User talk:Mindspillage/2006archive3
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an archive of my talk page from March 2006. Please add new messages to my current page.
[edit] Edit war continue
The two articles I am banned from, the edit-war have continue.
Why ?
Because ArbCom fail to address the reall issues of complete failure of NPOV and DR policies.
No real ffort was made to resolve these disputes. Instead it was jumped to ArbCom (to get rid of me) but no real resolution will take plave until ArbCom will become serious and take some of the steps I suggested (including deleting an article that can not become NPOV after 3 years of edit wars.
Zeq 18:19, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Whitelisting request
I'd appreciate it you would review the debate over whitelisting a site you added to the blacklist recently. Thanks in advance for your time. uriah923(talk) 21:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- It's been a few days and I just wanted to drop you a reminder. :) uriah923(talk) 19:46, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] ZAROVE
A comment from an uninvolved party, namely myself: Something to keep in mind, I think, is that ZAROVE claims to be a reporter and also a dyslexic. I'm not convinced that one or the other isn't a lie, just because I would find it very hard to believe that ZAROVE would be able to file stories that did not require massive re-editing if he was dyslexic. Usually, an ability to write well and properly is mandatory to be a reporter of any note.
As for dyslexia, the Wikipedia article on dyslexia says nothing about typing problems (unless you count fine motor, but ZAROVE is systematically making the same mistakes over and over again, which makes it less than random), and nor does it say anything about randomly capitalizing words when typing. The mechanism of typing is not the same as that of writing, either.
Furthermore, if he does indeed have a problem and is yet a reporter in spite of all this, I don't think he would be spot-on for work and then suddenly regress when he got home and was on WP. So there's clearly some inconsistencies here that ZAROVE is trying to exploit for his benefit in some way, shape, or form. MSJapan 00:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Thanks for your support
Thank you for supporting me in my request for adminship! It ended with a tally of 39/5/4, and I am now an admin. I'm glad to have earned the trust of the community, and I will make use of it responsibly. Of course, you can let me know of any comments or concerns you have.
With a million articles in front of me, I'd better get mopping.
rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 05:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Thanks!
Thanks for your kind words on my talk page. Nach0king 09:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] What exactly is the problem?
The statement was accurate in its entirety, and the people contacted were a small part of those affected. Why do you think this is inappropriate? StrangerInParadise 00:06, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] I'm also confused
Why are you going out of your way to tell me not to reveal Cotman's information now? That issue is weeks old, and I assured him I wasn't going to reveal any of his personal information then. Is someone going around impersonating me and revealing Cotman's information? Furthermore, no one did anything about my similar complaint about Justen - why is Cotman's information being protected, but not mine? --Pansophia 19:13, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Concerns about proposed arbitration remedies
With regard to the Arbcom sanctions proposed against me in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway/Proposed decision, you stated that you were "Still thinking about these" [1].
I have some concerns about these remedies. The proposed remedy that I find most problematic (put forth by User:Dmcdevit) reads: "Crotalus horridus is prohibited from creating or editing userboxes (either templatized or hard-coded into a userpage". The problem I have with this is that I have about a dozen userboxes, and this would heavily restrict my ability to edit my own user page. No one has ever claimed that my user page was disruptive - see User:Crotalus horridus - none of the controversial user boxes (political, religious, etc.) are there, nor is anything else that violates Wikipedia policy. I would appreciate if you would either modify this remedy so that it doesn't affect my ability to edit my own user page, or (preferably) vote against it entirely.
I also have problems with the second remedy, "Crotalus horridus is placed indefinitely on Wikipedia:Probation." This simply isn't justified based on the evidence, which shows only a handful of isolated instances where I admittedly acted unwisely (as virtually all Wikipedians do from time to time). It should be noted that the other party to arbitration, User:Tony Sidaway, has stated that he feels that these remedies are unnecessary [2]. I'm also concerned that these findings against me, as the plaintiff, will have a chilling effect on individuals who want to bring well-founded arbitration cases in the future, since no editor is perfect and almost anyone has some edits that could be construed as disruptive or as violating Wikipedia policy.
I'd appreciate if you could take these concerns into consideration when casting your votes on the arbitration case. Thank you in advance for your time. (Full disclosure: I have made a similar request of User:Fred Bauder. Since you are both Arbitrators and this case directly affects me, I believe it is legitimate to make these requests in this manner.) Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 20:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
- I'd assumed that you'd simply have to remove the userboxes from your userpage.--Sean Black (talk) 21:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
- That seems unreasonable, as no one has ever complained about them. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 22:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
- To me they seem to be absolutely unexceptionable and this highlights for me the apparent paucity of thought being put into Crotalus' side of this case by the Committee. I don't think his behavior merits any special censure. I do disagree with him, I have found his behavior to be functionally disruptive in one instance. But it should be noted that I never considered his actions worthy of blocking. I think that my judgement on this, as in most other instances under scrutiny, was probably right. It doesn't do to pile excessive measures on someone whose instincts have been, in the final analysis, good ones. The Committee must be impartial, and appear so.
- Others who have sought to distance themselves from the case bear far more responsibility for the damage to Wikipedia, by their weakening of the neutrality policy in favor of deletion warring for the sake of a silly process. Damage that has crippled our response to the challenge of open partisanship on Wikipedia, which should have been swift, united and overwhelming. --Tony Sidaway 23:50, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Could today be "help a newbie day?"
- Love your page by the by, had to look up "extropian" to discover that I might be in the very same transhumanist camp. Have to go back and look more thoroughly at that definition, my optimism is countered by the fear of encroaching military theocracy or that they might have to nuke a bunch of us to save what's left of the ecosystem, but those minor things aside, maybe you could stop by my Talk:rage and fix me up or point me towards the light. I would be ever so appreciative and potentially in your debt for ... well, quite some time anyway. Zaz-en 11:42, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Thanks
 |
This user thinks it is ironic that thanks for supporting Cyde's successful RFA came in the form of a userbox. |
Here's a userbox for you. --Cyde Weys 04:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway
I don't want to add to the confusion, which is why I'm posting here rather than somewhere in the RfA pages, but I question whether proposed principles 2 and 7 are really what was intended.
- Re #2: At least some of the problem as expressed by Jimbo would be solved by the pages moving from Template space to User space (with the categories gone). (At least, that's how I interpret Jimbo's words as quoted in these threads.) Thus this principle is a change in policy in this instance. The Arbitrators may intend that, but it would unreasonable not to have that noted in the record.
- Re #7: "Divisive" (from CSD#T1) has migrated here to "Polemic" and Tony has further migrated it in his evidence in another RfA to "Politic", which is a major change of policy. (I'm not saying here that Jimbo's policies are not to be followed -- but his interpretations of facts are not necessarily to be accepted as fact, and our interpretations of his policies are not necessary accurate.
(It might be best to delete this section after you reply. I don't want to be argumentative, but some of the (proposed) principles here are changes in policy.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Your vote
I've come to the conclusion that your vote in [3] was a violation of Wikipedia policy, although I presume it was well-intentioned and inadvertant. Nevertheless, I would like to re-open this RfAr. How can we do this? Wyss 22:00, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
- User:Wyss has now accused me of being a sockpuppet of User:Karl Schalike (though, according to CheckUser, Karl Schalike is a sockpuppet of Ted Wilkes), and she again accuses me of fabricating texts, of being a troll etc., as she did in the past. She says:
- User:Karl Schalike, like you, is a single topic editor (the very same topic and writing style, by the bye). Given your contribution history, for all I know User:Karl Schalike is a sockpuppet invented by you to for the purpose of making your wonted accusations of sockpuppetry while at the same time furthering your own narrow agenda of violating WP's writen sourcing policies and for the xth time, merely having been published or the presence of a PhD after an author's name do not of themselves automatically qualify sources for citation in articles under WP policy.
- Moreover, multiple editors and admins have shown many of your article edits to be either fabricated from whole cloth or taken from sources which were similarly fabricated, never mind the vast quantities of repetitive and disruptive material you have posted to article talk pages. Please review WP:TROLL and WP:Sockpuppet, which I think apply to your edits on Wikipedia...
- See [4]. I would say that this is a personal attack. This user, who is placed on Wikipedia probation (see [5]) seems to behave as aggressively against me as she did in the past. Onefortyone 18:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] On admin tools
I just read Mindspillage/admin for the first time. It reflects my own sentiments nearly perfectly. I'm glad I'm not the only one! Also, while I see you around all the time, of course, I've never before visited your userpage, and I only just now found out your gender. Huh. Strange how one makes assumptions that nearly everyone one meets online is male. moink 10:07, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Opie and Anthony protection
Hello, you recently protected the Opie and Anthony article to stop an edit war (that I was unfortunately part of). I am requesting your assistance and/or guidance at resolving this issue. I posted an RFC but there has been no response. The crux of the issue is not POV/NPOV but a fact in dispute. One camp is claiming that Anthony (one half of the DJ team) is currently dating a woman named Melinda, aka "Lobster Girl", who performed oral sex on a former intern of the show. There is no dispute that this occurred, the only issue is whether Anthony is in a relationship with her. There doesn't seem to be much wiggle room here, he's either dating her or he isn't. The protected version of the page includes the claim that there does exist a relationship. I'd like to resolve this one way or the other, and it doesn't seem like that will happen without outside help, so anything you can offer would be greatly appreciated. The relevant discussion on the talk page is at "Spaz and Melinda's lobster encounter". Thank you! Tufflaw 16:07, 13 March 2006 (UTC) By the way, you may want to check out the website here [6] where there is a sort of "call to arms" for vandals to attack this page. Tufflaw 16:08, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Good morning, Mindspillage! I would like to ask that you unblock the Opie and Anthony page, at least temporarily. There has been a major news development in the radio industry that can be found here... http://www.fmqb.com/Article.asp?id=186874 ... that needs to be touched upon. I hope you'll take it into consideration. Payneos 03:39, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] sometimes you just gotta shake your head and laugh
Saw your page "content issues" on meta... I don't know if you're into humor, but just in case you're in the mood... after the article "Cum fart" survived AfD, some of us, not having any other recourse, had a bit of fun with it on the talk page... here: Wikipedia:So Long, and Thanks for All the Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense#Excerpts from talk page for the (now-deleted) article "Cum fart" (CAUTION - EXTREMELY OFFENSIVE PICTURES, though.) Herostratus 02:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- And that article had that pic in it when it passed AfD the first time... good grief.Herostratus
[edit] Short Wikibreaks
Well, I just announced a 48 hour wikibreak (with the option of it being shorter if I care to surf WP on my blackberry.... can you cure my wiki addiction :) -- Tawker 08:12, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- You had a comment on another user page about announcing short wikibreaks, I figured you'd get a kick out of mine :) -- Tawker 08:21, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways, from comparing articles that need work to other articles you've edited, to choosing articles randomly (ensuring that all articles with cleanup tags get a chance to be cleaned up). It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 13:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Puns...
Couldn't resist another pun, eh? [7] "Just" one more ... Not sure what I mean, whatever... :-) Antandrus (talk) 04:58, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- There Is No Bassoonists Cabal ++Lar: t/c 05:30, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Uranium debate
Hi Kat, I have been following the disputes which are on the subject of uranium. Please could you tell me when it is likely that the ArbCom will have decided what the outcome will me.
I have noticed that the debate has at times gone to dire depths with some mud slinging, I think that some parties (DV8 2XL and James S.) are unable to discuss things.
I do not know what the rules on it are, but during the arbitration I have entered into a informal discussion with James S (I hope that I have not broken any rules by doing so), while I have somethings which I strongly disagree with James about I think that me and him might be making some progress towards a solution which would be reasonable to both of us. Other than bans and the other punishments which have been proposed, do you have any things which are more positive.
-
- One way to think about it is this, years ago I knew a preist who said that for lent you do not need to give up anything he said that you could take a positive action by taking up a new good habit. His reasoning is that giving something up can be a negative change (eg giving up eating mars bars), while a new habit (such as starting to go walking your disabled neighbour's dog) is a positive change.Cadmium 19:30, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- I have one suggestion as to what should be done, I think that the debate about the health effects of the inhalation of uranium powders has spilled over onto too many pages. I think that one solution which might appeal to James S., DV8 2XL and some of the others might be to create a series of pages on enviromental radiochemistry. We would move all the material on the health effects into one place which would leave the other pages free of it (this would mean that they would have less contraversal matter on them) so we would have fewer pages which would need police action. I think that pages on radon, thorium, uranium, plutonium and fission products in the enviroment/their relationship with humans would make a good series.
-
-
-
- I do not know if you are able to make suggestions as well as/instead of sanctions such as bans. I think that James should leave uranium alone for a while so that things can cool off, I think that he should consider writing pages on radon, thorium and plutonium. I have already given James a leading reference on a release of Pu metal powder which has occured, which would start him off well if he does decide to write on the subject.Cadmium 23:08, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- I am strongly opposed to removing health and safety information on any subjects away from the articles on those subjects. There is no precident for it, it violates the Wikipedia:Content forking guideline, and it smacks of whitewashing. What if we removed all controversies to seperate articles? There are certainly plenty of congressmen who would love that.
- I have no "reference on a release of Pu metal powder which has occured" from Cadmium or anyone else, and I can't imagine why he thinks that I would want to write about plutonium, radon, or thorium, which are not burned by the ton where people can breathe the fumes, as uranium is. I have provided a vast abundance of high-quality, peer-reviewed and scholarly references in support of my position, and those opposing me, including the mediator, have scarcely provided a single peer-reviewed reference in support of their position, and mostly economically conflicted sources. These late-stage attempts at "compromise" are little more than attempt to get my agreement to whitewash the serious health and safety risks from the articles where they embarass military and nuclear proponents. I will not compromise my ethics, and I respectfully ask that you and the other arbitrators do not compromise yours. --James S. 02:49, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Could you please have these discussions on the talk page and the workshop page of the RfAr itself rather than my talk page? This really isn't the best place to put it if you would like all the arbitrators to see it. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 02:57, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- I have copied it back to the talk page of the RfAr.Cadmium
-
-
-
-
[edit] Sockpuppets violated Ted Wilkes's probation
User:Ted Wilkes has again violated his probation. Although he is "banned from making any edit related to a person's alleged homosexuality or bisexuality" (see [8]), he edited the Boze Hadleigh article heavily dealing with the homosexuality or bisexuality of celebrity stars, thereby denigrating the author and reverting the edits of another user. See [9]. Based on recent checkuser evidence, Ted Wilkes, Danny B. and Karl Schalike appear to be the same. See [10]. As both Danny B. and Karl Schalike have contributed to articles related to the alleged homosexuality or bisexuality of famous personalities (see [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], etc. etc.) thereby violating the probation of Ted Wilkes (see [21]) more than five times, Ted Wilkes, who has wasted the time of many users, administrators and arbcom members, should now be blocked for one year or hardbanned indefinitely, especially in view of the fact that he also seems to be identical with multiple hardbanned User:DW alias User:JillandJack. See [22]. The arbcom ruling says, "Should Ted Wilkes ... edit any article from which (he is) banned (he) may be blocked for a short period, up to a week in the case of repeat offenses. After 5 blocks the maximum block shall increase to one year." See [23]. On 28 February 2006, administrator Jtdirl admonished Ted Wilkes not to breach arbcom rulings again: "You have now made 3 breaches of the arbcom ruling, the two that caused this weeklong ban and the one that caused the earlier ban. If you make 2 more at any stage before the expiry of the arbcom ruling, or its amendment, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia for one YEAR. " See [24]. Onefortyone 16:31, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Rhythmic gymnastics images
Hi Kat. Do you remember Image:Rhythmicgymgroup.jpg & Image:Rhythmicgymnastics.jpg from last September? Your last edit left their license in question. As you can see, I already deleted the second one — and I should not have — but it can be resurrected from the photographer's website. Actually, that one was a mosaic of five of his photos, and I'm also curious if he gave permission for that number of images. What would you like to do at this point? ×Meegs 08:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Thank you!
For the userpage theme which I stole without even asking. How rude of me. ZoFreX 17:11, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] I'm confused
Could you take a boo at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Jason Gastrich#confused by remedies ? Should the ban be concurrent with the rest of the remedies? Is that what you guys meant to do? Is it more of a drowned AND hung remedy, or did you mean all the other stuff to start after the ban lapses? Thanks! (you can answer here, I'm stalking, er I mean watching... or there, maybe better? dunno.) ++Lar: t/c 05:40, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
- Repointed to requests for clarification, section Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Jason_Gastrich per new notice. ++Lar: t/c 04:14, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- Thanks. Catching up on my talk page... most of these I don't know if someone else has already answered, or if they were meant for me specifically, or.. In general the ban is concurrent with all the rest; if a ban applies it will override the others. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:17, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- If you're doing a ban, why do any other remedy concurrently, then? Most of the other combos (article ban and parole, 1RR and attack parole, desysopping and 1RR, etc) make sense paired or multiply joined, but a ban and anything else doesn't seem to make sense. The ban renders the others meaningless, because if you are banned you can't well be overreverting, or attacking, or wheel warring, or whatever. If it was deliberate, it's sort of a "you will be hung AND poisoned" remedy, isn't it? Maybe I should just ask this there if anyone else answers. Mostly it's a curiosity question if it was deliberate or a suggestion of a potential oversight if it wasn't... ++Lar: t/c 04:34, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
- The ban might not have passed (suspend your disbelief a moment here :-)), in which case we'd want the others. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:50, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
-
[edit] Peer review
I've requested a peer review of Trobairitz, I'd appreciate any comments you have. Don't know if you're into medieval music specifically, but it's pretty interesting stuff. (BTW, "some of my best friends are bassoonists") Makemi 07:25, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for looking at it. Yeah, I'm working on being a real singer, we'll see how it goes. I love 20th century music as well, there's nothing like a little Arvo Pärt in the morning. Happy editing, Makemi 05:45, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Everyking
I have never pointed out a violation of any part of the parole except comments on me, nor do I intend to. However I do think it's somewhat unreasonable to ask me to not point out and request input on that point. And even there, I do not go looking for it. But RFAr and its talk are on my watchlist, and it's rather hard not to notice them there. Phil Sandifer 16:50, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Copy of Message at User talk:Mushroom
I am the wife of User:Danny B., as he advised the Wikipedia Welcomer User:Wiki alf and we log in from the same office computer. We don’t contribute all that often and so it came as quite a surprise to Danny to find himself blocked by you and this message on his user page:
- This user is a sock puppet of Ted Wilkes, as established by Wikipedia:Requests for CheckUser/Archive/March 2006#Ted Wilkes (talk • contribs) and related accounts,
Because you provided no explantion for your actions on his talk page, it took me some time to track it down. At the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard [25] you wrote:
- "See this request for CheckUser: Ted Wilkes, Danny B. and Karl Schalike are the same person." Mushroom (Talk) 06:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
I note that this statement by you was posted immediately after Danny complained on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents [26] about vandalism by Onefortyone which you did nothing about.
However, at Wikipedia:Requests for CheckUser/Archive/March 2006 User:Sam Korn who did the checking said only:
- "Ted Wilkes, Danny B. and Karl Schalike appear likely to be the same."
Your action appears to have been based on a message left on your talk page by User:Onefortyone [27], someone on probation who I see has been banned by User:Stifle from editing certain articles for a time as result of his repeated violations of his probation and someone that numerous others have complained about. (User:MrDarcy, User:Arniep, User:Lochdale, User:Func, User:DropDeadGorgias and if I looked a little further, I'm swure I would find plenty more).
Mushroom, I think it is right to assume that a Wikipedia:Administrator has the responsibility for stating facts, not making quick guesses to spin there own version of what User:Sam Korn who did the checking said. Your rush to judgment has forced me to do a lot of searching all over Wikipedia for no reason. I will unblock my husband and place copies of this message on the talk page of each member of the Arbitration Committee.
Just for the record, because my husband has an interest, I am the one who pointed him to the non-encyclopedic material being pushed by User:Onefortyone after I came across a nonsensical contradiction in on of the articles he edited. I also come from a small city with one of the highest number of writers per capita in Canada and where Wikipedia has a high profile and where I know from the local newspaper(s) and business/social associations that there are a number of Wikipedia editors. - Cynthia B. 19:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- In my opinion, Cynthia B. is identical with User:Ted Wilkes alias User:DW alias User:JillandJack. Both Cynthia B. and DW/JillandJack or Ted Wilkes contributed to the following articles: [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34],etc. This suggests that DW alias Ted Wilkes has created many more sockpuppets, as DW did in the past. Onefortyone 23:25, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Carolyn Wood
Hi. My friend, Tony the Marine suggested I contact you and User:Linuxbeak (and follow your advice) regarding Carolyn Wood. If you could take a look, I'd appreciate it. Thank you Joaquin Murietta 06:32, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Societal Attitudes Towards Homosexuality
Kat,
The article "Societal attitudes towards homosexuality" is being used, not for the benefit of the reader, but to promote the agenda of a well-organized group of gay advocates. I can provide you with many examples if you would like. I have gone through all of the proper channels to raise a red flag about this.
The first item on the "workshop" page is a request to "remove the article" [35]. But, so far, that option has not been added to the "proposed remedies" section of the "requests for arbitration" page [36].
I hope that you will seriously consider adding this remedy to "proposed remedies" section, as that is the only remedy that will actually correct the problem.
Best Regards, Lou franklin 03:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Calli Cox issue
I'm just curious as to what brought around the deletion and selected revisions of the Calli Cox article. Since nothing was documented on the talk page, I figure I would ask you directly. Feel free to reply at your earliest convenience. :-) -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 19:02, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Makemi RfA
Thank you for voting on my RfA. It passed with a consensus to promote of 45/7/1. To those of you concerned about the fact that I am a relative newcomer, I encourage you to poke me with a sharp stick if I make a mistake. Or better yet, let me know on my talk page, and I'll do my best to fix it. Makemi 04:48, 25 March 2006 (UTC) p.s. Go Musicabal!
[edit] Hi
Greetings, saw you in the rule-room, and just dropped in to say a big hello. And, I came to brighten up and lighten up your page. And, I know you well - do you know me? I am a thief, and shall steal the bright blue box which you have kept at the top. --Bhadani 16:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Move bot
Can you give me source code of your move bot User:Craggs Vale? I plan to move about 500 pages en another wiki, it could be very useful.
[edit] Busted
They caught us (erm, I mean me). It must have been the Fiona Apple connection, or maybe the neo-Nazism. ;-) (Wow, that's a cool tool.) Antandrus (talk) 21:54, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Let me re-pen "e"s!
Needed three endless free evens. The effervescence thee sent me re the strengths: cheers! Feel sheer glee! Extended feeble self-esteem (even preened)! Needed defenceless sleep: thee helped me enter week's rest! Ever, BertG ♬ speech!
[edit] Tired Cat.jpg
Face it, nobody knows where this picture came from originally. After some research, however, I am pretty sure that the picture rights were released. If we change it to that tag, will it need a source? Krashlandon (e) 22:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Agapetos Arbitration
I'm sorry to spam your talk page, but this seemed serious enough to directly put on your talk page. I have evidence that AiG has actively had employees push their POV on the AiG page and possibly on related pages. I have added a new evidence section in the Agapetos arbitration to that effect, explaining the evidence. Due to the very serious nature of this accusation and its possible implications for Wikipedia, I decided to directly alert all of the ArbCom members. JoshuaZ 01:56, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
- JoshuaZ retracted this in evidence because it was erroneous, but failed to mention it on your talk page. agapetos_angel 07:14, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] OTRS tickets
I tried to login to help respond to letters but found that my ticket had expired. I would be grateful if you please advise how I could get a new ticket. Thanks for your help in this matter. Capitalistroadster 08:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Decision on deleting The Da Vinci Game
Several months ago you deleted a page on The Da Vinci Game, largely because the game had not been published yet. The game is now published and widely available in the UK, Australia and New Zealand and I would therefore like to reinstate the page. Be most grateful for your support on this, I've submitted it as a Request for Arbitration on the page below.
Thanks in advance, Aminto. [37]
