User talk:Woohookitty/Archive5

Removal of disambig pages

The article "Pepsi Chart" should be a disambig page, as it refers to both a UK show and a "foreign show", as linked to by an article of a TV channel. Although only the UK article exists on Wiki, perhaps the disambig page should be stubbed? User:Vinnielo

Uncategorised good articles

Great work! the database dump is scheduled to finish later today, so hopefully I will be able to update it again soon. Martin 13:53, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey

Look like you're taking some heat over protection (again). I guess this is because people blame the protector for everything that is wrong with both protection itself and the article as protected when really it's the fault of the people who couldn't control themselves in the first place. Tony Sidaway means well; we all know that it can be hard to work out why Random Article has been protected when all you really have to go on is a sentence on WP:PP and a sentence in the log. Maybe take a break and call by RfP when you feel like it. While you're away, WP:AFD/Old could use a hand or two... -Splash^talk 17:55, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I am changing my monobook to autmatic the listing a bit more.Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 18:04, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Learn To live with your misstakes

No no you are wrong, it clearly says you must do those things and I didnt post on the wrong page. Because there are other requests and they have posted on the same page and to avoid any chans what so ever of the item beeing denied I will post on the same pages as the other requests have. You are wrong It is plain andsimple one MUST do what the template says and if one dosent do that one gets denied. It is better to post on more pages then on less.

(Deng 21:17, 4 March 2006 (UTC))

Censorship within NLP

Hello Woohookitty. I am curious to why you are enforcing the censorship of discussion on the factual censorship of facts about NLP (Obscurantism, the sale of dubious products, and censorship by promoters of pseudoscientific therapies). This is very interesting, and is pertinent to the article. It is the view of scientists and independent researchers of NLP. It will inevitably be part of the article.

Any blocking in the workshop seems to me to be quite against the whole reason for discussion.

Perhaps this is a problem with NLP article in general. In which case it should be openly addressed.

Please explain in detail the motivations behind your threat to block discussions concerning the obvious censorship/whitewash of NLP and other pseudosciences as stated by independent researchers of NLP.

Regards HeadleyDown 12:08, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

WP:RFPP

Come on now. You not doing RfPP is like me not editing Doctor Who articles- Both a tragedy and an impossibility :). Do come back to it soon, you're missed :). Cheers, Sean Black ^(talk) 23:38, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

That's okay. But do keep up your good work elsewhere :).--Sean Black ^(talk) 21:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Now yet another admin has accused me of calling someone an idiot because you did it

Syrthiss has accused me of calling someone an idiot i posted on his page and ask him to prove it and show me where it happened but he hasent.

What I want from you is to write on my page that you were wrong in saying that and not what you last did with your reply "what ever"

Also it is clear that you are not neutral if you read on the eastern front talk page you will see that someone posted my view as idotic but you have not punished that person in anyway or even told them anything.

So you might think that you are neutral but you are not and reality and real events have proven that you are not. Because we have the same situation someone called someones views idotic but you did nothing. So you punish me when I say views are idotic but when others say that about my views you do nothing. And then you call yourself neutral. This is clear and absolut evidence that you are not. There are no 2 ways about it. 2 people do the same thing but you only punish one.

(Deng 07:10, 8 March 2006 (UTC))

Again you missunderstand NO ONE CALLED ME AN IDIOT NO ONE CALLED ME AN IDIOT

I can copy it more if you dont understand. He called my views idotic but didnt call me an idiot do you understand the diffrence?

And that is not the important thing the most important thing is that you either show the exact quote where I called someone an idiot or you write a statement saying that you were wrong and that I didnt call someone an idiot just that the statement that person made was idotic.

(Deng 18:42, 8 March 2006 (UTC))

Image Tagging Image:Chico-marx-sm.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Chico-marx-sm.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{GFDL-self}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stan 14:34, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Looking for articles to work on?

Hello there. I'm SuggestBot, a Wikipedia bot that helps new members contribute to Wikipedia. You might like to edit these articles I picked for you based on things you've edited in the past. Check it out -- I hope you find it useful. Also, if you could give some feedback about which suggestions are good and not, and whether you'd be okay having suggestions put directly on your talk page, that would be very helpful. SuggestBot feedback here. Thanks. -- SuggestBot 14:42, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

No worries, and no urging on my part

Hi Woohookitty. I have made alterations to my proposed change. I took my time about it deliberately because the NLP article was moving too fast for me. I believe the pace would be better if it were taken down a cog or two. More work on each suggested change, and less overall changes to work on. I think Katefan0 has done well to clarify that also. Anyway, I don't urge you to make comments on my change as I understand you have plenty on your schedule. Cheers DaveRight 07:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Why wouldnt I believe that you are from USA

Also there has been alot of bad blood between us mostly from me and therfore I have desided to mellow down in my attitude towards you.

Where we go from here is up to you.

(Deng 11:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC))

Well the crapola isnt done with you yet

Since you are the one who locked it and the one who has been watching it for the longest time then you should stick with it to the end and I dont think the end is far away maybe just another few months. But if you arent going to stay then who will take over your place

(Deng 08:35, 10 March 2006 (UTC))

Hello hello

You said "When things are settled, all you do is put a request up at requests for page protection. Any admin can unprotect the page."

To that I say maybe because I want to reach the meditation stage as you first suggested and to get there I just need to do the other thing in the template.

Doing the first thing that the template says has given some results but I dont know if it is enough to end the conflict but who knows maybe people like my test page now who knows. (Deng 18:38, 13 March 2006 (UTC))

Eastern Front (World War II)

Hi Michael - I made a proposal to move things forward a bit, and would appreciate your input on whether you think that is a feasible solution. Thanks a lot. Andreas 08:02, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ixfd64

I have filed an RFC concerning an administrator's reversal of several blocks without discussion. This may be of particular interest to you as a one of the blocks was set by you. Regards. — Mar. 12, '06 [15:12] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

Cleanup taskforce

King_Edward_VI_Grammar_School_(Chelmsford) has been addd to your desk. It needs cleanup and tightening. RJFJR 16:25, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism on article Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact

See these changes [1] and [2]by this user [3].

This user is trying to cause as much trouble as possible by falsifying names and dates. --Constanz - Talk 18:34, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Reply

Alright, I'll make a note to in future, thanks for the early unblock. - 07:14, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

hrmmm

What was your major? Tomer^talk 09:25, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

BTW, I'm glad to see you joined WP:WPWI... there are so many articles attached to that project that janitorial work is practically a full-time job. :-\ Tomer^talk 09:28, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Heh... you can start with Eau Claire Transit :-p Tomer^talk 10:04, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I left a note for User:Micahmn about it here... Tomer^talk 10:08, 15 March 2006 (UT

Pig is again vandalizing Bonnie and Clyde

User talk:Woohookitty Hello, hope you are okay, and our buddy Pig is back under yet another nom de plume vandalizing away, his latest alias is User:Wordlelwabash, and the same attack, on me, that he has posted under 4 other aliases is back at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bonnie_and_Clyde&diff=43828150&oldid=43769350. What do you think drives someone to be so hate filled? I actually feel sorry for him, except that he wastes so many people's time in editing out his crude, viscious attacks. Sad. Anyway, wanted to give an editor his latest name, so it could be added to the blocked list. Thanks!old windy bear 12:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

(cat scratches) THANKS for your help! No, I had not figured out how he did it - just that he created yet another sock and went at it again. I am at a loss as to why he hates me so badly. I truly never did anything except argue with him, and I did point out that if you pretend to be 1,000 other people, folks find it hard to take you seriously. (and of course no one does take him seriously except as a huge waste of time!) Oh well, thanks for the help! No one likes to be mocked for their disabilities, for instance, and he is quite good at that. I find his comments puzzling, on the one hand, he claims I "stole" his article on Bonnie and Clyde, and then immediately after, blames me for rewriting it, and ruining it! Yet he cannot see that doing both is impossible, and actually, I did neither. I, and a group of other people, rewrote the article to reflect the best history available, as to the limited role Bonnie really had. (the fact no jurisdiction had a single warrant on her for a capital offense!) ANYWAY, have a nice day, and thanks! old windy bear 12:33, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

(cat scratches) Just wanted to say thanks again. You have to get tired of vandals. I am at a loss to understand people whose sole purpose in life appears to be either attacking someone else, or attacking this project, which, I honestly believe, has the potential to be the greatest repository of human knowledge in the history of man. Anyway, back to bed! Health woes recently, have to rest. Take care! old windy bear 02:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Pig's newest sock

(cat scratches) Greetings! Just wanted to let you know Pig's latest sock. (User:Shawlfurt)Another editor blocked, but I thought you might want it for the record. he certainly is both vindictive and determined - too bad he cannot channel it towards anything positive!old windy bear 18:48, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Leysau returning as possible sock while blocked

Hi, it seems Leysau is back under sock puppets, "86.143.127.4" and now 86.143.125.242 reverting both the articles that were involved in a dispute under a new IP to last version by you guessed it leysau, removing reliable sources, and disrupting another articles which has been rework by in one case by two other regular editors and myself.

Articles include Gothic Metal, Moi Dix Mois, from yesterday... and Heavy metal music (the article myself and two other users have tried to rework).

It was previously reported by another user here but nothing seems to be getting done about it.[4]

thanks. - Deathrocker 19:04, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Gibraltarian is back - Please help !!

It seems our old friend Gibraltarian is back. This time avoiding setting up any sockpuppet, under the IP address 212.120.226.60. He just reverted this article and tried to erase any mention of his permanent block from his former user page. Any friendly administrator willing to take care of him before this escalates once again? Thanks, Asterion 22:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Deathrocker commiting serial offences within 12 hours of being unblocked

I logged all of Deathrock's offences on a page from my user page, so only myself and Admins can edit it. The link is here, [5]. I urge yew to look into this matter immediatly. 86.143.126.55 21:37, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Pig Again on Bonnie and Clyde

User:Woohookitty Greetings! Hey Buddy, another sock of Pig, User:KleepGlub put up more of his vandalism, and signed my name to it, so can you block this sock too? Thanks! I took the section off, since he signed it under my name, but the history shows this is yet another Pig sock. Take care! old windy bear 11:14, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Woohookitty Greetings! Thanks Buddy, have a good day!old windy bear 11:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Inquiry

Hi Woohookitty, I have a question, is this[6] considered vandalism? Also, you might want to give a warning to this IP address user, since he may be a chronic policy violator.[7] ThanksZmmz 06:11, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

One last question on vandalism; is this also considered vandalism[8], since the section comes with a reference, i.e., Columbia Encyclopedia, and since the user in question knows about the reference, but refuses to accept it? ThanksZmmz 06:24, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Woohookitty, I`m reporting this guy for vandalism, he was warned a couple of times about this revertion[9]. Where should I report him? ThanksZmmz 21:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Woohookitty, despite my good intentioned warnings, the user did it again [pooff][10]. ThanksZmmz 23:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

My Username

Hi. In June last year my username User:Jebus Christ was blocked. I discovered recently that the admin responsible User:Secretlondon was involved in protecting the article relating to the profet mahommed images under the banner of freedom of speach. I personally find this hypocritical.

I've started a petition to get my username back. If you support this can you please sign my petition on my talk page User talk:Jebus Christ.

Thanks Jimididit 12:04, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Leyasu

Since you are an administrator, and have not only intervened in incidents involving User:Leyasu, but also imposed temp blocks on him for violating 1-revert violations (after his first ArbCom case), I feel I should bring this to your attention.

User:Leyasu is currently on Wikipedia:Probation and also personal attack parole and eligible for temp blocks if he violates it (per the ArbCom ruling); he called (and has been calling) various edits "vandalism" which are not actually vandalism, even after he was told by administrators that saying such is a violation of Wikipedia policies and counts as a personal attack.

He called one of my edits "disguised vandalism" [11] As you will see from the edit, it wasn't vandalism or a bad faith edit at all; he has been changing the genres of various bands to a term of his liking, a term which is misleading and not even a separate genre to begin with ("Gothic doom"). With him and I, this all started from the Gothic metal article around 11/05 (as you will see from the revision history, he has completely claimed ownership of this article, reverting out virtually any edit not his.) [12]

What else could be done about him? Trying to work things out peacefully is ancient history, as he doesn't provide any sources for his edits and doesn't engage in civil discussion.

His Wikipedia:Probation ruling also mentioned that an admin has the right to ban him from any article for reasonable cause. I think the Gothic metal page would be a good start. I would appreciate your feedback and response. My message on the Administrator's noticeboard was overlooked. --Danteferno 23:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I surely hope something is done about him very soon. These blocks don't seem to be changing his behavior pattern and it seems he now has a new ArbCase with similar issues to the first one.

All the stuff he said below is untrue. In his first ArbCase he was given Wikipedia:Probation, revert parole and personal attack attack parole; the Arbs only gave my name revert parole. Also, they concluded that it was him who failed to provide any sources for his edits, not I; Talk:Gothic metal (and several other articles) shows myself and others asking him numerous times to provide sources for his edits and making critiques of a lot of questionable information he boldly added to the article;he has rejected feedback and claimed complete ownership of the page. His claim that I was banned from the page is a complete lie.

So where do we go from here? This is far past the point of just being out of hand. --Danteferno 18:58, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Danteferno

Id just like to point out that the incidents in which Danteferno was referring to also put him on the same Arbcom rulings, and he was also banned more times than I for attempting to POV push on articles. He was also warned by several admins and also deleted all warnings by Admins in the same manner as User:Deathrocker. The user also tried to violate WP:CITE and was banned for it, and has ignored sources and been warned by the arb com for claiming ownership of articles and pursuing vendetta's against users.

Basically, most everything he says cuts out things that happened which he doesnt want you to know about. Suggestion, read up on users Woohoo, as Dante is on stricter warnings than i am, and on the same Parole as me. Ley Shade 03:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh i forgot to mention this, Danteferno was barred from the Gothic Metal article by Arbcom. Its ironic how he also missed the 30+ sources, and the 6 different admins, the consensus that was reached 3 times, and the four RFC's that all told him he wasnt allowed to change the Gothic Metal article to suit only his POV, dnying a rewrite by Danteferno. Again, please understand that this user is trying to bar me from the Gothic Metal article because his war of attrition didnt work. I suggest reading the Gothic Metal talk archives for evidence of this. Ley Shade 03:42, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Fair cop, and i didnt mean to imply that. However, Danteferno tried to claim that Gothic-Doom and Gothic Metal where the same things, even though 30+ sources, 4 RFC's and 6 Admins in total reached consensus 3 times that they were different things. It seems a lot alike he is simply trying to attack again a long forgotten war. Im part of the WikiProject Metal which isnt any secret. Danteferno's been changing the genres of bands to Gothic Metal on bands he has openly claimed he likes, and wants to group together.

Basically, banning one of us from the article should require both to be banned. And if i was against anyone editing the article, the only reverts wouldnt be for those that blank the page, advertise bands/websites, inser vulgar or glorifying comments, or otherwise disrupt the article. As there is plenty of people who correct spelling and gramma in many articles ive worked on. Ley Shade 03:52, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Danteferno claims i never provided sources when User:Parasti and admins User:Idonthaveaname and User:Spearhead concluded that i did. Danteferno also was warned by admin Spearhead for Meglomanical Behaviour, which Dante deleted from his talk page.

Danteferno is, as known, a problem user as concluded by several admins, all of which have still got their messages on my talk page. He is also suspected to be a copy of User:Deathrocker, as when one dissapears the other appears, to attack and discredit me on 'exactly' the same articles. Ley Shade 21:43, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Leyasu continually violating ArbCom revert parole, personal attack parole

Thw ArbCom ruling stated User:Leyasu is limited to one revert per page per day, he reverted the Nu metal page twice today [13] ,[14]. In the second edit he once again engaged in personal attacks by calling my edit "vandalism" which obviously was not vandalism, and he has been warned about this several times. He also reverted out and called another user's good faith edit "...made up garbage" [15] Both violations are subject to blocks per the Arbitrators. FYI (!!!!) Thank you. --Danteferno 22:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Danteferno was violating WP:CITE which User Nargos apologised for on the Nu Metal talk page. Danteferno specifally gloated on the fact he had waited too revert mty revert. Danteferno was also warned by WesleyDodds about removing the cited information to which Danteferno simply ignored the warning. This was basically a case of cut and dry by Danteferno, and malicious baiting and Wikilawyering. Danteferno is also under suscpicion for being one and the same as Deathrocker, as a pattern has emerged of when one is blocked, the other appears, editing the same articles, and referring to things that have been done to the other which havent involed that one at all. Ley Shade 01:34, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Categories

I saw that you edited the Categories for Terry McGovern, and I then wondered what the deal is with Categories on Wikipedia. You wouldn't happen to know of a page that you could direct me to that explains how they work, would you?

Esperanza Newsletter, Issue #1

Reach out Reach out is a program aimed at allowing users to bring issues that they have had in Wikipedia to a listening, sympathetic and caring audience: "No one can know how we feel if we do not say. We cannot expect to get understanding if we do not ask for it. No one will dispute that sometimes life's issues are too much for one person. It is fair to say that sometimes Wikipedia's problems fall under the same heading. This is a place where you can bring the bruises that can sometimes be got on this project for attention." Stress Alerts The Stress alerts program aims at identifying users who are stressed, alerting the community of thier stress and works in tandem with the Stressbusters at trying to identify causes of stress and eliminating them. Note from the editor Welcome to this new format of the Esperanza Newsletter, which came about during the last Advisory Council meeting - we hope you like it! The major changes are that each month, right after the Council meeting, this will be sent out and will include two featured programs and a sum up of the meeting. Also, it will be signed by all of the Advisory Council members, not just Celestianpower. Have an Esperanzial end of March, everyone!

The last AC meeting (full log) Future meetings are to be held monthly, not fortnightly as before. Bans and Access level changes (apart from autovoice) in the IRC channel are to be reported at the new log. In the IRC channel, there is going to be only one bot at a time. The charter requires members to have 150 edits and 2 weeks editing. Why this is the case will be clarified. A new Code of Conduct will be drafted by JoanneB and proposed to the Esperanza community. The NPA reform idea is to be dropped officially. Charter ammendments are to be discussed in future, not voted on. The Advisory Council is not going to be proposed to be expanded by the Advisory Council themselves, if others want to propose it, they will listen. Signed... Celestianpower, JoanneB, Titoxd, KnowledgeOfSelf and FireFox 17:47, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Khalistan,Zafarnamah and the revert war

sir, User:Zafarnamah has been reverting the Khalistan article,removing tags, even after me and another user sukh have come to a conclusion that we are not going to edit this article until all points for debate are collected in one place.

sukh:"Points Currently Up For Debate

This may well escalate into a full blown revert war if we're not careful. As such, I recommend that nobody edits the page until each individual point has been addressed. You may not like the current state of the page, but discussion can fix that soon. This is the only way to stop this descending into mayhem!

Also, can I please make sure everyone properly indents their messages and signs them." "There are other points, so please add them to the above list. But this appears to be the only things discussed on the talk page. Please create separate headings for each point so that they can be tackled individually. User:Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 12:09, 27 March 2006 (UTC)"

sir as you have earlier worked on similar topic and you are also working on curbing vandalism ,i would like you to look into this matter and please explain this to user "Zafarnamah" that he should stop vandalism. i have asked him to discuss matter but i have got no reply.

i have reverted his changes to the changes made by sukh.

Anmol.2k4 17:29, 27 March 2006 (UTC) my ip user id is 220 .227.152.109

thanks sir for stopping this war 220.227.152.109 13:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Origin of the Late War

Sorry for leaving the clearup to others (ie you). I am still a novice in the world of wiki, and decided to add this to the copyvio category, but not go the whole hog. Rather than your 'janitor' I am more the bypasser picking up the odd piece of litter. --Yendor1958 11:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Bonnie and Clyde article

User:Woohookitty Hey Buddy, Another nameless user is tearing up the Bonnie and Clyde article, as I posted on teh discussion page - could you put that article under protection from editing from nameless internet addresses? The current article was reached by a huge amount of work and compromise, which Pig keeps trying through various aliases to ruin. Thanks!old windy bear 21:34, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

yo

just wanted to give a shout-out, i haven't been around too much lately but i'm glad you didn't let any troll distract you from your wonderful work here... keep it up and don't get discouraged :) --kizzle 22:12, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Uncategorised good articles

I won't update until the next data dump, probably in a week or 2. Hopefully next time there will only be a few hundred rather than over 1000. Great work on that by the way, nor only did you do 100's, but you did them really well. Martin 09:36, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Help with Rhobite

Hello. I don't know many admins that well but our paths have crossed and I could use your insight. Can you review this note I posted on the admin's noticeboard, the behavior involved, and if you can, help mediate? Thanks. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 07:29, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Not Active Anymore

The Woohooman, what`s up man? What`s going on, you are not as active as before, are you taking a break from Wiki for a while?Zmmz 08:11, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Flavius vanillus was not blocked properly

You apparently forgot to unblock Flavius vanillus before reblocking him, which means that your indefinite block will be overridden by the previous 2-week block. Please unblock and reblock if the indefinite block is to stick. --TML1988 19:49, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Possible Vandalism

Hi, please take another look at this, you did before as well here[16]. This might a case of vandalism, where an entire section that comes with a reference like that of Prof. Frye of Harvard etc., is constantly being erased. I warned the user, but he did it again, and again, see here[17], so I would appreciate if you can warn him yourself.Zmmz 22:24, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello again

Hello I asked to get the page unlocked and it has been unlocked.

Just wanted to say that and Hello (Deng 04:54, 3 April 2006 (UTC))

You're welcome

Not a problem - I dislike fundamentalism & recidivism in any discipline; not certain if I want to pursue this discussion *too* much; I do have a day-job & really don't feel like pulling out old file-boxes from the basement to list sources (I spent about 12-15 years as one of the last of the Sovietologists), but I've got the page on watch. Glad to be of some assistance.Bridesmill 12:51, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Esperanza Newsletter, Issue #2

Barnstar Brigade The Barnstar Brigade is a new program aimed at giving more very deserving yet unappreciated users barnstars. It will officially start on 2006-04-09, but signing up is encouraged before this date: "Here in Wikipedia, there are hundreds of wikipedians whose work and efforts go un-appreciated. One occasionally comes across editors who have thousands of good edits, but because they may not get around as much as others, their contributions and hard work often go un-noticed. Sadly, these editors often leave the project. As Esperanzians, we can help to make people feel appreciated, be it by some kind words or the awarding of a Barnstar. A project the size of Wikipedia has thousands of editors, so there are plenty of people out there who deserve recognition, one just has to find them. The object of this program is not to flood editors with Barnstars, but to seek out people who deserve them, and make them feel appreciated." Stress Alerts The Stress alerts program aims at identifying users who are stressed, alerting the community of thier stress and works in tandem with the Stressbusters at trying to identify causes of stress and eliminating them. Information Welcome to the second issue of the new format Esperanza Newsletter - we hope you still like it! This week, it was delivered diligently by our new dogsbody. MiszaBot (run by Misza13): any execution complaints should go to him. Content comments should be directed at the Esperanza talkpage. Thanks!

The last AC meeting (full log) The next elections: Approval voting as before and, also as before, an previous leadership member can run. Please submit your name for voting in the relevant section of this page. Voting starts on 2006-04-23 and ends on 2006-04-30. There will be three places up for grabs as KnowledgeOfSelf is leaving Wikipedia. Please see the previously linked page for full details. The Code of Conduct is now ready for extensive discussion! Specific comments should go to the Code of Conduct talk page, discussion of having one at all should be directed to the main Esperanza talk page. The current process for accepting proposals for new programs has been deemed fine. All Advisory Council members and the Admin Gen are to endevour to be bold when viewing discussion. If they feel that consensus has been reached, they will act accordingly. A plea from the editor... The propsed programs page is terribly underused! Please leave any comments, good or bad, on the page, to help us determine the membership's thoughts on the ideas there. Signed... Celestianpower, JoanneB, Titoxd, KnowledgeOfSelf and FireFox 17:47, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

User:SuperDeng

Hi, Woohookitty.

I agree that WP:NPA is an important policy and it is a very important duty of an administrator to upheld and monitor the policy. On the other hand 1 week block for a relatively minor personal attack [18] seems to be to excessive, even if this not the first one. I might not have the full information, but in my experience User:SuperDeng appears to be a productive user, maybe with an occasional slip of his tongue. I think his absence might be a sort of loss for the Wiki. Maybe it is possible to somehow shorten his block? Or maybe it is worth to ask for the third opinion of an uninvolved party abakharev 01:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

The one-week block is totally unappropiate and disruptive. I'm gonna rise the issue on WP:ANI. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 06:18, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree, much worse badmouthing users roam Wikipedia driving everyone nuts, and, unlike this editor, contributing no useful content at all. The edit you cited as the reason for block doesn't seem convincing to me. Neither the user has a particularly bad history in the past. Maybe there are other abusive edits that I am unaware of, but I've seen this user in the past. While not a perfect match for an instructor in good manners class, neither he is an especially rude fellow.

While there is no direct provision to justify a week-long block for WP:NPA, the reasonable discretion in blocking is needed and I am not here to argue that such single-handily applied blocks are never appropriate under any circumstances. On the contrary, taking an initiative to block obvious offenders is common and actually alleviates the time wasted at ArbCom, RfC and in general. It just seems to me that the action is out of proportion. I will talk to the user again and would you please think it over. --Irpen 01:53, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Look at his contributions. What you will see is a POV warrior who has been blocked before for his behavior under this user name and also as DengXiaoPing. So this isn't new. Deng's a user who assumes the worst in users, who thinks he is correct 100% of the time despite evidence to the contrary and who uses personal attacks to try to get his way. He's very good at calling people "liars" and telling them that their views are "irrelevant" and he often says "of course you are wrong" to people who disagrees with. If you would like specific diffs, I can get them for you. He has spent the last few days virtually stalking User:Kurt Leyman and reversing virtually every edit made. And as I said, he's been blocked for this behavior before, so this is hardly an isolated incident. I stand by my block. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 03:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I see now that you have quite strict standards in defining what constitutes a PA, and how severe it has to be to become a blockable offence. In the future, if I see POV-pushers who resort to personal attacks, I will know who to contact. I was sick and tired because of some fellows here. I thought that once I don't want to spend time compiling RfC and ArbCom cases, I have to accept that there is little I can do about some some uncivil and abusive POV-pushers short of starting to write-up RfC's using the time I would rather spend writing articles.

Now I know that I should have contacted you. I sure will from now on. Regards, --Irpen 03:31, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Immediately after this block was lifted, user deng resumed the edit war and insults to user Kurt Leyman on the Second Battle of Kharkov page. To my mind this simply demonstrates that the initial block decision was correct.

User deng is *not* a productive contributor; he pushes POV against consensus, very consistently. He drives away much better editors. In the last few weeks he has even attacked administrators. I am lost as to why he is allowed on this site at all. DMorpheus 12:56, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Woohookitty! I am glad that our past dialog hasn't yet reached your archives because I am contacting you now on a very much related issue. Remember I wrote to you some time ago:

I see now that you have quite strict standards in defining what constitutes a PA, and how severe it has to be to become a blockable offence. In the future, if I see POV-pushers who resort to personal attacks, I will know who to contact. I was sick and tired because of some fellows here. I thought that once I don't want to spend time compiling RfC and ArbCom cases, I have to accept that there is little I can do about some some uncivil and abusive POV-pushers short of starting to write-up RfC's using the time I would rather spend writing articles. Now I know that I should have contacted you. I sure will from now on.

To which you responded at my talk:

"No Problem..."

Now, here we go. What do you say to this message left to me by a reknown troll, as per his own talk page, for example [19], [20], [21], as well as many other entries? Please remember that we are dealing with a very experienced user and not some kind of a newbie that needs be told things (besides he has been told and many times). Please act at your discretion on how many weeks are in order here. I will leave a pointer to this message at Dmcdevit's talk since he is familiar with the fellow from his past discussions. Since you gave Deng a whole week for much less an offensive language and Dmcdevit blocked Molobo indef (to which I never objected even though others portrayed me as his defender without my consent), I think I will leave it to you guys handle this "productive editor".

I could have left a message at WP:AN/I but I chose to contact people more or less familiar with the context. I have no objection if either of you choose to not act but repost this to WP:AN/I while I think letting less familiar admins deal with him would just waste anyone's time.

Regards, --Irpen 08:20, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Community Portal Redesign

I noticed that the Community Portal's design was changed, with the edit comment saying that consensus was reached. After reading the discussion, it doesn't seem like any consensus was reached. I started a discussion on the Community Portal talk page — J3ff 16:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Please check out possible copy vio

Since your edit history shows activity in the las t few minutes coulf you look at the probable copy-vio Mark Lindsay (history · last edit)</. It seems to be a classic case. Thanks. -JCarriker 06:23, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Request

On 12 February 2006 you Wikified the article Marine_Park_Race_Attack. The way it was done made article a more concise piece to read, while preserving the subject described. Recently another Wikipedia admin, [User:Will_Beback] , has distorted it and made it incomprehensible here. Could I ask you to provide your input, since he keeps deleting your version of the article. --Ram2006 18:55, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

HELLO

WTF Is Wrong with you... Letting Joseph Cryan's Page Stay and trying to get rid of John Cryan's page... he is not a fucken local politician, he is a state hero for the state of New Jersey you lazy fuck... read some fucking articles on the web about him you cunt.... where is your fucken page over the fucken web... you obveously dont know fucken shit you jew bag... get your fucking head together and when you vote against a page...Please.... Think!!!

Michael Scheuer page

Please take a look at recent edits on this page. I would like to include direct quotes from Scheuer's book showing his view on the link between Osama and Saddam. Scheuer's quotes from TV shows are already on the page and directly conflict with his written words. One editor does not want readers to know what Scheuer has written and seems to be acting purely on POV to censor the article. This editor also gangs up with another editor to game the rules. Please take a look and see if you can mediate the situation. RonCram 14:20, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Annoyances and Matters best abandoned

Late post on below: The post mentioned below to SlimVirgin somehow disappeared unsaved. I can only conjecture I went to start the apology, and left it for Kates page, then got yours... etc.

• I let the matter drop, you hardly need to pile on. See my post to SlimVirgin. The issue is courtesy and lack or respect for anothers effort with no or minimal checks. It's that simple. There has to be some lag time to allow one to clean up open pages. Yes, I could have taken time then to stub in a intro paragraph or so )(e.g. Arsenal of Democracy two nights old.) Enough said. Check my contribs, and contrast with Kates. Then check your own and let me build while your examining your own contribs. I don't make small edits. Period. A little checking or a question would have been appropriate. FrankB 04:26, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
• I can't be accurately be branded as one that doesn't appreciate admins — take the challange of looking on my typical talks with such — but better yet, smile, take a deep breath, and get something important done. This has taught me to grin and bear it no matter how ridiculous an action is by my standards— I've learned to tolerate that to the 'endless editing' herein, I can certainly extend it to admins. But you folks are supposed to meet a higher standard— that's my vexation, she failed it, or someone did without an inquiry or request that I fix it up. So let's all chill. This is as bad as the flamewars I've helped mediate! And I'm not an admin doing that onerous task now and again. Ask SlimVirgin. I'm interupting an apology to answer you. Best regards, FrankB 04:49, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

If I can trouble you for a little feedback

You are cordially invited...
re: Request some 'peer review' (Talkpage sections detailing concerns)] on new article: Arsenal of Democracy This post is being made Friday 14 April 2006 to a double handful (spam?) of admins & editors for some reactions, and advice (Peer Review) on this article, and it's remaining development, as I'd like to put it to bed ASAP. (Drop in's welcome too!) Your advice would be valuable and appreciated. Replies on talk link (above) indicated. Thanks! FrankB 18:14, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

SuperDeng's and Kurt Leyman's revert wars

Hello Woohookitty,

For a few days now, Kurt Leyman and SuperDeng are revert-warrying on the article Battle of Budapest. Kurt keeps on editing the article, and Superdeng reverts it. The problem is that Kurt himself has a quite heavy backlog of doubtful edits and while some of his edits are quite good, some are not.

Since I saw you already dealt with both Kurt and Superdeng earlier, I would like to know if you can I was about to propose to both of them to take their respective edits, sort them (since I wrote the orginal page, I know the subject) and create a new version, asking them to no longer bicker on this page.

You must understand that I'm still quite new on Wikipedia, so I would appreciate some help for dealing with that quite troublesome issue. ^_^

Thanks in advance. grafikm_fr 10:49, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I posted an entry on Admin noticeboard. Thanks for pointing me there (I didn't knew it existed...) grafikm_fr 11:08, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

SuperDeng

Do something about him. He constantly blames me of vandalism, even though I have not done such. See the current version of the Battle of Budapest article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Budapest ....

....and my previus version. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Budapest&oldid=48401057

Kurt Leyman.

Really?

"Unfortunately, I've done all that I can with him. The last time I blocked him, I got a bunch of supporters of his in my ear."

And is this supposed to be fair system then?

Kurt Leyman.

And the fact that Kurt is a sneaky vandal and that almost all of his edits always get reverted by others that dosent matter? (Deng 14:45, 14 April 2006 (UTC))

Why, thank you for those kind words. "his edits always get reverted by others" Mainly by you. Then again, the only one who is stalking me is you. What I find most amusing is that you call moderator a liar.

Kurt.

Skinmeister dilemma

Skinmeister (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked along with his sockpuppet, Rennix (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) in part for using his sockpuppet to register illegitimate votes at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of shock sites (fourth nomination). Once this was discovered, his votes were promptly removed. Since then, he has returned under the IP 86.128.222.36 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and has persisted in repetitavely reinserting his votes into the debate. He has claimed that he User:Rennix is not him, and that it is up to an administrator to determine whether he is a sockpuppetter or not. Since you are the admin who blocked User:Rennix and labed that account as a sockpuppet, could you please have his votes declared invalid, as he will not listen to non-admins (such as myself)? - Conrad Devonshire 15:20, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Hey, sorry for butting in. If he's trying to vote now as an IP, there's really no need to be alarmed -- most administrators do not count very new users or IP voters in the vote tallies, to avoid just such a scenario because the potential for meat/sockpuppetry is so high. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 15:24, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

After looking through this IP's contrib history and the amount of disruption he's caused at the AFD page, I decided to block him for a week, through the close of the AFD. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 17:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Incidents User:Jameswatt

I was wondering if you would comment on the actions that Mel did by reverting RCPatrollers reverts pertaining to User:Jameswatt here[22]

It seems that Mel wont give a fair reason as to revert back to the spam that we tried to remove. --Scott Grayban 17:06, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Happy Spring celebration / Easter (as your preferences and beliefs dictate)

Here's hoping that if the bunny leaves you any beans they're this kind! ++Lar: t/c 15:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

It's bunny time - Happy Easter Woohookitty! (I recommend a tall glass of cold beer to help the chocolate go down). --Alf ^melmac 16 April 2006

Happy Easter! --Misza13 ^{T C} 16:55, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Request

Do you have an IM or email to contact you on? I would like to check something with you about a page you're mentoring, if willing. But to avoid flame issues, would prefer to ask off wikipedia. It's been controversial in the past. Many thanks! FT2 (Talk) 20:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Apologies Kitty! If there's an email on your talk page, I don't see it, nor on the user page. I might be being dense, it has been known! FT2 (Talk) 22:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Skinmeister

I noticed that you decided to block Skinmeister (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for 48 hours for his repetative removal of the advert tag on List of shock sites, but then changed your mind and unblocked him. Some form of disciple needs to be administered, as he has shown no sign of stopping. - Conrad Devonshire 21:39, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to VandalProof!

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Woohookitty/Archive5! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. AmiDaniel (Talk) 05:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Skinmeister

You blocked, then unblocked [23] User:Skinmeister. I've ventured to restore the 48h block, pending your extending it if you want to William M. Connolley 09:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Ha, I misinterpreted your changing mind. not severe enough to mean you thought the block should be *extended* hence the unblock. OK... I'll review the 3RR block and see if any change is warranted William M. Connolley 11:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I am starting to have it....

User SuperDeng doesn't stop stalking me. He reverts almost all of my edits as "vandalism". He seems to thinks that he is the master of the the truth and that other people are wrong. Even if I am wrong in some issue or we have we have disagreement that doesn't make me a vandal.

Kurt.

He's right. There's a series fo pages on which this has been happening over the last few months. Some of the edit wars are downright silly. Your original block decision was right on. DMorpheus 12:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, he's completely right. I'm starting to have more than enough of your sneaky editing. -- Grafikm_fr 18:58, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

fielding (band)

I don't want to make too big a deal out of this (I created the page rather innocently, I'm not a fan of fielding). However, The Jealous Sound really only have one album, since their first was an EP, which was released not released on the Militia Group label. I won't slit my wrists if the fielding page is deleted, but it seems an awfully fine line to draw between two bands on the same label, one of which happens to have released an EP on a different indie label.

• works for me Crazyale 08:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Kath bloom

How was this a speedy candidate? The claim in the article checked out, as mentioned on the talk page. Gazpacho 19:23, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Well...

"Yes, he's completely right."

DMorpheus was refering to SuperDeng.

Kurt.

You are not exactly a saint too :) But it's a good thing you finally accepted to dialog on talk pages :))) ... -- Grafikm_fr 21:07, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Old Skool Esperanzial note

Since this isn't the result of an AC meeting, I have decided to go Old Skool. This note is to remind you that the elections are taking place now and will end at 23:50 UTC on 2006-04-29. Please vote here. Thanks. --Celestianpower ^háblame 20:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Poker2006

Hello, WooHoo. I see that you removed my vandalism report on the Todd Witteles page, with the reasoning that it is 4 days old. I'm sorry that I couldn't catch it sooner than that, but I have a lot on my plate and can't check Wikipedia every day for such matters. The person in question has vandalized this page (and 1 other) 3 times, and has no other contributions to Wikipedia. Please help me understand the policies here. If I don't catch it the same day, the user can just go on and on vandalizing the page? What can I do from my standpoint to stop this page from being repeatedly tampered with by this vandal? Poker2006 04:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

195.225.189.7

Hi there, this is regarding 195.225.189.7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) — I was wondering how you can tell it's a dynamic IP. I did a few whois checks, [24] but it looks to me like a static, shared address. Feezo (Talk) 09:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Friendofthehose block

Thanks. Tonywalton  | Talk 09:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Razz?

Hey buddy, I noticed your favourite poker game is Razz. That is so funny. Is it true or are you just being silly? I know a guy who likes Razz, he is into sadomasochism as well. Granted, I have never played for more than 15 minutes, but that's about all the time you need to realise what a explitave removed game it is! Anyway, congrats if it's true... :-)

On a slightly different note, how can I join Wikiproject poker? Thanks, - Abscissa 13:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

You see what only want to see

"refuse to follow our most basic policies is a mystery to me" "You go to Requests for investigation and it's basically ignored"

Some Ctrl c-ing ctrl v-ing just for you

From here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_investigation/Archives/2006/04

• 213.243.185.219 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) who is Kurt Leyman (talk · contribs)]] Has been committing frequent acts of sneaky vandalism in numerous ww2 articles for a long period of time. The acts are removeing paragraphs of importans and altering of sourced figures without useing a source.

These are some of the articles

Battle of kursk He removes 300 thousand casulites for the german side wihtout useing any source which can be seen here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Kursk&diff=47294776&oldid=47142802

Winter war he alters the figures and removes 2 key paragraphs which are Finnish President Urho Kekkonen stated in September 1963, "When now, after more than 20 years, we put ourselves in the position of the Soviet Union, then in light of Hitler's invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941, the concern that the USSR had, and should have had, in relation to its safety at the end of the 1930's becomes understandable." AND It was recently confirmed in a study by Finnish historian Lasse Laaksonen that the Finnish army was on the verge of total collapse when the armistice was signed.[25] It is speculated that since Stalin had practically wiped out his intelligence apparatus in Finland during the purges, he was not aware that continuing the war for only a week longer would have led to the inevitable and total defeat of the Finnish army. Despite the heroic resistance of the Finns, the Soviets would have inevitably won through attrition. This last part has been sourced and can easily be varified here http://www.hs.fi/english/article/1101978837065

Battle of Berlin he alters sourced figures without stateing any source which can be seen here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Berlin&diff=47120722&oldid=46740056

He has done the same in many article if there is any doubt that this is sneaky vandalism then I can provide more articles where he has done the same thing, altered sourced figures without himself proveding any source. (Deng 09:49, 8 April 2006 (UTC))

• • Lack of citing sources and strong lack of discussion about topics. It looks like this IP would rather argue through edit summaries than use a Talk page. (See contribs and User Talk page.) It also appears that the editor is becoming frustrated with having to keep changing "500,000" German casualities to "200,000" without citing a source.
  • Blockable offences:
    • 3RR on Battle of Kursk for these three edits: [26], [27], and [28].
    • The registered account was blocked for 3 hours on 4/6/06 by WoohooKitty for personal attacks and reckless editing. This block is also for 3RR on the 1st of April.
  • I am going to keep investigating and watching this IP and registered user for any other violations. Due to the age of some of the violations, a temporary block that would have been placed would already have expired. All future violations should be easy to prove and placed on WP:AIAV, otherwise placed here as a note to this investigation. --<fon

Look at this part

All future violations should be easy to prove and placed on WP:AIAV

You miss the whole story and still no reply on the topic. You try to divert the focus from my reasoning you totaly avoid my reasoing becuase you can not debate it so you try and shift focus. The only thing I see is the lack of reply on the issue and a poor attempt to try and shift the light to something else. So as long as you avoid debating the issue at hand and try to talk about everything else except the issue then why should I reply to your reasoning which I have done every single time when you totaly avoid everything I say. (Deng 15:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC))

You are not forbidden to respond on my talk page. And as for you being denied on AIAV, we have this, this, this, this, this, this. That's more than 2. It's 4 if you include just Kurt. 6 if you include your previous dispute with ksenon.

Is that the best you can do you are truely grasping at straws. Any person who looks in will see that the first 2 are just one post where I forgot to sign number 3 has nothing to do with anything the stalin pic had been changed to a commical version post 4 and 5 are the same one removed by Katefan0 as anyone can see I have explained how it is not content despute and number 6 is the second seperate post on the vandal page by me. So you have proved my point I only made 2 seperate posts on the vandal page (Deng 15:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC))

Thank you

It is nice that you chose to bring up old issues that have been discussed or mentioned before.

"without himself proveding any source"

Same could be said about you. I could also mention a thing or two about your stalking and reverting virtually everything as vandalism.

Kurt.

I give sources it is you who never give any sources you have only given a source and It proved you wrong do you remember the crew number? (Deng 17:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC))

Well, well...

"do you remember the crew number"

As a matter of fact I do. Did you happen to notice that the figure was the max crew number. And I am not going to start a debate about that here.

Kurt.

Because you are wrong your own source proved you wrong and let us not forget the fact that you go around in as many ww2 articles as you can find and change numbers (Deng 17:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC))

Certainly....

You did not answer my question. If you can read you would notice that the figure was the max crew number that the site gives. And as I said, I do not wish (and I will not) start a debate about this here.

Kurt.

You vandalize every page you see You change numbers as you see fit and often others revert you or have you forgoten that others revert you? (Deng 17:23, 25 April 2006 (UTC))

Hmm...

"the others revert you"

Mainly you, and same can be said about you.

Kurt.

Mainly me oh really?

Go here who reverted you

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_K%C3%B6nigsberg&diff=49789878&oldid=49787477

And here who reverted you here

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Cape_Palos&action=history

And who reverted you here

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Operation_Barbarossa&diff=47332427&oldid=47293314

(Deng 17:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC))

....

"Mainly me oh really?"

Yes. Those are a very small part of the total percent.

Kurt.

Do you really want me to post every single time others have reverted you (Deng 17:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC))

Please take this to WP:RFC or WP:RFAr before I consider blocking you both for polluting talk pages and articles all over Wikipedia with your ceaseless bickering. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 18:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Pictures + Sandbox

Hey, I noticed you're also an admin... so you get to help me :-) Is there a page that I can use as a tutorial for uploading pictures, and/or and explination of how pictures work on Wikipedia... I want to upload some pictures and play around in the sandbox but I don't want the pictures to be kept permanantly. Thanks for your help, - Abscissa 22:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC) (And P.S., maybe we can play some online poker sometime?? would it not be fun to get a bunch of wiki poker ppl and have a little tourney... :-) )

Havent I proven that it is not a despute resolution?

If you would just look at the facts for a second and Ignore your own personal feelings

This is what someone posted on his talk page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:213.243.185.219

"You have editted a number of pages, changing numbers, deleting text, adding other text/numbers, without providing any references for your information, please do not do this, also, do not delete text from talk pages."

Havent I proved without a shadow of a doubt that this and this alone is what he does. How much more proof is required to verify that sentance how many more links must I make isnt 55 enough to prove it?

"You have editted a number of pages, changing numbers, deleting text, adding other text/numbers, without providing any references for your information, please do not do this, also, do not delete text from talk pages"

That is what I have been saying all the time and I have even proved with direct links so that anyone can see that he has been doing this

"You have editted a number of pages, changing numbers, deleting text, adding other text/numbers, without providing any references for your information, please do not do this, also, do not delete text from talk pages"

How can that be content despute tell me, how is that content despute? What I want to know is if you agree with what the person on his talk page says or not, and then it would really make my day if you could explain how doing what the person on the talk paged said is not vandalism but content despute. (Deng 00:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC))

Hey hey (from the simpsons) :D I read your posts here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive90#SuperDeng.27s_and_Kurt_Leyman.27s_revert_wars

I think that it explains everything

The difference is, Kurt have been found guilty of sneaky vandalism. I've read Deng's talkpage, and I see nothing as serious on his own. So IMHO, the problem is not symetric. grafikm_fr 15:17, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

So now with all of this can you please please please tell me how please what please he please is please doing please is please not please vandalism please but please content please despute please. Note the many pleases :D (Deng 00:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC))

I went through proper channels

I posted here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_investigation/Archives/2006/04

Got told to post here WP:AIAV if it happens again

I post on the WP:AIAV because it has happened again and get my feet kicked out from under me. Now if I post on another page then either you or Katefan0 or DMorpheus will come and say well deng is that and that and everything he says is wrong. I have gone through proper channels and when I did I was proven right it is vandalism but you 3 have prevented me to go through proper channles and if I go through it again well then one of you will come in just as you have now and try and shift focus again from the issue which is and let me quote some one else "editted a number of pages, changing numbers, deleting text, adding other text/numbers, without providing any references" I cant even talk to an admin who handles vandalism without one of you 3 comeing in and messing everything up

So kurt can keep on "editted a number of pages, changing numbers, deleting text, adding other text/numbers, without providing any references" because you 3 will always attack me and divert attention from the issue which is and i am quoteing someone else now "editted a number of pages, changing numbers, deleting text, adding other text/numbers, without providing any references"

(Deng 06:17, 26 April 2006 (UTC))

The "leading" is not the problem the personal attacks and the efforts to discredit me are (Deng 07:14, 26 April 2006 (UTC))

If your last comment is true then you do the last mile

I have done so much if you want to help me then ctrl C Ctrl V my post from long term vandalism +talk page+ complex vandalism + Wikipedia:Administratorsnoticeboard/Incident to where ever it belongs and put the music it to it. (Deng 07:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC))

216.47.187.221

FYI, I blocked for 48 hours 1 min after you did on that IP, and I changed to the 48 hour block since that IP was blocked 8 times before, including once for a week (by Nlu with the summary:Persistent vandalism, shared IP, but no prior collateral damage). Let me know if you have a problem with my doing that, and I'll undo it. Thanks, Prodego ^talk 12:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

fromthewolfstar

Hi Woohookitty, Thanks. I am unblocked. I was just getting reasy to let people know that. thanks again Maggiethewolfstar 04:25, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Me behave? That wouldn't be much fun now would it. Thanks woohookitty. Tell me you don't have cats. thewolfstar 04:53, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

cute cat. I have one now Taiba. Used to have 6 of them at once, and a dog Jasper Finnegan Jones E. Bones. thewolfstar 05:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I counted one time I came up with 19 or 20 cats all together. I know one woman who has a house and a cellar full of them because everyone keeps dropping them off at her house and she's too soft hearted to refuse them. I just moved back to my old house in the mountains after my moter died. I don't think I'll be getting any more cats for a while because I like to feed the birds and guess who likes to eat them? And the chipmunks and the mice and the voles........... thewolfstar 05:14, 28 April 2006 (UTC) I meant over the years 19 cats. thewolfstar 05:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

block for wrong cause

You blocked User:82.36.48.237 for the wrong reason. Moving the cartoons behind a link is not vandalism, instead it's a content dispute. Raphael1 09:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

• That user was seriously in violation of 3RR and also merited a good blocking due to disruptive editing. It's not a content issue when the general consensus is to have the images displayed as they are and individuals continually alter this against the consensus. User:Raphael1 has filed numerous 3RR violations against individuals who have upheld the consensus by reverting to versions of the article where the cartoons are properly displayed and every one of his reports has been refuted. In the future please do not heed the words of User:Raphael1 in this regard. Thanks! Netscott 09:21, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

If a "consensus" is disputed by a lot of people, it might be a hint, that the "consensus" is actually diminishing. 3RR should apply to all sides of a content dispute, see also WP:NBD. Raphael1 09:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

• I realize that outwardly it doesn't appear as though there's not a violation but this is due to the fact that 82.36.48.237 (talk • contribs) is a sockpuppet of Nausate (talk • contribs) who is a sockpuppet of Vkasdg (talk • contribs). See this and this to gain a bit of perspective. Regardless, at this point removing the images (particularly repetitively is disruptive) and you were 100% correct to block. So, thanks for that assistance on your part on my vandal report. :-) Netscott 09:39, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

• First you suspected all editors who put the cartoons behind a link to be my sockpuppets, and after you've been proven wrong, you suspect all those editors to be sockpuppets of User:Vkasdg. I'd suggest, that you file checkuser requests to prove your accusations. Raphael1 09:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I still have my doubts about you Raphael1 particularly when one of the sockpuppets was User:Raphael101 (who was permanently blocked by User:Naconkantari for being a sockpuppet of you). With the name Raphael101, who can blame Naconkantari? I've already demonstrated that the overwhelming majority of disruptive edits have come from User:Vkasdg's sockpuppets, this is merely a continuing pattern. Netscott 09:52, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

• I'll follow your advice Woohookitty in the future about the noticeboards. Thanks! Netscott 09:52, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Help!

Hi, Woohookitty. Maybe you remember me. I'm ecemaml, an es.wikipedia administrator who used to contribute in Gibraltar related pages. Being an administrator is a hard task as you know. I'm currently suffering the attacks of some rogue users that has tried to impersonate me. Here in en:, one of such users has created an account with the name ecemaml. (with a dot at the end). Apart from vandalizing my own user page, s/he is impersonating me with offensive fascist-like editions. Is that possible to block him? Is there anything I can do? Best regards and many thanks in advance. --Ecemaml 09:00, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Woohookitty, thank you very much for your fast answers. It's a pleasure to talk to you. I'm currently talking with an steward in order to know whether it's possible to locate the rogue user. I've got a candidate (a typical POV editor that is causing problems in es:, but I've got to investigate). This is the most unpleasant part of being an administrator. For sure! Many thanks again --Ecemaml 09:39, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

read this edit summary

and tell me this isn't who I think it is--172.168.193.41 01:18, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Old windy Bear

Woohookitty, can you look at the Bonnie and Clyde peer review page and see if you can remove the comments oldwindybear made concerning me? It's not about me.... really. I've bascily been suckered into this wrestling match with windybear, that I can see now has been going on for six months, with other editors. I want out. I made my edit, and he went ape-over-asshole nuts. Could you keep an eye on the peer review page and encourage any feedback it gets? I would like to see other editors (we are all editors, right...) prune this croftpiece into a featured article. But I can see that may be a tall order. Thanks³cubed. Mytwocents 23:38, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I have lined out my comment on my take on how old windy bear responded to my last edit of the Bonnie and Clyde page. It was a colorful way to describe the shouting rants he directed towards me regarding the B&C and Frank Hamer pages.. All I ever want to achieve on Wikipedia is NPOV . Anything else said or implied is simply untrue.

Mytwocents 20:33, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't continue your dispute here please. I'm not really involved nor do I want to be. --Woohookitty^(meow) 03:34, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Woohookitty, I apologize for seeking to involve you in the dispute with Mytwocents. I wanted to note this because contrary to his labeling me, on one of the two editors I respect most - you and Kate - talk page, as an "ape-over-asshole nut" I just went to the mediation page and defended him, and asked that a complaint that another contributor filed on him be dropped. I have honestly tried to follow policy, and you know, have followed your direction faithfully. No, as he called me,"ape-over-asshole nut" would have gone to the mediation page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation and defended him as I have. I just wanted you to have the whole story, because I respect you and your work, as you know, a great deal, and I wanted you to have the whole story, which mislabels me. I think what you see on the mediation page shows what kind of contributor I am - one interested not in personal feuds but in good articles I contribute a great deal of time too. I know you have a life - me too. To prepare for rewriting Bonnie and Clyde I read every book, and I mean every book, on them, watched the A & E documentary by america's foremost depression era historian, and honestly tried to do good work. Anyway, since I was badly spoken of here, on an editor's page I greatly admire, I wanted you to have the truth. Again, sorry for seeking to involve you - but it has all worked out, which is probably what you hoped would happen, that all would act as adults, edit and seek consensus, which has occurred, despite one person's efforts to avoid it by any means he could find. Fortunately, other people would not allow it. old windy bear 11:58, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

A landslide victory for The JPS (aka RFA thanks)

Hey, Woohookitty/Archive5, thank you so much for your vote and comments in my RfA, which passed with an overwhelming consensus of 95/2/2. I was very surprised and flattered that the community has entrusted me with these lovely new toys. I ripped open the box and started playing with them as soon as I got them, and I've already had the pleasure of deleting random nonsense/attacks/copyvios tonight. If I ever do anything wrong, or can help in some way, please feel free to drop me a line on my talk page, and I will do my best to correct my mistake, or whatever... Now, to that bottle of wine waiting for me... The JPS talk to me 22:23, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Heya

Hi Woohoo... are you aware that Wikitruth.info have defamed you? In particular they wrote the following:

He is responsible for defaming a high-school teacher. [29]

The edit they are talking about is when you reverted the diff. Evidently their editors don't know how to use Wikipedia. Ironic that.

David Gerard apparently mirrored the site. It would be highly ironic, however, if they deleted their own revisions. - Ta bu shi da yu 17:02, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it sucks. If Jimbo can stop deleted revisions from "leaking" (if that is indeed what is happening, I think it is but can never be sure) then I'm going to ignore them. The only reason we are paying any attention to them is because they are republishing defamation, apparently taken from our site. Once we sort out that issue, it will be nice to let them slip into oblivion so we can get back to the important task of building an encyclopedia. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:57, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I find your lack of faith... disturbing.

Indulge. :)

Dear Woohookitty/Archive5,

Thanks for voting on my RFA! I appreciate your comments and constructive criticism, for every bit helps me become a better Wikipedian. I've started working on the things you brought up, and I hope that next time, things run better; who knows, maybe one day we'll be basking on the shore of Admintopia together. Thanks and cheers, _-M o P-_ 22:06, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Long time

Yeah, I've been distracted lately, you may notice by the lateness of this reply. Oh, I'm coping, though of course the number of edits to my talk page has skrocketted recently, and I'm getting al sorts of emails all the time, and I was apparently just called a fascist on some Czech blogger's website (see AN). So yeah, distracted a lot, and lots of end-of-semester work as well, but I'll survive. In fact, I may have a forced wikibreak of limited internet access soon, which might do me good. :) How've you been? I hope the NLP stuff has calmed down and you aren't approaching burnout. Hopefully you've been able to get back to the quiet janitorial work you and I are good at. :-) Dmcdevit·t 03:07, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

If you have any interest in Template:MLB

please join the current discussion at Template talk:MLB. As a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball your opinion is particularly valued. Thanks. 66.167.139.143 08:32, 4 May 2006 (UTC).

Talk Page Vandalism

Please do not remove content from Wikipedia; it is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.

Do not vandalize my talk page by removing information from it. Strothra 13:53, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Talk Page Vandalism 2

Please stop. If you continue to remove content from pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

Do not vandalize my talk page my removing information from it. Tbeatty 16:15, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

• talk about re-runs, I think I'll just sit back and watch the fireworks--172.161.32.103 21:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you.

Thanks for watching my talk page. — nathanrdotcom ^{(T • C • W)} 01:13, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Request to reopen Rex071404 (talk · contribs) RfAr #4

In light of recent sockpuppeting by Rex071404 (talk · contribs) a/k/a/ Merecat (talk · contribs) to violate the permanent ban on his editing of John Kerry, I've requested the fourth and most recent 'Rex' RfAr be reopened and if appropriate, the remedies re-defined and re-applied. As a prior petitioner of that RfAr, I'm notifying you here. Thank you. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 23:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Nazilinguistic programming

Hello Woohookitty. I have the some of the Nazilinguistic programming lit that Hans was referring to. eg [[30]] I understand it is an objectionable aspect of the subject, but I did read in the NPOV policy pages that doesn't make it excludable. Regards HeadleyDown 06:34, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Esperanza Newsletter, Issue #3

Administrator Coaching The Administrator Coaching program is a program aimed at preparing Wikipedians for Adminship or helping them understand the intricacies of Wikipedia better. Recently, changes have been made to the requirements of coachees. Please review them before requesting this service. This would be something like the Welcoming Committee, but for people who have figured out the basics of editing articles; they're not newcomers any more, but they might want some help in learning new roles. Some might like suggestions about how to learn vandal patrol, or mentoring on taking an article to featured status, or guidance with a proposal they plan to make at the Village Pump, for example. In this way, Esperanza would help keep hope alive for Wikipedia because we would always be grooming the next generation of admins. Stressbusters The Stressbusters are a subset of Esperanza aiming to investigate the causes of stress. New eyes on the situation are always welcome! Note from the editor As always, MiszaBot handled this delivery. Thank you! Also, congratulations go to Pschemp, Titoxd and Freakofnurture for being elected in the last elections! An Esperanzial May to all of the readership!

The last AC meeting (full log) Posting logs of the Esperanza IRC channel are explicitly banned anywhere. Violation of this rule results in deletion and a ban from the channel. A disclaimer is going to be added to the Esperanza main page. We are humans and, as such, are imperfect. Various revisions have been made to the Code of Conduct. Please see them, as the proposal is ready to be ratified by the community and enacted. All members will members to have to re-confirm their membership after accepting the Code of Conduct. Referendums are to be held on whether terms of AC members should be lengthened and whether we should abolish votes full stop. Admin Coaching reform is agreed upon. Signed... Celestianpower, JoanneB, Titoxd, Pschemp and Freakofnurture 20:29, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Reply (NLP dispute tags)

No problem. I'll just choose a few of the most pressing. ---=-C-=- 07:08, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Image Copyright - How Do I Set It After Upload?

Help! After uploading File:LSST CAMERA scale 250x188.jpg , I apparently forgot to set the Copyright status to copyrighted-unrestricted use. (Well, I did it right on the first image I uploaded today.) Now I don't see how to go back and reset the copyright status. Can you tell me how to do it? Thanks, Simesa 19:19, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Another question

The page INEL has vanished - not even a redirect to Idaho National Laboratory (the new name - it used to be Idaho National Engineering Laboratory). Before I make a new redirect, could you check to see what happened to the old one? Thanks, Simesa 20:13, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Bounty

I noticed you fleshed out the article on Bounty paper towels a long long time ago. I just thought you might like to know that there is an article on Rosie the Waitress, the character Nancy Walker played. Right now, the commercial article is longer than the article on Bounty towels itself! Regards, Mike H. That's hot 06:04, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually no 3rr

Look deeper and you will see that it was not 3rr

And if you care to read the discuss page about Stalin you will see many more details. And I have discussed it you can see it on the talk page. And I have discussed it so much and in such detail that you can not say that I have not discussed it. Look at the talk page look at the history look at all the edits on the talk page and you will see. What is beyond me is how you could not see that. And I aspect a full apology from your side. You say that I havent discussed it but I could post my posts here so that you can see how much I have discussed about it. And you fail to see such many things That I was the one who added alot of refrences but I placed the "slah" sign wrong so the other person removed all my refrences so then I temporary placed these signs "()" whilst readin about the new reference system. I want a full apology from your side.(Deng 18:54, 21 May 2006 (UTC))

LOOK DEEPER

• Who placed the references next to the industry?
• Why was there a need to place references on the stalin page next to line A hard-won victory in World War II against fascism (the Great Patriotic War, 1941–45) was made possible in part through the capacity for production that was the outcome of industrialization. Perhaps some one keept removeing that line and perhaps someone needed to place references to support that line. Who placed the refernces there, who keept on removeing that line?
• What is the current dispute about? Could it be these two extremly diffrent versions? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Josef_Stalin&diff=53941071&oldid=53933175
• How did the version look before
• Has this been discussed on the talk page, has an explination been given on the talk page?
• And so on and so forth

(Deng 19:09, 21 May 2006 (UTC))

The most amusing/sad thing is that you have become everything you believe I am. You directly asume bad faith when ever I do anything. You do not look in to the details and you fail to see the big picture. You could look into the details in this Stalin matter but we both know that you wont because it is more simple to ignore the facts and the details and reality. I could post and explain the whole matte of Stalin but it would take several hours to make such an explination and even more time to read and to understand it. And since you so love to ignore the details and only look at the surface of things and not in depth. Posting a full explination to all of my posts would be pointless since you even refuse to admit that I have discussed the matter in detail in on the stalin discussion page. (Deng 21:36, 21 May 2006 (UTC))

And that with all that said is still feel no hostility against you even if you hate me more then Lill Donny Rumsfeld hates hippies. Because I know you are a good guy and try to do your best. But your failure is in your lack of ability/will/endurance to see the details. So no matter how hard you try attack me it wont matter since you are not someone who I would call a vandal and therefore I can never be angry with you or the things you believe, because you simply lack the bigger picture. (Deng 21:53, 21 May 2006 (UTC))

A biased action?

Can you give me any rationale that you blocked me from editing but not Azate? Mokotok 21:39, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I am saddened to see that you unblocked Azate, claiming that: 'he was reverting vandalism from a new user'. I would like to ask you block him again to complete 24 hours as you did to me. The evidence of his vandalism and reverts are clear form the talk page and history page for anyone who is able to read. Mokotok 22:42, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Woohookitty, just to chime in here. You did well to block User:Mokotok particularly in regards to the repetitive removal of the {{NPOV}} tag. Thanks for your assistance in that regard. Netscott 23:02, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Woohookitty, I would like to say that I ceratinly disagree with your action regarding unblocking one editor earlier than th other. Protecting and blocking may be fine. I can say both deserved the block (Azate for vandalism+3rr violation, Mokotok for 3rr violation). But I cannot see why you unblocked one not both earlier. It seems to be unbalanced to me. Please see my explanations on the talk page and be more cautious about User:Azate's actions. I hope my comments do not hurt your feelings, I do not want to be mean to you. Light&Truth 02:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry to say that but I also do not feel comfortable about your action. It is clear from the history that User:Azate is disregarding all warnings about posting a template to the article, trying to hide some facts, categorising the page solely based on his POV, etc. While both users violated some rules, User:Azate's violations are much more serious in nature. I think it was not good to unblock one party after the block. Resid Gulerdem 07:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Unprotection request

Could you please unprotect Fethullah Gulen article. I am planning to make some modifications. Thanks. Resid Gulerdem 07:47, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Probably it's better to wait until this[31] sockpuppet issue is dealt with? Azate 23:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Juggernaut protection

Whoops - thanks for the tip, will get it added there. --Oscarthecat 06:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Katefan0

It looks like Katefan0 has left wikipedia, because of this It's a sad day for wikipedia. I went to Jimbo Wales talk page and stated my thoughts there, but I just previewed it, I didn't save it. I don't know if there's anything he could or would do about it. We've lost a dedicated admin. I hope she comes back, despite this attack from an outside source. Mytwocents 18:41, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Points-paying

Care to elaborate on why you don't think it should be merged? "I don't think it should be" generally doesn't cut it. Recury 01:06, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

No, but they're given points per race and then at the end of a season the points are totalled up and whoever has the most wins. Recury 03:47, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

It is certainly a different concept than what is discussed in the current Score (gaming) article, but I think it would make sense include a section there that discusses standings, etc. as those are ways of keeping score as well, just over a longer period of time. Recury 04:14, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

If you don't mind I'm going to put the merge tag back on the article to see if we can get anyone elses opinion. I don't feel real comfortable using the whole "argue with people until they get bored and give up" technique that Wikipedia sort of requires at times. Recury 16:33, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

NLP

Hi, I noticed an ingoing dispute over the validity of NLP. I have personally been witness to individuals applying NLP with increased sex in interpersonal attraction of the opposite sex. I used qualatitive research and group interviewed four individuals who explained to me the processes of 'negging' and 'anchoring' and 'indicators of interest'. I may be a casual Wikipedian reader but If pushed I want to assert the validity of NLP as I know it works. Of course, as my interviews were unstructured and I haven't yet completed my Psychology course and still ongoing there is considerable delay before I take this further. Instead, I offer the advice that any strong member on the NLP page to review the claims Ross Jeffries has made. [www.seduction.gr] has video torrents outlining his seduction technique in full detail, and also videos where the techniques have been used publicly with success. Thanks for hearing me out --213.106.102.178 10:25, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Gibraltarian now targeting Falkland Islands

It seems nowadays Gibraltarian is targeting the article Falkland Islands. The article was protected by Katefan0 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) twice, the most recent time with an instruction "please contact me before unprotecting...", but both times, Voice_of_All (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) later unprotected the article unilaterally, saying "been long enough...", but that's not true - unprotection caused G to reactivate both times, and now that Katefan0 has announced her departure, I'd like you to monitor this page and if necessary, protect the page and tell VoA to contact you before unprotecting. 00:29, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

He is targeting San Roque, Cádiz too. Please help if you can. Thanks, E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 23:59, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

And Algeciras too. This guy is a neverending nightmare! E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 20:57, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

IP addresses used by banned user Gibraltarian

Please do something about this. He is the same the same articles twice a day and taking up the time of many wikipedians. Could you please semi-protect the Articles Algeciras and San Roque. Thank you.

• 212.120.226.45
• 212.120.226.248
• 212.120.225.13
• 212.120.224.80
• 212.120.224.159
• 212.120.225.86
• 212.120.225.215
• 212.120.224.36
• 212.120.237.110
• 212.120.236.198
• 212.120.236.253
• 212.120.224.134
• 212.120.224.126
• 212.120.224.229
• 212.120.225.125
• 212.120.227.109
• 195.244.200.39
• 212.120.224.218
• 212.120.237.180

request

Wow, they got kate too? She was the best. I can't imagine why anyone would be angry with her. With my paranoia meter at full now, would you zap this and this? Lord knows there are enough nuts out there whom I've crossed. I'm a nobody, but who needs a stalker? Thanks much for all. Derex 17:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll just re-create it. It has a unique fingerprint in the history. Such that a BD, or possibly a Rex (though I think he's probably harmless), could track me down with a little effort. Thanks again, and sorry about Kate. Brandt is crowing about it over on Wikipedia Review. Sick bastard. Derex 18:29, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

User SuperDeng

I request that you do something again'st him. He doesn't stop stalking me. He reverts practically EVERYTHING I do as vandalism and does not provide a reason for doing so. He just says things like "sneaky vandalism, spreading of misinformation".

See history of the Second Battle of the Atlantic. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_Battle_of_the_Atlantic&action=history I had requested the editors to talk about the term "Decisive Allied Victory" at the talk page. Everything was going OK until Deng came and started editing while the debate was still going on.

Similiar thing happened at the Polish September Campaing article e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Polish_September_Campaign&action=history

You are free to look at my contributions.

Kurt.

VoABot2

I am about to make VoABot2, which will watch pages where arbcom or several admins block reccuring banned users. I'll just enter the IP range data, and it will watch the history and autorevert anyone from that range. It is kind of like protection against specific IPs for a specific article. What do you think of this idea? If it makes you uneasy, then I'll just do it for arbcomed users.Voice-of-All^Talk 21:11, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it may be easier to just have VoABot do those.Voice-of-All^Talk 21:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Behave myself?

If the merits of your arguments against me are so powerful, why don't you get me unblocked, so I can discuss them with ArbComm? 216.239.38.136 04:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Could you remove 216.239.38.136's comments from Merecat's userpage? I believe it doesn't belong there. DGX 05:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, fair enough. I guess if he wants to get them unblocked hard enough, I guess he'll attract an admins attention and eventually wear himself out from failing so often. ;-) But seriously, I don't think he should be unblocked. DGX 05:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

That must have been a hellish night, eh? Yeah, I would agree with that block, he hasn't been doing us any favors tonight. Cheers! DGX 05:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Wish I had IRC working on my computer, it sounds interesting. And oh, I do know. ;-) I used to have an account on Wikipedia before. I ended up in a conflict with a user that lasted over 6 months. It would still be ongoing if I hadn't abandoned the account. Don't worry, I wasn't one of the bad ones ;-) Darn shame I left my old account though, never had a single block to my name. Oh well.. DGX 05:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

PS. sorry if the above comment freaked you out any. DGX 05:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Know what you mean about the past chances. I tried to give my personal vandal the benefit of the doubt and actually agreed to allow him to stay on Wikipedia but then he turned around and vandalized my userpage for no reason whatsoever. Needless to say, I don't have to worry about him anymore. ;-) Nope, not a bad guy, actually I think I racked up somewhere around your total number of edits before I left. DGX 06:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think I was somewhere around 21,000 when I left. :s Thats why it so hard to leave my past account. I was so well known as my past name and all my hard work went down the gutter. Oh well, it was worth it to leave my vandal behind. DGX 06:23, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's going on 3:00 a.m. where I am, so I' going off now. Good chatting with you! Cheers! DGX 06:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Privacy Protection

Hi Woohookitty. I heard about Kate. Well, at the very least for selfish reasons, I just hope we get someone as helpful as her for the NLP and related articles. Certainly from the responses I see, she's contributed a great deal to Wikipedia. I understand her leaving though. In fact I reckon there should be very clear cautionary statements for anyone wishing to administer or edit. Threats of legal action, violence, abuse or even simple verbal threats both explicit an implied are hard to cope with. Anonymity is always quite transparent when networks are concerned. Anyway, do you know of anything being done about this kind of issue within Wikipedia? My wife is a legal expert and a barrister, and I have some legal knowledge also concerning privacy laws and regs. I'd like to see if I can contribute something. Bookmain 09:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

page protection

Thanks Woohookitty, for protecting Kosovo page. It's been a center of attacks by several sockpuppets, meatpuppets, anonymous IP's changing all the time, NPOV pushers, etc. It would be maybe nice to keep it so for some time. 13:44, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Woohookitty. I bet we are all missing Katefan now... I feel really bad as I was about to give her a barnstar for her superb job in the page protection noticeboard. Nonetheless, I emailed her with my support, the sad thing is that she has done no wrong and that guy who is stalking her can't even understand wikipedia rules: he seems to think she was endorsing some sort of whitewashing, when the only thing she was doing was protecting an article. On a different matter, to the user who left the comment above, it was me who requested the protection. I have been keeping a close eye on the article for a while. I would like to remind you that the finality of the Protection Status is to stop edit wars and reach consensus, not to endorse any given version. It would make me very glad to see some constructive efforts by all parties involved in that sense. Regards, E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 20:39, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Yo, Asterion, I just thanked the guy. "The user who left the comment above", is that how you address me from now on? Since you did request this protection, then thank you, too. Gosh..ilir_pz 00:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Woohookitty, I'm a Swedish user with keen interest in European issues (and a MSc in European Studies). My aim is for Wikipedia articles to be well written, concise and NPOV (including free of selective 'evidence', emotional language, etc). Sadly, a lot of the articles on topics related to ex Yugoslavia don't fill these criteria but rather tend to serve as arenas for pushing various political agendas and victimization.

A recent example of this is the Kosovo article where a number of Kosovar Albanians don't like to hear that Kosovo is still formally considered a province of Serbia, although administered by the UN.

In order to break the deadlock I have suggested the wording used by the US Council on Foreign Relations on Kosovo [32] (the website is quite good overall). It says, under the heading "What is Kosovo's political status?":

"Since NATO forces occupied Kosovo in 1999, the province has been a protectorate of the United Nations, with broad administrative responsibility under a mission called UNMIK. Technically, Kosovo remains a province of Serbia."

A January 2006 US Congressional Research Service special report [33] also states this saying (page 2):

"UNSC Resolution 1244 provides little insight into how the status issue should be resolved, saying only that it should be determined by an unspecified “political process.” However, the resolution explicitly confirms the territorial integrity of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (consisting of Serbia and neighboring Montenegro) and calls for “substantial autonomy” for Kosovo “within the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.” The FRY was dissolved in February 2003, replaced with a looser “state union” entitled “Serbia and Montenegro.” Kosovars believe that the dissolution of the FRY invalidates this portion of UNSC Resolution 1244, while the international community views Kosovo as part of Serbia." (my emphasis added).

Now, since UNSCR 1244 confirmed the territorial integrity of what was then Yugoslavia and the UN, EU Commission, UNMIK, US government and all other describe Kosovo as a province of Serbia shouldn't also Wikipedia do this regardless of the political ambitions of various Kosovar Albanian users?

I don't see how you can compromise on the facts. Osli73 13:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The compromise can be found in the resolution 1244, where it is clearly stated that Kosovo will be formally considered as a part of FRY, and the UN interim admin there will lead the process to define its status (hint: there is no status until then). Osli73, referring to non-partisan organisations resarch groups and several old maps is trying to impose his NPOV on an article, and at the same time refusing to quote the documents with the highest importance in Kosovo, 1244 Resolution and Kosovo's [www.unmikonline.org/constframework.htm Constitutional Framework]. Ignoring these two important documents, and instead referring to sites of convenience to NPOV push is not appreciated in Wikipedia. Furthermore, no need to accuse Kosovar Albanian wikipedians, for inisting in these internationally recognized, and most important documents valid in Kosovo as of now. Regards, ilir_pz 13:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Please don't do this on my talk page. Thanks. --Woohookitty^(meow) 13:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Ilir,

1. Yes, UNSCR 1244 confirms the territorial integrity of FRY (now SCG, soon only Serbia).

2. According to the Constitution of SCG Kosovo is a province of Serbia. Ergo, Kosovo is a province of Serbia.

3. The EU, UN, the US and all countries in Europe (except maybe Albania) obviously se Kosovo as province of Serbia, as shown by my references.

4. When respected media organizations like the BBC present Kosovo to its readers (see my previous link) it defines Kosovo as a province of Serbia.

5. Albanian nationalists (and you do define yourself as one on your user page) prefer to see Kosovo as a province of FRY with unclear legal status since it would imply that Serbia has no legal claim on Kosovo. Osli73 14:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Bravo

You did the right thing DMorpheus 15:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

And again. DMorpheus 14:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly. I admire your willingness to take this on since I know there was a lot of disagreement last time you tried to manage this. I don't know why he is allowed to edit at all; IMHO he should be banned. He contributes very little value, and disrupts constantly. DMorpheus 14:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

My speedies

Thanks :) Betacommand 07:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Randy121

Sorry I should've made it more clear, he was blocked before for three hours then returned and proceeded to do the same thing. I didn't warn him again because I thought the previous blocking would've been sufficent. This was asking to block the user for the new nonsense that happened since the last block. --- Lid 09:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Gibraltarian and semi-protection

Hi, saw you semi-protected Falkland Islands and was wondering if you'd mind doing the same to Algeciras and San Roque, Cádiz. The recent edit histories are almost entirely reverts of User:Gibraltarian's edits. Cheers, — ceejayoz ^talk 16:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes this is absolutely necessary...--Burgas00 21:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

SuperDeng again.

This isn't going anywhere. You can ban me and him again if you wish, but that doesn't solve the problem. He says that practically everything I do is vandalism. It seems that he is too lazy to do research. E.g.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Battle_of_the_Atlantic

SuperDeng: "rv, the removeing of vital information"

What I altered was this.

"Vice Admiral Karl Dönitz, commander of German U-boats (BdU, 1935-1943), Commander-in-Chief of the German Navy, 1943-1945; at war's end, Hitler's successor as Führer."

Dönitz was only Reichspräsident, his title was not Führer (but it seems that Deng doesn't realise even this. I have said this many times and he could find it out by simply looking at Karl Dönitz article), and I truly don't think that information regarding his presidency is relevant in the article.

My form.

"Karl Dönitz, commander of the German U-boat fleet between 1935 and 1943, and Commander-in-Chief of the German Navy from January 1943 to May 1945."

Another good example is the Winter War article (see it yourself). I suggested that people would discus about the change I did in the battle box at the talk page, but he rejected this offer and reverted, his only justification apparently being the RFC. That is no justification, you have said this yourself.

I would like to solve this "peacefully", I truly would.

Kurt.

Others revert you on many articles for example the battle of the netherlands and winter war which proves that you are a vandal. You remove sourced numbers and alter real facts. And you insert only vandalism into articles for example finland is not part of scandinavia therefore it can not have a scandinavian winter, but it is part of the north and can have a nordic winter. Respond to your rfc and explain your acts of mass vandalism instead of vandalizing even more pages. And respond in the proper field and in a coherent fashion (Deng 09:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC))

If you wanna solve this peacefully, stop making edits like this. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 10:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello

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 pages. Happy editing!

--Bhadani 14:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Gibraltar

Hello Woohookitty,

User Ecemaml has told us to ask you for help with a problem me and a number of users, including Ecemaml, have had with the article on Gibraltar. Perhaps you could provide some form of arbitration. Over the past few months, user Gibnews has imposed his POV version of the article on the vast majority of users. Other opinions backed with acceptable sources are dismissed by him as pro-Spanish. He also seems to convey a sense of irrational hostility towards Spain and Spaniards which are reflected in his edits. If you check the history of the talk page, he has driven away a number of users over the past few months. He is now engaged in disputes regarding articles on "San Roque" and "Algeciras" (cities close to the British territory of Gibraltar.) Permanently banned user "Gibraltarian" has recently returned to support him as an unregistered user signing as "yanito". On the other side of the debate, the only user showing a (Pro Spanish POV) tendentious and aggressive behaviour is User Ismael76, although he seems to have got bored of the issue and left the debate.

I was wondering if you could give us some advice on what we should do with Gibnews and the article in general. It is sad when users appropriate articles as their own to express their POVs.

Please have a look at the following:

[Talk page 1] [Talk page 2] [Edits to Gibraltar Article] [User contributions by Gibnews]

Thanks alot

Ok but can u at leas block User: Gibraltarian who is permanently banned and is now continuing to vandalise a number of pages with IP address 195.244.194.29 . I think even User: Gibnews (whith whom I often argue) will agree to this.

Cheers!--Burgas00 23:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Burgas00.

Hello I have seen you have semi protected San Roque. You have forgotten to semiprotect Algeciras which is still being vandalised. I also recommend you Semi-protect Gibraltar, after consulting with Gibnews.

RFCU Abuse

When you get a chance I would appreciate it if you can see Wikipedia:Requests_for_CheckUser#User:Rex071404.2FUser:Merecat The user User:RyanFreisling has added my name to the RFCU without citing any evidence other then my support for user Merecat, same for 2 other IP's added by User:Nescio which is in violation of RFCU policy. User:RyanFreisling is using it as an intimidation tactic to get me to drop support for a look into merecat/rex's case. Using RFCU for this purpose is obviously a punishable offense. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 15:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

The above user has now resorted to personal attacks in violation of WP:PA [34] --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 15:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I have added his name because of his 1) absolute refusal to answer the question 'Are you Rex' and 2) because his behavior consists almost entirely of Merecat-related disputes, in which he carries on the lies of his prior self. This is a valid CU, and this user needs to cease his disruptive and evasive behavior. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 16:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup Taskforce: Bill James

I have added the entry for Bill James to your desk because you have listed an interest in baseball. Please check your desk and either accept or pass (let me know if you'd like me to reassigned it). Thank you. RJFJR 19:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Checkuser complete

You made a request for a Checkuser to be run, which has now been completed. See Wikipedia:Requests for CheckUser#Completed_requests for the results. the wub "?!" 22:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Way to be strong

in the face of this. [35]. Apparently it was a bad joke. Very bad. Take care. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 05:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Probably more of an in joke. --Woohookitty^(meow) 05:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Deng

I am happy, you have reconsidered. OK, I will try to control Deng, hope Irpen and Tyres will help us too. Maybe we can swap, you try to mentor User:AlexPU and I will try my chances with Deng. Both will return in a month. abakharev 05:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Is it possible user:RabbitHead = user:SuperDeng? There is a similar style, same words spelled wrong in the same way, same sources cited in similar fashion. Similar edit comments and rapid-fire reverts in the Georgy Zhukov article. Rabbithead was created a few days after Deng's block started. Just a possibility. Remember user:Victory_Day? DMorpheus 03:17, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• I am sorry for questioning your guess with the matter. You were right and I was wrong. I have doubled the block time to Deng (hope it works this time) and permablocked the RabbitHead. abakharev 13:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

VoABot

I think I finally fixed the 2nd heading bug that caused the "unprotection" requests section to not show correctly for some reason (due to a single extra character). It can be fixed with null edits, and the bot is programmed to make them (if nothing changes then there will be no edit) just in case. Keep an eye out though would you? I watch it while I can, though I am tired now.

Also, do you have any suggestions for it? Thanks.Voice-of-All^Talk 06:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

711 hours, lol

In case you weren't aware, you can also specify an exact expiration time, such as "23:59 August 19, 2009" or "next Wednesday", etc., which would most likely be easier than breaking out the calculator, it's pretty user-friendly in that respect. — Jun. 6, '06 [10:22] <freak|talk>

As for block conflicts, the system should, at a minimum, warn you like it does for an edit conflict, or when you attempt to move one page on top of another. Something like, "User:$1 is already blocked by User:$2, with an expiry time of $3 (reason: $4)" with choices: "change block duration to [whatever you had in mind]" and "cancel", or something... — Jun. 6, '06 [10:33] <freak|talk>

Helen Wu

I feel awful being "worse than Woohookitty". Isn't it interesting how many cynics there are just in one block. FT2 (Talk) 15:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Añoranza

I think this user might have been unfairly blocked. Zerofault's made an incident report since he didn't like Anoranza's edits.[36] Then Zerofault's makes another incident report and then an admin blocks Anoranza for a week apparently because he questioned the motives of an admin by saying: "You block me because you cannot count up to three, in spite of being involved in the conflict yourself, then your threaten me instead of apologizing, and now you complain about incivility? I'd call that barefaced."[37] The drastic action taken against Anoranza strikes me as particularly odd given that not long ago Nomen Nescio made an incident report about Zerofault's altering his comments and it was ignored.[38] I could be wrong though. -- Mr. Tibbs 04:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Read the incident report, Nescio is stating I would not let him edit his own comments, not that I edited them. He was attempting to edit comments on the talk page that I already replied to. Even he admits that much, I dont understand why you are carrying this on. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 10:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Me either since I'm not going to get involved. So take it somewhere else please. --Woohookitty^(meow) 10:51, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

User:UNFORGIVEN

There's one on his account here. In wikimedia he's uploaded two [39] - and both of those are definately fake copyright to me. - Lid 05:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

RFCU

Your checkuser on Hylas Chung is complete. Thatcher131 16:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Protection of Kosovo (A minor template change)

I noticed that you protected the article, Kosovo so I figured I would ask you this request. I was hoping that you could remove the template "more" from the article, and replace it with template "morepolitics" as the previous template has been moved to the latter as the new name better describes the actual function of the template. Thanks for the help.--SomeStranger^(t|c) 11:25, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

ILike2BeAnonymous

Is he really blocked? And why did his user page end up on that version? This edit seemed quite civil: [40]. Stephen B Streater 22:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Well ... yeah; and what the hell happened to my user page? There was some stuff there, I seem to remember, and now it's gone. Not that it was of any real import, and I can understand someone screwing up and blocking the wrong person, but any chance it'll get restored? ==ILike2BeAnonymous 05:20, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Regarding restoring my userpage: yes, duh! I forgot there was history. Still, I think it would have been nice if you had restored it, since you (mistakenly) messed it up. No big deal, but it would have been nice. ==ILike2BeAnonymous 06:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Kurt

Thanks a lot for your block. BTW, I do not understand that is going on, why he is able to work after been blocked. I never have had this situation before. Thanks again.

Please sometime check the situation with Kurt vs. Deng. I had some E-mail exchanges with Deng and I am afraid I could subconsciously took Deng's side in his battle instead of modifying his behavior abakharev 12:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for the advise. You are right in every word you wrote. abakharev 13:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey Kitty

How's the Razz playin' goin? Do you play it often... I wouldn't even know where to look for a live game or an online game!! :-)

Anyway I was hoping you could help out and protect a page... (not sure if this is the proper way to ask, I just know you're an admin)... the page Serial Box if you go through the edit history, you will see that a link to a site called "codez4mac.com" is constantly reinsterted... CONSTANTLY... I can't even count the number of times. The site codez4mac appears to be some sort of discusison forum (which requires registration, hence contrary to link policy) and a co-sysop is trying to get traffic to the site. (He told me that when I tried to warn once of his puppets once).

Please protect, or advise.

- Abscissa 05:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Block of Kurt Leyman

According to SPUI, who posted a comment to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Kurt Leyman, 193.185.55.253 (talk · contribs) is a company proxy and the block is preventing another editor from editing. Whois says it's registered to ABB_Ltd. in Finland. I don't know how to prove/disprove that it is a shared IP, I merely bring this to your attention. Cheers. Thatcher131 11:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Sock puppett

How do I report a sock puppett? Pls respond on my page. Thanks. Rlevse 15:37, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Email

You have email.

Please let me know if it doesn't arrive.
Otherwise if it does, email reply please.

All the best,
FT2

24.118.64.237

The admin vandal page indicates you blocked this user, but it doesn't show up on his talk page. Thanks for blocking him. I reported with VP, but someone beat me to it. Thanks. Rlevse 10:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup taskforce

I added 4Kids Entertainment to your deak. I need an opinion on its status and you listed wikification as a major interest. Someone may have tried to close the entry and erred in the procedure. First thing to do is decide if it needs more work and second is to figure out what it needs. Let me know if you'd like to be reassigned to someone else. Did you get a chance to look at the Bill James article also on your desk? If it's outside your interests let me know and I'll reassign it. Thank you. RJFJR 16:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. RJFJR 13:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Current Status on WP:AIV

Hi Woohookitty, before I post a request for a permanent link to the blocklist on AIV, could you please share with me your objection to the idea? Cheers, Netsnipe 09:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC).

Zero?

I saw you delisted Zero from the vandal page. However, since my comments were deleted (today, yesterday, the day before) and he apparently feels free to keep deleting them I am curious as to what exactly I can do. Could you at least explain to him this is not acceptable or can editors freely delete other editors comments?Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 10:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

NLP articles

I thought it was best to drop a note and ensure there weren't any crossed wires on this area. I know you said you plan to let it go, but I would hate to see you feel it was left in a mess, so I'd like to discuss a cleanup approach briefly if you are willing, to ensure it's left in a better state.

Background

The heart of the problem (as I see it) is this: We know there is an "opposing view" and some people speak strongly, some less strong. The problem is, that those who have presented that opposinbg view, also grossly misrepresented it. This included forged cites and credentials, wilful misreadings, selecting the negatives from each research rather than the balanced conclusions, and so on. So although we know there is likely to be a strong negative view, we don't know exactly the details, nor how representative it truly is. I attempted to get around this by research, and that took about 2 weeks solid. But most of what I found was weak-supportive. The negative reports were often from out-of-context sources. In other words, editorials, skeptical writings, and so on. Scientific research seemed to be much more weak-positive, weak-supportive, or "needs more research", and end user reports (from credible bodies not associated with NLP) were almost entirely positive.

Approach to editing articles

I've attempted to move out bulk material to sub-articles where appropriate. Thus History of NLP is one, and Principles of NLP another. By agreement, I left Comaze and GregA completely alone to clean up presuppositions, fundamentals, principles etc, to synchronize all citations, and to summarize only in the main article with a {{main|Principles of NLP}} section link. This was to avoid "too many cooks" issues. I have avoided being involved in that area since, but I agree, what should be a simple cleanup has not happened. So you are right. I'll take a look at that area myself.

The "list of users" has a history to it. It would usually have been simply footnoted as support for the statement "NLP is widely used by credible bodies", and as a footnote would have been fine. But when research showing that it is widely treated as credible, is repeatedly deleted or trashed by Vandal & Co. as being faked, it seemed the obvious solution to list the large number of known credible users and let readers form their own decision. That may not be typical. Usually you can cite a few examples and the subject is agreed. In this case, that wasn't working, and only a list of many many credible users seemed to stand a chance of sorting out the meatpuppet vandalism. Right or wrong, that was the purpose of that article.

Articles where re-checking the "skeptic view" has been less of an issue, such as History of NLP, Representational systems (NLP), Submodality (NLP) etc, which I worked on, have been notably less problematic. I still need to complete adding relevant cites to the latter though.

NLP and science I still need the "opposing view" for. I've asked, and I don't have any answers. I know there is one, what I don't know is if those researchers quoted by HeadleyDown & Co. were actually quoted accurately or representatively. Others I checked were not. I have asked for source material to verify for myself their findings, but have not had luck yet. Can you suggest how to frame the opposing view in these circumstances? I'd appreciate advice.

Summary

Hope this is okay for you. I'm sorry if you feel frustrated. if it's any use, I do too. Given access to the actual research papers cited by HD I could finish it up easily. But all I have is what HD says they said... and on various occasions HD was untruthful about research findings of valid research. So I have a problem whether or not to trust apparently valid citical cites, when added. Nonetheless, give me till the weekend, I'll try to get that article more into shape. If you are agreeable, I will probably prioritize as follows:

1. Clean up the fundamentals and presuppositions area (today/tomorrow). Target for a presentable cleanup, Wednesday /Thursday this week. This section at least should be easy (doesn't need much further research) and it's a big mess, which is why I suggest to hit it first.
2. Have another go at researching the "opposing cites" on NLP, progress note for you and discussion by the end of the week (but may slip a day or 2 if problematic).
3. NLP and Science rough filling in of missing sections over the weekend.

Let me know if this is okay, and any other suggestions? Thanks. FT2 ^{(Talk | email | contribs)} 11:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Re your note -- that makes sense... I'm sorry. I really am. I'll try to do what i can for it. But i think it needs aggressive patrolling and that's not really the wiki spirit we tend to prefer. * hugs * and thanks for your efforts and see you on other articles... :) FT2 ^{(Talk | email | contribs)} 17:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome :-)

Howdy! Thanks for the warm welcome, I really appreciate it. We are working on making stubsensor even more accurate with AI. With the new system, the more the stubs get cleaned up, the more accurate stubsensor will be. On top of that, we are changing things in the software to make it more accurate too. You are always a pleasure to work with! Take care, Triddle 18:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: 207.200.116

Apparently User:207.200.116.0/24 is not blocked yet and I am still reverting vandal coming from that range --WinHunter ^(talk) 08:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. The block works like a charm. ^_^ --WinHunter ^(talk) 08:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Biff loman9

Sorry to have seen the vandalism that this user committed on your user page. Save the thought that this user's age may find them in a the classification of minors, I think an indef block may soon be in order. Take it easy. Netscott 14:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead and make the block as long as you want. I can create as many new accounts as I need. This one has served it's purpose. You're too dumb to be able to stop me. 70.49.240.232 16:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Welp, looks like it's time to hit the indef. button there. If you do you may want to post a block review on WP:AN or WP:ANI. Take it easy. Netscott 23:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Gibraltarian

Yeah, I think we all do =). --Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 12:11, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

This is weird. 212.120.237.213 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) appears to be a reincarnation of our friend (see [41], posted shortly after I blocked 212.120.227.115 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)). However, that IP is outside the range stated at Wikipedia:Long_term_abuse#Blocked_User:Gibraltarian (212.120.224.0 - 212.120.231.255). Not sure what that means, but thought you might be interested. --Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 15:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Help please on Mark Simone page

Several anon editors with extensive vandalism histories (152.163.100.197 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 68.161.56.50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)) have tried to turn the Mark Simone page into an extensive PR campaign for the article subject. I've removed the PR/Press Release info, explained the reasons why in the Talk Page and article summaries, and the vandals are reverting at will. The same vandals are blanking the Talk page. Judging by their own Talk pages, they have a history of ignoring vandalism warnings. Any help you can provide would be greatly appreciated. Eleemosynary 15:47, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I've emailed Danny (Jimmy Wales' assistant) about the matter. One of the Talk Page blankers was blocked yesterday, and it's been pretty quiet since then. I really appreciate your help. Eleemosynary 16:05, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Eleemosynary has a very apparent vendetta against Simone and has a history of posting false information on the page. I won't list them all, but the most recent example is her claim that the "What A Week" feature is not a debate show. It is literally that and obvious to any viewer, is billed as that, and described as that in all of the promos for it. Anyone who has seen it, knows that it is quite obviously a debate. If Eleemosynary is claiming they have never seen it, then they had no right to change it's description. If they are admitting they have seen it, then clearly they are lying when they claim it is not a debate.

A short Esperanzial update

As you may have gathered, discussions have been raging for about a week on the Esperanza talk page as to the future direction of Esperanza. Some of these are still ongoing and warrant more input (such as the idea to scrap the members list altogether). However, some decisions have been made and the charter has hence been amended. See what happened. Basically, the whole leadership has had a reshuffle, so please review the new, improved charter.

As a result, we are electing 4 people this month. They will replace JoanneB and Pschemp and form a new tranche A, serving until December. Elections will begin on 2006-07-02 and last until 2006-07-09. If you wish to run for a Council position, add your name to the list before 2006-07-02. For more details, see Wikipedia:Esperanza/June 2006 elections.

Thanks and kind, Esperanzial regards, —Celestianpower ^háblame 16:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:ANI

Very wise removal. Appreciated and take care -- Samir धर्म 09:20, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: The IP I reported

It might not be usual practice but due to circumstances which I can't go into, I cannot prevent the user from accessing Wikipedia. I therefore strongly urge you to block the IP for the forseeable future - like I said, the user will not be able to continue to vandalise articles if that single IP is blocked. I suggest you look at the vandal's history to see the real extent of their vandalism. Richardbooth 19:17, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

207. AOL vandal

Hi WH. It's a pain in the a**, this AOL shared IP vandal. I hate range blocks but what do you suggest? -- Szvest 11:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up&#153;}

Link to your RFA on your user page

Hey, your link to your RFA is not working because of double brackets and http... ([[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Woohookitty|appointment as an admin]])

This would be better [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Woohookitty|appointment as an admin]] :))

Would gladly edit it myself but it's protected... :(

Cheers... -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 22:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

P.S.: Yes, I have your userpage on my watchlist... :)

Static

1. It may be time for an archive.
2. Thanks for blocking that spam vandal for me. Just wondering, what did you mean by when the user was "static"? Much obliged, --D-Day ^{I'm all ears How can I improve?} 11:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Wii page

Thanks for semi-protecting this page. It really should help. I sometimes edit the PS3 pages as well which has been semi-protected for a while and the difference is amazing.HappyVR 16:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

"some of this article is ridiculously amateurish"

No kidding. I got drawn into this article (I had never heard of the show) when someone was insisting on posting copyvio materials, and I was appalled at how, just... dumb it was. I have nothing more substantive to say than that, just wanted to vent a little. :) · rodii · 14:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)