User talk:Amerique

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
WikiProject Countering systemic bias open tasks
This project creates and improves neglected articles.

AMA Alert posted: There are 11 cases that need Advocacy (view by date filed).

Notice: The Association of Members' Advocates has been listed for deletion. Please help generate consensus at the MFD discussion. Be aware that you are free to voice your honest opinion.

Advocates, please check in with Aeon for case assignment as there is a large backlog developing.


--Amerique (ready for the revolution!) 02:44, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] AMA Case

Hey there; I noticed that you left the comment on my talk page:

:Mind if I work with you on this?--[[User:Amerique|Amerique]] 02:48, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Are you asking if you can work with me on the Google bomb AMA case for Seraphimblade? It's just, you left the comment under the post for "Welcome to the AMA, Anthony cfc" which seems wrong.

Can you clarify? Cheers.

--Anthonycfc (talk • c • ama) Saturday, 21/Oct/2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reply posted

Hey; I've replied to your comment on my Talk Page. Cheers. --Anthonycfc (talk • c • ama) Sunday, 22/Oct/2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response to AMA request

To Amerique - I've replied to you in here for reasons of my own, I trust that's alright.

Amerique -> I've had a look over your case description and the contested edits, and I don't think you have a substantial case here. One cannot "prove" the intentions of a nation, much as one cannot "prove" the intentions of the US, for instance, in invading Iraq. All you can do is provide documented evidence to say such and such a thing has happened, and what the consequences were. Providing quotes from soldiers saying they want to "smash Lebanon" does not support the claim that this has "always been the intention of Israel." At best, you could provide quotes from particular Israeli statesmen suggesting they would like to do this, but stated intentions of this sort would not necessarily carry over or translate into "national intentions," as even in Israel there is typically organized (if ineffective) resistance and political opposition to such campaigns.

Amerique -> I suggest focusing further editing on "things that happened" rather than "national intentions," as the later would be very difficult if not impossible to prove and would almost certainly be ridden with WP:NPOV problems from any angle, no matter what source you used. Discussing concrete goals of particular Israeli campaigns would be a more effective way of addressing the same material without getting into the problems of national abstractions. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions or would like further advice.--Amerique 00:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm extremely disappointed - your own nation and Israel can legitimately and genuinally claimed to have "national intention". (Perhaps the only 2 nations on earth where this is possible - making it even more inexplicable you should dispute it).
One can "prove" the original intentions of the nation we now know as the USA by reference to the written "intentions of the Founding Fathers". (Subject to some qualification, none of which apply here [1]).
One can similarily "prove" the "intentions of the nation state we know as Israel" by the words of David Ben-Gurion, since he steered the state of Israel into existence. Or by the words of earlier Zionists. It's not even as if his fellows in the Zionist movement leading up to 1948 were striving for some different or "better" relationship with their neighbours - they're even more aggressive. There's something wrong if one cannot ascribe "national intentions" to Israel.
If that's your decision in this particular case then I can only back away, baffled. But I have another question for you - how can I consensually get the following outrageous claim removed from (or modified in) Qiryat Gat?: "Some accounts pointed to a harassment campaign by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), and it is quite likely that many Arab residents were pressured to leave by Israeli forces, the unfortunate side-effect of years of Arab aggression".
This statement in the encyclopedia is in flat denial of the record (UN observers, Quakers and the Israeli Foreign Minister etc etc, some of it covered in Talk:Qiryat Gat) and is an outrageous slur on the innocent victims whose safety and property were specifically guaranteed by the Israeli government. The victims of Lidice would never be treated in this way - surely it cannot possibly be tolerable in the Wikipedia when aimed at Palestinians?
And a third question - it is highly likely that some of the deniers will quickly recognise me and repeatedly post my real name in here (fortunately, they cannot agree what it is, but that doesn't stop it from being highly unpleasant). One of these people took to phoning prominent people in my neighbourhood and viciously slandering me. I can appreciate this is not a problem commonly encountered in the realms of academe, but I'd appreciate your word that the Wikipedia would decisively slap it down.
As I keep telling people, I'm absolutely not interested in an edit-war. Furthermore, I'm aware this project is a delicate flower, operating to rules that I don't yet understand. But over and over, sound referenced sources I insert into the record are unilaterally reversed. No discussion, no suggestions to temper language, no useful suggestions - only totally ahistorical denial, insulting accusations laid at victims (and some deliberately confusing/personally intimidatory comments posted to my own userpage). PalestineRemembered 18:32, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
[1] the writings of the Founding Fathers don't cover strategic quarrels and actions taken "in the national interest" 200 years later such as invading Iraq, but you know what I mean. The writings of the Founding Fathers are also subject to semantic confusions over the meaning of words such as "the right of the people". But neither of these qualifications are at issue here - David Ben-Gurion, statesman and Commander-in-Chief in 1948, wanted to link the newly formed state with the Maronite Christians in northern Lebanon in 1948. He told us. He'd intended to lead the yet-to-be-formed state in this direction for at least 11 years. Other Zionists wanted a much, much bigger Zionist state, extending from the Nile to the Euphrates. Israel is entirely based on this kind of seizure - there's precious little factual dispute here.


[edit] NKT AMA request

Hi Amerique I just recognized that Excellentone has made the Ama request, kindly you mentioned my wiki-break, I changed it to a semi-wikibreak now, because I got an email someone was telling me the article will maybe deleted. However, please leave your comments also at the NKT talkpage so that other people maybe be able to follow that discussion too. Regarding Kay: his research is highly achknowledged among scientists. Whereas Cozort (I put now more of him in the article too) is mainly relying on NKT sources without questioning them much, Kays fieldresearch is the first time a unbiased study of the subject because he also interviewed former members and people who are critical to NKT and did not only rely what NKT has published or told him. His research shed light on the NKT history which he said himself has been always repressed by NKT. Waterhouse notes rgarding Daniel Cozort: "He discusses this with exclusive reference to NKT internal sources that describe the movement as "an association of independent centres with a weak center" (p. 240). However, fieldwork based accounts of the NKT produced over the last decade consistently find that, regardless of the movement's rhetoric, it is highly controlled, at least in the UK where the majority of its centres can be found. The essay would therefore have been more rounded with reference to academic analysis published in the UK, especially the work of David Kay." (see Book Review : Buddhism in the Modern World: Adaptations of an Ancient Tradition.) Instead of deleting the article we can include futher researchs as I have still suggested at the talk page:

We can use also the book British Buddhism, Teachings, Practice and Development by Robert Bluck, published in August 2006 if you think Kay is used onesided. For an extract please see: A ‘post-Tibetan’ Western organization?--Kt66 23:22, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

What do you think on that? --Kt66 23:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I agree and see also a overwight of focusing to much on controversial stuff. Even I felt the section of the history can be more condensed and is now to much elaborated. So I agree to what you said: "however I can see that focusing mainly on the corrupt aspects of NKT may seem to some people like undue weight." As far as I can see the history of NKT is until now only researched by Kay. Cozort focuses more on the education program and the comparision to FPMT and the focus of his article is the making of western lamas. So he is not of that much use for reducing Kays presence in the article regarding the history section; maybe Bluck (another scientist) offers different views. We can purse this issue through formal or informal mediation. I am happy if you take upon you this task to mediate this conflict. I leave the choice to you if formal or informal I am happy with both cases. Thank you very much. I will look in a period of one day breaks to the article/my userpage. After I have checked the talk page now I will be online next time Thursday to look how the things are. Regards, --Kt66 06:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Ok thank you. So we will wait regarding the mediation. I will make some suggestion at the NKT_TP how we can go on with the article and put some more other sources in it. I am not quite sure if this is welcomed or inappropriate at that time. What do you think, should we make a stop with the article until the AMA reqeust has been finished/resolved? --Kt66 06:42, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Ok thank you. I have done some changes regarding the sources and content and left some notices at the TP. I will go on with wiki-break until sunday. I am not sure but many see the article in different lights. User:Clockwork - a neutral WP admin - noted at the TP: "I'm very concerned that the opinions and viewpoints of a relatively small number of individuals is drawn upon as the source material for a large portion of the article, which is representative of the point of view of a single editor who, in his determination to ensure that the article fully descibes his own perspective, has dominated the editing process." I do not know how it will develop. We'll see. It is a controversial subject. --Kt66 09:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your attention in this matter - having given this a lot of thought I would like you to propose the article for deletion. Regards Excellentone 09:01, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear Amerique, I do not feel it fair that this article should be deleted. I do not see a reason for this as Excellentone and Marpa do not do much effort to change what they criticize besides crying for deletion. Marpa is much busy with his personal attacks against kt66 and trying to press him to stop as an editor and trying to undermine the authority of Kay. That is what is called argumentum ad hominem. When you cannot compete with arguments, slander your opponent. Excellentone asked that he wants to delete all passages up to Nov.1 where there are no quotes. So kt66 delivers that quotes from his sources which is again criticized by Marpa , claiming kt66 is too much obsessed with the article and pressing him again to stop editing and insulting him ,that he need professional help and spreading rumors about personal matter like “his Shugden psychologist” (which is untrue). Marpa or Wiki007 as I suppose he names himself on Wikipedia Germany is stalking kt66 and attacking him personal. Excellentone criticizes that the article is too heavily based on the sources of Kay, so I named another source which states the NKT as “ one of the newest and most controversial Buddhist movements” , which Excellentone takes as reason to want the article deleted. There are other sources about NKT, but I am only allowed to name than , when pro-NKT editors perceive them as “right”? Although kt66 repeatedly asked both of them to edit, bring new sources, or correct him if there is something wrong I do not see that much effort of them to improve what they criticize. There are other articles like “Scientology” which deals with a similar controversial topic, so I am convinced that it is possible to create an balanced article about NKT too. I hope for your mediation, instead of this article to be deleted because of the pro-NKT party limited only on criticizing and doing nothing to improve. In my view, the article now is quite unreadable because of the many quotes. It comes from the past, as long there was a lack of reliable sources,that kt66 did extensive research to find these sources, so this article now looks like it is now. As it is more an collection of sources than an article, so it is definitely not finished, but still a source of valuable information about the topic. So I kindly ask you not to nominate this article for deletion, and instead ask you for your help to mediate from a neutral point of view. --BoboLuna 08:22, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to be frank here - I agree with ClockworkSoul and feel that there is a clear conflict of interest here which underpins the NPOV problem - this is easy to establish from a mere cursory reading of kt66's user page in which he sets out quite clearly his agenda and close emotional and personal involvement with the subject matter. I would note further that I was happy to assume good faith until I read this. I regard the editorial input from kt66 as propaganda and a clear infringement of the What Wikipedia is not guidelines. What I consider the undue weight given to the views of David Kay, which is part of what I would argue constitutes a breach of NPOV, is I feel evidence of the partisan approach taken by the main editor of this article. I would also stress the fact that this article has been a battleground for far too long, taking up the valuable time of editors that could (in my humble opinion) be far better spent. Please nominate this article for deletion. Excellentone 17:26, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Dear Excellentone, to be frank as well: I have no agenda against NKT. The only interest I have regarding NKT is to have a proper an fair article which offers unbiased and reliable information on NKT. You and all the others were and are always welcomed to improve, critisize and debate that article. As you can see I welcomed also user:Marpa at his own talkpage and also other NKT editors and we could talk well and find solutions in the past. To have the feeling of responsibility to stop the trials of NKT on spreading contorted and wrong information, repressing the history in the whole internet and starting this as well in Wikipedia and out of that feeling getting active is not on his own biased. Biased for me is when I am closed to other views and opinions or activley neglecting them. This is not the case. I have a lot of knowledge because I know many different perpectives on NKT. You can see my talk page information as my trial to be always honest and transparent in what I do. If I would have an agenda against NKT then surely I would have write there something different. So please stop accusing me of being biased, running an agenda and the like especially as long as you may have an agenta against me...The article is not a battleground in my view. But it is surely not wished by NKT. So what is your agenda? Although I have an opinion on NKT the point is: am I able to relax that and allow different views on the subject as well? This is a work every WP editor has to do and being biased is a natural thing but can be worked at. Once more my only agenda is: to have a proper, well informed and fair article on NKT for the interest of the reader accoring to WP guidelines. I tried to follow Jimmy Wales suggestion: "What is preferred, of course, is that thoughtful, reasonable people who know something about the subject interact in a helpful way to seek common ground." Maybe you can support the article and discussions in that way too? Thank you very much for your work, I picked up some of youre suggestions, see tp and article, Regards --Kt66 08:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Thank you Amerique for your message and effort. You have to do what is appropriate in that case, so I have no problems with what you decide. I will leave a message and suggestion to the editors at the talk page of the NKT article, and make a copy of it here later. --Kt66 07:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm happy to take your advice on this matter - if you feel that the request for comment is a more appropriate course of action to take then lets go with that. Excellentone 23:30, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
I've just reread the rfc guidelines and I cannot agree that this is an appropriate course of action - there are five archives of talk about this article already - I see no need to add to that. Please nominate the article for deletion. Excellentone 00:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I left my opinion at the talk page: I think we have to acknowldge that it is hard to balance the article because we have different perpectives when writing on NKT and have to keep them in mind, being open also for other perpectives.

We have
  • the perpective of NKT and NKT followers
  • we have the perpective of scientists (Kay, Cozort, Bluck, Waterhouse, Lopez)
  • we have the perpective of a NRM / cult specialist / UK-press
  • we have the perspective of past inhabitants at Manjushri Institute (FPMT)
  • we have the perpective of ex-members
Than we have in all of that perpectives different informations which most time even contradicts each other or are neglected by the other group. Also we have the different perspectives of the editors and their backgrounds, so in my case I focused more on the topics which are repressed by NKT although I know they have their positives sides as well. (For instance NKT offers a feeling of Family - "the Kelsang Family" and this creates much of the positive feelings of the members - why they cherish the NKT as well. The trial to create a family is also discribed by Kay...) User:Excellentone and User:Marpa were always encarouaged and welcomed to correct the article or make suggestions to improve it as one can see easily at the talk page. (They both made less of that opportunity.) However the article is a challange and for the good of the article all editors are responsible and anyone can contribute. To write the article is a challange and I am not sure if the challange is solved by nominating the article for deletion. This can only be a temporary solution. Also the argument Kays research is used in undue wight: What other WP:reliable source we have than his on the NKT history? As far as I know there is only Kay and noone could offer other research sources. I my self suggested to use NKT literature and Bluck to balance the article but no NKT editor picked up that suggestion. However, it is not a hopeless case it is a challange and we can master it. I will inlude a summery on NKT by Bluck in the article this will balancing it and underlines of what I said here. --Kt66 07:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I'd be grateful if you could make a summary of the arguments for deletion. Thankyou for your assistance in this matter. Excellentone 23:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


Hi Amerique, maybe you can leave your comment at the NKT talk page. Although it may not be easy to make a "clean up", I think the way user:Excellentone now took, making substential changes without discussing it, I can not agree with. What do you suggest? (Please see history.) I would suggest to ask for a mediation on this "clean up" process or a "neutral editor" to do this. If we follow mediation I think we should go step by step through the article and its passages. I felt user:Robertect is quite willing to do this and I agree to the "clean up" process as well. Thank you, Regards, --Kt66 15:03, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Amerique, I'd be really glad of your help/advice either formally as my advocate or informally if the former is not possible. I'm happy to take your advice regarding the Rfc on article content - one thing that came up during the Afd debate was the situation where kt66 made numerous substantial changes to the article while this process was taking place - obviously this makes it difficult for others to comment as the target is always moving... as soon as I make changes and request comment from other editors the same happens... do you have any advice here? Thanks once again Excellentone 12:47, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Informal is fine by me - I'm grateful for your advice in whatever form it comes. If you have time could you take a look at the Rfc? cheers Excellentone 16:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] = have a look at www.newkadampa.com for more information about the NKT

We have created this site to compile all the information available on the web about the NKT We need more translators and artciles, please come and help us!! Thank you.

[edit] Subversive element

Subversive element first appeared as an IP editor around September 20, making wildly inappropriate edits to Circumcision related articles, edit-warring like mad, and attacking various editors, User:Jakew in particular. His IPs included 87.78.178.102 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 87.78.148.84 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 87.78.184.150 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 87.78.153.226 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 87.78.158.212 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 87.78.150.238 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) and others; when the IPs were blocked (not by me), he'd get another, insisting that the blocks were invalid. Eventually the articles in question were all sprotected. He then came back a few days later as User:Tit for tat, and started tagging User:Jakew's comments as those of a "Single issue editor". When this userid was blocked as well, he again insisted vociferously that the block was invalid - that he realized what he'd done wrong before, but that he was a changed person, and should be unblocked. After he posted on all sorts of boards and Talk: pages, and after lengthy discussion on WP:AN/I, he was not unblocked. He then returned as User:Subversive element, for some reason campaigning to have his Tit for tat userid unblocked, insisting he'd learned his lesson. He harassed me for a while about it; I finally told him that I wasn't going to unblock the old account, and that I wouldn't block the new one unless he got into similar mischief. He bitterly assured me that he wouldn't, but then proceeded to campaign to get a specific editor made an administrator based on his putative anti-Circumcision views, contacting every anti-Circumcision editor he could think of, even avowed neo-Nazis. After I blocked the latest account, he again resumed his campaign of posting on any page he could think of, trying to get unblocked, on the grounds that while the previous blocks might have been valid, the latest one certainly was not.
This editor is clearly unable to edit in a reasonable way, and continually plays the game of unreasonable behavior, followed by a block, followed by complaints that the block wasn't reasonable, campaigning to get unblocked, eventual re-appearance as another editor, promises that he is reformed. Rinse, wash, repeat. He views Wikipedia as a battleground on which to fight the anti-circumcision battle (as he has stated outright), and continues to try to find new ways to do this. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me. This is his third round of this, and I don't think Wikipedia needs a fourth. Jayjg (talk) 23:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I tagged Jakew as Single Purpose Account, unaware that this was inappropriate. Jayjg immediately indef. blocked for that. I since apologized to Jakew and he accepted. After that I totally left Jakew alone, together with all circumcision related articles and even talk pages. I was unblocked once, by Centrx, whom Jayjg told off [1]. Prior to that, Jayjg just ignored my attempts to enter any form of communication. And please, Jayjg, Earle_Martin himself told you on my talk page that he has no idea what circumcision could have to do with his RfA [2]. But I do: It was based on a personal attack, user:Jakew made on said RfA against the users I had posted to. That's the origin of that whole "promote RfA to promote anti-circ activists" thing. Jayjg just took what his friend Jakew presented him and threw it at me. With regard to my asking to be unbanned: A look at my contribs under Subversive_element reveals to anyone, that I am a good-faithed low-key editor. I revealed myself to effectively redeem exactly what has happened now: Jajg just indef. blocked me again, stating that I've already been banned. He doesn't leave the field to another, maybe less involved admin, either. I admit that Jakew, who seems like a creative troll to me, has made me, and many other people, very angry. Like Jayjg, he just won't listen to anything else than what he wants to hear. So I gave up, but it wasn't enough for them. That "war" I mentioned, once, on a user talk page, is in my opinion going on. And people like Jayjg and Jakew are fighting it, going so far as to delete my comments from your talk page. Jayjg, what is wrong with you? Please: ASSUME. GOOD. FAITH. Like you do with anything your friends bring to you. Like that personal attack with which Jakew introduced you to the notion that I was campaigning for a supposed circ-opponent. That's ludicrous! Where do I say that I am battling against you pro-circers? Where? Please, where exactly? On the other hand, such an engaged reply from you, Jajg, is very revealing. You are using many adjectives. For what it's worth, I'll just assume that deep inside you know that you are wrong on some things. 84.44.172.138 02:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
And trying to talk to you on your talk page is now "harassment". Good to know. 84.44.172.138 02:24, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
What's more: Why don't you, Jayjg, include some (or all, they're not so many, after all) diffs where I am supposedly "edit-warring like mad, and attacking various editors"? I tagged Jakew exactly two times as SPA (back then, assuming that it was in compliance with WP policy), when you blocked me without any warning or temp. block. Again: I wasn't unblocked, exactly because you just disagreed to me being unblocked, telling off another admin, who had unblocked me already. Please mind, and please reply to this, that the guidelines strongly recommend to let another, less involved, admin take over. And please remember to not bite the newbies. And: Blocks are supposed to be preventative, not punitive! And: Don't you think it is rather uncivil to delete clearly civil comments from other users' talk pages? Or to obstinately ignore civil communication attempts, going so far as to declaring them "harassment"? Maybe I'd better warn people like Avi before you indef. block them for "harassing" you, what do you say? 84.44.172.138 11:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
To you, Amerique: Once again, thanks for your efforts (and sorry for taking this to your place). I, like you, believe there's no point in this, though. The reason for this is as simple as shocking: No one who has the power to do so, would intervene against Jayjg, despite the fact that he has broken (in my "case" alone), almost every single guideline given to admins as to how to behave towards other users in general, and towards "problematic cases" and newbies in particular (and how and when to use their admin powers appropriately). I'm afraid policy cannot be enforced when it comes to a stubborn admin, who is borderline aggressive but still somehow within the "extended guidelines boundaries". Jayjg is above the law and he knows it. 84.44.172.138 11:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, Amerique. Jayjg (talk) 23:07, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disputes at Al-Aqsa Mosque and Dome of the Rock

Please help resolving the disputes at Al-Aqsa Mosque and Dome of the Rock articles. You may have a look at the discussion page to have an idea on what has been going on recently. Thanks! Almaqdisi 07:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Third holiest site in Islam AfD debate

Thanks for the notification, I'll take a look! Count Iblis 12:22, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


I've just written my (rather long) opinion. Count Iblis 13:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that it was useful. What the people who write articles for POV reasons don't seem to realize is that they are writing mostly for themselves. Neutral persons reading such articles will see through it and will stop reading. They'll learn more about wikipedia (how unreliable it is) than about the subject they are interested in. So, the article should either be deleted or be improved urgently. The longer one waits, the more people will see the bad article. This sense of urgency has yet to sink in the minds of the (good faith) editors who voted for "keep". Count Iblis 20:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Amerique, many thanks for this remark of yours. Almaqdisi, I am willing to represent you in my capacity as an advocate against any charges brought against you as a result of activities pertaining to this AfD.--. I really appreciate it. Maybe a comment at [3] may help. I also responded to your comments at my talk page. Best wishes..... Almaqdisi 02:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Amerique. Do you think you could take a look at the section Membership Rules (formerly Membership Rules Tiamut) on the Talk:Israel page? Things are getting out of hand there. I think it provides a pretty good example what its like to interact with User:Amoruso, the user that User:PalestineRemembered has asked for your help with in her AMA. It's degenerating into a bad dynamic all around. Thanks. Tiamut 01:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Amerique, thank you for your comments. Also regarding al-Aqsa, please have a look at the following talk page [4], I am trying to sort things about, but having huge resistance for no good reason apparently. Thanks again for your kind remarks. Almaqdisi talk to me 09:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NKT

Dear Amerique. I was surprised to find that you have some experience as a WP editor after your listing of New Kadampa Tradition on Articles for Deletion. I had expected to find that you were a newly registered editor who was simply acting on POV over this article. In the future please duiscuss edits on controversial pages by joining in the discussion on talk pages before taking such radical action as nominating the article for deletion. Billlion 17:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A shiny for you :)

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
I've been going through the open AMA cases list, and have noticed how many you've got open, so I though I'd give you this barnstar, for helping so many Template:Emot Martinp23 15:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AMA request

Thanks! Nothing has really changed since I filed the request. We've started discussing things again on the Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy (DDP) page, but that discussion seems to have turned into a constant restatement of opinion. The medcab case regarding Advocates for Children in Therapy seems to have gone stale for the last few days. I would greatly appreciate some help with framing my concerns in terms of policy. I am most concerned with the DDP page, as it seems rather promotional. I really appreciate your help. shotwell 16:11, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] re: Modest proposals for some sort of AMA case screening/rejection process

It seems to me that we can't easily handle the high volume of cases while maintaining a quality program. It seems to me that we can greatly reduce the inflow of cases by setting some standards as to the cases we will accept. I was thinking the most obvious way of doing this would be to only accept cases that are obviously going to be or already are in some stage of the WP:DR process, which would mean a controversial restructuring of the AMA I know, but it seems to me that the multitude of low level cases that simply require minor "helping hand" interventions would be much better served by an organization like Esperanza.

We should also develop some process for notifying users who submit advocacy requests that haven't been picked up in, say 10 days, as having been declined by the AMA. New cases of varying interest pile up all the time, and it would be better to formally decline old cases we couldn't get to than to let them sit without action. Best,--Amerique 07:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I completely see where you're coming from, Amerique. It would make sense to put an expiration date on new cases, as sometimes I have seen that when an Advocate gets around to fielding an old case that things have already been resolved, help was really never needed in the first place, or parties were blocked or left before any help could be administered.
I'm wondering if there is some way for us to get a dialogue going with Esperanza to see what level of sharing would be doable? אמר Steve Caruso (desk/AMA) 17:31, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anthropology project

I have communicated with The Ungovernable Force regarding the proposed anthropology project which you indicated an interest in, and have gotten the OK from him to move the project into wiki-space and make it active. He indicated that he is busy in school right now, but will be as active as he can be given that. The project page as it now exists is only a minimum page, and could use the input of interested parties such as yourself. Personally, I did noticably poorly in the one cultural anthropology class I took in college, so I'm bowing out of this one, but wish you and the other members of the project the best of luck with it. Thank you. Badbilltucker 21:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Advocacy

I've decided to walk away from the disputes. They were taking up far too much of my "wiki time". I consider this to be leisure time. Moreover, the dispute has been disruptive and I think I was probably pushing the issues too hard. Your rational assistance was greatly appreciated. Thus, I think that the case can be closed. I'd like to strongly thank-you for giving me assistance on this matter.shotwell 22:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] May 1 Strike

You are probably looking for the article on the Great American Boycott. It was on the front page on May 1 of this year.--Rockero 01:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome Note Appreciated

I want to thank you for your welcome note and advice regarding the sockpoppet accusation. An IP check was performed and I was cleared, of course. Almaqdisi has informed me that there was a second attempt for AfD for the third holy site article. But when I checked it, I noticed that the discussion page was locked with a "SPEEDY KEEP" by the admin Naconkantari. I find it very doubious that this artile got this speedy response where all the discussion was in support of deleting the article, and some of the links that were provided turned out to be faulty! How can this happen? Aboosh 23:34, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm on it! I appreciate it! Aboosh 04:07, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Third time aint no charm :-|.. seems we need to start laying gold eggs to have our logic and reasoning heard! Aboosh 03:11, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you!

Message for you on my talk page. - Mugs 21:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AfD Third Holy Site

Chimed in. Though I am not sure you will agree with my opinion :D

--iFaqeer 01:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Appreciation

The Barnstar of Diligence
For your extraordinary AMA work and insight. thestick 11:17, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:Ucr logo cmyk.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Ucr logo cmyk.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 12:36, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:UCR logo.JPG)

Thanks for uploading Image:UCR logo.JPG. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 12:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Anthropology Collaboration of the month

Hello. I noticed that you signed up for WikiProject Anthropology and thought that you might be interested in participating in the Collaboration of the Month. This month's article is Marvin Harris. Thanks. Stilgar135 19:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Need help with wordless reverts and bullying behavior

I'd be delighted if you could help me with this. At the Quran Desecration Controversy article, I have been trying to add a cross-reference to the Piss Christ article, which speaks about a similar incident where a Crucifix was desecrated with urine.

The change is additive, small, and relevant, yet it's been met with bullying behavior from a couple of editors, including repeated wordles reverts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Qur%27an_desecration_controversy_of_2005&diff=97518851&oldid=97512050

Any help you can impart would be greatly appreciated.

67.175.216.90 20:50, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

67.175.216.90 (talk • contribs) is disrupting this article with an unrelated reference. He was asked to stop months ago, and the dispute over the alleged relevance of the reference was settled at that time. He is now revert-warring to get his way. csloat 22:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ask for opinion

Hi Amerique I like to know your or another experienced Wikipedian member's opinion on inclusion of a critical link at the Michael Roach (Buddhist) site. See also the talk page sites. I am not sure what according WP is to do now and feel maybe u:ekajati is not neutral towards the decision. Thanks --Kt66 09:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] UCR editing

I would to thank you for helping out in article and general monitoring of the UC Riverside article. As far as OCDpatient is concerned, I'm pretty sure that he's gonna be taken care of. I'll just make small edit reversions that have been discussed before. Thanks again for your help and knowledge in settling disputes and compromising in situations. :)
Cosecant 23:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The Barnstar of Authoritarianism
As a result of your work, I award you the Barnstar of Authoritarianism

Insert-Belltower 22:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re. Insert-Belltower (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)

Hello and thank you for contacting me. You did well in reporting this user, but this case was more indicated for WP:RFI. Users reported to WP:AIV are usually simple vandals, or sockpuppets easy to identify as such. More complicated requests require some investigation, thus WP:RFI. Regards, Húsönd 01:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I was not aware that WP:RFI was gone! :-o Maybe WP:AIV wasn't a bad choice after all. But in your case I'd use WP:ANI as an alternative. Regards, Húsönd 15:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, you may place further reports on WP:ANI and provide diffs for bad faith edits. Húsönd 02:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] UC WikiProject

I just slapped together a very incomplete framework for the WikiProject home page, at User:Szyslak/WikiProject University of California, with ideas on the scope of a UC WikiProject. Though many of the UC campus pages are not getting the TLC they need, most of them have a small community of users who watch and maintain them. I'm fairly active on the UCSC page, and there are at least three other users who at least keep it copyedited and watch for POV. I think this project will help bring the disparate groups of UC editors together, along with facilitating an expanded role for the community that's developed around the UCR page. Plus we'll be better prepared for dealing with another POV or trolling situation, with us veterans from the battles with UCRG. szyslak (t, c) 10:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

That definitely sounds good! I'll go ahead and post the request. To convince everyone of the need for a UC WikiProject, I'll mention that many of the individual UC articles are in lousy shape, full of lists and trivia, with little collaborative effort geared toward them. I'll also point out the success of WikiProject collaboration in the success of the MSU and U of M pages, and that many existing WikiProjects, such as California and Universities, are too large to make much impact on the UC pages.
BTW: I think the UCR page is pretty much ready for WP:GA status. Would you agree? szyslak (t, c) 23:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Insert-Belltower

You should add a request to WP:RFCU for this person and the sock. TheQuandry 02:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AMA case 2

Can you take Wikipedia:AMA Requests for Assistance/Requests/December 2006/Thuringowacityrep. If so change the status to Open, if not to New. Geo. 19:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

hi mate things are ok but i still don't agree with some of the things that have been done but i have held off until the AMA case, so if ther is anything you can do to help it would be great thanks Thuringowacityrep 05:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

hi thank you my main are aof concern is what he has said in the electoral districts part on my talk page and the way he will alway use Townsville/Thuringowa and not Townsville and Thuringowa my point it people dont know what Townsville/Thuringowa is unless they are from the area so i made some changes to say Townsville and Thuringowa so people know that there is 2 cities up here not 1. thanks again if you need any more info please let me know Thuringowacityrep 10:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

thanks again i feel that it would be better coming from you as if i said that the Towwnsville/Thuringowa should be how i said it would start things over again so it would be great if you could let him know and i will let you know how things go thank again Thuringowacityrep 01:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

thanks mate will let you know if i see any and again thank you for your help take care Thuringowacityrep 01:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


Sorry to annoy you again mate but I also feel that these pages need to be addressed as when I tried to make changes he changed it all back first is the Category:Townsville/Thuringowa, Queensland I think this needs to be Townsville and Thuringowa (remove the / ) next is Electoral district of Mundingburra here he says "The seat is one of four within the Townsville-Thuringowa urban centre in North Queensland" and this is not it is in Townsville and has nothing to do with Thuringowa city. the next one is of the most concern to me as it is misleading Electoral district of Thuringowa here he says "The division encompasses suburbs of the City of Thuringowa on the western edge of the Townsville–Thuringowa urban centre" if you have a look back at the edits I tried to do you will see that I made a good point as his ref is from a reporters POV and mine is from the Gov's website Thuringowa is a city (LGA) and has it's own voting system we don't vote for Townsville so Townsville should not be listed here but I will leave it up to you. the next page is Electoral district of Townsville again he has "The seat is one of four within the Townsville-Thuringowa urban centre" as with the others the urban area is what he says is the "city" but the Electoral district also is rural so it is not just part of the urban area so I feel that on the Townsville one it should have Thuringowa removed and on the Townsville one have Thuringowa removed (please see my edits and you will know what I mean)...you will also see that he has said on the Townsville one that the "Townsville Electorate is bordered by the Hinchinbrook (North), Burdekin (South), Mundingburra (South and West) and Thuringowa (West) Electorates." but yet he has put Townsville-Thuringowa on all the pages. also please see the list of pages below as he has put Townsville/Thuringowa on them and it should read Townsville and Thuringowa due to the page being about places in both cities or the places in Thuringowa should be removed from this page or changed to Townsville and Thuringowa, List of medical facilities in Townsville

List of schools in Townsville, Queensland

Shopping in Townsville

Townsville Bulletin

Media in Townsville see Print Media

but this one he has almost correct just to show you how it should be Suburbs of Townsville the only thing i would change here would be Townsville and Thrunigowa not just Townsville, sorry about this but I have tried to edit these pages so that they are not misleading and almost every time it gets changed back if you have time have a good read of mine and Alec's user page. thanks again for your help Thuringowacityrep 04:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

ok thanks that all sounds good to me, and he is not my "mate" but up here in North QLD it is a way of being friendly and I call everybody Mate, thanks again for your help Thuringowacityrep 23:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Thuringowacityrep and Amerique - Firstly thank you Amerique for taking an interest, this matter has been pending for some time now... and also thank you TCR for being so civil lately. Also, of what I've seen of it, I have been very impressed with the work you've been doing over the past month, the edits have been real contributions to wikipedia and I thank you for that.
In relation to this discussion, I have to agree that "/" or "-" while commonly used locally is not the optimal phrasing in wikipedia, however I have been using that phrasing since this dispute as a compromise to Thuringowacityrep. It is my view that the appropriate word is Townsville to be used when describe the urban centre. This is the common name when the urban centre (not including the surrounding rural area North, West and South) is the topic for discussion. The phrasing: Townsville/Thuringowa or Townsville-Thuringowa are only really alternatively used as a courtesy to Thuringowa City Council locally, those phrases are not used commonly outside of North Queensland. The phrase; Townsville and Thuringowa is used to describe the two LGAs as Local Government entities or to refer to the land which is encompassed within the boundaries of the two LGAs, this area goes about an hour's (highway) drive North and a half hour South and could not be described accurately as part of the urban centre which is the topic of Townsville, Queensland and most of the articles under dispute.
Anyway, I think the appropriate wording in all these articles would be just Townsville and wikilinking it to Townsville, Queensland (unless the topic of discussion is somehow related to LGAs or to Thuringowa City itself). I realise Thuringowacityrep would strongly object to this even more than the use of "Townsville/Thuringowa", but the only way this could be incorrect/inappropriate wording is if the premise of the article Townsville, Queensland itself is completely inaccurate. A position that Thuringowacityrep originally advocated, however he was unable to gain support for a consensus for his position at the discussion page.
I look forward to reading your thoughts on the above points. Alec -(answering machine) 02:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

hi I will leave it up to you all I can say is that Townsville and Thuringowa are not one city they both have central business centres Townsville has the Townsville CBD and Thuringowa has Thuringowa central it is common in the Twin cities to see it written as Townsville and Thuringowa like on the front page of the Sun newspaper or on the BOM website it has "rainfall for Townsville and Thuringowa" plus a lot of others I do agree that Thuringowa is less known than Townsville and this is part of what I am trying to fix and by people reading Townsville/or-Thuringowa it is misleading and not really letting people know that there are 2 cities here please look at some of my edits and im sure you will see that it in no way affects the article but does allow people to see that Townsville is one city and Thuringowa is the other. and just one other thing about this phase "those phrases are not used commonly outside of North Queensland" is not true I was at a concert in Sydney a while back and a lot of people I spoke to used the term "next time we are in Townsville and others said "we heard Kiss Chasey is going to Thuringowa" and some friends in the real-estate business said "there is a building boom in Townsville and Thuringowa" but like I said before I will leave it up to you, if you would like any more of my thoughts please let me know. thanks Thuringowacityrep 02:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

this is why I asked for help he wont even listen to you... now this comment is incorrect "TCR is the first person I have ever come across who seems to feel that the borders should have remained where they were one hundred years ago" I never said that is how it should stay but I did say that Townsville and Thuringowa should NOT become one city,plus why bring that up it has nothing to do with what this is about... and the survey in the Townsville Bulletin is not something that I ever seen but I am aware of a survey the Townsville city council did that found 67% of respondents were in favour of amalgamation and of course they would, that is what Townsville people want. I know Alec wont agree to this but hey I have to ask ...why do I make the changes that I feel is needed you both have a look at them and Amerique can make up his mind if my edits are correct and if not Alec can change them back ...sound fair.... oh one more thing this comment "the urban center should either be referred to as "Townsville" or less favorably "Townsville/Thuringowa" as the city is sometimes referred to as locally" that should be RARELY referred to the most common term used is "the Twin Cities" or "Townsville and Thuringowa" so i will leave it there for now Thuringowacityrep 10:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

hi i will make the edits sometime today and then i will let you both know when i have done them so you can have a look and give you view, again if there is a problem just let me know and i will see what i can do thank you both Thuringowacityrep 22:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

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


hi mate i have made some edits today when you get a chance would you have a look and see if the edits i have done are along the lines of what was said in the discussion. thanks Thuringowacityrep 08:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


hi that you for your views I have fixed up where I think I needed to but I want to wait until Amerique has his say on the matter but what I will add is,

edit 1:
you said "there are no health campuses within the two LGAs but outside the urban centre" you have lost me here because the Kirwan Health Centre is in Thuringowa city and Thuringowa is a LGA so that makes it within one of the LGA's and is not outside of the urban area.

Edit 2:
again you say "any local would presume that it is talking about a list which includes Alligator Creek and the Northern Beaches" well there is a large shopping centre at the Northern Beaches as Woodlands is a part of the Northern Beachers area of Thuringowa so I can't see how this is misleading.

Edit 4:
now you lost me with the (first) and (second) I only made 1 edit ...but when you say "Your trying to tell me that the Townsville Bulletin has two focuses? anyone who has read the Bulletin would see that it's primary focus is on Townsville and the rural surrounding area of both LGAs plays a distant second" you are wrong ..Sorry...but I have read a lot of storeys in the Bully about Townsville and Thuringowa I can remember a front page story about Thuringowa some time back plus it looks like you have used your POV in the comments above,as for citylife you say "Townsville would be the more appropriate term as "Townsville and Thuringowa" infers a business distribution of a huge amount of North Queensland" how can that be is says Townsville and Thuringowa, nothing about the rest of the state and if people think that by having it like this it means a huge amount of North Queensland then they have a problem.

Edit 5 and 7
I'm not going there yet because everything you have said makes no sense, edit 5 was about the electoral district of Mundingburra

I would like to wait now until Amerique has his say but I would like to thank you again for your views Thuringowacityrep 23:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

thanks ok....when you can thanks again Thuringowacityrep 00:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

hi just looking in to see how things are going as we haven't heard from you in a while and for some reason Alec started on me again today and even issued threats to me. would be grateful if you could help in closing this case thanks Thuringowacityrep 11:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Username

Thank you for your message. It is my position that my username is not in violation of Wiki policy.

If you desire, you can file an Rfc. However, I think time could be better spent doing more productive things.

Thank you, Insert-Belltower 22:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


Cold day today, eh? Still many ppl were out on State St. walking about. In this weather, ppl have such vigor. I thought about that as I walked from S. University across town. In the same way, editors here the strength to hold on. I think that describes both of us....

What I will say is both an appeal and contention. Let's put the past behind us and move-on. I won't bother you, and you don't bother me.

What do you say? Insert-Belltower 03:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, deal. Insert-Belltower 15:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

So you know the status of my username change. Here Insert-Belltower 00:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Done deal. DelayedRectifier 01:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Assistance Request Regarding the Stephanie Adams Article

Sean D Martin (talk) (contribs) is in fact involved in a lawsuit Stephanie Adams filed against his friend who posts derogatory, defamatory blogs about her, filled with lies and false, libelous comments.

- I, among several editors, googled his name along with hers and found the actual proof. Other editors noticed his involvement with his friend she is suing and commented in the edit history. We all think he should be banned from editing the article or blocked from editing entirely.

- First he questioned valid information that was clearly valid, then he removed valuable information and lied by stating that it was not a fact when it actually was according to hundreds of article all over the news media (with at least three of them referenced).

- Even in his reply to a COI posting, he stated that previous edits were more "self-serving" for Ms Adams", suggesting she is editing this, which is false. This article is a project and product of Wikipedia by which several people edit.

Due to his personal vendetta against Adams (and his name listed as a witness to the defendant in the case she filed against an amateur blogger) his intervention in editing this article is personal and begrudgingly biased. This needs to stop, which is why several are suggesting he no longer edits this article. At best, it's conflict of interest and at worst, it's vandalism.

- bbl

sigh Having to respond to the lies once again.
  • I am not a party to any lawsuit Stepahnie Adams has filed or threatend to file.
  • I am not listed as a witness in any case she has filed or threatened to file.
  • The "several editors" all remain anonymous and tend to have IP addresses that trace to a Verizon access pool in NYC Manhattan, an observation made by others and easily proven.
  • All edits made by me have been to adjust information to the facts shown in the references attached to the article. I have twice followed Wikipedia procedure and, rather than get into an edit-revert-edit war, have asked for clarification [[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Stephanie_Adams#Request_for_Comment:__Maintining_accurate_and_neutral_tone]]] while the anonymous others chose instead to personally attack me. I refer anyone interested in judging the validity of my edits to those locations.
  • Any objective reviewer would see that any edits I have made are not "personal and begrudgingly biased" but are in fact more accurate than what annonymous insists on reverting them to.
Sean Martin 22:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Sean Martin, why are you wasting time here? And please stop lying. I did a search on the internet using your name along with Stephanie Adams and found that you are in fact involved in a lawsuit Adams filed against your friend for posting defamatory comments about her online. Wikipedia is not a place to post personal attacks and comments about the people in the articles. Please refrain from defending yourself here and save it for the lawsuit you are involved in. Now in regards to the mediation request some time ago, perhaps someone should take a look at the Wikipedia discussion page for Stephanie Adams and start banning people (including Sean Martin) who have posted more than their share of inappropriate comments. 162.83.205.36 03:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll stop defending myself when you stop attacking me. I make a small edit so the article more accurately reflects the facts as described IN THE ACTUAL REFERENCES PROVIDED by Ms. Adams, and rather than disagree with the facts you accuse me of having a vendetta and try to get me blocked. I sign every single edit I make while you, who insists on remaining anonymous, post lies about me on numerous unrelated user's Talk pages (such as this) and accuse me of sneaky vandalism.
Your "mediation request some time ago" was denied. That might suggest something. -- Sean Martin 18:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Bdean1963, once again...

Hello there! It's being a while since the last time that I left a comment here. Anyways, I'm once agains stuck with User:Bdean1963. The main reason now is that in both articles (War of the Pacific and Tacna Region, he attempted to introduce information that has no relation whatsoever to the articles. Now, as you can expect there was a HUGE revert war and eventually we were both blocked for a day. Now, I have attempted to force him to discuss this issue on the talk page, but he has not showed any type of interest in solving this problem as long as the current version of both articles are there with his POV. What should I do? I have already attempted to talk with him and the only thing that he does is chasing me and asking for my permanent ban in Wikipedia (with the help of his comrade User:Descendall). Should I revert the articles to their original state? Messhermit 20:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Bdean1963 8 February, 2007

Please avoid advertising yourself and/or your opinions. Stick to the topic and please state with accurate sources why is that the recent maritime dispute belongs here. In fact, I'm glad that you are monitoring every single movement that I do here in Wikipedia, it only shows that while you are busy chasing me here, you are not willing to explain your editions of both Talk Pages. Thanks. Messhermit 21:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AMA CASE 2 ?

hey did you forget about us ??? where did you go ??? guess you never got the message asking what was going on hope you can relpy Thuringowacityrep 03:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


Hi. I really wanted to discuss one of my better ideas while using Wikipedia. I think that as a reference to Wikipedia Administrators, all users should be required to list all the articles they have edited on a user page of themselves. In adittion to that, other Wikipedia users could stumble onto some other user's user page and be able to go to one of the articles that that user has edited. By doing this, more artcles on Wikipedia could be made and stubs could grow into popular articles. This would also expand Wikipedia's database (what information it contains) and make Wikipedia have a better reputation. One way of contributing to that reputation is by using Wikipedia, telling your friends about it, and having them try it to, which makes Wikipedia stubs grow and more useful articles being created. That is why I think my idea is a good one. I have already turned my user page into a reference to administrators. Finally, if users do not list what they have edited, Administrators could keep a record of who is editing what and when so the admins themselves can add that edited article to their user page. From Kenny10000 02:28, 5 March 2007

[edit] From Mugs

On 17 Nov 06, you mentioned helping me, but never heard from you again. Still interested? - Mugs 13:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I need your help

Dear Amerique,
I am having serious issues with User talk:JzG. I will start from the begining: I left a message on his talk page, he then replied in an incivil manner, I left the discussion, later that day, I edited the 'Policy in a nutshell' for WP:Sockpuppetry, this read "This page in a nutshell: Do not use multiple accounts to create the illusion of greater support for an issue, to mislead others, or to circumvent a block. Don't ask your friends to create accounts to support you or anyone else." before I edited it, I changed it to "This page in a nutshell: Using a sock puppet to evade a block will result in the block counter being reset, and time added. Don't ask your friends to create accounts to support you or anyone else", in my opinion, a better description, this was reverted by him, and the given reason was "That I had distrupted wikipedia to illustrate a point"

I dont know what to do anymore, he is just so vindictive, please help. 1B6 10:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] frustrated

im having a dispute with user -Urthogie hes really frustrating me.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/m/e/User_talk%7EAmerique_4d7b.html"