User talk:The Squicks/Archive 3

Reply regarding Hezbollah

I have replied to you comment here: Talk:2009_Iranian_election_protests#Claims_of_Arab_involvement_are_very_dubiously_sourced_and_should_be_removed. I'd be interested in your thoughts. --John Bahrain (talk) 21:43, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Sure, let's talk about it there. The Squicks (talk) 21:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Avigdor Lieberman

The "term as a FM" section is growing too long. You might want to move it to a separate page keeping only the essentials on the main bio page. Mhym (talk) 23:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. I would also rather talk about it there than there. The Squicks (talk) 23:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

International aid to combatants in the Iran–Iraq War

A link to the parent article International aid to combatants in the Iran–Iraq War can be found on the See also section of every "X support for Y" page. There you will find a handy table with links to each nation. It saves us having to include a multitude of links separately. Dynablaster (talk) 03:59, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I know, but I think that a direct link to a nation that's more notable than the other countries listed in International aid to combatants in the Iran–Iraq War is a good idea. The Squicks (talk) 04:16, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I would caution against this. The support each nation provided is notable, often in different ways. Whereas the Soviet Union unashamedly sold the most military hardware to Saddam's forces, France was way out in front advancing his nuclear capabilities. Germany provided massive quantities of biological material. The America refused to provide U.S. origin weaponry but instead facilitated and oversaw third-party transfers. They also provided Saddam with battlefield Intelligence and engaged in combat to ensure he didn't lose the war. All of these articles are notable in different ways. Dynablaster (talk) 14:29, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

That's a resonable point. In any rate, see also pages are relatively minor things and are not worth fighting about. The Squicks (talk) 20:40, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Potential 3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on MMR vaccine controversy. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:10, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that I did not edit war, and that it was me who did take it to the talk page. The Squicks (talk) 17:32, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

The only problem is that I was going to give you a current events barnstar for your great work on the Iranian protests article. I was waiting till it stabilized a bit so that the huge extent of your contributions would be a measurable quantity. Now it would look silly, as if we're just two allied editors congratulating each other. Oh well, I'll have to wait until your next impressive accomplishment, which I imagine won't be long in coming. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 18:50, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Sure. Regardless, you're welcome. The Squicks (talk) 18:52, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Some Notes

A few notes from your recent WQA filing.

• always post diff's
• always realize that your actions will also come under scrutiny
• NEVER re-add warnings to a user's talkpage - the removal of them is tacit acceptance of the warning
• the editor against whom you complained does not have a "long history" of personal attacks, as anyone can see from their talkpage
• I am always happy to continue investigating the incident, if you feel you are being forced to close it

(talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:18, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I see. On the last point, 'forced', I do not feel that that is the case. The Squicks (talk) 21:07, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Jeremiah Wright controversy

Hi, I responded to your talk on Jeremiah Wright-topic. Of course, I am interested in your reply. Hope to read you there.-DePiep (talk) 20:14, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry if it seems like I'm ignoring you. It's just that I have a lot of things going on in my life right now and coming up, so I have less time to spend on Wikipedia. The Squicks (talk) 04:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, understand, clear. -DePiep (talk) 22:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Catholic vs Nationalist

You may want to check out Provisional Irish Republican Army and its talk page again. O Fenian is still refusing to let the changes be made, his only argument being that "it's against Wikipedia policy". ~Asarlaí 02:40, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Chronicle of a Disappearance

Hi, I am reviewing Chronicle of a Disappearance for GA and have left some comments at Talk:Chronicle of a Disappearance/GA1. In general, it is a fine article on an intreging movie. However, there are a few things that need fixing, as indicated in the review. I have put the article on hold for seven days to give you time to fix it, and you may have more time if you need it. Please feel free to contact me with questions or comments. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 21:48, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

California Proposition 8 (2008)

Hi there, you have been one of a number of regular editors at the above article. I was its Good Article reviewer a few months back. In response to a recent proposal to split the article, I suggested it be edited down to a more manageable size and better readability rather than focussing on the split. I suggested the article was not particularly readable in its current form, and suffered from recentism amongst other things. I have just undertaken an edit attempting to implement my suggestion, in the hope that others might have a look and decide it is now in better shape. I hope you will agree. I am happy to discuss on the talk page obviously. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:57, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I noticed the edits, and I agree in general about cutting many things back/out. Good work. The Squicks (talk) 22:21, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - I went to bed a bit anxious about how those efforts would be received - I think they probably were the largest scale edits I have undertaken on a substantial article I hadn't created myself. If you are happy in general, it might be handy if you left a message to that effect on the section at the article talk page, in case there's a debate about whether they should be kept - though I am pleased to see two other editors so far have responded positively, and none negative to date. Just a thought. Regards. hamiltonstone (talk) 22:55, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Bob Novack

in what section would Bob Novack's socio-political views be located? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edbrown05 (talk • contribs) 01:24, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

See Robert_Novak#Political_and_religious_views, where they have always been. The Squicks (talk) 01:27, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm making a mess of it, but thought it was good stuff and will leave to you to handle.

No problemo. The Squicks (talk) 01:50, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Good work, and remain careful! Edbrown05 (talk) 05:36, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

GAN review of The War Within: A Secret White House History (2006–2008)

Hi, I have reviewed the above, I have a minor concern which you will find at Talk:The War Within: A Secret White House History (2006–2008)/GA1. Please respond there. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:05, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. The Squicks (talk) 01:56, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Astroturfing - Removal of sources

Hi, you have recently edited the Astroturfing article. One of the things you have removed were reliable third party sources which indicated that FreedomWorks is corporate funded. Since corporate funding of grassroots organizations is a key issue involved in the Astroturfing topic, I am wondering what your rationalization is. MichaelLNorth (talk) 21:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Go ahead and add those back in. It was not my intention to scrub anything. The Squicks (talk) 21:26, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Will do, and thanks for helping to improve this article. Could you do us a favor and be a little more descriptive in your edit summaries as well? This is a politically heated topic, as I'm sure you're aware, and explicitly saying what you're changing and why makes it easier to assume good faith. MichaelLNorth (talk) 00:04, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

'Teabagging'

Please stop adding sexual references to articles when they are not mentioned by the sources and not relevant to anything. The Squicks (talk) 03:41, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

(Re the above, copied from my talk page.) What sexual references? I have no idea what you are referring to. --Hauskalainen (talk) 03:58, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Now I see what you were referring to... but my objection was to all those other changes you made such as removing reference to Cigna in connection with Wendell Potter. I thought you were referring to Koch Industries as somehow being a sexual reference :) --Hauskalainen (talk) 04:13, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

GA Review of Max Boot

Hi: I've completed my review of the bio. I have a few nitpicks, which I've put on the review page, and I've put the article nomination on hold - I don't think these will present any serious problems. In general, though, this is an amazing article, the more so since I remember the sorry state it was in a year ago before you took an interest in it. Congratulations! Ray^Talk 19:37, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh! I just realized I forgot to tell you. I passed Max Boot last night. Congrats! :) Ray^Talk 14:57, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

RE: Public Opinion of Marriage Equality

Posted on Miss USA controversy talk page.... The Squicks, I realize we're off this topic, but for the sake of accuracy, your estimates of public opinion on same-sex marriage are wrong. The latest poll shows that support for equality is in the majority. Giving or taking how ever much percentage of error, the numbers are nowhere near the 35-45% that you declared. GnarlyLikeWhoa (talk) 21:50, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

....But upon further review of your page it looks like this is good news more than anything.GnarlyLikeWhoa (talk) 22:02, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, public opinion in favor of positive social change can be blocked quite easily by an embattled minority (after all, most whites nationwide in the late 1960s opposed racial segregation, but it took so much time to change things). We shall see. The Squicks (talk) 06:38, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Acting white

Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Acting white you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. The article has been reviewed and is currently  On hold. Regards,  Skomorokh  12:25, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Health care reform debate in the United States and related

Can you please try not to inflame the situation by using edit summaries such as this? I have spoken with the user and am trying to get some kind of useful resolution to the situation, but it is somewhat disruptive to continually make these kinds of accusations. Try to remain civil in your dealings with this user; if they continue to abuse logged-out edits the problem will be dealt with. Thank you, Shereth 20:52, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Socialized Medicine

Are you seriously saying that setting a coverage rule is not a form of rationing? Do you really contend that there are not gatekeepers in some systems? Are you really contending that queueing is not intended to ensure fair allocation of people to available health care time?

Not everything in Wikipedia needs to have a reference and this is clearly an obvious example where public health systems use rationing to limit the spending in their systems. But if a statement dubious, you should mark it as such and request a citation (as you have done elsewhere). Simply claiming that my edits are personal opinion and blogging simply will not wash.

I discussed the issue about rationing on the talk page for Socialized medicine. I mentioned there that there are two kinds of rationing, That based on coverage (which determined whether access to a particular treatment is covered under the plan) and the second based on how to allocate all those deemed to be in need when demand outstrips supply. You did not dispute that there. Why dispute it now?

Your revertion of every edit I have made today is not based on WP:policy but your own political opinion. One only has to look at all the edits you have made in WP recently (e.g. at to see that you are inserting your own prejuduces into the encyclopedia. I would say that this too is more unacceptable than your own actions which seem determined to insist that socialized medicine systems ration by queuing without recognizing the obvious which is that coverage is much more important than queuing. One is a matter of whether you get coverage and the second is just a matter of when.

Your own edits often seem biased to me. Like this piece of ridiculous fact tagging http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Health_care_reform_in_the_United_States&diff=prev&oldid=310580695 and your attempt to imply that health care costs in the UK had been out of control ("going through the roof" I think was the term you used), and way higher than the European average and citing a reference that showed UK and US health care costs accelerating at much the same pace, both outstripping the European growth rate. No attempt was made to exaplain that this was a deliberate policy of the UK government to bring health care spending up from 6% of GDP to a more reasonable 8% of GDP - still below the European average öf 9% and half that of the 16% of GDP in the United States. Even when this was pointed out you still insisted on adding it in to the article even though it was contextually misleading because it left the impression that costs were out of control when in fact they were not.

For these reasons I do intend to raise a formal complaint against you which may result in your being blocked. --Hauskalainen (talk) 05:29, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Not everything in Wikipedia needs to have a reference This is not true. As for you complaining about me, I would prefer to make this about benefiting the articles rather than personal vendettas. After all, I added the criticism of American healthcare by Dr. Kellerman to the article. Can't you see that I'm just fine with pro-socialized medicine material in articles if they are cited to reliable sources? I just don't support anyone adding their own personal opinions into articles. The Squicks (talk) 05:32, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Are you seriously saying that setting a coverage rule is not a form of rationing? Do you really contend that there are not gatekeepers in some systems? Are you really contending that queueing is not intended to ensure fair allocation of people to available health care time?

Why do you refuse to accept the fact that I never said those things? Why do you refuse to accept that?

I mentioned there that there are two kinds of rationing, That based on coverage (which determined whether access to a particular treatment is covered under the plan) and the second based on how to allocate all those deemed to be in need when demand outstrips supply. You did not dispute that there. Why dispute it now?

Why do you refuse to accept the fact that I am not disputing that? Why do you refuse to accept that?

You have added your own personal opinion to the article. You have done this over and over again. And you simply can't do this. The Squicks (talk) 05:43, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I am not adding personal views but balance. You my friend are adding bias in subtle ways to the article which are unacceptable. I have been editing this article for many years now and it was quite balanced until your recent attempts to reflect mostly one one-side of the political debate. I am quite happy to discuss issues with you, but please do not simply resort to undoing all my edits! Lets use the talk page more and less the UNDO option.--Hauskalainen (talk) 02:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I am very sick and tired of having to remove your personal opinions from that article. You claimed that those two websites offered criticism of anti-socialized medicine websites. You claimed that they criticized people for ignoring facts. You lied.

There was no criticism of anyone or of any position on those websites. They did not accuse anyone of anything. The Squicks (talk) 02:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

You my friend are adding bias in subtle ways to the article which are unacceptable. And you know goddamn well that this is a lie. You know goddamn well that I've added numerous material in fucking support of socialized medicine. The difference between me and you is that I actually try to cite sources for what I put into the article while you do not do this.

I have been editing this article for many years now and it was quite balanced until you Oh, yes, of course. According to you, I am nothing but a vandal. I am garbage. Well, guess what, Wikipedia does not let people own articles. You are not God. You do not get to control everything that goes into an article.

And, guess what? That article that you have edited for so long... it has gigantic sections of text without sources! Great gob *I roll my eyes*. The Squicks (talk) 02:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

So, in conclusion, stop accusing me of being a stupid and ignorant troll. Try acting like an adult for once. The Squicks (talk) 02:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

If you have objections to my edits take them somewhere where they can be dealt with. I am fed up to the teeth of your continual attemtps to introduce subtle bias into this article. It is quite clear what you are doing and that it is motivated by a political opinion. My edits add balance and I will continue to undo your edits until you refrain from this activity. Yes its childish. But you are engaging in practices which are contrary to WP:policy. And you know it.

Hello! :)

Do you happen to know the exact medical terminology for 'Man-child syndrome'? Just wondering, thanks. --eric dilettante (mailbox) 05:29, 7 September 2009 (UTC)05:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I can't help you there. The Squicks (talk) 06:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

thanks

I didn't want to get in an edit war with Gamaliel. ObserverNY (talk) 00:08, 9 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

No problem. The Squicks (talk) 00:15, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Teabagger ordering of definitions

Is there a problem with changing the ordering of the definitions in an effort to avoid defamation? People are wikifying "Tebagger" on many articles relating to recent political events in the US, and the popup displays the first definition. My re-ordering was only an effort to avoid promoting said confusion. What is the Wikipedia policy that requires us to order the terms from most to least "dominant", and what tells us the relative level of dominance for each definition? Thanks. — Mike :  tlk  04:39, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

People are wikifying "Tebagger" Actually, there is one person with a league of sockpuppets who is going through Wikipedia articles and replacing neutral terms such as 'Tea Party protester' with 'Teabagger'. It's transparent vandalism, but there's not much that one can do about it :/

What is the Wikipedia policy that requires us to order the terms from most to least "dominant", and what tells us the relative level of dominance for each definition? Thanks.

It seems to me to be a central tenet of WP:NPOV. The majority of sites on the internet use the term in the sexual sense, and a tiny minority of left-wing blogs slash editorials use it in the political sense. A simple google search will confirm this.

To arrange the material in a disambiguation so that the least popular and least used definition is at the top violates the principle of WP:NPOV since it pushes a fringe views as the main view. The Squicks (talk) 18:13, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

If your point is that there is more pornography on the internet than political content, I certainly agree, but I don't think that this helps your WP:NPOV case. WP:WEIGHT demands that we only take reliable sources into account. I'm guessing most of the sites you're referring to do not fit into that category by any measure.

Putting the "porn is not a WP:RS" point aside for a moment, It doesn't even appear to common practice to order by prominence. Here are examples in no particular order Pot ("Pot glass" is more prominent than a name for Marijuana?), Crack (the drug is more prominent than "fracture"?), Score (the statistical usage is more prominent than "musical score"?), Grant (Castle Grant trumps Grant (money) and Ulysses S. Grant?), etc... The convention is to sort by category, often with no particular weight given — Mike :  tlk  18:51, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

But those examples refer to disambig pages with links. 'Teabagger' is fundamentally different since it is a set of definitions. It's an apples and oranges comparison. I suppose if the article was stripped of words and turned into a simple set of links like this:

Could refer to=

'[Tea Party Protester]'

'[Healthcare Protester]'

'[Sexual practice]'

In that case, order would make no difference. But that case is not true so here we are. The Squicks (talk) 18:56, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm guessing most of the sites you're referring to do not fit into that category by any measure. On the contrary, most of the left-wing commentators who throw the slur around refer to it primarily as a sexual slur and then they apply it to their enemies. The Salon.com article cited in the Tea Party protest article is a great example; it describes the sexual usage as the dominent usage and then brings in up with the protests. The Squicks (talk) 18:59, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Would you object to me turning it into a links page, providing no information is lost? — Mike :  tlk  20:16, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

If you're talking about turning it to something exactly like what I just typed above, than that seems like a perfectly reasonable idea. The Squicks (talk) 22:06, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit summary

Regardless of what you think of a person who is on the opposite side of a dispute with you, edit summaries like this one violate Wikipedia:No personal attacks. I strongly encourage you to discontinue using such edit summaries when in a dispute with another user.

As a more general note, it might be time for you guys to start using Wikipedia:Dispute resolution as it's clear that a cycle of editing/reverting/not much discussing has developed. But I'll leave that to you two to sort out for now.

Regards,
Daniel (talk) 13:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

To add to the above, appropriate steps in dispute resolution may include discussion on the talk pages, mediation, article RfC or RFC/U. In the meantime, please note that the above was raised at Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:The_Squicks. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

ANI

Hello! I'm just letting you know that User:Mbhiii has created a thread about you at ANI, as they neglected to do so themself. Lychosis ^T/C 18:49, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Given that this editor has threatened a lawsuit against me before, this is just more of the same silliness. Pay it no mind. The Squicks (talk) 19:19, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Peer review limits

The guidelines for Wikipedia:Peer review ask that editors nominate no more than one article per day (and four total at any one time). You opened three in 24 hours - please select one you would like to have closed for now. Take care, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:08, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I would prefer to close the one for 'Ted Kennedy'. The Squicks (talk) 01:09, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, I will close it for now and reopen it in five days (if I forget, please let me know on my talk page). Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:17, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Sure. Thanks for notifying me on my talk page so that I'm up to date on what is going on. The Squicks (talk) 01:18, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Barney Frank

Please read WP:BRD before engaging in an edit war. You made a significant change to the lead of of Barney Frank. Fine, well within the spirit of WP:BOLD. Upon seeing it, I found it destructive to the article, removed the contentious addition, and commented very specifically on this fact on the article talk page (contentious for stylistic/organizational reasons, not for the facts themselves). Rather than address the concerns, you started an edit war. This is wrong, and this is very specifically a violation of the BRD procedure. It's fine to be bold about non-disputed edits... but once they are disputed, it is always the initiators responsibility to make a case on the talk page! LotLE×talk 02:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

It was and is your edit war in which you chose to go against two editors based on a point which is self-evidently specious.

And, given that I did comment on the talk page, I find your insistence on ignoring that article's talk page and your preference for talking about it here to be baffling. The Squicks (talk) 02:24, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Barney Frank. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing.

This latest bad editing is skirting the edges of serious bad faith. I guess I'll try to get some other editors/admins to comment on one of the notice boards. It's really disturbing to see this behavior in your edits. LotLE×talk 02:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Josh Gottheimer

A tag has been placed on Josh Gottheimer requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. ttonyb (talk) 03:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• Nice job creating and fixing up the Josh Gottheimer article. Looks good. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

No problem. The Squicks (talk) 05:26, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I also congratulate you on creation of an excellent article! Having this wikilink available is a wonderful thing, both for the article's own merits and as a target to link to. Thanks so much. LotLE×talk 06:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I was, indeed, surprised after I read more about Gottheimer. He is a more prominent and important figure than would intially meets the eye. He co-wrote Clinton's State of the Union addresses, after all. He certainly merits a page. The Squicks (talk) 06:50, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

ANI thread

As a courtesy, I am notifying you of a clarification I made to my decision at Wikipedia:Ani#Clarification with regards to your dispute with User:Mbhiii. I was uncertain if you are actively watching the conversation and wanted to ensure you were made aware. Feel free to contact me (or simply discuss at that thread) if you have any questions. Thanks, Shereth 20:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I noticed you said on Mbhiii's talk page that he has resumed (mis)using IP addresses once again. I checked some of his "known" IPs that I have readily available and they look inactive - if you know of some others, could you please let me know? I'd like to stay on top of the situation, but it's hard to keep track of all of them. Shereth 15:07, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I was referring to this. However, it appears that Mbhiii has not used that for anything controversial today. It may be that he has dropped this already. I would prefer not to have this made into an issue since it is not a major thing (or at least not yet...) The Squicks (talk) 19:50, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Much as I'd rather not have a collection of Mbhiii socks, given that I've warned him on this in the past I would like to maintain a list of IPs that he's liable to use. As an aside, I appreciate your attempts to resolve these issues in a responsible way as per our dispute resolution processes; thank you. Shereth 20:15, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for inserting the two text versions into the new talk section. That is actually very nice and helpful. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 06:05, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. Hopefully, we can all work something out on the talk page rather than engaging in more rapid-fire edits on the article itself. The Squicks (talk) 06:07, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I ended up posting a report on ChrisO.[1] I think he's walked over the line and decided to walk further after being asked to turn back. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 01:35, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Well, thanks for letting me know about that. The Squicks (talk) 02:38, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring and IPs

You have a user account so there is no reason for you to be making controversial edits without logging in. Making edits while logged out does not exempt you from the prohibition on edit warring. Considering your previous disputes, I advise that you avoid editing the same topics as Mbhiii. It looks like you've had previous warnings already so further disruption or edit warring, even short of 3RR, may lead to a block.   Will Beback  talk  05:01, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

a) I don't use sockpuppets maliciously. That's Mbhii's thing.

b) I have not been doing edit warring lately. Neither has Mbhii. This is blatantly clear from both of our edit histories.

In short, while I'm sure that your intentions are right, your comments are most unfortunate since it's coming at a time when both of us are not in conflict about anything. The Squicks (talk) 19:38, 30 September 2009 (UTC)