User talk:Psychonaut/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

← Archive 2 |
Archive 3
| Archive 4 →
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Removing Stuff from my Talk page!

Why did you make this edit - [1]????--HamedogTalk|@ 09:17, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

See the edit summary. —Psychonaut 13:21, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, but why did you remove it?--HamedogTalk|@ 16:33, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Because he is a dick. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Murflorious (talk • contribs)
Hey, Murflorious, Don't be a fucking douchebag. Mr Spunky Toffee 04:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


Are you going to give me an explination or not. I put it there, I like it there. Why did you go and remove it?--HamedogTalk|@ 02:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


Dude you suck. I'm reverting my page to what it was. you're a vandal. Fegor 15:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

User page

I've protected your user page due to a sudden pate of vandalism. Let me or another admin know when you want it removed. -Will Beback 05:03, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

How do you know the vandal is really bald? ;) —Psychonaut 22:00, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Oops, that should have been "spate".-Will Beback 00:26, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

sprotected

Seriously... :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 04:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: JarlaxleArtemis

I've responded to your comment about my speedy deletion of one of your user subpages at my talk page. Apologies for any inconvenience you may have experienced, and I would appreciate some clarification. Thanks. theProject 00:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Long term abuse/JarlaxleArtemis - Thanks for compiling that. Hopefully, it won'tneed much further work. -Will Beback 22:00, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Image:BibTeX logo.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:BibTeX logo.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in its not being deleted. Thank you. -- grendel|khan 05:34, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

the proposed deletion of Benis' NPA personality theory

I have been howling with laughter as Hoary referred us to the "smiling gorilla" vital research and Hoary's pointing out the hiliarity of her overblown prose on the NPA talk page -- Isn't it kinda expensive to hire advertising agencies that good at snow jobs?? And a DEGREED PSYCHOLOGIST fell for that promo. And when you consider that psychology is a science. And a scientist should be able to recognize the presence or absence of science. ah dearie me. Yes, I'll certainly keep an eye on it. Thanks for the note on my talk page. --A green Kiwi in learning mode 06:39, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you but not for now

No, after a long walk I have come to realise that all of these might have been better considered on a case by case basis, and I am sure you will agree that you have no further cause to feel in any way "singled out" so I won't be adding any more now. --Zeraeph 18:22, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

URGENT Vandalism on "Counter Vandalism"

Really weird page move, redirecting thing going on...I understand you may know something about this kind of vandalism?

Best you look at your user contribs and see what you make of it...I can't figure it out or how to restore it..

--Zeraeph 23:58, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm not an administrator and therefore don't have any ability to revert page moves. You should report this to the appropriate subpage of WP:AN. —Psychonaut 00:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
It's ok, somebody has caught and reverted it now, but as you seemed to have made the last edit before the vandalism I thought you might have still had that last unvandalised page open in your browser and be able to revert with "edit this page" or something.--Zeraeph 00:15, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Benis and NPA

Hoary presents the Zola Award of Generous Indignation to Psychonaut for erudition and energy in an AfD.
Hoary presents the Zola Award of Generous Indignation to Psychonaut for erudition and energy in an AfD.

Well done on creating an excellently researched and reasoned AfD. --Steve 04:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm getting a lot of flak from a couple other users, though... :( —Psychonaut 04:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Invitation

I'm inviting you and the other editors I've been talking with recently to visit this Talkpage which I've just created. While I'm hoping it will help, I'm also open to the possibility that I'm just an obnoxious busybody :) --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 00:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Thanks, but I don't think that's necessary. I have nothing to hide or keep private, so mediation (if any party desires it) can be carried out through the regular channels (i.e., WP:RfM). —Psychonaut 00:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I understand Psychonaut, but I'm sorry to hear that. I was also hoping to consolidate things so that this doesn't keep spilling across other pages, but the choice is certainly yours. There will probably be some discussion there anyway, so please feel free to check it out and jump in if you change your mind. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 00:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm not against consolidation and mediation, but if it's going to happen I'd rather have it done in an official public forum. You or the other parties can file an request for mediation if you feel strongly about it. —Psychonaut 00:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I am in full agreement with Psychonaut on this, for what I feel to be very similar reasons. --Zeraeph 01:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Good luck to both of you then. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 01:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

MFD

I just want to say to you that whatever you feel, the MFD is not even slightly personal, nor even a criticism of you per se.

I delved a little and saw that you have been put through hell by one of the editors you mention. You do realise that you can request that, at least ,any comment revealing your real name, and, I suspect, most of the abuse, be removed permanently from the histories?

I see why you feel so strongly about that, to put it mildly. I just don't think pages specifically intended for editors to criticise other editors is in accord with existing policy, and I think policy should be applied equally and uniformally.

Obviously you see things in a different way, but I don't see that as a reason for animosity between us. You will win the MFD now no doubt, so why not just let it run it's course in accord with policy? --Zeraeph 01:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Stop implying that I have been obstructing the debate. You have been warned about this before. The first time you pled ignorance that you were making such an implication, but now you are continuing to make them. This is the final warning I am giving you. —Psychonaut 02:04, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
That is absolutely not what I am implying. I just feel that you would prefer me to withdraw the MFD than to let it run it's course, if I am mistaken in feeling that, then just tell me so, and I will stop feeling that way. --Zeraeph 02:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Psychonaut/User watchlist, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.

Yamanote Halloween Train

Thanks for the nice things you said about me on Calton's talk page. In this case, I objected to an admin deleting when there's 10 keeps to 5 deletes. I know this 20 year old event is real even if I don't approve of it. But I'll let other people fight it out. (BTW I still think the Darwin/Lincoln factoid should have been left in. But I just stay off the Darwin page :-) ) Vincent 03:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, but keep in mind that Calton is not an admin and didn't delete the page. And what he said to you was correct—you really should have read the notices and thought about things before making your comment. However, I strongly object to the tone with which he wrote this to you. —Psychonaut 04:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Psychonauts

Hello there. I'm interested in what you present as the Japanese katakana spelling of your name, サイコナーツ. I'm not sure that I have an IPA-capable font, so shan't attempt to represent the sound of this in the most sensible way, but I'll point out that each of the six symbols represents a mora, for a total of five syllables (the fourth and fifth morae/moras are a single syllable). The first three morae/syllables represent the sound "psycho" as closely as they can, but the three morae that follow are odd. There's the sound of "nar" as in non-rhotic "narcotic", followed by "tsu" as in "tsunami". Both are surprising: I'd expect ノート, for "no" of "yes/no" and "to" of "tomato". (The katakana you now use looks much more like that for "psychonauts", plural, than for "psychonaut".) However, I suppose that somebody could argue that ナーツ is better. These cross-phonology affairs can be contentious.

What was I going to say? Oh yes: Japanese orthography is not phonetic (and neither is any other orthography). Instead, it's phonemic. Crack open that linguistics text and read up this stuff! -- Hoary 12:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Wizardry Dragon Attempts to Misuse Mediation Request Page

Wizardry Dragon's gave lengthy "testimony", then immediately declared himself "recused" (rather than stating that he was refusing to mediate). I deleted both and have asked Zeraeph how to go about having his testimony deleted from page history. I have posted to his Talk page explaining that the stated rules on that page do not provide for anything but acceptance or refusal and that comments, in any case, are not allowed.

  • The entire point of mediation, of course, it to MEDIATE, not to have the same opportunities one has already enjoyed on public Wiki spaces and pages - of making unfounded accusations and then repeatedly refusing to be held accountable for those unfounded accusations. --A green Kiwi in learning mode 05:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

Hi Psychonaut. Since you were the first editor to suggest formal mediation, I'm somewhat puzzled as to why you haven't signed on yet. Everyone else is on board at this point and you seem to be the lone holdout. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 02:12, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar Award

The Barnstar of Diligence
I hereby award to you this Barnstar of diligence for having unearthed a walled garden carefully planted in wikiland by the good doctor Anthony Benis. Keep up the good work Ohconfucius 02:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposed notability guideline for scientific contributions

Hello, seeing your interest in pseudoscience I am wondering if you're interested in helping to draft a notability guideline for scientific concepts, currently in vitro at User:Trialsanderrors/SCIENCE. Best, trialsanderrors 06:28, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

MfD Result Notice

Hi,

I have closed the MfD on your user-watchlist as improperly filed, given the mass addition, and then withdrawl, of so many other pages. Technically, this close is without prejudice against refiling, but I have advised the nominator to wait for mediation and a "cooling-down" before relisting. Best wishes, Xoloz 15:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Resubmitted MfD for the User Watchlist page

I resubmitted a (hopefully valid) MfD for this page, not because I myself feel it should be deleted but because I feel that consensus should be reached about this issue so it can be laid to rest. I hope you don't mind this, and please do not misinterpret it as any sort of personal attack or misunderstanding of the validity of the page. Thank you. -- Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 19:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC) (I posted this message on it's talk page and here as I wanted to ensure you got it.)

I appreciate your wanting to be fair, but I don't think your reopening the debate was necessary. It's the responsibility of those who object to the article in question to propose that it be deleted. —Psychonaut 19:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Er, the only responsibilities of any Wikipedia editors are outlined in the Guideines and Policies. In any event I feel there was sufficient argument on both sides of the previous MfD to have it resolved with a more binding resolutions than "closed as inappropriate." -- Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 19:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I didn't mean "responsibility" as in "obligation". I meant that if someone feels strongly about an issue, he himself should be the one to take action. I'm not saying that what you did was improper; just that it was unnecessary. —Psychonaut 19:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
In either event Xoloz has reverted back to the original closed versions of the page, which I will abide by. As an aside, have you been made aware of the mediation case opened naming you as a party, regarding this whole MfD dispute? If so, I would like to ask that if you do not wish to participate, that you state so, so the mediators can close it without waiting further, otherwise please staste your acceptance so we can get into the mediation process. Thank you. -- Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 20:05, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
The rules state that I have seven days to consider acceptance. I am in the process of considering whether my participation in the mediation of the issue as stated is appropriate. Please don't rush me. —Psychonaut 20:09, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I was just uncertain whether you saw it or not. In any event, I don't believe Zeraeph was that clear in the issue. I certainly don't see how Doc Tropics was involved, though he is named as a party. -- Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 20:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Exposure of deep, long-term self-promotion

Heya. I'm pretty sure we've never met at Wikipedia, but I saw your submission to the Signpost tip line about the NPA Personality Theory deletion discussion and thought it was -- well, interesting. First off, massive kudos for catching that article out. You absolutely deserve the barnstar you were awarded above, for catching what the rest of us missed.

That said, I thought it was a very interesting story, so blogged it. Now, I mention this because the blog entry is actually becoming very popular (70+ hits/hour), so I'd like to make damn sure I have the facts straight before too many more people see it. Would you be able to run through what I've posted there, to make sure it's more-or-less accurate? I'd be very grateful if you could.

A couple of questions:

  1. Was NPA personality theory GA-class or FA-class? And when was it created?
  2. When was the above article promoted? I can find the peer review, but not the entry at WP:GAC.

Thanks for your help. Again, congratulations for catching this. Daveydweeb (chat/patch) 00:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

NPA personality theory was until recently listed as a good article [2] but was never a featured article. You'll have to go through the history of Wikipedia:Good article to determine when it was added. I'm afraid I don't know when NPA personality theory was created; you'll have to ask an administrator, as they probably have access to the histories for deleted articles. You can find some links to related documents at User:Psychonaut/User watchlist#Anthony M. Benis.
With respect to your blog post, the only major factual issue I have issues with is your claim of sockpuppetry. Namely, I consider it unlikely that User:D-Katana is a sockpuppet of Anthony M. Benis. —Psychonaut 04:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Here is the original Good Article listing TWIMC [3] --Zeraeph 23:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
DaveyDweeb. Unfortunate that you didn't investigate further before publishing. There is absolutely ZERO vandalism involved in the publishing of the NPA Personality Theory article. What was posted was the synopsis of a published volume from the early 80's of a philosophical treatment of a psychological theory from earlier in the century by Karen Horney M.D. who believed that a major part of the human personality was present due to three inherited behavioral traits. While the theory never gathered much interest, it it not at all possible to declare it invalid either. It is simply, like so much science research, not particular notable all on its own.
There was also zero astro-turfing. Dr. Benis was encouraged to create an article based on his book. He did that. Then someone suggested he create a profile page. He did. Then someone eventually inserted a brief paragraph into an article of the popular aspects of cultural narcissism. That does not qualify as astro-turfing.
What has brought down all this upon this retired doctor's head is that a particular editor, Zeraeph, who spent the vast majority of this year establishing herself as an expert in psychology, and in personality, the narcissistic personality disorder, narcissism, psychopathy and pathological bullying, took it upon herself to do an end run for the "Good Article" status and then began a campaign to have it declared a high-importance psychology article. In other words, what happened, the Wiki-fiasco, this embarrassment, happened not because of Dr. Benis, but because of an over-zealous editor without the requisite background to make any of these judgements.
--A green Kiwi in learning mode 05:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
For reference, the above text was emailed to me as well. It was an interesting read.
Anyway, thanks for your reply, Psychonaut. I'll update the post now, since you're right, the other user in question doesn't really appear to be a sockpuppet based on the comments at the AfD debate. Thanks for your help, and again, congratulations on the find! Daveydweeb (chat/patch) 07:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
The "above text" (A Kiwi's) also isn't actually true. Someone else (D-Katana, and someone else I think?) wanted the article to be given *high* importance, I personally suggested mid importance as a compromise and, having already been corrected once on that mistaken assumption on the article's talk page before it was deleted. I have no idea where the A Kiwi got such a notion or why she posted it. I am sure the discussion page can be undeleted if this turns into a contentious issue. --Zeraeph 10:58, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
PS, now undeleted Here is my original suggestion [4]. A similar claim to the above made by A Kiwi[5], and my reply (I can only imagine she missed this first time around?) [6]. I hope that clarifies things? --Zeraeph 23:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
FYI: the blog post has been slashdotted. All the more reason to talk to you, I think. :) Daveydweeb (chat/patch) 07:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Coo, what a bizarre misrepresentation of the incident. But to their credit, the slashdotters don't all fall for it: there's some agreement that this was not the "hoax" it's announced to have been. At the same time, the writers are oddly defensive about WP, almost as if knocking its failings is inexcusable bad manners. -- Hoary 09:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Weekly Podcast Invitation

Oh! Another question for you. I don't know if you're aware of the Wikipedia Weekly podcast, but I've been a panelist on it for the last two (of four) episodes. This is pretty big news, so would you like to come on the podcast to talk to use about it for Episode 5? We'd be recording the main episode around Friday, but any time between Wednesday and Saturday would be fine to record an interview with you. You'd need a (free) copy of Skype and a microphone and headphones. We'd be happy to have you come on. :) Daveydweeb (chat/patch) 00:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I am more than a little concerned that I should have to use a non-free tool in order to produce free content. This seems contrary if not to the principles then at least to the spirit of Wikipedia and of the GFDL. If you can offer me a way of participating which does not require me to use and support proprietary software, then I will consider your request for an interview. —Psychonaut 00:26, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, they're different

Hi,

I closed the MfD because items were added and removed from the nomination; it appears no items have been removed from this AfD. Items are sometimes added to XfDs without difficulty; such additions do not require closing on precedural grounds, though any closer may take such circumstances into account. The MfD I closed early, by contrast, is the first time I've ever seen items added and subsequently removed from an XfD, making it procedurally flawed beyond repair in my estimation. Best wishes, Xoloz 05:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

1a

Hi—thanks for your tweaking of one the captions in my article. I wonder why you appear to spend lots of time on admin tasks rather than linguistic ones. Your input to FAC and FAR/C is sorely needed, especially with respect to the standards of prose. Tony 07:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

It's because he is involved in the minutiae of O-C C-F. --A green Kiwi in learning mode 01:36, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

My Request

I will respectfully request that you no longer post or edit to my user or talk pages. If you find it of overwhelming importance to communicate with me, use email only. Or wait until the mediation commences, and address your concerns there. Either private off-wiki or with wiki mediator oversight. Either/or. Nothing else. Do not move this to my talk page and do not respond on my talk page. You are free to delete it, however, this being your talk page. Thank you for your cooperation. --A green Kiwi in learning mode 04:43, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I must respectfully decline your request. I and other users will continue to use your talk page for its intended purpose when it is necessary to communicate with you regarding Wikipedia matters. If it comes to my attention that you have made inappropriate edits or violated a particular policy, I will post a warning or a warning template on your talk page which identifies the problem, explains why it is a problem, and informs you how to correct the problem or that the problem has been corrected for you. I will also post messages on your talk page when mandated or recommended by Wikipedia policy, such as notifying you of relevant deletion debates and requests for comment/mediation/arbitration. I can assure you that I will never use your talk page to intentionally harass you, or to post messages which would be more appropriate to leave on another project or discussion page. —Psychonaut 06:45, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Spamming

Dear colleague, your last fourteen edits consist of spamming the same template across talk pages on a seemingly random basis. Spamming is not helpful and may be reverted. People are not blind, they may see that articles lack maps without your help. In my humble opinion, many of the articles you tagged require expansion rather than a map. Furthermore, I'm not aware of a single instance when this template resulted in a map being added to the article. --Ghirla -трёп- 12:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that these edits are spamming, and find it strange that you would think so. (Have you even read the definition of spamming at WP:SPAM?) It's also ridiculous to suggest that the first seven articles are unrelated (they're all essentially the same region). I have an interest in all the articles and feel they would be improved with a map showing the boundaries of the region or the location of the city. This goes especially for the first seven articles, as it would be useful to see how the boundaries changed across history. As for the usefulness of this template, it served Greater Syria well enough—I added the template and a map was added shortly afterwards. Kindly retract your accusation. —Psychonaut 13:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

On the Siberian Wikipedia

Hi Psychonaut :-) Regarding your vote on the proposal for closing the Siberian Wikipedia, I would ask you to take one extra step to help us all deal with possible sockpuppetry (you may have noticed the "Addressing sockpuppetry" warning): to confirm here, in the English Wikipedia, that you actually are meta:User:Psychonaut. This confirmation could eventually be done by CheckUser, but you'll help simplify the process by doing it yourself :-)

You could do this in two ways:

  1. By posting a message here, in your personal Talk Page, like this, and then marking your vote in Meta like this: Vote authorized here.
  2. By adding a link to your User Page in Meta, like this, and then marking your vote in Meta like this: My vote. en:Evv proof - Ev 02:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

If you could do this, it would be much appreciated. If you don't feel it's necessary or find it to cumbersome, I understand it and apologize already for asking. Thank you. - Best regards, Evv 14:31, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I hereby confirm that this vote to close ru-siberian was posted by me. —Psychonaut 15:35, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear soldier of the Wikipedia neo-nazi/communist dictatorship

What the hell are you tlaking about. I did not re-creat any article about the formal Australian Worker's Party formaly known as the New Communist Party of Australia. I think you are high on the lies told by storm front. You the hell listens to storm front. Oh my god Wikipedia is becomeing a dumping ground for neo-nazis and altra lefties. Since I am the voice of reason. I just have to say one thing. Pleas read my reply to storm front. Here it is :- Okay okay. Lats just get the fatcs right. This is what some nazi said on storm front " Peter Watson (of Warwick, Qld.) has claimed to represent all sorts of groups, and - in forums - likes to pretend he is several people at the same time. He has a habit of claiming to be the President of organisations he has made up on the internet. He says he is 14 (or 16) years old."

Answere:- No I have not supported lotsd of groups. I have only supported the CPW , AWP (formally known as the NCPA). I was never a member of the People's Think Tank Association plus the PTTA never had a president. Plus I have only ever been one person. And that person is Peter Watson. This nazi must have a lot of time on his hands to look for information on me. So I can only come up with only one conclusion and that is simply that this man has no social or sex life. So I can only say on thing "go get a life man and get a women".

Peter was President of the "People's Think Tank Association" based in Warwick, which he says "split from the Communist Party of Australia just recently and they publish the Caller"

Answere:- I was never the president of the PTTA. The PTTA was never ever created. The Caller was a fake news paper. As fare as I know it was only ever printed once by some nazi. Since the PTTA was never realy so how cna it split from the CPA. So many questions and not enough answeres. The man just doesn't have a life.

Peter was "President of the New Communist Party of Australia" and "Chairman of the Central Committee" (this is in his Communist International News)

Answere:- I was the president but not the had of the NCPA. I was the chairman of the central commitee. But as you might know the NCPA and the AWP are the same group. The AWP change its name to NCPA but change it's name back soon after remember you stupid nazi.

Peter was "President of the Communist Party of Warwick"

Answere:- Only for a short number of times in the hsitory fot he party that I was the presidnet of it.

Peter also says: "the New Communist Party of Australia (NCPA) , The People Think Tank Association (PTTA) and the Communist Socialist Workers Front (CSWF) did dissolve and absorbed into the Australia First Party (AFP)".

Answere:- The Communist Socialist Worker's Front never ever was created and never was real. It just goes to show that nazis just makes things up to help them selvs. The PTTA was never real. If you are aksing why I made the CSWF and the PTTA up well it was just for fun.

Peter has also set up the "Australian Worker's Party"

Answere:- This nazi (FairDinkum) is a idiot. I have said this many times that it was started in april was a split from the CPW that changed it's name to NCPA than change it's name back to AWP when it was kicked out fo the AFP. Not only are nazis stupid like FairDinkum but they also don't listen.

I am a Communist and believe in Marxist-Leninism. I am not retarted. Plus I am not troubled person or retarted. I have never said in my life that I was the king of the Communists or the Nazis. Once more the nazis made some thing up to make them selvs look better and sound better than other people. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Peterwats (talk • contribs) 01:58, 19 November 2006 UTC.

Template

Nothing anybody says is going to change the actual status of the images. If they need to be deleted, just delete them and move on. Humiliating somebody who's made an honest mistake should not be the goal here. You suggest that I create a separate template, and then get it approved. Are you above writing a polite (non-template) message that just says "hey, i've tagged the following images for deletion:" then maybe a bulleted list, followed by the exact reason if it happens to be simple enough? I think the work you do would be appreciated a lot more if you took a less confrontational approach. Perhaps this is rhetorical. No need to reply. Just something I wish you would think about. —freak(talk) 01:33, Nov. 22, 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry if using the templates came across as humiliating, and will apologize to the user in question, since at least one editor seemed to interpret it that way. People have posted multiple IfD notification templates to my talk page before and I never felt humiliated. I figured that it was just convenient shorthand to reuse the template rather than crafting a customized message. —Psychonaut 01:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Done; see my comments. —Psychonaut 01:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

What do you think of Template:Idw-multi.... —freak(talk) 03:00, Nov. 22, 2006 (UTC)

I corrected a minor grammatical error, but apart from that the wording looks good. I can't comment on the coding as I haven't designed parameterized templates before. Thanks for doing this. —Psychonaut 15:24, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Your Signature

Psychonaut: I relocated your post on my talk page to the pre-existing Signature section there. Thanks for your comment; remove this note from your talk page if you like. Athænara ✉ 22:05, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Vandal changed your comments

A vandal changed your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Serbophobia (third nomination), making them the exact opposite of your intended meaning. My comments and those of several others were also changed in this fashion. The vandalism was reverted, then apparently restored by User:Bosniak, who then added comments of his own in a seperate edit. I rolled everything back to your last post (which was the last "valid" edit), then copy/pasted B's comment back into place so he can have no cause for complaint. Please help monitor this page if you have time; this type of activity really shouldn't be tolerated. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 23:54, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Serbophobia is not an English word

You stated that Bosniakophobia is not an English word? Well, Serbophobia is also not an English word. It's not located in English dictionary. In the beginning, Serbophobia returned only 2 matches at Google. When Serbs introduced this word to Wikipedia, thanks to thousands of scrapper pages, Google now returns close to 3,000 matches (all copies of Wikipedia content). Serbophobia was also nominated for deletion etc, but nobody deleted it. Bosniakophobia should also not be deleted. Bosniak 07:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Woof.

Hey - just wondering , are you the one who continues to remove the woof as a term in the bear subculture from the woof page? If so, why is this?Todderick 20:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Mladic Karreman

Image:Mladic Karremans Toast.jpg at wiki commons

Thank you for informing me that the above mentioned picture is not free. I found it at en wiki "srebrenica massacre". There it is said that this pic is free. But it is obviously an ap picture. --213.39.210.205 13:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Obvious?

How obvious is it not that the serb nationalists of wikipedia want to hide and deny war crimes, I mean like oh my God they are calling a list POV, you heard me a list!..Intervene with this as quickly as possible, they are on the go again looking out for another srebrenica massacre! Ancient Land of Bosoni

Mergefrom

Your proposal to merge the articles was discussed at lenth at talk:Ukrainian Holocaust. It was decided not to do it because one is the article about the historic event and the other is the article about the term usage. Please attend the article's talk and, if convincing, withdraw your proposal.

Please also note that 83.5 IP and User Luis... are known to be one and the same single purpose account devoted specifically to adding cat:Genocide to the article. This has been discussed at length at the talk and addressed at WP:CAT#Some_general_guidelines #8. The user abuses reverting and has been warned for revert warring and ignoring the talk page many times.

Thanks for your interest to the topic. --Irpen 21:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Ancient Land of Bosoni

First of all, User:Bormalagurski's page was reverted and protected when he added the words "Kosovo is a pert of Serbia" on his user page. He was told that this was done because no political statements are allowed on user pages. Now, User:Ancient Land of Bosoni is not only making political statements, but also claiming that he supports terrorist organizations and is making racist remarks about Serbs and Croats.

This user is a supporter of the Kosovo Liberation Army freedom war of liberating Kosova - supporting a known guerillist terrorist ogranization, provoking nationalist sentiment by calling Kosovo Kosova, the Albanian name for the province (Kosovo is not in Albania, Kosovo is in Serbia)

it was truly a luck to be spared from the Aggression On Bosnia And Herzegovina - claiming that the war in B&H was an aggression is a clear Bosniak nationalist statement... he makes this claim several times

Zvornik had a Bosnian majority, today however it is a town dominated by Serbs. - now, what the hell does this have to do with Wikipedia? He is clearly Serbophobic

the links are biased, the history of bosniaks false, and he is constantly expressing his support for the bosnian muslim terrorist army and his facist hatered of everything Serbian and Croatian.

i could do on analysing his words, but he's not worth my effort. please revert to my version and block this user if possible.

Kind regards, --Svetislav Jovanović 06:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Svetislav Jovanović, I asked you on 30 November to indicate which Wikipedia policy prevents users from making political statements on their user pages. Unless or until you can provide evidence of such a policy, I must consider your removing such political statements from User:Ancient Land of Bosoni to be vandalism. —Psychonaut 13:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Ancient Land of Bosoni

What happened with the case? --PaxEquilibrium 21:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Nothing. It scrolled off the WP:ANI page and got archived. Apparently it was ignored, since I posted a message asking if it had been declined and no admin responded. —Psychonaut 22:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps because the User is no longer active... he had probably chosen by now yet another nickname. What about reposting? --PaxEquilibrium 19:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
He may have chosen another nickname, though I haven't reviewed the posting history of the articles he frequents so I couldn't guess as to what his new account is. If you want to do the detective work and post an updated report, be my guest. —Psychonaut 19:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
The nick has not been changed by any bureaucratic Username Change Request I can find, so my inclination would be he's either left Wikipedia, or is under a newly created account. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge aka "Wiz" (Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality) 20:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Bosniakophobia

It is interesting how Serbs promoted invented word "Serbophobia" on the internet. First they introduced the word to wikipedia, and then thousands of other scrapper sites copied content from wikipedia, and now Google yields thousands of matches for this invented word. Of course, while Bosniaks wanted to do the same, and create an article Bosniakophobia, Serbs quickly jumped and voted "NO!". And of course, attempts to create Bosniakophobia article failed thanks to Serbian activism on wikipedia! They don't use wikipedia for educational, but for their nationalistic/politic purposes. It is sickening to see Serbian propaganda and lies poisoning Wikipedia. Bosniak 06:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)