User talk:Prometheuspan2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] a note on arbitration

one needs to gather a lot of evidence to make a persuasive RFAr. The onus is on the parties involved, not the arbcom. they will only look at what you provide via diffs. diffs are from the history pages. from a history page, compare two selected version or click on a "diff" link, copy the url, and put it in brackets. it's a good idea to do some research on arbitration. Kevin Baas^talk 01:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Prometheuspan 01:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC) Thanks, I will get to that. Say, where should i put those reports?

I imagine that sort of info is on the WP:RFAr page and relevant linked pages. I'm going offline for now, but if all else fails you can create a subpage of your user talk page to gather stuff. Kevin Baas^talk

Thanks fer the heads up. I imagine I'll get to these bridges as the arbitration folks point them out to me. The main thing is that the evidence is right there, all anybody has to do is look.

Arbitration folks are very busy. it's not up to a judge to point out the flaws in a lawyer's preparation. check out the links in the intro of WP:RFAr, such as User:Snowspinner/Arbcom. Kevin Baas^talk 01:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

A note on syntax: if you want your diffs to look like this or this: [1] put them in single square brackets. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&diff=50199233&oldid=50175006 this] or [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&diff=50199233&oldid=50175006] . FreplySpang (talk) 14:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reply

Thanks for letting me know about the AFD, but I think I will refrain from commenting for now. On the one hand I lean toward keeping the article for the same time as last, but on the other hand it might be best for both the article and Wikipedia if it lies fallow for a bit. I'll see how things develop. Cheers, Christopher Parham (talk) 03:10, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] um?

I notice that you've moved Talk:Rationales to impeach George W. Bush somewhere... and replaced it with the content of the article.. don't do that, it looks really conspicuous, enough that someone might even begin to suspect that you were some sort of strawman--205.188.116.196 03:32, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

why don't you just create a sub page, like, oh i don't know, this one Talk:Rationales to impeach George W. Bush/Prometheuspan (section), that way you can do whatever you want to without simply blanking the existing article--205.188.116.196 04:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Prometheuspan 17:36, 3 May 2006 (UTC) I didn't blank any existing articles, i archived a talk page. I then copied an article to the talk page.

[edit] Do not Copy and Paste articles

Please do not copy and paste long articles into talk pages; it is disruptive and unproductive. Providing links and brief summaries is sufficient. --Mmx1 01:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Another Suggestion

When you archive a talk page, please follow precedent (Archive is capitalized) and insert a link so that people can find it. For example: [2] --Mmx1 01:59, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I did have a link so that people could find it. It was deleted. Not my fault. Sorry bout the capitalization. By the way, merecat unarchived it all, so theres no point right now. Prometheuspan 02:04, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion

Please use indents (by using colons before a line of text : )rather than horizontal breaks - it makes the discussion easier to read and is pretty much standard. Use of horizontal breaks is also discouraged. --Mmx1 04:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disruption

Please stop being disruptive over at the Afd talk. It's hard to even figure out how your comments are threading. And please keep civil at all times too. Thank you. --Cyde Weys 04:07, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Impeachment

Please note that some of the citations you have made are not "legal efforts", those are petitions. Please read the articles you cite. States have no power to impeach. Citizens of individual states have the ability to push their legislators in Congress to begin impeachment hearings but have no authority to actually impeach. Impeachment is a matter undertaken at only the very highest federal levels of government in the legislative branch as a check on the power of the executive. You seem to never have even taken a grade school civics class. You should read a book on how the U.S. federal system works - it's a good thing for every citizen to have at least some familiarity with it. --Strothra 05:14, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Please review Wikipedia's policies on personal attacks at WP:NPA. Also, please know that I am very intimately familiar with constitutional law. There are no "loopholes" in the U.S. Federal Constitution only interpretation. The U.S. Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter of constitutional interpretation and has never interpreted the statute for impeachment to give any rights to states in that process because the states are already represented through their state congressmen in the legislative branch which handles the investigatory process. --Strothra 19:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe this is an example of confusion and arrogance. See, for example, Jefferson's Manual. Kevin Baas^talk 22:16, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] URGENT! Your vote needed

Come vote here please to decide this important matter! i trust that you'll make the right decision--Rictonilpog 17:56, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Attack and bait gimmicks

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy: There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors. Do not make them. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that you may be blocked for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thanks. <

I have not once made a personal attack against you. You, however, have made repeated personal attacks against me. If you continue in this manner I will seek admin assistance against you. I was simply trying to explain to you a point of constitutional law and procedure which you seem to not be familiar with but I am. I read the articles you cited. None of them are well written themselves or go in-depth into the subject matter. --Strothra 19:38, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Regarding this edit: This is your last warning. If you continue to make personal attacks, you may be [] for disruption. —Preceding unsigned comment added by InShaneee (talk • contribs)

hey, do me a favor and actually look at what happened before spamming my talk page over this jerks attack and bait game.

This users user page has been spammed by a bad faith warning twice, and by an admin who wasn't paying attention once, with a fancy graphic that made it out like i was the bad guy.

There is not excuse for personal attacks. Continue to make them, and you will be blocked. --InShaneee 02:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Regarding statements in this edit ("mob", "POV warrior", ect):

You have been temporarily blocked from editing for disrupting Wikipedia by making personal attacks. If you wish to make useful contributions, you are welcome to come back after the block expires. --InShaneee 19:09, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Prometheuspan 19:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC) You have blocked me on trumped up and false charges. I suggest you unblock me immediately, because now i am getting really very annoyed with you, and thats not a position you want to be in with me. Prometheuspan 19:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Do not threaten other users. --InShaneee 22:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vote at a bad faith vfd

Regarding this edit:

This is your final warning. If you continue to make personal attacks, you may be blocked for disruption. --InShaneee 02:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Did the openers of the vfds who used ad hominems get that warning? or are you just singling me out because my attack is based on fact and not bias?

Do NOT edit signed comments by other users. --InShaneee 15:12, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Prometheuspan 17:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC) On my talk page, I'll delete an attack or any part thereof i deem worthy to delete, by the authority of wp:attack. Trumped up charges based only on gaming the system will be duly described by me as such, and if you have a problem with any of that, TFB. Prometheuspan 17:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Do not edit your warning tags. This is considered vandalism. Strothra 22:51, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AFD debate: we aren't discussing if GWB should be impeached

Your quote: 'Bush HAS IN FACT BROKEN SEVERAL LAWS. Anybody who has a problem understanding that, or accepting it, had best take a long deep breathe and meditate deeply while staring at the opened NPOV page.'

That's not what we are voting on and it isn't what people are discussing. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, we aren't here to take a position on political matters. The vote is about whether the article is appropriate for Wikipedia or not.

Also, please stop posting after a long list of good arguments and saying that no-one has made a good argument against the article. Say that you disagree or that you think the arguments are wrong, but it will save us all a lot of trouble if we start listening to what each other is saying.

Thank you. MilesVorkosigan 20:35, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thought this might interest you.

"...pack psychology driven anarchy..." You might want to check out Wiki Watchdog from time to time.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.114.80.178 (talk • contribs)

[edit] Rationales to impeach George W. Bush

Is voting closed on this deletion? The page said not to modify it. Thanks72.15.212.126 22:02, 6 May 2006 (UTC) I found it. i was looking at #2, and we seem to be on #3. ThanksUser:Mikereichold | User_talk:Mikereichold 23:28, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Incident board (User page styles)

I believe user pages must be compatible for public viewing, and should not put wikipedia into an embarassing light.
Further, the information on it must be related to wikipedia,
Personal projects/blogs are in the best case allowed in two or three external links.
For my own sites, i experienced that some topics do not mix well, and thus i am publishing it at different places.
I do not believe it is good to get personal, but somewhere a line can be drawn.
Someone can be (at least) asked to put explicit information (18+) to an external page, immediately. Akidd dublin•tl•ctr-l 09:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Dyslexic Wikipedians

Category:Dyslexic Wikipedians which you have included on your user page has been proposed for deletion you can comment at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion#Category:Wikipedians by mental condition. --Salix alba (talk) 16:41, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Magnetic Ramrocket

You mention the Magnetic Ramrocket in the air-augmented article. I can find nothing on this on the 'web, but mostly because there is a toy with the same name! Would you mind providing some pointers? Maury 12:34, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please don't make personal attacks on other users

You called Rex a 'jerk' and said Merecat should have been 'stomped'. I know you're angry... I'm angry too. But please try not to undo your goals with your anger. I'm wishing you well and sending you patience. :) -- User:RyanFreisling @ 23:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh - I noticed you design starships! That's cool! I used to love Lost in Space and Star Trek when I was a kid. (I'm not old enough to have caught them the first time around - they were in reruns) Are your starships purely fictional, or are you involved with the space industry? -- User:RyanFreisling @ 23:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The nice thing about calling merecat a jerk under those circumstances is its not an attack, but an observation. Yes, until i realized that wikipedia and wikimedia had serious problems, in fact, i was about to design starships as a way to create thematic units for wikibooks. My project THINKSTARSHIP was deleted after i decided to see what would happen if it was nominated, given the fact that its use of "fiction" to drive the "fact searching" aspect was possibly in contravention to WB:What is wikibooks. They of course voted with total arrogance and had no clue what they were voting over, so its really not that big of a loss to me. To wikibooks its probably the only chance they had to get an interdisciplinary program going; nobody in their right minds with expertise would even get past the main page. The place wreaks of incompetence and badly formed directions. Thanks for the kind thoughts, i suppose i really should refrain from using invectives and such, even if they are true. Prometheuspan 02:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Biopsychiatry arbcom case

Thanks for expressing interest in the biopsychiatry arbcom proceedings. Although the firestorm initially had all the appearance in the world of being just another run of the mill content dispute, things turned nasty when User:Midgley and then User:Jfdwolff erroneously decided to remove a valid pov tag rather than respect or take time to reflect upon the good faith of User:Cesar Tort's eloquent, iron-clad explanations for why it was entirely merited. User:Joema subsequently threatened to file an arbcom case after deleting the tag again, despite having arrived at the wrong conclusion in interpreting npov tag Wikiguidlines. Cesar must be given credit for doing an incredibly good job countering the deletionist dismantling of dissenting content by the Wiki's devoutly disciplined medical lobby. Almost singlehandedly, Cesar has managed to stand his ground valiantly on behalf of oppressed stakeholders, while keeping the focus of attention on content. In the face of the firebreathing rhetoric launched at him, Cesar's resolute dedication has been heartening and amazing to witness. He may or may not want or need assistance, but he definitely deserves something better than a run of the mill barnstar for his efforts. Almost obscured by the raging inferno is the competition-driven (rather than consensus-building) injection of the establishement's cultural dysfunctionality into the Wiki. The encroachment of their authoritarianism has been fostered in part by systemic flaws that have plagued the Wiki. Such influences, which have taken advantage of the widespread double standards with regard to application of Wikiguidelines, and that have led to disputatious conflagrations across broad swaths of the Wiki, are seemingly being completely ignored in the biopsychiatry arbcom case. Instead, new punitive policies pertaining to what is being labeled 'tedentious editing' seem to be in the offing, as retributive aggression appears to be topmost on the agenda of certain editors. Certainly, your help would be appreciated for addressing the broader issues that have seemingly been ignored thus far, but you might want to contact Cesar before entering the fray with regard to specific content issues. Ombudsman 01:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yes: welcome help!

Thanks! What you said in my user page is very important for this case. I suggest you post your comments about the counterproductive effects of drugs for autistic-related conditions and especially ADHD in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cesar Tort and Ombudsman vs others/Evidence.

You can also do it here Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Cesar Tort and Ombudsman vs others/Proposed decision. —Cesar Tort 03:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Personal Attacks

There are rules against personal attacks, you can view them here WP:PA. Its also already been proven I am not a sockpuppet by the RFCU, perhaps its time to realize Merecat/Rex is not the bogeyman, and not everyone who does not agree with you is merecat. Just maybe since you have already been proven wrong you will apologize, but by your harsh tone in your completely inappropriate message on rex's page, I doubt you will. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 15:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] the best!

Cesar Tort has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!

Hey, Prometheuspan: you are the best logical polemicist I’ve ever known! I’m honestly telling you this.

I’m also concerned with WP:PAIN. In this conflagration I have been labeled a “hateful zealot” and much worse. What can be done with this kind of behavior? —Cesar Tort 01:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] And now what?

Hi Prometheuspan:

Should we wait other editors to make statements about our fork compromise? Or just wait the arbitration decision?

I believe JFW and Midgley are fairly reasonable MDs to negotiate with (perhaps we can negotiate with Joema as well). But the crucial issue is whether the link to Criticism of biological psychiatry will be allowed to appear in article (as there is the relevant link to Anti-psychiatry article in main Psychiatry article). Actually, the Psychiatry/Anti-psych articles are splendid paradigm of what both of us have in mind.

I have some ideas that do not appear in Anti-psychiatry article. Our new article may contain novel subjects like confusion of neurology with biopsych in medical schools and pop articles; the history of biopsych since the 1950s; critiques to imaging biopsych techniques and of the media system which accepts magazine cover stories of biopsych (Time and Newsweek). None of this appears in the Anti-psychiatry article.

But we still have no confirmation of other parties about our fork compromise. —Cesar Tort 04:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Bhadani has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!

--Bhadani 14:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] disclosing my Weltanschauung

Hadn’t you intervened, the newbie Cesar wouldn’t have been taught the tough lesson HOW TO DEFEND YOURSELF AGAINST FALLACIOUS AD HOMINEM ATTACKS. I can refute biopsych with pure reason. But I’ve to learn a lot about how to handle prosecutors. Yes: I felt much betrayed by another editor. And no: no criticisms of your performance occur to me.

I think the recent conflagration is not strictly a Wikipedia problem. It’s a problem with the whole mankind. A sincere, brutally honest and full response to your question would require disclosing my Weltanschauung (I’m working on an ambitious 10-volume work about it). It’d be an unimaginably strong response that, for civility purposes, would be much better suited for email discussion (cesartort@yahoo.com).

Suffice it to say here that all has to do with what Lloyd deMause calls “the clash of psycho-classes”. —Cesar Tort 18:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Very independently of what we may talk or not thru email, my suggestion is that a new policy should enforce instantaneous one-day ban to anyone who uses ad hominem arguments or uncivil manners. Alas, only a Central Computer like the one in Arthur C. Clarke’s The City and the Stars could monitor millions of talk pages at the same time... —Cesar Tort 21:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your unwelcome and unwarranted comment

What a wonderful example of your "civil and evenhanded" attitude that comment was. Your laughably unilateral attempts to rule on what is and is not an acceptable comment on Wikipedia is totally discredited by such a diatribe. Not to mention the fact you have been blocked ~~numerous times~~ for personal attacks and bad faith noms.

First off, logic and wisdom are my only needed authgorities. Second off, to my knowledge i have only been blocked once, and that was on trumped up charges.

My dialogue with Cesar has nothing to do with you, and despite your attempts to manipulate him into someone you can test your debating skills "representing", i have no interest in engaging with you whatsoever. Go and find another battle to fight.

Irrelevant, and irrelevant. You have no interest in engading with me because you are a bully, and bullies don't like going up against people that are bigger and stronger than they are. They like to pick battles they can win, and by now you must know that the more attention i deveote to you, the less likely it is that you will come up smellling like roses.

Its very easy to appear at the end of a long an complex issue and base your naive opinion on the content of a single talk page. While you congratulate yourself your "victory" for you client, you fail to appreciate the original locus of this dispute. Both I and Ande were attempting to find a middle ground when Cesar and Joema were in dispute, we made suggestions to add the criticism to more appropriate articles numerous times. Those suggestions were completely dismissed by Cesar. Despite this, both of us made representations to ArbCom to excuse Cesar because of his newbie status and because we thought had was misguided in his methods, but not malicious. In response, Cesar went to greater and great lengths to push that misguided position (attacking us in the process) only

This is all very interesting. Obviously things are more complicated than what might be simple. I am not disputing the facts of Cesars past indiscrestions. In fact, when posted in front of me i called his threats threats and his inflammatory language inflammatory. The nice thing about being factually ignorant of the past is to judge based on the present. Cesar is working on this compromise, and thats what you should be doing also. Instead you are complaining about a past in which you certainly did not present yourself as a wholly sympathetic ear. Maybe Cesar realized when he heard similar things from me that the past attempts were something he missed. THAT again is irrelevant. WE ALL have our learning curve. Cesar has apparently learned "due weight" now, probably because i had to explain it to EVERYBODY. Again, irrelevant. The only relevant thing here is that you are holding onto that past, whilst the rest of us are trying to learn and grow from it. I'm sorry if you got into a combative mode and don't know how to stop. I suggest taking a break for a while. Let me tell you something else about me. I hate arguing with people and would much rather be generating the secrets of the Universe. Thats what they call "original research" around here, apparently. I am GOOD at fighting because i have a VAST knowledge base. Somedays that makes me more inclined to fight than to step back and let things be as they are. You on the other hand are only fairly good at fighting, your knowledge base is clearly slimmer than mine by a wide margin, and your basic skills don't bespeak fighting, they bespeak probably helping to write articles by finding holes in them. So we can both go do what we really want to be doing, or we can fight each other. I backed out from under the Cesar representation at least in part because i DID realize that Cesar had some of his own legit errors and mistakes to atone for, and I figured that was his responsibility. Cesar didn't know how to fight as well as you do when this game started; obviously. So this is the deal. Quit being a bully, get back to work, or I'll come be a bully, and you will wish you had been chill. Yes, thats a threat.

to, at the very last moment, embrace the position we asked of him at the very beginning. If you had bothered to read beyond the talk page and actually make yourself familiar with the whole story you would be aware of that.

Yes, it is not fair of me to jump in ignorant in some ways. This is why i said up front the limitations of what i had read. However, i didn't need to see all of that to realize that Cesar had his own share of indiscretions; it was easy to see the theoretical progress of that dispute. If i thought he had the case he seemed to think he had at the beginning, I wouldn't have reversed course on him. Again, the prime difference between me and any previous attempt at compromise is probably that Cesar believes me to be on his side, not against him. With you and ande running around spewing ad hominems and straw man arguments, its not hard to understand why he would be resistant to your ideas. Obviously you did not earn his faith or his trust, and that is partly your own fault. What more do you want from me? I'd be happy to go look at the talk pages of the actual article, if thats what you would like, but somehow i doubt you really want me to do that. Lets live in the present moment and everybody learn the lesson that they need to. It does no good to give somebody good advice if they have good cause to believe that you are an opponent. You gave sufficient cause for that, or we wouldn't be here. Whos fault is it that you didn't have a better protocol to follow so that you wouldn't have to spend all this energy to learn to be more diplomatic? Wikipedias fault. They should have specific protocols for dealing with these flags, not vaguest possible term only rules and guidelines open to interpretation and not covering the actual process itself. You should have let Cesar know that you apreciated his opinion, helped him to build his case, shown him the ropes, so to speak, and THEN explained to him the due weight disparity problem and then explained that seperate articles was the standard way to handle that. Is that what you did? If I come over and read the talk pages and find that Cesar objected to your advice with no real grounds and whilst you were being freindly and helpful to him, I'll apologize to the lot of you for jumping in on what wasn't my bizness. But you and i know thats not what I'll find. If i am bothered to read another batch of ad hominems, personalizations, characterizations, evasions, straw man arguments, and other such, I'm likely instead to go make my own case at WP:Pain. So you decide which you want; Peace in the present, and a workable solution, or, Dwelling on the past and more combat.

But of course, when you are simply looking for an argument, what would be the point of that?

If i was only looking for an argument, I would have eaten every last morsel of your interaction with Cesar up like a starving vampyre. Instead of being peeved at how much i have intervended, be thankful at how much i have left you alone.

Quite what gives you the right to apportion blame, when you have no idea of the history of the dispute is, is questionable. However, i suggest you make yourself familiar with an entire RfAR before becoming involved in future, especially if you are serious about taking on a role as mediator in the future. Rockpocket 05:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

What gives me the right to apportion blame is logic and the evidence you provide yourself. I don't need to know the history of the entire dispute to spot ad hominem attacks, for instance. I'm not serious about doing anything in the future other than getting wikipedia policy out of the wiffle bat and dart combat age. Of course I'll do that by my playbook, not yours. Prometheuspan 19:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NP

You didn't need an admin for that, though. You could have done it yourself. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 19:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC) really? Wheres the revert button? Prometheuspan 19:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC) oh, i just tracked that down. all this time i figured it was an admin priveledge...lol. Prometheuspan 19:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC) [3]

[edit] Please do not make threats

One with such a self proclaimed "VAST knowledge base" (and so modest to boot) should be aware that making explicit threats against another editor is a blocking offense. Your recent edits could give other users the impression that you may consider 'off-wiki' action against them. Please note that this is strongly discouraged under Wikipedia's policies on threats and civility. Users who make such threats are often blocked indefinitely. Please refrain from such behaviour or you will be blocked. Thanks. Rockpocket 01:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The color and flag of this threat makes it loopholed. If you continue to be a bully, I am certainly allowed to come and equal your actions to stop you. If the fairness of that eludes you, thats your problem. Prometheuspan 23:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

If you have a concern with my behaviour at RfAR, i suggest you make a proposal to ArbCom to sanction me, or you ask an admin to intervene. As it stands the only people whose behaviour is being voted on is Cesar and Ombudsman, and currently there is a unanimous motion to warn Cesar about his behaviour. His behaviour. Not mine. I again urge you to go and read the entire history of this motion, instead of commenting on the basis of a single talk page. Perhaps that whould give you a better idea of the basis of this dispute. Note that it is my perogative to provide evidence and my opinion on Cesar's behaviour at RfAR. This is not "bullying" nor is it a personal attack, as he claims, it is simply part of the process.

If you don't like that, or disagree, or think i have overstepped the line, then please deal with it through the official channels at RfAR by making a statement there. Kindly do not, however, make explicit threats against me or any other editor. Let me inform you of something "in fairness": should such threats be continued or repeated, i will notify an administrator and ask that action be taken. Please be aware that I will not warn you again beforehand. Thanks. Rockpocket 01:03, 15 June 2006 (UTC)