User talk:SlimVirgin/archive9

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Edit counts

Slim, how are you getting those edit counts for various editors? Jayjg (talk) 16:59, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Kate's tools El_C 17:14, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Thanks; I thought they were broken. Or maybe the link I was using was. Jayjg (talk) 17:28, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
My pleasure. Your edit count is... prohibitive. :) El_C 17:54, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Oliver North

Hello! Could you take a look at the Oliver North article, please? A new account (but clearly old user), Ger6 (talk · contributions), is trying to insert PoV references to North's being a national hero, etc., and has reverted my edits, including many unrelated to his obsession. He's now reverted to his version three times in (approx.) under an hour. I'm about to revert to my version; if he reverts again he's broken the 3RR. because I'm reverting to a different version (the one that I painstakingly copy-edited) I'm safe, but even if I werent't this is getting irritating and time-consuming. Thanks. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:47, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've just worked out that this user is the same as Winston88 (talk · contributions) and Tnuctnurgemetib (talk · contributions); the latter was blocked, I think indefinitely. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:01, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I've left details on the Incidents page. He's now reverted more than three times (another time since your warning). It might be worth mentioning that I didn't write any of the article in question, incidentally, I've only cleaned up some of the English & style, and added and corrected some of the links — but I expect you'd guessed that.
I have to try to save everything I do at least twice, and sometimes more; Wikipedia is being a real pain at the moment. Do you know what the problem is? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:26, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the message — yes, I'd seen that the edit counter was back, but after one look I recoiled in horror... addiction is too weak a word. As for Ger6, I see that others have arrived to defend the article against him, so I can bow out.
Oh, I reported it on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, as I was more concerned with a banned user coming back with a new account. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:54, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Signature

What exact text are you using for the sig? Jayjg (talk) 17:47, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Try [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]]<sup>[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</sup> . Make sure you check the "Raw signatures" box. Jayjg (talk) 18:08, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hi Slim

Thanks for message. Will refrain from reverting but can you ensue that Mel also refrains from injecting his abuse into the Oliver North article which reads like it was written by his worst enemy. It is not encyclopedic as Mel Etitis is writing it. He claims to be an Oxford scholar too, he gets an F from me. Ger6 18:13, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Biweekly special article

Dear Fact and Reference Check member. After many months, the biweekly special article has been brought back! The article we will be referencing is Titan (moon). Please do your best to help out! I'm asking all members to verify at least three facts in the article, and I'd really appreciate it if you could try and help with this. We have about 19 members, so if even 3/4 of us try and fulfil this 'dream', that'll be 45 references! If you need some information on how to use footnotes, take a look at Wikipedia:Footnote3, which has a method of autonumbering footnotes. Unfortunately, they produce brackets around the footnotes, but it seems to be our best alternative until they integrate the footnote feature request code into MediaWiki. You may be interested in voting for the aforementioned feature request. Cheers, Frazzydee|✍ 20:03, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jesus

Oh, sorry about that! I'll be more careful next time. Joyous 02:25, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Vandalism

That is amusing...wow, my first user page vandalism as an administrator! I don't know what they'd think—probably more confused than anything else. On a separate note, there seem to be a lot of "block conflicts" recently. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:51, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Oliver North sockpuppets

Flexing your admin muscles a little? :-) But only a little, I see. Just a reminder, sockpuppets created for the purpose of violating Wikipedia policied can be blocked indefinitely. Jayjg (talk) 23:39, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, it is confusing, but you might want to block all later sockpuppets, leaving the earliest userid as the real userid. Jayjg (talk) 23:53, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Draft

Government-General is the correct form, not Government-general. It has its own article so I don't think it is necessary to describe its boundaries in this article, other than to say it was in central Poland, as is stated. Glad to see you are still working on this. Adam 00:20, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] hello

slim, why can't Paul Moss have his own page?

He is a Malaysian Idol judge so if Simon Cowell can have his own page, why can't Paul Moss? Their differences in fame should not be taken into consideration as Wikipedia policy states so.

I've removed all my votes from the vfd page and added an overview.

[edit] Current debate at Talk:Israel Shahak

If you have a chance, would you mind taking a look at the current debate at Talk:Israel Shahak? Your opinion would be welcome. Jayjg (talk) 19:28, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Shahak is worne-out

That's what the name means in Hebrew. I'm helping! Kinda. Not really. :\ El_C 02:05, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Balliol

Hello Slim. I did delete the image; here's what happened. Five hours or so after you uploaded the image, on Jan 27 User:Wetman replaced the {{fairuse}} tag with a {{copyvio}} tag and the sentence "This image is from http://www.chem.ox.ac.uk/ admissions/colleges2.html" [1] He apparently meant http://www.chem.ox.ac.uk/admissions/colleges2.html, which is indeed where the image comes from, and it's copyright the University. Wetman did not list the image on Wikipedia:Copyright problems, but User:Duk listed the image (since it was tagged) on March 22. It seems that neither Wetman or Duk contacted you about the listing. Today, since it had been listed for over a week without comment, I deleted the image.

I have to say, it's a really borderline fairuse case. It's not of a historical event, and I suppose anyone (with a helicopter and a good camera) could duplicate the picture. On the other hand, the picture is not being sold for profit, and it would not be likely to cost Oxford any lost revenues.

The picture can't be restored directly, but you can re-upload it using the source above if you like. If I can be of any assistance, let me know. All the best, – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 02:07, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] On blocking

Hey Slim, did you see Dbenbenn's comment to our question at WP:AN#Block conflict question? Korath has posted a javascript tool that adds "block" and "blocklog" tabs at the top of user and user talk pages. The "block" tab will pull up the Special:Blockip page with the username already filled in. The "blocklog" tab will pull up that user's block history. I already installed it for my account, and I think they will be extremely helpful. — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:26, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It turns out Korath just whipped this up in response to Dbenbenn's request. Very impressive! This will definitely help cut down on block conflicts, I think. — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:36, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hehe, don't worry; I had never done this type of thing before, either. It's very simple to do in fact, and doesn't require you to do anything to your computer, only on Wikipedia ("install" was a poor choice of words on my part). Oh, you have to be using the (default) <monobook.css skin; if you've changed it in your preferences this won't work. So here's what you do: go to User:Korath/blockip.js (which is linked from User:Korath/Potentially useful stuff in case you want to find it again. Click to edit it, and copy the whole text. Then go to User:SlimVirgin/monobook.js, edit it, and paste the code in there. Save it and you're done! You'll have to do a full reload to clear your browser's cache, using control-shift-R. Otherwise, it'll be there when you restart your browser anyway. Let me know how it works out, OK? Hope this is not too complicated. Oh, and I like the new sig—very convenient to have the talk link there. — Knowledge Seeker দ 23:38, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thank You!

Hi SlimVirgin,

I would like to thank you for your vote of support and confidence for my adminship, it has been much appreciated. If you need anything in future that requires my attention, please do not hesitate to contact me. :)

- Cheers, Mailer Diablo 18:31, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Message

I am 68.107.105.** but I am not or do not know User:SNIyer1 ...sorry, you sent a message but i didnt understand

[edit] Thanks

Hi, Just noticed the barnstar award. Thanks. I should visit my page more often.  :-) --Cberlet 02:44, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] It SHOULD be removed.

All I remember removing was a picture in the humans article. I only removed it because they were nude! I know that cursing and nudity is not acceptable in Wikipedia because it is standard. Whenever I see a bad word or a nude picture, I delete it. I only delete them because they SHOULD be deleted! (posted by User:Flarn2005)

[edit] Thanks

I just wanted to thank you for your help with my IP issue. It won't ever happen again. Sincerely, --TheGrza 01:16, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Show me the vandalism!

Where have I vandalized the article? I am pointing out that the Lavon Affair is terrorism. The Israelis targeted civilians with violence for political purposes. If you disagree, you must make your case. Instead, you just want to censor everything that you disagree with by calling it vandalism. I will request an arbitration for you to help you check your biases. -User:STP

[edit] RfC: Immigration to Israel from Arab lands

Hello Slim, Immigration to Israel from Arab lands is in the RfC section at Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Article content disputes [2] because of someone's "Concerns for neutrality and unreferenced disputed facts. Please review, help out.". Thought you would like to know. Also the above unidentified "User:STP" makes some comments about your views at the talk page of Immigration to Israel from Arab lands. Thanks. IZAK 03:22, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] My adminship

Hi SlimVirgin, Thank you for your support in my nomination. It means a lot to me and I look forward to helping out. - BanyanTree 03:55, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Nation of Islam and anti-Semitism

You wrote the following on my Talk page:

Firebug, if you move or redirect this page again without consensus, you may be blocked for vandalism. Please play by the rules. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:56, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

Which rules am I accused of violating? I am editing in accordance with the instructions given on Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages. Quote: "If someone writes an inferior, merely humorous article, article stub, or outright patent nonsense, don't worry about their feelings. Correct it, add to it, and, if it's a total waste of time, replace it..." This is an extremely marginal article; it's already been up for VfD at least twice, and I'm seriously considering a third nomination. It bothers me that convicted POV-pusher RK seems to have the upper hand in this situation. Firebug 05:07, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Hey Firebug: Stop using User:RK as an excuse for tampering with this serious article. The issue here is not the inconsequential activities of RK or any "convicted" Wikipedian, this is an article about a very serious subject, and it would appear that you are deliberately missing the point here, or "acting dumb" in order to justify supression of the truth about a major anti-Semitic "religious" organization and recognized as such by many people, including many serious editors on Wikipedia. If you want proof, try "deleting" this subject and see what happens, more editors than you care to think about will explain quite clearly why the subject is correct and belongs as an encyclopedic article. IZAK 05:25, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
IZAK, you prove my point. It is your opinion, your POV, that the NOI is anti-Semitic. This is an area on which there is a great deal of disagreement. That is why having an article whose very title implies the truth of such allegations is a NPOV violation in my view. You want the article retained because its title and content advocate your POV, but this is not a valid reason for doing so. It's fine to have a couple of paragraphs in the main NOI article about these accusations, but they don't justify a separate article of their own. BTW, SlimVirgin, I apologize for this situation. I didn't mean to start a debate with other users on your Talk page, I just wanted to know why you were claiming my edits were vandalism. I don't think they meet the definition of vandalism listed on the relevant page and I have explained the justification for them. Firebug 05:31, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Firebug: I would just like to clarify that personally I do not care if the article has the word "allegations" in it or not. If the word "allegations" makes you feel better, and I can't imagine why, then so be it, have it, in spite of all the logical reasons that other editors have explained to you about it. I know it's a sensitive topic, but my point is that asking for a VfD for this article would be nothing short of whitewashing a critical and highly volatile area of Black-Jewish and also Islamic-Jewish relations in America. Now what is "POV" about that? Is NOI really the "innocent good boy scout organization" that you would want the world to believe it is? C'mon, let's get real baby! IZAK 06:08, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I don't "want the world to believe" anything in particular here. I simply feel that it is more encyclopedic to put these allegations in a section of the main NOI article than to spin them off into a POV fork. Since I've spent too much of my time on this one issue, which isn't even of particularly great interest to me, I'm going to take a 24-hour break from it and concentrate on other, less contentious, articles like Nintendo Entertainment System, where I can focus on adding useful and accurate material to the articles and not on arguing POV issues all day long. Firebug 06:31, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Enjoy! I know the feeling (I think)...IZAK 06:43, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:STP now takes us to: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Hi Slim, please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:SlimVirgin and User:IZAK are repeatedly removing the NPOV tag from Lavon Affair article [3] where you should respond to User:STP's crazy allegations. Thanks. IZAK 05:54, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Your Welcome

I voted for you because I feel you'd be a good sysop, (I noted seeing some of your edits in past), also I love your doggy!--Comrade Nick @)---^-- 09:40, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Perhaps a returning problem

I just left the following message on the Talk page of Ta bu shi da yu and then I noticed that he seemed to be leaving. Then I saw your comment and so I have duplicated the following in case it would not have been seen. This is what I posted at Ta bu shi da yu ...

I have just received an annonymous demand for information about an article regarding Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black and I have left a reply on my Talk page that I will be happy to respond, if I know who or what I am responding to. I also left an entry on the User's IP Talk page and this led me to look closer, and that is when I discovered that IP 128.143.218.12 is User:4640orFight about whom you had written Because you have given us so much trouble, I am blocking you permanently. If you have a problem with this, please take it up on the Wikipedia mailing list. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:41, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC). Someone else had added: "sockpuppet of Noah Peters". As IP 128.143.218.12 the User has made several recent edits to pages about various judges. Just to give you a heads-up in case this person is a returning trouble-maker. MPLX/MH 19:45, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tkorrovi vs Psb777

Hi! You once contributed or tried to contribute to artificial consciousness and gave up or were chased away. The edit war happening that time has culminated in a case being brought against me by Tkorrovi. I wondered if you might like to comment at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Tkorrovi_vs._Paul_Beardsell/Evidence. I do not want to lead the witness: all I will say is note I haven't called myself to the witness stand yet and Tkorrovi's evidence, read in context, shows a different picture from the one he attempts to paint. Paul Beardsell 03:39, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Message from IZAK about User:STP

Hi, please see and add your comments if you like at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#User:IZAK [10] regarding my above alert to you about User:STP. Thank you. IZAK 05:14, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vote table on Anti-globalization and Anti-Semitism VfD

Hey SlimVirgin. There is already a firm policy consensus against the use of tally boxes and similar tables, see: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Policy consensus/Regarding tally boxes. Although I won't revert your changes, don't be surprised if someone else removes it entirely. —RaD Man (talk) 06:33, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] anti-globalization and anti-semitism intro rewrite

Your edit is perfect, captures both sides accurately and succinctly. thx. zen master T 08:24, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] ANPR FAC support

Thank you for your support at the ANPR FAC - it's nice to get positive comments when the objector is using their personal ideals and policies (a little frustrating!). Most of all its nice to have people commenting about it as I'm now worried it'll not pass FAC because of too few supporters! Thanks again. violet/riga (t) 09:39, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

Thank you for supporting my adminship — I vow to use my super powers (my mop and bucket, that is) for good not evil. It looks as though I have to set aside a couple days first for reading all the advice and instructions on how to be an admin. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:40, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chamaeleon

My impression is that he's not anti-Semitic, he just believes that some people are over-sensitive or over-defensive on the subject, and he lacks the sensitivity or diplomacy to express that without being offensive. Of course, some people use that sort of view as a screen for their genuine anti-Semitism, but I really don't think that that's what's going on in this case. I might be wrong, but that's how I see it. (Incidentally, I speak as one who's suffered from mild anti-Catholicism and mild anti-Semitism — the former because I was brought up Catholic, the latter because people have often taken me to be Jewish. So far I've avoided being taken to be black or a woman, though when I had very long hair I was the butt of anti-gay jokes at times. All part of life's rich tapestry, I suppose) Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:47, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I see what you mean, but that's really what I was referring to; he's trying to do two things, neither of them well. First, he's trying, via hyperbole, to mock anti-Semitism, and secondly he's attacking those people whom he takes to be over-sensitive about anti-Semitism. The result is, of course, a complete and offensive mess. I don't have to replace 'Jew' with 'black', because I don't deny at all that he's being offensive. I just think that his offensiveness is caused by insensitivity and a short fuse rather than by anti-Semitism. Whichever of us is right, we're presumably agreed that he'd not make a suitable admin, because it's not the cause but the effect that matters here.
Philosophically, ethically, of course, his reasons matter — though even there I'm not saying that he's a good egg, but misunderstood. Rather, I think that it's morally wrong to fly off the handle and say offensive things like that, but I think that it's worse to say such things because one is anti-Semitic; the latter shows a corrupt mind, whereas the former just shows carelessness, insensitivity, lack of self-control, etc. (which can more easily be remedied, if only by time and maturity). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:27, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Well, I'll ask him — but if he is anti-Semitic he's not going to admit it. I should say, too, that I discovered his political views simultaneously with the comments in question; I honestly don't think that I'm being swayed by them (and even his political views are generally too crude and unreflective for me). Still, perhaps you're right about him, and I'll certainly take another look (and, perhaps, contact him — though as I say, I doubt that that will get me very far).
Incidentally, looking at my message below, I didn't express myself very clearly. It's been a long day. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:04, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
My point was just that, as I discovered his political views at the same time as I learnt of the accusations of anti-Semitism, I don't think that my view of the latter were influenced by my having formed a prior view of him. I have left a message asking him, putting it in a neutral way; we'll see if, and how, he responds. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:22, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, it's true that my question was leading, but there's good precedent — the Socrates of Plato's dialogues... But I don't really see the point of asking someone a question to which he's already given an answer; the 'slime' business was a bit of sarcastic hyperbole in response to what he thought was unfair accusations of anti-Semitism. I've seen and heard exactly the same thing on many occasions (I've even done it myself, when an aggressive and slow-witted/hard-of-hearing person took me to be racist; it didn't work then, of course — it hardly ever works. In my case, though, the person was a middle-class white Anglo-Saxon, so at least I wasn't being offensiven and insensitive, just ill advised).

It can't be denied that there are some people, Jewish and non-Jewish, who confuse (or identify) criticism of the Israeli government's policies with anti-Semitism. I've only ever met one, but I've come across them on the Internet. The careless thinker can overreact when he thinks that that's what's happening, even when it's not, and use hyperbole as if to say: 'That's not anti-Semitism, this would be anti-Semitism — by sarcasm to show the other party their mistake. That's what he says he was doing. So far as I can tell, though, this is the only example of anything that even looks like anti-Semitism that anyone's cited; otherwise, it's a straightforward case of his being against Israeli polocy. Well, I'm against Israeli policy in many areas, as are most of my non-Jewish and all of my Jewish friends. It's a political view, not a racist one.

Aside from being offensive and inensitive, the only thing of which I think that he might be guilty is holding the position about which I've asked on his Talk page; that's what his reference to you and others might indicate. He hasn't replied yet. Of course, he's probably seen this discussion, which might well be the reason that he hasn't replied. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:40, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

His answer is on his page; I responded with:
I'm not sure what your objection is. It should be obvious to you that my view was that you're not anti-Semitic, so I'm not trying to trick you into an admission (and besides, you insult my intelligence of you think that I wasn't aware that you'd see the discussion between SLimVirgin and me). If your answer to my question is 'no', what't the harm in giving it here? If I'm not to insult your intelligence, i can only assume that your answer is 'yes'. Feel free to delete this response; that makes no difference to anything. I'm not going to indulge you in private discussions about a public matter. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:47, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
He deleted my message without a response. I still suspect he's merely boorish and arrogant, but he seems unwilling (if you're right, unable) to deny that he holds anti-Semitic views. 12:18, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Anne Frank (dates)

Hello again. With regard to dates in summaries, my preference is (especially in long articles with lengthy summaries) to give the standard {yyyy–yyyy) in the summary, and the full dates in the article. This simplifies the summary, and allows it to do its job — to summarise the fuller information in the article. I've checked over at the MoS Talk page, and there's agreement that my approach is in accordance with the MoS; I'm trying to get it accepted as standard, though there's less chance of that I think. Do you deeply object to it? If so (or even if not) you might like to come over to the discussion and explain your position. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:10, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] I need your URGENT help, please

I originally posted the following on another Admins Talk page only to discover that he is no longer active on Wikipedia. Please read the following because tonight the same annonymous (and previously banned) user has reappeared and carried out a total deletion of material. Since this User appears to have already been banned I sense that I could enter into a revert war if I undo his deletion. The person claims to know the subject and then claims to know that I am wrong. However, anyone who has read any of the references that I have already provided would know that all I am doing is citing existing and well documented sources. I would like your advice because I do not as a rule engage in reverts. I can usually settle any disputes in a relatively friendly matter. Please take a look at the following and at the Hugo Black discussion page - copies of the comments from the same annonymous User were left on my Talk page. This is how it began:

I have just received an annonymous demand for information about an article regarding Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black and I have left a reply on my Talk page that I will be happy to respond, if I know who or what I am responding to. I also left an entry on the User's IP Talk page and this led me to look closer, and that is when I discovered that IP 128.143.218.12 is User:4640orFight about whom you had written Because you have given us so much trouble, I am blocking you permanently. If you have a problem with this, please take it up on the Wikipedia mailing list. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:41, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC). Someone else had added: "sockpuppet of Noah Peters". As IP 128.143.218.12 the User has made several recent edits to pages about various judges. Just to give you a heads-up in case this person is a returning trouble-maker. MPLX/MH 19:45, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please let me know how you wish to deal with this person who by rights should no longer be here. Thanks. MPLX/MH 05:40, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your response to my Talk page. However, this same User has a history that is reflected on the Talk page of User:4640orFight and this is what it says:

User talk:4640orFight

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Revision history
View (previous 50) (next 50) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500).
Legend: (cur) = difference with current version, (last) = difference with preceding version, m = minor edit
(cur) (last) 17:24, 4 Apr 2005 128.143.218.12
(cur) (last) 04:41, 1 Mar 2005 Ta bu shi da yu (Permanent block)
(cur) (last) 04:40, 1 Mar 2005 Ta bu shi da yu (Remove vandalism.)
(cur) (last) 22:27, 1 Feb 2005 Noah Peters
(cur) (last) 04:22, 25 Jan 2005 Raul654 (2nd warning)
(cur) (last) 04:16, 25 Jan 2005 Raul654 (→Welcome to the Wikipedia)
(cur) (last) 16:20, 18 Jan 2005 Sam Spade (Welcome)

This is what the page of 04:41, 1 Mar 2005 Ta bu shi da yu (Permanent block) contained:

[edit] Tagging articles

Please do not tag articles with a template that is up for deletion. Wait until either the template is deleted or survived the deletion process before tagging articles with it. →Raul654 04:16, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 2nd warning

Stop tagging articles with that template. Keep it up and you risk being banned. →Raul654 04:22, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Permanent block

Because you have given us so much trouble, I am blocking you permanently. If you have a problem with this, please take it up on the Wikipedia mailing list. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:41, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
(Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:4640orFight")

So if the User is blocked, then why is the same user allowed to return as "annonymous" (the User's own description) to cause editing havoc? MPLX/MH 17:56, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The problem began with unreasonable editing as I was contributing to an article. The previously banned editor issued me with an ultimatum and when I missed his arbitrary deadline, he simply began hacking out all of the material that he objected to. The entire discussion is on Talk:Hugo Black.

However, he did force me to get my skates on and I have been adding a lot of new material and documenting all of it from well-established, acceptable and qualified sources. I have a lot more to add. What this person's gripe is I don't know. I don't know if he feels that it was "his" article (I got that idea from his comments), or whether he has a right-wing or a left-wing POV and jumped to the conclusion that he did not like whatever it was that I was adding. When I found that I could not discuss matters with this person I decided to find out his history and that is when I stumbled across the fact that he had been blocked as User:4640orFight.

As of this moment all is quiet and I am editing away. (Well, I am taking a break for a bit to rest my eyes and fingers,) then I shall return to complete my contributions to Hugo Black. MPLX/MH 01:13, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)