usually, the AfD bot does the procedure, which allows the passage of 6 days as you've mentioned. However, 1 November's AfD was placed under old by Woohookitty :

• (cur) (last) 17:10, 6 November 2005 Woohookitty (→Current discussions - november 1 is officially old)

I did a check at WP:AFD/Old, which did state that 1 November had open discussions and started to clear. I assumed that all discussions that are placed under /Old (by other sysops or bot) are at least 5 days old, but I guess I'm wrong in this case.

I have no intention to unfairly cut short any AfD debates than actually specified. I was thinking more of cleaning up the discussions at first opportunity to avoid accumulation, as the day before I spent numberous hours trying to clear nearly a week's backlog of old discussions.

Regardless of the reasons, I offer my apologies if I've caused any potential problems as the result of "early calling" of the AfD in question. I point no finger at anyone for this, and accept full responsibility myself. To be honest, I'm quite personally very surprised by what has actually happened.

- Cheers, Mailer Diablo 16:54 & 17:11, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the flame-free response! It sounds like you are an innocent victim, and that my concern should have been directed elsewhere. I appreciate your taking the time to document the situation, especially since you shouldn't have to pay any attention to whether the designation of the day was well timed. I'll take this up with the other editor involved. Thanks again.
--Jerzy•t 17:30, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
[End of copied material]

---

Just a third party opinion here. I see nothing in WP:AFD or in the Wikipedia:Deletion policy that says 5 days is a requirement. (It's possible that I missed something though). What I do see is 5 days being given as a typical amount of time spent on Afd. My personal opinion is that longer can be better in questionable cases to give time for consensus to form, but when consensus is clear, I see no problem closing out an Afd a day early. Or even a few days early. If it does say 5 days is a requirement somewhere, I'd appreciate someone showing me where, as I couldn't find it. Friday (talk) 17:42, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Friday says nothing wrong here. I have noticed curtailed debates, and i would not be surprised if the policy has been amended to reflect that practice via wording such as you sight. I would, however, argue that such curtailing must be discussed on the AfD sub-page in question, to catch misjudgements before they need effort made to clean up after them, to demonstrate that curtailments are not stealth actions by vandals et al., and make to avoid the effort needed to review VfDs to separate the stealth curtailments from the legitimate ones.
--Jerzy•t 22:00, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

---

You said on my talk:

I apologize for causing all of this trouble. I won't add dates every again. Thank you. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 21:39, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, this was an instance of routine cleanup after normal exigencies of bold editing -- "part of the cost of doing business" the WP way -- and doesn't deserve to be called "all of this trouble". What you choose not to work on is your own business, even if it is overcaution or sulking, but i would be wrong to leave you with any impression that i think any blanket promise is called for! [smile]
--Jerzy•t 22:00, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to ask your help with the vexing John Kerry logjam. I am seeking the interaction of a skilled editor who can work with me on a user page sandbox page towards resolution. What I propose is that I will list what I feel are the essential salient facts for First Purple Heart. Then you can review and challenge me. If you and I can agree on what the actual essential salient facts which should be included there are, then we can next perhaps fiqure out the best way to describe those facts. For example, I see no need to even mention that Kerrry had a bandage or gauze on the next day. No one, not even Kerry has said he was nursing an injury, so why is such a thing notable? The Sick Call Treatment Record establishes the basis for the Purple Heart, not any bandage. Suffice it to say, because I see the mention of the bandage as gratuitious hagiography, I am staunchly opposed to it and am insisting that James prove bandage. Anyway, do you get my drift? Would you be willing to help? Let meknow and I will make up a page. Rex071404^{(all logic is premise based)} 00:54, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please read this. Thank you.

Rex071404^{(all logic is premise based)} 20:47, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Talk:John Kerry for a way to end debate. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 02:17, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

==BigDaddy sock== http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=68.40.168.173

thnxDerex @

it's sort of charming to know that he still cares. Derex @ 21:35, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can't you just block him already? certianly using a sockpuppet to evade a ban is ban worthy in and of itself?--205.188.116.130 07:13, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please read this. Please take note of "It appears that enforcement #7 (the penalty related to reverting articles) is in relation to remedy 4.1 (the prohibition on reverting articles). As such, it appears that enforcement 7 expired when 4.1 did. →Raul654 07:07, 13 November 2005 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Raul654".[reply]

As I told Derex, I am not being a d*ck and I am trying to do my best to stay within both the letter and spirit of the rules. You do see that I did not just jump right in with edits in when John Kerry opened up for a while again today, yes? Frankly, I fail to see why you won't support the removal of "bandage". I've already agreed to drop "minor" if bandage is removed. Why is that not a good compromise? Rex071404^{(all logic is premise based)} 08:14, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't referring to Rex at all in that joke, I generally frown on that sort of behavior. But I apologize if you felt I was out of line, and I will withold any attempts at humor until this whole PH mess is over. --kizzle 22:49, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Was it really Rex, do you know, targeting you with sockpuppets? I've been suspecting for a long time that his antics on John Kerry was less innocent than he made them seem and that he was cleverly gaming the page. (I don't doubt that he genuinely believed in his edits, BTW, just that he was not a straight forward user participating in a discussion but playing a clever game of constant repetition of points in the hope that everyone would be driven away and he could get his version in, or that people would be so fed up they would allow him add in his opinions just to shut him up.) I was suspicious the first moment a vote was ever suggested. He ignored various votes, set up votes with false premises that only allowed his argument to win and went ballistic when alternative questions that weren't loaded were added in, and then threw tantrums if people stuck to their guns about votes. That was the reason why I proposed a "closure motion". Motions like that are often used in effect to end controversies by smoking out ulterior motives. People who use them know that genuine people, even those that know they will lose in it, have one type of reaction; game players react in a different way that immediately rings alarm bells. Rex's reaction was a perfect reaction No 2. A politician friend of mine who was with me, and who has proposed numerous closure motions, took one look with me at Rex's reation and said "That guy's just gaming", which was how I read his reaction too.

I'd surprised however that his game plan would have fallen apart so dramatically that he would move from borderline rule-breaking to using sockpuppets and harrassment. I hope you had people check out the origins of the edits and establish the location of the sockpuppet. If it was Rex then go straight to the arbcomm. He would have crossed a line he had been meandering along for months and the arbcomm would ban him instantly. Of course the irony is that IMHO the Kerry article is too pro-Kerry and not NPOV enough. But Rex so egged the pudding in the other direction that he killed off whatever chance there was of actually fixing the article in the short term. Replacing a OTT pro-Kerry article with an OTT Kerry-bashing article is no solution.[[[User:Jtdirl|FearÉIREANN]]\^(caint) 03:11, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If it is him, he's toast on WP. That BTW is why I was being so blunt and rude to him on the Kerry page. I'd come to the conclusion that something wasn't right about his behaviour. As I said I tried various psychological tactics to see whether he was genuine or not. Every one I took (and yes the poetry was also one) drew the same 'suspicious response'. If he had been genuine he would have reacted differently. Sometimes dealing with people can unleash repercussions on yourself. One individual stalked me on and off WP for months for standing up to him. Rex has blown it on WP. The odds now are that he'll try the sockpuppet route for a while as revenge. Some tips: lock your user page so that can't be vandalised. (Mine was targeted. Others have been in similar circumstances. Alert a lot of people you know that you may be targeted. They'll be ready to do reverts. State the fact that you are being targeted on the admin incidents page and the W-list so that they all know what is happening. Because people didn't know I was being targeted I ended up being criticised for coping with a stalker. It was only when he went too far that people realised and my email was full of messages from people apologising and saying that they now realised all I was doing was justified and that wasn't simply bullying a newbie. The supposed 'newbies' (in that case 51 of them!!!) were all sockpuppets on one individual. Also get the arbcom to ban Rex for the maximum (which is one year), with an explicit statement that all work done by his sockpuppets must be deleted on sight irrespective of quality. Every time he uses a sockpuppet, then restart his one year ban from that moment. (That is an automatic part of a ban.) Eventually the novelty wears off when they realise that a one year ban keeps being restarted, and the eventual date they may return kepts getting longer and longer away. And request that the arbcom lay down ultra strict rules for when Rex is entitled back. If they are too strict he may simply not bother. It also means that if he ever even staggers towards a breach he is off WP for another long period.

He may not of course target you with sockpuppets but these characters often do. Make sure also you place a detailed explanation of the arbcomm ruling and a link to it on your locked user page, so that people can learn the background. WP needs to think through a better mechanism for dealing with individuals like Rex, etc. So let Jimbo know also by email what is going on. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 03:36, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You accidentally blocked yourself, saying you were stalking yourself! :) But the funniest part is that then the guy said you have a "past history of having been blocked for the very thing she accuses me of" (ie, you're accidentally blocking yourself) and "to top it all off, she abused her admin powers and unblocked herself" (ie, removing your accidental block). Nice! :-)

In other news, I know you've been really stressed lately, first with BigDaddy and Ben, and then Rex,and now these (totally unrelated) sockpuppets (er, new users). But keep it up. It's exactly the kind of thing we need more of here. I hope you won't ever feel discouraged, so I thought I'd leave you a little present. You might want to move it around. My only condition is that now you need to go find someone that deserves a barnstar, too. :) Thank you for your work. Dmcdevit·t 03:47, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Food for thought, I still don't know if all these new users are Rex or not, but he did it before using the IP address he previously attached to his sig, and denied vehemently that he was in fact Rex for a long time. I guess we'll see with an admin ip check. --kizzle 03:49, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing. Take a look at the main page right now. We admins tend to forget it with so much else going on, but we're at an encyclopedia now. Think about it. Those words you are arguing about are actually presentations of knowledge for anyone in the world with internet access to learn. So, yes, there's a lot you can do here. Stay logged out if you want, but I know for a fact this article wants your help, and won't bite like the others. :) Dmcdevit·t 04:57, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

don't even stress about it. I think a good idea would be to just take John Kerry and that other one off your watchlist for a little while, I got JK covered and Katefan, bless her heart, seems to be bringing some sort of order to the chaos that is that other article you showed me. You just gotta keep things in perspective, and if you let someone else bug you to the point where you give up and leave, then they win. It would be an awful shame if a levelheaded intelligent person such as yourself left the project :) Take a couple days off, go see a movie, read a good book, take a hike, play some music, basically enjoy all the things about life that don't have to do with the internet, then come back and you'll feel better, I promise. --kizzle 04:08, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Woohoo bro, get on IRC, redwolf and me are on there now. --kizzle 06:01, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I don't know if this will bring you back, but in all honesty it isn't intended to. This just needs to be done, and someone needs to take the initiative, so I've opened an arbcom case. I'm sure you'll have plenty to say, and you are invited to make a statement there. I think Rex really needs to be dealt with. Being a third party myself, I'm not sure if I got every one, but I'm going to alert Mr. Tibbs, JamesMLane, Derex, Jtdirl, and Kizzle as well. I'd appreciate if you could alert anyone I've missed. Thanks, and hope you are well. Dmcdevit·t 06:25, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've alerted both (of course, you do realize that Neutrality's an arbitrator now, right?) I expect this to be accepted quicker than usual, considering it has already been brought to arbcom's aattention. Dmcdevit·t 06:49, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Woohoo, I just read your post about not making a statement on my talkpage. I understand your frustration, and it's true that other users have a longer history than you with Rex. But the one issue in this case that is specific to you, and the most alarming to me, is the sockpuppets and their targeting of you. I think it would greatly help that specific aspect of the case if you would make a short statement stating your involvement, when you were first targeted, why you suspect Rex, the extent of the targetting, and its effect on you. Be as brief as possible and cite supporting diffs (such as the vandal list page you made). Given the situation, I know this is a lot to ask, but it would help. -- Mr. Tibbs 07:06, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reading your statement right now. You left out the most convincing evidence (what convinced me when I looked). Look at this revert by Rex [8], and then this revert by the sockpuppet [9]. Why should some "new" user coincidentally make the exact same edit as Rex? I think you should mention this. Dmcdevit·t 08:02, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You don't actually need statements from everyone, (all seven or however many it was). Really, as long as someone gives a good convincing statement of why arbitration is necessary, it should be accepted. As for the evidence, anyone can add that. In fact, I'll probably try to help out on the workshop phase when we get there (if I have time). Dmcdevit·t 08:19, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was reading your statement on the WP:RFAr page and had a thought: I do not think it is bad form to remove unwanted comments from one's own talk page. A man's house is his castle. Also, I have found that the kinds of people who like to argue for the sake of arguing (like myself on a really bad day) will generally do that less if they know any insults they post will be deleted on the spot. Samboy 10:06, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

...cannot leave, or I'll kick your ass. Gently, but I'll kick it. Beyond which, you won't be able to show off your brand-new, spankin' fresh, award. · Katefan0^(scribble) 16:50, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unacceptable! ;) I am waiting for your email, mister. · Katefan0^(scribble) 19:38, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you leave, I'll hold you down even while Kate kicks your ass, and I know when stuff goes down, kate can throw down. --kizzle 19:47, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh! Stop now, I'm getting all distracted at work. · Katefan0^(scribble) 19:55, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Of course! Flaming hellpots for everyone. · Katefan0^(scribble) 22:44, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

When you protect pages, it's generally a good idea to post a notice on the talk page about when it'll be switched back, right? Matt Yeager 00:35, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am a Wikipedia user trying to edit the Nicole Wallace discussion page. I was attempting to add an explanation of why I made the changes that I did on the main page which were I corrected some factual errors and added extra information but for some bizarre reasaon, am blocked from editing the discussion page. I see that you have blocked the ISP address I apparently use.

Not sure how this issue will play out but here is what I wanted to add to the discussion page:

Wallace was acquitted of the murders from her first two appearances (Anti-thesis and A Person of Interest), most likey due to her wealthy husband at the time, Gavin Haynes, who bought her innocence. This was implied in a non-Nicole episode "Pas de Deux".

There are a few errors I also corrected. It was not said that Nicole was married to her daughters father, and she never murdered a rich husband. The only husband that we know Nicole has had was to Gavin Haynes in 2003 and that marriage ended in divorce in 2004. The person murdered in "A Person of Interest" was a young army nurse. Nicole murdered her to steal the Anthrax that was used to set up Dan Croydon, the second person Nicole murdered in "A Person of Interest". I also added the fact that Nicole had been inprisoned in Thailand for several years where she and her then boyfriend had murdered 9 men. This is also how Nicole learned to speak "low class" Thai.

Could you add this to the page?

Thanks!!

Mseames

You're very welcome. Actually it was just an old sig that had an html tag that wasn't closed, so everytime that sig showed up, your text just kept getting smaller and smaller and smaller....would have been fun if it was on purpose ;) .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 01:52, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I, uh, don't think it worked ;) just a hunch--Hello fromSPACE 02:04, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Fixed, again, all it needed was a few well places </span> tags--Hello fromSPACE 02:21, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I just made a minor capitalization fix! If that makes me involved, it's worse than I thought. :) But seriously, I was looking at that controversy. Don't know if I have time right now to get involved, but actually it looks like there hasn't been much activity in a few days. Which is good... So you're still here today? Katefan's, er, offer did look hard to refuse... :-) Dmcdevit·t 03:23, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

There's a proposed page for LUElinks. However, the redirect page goes to GameFAQs. I can't request for redirect deletion, due to it being protected. You told me to do that, but I can't.

Great news. Maybe we can finally see an end to this saga now. Rex's antics went well beyond the acceptable ages ago.User talk:Jtdirl 07:56, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I posted more details on why I proposed the article for deletion.--SarekOfVulcan 07:39, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Man that's quick. They are usually quite slow about things on that page, with so much to do. Is this a record?

Granted, it a pretty open and shut case. But even taking that into account, the speed is phenomenal. It is crucial that the decision is water tight with conceivable ambiguity blocked lest Rex, true to form, try to use an apparently ambiguity as an excuse. 23:36, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Can I remind you that the speedy criterion for copvio only covers commercial content providers? Choose-life.org is not a commercial content provider. Kappa 07:46, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Woohookitty! I must say that the decision to unblock the Moldovan language page was not a good one. While Mikka may not have acted under strict policy, the situation worked. Now, it is descending into edit-warring again!! If Mikka protects the page again, please don't unprotect. Otherwise nothing will work out for the article. Ronline 10:47, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it was actually for something in between :) It wasn't pure vandalism, as in insertion of random or obscene content, but an edit war was taking place where people were inserting content not backed up by sources, etc. Ronline 10:55, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kitty, could you please be more consistent in your policy? First, you block the page, then you quickly unblock it. Then you criticize Mikka without knowing what the conflict is about; and then you block some dude for asking Node to be banned. I also want Node banned - are you going to block me, too? I suggest that if you insist in getting yourself involved in this conflict, you should first read the discussion on the Moldovan language talkpage - start with the first archive. You will notice that the true troublemaker is Node - unless you feel like being unique and put the blame on others. --Anittas 13:57, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I got confused when I read Ron's comment above and used the word "block" instead of the word "protect". Yeah, I know that Mikka was the first to protect the page. Allow me to explain why he did what he did. The article was fine, except for the two users that kept messing with it: Node and that other dude. For that reason, Mikka protected the page, but at the same time, he also wanted to give us the chance to add any substantial things that would be considered worthy. I don't know what policy Wiki has on this, but it sounds pretty reasonble to me. I think that Node is the key in this conflict. If you can convince him to chill out, there won't be this many problems. But I'm thinking that you're a girl, so I don't think you'll have much success. Good luck, though! ;) --Anittas 14:47, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Woohookitty. I haven't been paying much attention to AfD for the last few weeks, and I understand that there are efforts afoot to change it radically, so I may just be out of date. You closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cody Cox as "Speedy Delete" after less than one day. No vote participants had suggested speedy deletion. What was the reason for this deletion? Thanks! Pburka 16:15, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I misunderstood and thought that you had deleted the page. Thanks for the clarification. Pburka 22:54, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Woohookitty,

The biggest problem on the Moldovan language page isn't that there's a dispute. It's that there's an anon who has constantly vandalised the page whenever it's not been locked. You can see this just by looking at the article history -- constant reversions by an anon with a dynamic IP, and then being reverted to the last version by Mikkalai or Ghirandajo.

No matter how well the dispute is resolved between the users, it's quite probable that the anon will always continue to bombard the page with reversions if it were ever to be unlocked.

Is there a solution for this?

Node 00:49, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you may have realized it by now, but I read the situation differently. Looks like it was protected because of the anon vandalism, not edit warring. In which case, it is not that bad for an admin to put in the consensus version edits while protected. As long as the admin has not been involved in the article or the dispute, I don't think it's a problem as we trust their judgment with consensus. Actually, from reading some of the recent talk page discussion, it looks like there is progress too. I'd wait a few days for unprotection, or leave it up to Mikka if he's still helping out there. Dmcdevit·t 03:21, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Woohookitty.

I support your decision to temporarily block the Moldovan language page. Actually, I believe that the introductory section, at least, should remain blocked indefinitely (or should be placed under some restrictive editing procedure).

As you saw, there are two positions/camps here, and one admin (User:Mikkalai). The main problem of this page is that one of the camps is composed of exactly two persons (User:Node ue and User:Mikkalai), so that blocking User:Node ue is perceived as creating a bias in the editing process. Therefore, the banning measure used quite often by User:Mikkalai on extreme users of the other side is not applied to User:Node ue, even when he largely transgresses the rules of civility (actually, it's me that he first labelled as "koncenii" which is a russian language obscenity).

The lack of punitive measures against User:Node ue also disrupts the NPOV editing process. By inspecting the editing history and the talk pages, you will see that NPOV versions of the article, similar to the current one, have been reached in the past. The last time by a joint editing process involving mostly me and User:Mikkalai (I have to commend him for his will to negociate on such a difficult matter). However, once the editing was completed, the entire text was largely reverted by User:Node ue, without clear explanations. At this point, normal policy (applied to the other camp in similar situations) would be to regulate the editing process. Instead, User:Mikkalai did not intervene.

I believe that opening editing on the page will lead to a similar situation, where the negociated POV will be replaced by means of bullying. I therefore advise against it, at least on the very sensitive and variable introductory section (is it possible to restrict editing on single sections?). User:Dpotop 11:02, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your fast reply. Concerning mediation, I'm not sure it can work. The Moldovan language page is often present on the mediation pages, without much effect. I also fear that User:Node ue will not accept a survey, either, given that he already is alone on his positions. User:Dpotop

Dear Woohookitty, indeed the user User:Node ue he is alone on his positions; more at the page of Moldovan language once we agreed first on the talk page the entire text was largely reverted by User:Node ue, without clear explanations. At that point instead of intervention, User:Mikkalai did not intervene and let the user User:Node ue to make again his remarks on the other users like labelling others as "koncenii" (which is a russian language obscenity). This is not the proper behaviour to behave yourself, but he was protected by user User:Mikkalai. He even censorsed the talk page reverting others users contributions. User Anittas proposed you to block him for a while. If he continues to make remarks like labelling users with that russian word, please this time you to intervene. Let the page block for a while for us to agree first on the talk page. Bonaparte  talk & contribs

OMG you missed us! You may have realized I started a new category while you where gone... it's Category:AWWDPTDTNAEWPADNNSMSHCCSFSEMAWFTSHIIAA.

(Association of Wikipedians Who Dislike People That Delete Their New Article Edits Without Prior or After Discusion, Now Needing Some Moral Support to Help Cope with the Chocking Stress, Frustration, Sadness, Eventual Maturation and Acceptance, and Who Feal They Still Have Important Information to Add to an Article)

It's good to see you back. Maybe we can try getting out on the good foot. (humm... (*which foot is that...)) Oh! Mean good start!

We'll eventually have to talk mano y mano about that electric bicycle thingy, because obviously it seems to be buging us.

Also, for the motorized bicycle article you might be interest to know I've started a timeline... however, go figure, it's in dispute for deletion.

Anyway, as I have said previous, we both conflict in some views and it can be difficult. I've taken your suggestion about taking things a little less serious (when someone deletes my edits) or tries to attack. however I might still have a provocative tone in my writting. I will try to do my best to be POVN. --CyclePat 03:54, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the IPs used by the vandal (or vandals). As you can tell, almost none of them share anything beyond the first part... and we don't want to block all of Eastern Europe.

However, the users Bonaparte, EvilAlex, and Vxkmai have all used somewhat similar edit summaries to the anon, speaking of "russian revisionism" and accusing everybody involved of vandalism.

128.93.62.28 138.25.254.4 147.26.148.42 193.225.206.221 195.175.37.38 195.175.37.8 195.39.213.66 199.126.216.197 199.203.54.151 200.219.184.80 202.127.182.103 202.56.253.183 202.69.200.15 202.75.41.46 202.82.224.149 203.160.244.229 203.162.17.78 203.223.42.9 203.55.231.107 204.232.37.92 205.241.33.10 207.138.183.199 209.17.141.220 210.211.89.126 213.164.241.16 218.208.12.68 221.160.136.34 24.126.132.24 24.201.83.39 24.4.214.126 61.24.85.136 62.26.130.70 65.127.112.195 67.81.104.4 80.170.17.65 80.23.53.155 80.58.23.42

• sigh * --Node 06:54, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, and this same person is cluttering up the talkpage with largely irrelevant long articles on political topics. I've removed some of them, but I've been too afraid to go much further than that for fear of being accused of censorship. So, the talkpage is still confusing, and there are now 4 archived versions, 3 alone from the last week or two. --Node 06:57, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm puzzled as to why you twice unprotected Disputed status of Gibraltar, when it's quite obvious that both parties have not come to anything close to agreement (they haven't really even gotten past the namecalling stage, much less debate). I'm rather new to the whole conflict mediation thing, but since I didn't get a response on the talk page to my question about where you see progress in the discussion and since I didn't get an explanation on my talk page, I'll assume that I'm just not doing it right. Feel free to take it from here; attempting to mediate that argument was taking alot of my time anyway. --Spangineer 07:23, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

CyclePat has created this abortion page pursuing his repeatedly-rebuffed attempts to add irrelevant prehistory and insignificant Canadian cycle manufacturers to the motorized bicycle article. It's up for deletion, you might feel inclined to vote. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 11:47, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was NA.

What does NA mean? User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:50, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. User:Zoe|^(talk) 05:07, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Woohookitty,

It's become clear that the anon vandal is none other than User:Bonaparte.

This is for a number of reasons:

1) He was banned for a week for various actions against me (which I think really warranted a much longer banning considering their vicious and potentially IRL harmful nature). The anon vandal started messing with things when the ban started, and he hasn't showed up again since the ban was over. 2) They have identical POVs, similar edit summaries, very similar rhetoric, and similar tactics. 3) They have the same low level of WP experience.

I think that it would be ideal if CheckUser could be used to confirm this, and to further find if he's also the one behind the personal attacks at User talk:Mikkalai and other places (..."the Russian gay Mikkalai", "gay communist", "gay soviet", "bastard", "gay motherfucking russian", etc). --Node 04:34, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dude you seem to be real cool ; ).

Take care, Encyclopedist (talk) 22:06, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for protecting the page. But what can we do as a permanent fix since this user uses an infinite number of anonymous proxies?--Ironbrew 06:51, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your help. The best way I can link these IPs to emico are that each IP talks about the same topic

1. Each anon has expressed opinions about the contributers who are against him, instead of the content itself.
2. Each anon comes from proxy addresses, which makes me believe he's using a program which automatically sends messages through proxy.
3. Each anon's article edits are nearly identical to Emico's initial edit pattern.
4. His reason for being anonymous
5. this edit implying he's User:Starbucks, who has been banned for being a sockpuppet of Emico. A similar username called User:BrewCoffee was also banned as both were created with the intent to parody Ironbrew's username.
6. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Emico for more about the Arbitration Committee's case.

--LBMixPro^{<Speak|on|it!>} 10:15, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tried it already. Fred Bauder already knows about it though, although I don't know what he's doing about it. --LBMixPro^{<Speak|on|it!>} 10:33, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's allright, the temp lock at least slowed down the revert wars, so I can actually try to get some consensus work done with some of the issues with the article. --LBMixPro^{<Speak|on|it!>}

Please include me in your committee in dealing with this disruptive user of INC. --Jondel 02:37, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What in the world were you thinking? Take a look at the article now, it has THREE COPIES OF THE SAME THING!!! --Akhristov 08:54, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the aggressive comment... In the future, please look at the change before reverting it. Thank you. --Akhristov 08:59, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for blocking User:192.87.54.82. I was wondering, though, if you'd consider reducing your block from 48 to 24 hours. In general, I think that 24 hours should be the maximum block length for an anonymous user's first block, although the situation here may be more complex than I realize. I haven't modified your block. Secondly, I'd like to ask you to leave a message on the user's talk page when you block someone; the {{test5}} template is commonly used. I placed it for you this time. This serves several purposes: one, it leaves a message for the user (the "you have new messages" alert still appears, even for blocked users). Further, it helps other users who are watching the user's contributions for further vandalism know that they can stop worrying about that user. Finally, should the IP vandalize in the future, it lets other RC patrollers gauge at a glance the type of trouble the IP has caused before. You are free to disagree with any of this; just thought I'd suggest it. Thanks, and keep up the good work! — Knowledge Seeker দ 08:13, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for removing the hoopstats links from User:Jorje29.--DDerby-(talk) 08:34, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I'd just like to know why the ROSE Online article has been unprotected? I was expecting it to last a little longer. The vandalism appears to be occuring around once a day (the page was protected for less than a day - the vandal probably hasn't even visited the page while it was protected), and the article is not very active, recieving no other edits during the last week than our little revert war - the protect will probably do very little to hinder the progress of the article. I expect that the vandal will be back today or tomorrow... as he has been for the past week. -- Rediahs 12:26, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever you see fit is fine. I just didn't see the harm in leaving it protected a bit longer, while it would stop the vandalism and there would probably be nothing constructive done on the page during that time. But, again, whatever you see fit is fine. It definitely isn't a big deal either way. -- Rediahs 12:37, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can be checked the edits of Administrator User:Mikkalai ? The page in debate is Moldovan language and Talk:Moldovan language. He rather makes extremely POV edits and he aplies a blocking policy too bias 212.170.13.181.

Because your warning (which turned out to be groundless) toward me caused my emotional level to skyrocket and my mood to take a dive, I hereby demand that you formally apologize to me for turning my mood sour by not reviewing my edits carefully enough before warning me. --69.117.6.210 06:34, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Woohookitty, we've reached an impasse on Talk:Conspiracy theory again and it's time to re-add the {npov} template to the article (Carbonite inexplicably changed it to {povcheck} then claimed that was deprecated and removed any notice of a dispute). Your or anyone's assistance on the talk page to help resolve the deadlock would also be appreciated, thx. zen master T 23:29, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

--Nlu 08:39, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to let you know, you left your message on his User page Instead of his talk page! ;] heh, have a good one! --негіднийлють ^{(Reply|Spam Me!*)} 08:50, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Woohookitty. I've noticed that your approach with regard to this topic is just labelling it as a dispute. I understand that you don't want a dispute to spoil pages such as Wikipedia:Requests for page protection but, on the other hand, there is also a guideline named "No personal attacks" that you're not so keen to enforce. How long should I put up with wih a person that only insults and doesn't want to enter into a discussion (for your info, you can go to Talk:Disputed status of Gibraltar to make your own oppinion)? Best regards --Ecemaml 09:51, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you see my point. I'm not talking about protecting or not a page (it's being somehow handled by Spangineer). I'm talking about a policy that you, as administrator, were supposed to enforce. According to your statement, personal attacks in en.wikipedia are for free, since the existence of a dispute on specific topics overcomes any policy on "no personal attacks". I'm talking about whether, when requesting the unprotection of a page, using again and again personal attacks is for free. If I don't misunderstand you, it is. It's just "please, don't bother me with your dispute in this page" when one thing is a dispute and other, quite different, is one of the parties not meeting the standards of what wikipedia should be. But that's my opinion, of course. --Ecemaml 11:49, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reverting the vandalism to my page. --Nlu 17:17, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for protecting that page. Now let's see if I can bring some peace to the article. -- llywrch 20:00, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I want to thank you for taking the time to post your reasoning on my talk page. While I am still not precisely happy with the state of things as they stand I am at least more informed. I imagine I shall have to endeavor to be patient and leave the issue alone for a period before revisiting it. Falerin 14:09, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In the process of moving these articles, it looks like you accidentally deleted the content of the Archbishop of Southwark article, leaving behind a broken redirect. Unfortunately, all the previous history is gone, so only an administrator can restore it. --Russ Blau (talk) 18:42, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Same thing with Bishop of Chichester, too. --Russ Blau (talk) 18:45, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Should Bishop of Southwark be a redirect to Archbishop of Southwark, or is that a different office? --Russ Blau (talk) 19:07, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I just wanted to say hello. I'm from the Philippines. Pls include me in your work detail about INC. I am concerned about the disruptive user at the talk page.--Jondel 02:39, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how to award these medally things I see around Wikipedia, but you deserve one... if I was a vandal, and I was destroying articles, you would respond too quickly. I mean, in the space of time where I was typing #redirect you managed to revert my changes. Good job mate, and I'm not being sarcastic. Here's a barnstar.

--Pastor of Muppets 02:53, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is it okay to shorten this one and redirect it to the Main article? --anon

Okay! But could you help me shorten that Tikal section so I can redirect it to the Main article? --anon