User talk:Cretanpride

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Cretanpride, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! 

Contents 1 Personal attacks 2 Your edits 3 Flags 4 personal attacks on Talk:Greco-Turkish War (1919-1922) 5 Sockpuppetry case 6 Sockpuppetry case 7 Sockpuppetry case 8 Your violation of WP:3RR 9 Block evasion 10 Ancient Greece debate 11 Sockpuppetry case 12 Ellinas and your behavior upon your return 13 Georgiadis, etc. 14 Blocked for continued sockpuppetry 15 Sockpuppetry case 16 Sockpuppetry case 17 Recent Accusations 18 Sockpuppetry case 19 Sockpuppetry case 20 Block extended 21 Sockpuppetry case 22 Indefinite blocked

[edit] Personal attacks

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. See this edit --Madchester 02:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your edits

Please stop adding the {{disputed}} template to the Homosexuality in ancient Greece article. Your actions are against a consensus of editors, and are disruptive enough to be considered vandalism. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:25, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Flags

Please read the policy agreed on at Template:Infobox_Military_Conflict. It specifically says "combatant1/combatant2 – optional – the parties participating in the conflict. This is most commonly the countries whose forces took part in the conflict; however, larger groups (such as alliances or international organizations) or smaller ones (such as particular units, formations, or groups) may be indicated if doing so improves reader understanding. When there is a large number of participants, it may be better to list only the three or four major groups on each side of the conflict, and to describe the rest in the body of the article. The use of flag icons is not recommended.". Oberiko 13:12, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] personal attacks on Talk:Greco-Turkish War (1919-1922)

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. --Hattusili 13:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Cretanpride for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Cretanpride (2nd) for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Cretanpride (3rd) for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your violation of WP:3RR

Your multiple reverts to Homosexuality in ancient Greece are a violation of Wikipedia's three-revert rule, and you have been reported for this violation. Please stop your unconstructive behavior.

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

—Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Block evasion

For violating the block with the sock Ellinas, you have been blocked for 48h. Please don't try evading the block this time.--Aldux 14:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ancient Greece debate

Sorry it took me so long to reply. Unfortunately, I don't think there is anything I could add to this debate that I have not already tried to express with the editor Haiduc. Nor do I have the patience. As you can see from your own experiences so far, the editors of the homosexuality/pederasty articles don't like being challenged. And instead of actually considering whether or not the articles are NPOV, they immediately deny any bias and question why the tag was placed at all. It seems to be a lost cause on Wikipedia, unless you want to spend all your time fighting this battle. But I am afraid it will come down to a simple popularity contest. They have more editors on their side so they will always be able to remove/delete/change any edits you or I would make. They want to revise and make-up history to fit their image of what life was like. Wikipedia allows them to do this, and that is unfortunate. I may try engaging them in debate again, but I don't know. I don't want to get banned like you though :). Ajz123 21:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Cretanpride (4th) for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. --Akhilleus (talk) 13:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ellinas and your behavior upon your return

Hi, Cretanpride. As you probably know, a request for checkuser showed that Ellinas was editing from an IP you had previously used, and so was confirmed as a sockpuppet. Ellinas has subsequently posted claims that you used his computer once when you were blocked, which is why his IP showed up as one you had edited from. I don't know if that's true or if Ellinas is merely a sockpuppet, but WP:SOCK says, "Neither a sock puppet nor a single-purpose account holder is regarded as a member of the Wikipedia community. The Arbitration Committee has ruled that, for the purpose of dispute resolution, when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sock puppets, or several users acting as meatpuppets, they may be treated as one individual." So the block is justified by Wikipedia policy.

Whether Ellinas is a different individual or not, I've got some advice for you, Cretanpride:

• If Ellinas is a different individual, you have contributed to his blocking by your previous action of editing from his IP while blocked. This would be an unintended consequence of your previous sockpuppetry. Please learn from this experience, and do not create any more sockpuppets. If you are blocked again, please wait out the block until it expires, and upon your return work to remain in compliance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

• If Ellinas is not a different individual, but merely you in disguise, then in an odd way you are to be congratulated: for several days, you managed to behave in a manner that was civil and polite, and you did not violate any Wikipedia policies. Kurt Vonnegut said, "We are who we pretend to be, so we must be careful who we pretend to be." Ellinas appeared to be a productive and useful Wikipedian. It would behoove you to act more like Ellinas in your interactions with others here. If Ellinas was you making pretend, I'd encourage you to keep pretending once you resume editing under this account. Do not edit war with your fellow editors, and find unarguably valid citations (preferably published works by major scholars or essays in peer-reviewed journals) for your positions. Everyone working on the article wants it to be accurate and complete. Find ways to work with your fellow editors, rather than against them. Choose your battles: it should be clear to you by now that there is a strong scholarly consensus (at least in the United States and Northern Europe) that homosexual behavior was common in fifth-century Athens, and you're not going to be able to make the article say otherwise. Try to understand the positions you disagree with, so you can see areas where compromise might be possible: for example, Akhilleus has said that Bruce Thornton has argued that pederasty was largely limited to the aristocracy. Find and read Thornton's book and understand his argument — don't try to make him say what you want him to say, but read what he actually says — and we may be able to find an appropriate place for his position in the article.

In conclusion, whether you wrote Ellinas' words or not, I'd encourage you to act more like him upon your return. If you continue down the path of disruption, edit warring and confrontation, you will be blocked for longer periods and perhaps fully banned from Wikipedia. If you work with other editors in a civil and polite manner, you may be able to convince your fellow Wikipedians that you're worth listening to and cooperating with. The choice is yours. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Georgiadis, etc.

First of all, Cretanpride, I'd like you to take a look at WP:AN/I#User:Cretanpride and Homosexuality in ancient Greece: you'll see that I was arguing against the block on Ellinas, and for the possibility that he might be a different individual despite the use of the same IP by your sockpuppets. Don't blame me for his block: blame yourself for using his computer for sockpuppetry. If you had abided by Wikipedia policies and the terms of your earlier blocks, Ellinas would now be able to edit. As it is, even if he is a different individual he has to be treated as a sockpuppet because of the similarity of IPs and ideologies. I happen to think it's entirely possible that you are two individuals, but I'm in a distinct minority.

You say, "just the fact that there has been books written supporting my argument, means that this topic is debated". That is true; but not all debate is noteworthy. There have been books published claiming that the moon landings were faked; that doesn't mean that Wikipedia's article on Apollo 11 should mention them.

The notion that Georgiadis and Michel Foucault are comparable is simply laughable. Yes, Foucault said some shocking, even absurd things. Yes, he was controversial. But he was one of the most important and influential philosophers of the second half of the 20th century. Take a look at Michel Foucault#Influence of Foucault's work if you don't believe me: it provides some solid metrics which show Foucault's influence. I applied the same metrics to Adonis Georgiadis, and found no results. Not just a few: none. I can find no evidence that Georgiadis is at all notable in any scholarly context.

Finally, you're right that I haven't read Georgiadis' biography: that's because every time I try to access the page I get no response from the server. Are you sure that's a working site? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be the most fairest user, so I feel writing to you is the most effective way I can contribute. Here is what I have to say.

Regarding the link, every time I clicked on the bio page, the link worked. It also worked for user Akhileus. I will check, and if not I'll post another. Moreover, what my argument has been the entire time was that homosexuality was not commonplace. I didn't say it was nonexistent. Homosexuality has always existed and always will exist, but I am saying it was a minority. Even, hypothetically, if it was accepted and it was an aristocratic practice, saying that the entire population adhered to it is just wrong. It's like saying Athens was a democracy, therefore everyone could vote, when in actuality only 10 percent or so could vote. Do you get my analogy? Also, there are other writers around the world who have argued my point. Robert Flaceliere, and Bruce Thornton. Thornton does go on to say that it was limited to the artistocracy, something I have heard before. Flaceliere goes further and argues that it was limited to the aristocracy over a limited period of time. Flaceliere also writes that pederasty in most Greek city states was illegal. The very least you should admit is that it is not PROVEN that the Ancient Greeks all adopted pederasty.

Regarding Georgiadis, he has written other books on Ancient Greece, albeit in Greek. I actually do not like it when he is derided when noone really knows much about him. He speaks ancient Greek and Latin, and actually looked at the primary sources in the original languages to write his book. After graduating he lost his parents, but through sheer hard work and determination accomplished everything he has. He owns one of the largest publishing companies in Greece, is an author to several books, runs three companies, and owns the scholarly journal Elliniki Agogi. Although the journal tends to deal mainly with economic issues such as the effects of the Olympic Games, Rio-Andirio Bridge, and improvements in infrastructure. Saying Georgiadis is rascist and politically biased is unfair if you don't know much about him. In his magazine and on his tv show he has not said anything that can be called rascist. If he ever criticizes someone it is over economic issues. His involvement in the political party is minimal, something you can see if you read the link.

I am actually exhausted debating this issue. A google search in Greek of the words αρχαίος Ελλάδας ομοφυλόφιλος, which means "Ancient Greece homosexuality" turns up nothing but arguments against it.If a scholar is Greek then are his/her opinions worthless? Noone even wants to admit that the contents of the article are not proven. A more proper word for Alexander and Hephastion would be "possible" not generally regarded. Most scholars don't even want to answer when asked whether Alexander was bisexual. I believe Paul Cartledge responded by saying that it was possible given the culture. "Possible" is a better word, although Caveotlector disagrees. I'm sending you this so you can add some sanity to the article. Thanks.Cretanpride 02:00, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Cretanpride, you don't seem to realize that the article doesn't say that everyone in ancient Greece was homosexual, or that "the entire population adhered to it". It says that one particular form of homosexuality was an important part of the social order in the ancient Greek city-states. The article doesn't even say "pederasty was widespread" any more; it just says that pederasty was the most widespread form of homosexual activity. That's what all the textual and archaeological evidence suggests. If your concern is that the article suggests that all ancient Greeks were gay, you're fighting against a phantom. That's simply not what the article says.

Actually, your democracy analogy is a fair one: the article just says that pederasty was established as a social institution in the city-states. An article on democracy could say the same about Athens, even though (as you point out) the sufferage was far from universal. And frankly, there is nearly as much evidence of Athenian pederasty as there is for Athenian democracy. (The latter, of course, is much more important for Western civilization.)

Similarly, the article doesn't explicitly say that Alexander and Hephaistion were in a sexual relationship; it just says that there was a deep love between them, which is, again, supported by the historical record. No, we don't know whether their relationship was sexual, but the first sentence of Alexander the Great#Personal life, "Alexander's greatest emotional attachment is generally considered to have been to his companion, cavalry commander (chiliarchos) and childhood friend, Hephaistion" does reflect the scholarly consensus. I think this page summarizes the most widespread view quite well. The Alexander the Great page reflects the debate adequately, and "generally regarded" links to it. I think that's good enough.

As for Georgiadis, I'm sure that his biography is impressive and inspiring. Unfortunately, the same could be said of many individuals who are not noteworthy scholars. I don't want to exclude the Greek perspective, but this really seems to be a case in which the Greeks are saying one thing and the rest of the world is saying something different. The article already notes that the subject is controversial in Greece; if we can find a suitable citation (say, a newspaper article discussing the controversy) we could add a sentence about how the scholarly consensus everywhere else in the world is not believed in Greece. (It should go without saying that the other scholars listed in the article also read the original texts in ancient Greek — at least I'm sure the classicists, such as Dover and Halperin did.)

I'm glad that you consider me relatively fair-minded, Cretanpride, but I'm not going to allow you to disrupt the page. Try making only one edit at a time, and allow time for each point to be considered on its own merits. You mention that you're exhausted debating this issue: I don't think you're the only one. Tempers are frayed and patience is low on all sides. This is not a time for bold editing; it's a time for carefully chosen words, compromise and consensus. Remember to stay cool, even when — especially when — other editors are losing theirs. Thanks. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked for continued sockpuppetry

You have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for a period of one month for continued violation of the policy against sock puppetry. During this time you must not edit Wikipedia. If you do attempt to edit during this ban, the block will be lengthened. Any further sockpuppet accounts will be blocked indefinitely, and their edits reverted. Please take this time to consider your actions. After the block is over, you are welcome to return to Wikipedia and make useful contributions under one account. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Cretanpride (5th) for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Cretanpride (6th) for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recent Accusations

I have never heard of Megasalexandros or Apro. What did I do this time? I don't ever remember blanking out Josiah Rowe's talk page. If you look at the history of that IP it has some wierd contributions that I am not responsible for. I never tried to deny the other socks. These ones are legitimately not me. I'm sure Apro checkuser will turn up not to be me. I have no idea how Megasalexandros did. I haven't even been on wikipedia all day. Cretanpride 05:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I certainly hope that you know who MegasAllexandros is because he's editing from the same computer you are. You may wish to consider contacting the local police force and report a break-in. Mackensen (talk) 11:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I really doubt what you say. I don't know who he is. Maybe you should legitimately check the IP addresses of Apro and Megasallexandros. There is no way that I know them. Check again(if you did). Just because someone happens to have the same opinions, doesn't mean they should be blocked. I doubt whether you even checked the IP addresses. Check Apro, I can almost guarantee you he doesn't have a similar IP and therefore is not a sockpuppet. MegasAllesandros contributed to Alexander the Great article, I suspect, because HE NAMED HIMSELF AFTER HIM. Check again. They deserve the benefit of the doubt. I have created sockpuppets before but this time I really didn't. Cretanpride 22:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Two innocent people have been blocked for no reason. Looking at their contributions, they conducted themselves with respect to Wikipedia policies and never even contributed to any articles I have with the exception of one. What ever happened to giving the benefit of the doubt? Cretanpride 22:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Cretanpride (7th) for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I can't edit on the evidence page. It won't allow me. I don't know who that person is!!! Is anyone who argues my point a sockpuppet? What is going on? This is madness. What has to be done to prove these people are not me? Cretanpride 01:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

By the way I don't have 50 computers and 50 different internet providers!!! This madness has to stop. Cretanpride 02:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Cretanpride (8th) for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Block extended

Based on this edit and the multiple cases of sockpuppetry, either confirmed or obvious, I have extended your block to six weeks. Each time you edit, from whatever IP, that IP will also be blocked and the block on this account will be extended. I have also applied a range block to the group of IPs you have been editing from.

Let me spell it out for you, Cretanpride: YOU ARE NO LONGER PERMITTED TO EDIT WIKIPEDIA. This includes articles, talk pages, and user talk pages, with the sole exception of this page.

If you can abide by the terms of this block, and stay away for its duration, this account will be unblocked and you will be re-admitted. If you continue to use sockpuppets and harass users, the block will be extended again, and may become indefinite.

You have shown no regard for Wikipedia's policies and procedures, or for your fellow editors. One of the purposes of the block is as a test for whether you will show more regard in the future. Each time you edit in violation of the block, you make your eventual readmission to Wikipedia less likely. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

That was the user formerly known as Ellinas who got crazy. Anyways I will no longer edit on that article. I'll try to rally support but I'll stay out of it, so if anyone else argues my point it will not be me. So if another apro shows up,or anyone else, its not me. I'll do my time, I promise.Cretanpride 07:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

{unblock|My block should be shortened and users who show up should not be accused of sockpuppetry. You have just proven that you are making up the checkuser. I am not Aristotle or whoever. I swear in the name of the good Lord that we do not use the same IP. You didn't even do a checkuser...you just assumed he was a sock. I swear I'm not him. I don't even know him and no HE IS NOT EDITING FROM MY COMPUTER. I SWEAR!! Someone else who is more fair needs to check. Machensen if you read this, could you actually check? Is that possible? }

Mackensen did check. Please, Cretanpride, give it up. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

MACKENSON DID NOT CHECK!!!!!! How can you say he did when you don't even know!? Because he is your friend? He is just a lier like the rest of you. I am 100 percent sure we have different IPs. What IP did Aristotle use then? Think about it...If I can't use Clearwire and if you put a IP range block on the others then how can Aristotle be me? Whatever...You guys just don't want competition. You just want Ancient Greece to fit your image of a homosexual paradise. I will be sending messages over Greek myspace groups and point this article out to everyone I know. In the coming days many users will come and voice their angry opinions. The next time there is a new user it will not be me, but chances are they will get blocked anyway for questioning your views...cause we can't have that right? This will never be over. Cretanpride 04:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

If you want to convince anyone you're not a sockpuppeteer, you should probably stop talking about your intent to recruit meatpuppets. Getting your friends to swamp an article with complaints is against WP policy. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Cretanpride, you've admitted using sockpuppets in the past. You're announcing your intention to find meatpuppets in the future. You're assuming bad faith of one of the most senior, trusted Wikipedia sysops. Do you understand why we might find it difficult to believe anything you say?

For the record, Mackensen is not my "friend" — I've hardly had any dealings with him except in relation to checkuser. However, he is a respected and hard-working Wikipedia administrator, and deserves your respect. Checkuser privileges are given to very few users. I trust Mackensen. I don't trust you, because you've constantly abused Wikipedia policies and rules. And the more you continue to do so, the less anyone here will listen to you, now or in future. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Other users coming on to voice their opinion are not meatpuppets if they edit on other articles. Listen very carefully to the following if a new user pops up, it will not be me and if a checkuser is performed, it should be based on whether they are editing on the same computer, not on whether they are arguing what I'm arguing. Cretanpride 03:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

If the other users establish themselves with plenty of edits to unrelated articles, then sure. But if a new user shows up and starts echoing your arguments within days or weeks of registering, we're going to be suspicious; and we're going to act in accordance with what checkuser finds. And if another user shows up editing on football, Greek involvement in World War II and homosexuality in ancient Greece, nobody's going to be fooled.

Finally, checkuser is based on whether you're editing on the same computer (or at least from the same division of the same ISP). Every time. Just like all your other socks. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:56, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Unsurprisingly, a new editor, Perikles (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log), showed up right after this exchange. After a few edits to Moni Arkadiou (a historical site in Crete), "Perikles" jumped right back into the debate at Homosexuality in ancient Greece. Checkuser again confirmed the account to be another sockpuppet of Cretanpride. Accordingly, I'm extending this block to indefinite. Cretanpride has shown himself unwilling or unable to serve out the terms of his block; he shows no evidence of being willing or able to abide by Wikipedia's policies. I'm giving up on him. Goodbye. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:28, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Cretanpride (9th) for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm just pointing out that if you place an IP range block you will block out the entire dormitory at UC Irvine. We don't want that now do we? Plus all I'm arguing is for TWO PARAGRAPHS to be added to the article. That is all. If it improves the article then invoke the following policy WP:IGNORE. Someone else should just take credit for the edit so we can all just be happy. Cretanpride 00:22, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I did not misrepresent anything. You guys can't just assume what Vrissimtzis wrote, you actually have to read the book, and you accuse me of misrepresenting? I gave the link to the BBC article, I didn't say anything about the contents of the book. You are all going to make it seem as if all these scholars(Bruce Thornton, Victor Davis Hanson, Mary Lefkowitz, etc) are all wrong and are foolish for believing this. The article will never be fair. You have all turned me into some kind of Adolf Hitler. My last edit was perfect and nothing was misrepresented. It accurately detailed Thornton's argument and who is in favor of it. Cretanpride 04:44, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Cretanpride, you have misrepresented scholars in the past. You're not "some kind of Adolf Hitler" — you're just another POV-pusher who can't accept Wikipedia's rules. You have been banned from editing Wikipedia. What will it take to make you understand this? It's clear from your constant sockpuppetry that you have no respect for Wikipedia's rules. Why, therefore, does it matter so much to you what a Wikipedia article says? Either Wikipedia is worth something, and that includes the systems by which it operates, or it's not. If it is worth something, please respect it and obey your ban. If it is not worth anything, then why waste your time here? It just doesn't make sense. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:24, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Indefinite blocked

I have updated your indefinite block based on your attempt to blackmail editors by threatening to murder an innocent girl. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 00:43, 25 September 2006 (UTC)