User:JDoorjam/Archive03

' This is an archive of discussions on User:JDoorjam's talk page. Please do not alter this page. Thanks, JDoorj a m  Talk.  '

message from Hamilton Styden
Hi - Did you not notice the message from Hamilton, above? He's wondering what to do next. As fas as I can tell, the band qualifies for an article under the featured in multiple non-trivial published works clause of WP:MUSIC. He's looking for other opinions as well. I'm sure he'd appreciate a response. Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 23:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you
Hello Again, Thank you for taking the time to look at the article again. I agree with your idea about breaking up the text with a few titles. What I'm guessing here is after the first initial introductory paragraph, placing titles such as Band History,or chronology, or something else specifically related to that particular section would help readers identify the section better as well as break up the large section of text.

How do I resubmit this as a page once I place the finishing touches on?

Thanks Again,

Hamilton Styden 20:26, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

A favor...
...please take a look at Talk:Ivy_League and the edit history. An aggressive anon keeps changing the article to read that Penn's religious affiliation was "Episcopalian and Quaker" rather than nonsectarian. Edit remarks include "Incorrect fact was replaced with correct fact; jew conspiracy to make a Christian university nonsectarian." He will not engage in talk, and simply keeps reverting--and removing a very long reference which explains the complex situation.

The next time he does it, would you consider blocking him? Thanks. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:25, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Definitely. I saw that change a week ago and figured he'd stopped after talk page explanations. Clearly it's now just reaching a point where it's disruptive. I'm also amazed at the ability some people have to turn any issue into proof a Jewish conspiracy, though judging from the three edits by this editor not made at Ivy League -- removal of a Jewish lawyer from the list of notable Penn alumni, stating that an adopted child raised in a Jewish home had Christian parents, and near-vandalistic edits to Category:Jewish American musicians -- it appears that "fighting the Jewish conspiracy" is an area of interest. Ugh. Anyway, long story short, it appears a block may be in order, and will issue one if the anon insists on continuing with this disruption. JDoorj a m  Talk 23:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I was also going to direct you to User_talk:68.80.254.34 where RBellin and I have both tried to engage with him... Anyway, it appears that Nunh-huh has already blocked him. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:12, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I'd taken a look at the talk page to make sure a block wasn't going to be out of the blue. This anon's last two changes came after the block expired, so I suspect the editor may return. I'm not sure what they'd return with, seeing as you've demonstrated how their key piece of evidence, in fact, proves your point (the Tai Chi method of arguing -- very satisfying to employ, and to observe), but then many an editor has boldly refused to let facts stand in the way. JDoorj a m  Talk 00:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Photos
Thanks again for additional info. I have a few promo photos that were inserts and I can contact the photographer for permission and don't anticipate a problem.I will contact the photographer for specific permission and was wondering if I can secure this permission through an email. I have quickly reviewed some of the info for photos and am not sure what the proper template would be. The closest I found was template:promophoto. The photo I am anticipating using is from a promotional insert from one of the records. Is it possible for the photographer to allow free use on Wikipedia but limit the use otherwise or is the best bet to get free use entirely? Can the photographer be credited under the photo? I certainly want to do this the proper and legal way to avoid image deletion and would really appreciate any advice as to how to properly secure a photo release and move from there.

Best Regards,

Hamilton Styden 05:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Dwain Fuller
G'day JDoorjam,

um, no, I didn't undelete the article. I recreated it with deletedpage as its only content, and protected it, because the article had already been deleted before and I had the feeling (see the article's talkpage) that it would be re-created yet again. That's the version you deleted. So, yeah, if you could undelete the edits by Yours Truly (or protect-delete it yourself) that would be good. Silly billy :-). fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 05:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Would you please also zap four remaining images from this deletion:


 * Image:HereComeEW.jpg
 * Image:Earthworms copy.jpg
 * Image:Earthworms copy.jpeg
 * Image:Earthworms.jpeg
 * Thanks - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 13:37, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

clarification
Hello,

I recently penned an article on "Dwain Fuller" which you seem to have deleted. No quibble there, as I am a new user and perhaps unfamiliar with guidelines. Just for clarification, however, what did your comments mean (nn-bio & whoops) in the deletion history? I'd appreciate your insight.

Cheers.

PS: I think the subject is, in fact, truly worthy. There are only 200 some-odd MD/JDs in the United States. Moreover, he has authored more than 35 scientific articles, not to mention two textbooks on vitreoretinal surgery. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.149.65.155 (talk • contribs).

Substing userboxes
Hello! I was just starting to get worried about my userboxes, when someone directed me to your page! Will you tell me about substing userboxes? 'Substing'...is that a real term? Sergeant  Snopake  20:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you so much!!!!! Hah! I'd like to see someone delete my userboxes now!! Sergeant  Snopake  22:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Cobaltbluetony
Heh. Thanks for lookin' out for me. ;-) - CobaltBlueTony 00:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

U DELETED MY ARTICLE
Let's discuss this. My one gripe is that did not contact my first about this.

I just created an account and have a lot to write about on this topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Broketrustfundbaby (talk • contribs)


 * I agree with you that the content of the article is lacking. However, I've never had an account on here and quickly posted before I was finished. I have done a lot of legal research on the matter and it will be of value to many. So, how do I get the article reactivated? Now that I KNOW people will delete it, I will erase the content until it is complete. Is it possible to work on an article and save information until it's complete?


 * I appreciate your input.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Broketrustfundbaby (talk • contribs)

Request
Hello JDoorjam. Based on our earlier discussions, I wonder if you might contribute to the discussion going on at Mackensen's Proposal, my own humble and perhaps doomed attempt to resolve the userbox situation. Best, Mackensen (talk) 02:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

disambiguation help
I understand the concept a little, but I'm inexperienced with page moves and the necessary skills to clean up this mess: David McKee vs. David Mckee. I wondered if you'd be inclined to take a whack at sorting those into some semblance of sense.

On a side note, thanks for keeping my user page inline; its appreciated. Cornell Rockey 14:37, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of Artitechture
Hi, I see you just deleted the article Artitechture, that I had tagged for speedy deletion, but had then changed to a. Could I ask you to consider undeleting the article - see my comments on the talk page. I still suspect the article will end up being deleted as a neologism, but I realized that I had not assumed good faith in nominating it for speedy deletion and that the editor deserved a chance to work on it. I think you deleted it while I was in the process of changing it to a Prod to allow that to happen. Many thanks for your consideration of this, Gw e rnol 02:20, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Many thanks, much appreciated. Gw e rnol 17:15, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Re. your de-spamming of Volkswagen Golf on 21:35, 27 April 2006
You "de-spammed" in Volkswagen Golf on 21:35, 27 April 2006. I ask that you consider adding back the links for the GTI VR6 Wiki and the MkV GTI Wiki:


 * The GTI VR6 Wiki – info, how-tos, etc. on the Mk 3 and Mk 4 Golf-based GTI VR6 (was the GTI VR6 "library").
 * The MkV GTI Wiki – info, how-tos, etc. on the Mk 5 GTI.

The GTI VR6 Wiki is the new, wiki-based version of the GTI VR6 "library", which had existed on the Web for quite a while. (A Google search for stuff in the "www.gti-vr6.net/library" domain shows content that goes as far back as 1998. It has been one of the more useful VW GTI VR6 resources on the Web. (And yes, I had been the creator and maintainer of that GTI VR6 library.)

The MkV GTI Wiki is similar to the GTI VR6 Wiki, only it's geared to the new MkV GTI.

Both of these are Wiki communities that have real values to owners and fans of the VW GTI VR6 and of the VW MkV GTI. Additionally, both are non-commercial, nor do they carry any ads. I ask that you please consider adding the links back. Thanks.

-- Andy 21:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Substing
Can you please subst my userboxes? Raichu 11:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Speedy deletion criteria
I noticed that you put quite a number of model/porn star articles up for speedy deletion as not claiming notability. Many of these have been to AfD once and the discussion was clearly to keep the article. Please limit speedy tags to those articles which have no claim of notability; asserting that one is an international model or featured porn star is a claim. Removing large amounts of text from an article prior to putting the speedy tag on it is also considered bad form. Please put a request for references instead. Thanks. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 06:17, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Cum On Her Face
Why have u deleted the article?! Luka Jačov 14:47, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for saying sorry with a threat
First of all, a warning is in place before a block, second, you should learn to count before blocking others, third, it is obscene to block others you are in a conflict with. Añoranza 02:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * You're right, that was only three. I'll unblock you momentarily. With that said, clearly your campaign of systematically changing military campaign names is largely contested by other editors. Use the talk pages and build consensus before continuing in this vein, or I'll block you again for disruption. JDoorj a m  Talk 02:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for saying sorry with a threat. Your behaviour is unacceptable. Añoranza 02:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to VandalProof!
Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, JDoorjam! 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. - Gl e n   TC (Stollery)  00:57, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Ketchup on hot dogs
Ketchup on hot dogs survived an AFD - you can't just unilaterally merge it into another article without discussion. BoojiBoy 00:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, discuss it. But all the relevant content has been merged into hot dog already, and there's really little point in keeping this article around. JDoorj a m  Talk 00:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Try Articles for deletion/Ketchup on hot dogs and Talk:Ketchup on hot dogs. If you want to renominate it for an AFD, be my guest, but there is a strong enough consensus/lack of majority that you can't really act unilaterally. BoojiBoy 00:37, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Cheers. That went well. BoojiBoy 01:20, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted this to your redirect. I'm the most diehard of inclusionists and I'd kill this shit.

BTW, I noticed a comment from you on Slim's talkpage. There are sites on the web that give lists of open proxies, and you can tell an IP is one by simply matching it against them. There's probably somewhere you can do that automagically. Grace Note 00:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: Cornell-aca
With regards to ; Unfortunately Wikipedia policy prevents this. If we allowed this, justifications would potentially become rampant, and quite difficult to continually track down. It's hard enough to remove fair use image violations as it is. Having to review code to see if there is a disclaimer, and further having to add on that we have to make sure navigational templates are not used outside of userspace adds some layers of work to this process which is already overburdened. I've undone your reinsertion of the image. --Durin 01:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Bahh. Ok. Thanks for letting me know. JDoorj a m  Talk 01:15, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

You were...
...vandalized. T e  k  e  04:40, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikpedia is full of people giving their opinions. I could go to 100 topics and 90 would be biased articles. You would think the article on Saddam Hussein was written by him. I could look at most of the discussions and it is mostly people defending their viewpoints. I had listed some things that were relevant and they were changed by someone else. I was defending why I made edits to the article.

This Army Officer was not denied leave so he could resign from the Army, that does not even make sense. That was my original correction. Someone who obviously has never served in the U.S. Armed Forces wrote it.

Being a military reserve officer and a physician I am flabbergasted how these subject (military & medical issues) are represented on wikpedia. I would only pray that no one uses wikpedia to diagnose himself or herself with the inaccurate information portrayed in many of the medical articles.

Also being of Chinese (Tibetan) descent and spending some time in China I know that their Internet activity is monitored. When I last went there I had a monitor remotely start blocking me from certain pages. I am sure governments put things on Wikpedia that try to give them a positive spin (look at the article about Tibet).

Since I spend about 60 some hours a week treating sick people, being a Navy Reserve Officer, & getting ready to go back to Iraq I don’t spend much time on here. It is pretty obvious that some people have no other life than wikpedia and feel important in the ‘wikpedia’ world. I do not have that kind of time or interest. I am not trying to offend anyone. I did not read all the rules. I am looking at what countless others have written and am going off what they have done. So I apologize for the faux pas & violation of any rules.

I appreciate what people like you are doing by trying to keep this an unbiased forum. I would hope that more attention is paid to the false information that is portrayed in these articles (e.g. Coca Cola). Another good example is the article on Dr. Stephen Barrett. Someone who is named in a lawsuit with Dr. Barrett heavily edits the article. I have even notified wikpedia about this and got the standard form letter response. I would think these kinds of articles should be the ones that should be edited by administrators. The article about Coke will have wikpedia become discredited faster than me criticizing an editor with an obvious bias changing my edits.--Panzertank1 13:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Fast Paced Rappers
Fact Paced Rappers is sort of like dead rappers and rappers that is in a record label. This is good information. You can't just delete it because I worked fast enough to get right people to fit in there. Come on now. Don't do this. 9:26/A Different World - 15 June 2006

Dear little pony
Hey there. I agree that two people agreeing with the proposed deletion doesn't suggest a speedy deletion tag. However, this article does not assert the importance of the topic and upon visiting the given webpage (with, at this time, no content at all) there is no reason why I see one couldn't put a speedy deletion tag on the article as both advertisement and insufficient importance. Ben Tibbetts 15:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

It can describe any rapper to you but not these late 90s and early 2000s rappers. You know any new rapper that can spit faster then Treach from Naughty By Nature?

Wrongful deletion
I feel that the David Allen Hulse article was deleted without reason. I've addressed this issue here on the WP:ANI board. I'm awaiting comments. Thanks. Zos 23:33, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Haha!
Yes... maybe Johnny Cash was singing...I hear those trains a comin, they're coming round the bend in the background as the trains hit...he may have been a freemason too...he must have been in the UFO's that were guiding the trains that blew up the WTC....just after they had a huge hit off their bongs.--MONGO 06:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Anon IP
Okay, I think that'll be it on the lexicon for a while. That comment just bugged me, but I've made my point and won't continue with the digression. --Mmx1 17:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Hopiakuta 20:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Brothers_Baptiste_NIH.jpg >;

< http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4c/Brothers_Baptiste_NIH.jpg >;

< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:71.102.31.67 >;

< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Long_term_abuse/The_Doppleganger >.

< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism >. Hopiakuta 20:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia articles that need their importance to be explained
I've closed the CFD regarding this category earlier today. If you disagree with my decision, please change the templates that used to feed in it. Unfortunately the bot has already moved some articles into Category:Wikipedia articles whose topics' importance is unclear, so now it duplicates Category:Wikipedia articles with topics of unclear importance. I'd appreciate if you merged these two cats. Conscious 17:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Sure, I'll clean it up. JDoorj a m  Talk 17:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

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 Esperanza/June 2006 elections.

Thanks and kind, Esperanzial regards, &mdash;Cel es tianpower háblame 16:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Article sent yet?
Was just checking my email and noticed that I had not received a copy of the article yet. Thanks. ...IMHO (Talk) 05:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Evidence by Homey
I welcome anyone who wants to look at facts. Please keep in mind that Homey's accusations tend to be one-sided. If you want my reply feel free to e-mail me. btw, all the issue is discussed at great length here:

Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents

The timing of raising this issue (after first trying to lobby against me) is clearly tied to:

Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR

Best, Zeq


 * Zeq's 3RR allegation is specious and in bad faith. If you could look at it it would be appreciated. Homey 16:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm going to explore the issue of personal-info posting first, and can take a look at the WP:3RR afterwards. JDoorj a m  Talk 16:25, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Please e-mail me as I don't want to discuss privacy issues on-line. Zeq 16:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I will continue this conversation with you via email provided I can forward the emails to Homey, and that he can elect to post in-context quotations from your emails as they relate to his privacy. I will remove your email address from the forwarded emails if you prefer, but this process needs to be kept as open as possible. JDoorj a m  Talk 16:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

e-mail. I'll explain. Zeq 16:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

btw, since you want an open discussion I don't mind doing it on-line excpet that privacy issues may be involved. If it is indeed Homey privacy and give his consent to discuss these issues (we have no way to know if indeed Homey is who he claim to be) I don't mind discussing it online. Zeq 16:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I sent you an email -- we can discuss it off-wiki for now. As per above, I reserve the right to forward to Homey any information you send to me for corroboration or disagreement. JDoorj a m  Talk 17:03, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't wish my e-mail to be forwarded to Homey. So we will do this on-line. Homey exposed his own idenity(if this is indeed his identity as he claim) by this whole issue already but I will do my best not to add to what he has done. Zeq 18:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

"(we have no way to know if indeed Homey is who he claim to be)"

SlimVirgin deleted a previous version of the article that was started by neo-Nazis trying to harass me so she can affirm that Zeq's new attempt at an article is in fact about me. CJCurrie can also attest to the fact that the article is, in fact, about me and that I and the subject of the article are identical. I'm unconvinced by Zeq's sudden concerns about my privacy and doubt that's the reason he attempted to delete your question from his page. Homey 17:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

The article indeed existed before but I was not aware of it. I searched for that person name to see if there is an article on him and got a redirect to a different person by a similar (but not indentical) name.

So I changed the redirect to a text article based on news reports (google searches on the name in question). later Homey sent me a link to an Afd in whch the origina article was decided to delte 9although other than Homey only 3 other people voted) I was not aware of any harrasment campaign and as soon as Homey pointed the Afd to me I delted the article to it's original redirect. Bringing tjis issue now is a form of harrsing me since me I have filled several 3RR reports about Homey. First he left messages to people claiming the 3RR is a vandeta, before he tried to have me accused as sockppupet 9which was also found to be false accuastion) and now he brings this in order to get rid of me. In the part Homey, after being involved in an edit dispute with me Blocked me indefently ( twice ) but these blocks were overturned. Homey also tried to get out of an erlier 3RrR report I filled by claiming that I was vandalisng a page (this accusation was also found to be untrue) Zeq 17:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I have done my best to answer Homey's question here without exposing anything about the name:.

It is important ( in fact  critical  ) to point out that any reasoable peron intrested in his privacy would not have raised this issue from the dead 3 weeks after it occured. This was forgotten, the article existed for minutes(maybe hours) and was deleted. Now that Homey putting links to on-line exchanginges about it all over his own privacy is exposed more and more (which could be understood as an agreement to expose his name since he is the oen doing it to himself - if indeed this is his real name) Zeq 17:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

"I searched for that person name to see if there is an article on him and got a redirect to a different person by a similar (but not indentical) name."

Zeq, you haven't expained why you did this - nor have you explained how you found out my name in the first place. Why did you decide to write an article about me right after getting off your block? As for giving you the link to the AFD - yes, I did that *after* you started the article as a way of persuading you not to.

I should have complained about this three weeks ago and you would have been indefinitely blocked there and then. I didn't because I feared that raising it directly would result in a greater violation of my privacy and thus be self-defeating. I am raising it now because you have continued and escalated a campaign of harassment and stalking and I want it to end. Homey 18:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Zeq has made a rather outlandish defense on the ANI page. I am reposting it here with my response:

Zeq, what is your explanation for opening an article under my real name? Coincidence? Homey 16:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Homey, Valid question so I will answer it:

I only have your word that you were the subject of the article. I belive you but there is no way I can know 100%.

In the past I have created articles (and edited more articles) about people in the west, mostly on the left, who are engaged in campaigning against Israel out of a lefty point of view. I was once such an extreme left wing person and as such these kind of people are of interest to me. I think most of them have good intentions but they went too far and actually help those who want to undermine Israel's right to exist (sometimes without knowing it) these people have become in part public figures and as such by collecting news items (only those which are WP:RS) I created or edited articles on these group of people (that I was once part of ) There are people of this group all over the world and I have created articles on people from the US, UK and Canada. Below are samples for such articles I created.

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

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

The subject of the article in question is very similar to the article on the canadian activists who is very similar to Joe carr in his personal beliefs. Zeq 17:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

In the past I have created articles (and edited more articles) about people in the west, mostly on the left, who are engaged in campaigning against Israel out of a lefty point of view.

Nonsense, Seaford is a professor and Carr witnessed the death of Rachel Corrie. Your explanation begs belief as I am in no way prominent and there is no way you would have heard of me or known of me outside of wikipedia. Also, your stated reason is not supported by the article you wrote which makes no mention of my supposed views on Israel. I am not a campaigner on the subject so there's no way you would have come across my name on any Israel or Palestinian related website.

Zeq, how did you discover my name and why did you suddenly decide to write an article about me immediately following a content dispute and your being blocked? Homey 18:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I have answered all your identical questions in the An/I board. You are making way too much assumptions that are not true. Zeq 18:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Zeq, your claims are simply nonsensical and are not even remotely credible. Your article made no mention of anything to do with Israel and I am not a known campaigner on the issue so you have nothing to back up your alibi. Unlike your two previous examples I am neither a professor nor have I publicaly campaigned on the issue of Israel or Palestine, I didn't witness Rachel Corrie's death, I'm not on any ISM or Israel/Palestine website. How would you have inadvertantly come across my name if it had nothing to do with wikipedia and isn't it a rather startling coincidence that you just happened to come across my name at the exact time you were having a conflict with me at wikipedia?Homey 18:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I have answered all your questions. In full. But you choose not to accept any answer I give you. This issue is now saenning 3-4 talk pages and two boards which are read by many people. This is not the most sensible behaviour from anyone who is concerned about "their privacy" Your complain is disenginous. Zeq 18:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Zeq, you claimed "In the past I have created articles (and edited more articles) about people in the west, mostly on the left, who are engaged in campaigning against Israel out of a lefty point of view." What you may not know is that JDoorjam can see the article you wrote and it's clear there is neither anything in it about Israel or Palestinian issues (which was what you claimed drove you to me as a subject, completly randomly and with nothing to do with wikipedia - sheer coincidence that I happened to be the same person) nor anything remotely notable. If your claim were correct there would have been something in the article to back you up but there's nothing. Just something vague about "letters to the editor" and indymedia articles (I wrote one on a nurses' strike, I believe) and mention of a political party I was involved with. Your alibi doesn't hold up and it's time you stopped with the excuses and stories and started telling the truth. Homey 18:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Zeq, it's time for you to fess up. Stop playing games and stop insulting our intelligence by making up fairy stories. Homey 18:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Not sure where you are or want to be with this. I've cleared (IMHO) H of the 3RR accusation; you will of course feel free to look at it again if you wish to. Regards, William M. Connolley 19:03, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Resolution
In my opinion, Zeq clearly crossed the line in writing an article about Homey. It's simply too much of a coincidence for Zeq to have decided, of all possible subjects, living, dead, inanimate, theoretical, or otherwise, to write a stub about Homey in his very first edits back from a block. I probably would have blocked Zeq for a month for doing so had I been aware of the transgression when it occurred. I'm not clear why, Homey, you didn't bring the matter to WP:AN/I when it first occurred (if you did and I missed it, I apologize for the oversight). Blocks are preventative, and not punitive, and so I will not block Zeq at the current time. However, if Zeq commits another act like this one, which can be so clearly construed as intimidation, I will block him as though this block had gone into effect (i.e., a block equal to or greater than 30 days). Whether you meant to write an article about Homey or not, Zeq, you now know not to do so, and know that the issue of intimidation of other editors is taken seriously. I expect that you can take this warning to heart and avoid any further edits that even appear to be motivated by a desire to intimidate others. Homey, the same standard will apply to you. Please keep in mind that I have seen no evidence of harassment on your part and am in no means implying that I have. However, as you can understand how being the subject of a possible attempt at intimidation is not at all a pleasant experience, I would ask that, as a sign of good faith, you accept the terms as I've stated them above: blatant attempts to intimidate other editors will not be taken lightly. Again, I have seen no evidence that you have engaged in such behavior, but am simply asking you to acknowledge what I hope would be obvious: that the editing standards which are in place to protect you as an editor also apply to you in a conduct-limiting fashion (i.e., no one's allowed to try to intimidate or intentionally make less pleasant the Wikipedia experience for other editors). I ask that both of you acknowledge these terms.

And please, pleasepleaseplease, try to get along. You don't have to be model, Esperanza-style Wikipals, but try having a cup of tea, maintaining a cool head, and where possible, forgive the other editor if they cause some minor annoyance. Blatant violations of policy, of course, should be reported, but try not to let anything less than that get you worked up. (Heck, don't let that get you worked up; just report it and let it go.)

I leave myself available to both of you if you seek mediation; as I doubt either of you will be fully satisfied with my proposed resolution, you can both tell I'm trying to be fair to the both of you. As always, let me know if you have any questions. JDoorj a m  Talk 21:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Given that Zeq was previously blocked in May for posting personal details I think a greater, not lesser, penalty is needed consistent with the concept of progressive discipline.


 * As for why I didn't bring it up before, I thought doing so would make the privacy issue worse rather than better. As it is, I am considering changing my username as a result of this. Homey


 * Zeq's been blocked for a day for hostility, so he's not going to be able to join in the dialogue here. I do understand your reticence to report Zeq, but there's a sort of statute of limitations on these things, and, IMO, a couple weeks of silence on the matter exceeded it. I think I may have been unclear in my message before: I'm considering the 30 days for Zeq a sort of "suspended sentence", and will apply a block even greater than 30 days if he commits acts of intimidation in the future. I will also put him on a sort of hostility probation, where clear violations of WP:NPA will result in an immediate block without warning. Again, I would ask that you would adopt the same standard for yourself, not because I have seen examples of personal attack by you, but because you both need to be on level and steady ground if a lasting peace can be established between you guys. On your side it would be more a sign of good faith than a true probation, but I need to know that you're serious about trying to resolve this matter, or at least turn it down a couple notches. Would you be willing to give this a shot? JDoorj a m  Talk 22:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

What I would like is for Zeq to leave me alone. I want him to stop making accusations about me or, for that matter, saying anything at all about me on people's talk pages (or any talk pages), I want him to stop posting on my talk page, I want him to not follow me around and suddenly pop up at articles I'm editing, I want him not to try to engage me on talk pages or, for that matter, to refer to me at all directly or inderectly on talk pages. I want him to stop putting my edits through a microscope and making 3RR complaints - if I've truly made a 3RR violation I'm quite sure someone will report it without Zeq showing up, stop making sock puppet accusations stop everything to do with me. I want him to ignore me completely. I'll be quite happy to do the same to him. Thrilled in fact. Homey 00:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Zeq's block has ended and he's started editing again. I'd like to resolve this now so could you please respond to my proposal? Thanks. Homey 21:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I will off course respect Doorjam resolution and even without I would have "avoid any further edits that even appear to be motivated by a desire to intimidate others" - no question about that.

As for Homey's requests:

Out of everything Homey asks I think his request for me not to post on his talk page is a reasnable one and I will off course respect it. As far as writing articles on him (or who he claim to be) : I have delted the article as soon as he askedme and showed me the Afd. So I think my intentions of not causing him grief over this issues have been demonsrtaed.

In the meantime it was reveled that Homey used to edit under user name that is his real name so i think that this whole "privacy" thing was just for him to try and avoid the 3RR. Homey continue his edit war and other violation of policy and I have no intention of having anyone who act against wikipedia policy to get impunity. Also limiting (further) my ability to edit is not something I can agree to. I would suggest that Homey will ask himself why he gets into so many conflict with various (many) wikipedia editors ? Zeq 21:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Why do you suppose, Zeq, that I stopped editing under my real name? Why do you think I went to all the trouble of getting my userid switched? Anyway, I'm not proposing that your ability to actually edit be curtailed (ie contribute meaningfully to articles), just your ability to harass me, particularly on Talk pages.Homey 22:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

If Zeq refuses to leave me alone, ie not post on my talk page, not refer to me or address me directly or inderectly on other talk pages, not go around trying to lobby editors and admins against me etc then I think a 30 day block is in order, if not a permanent one, for flagrant harassment in posting personal details.


 * Homey: It is time that you understand that I have no issue with you. I have a very big issue with constant policy violation, edit war, POV pushing and more. You have lobbied against me, got me banned from articles in which I made a single edit on the excuse that I 'disruppted" them while you made edit war after edit war even after i left those articles. You have also blocked me yourself indefently (twice) but this was overturned. I suggest you start by getting off my back and by removing the bans you caused me but even if you don't just start editing according to policy - if you do that your trouble with all editors you have conflicys with will be over. Zeq 04:15, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Zeq, the blocks were not "overturned", *I* lifted them after five minutes and replaced them with complaints and you ended up being banned from the articles instead. If my complaints had no merit then you wouldn't have been banned.You can't accept you did anything wrong and are, instead, harassing me incessently to the point of opening an article on me and manufacturing a bogus 3RR complaint. Now it's time for you to stop. Leave me alone! Homey 04:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Resolution, Part 2
Phew, I take one day off....

Zeq, you will not comment on Homey's talk page again. Homey, you will leave no messages on Zeq's talk page, and you will perform no administrative action against him yourself (i.e., do not block him). Neither of you is to make personal comments directed at each other on any of the pages that you both edit, though you may address concepts related directly and only to the substance of the related articles. Talk about ideas, talk about content, but do not talk about each other. If you can avoid it, do not respond directly to each other (this is not a mandate, but simply a word of advice); again, if you do so, do not talk about each other but merely about the concepts being discussed. If either of you believes that the other has violated a policy on a page that you tend to, or has violated the terms of this resolution, bring it to my talk page.

Neither of you is completely to blame, but your conflict is disrupting the project. It must stop. Please acknowledge below that you understand that you are not to comment on one another's talk pages or to discuss each other as individual editors. And, of course, please ask any questions you have about this resolution. JDoorj a m  Talk 05:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

In general I accept this resolution. As I said, I have no issue with Homey personaly. Any violation of policy (any policy such as - but not limited to: WP:Point, NPOV, WP:Not, WP:RS, 3RR etc... - all these policy violations will be addressed. any non-neutral edit or use of non-WP:RS content will also be addressed on relevant article. Any systematic violation will be addressed in a systematic way. All I want from Homey is one thing: To edit according to Policy. Simple and understandable.

As part of this resolution I would like the unfair ban on me in 4 article to be removed. It was clear that the banning admin also thought that both of us are to be balmed (Homey Pushed his POV and I countered that) but only applied the ban to me. If we are to create an equal ground for mutual respect this ban need to be removed. Zeq 06:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Zeq is not accepting the resolution as the things he promises to "address" are what he has continually been accusing me of with a litany of specious and harassing complaints on various pages. "Not discussing each other as individual editors" also means you are not to go around accusing me of anything or "address" anything even if you view it as a policy violation. Zeq, you are not my policeman or my probation officer. If, as you allege I have violated any of those policies other editors can deal with that without your "help" or advice - it is not your concern. You are to ignore me from now on. As for the ban on the various articles I have no power to lift them since I am not the banning editor. If you want ArbComm to end your probation then talk to them and if you want the editors who banned you from various articles to unban you then you must speak to them. I will agree not to file any more complaints about probation violations by you on the incident board *if* you agree to Doorjam's conditions and leave me completely alone. Homey 07:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Reading through the wikilawyering in Zeq's response it's clear he's not willing to accept any resolution. He is not making any concessions to change in behaviour and at the same time he wants his bans lifted. Given that he violated WP:Harassment by creating the article and that it's his second offence as far as violationg privacy is concerned I'm afraid the 30 day block is necessary unless Zeq drops his conditions.Homey 07:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I think what I wrote was clear enough. I accepted the resolution. The time delay in which Homey complaint was filled, as well as the fact that user:AndyL directly point to him shows he never was really that concerned about his privacy. This whole complain is without basis but i have no problem to accept the resolution since it was never my intention to expose his privacy. I will off course respect the core of Doorjam resolution and even without this decision I would always "avoid any further edits that even appear to be motivated by a desire to intimidate others" - no question about that. Zeq 07:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I will also accept the part of bring  any dispute  to you first (you seem a fair minded person) but for this siutaion to be fair the ban on me editing 4 articles will be removed. Zeq 07:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

1) If you accept the resolution, as you say, then you can't have your litany of exceptions ie "addressing" any thing you perceive as a violation of policy etc in the articles talk page or in a myriad of editor talk pages. You have to agree not to address anything to do with me whether on the relevant article's talk page, in edit summaries or on any other page. I will make one concession, if you really and truly think I've violated something you can complain to JDoorjam (if he's willing to put up with you doing this) and he can see fit to either take action by talking to me about it or ignoring your complaint, though I think even that is unhealthy since it will do little do discourage you from your current fixation on me - I think it's healthier for both of us if you just ignore me. However this is the only place you can complain - no comments on talk pages, edit summaries, WP admin incident pages etc. If JDoorjam decides not to act or acts in a way that dissatisfies you you must let it drop rather than go on one of your admin-shopping rounds. JDoorjam is the first, last and only person to whom you can mention me at all. (Subject to his agreement, of course)

2) actually, I don't have a choice about having my old usderid point to my new one - that's required by policy and I was not the person who put in the redirect, see . However, the old uersid is not my full name in any case so your point is irrelevent.

3) As I said, the probation requirement is the ArbComm's doing and their buisiness and the bans for violating your probation are a matter for the banning editor, not for myself or JDoorjam. I also don't see why violating Harassment should result in your being rewarded by having an unconnected ban lifted. Your article bans are not on the table. What we are talking about here is an alternative to you being banned for 30 days for violationg WP:Harassment a 'second time. We are not talking about the past ArbComm ruling against you or your subsequent breaches of probation. Homey 08:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Note to Homey You know what ? I am not intested to continue this verbal ping pong. Every talk page i post on wkipedia i find your comment after mine. This is harrsment as well. as for me, I am not looking to get "rewards" I want to create a fair and equal way of dealing with the fact that you have turned wikipedia to what it is WP:Not - you have made wikipedia to a battlefeild (not just with me) You wronglu think that getting me out of your way will solve your problem but listen to Tonay_Sidaway (who banned me) and to Doorjam: They all point to some level of equavalency between you and me. You must understand from that that I either I am saint or you need to change your behaviour as well. Zeq 08:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Note to DoorJam: I thank you for your efforts. If this discussion between you and me is to continue it should continue without Homey's intevenation. I am not planning to continue this verbal ping pong that charaterize each dealing with Homey: A endless edit war or discussion war until he gets his way. Zeq 08:15, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you both for your replies. I'm sorry, Zeq, but I don't see any connection between this dispute and the four articles you are banned from editing. And Homey is correct: my user space will be the site for future dispute resolution, though I may ask other admins for second opinions. That does not mean, incidentally, that this is where to go in order to snipe at each other, either: if you bring up issues regarding one another on this page (or, actually, User:JDoorjam/HZ resolution, where I will put together a page for future issues regarding this dispute), they must be in regards to specific incidents for which a page difference or series of page differences backs up specific claims you are making about policy violations or violations of this resolution. This is not a final battleground for attacking one another. JDoorj a m  Talk 15:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

He's still at it. Homey 16:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

OK. Let's start: I would like Homey to stop following me around as his last message clearly indicates he does. Zeq 17:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Zeq, not mentioning me, directly or indirectly, on any pages other than this one means just that. Homey 19:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I did not discuss you but you are following me. Zeq 19:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Zeq, do not mention me (or my former userid) directly or indirectly. Stop looking for loopholes. Homey 19:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Doorjam, this is the type of verbal ping pong that I don't wish to engage in. I also want Homey to stop following me around: It is one thing for someone to claim "harrasment" and it is another to follow me around and look for "increaminationg evidence"... Zeq 03:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, Zeq, you've proven that his having concern about your edits is warranted. Looking at the contributions of another editor does not rise to stalking; otherwise, there would be no Special:Contributions link. I am concerned that you are unable to simply stop concerning yourself with Homey, or topics related to Homey's editing or adminship, or his previous incarnations. Just let it go. While we're on the topic, let me mention that if ever an article about Homey does get written and passes WP:BIO (hey, it could happen), Zeq, you are not to edit it. (Same for you, Homey: no editing a Zeq article.) I know this is currently a non-issue, but I just thought I'd cover my bases here. JDoorj a m  Talk 04:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I understand. Zeq 05:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I rewrote Rose Ensemble
I rewrote the article Rose Ensemble which you deleted as a copyvio. It isn't a copyvio now, and I think the tour and the recordings are a sufficient assertion of notability. (I started to rewrite it before you deleted it, but you deleted it before I was finished.) Anyway, please look at the article and make any changes that you think are appropriate. --TruthbringerToronto 05:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I added a fact tag to the tour section. The whole thing really does need explicit references, but I won't delete it again. Thanks for letting me know you reposted it, and good work cleaning it up; if it gets nominated for a speedy deletion or gets deleted as a reposting of deleted material (as sometimes happens when admins are in too much of a hurry), let me know and I will advocate for its undeletion. JDoorj a m  Talk 05:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of my history
I just archived the contents. Please nuke the complete history to be on the sure side. I'll double post here and on your talk page, as it is urgent, sorry. Thank you for swift help. --tickle me 17:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I send you an email for privacy concerns. --tickle me 18:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I am serious about the complaint that led to my ban
Homey brought before you event that took place weeks ago. At about thesame time he brought a complain against me that although several admins argued it was at least partially baseless he was ablew to get an over zealous admin to ban me from 4 articles. That complain was baseless and if indeed we are going into a new era in our relationship with a good spirit to respect each other i ask that Homey drop that complaint and that my ability to edit these 4 articles should be restored. Zeq 19:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I see no point in rewarding you for bad behaviour, particularly when you are still demonstrating an inability to leave me alone - witness your post to User talk:Sam Spade. In any case, it's not up to me or JDoorjam but to ArbComm member User:Tony Sidaway though I doubt that you calling him an "over zealous admin" is going to do much to convince him that you've accepted responsibility for your actions and that the ban can now be lifted. Homey 21:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

If your goal is to harass me until I ask that your ban is lifted, forget it. Homey 22:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Zeq, I will not unban you or lobby to unban you from those four articles. I would suggest that establishing a history of civility might lead to an unbanning, but it will not work as a negotiation tool here. Homey was right to complain at this page about your edit on Sam Spade's page. Consider this your only warning that talking about Homey away from this page, especially his previous accounts or real-life identity, is not acceptable. (And, as said before, only policy violations should be discussed here.) I will administer a block on your account if you again violate the terms laid out above. For this resolution to work, Zeq, you need to abide by it, both its literal rules and its spirit. JDoorj a m  Talk 02:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Funny swathes
Humor is subjective, of course, but both the SCREW notice and the pic make the page look less like a real (fake) policy and more... silly. Silly is not necessarily funny. The SCREW box especially is labored and takes away from the funny, in my opinion. Especially in a case like this, less is more. But chacun a son goût.  · rodii ·  15:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

FYI
Homey has accused me of bad faith on another page. Zeq 17:40, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, because you accused User:El C, an admin who has just banned you from an article, of breaking 3RR and used as your evidence consecutive edits even though you know from your erroneous 3RR complaint against me that you can't do that since there's an explicit exception in WP:3RR (ie 3 reverts made in quick succession without interruption should be counted as one). It seems any admin who disciplines you becomes a target for bad faith 3RR complaints and other harassment. Homey 17:53, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Homey, first get the timing right:
 * 1) I first talked to El C and suggested she self revert to avoid 3RR and indeed she self reverted.
 * 2) She continued her self reverts
 * 3) She 'solved" a really minor edit dispute with me, first by deleting the few comments I made on her talk page
 * 4) next, she reverted me again
 * 5) next she banned me from the article
 * 6) then, she banned me from that article.


 * you should not have discussed you views of my actions in the way you did and in the place you did. In this you have violated our agreement here. Don't use excuses just follow our agreement. Please remove the accusations of me from the 3RR board.


 * After you comply I will discuss your accusation with you here - where it should have been brought to start with. Zeq 18:26, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I really don't see the point of discussing this with you any further. I weighed in on what I saw was yet another bad faith 3RR complaint from you, an attempt to use 3RR as retaliation against admins who discipline you. That's the end of it. Homey 18:53, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


 * This is your view, not supported at all by the timing. In any case, you should discuss it here. Zeq 19:28, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh come on, you listed several consecutive edits as separate reverts despite being told last week you can't do that. Homey 20:13, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

But fine, in addition to not initiating complaints against you I will not respond to any complaints you make against others, no matter how erroneous or specious. If, however, another ArbComm complaint is brought against you I reserve the right to add my comments. Homey 20:26, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Read El_C reply. she admit to 6 reverts. (just provide justifications for her reasons) please appologize here and there for accsing me in bad faith. (I made one small mistake which I corrected when pointed out to me (See WP:AGF) Zeq 04:40, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * No Zeq, your complaint against El C was motivated purely by vindictiveness resulting from your being banned - you included in your revert count consecutive edits by the same editor even though you had already been informed that in such cases blocks of edits count as one.Therefore, I view your complaint as being in bad faith. Anyway, I have said I will comment no further on your indiscretions and leave it to other editors to upbraid you. I see this is already happening. Homey 14:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Homey, you should not have commented on Zeq's 3RR accusation. User:El C has been around long enough that, if the accusation is baseless, El C will know how to deal with the matter, and if it's not, then El C was correctly pointed out as being in the wrong. Regardless, it's not a matter that you needed to get involved with. I understand, given your standing conflict with Zeq, that you have a desire to point out what you perceive as incorrect statements by Zeq. But instead, you should have simply taken a step back and let the matter unfold on its own. For the sake of conflict minimization, have faith that other editors will correctly deal with situations related to Zeq, and try not to directly engage Zeq in the future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JDoorjam (talk • contribs)

FYI (2)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Central_discussions/Apartheid#Proposal__by_User:Humus_sapiens - homey voted twice but I did not want to mention it there. Seems like a mistake. Zeq 18:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

yes, it was a mistake and I struck out the second "vote". If you didn't want to mention it why did you mention it? Homey 20:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I did not want to mention it there. Here I will. Zeq 22:20, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Zeq, thank you for bringing your concern to this page and not reporting it on that one. Homey -- don't worry, you're not the first and won't be the last to accidentally vote twice in a straw poll. Thank you for quickly correcting your error when you noticed it. I'm hopeful that eventually you'll both be able to overlook minor accidents such as this one that the other may commit, but am still glad that you brought your concern here first. JDoorj a m  Talk 02:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

T1 userbox
Hi,

I hope you are not on Wikibreak anymore and if you are I'm sorry for the interruption, just tell me so (if you can) and I'll move my question to another admin (although it specifically involves you).

On June 27th you deleted a T'1 user box. It was recreated and deleted again on June 29th. Next, it was moved to user space. I discussed the matter with the userbox's creator and after he refused to remove the box from theUserboxes/Beliefs, I marked his box for speedy deletion per T'1, and it was aparently subsequently deleted around July 1st (although I couldn't find this deletion on the log). That same day I got an angry message from the user claiming I had no right to delete the template (although I didn't delete it and it was probably deleted by an unknown admin). The userbox was recreated by the user.

So, I would be glad if you, as an admin with knowledge of Wiki policy and with previous involvement in the issue, will be able to answer my following questions:

1. Does T'1 policy apply to user space? If so, should I relist the template for speedy deletion? How would I prevent it form being recreated after possible redeletion (is protection possible and legitimic in such a case?)

2. If T'1 does not apply to userboxes in user space, can I at least request the permanent removal of the userbox from Userboxes/Beliefs?

3. If the above solutions are not possible, what should I do to remove this offensive, inflammatory, and divisive userbox?

Thanks. Tal :) 08:27, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Happy first edit day!
Congratulations on completing one year on Wikipedia! -- May the Force be with you! Shr e shth91(esperanza elections!) 08:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Happy first edit anniversary!
Wishing you a very happy first edit anniversary!

Don't forget to save me some cake!

EVOCATIVEINTRIGUE TALKTOME | EMAILME | IMPROVEME 09:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey just thought I'd pass by and give out some wikilove! Hope you are having a superb time. Feel free to go for a skinny dip or something else unusual like that, just so you can feel free! Feel the love. MyNam e IsNotBob  14:12, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Happy wiki-birthday. All the best for all the days to come! --Bhadani 15:34, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

The recording artist Aaron Walton
Why was the national recording artist Aaron Walton deleted? It seems as though the individual who posted it for delete simply had a personal issue. Please restore this artist.


 * The article on Aaron Walton was deleted because it did not rise to the notability guidelines outlined at WP:MUSIC. You can take the matter to deletion review if you believe there was an error in the process leading to its deletion. JDoorj a m  Talk 16:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Aaron Walton on deletion review
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Aaron Walton. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, your reasons on how or why you did so will be greatly appreciated in the above review.

Userbox "massacre"
Hi, Recently you have deleted from Userboxes/Beliefs almost all of the userboxes! Does that fit with WP policy??? ( You don't honestly consider all of them T'1, do you?)

Doesn't the German solution allow for the migrated userboxes to be listed in the main directory?

Please explain your actions, as I can't figure it out.

Tal :) 17:27, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Heh, "Massacre"? Nah. I didn't delete any of them; I simply was bold and removed the links to them. There are some editors who have truly deleted hundreds of user boxes; I haven't been rouge enough an admin to have earned that. ;) The German Solution actually explicitly says they're supposed to be removed, but I removed them for the same reason you wanted the "Accused Zionist" box removed: it defeats the purpose of removing boxes if they're treated exactly the same as before. To remove the "Accused Zionist" box and not the others would have been applying a double standard. The ultimate point of WP:GERMAN is to get the user boxes out of WP: space altogether. Allowing the boxes that have been removed from Wikispace to be put back in directory form just entrenches the boxes. That's why I removed the links to them all. JDoorj a m  Talk 17:47, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmm, okay, I guess I won't rev. your edits then... But I just want to clarify that I think the Accused Zionist box was a special case as it was the only one that violated T'1 so clearly, and I think that deleting it and letting all the others stay would not have been a double standard. By the way, do you think I should/could list that specific userbox for speedy deletion? Does it fit the criteria? Tal :) 18:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

ARYAN818
Hi JD - I had pointed out the very point to user:Nichalp just a couple of days ago - apparently Aryan818's explanation is that its his Los Angeles area code. This Fire Burns  17:51, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

t1 and smoking
investigating your bold approach to Userboxes/Beliefs i notice that in addtion to 'accused zionist' you also removed 'this user does not smoke'. presumably this is because it somehow violated t1. yet, you left in 'this user is straight edge' -- a philosophy that strongly opposes smoking (and drinking and drug use among other things). my questions are: --frymaster 20:49, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) do you really see 'this user does not smoke' as a violation of t1?
 * 2) do you feel it is a as divisive and inflammatory as 'accused zionist'?
 * 3) do you think there is anything contradictory about removing the anti-smoking box and leaving the straight edge one?
 * 4) what do you think is liable to cause more division and inflamation: these userboxes or the act of deleting them?

FYI 3
Doorjam,

I was planning at some point to bring to your attention Homey violations of policy (not, point, RS, NPOV and more) but events happned faster than I have time for.

Homey wrote few days ago: "If ArbComm complaint is brought against you I reserve the right to add my comments" and since an ArbCom complain was now followed about Homey I plan to contribute my comments directly there. Zeq 03:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I think you're within your rights to air your grievances before the ArbCom. That, after all, is the point of the Arb Com. (They pull rank on me anyway. ;) ) The point of this mediation is 1. to minimize the conflict between you two, and 2. to keep your conflict from spilling over into places it shouldn't be (talk pages, AN/I, etc.). Thanks for letting me know.

There is no arbcomm complaint against me. There's an arbcomm complaint concerning an article title revert war at Israeli apartheid which I did not participate in. Given that Zeq is banned from the article I expect his comments will be dismissed out of hand but if he wants to embarrass himself by showing up at a party to which he hasn't been invited that's his problem. Homey 06:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Nice joke. Homey not involved in the dispute over "israeli apartheid". Doorjam, thatk you for your help but this recent comment by Homey shows what you tried to create does not work. Zeq 06:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Reviewed the ArbCom case in question. Thank you for striking out your comment responding to Homey. Homey, do be more civil, please; saying Zeq is embarrassing himself isn't constructive. I disagree, Zeq: you two have not had a direct conflict away from this page since this attempt at mediation has begun that has not been retracted. JDoorj a m  Talk 07:16, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I have been busy lately. As I said: Homey violates alsmost every posible policy (NPOV, NOT, point (he reverts many articles exactly 3 times each day) and wp:rs) I am sure the time will come to deal with that abuse. If you want to start reviewing his actions you are welcome: Homey is a cause of much dsiruption to the project. Zeq 08:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

And here you are egging Humus on. Homey 16:01, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know why Zeq has added a "note" to an arbcomm complaint he is *not* a party to in order to make a series of accusations and insinuations against me. Homey 16:06, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

You did not seriously thought you are not a party to this case ? You left me no choice but to make sure they consider you a party and indeed I saw that you were added to the case (not by me) Zeq 18:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Zeq, the complaint is about changing the title of Isreali apartheid to Allegations of Israeli apartheid. I was not involved in that edit war. Nevertheless you have decided to throw in your grab bag of nonsensical and baseless allegations. Should I now move that ArbComm investigate you for your conduct on talk pages, your stalking of me and your opening of an article on me? By your tangential reasoning for attacking me in an ArbComm complaint that *you* are not even a party to I guess I should. I think you should consider removing your comments, at the very least removing the comments you've made directly and indirectly about me. Homey 23:02, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * So you re-raise the same threats - using them every time it is convinet. Go ahead I am not afarid of threats. Read other comments in the RfA and the RfM - many kniow you are not only a party to this dispute but the prime instigator of it. Do you honestly think that by staying away from this last stage of the long edit-war you started you can become "not a party to this dispute" ? You are insulting us if you think this way. Appologize for hinting we are all dummies. Zeq 03:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Zeq, as you say, ArbCom is the last stage of this dispute. I don't think that whether or not Homey has been involved up to this point much matters in how the ArbCom decision will fall. Take a breath, take a walk outside, don't worry about Homey's involvement or non-involvement in this. I was going to make the same suggestion that Homey has: rather than striking through your comments and calling them removed, as a show of good faith here, please delete the comments responding directly to Homey altogether from the proceedings, leaving "Comment removed". Striking through your comments is the right spirit but you should take the full, proper step of removing them. JDoorj a m  Talk 06:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I will do that If Homey will agree to my participation in the mediation over these issues. Zeq 07:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

See. Referring to me as "youknowwho" doesn't get him off the hook. Homey 15:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Homey my dear, Why are you so.. concerned about what i wrote about an account that ended up being a sock ppuept (which was active only while you were on a 48 Block for 3RR violation?) starnge - isn't it .... ? Zeq 15:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

btw, Since Homey has refered to me in several places (outside of the context of the Arbitration - in which incedently he argued I should not be a party too) this whole arrengment that DoorJam tried to borker seems to be falling apart anyhow.

It does not amke any sense that he just tries to exclude me from everything: Articles he edit, mediations, arbitartion etc... Something here does not look right. Zeq 15:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm concerned that you are violating your agreement with Jdoorjam and that you insist on stalking and harassing me. Again, if you have an accusation make it to Jdoorjam and no where else. You agreed to that so comply. I only referred to you elsewhere *after* you decided to insinuate yourself in the ArbComm complaint despite not being a party to it and after you made comments about me there. Anyway, I will be careful not to make any more references to you from now on but you must do the same - do you really want the ArbComm to examine your violation of WP:Harassment when you are already on probation and when you already violated WP:Harassment against Zero? Homey 15:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * No one is stalking and harrsing you and you are dreaming up accusations. You reserved the right to participate in an arbCom case against me and I have the right to particiopate inan arbCom case in which you are party too. that is all. Zeq 17:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

As for your accusation, it should be noted that Felonious never posted anything on my talk page accusing me of sockpuppetry. He also got his information suggesting someone else *might* be a sockpuppet from Jayjg whom I have a conflict with so the source is questionable as Jay was and is in a conflict of interest - the only evidence seemed to be that both of us were editing from the same large metropolis, one with a huge population of Israelis and Palestinians, there was no IP overlap (I know this because the suspected user also posted as an IP). The fact that no further action was taken should tell you something. Homey 15:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Must be a couincedense. Zeq 17:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The sock was active mostly (or even only) while you were on a 48 hours block and it was active in your pet article of apartheid.
 * Another sock placed a message on my user page 5 minutes after you blocked me (while you were under a block)

Zeq, given the number of times you've accused me of having a sock puppet on various pages only to be proven wrong (including the instances above) it's gotten tiresome. Think what you want but stop making snide references to me all over the place - you've already agreed to this so keep your word.Homey 18:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I will keep my word. Don't go fishing after every joke I make. You should have not started your accuastion campgain against me on Slim talk page and the mediation page and the arbCom page (I am not yet involved in the case). Zeq 18:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

"I will keep my word."

When?

"Don't go fishing after every joke I make."


 * The joke was about "Son of Zion" a known sockppupet Zeq 19:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The "joke" referred to "youknowwho editor will want to ban me from the mediation ". Clearly that was a reference to me.Homey 21:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't make "jokes" at my expense. There is no exception for jokes.

"You should have not started your accuastion campgain against me on Slim talk page and the mediation page and the arbCom page (I am not yet involved in the case)."

Circular argument. Had you not attacked me I would not have needed to reply. Desist. Homey 19:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

No it is not. You always seem to change the timing to suit your accusations:
 * 1) Slim invited me the mediation
 * 2) I accpeted
 * 3) You stated a campaign against my participation.

Do you want diffs and time stamps ? this is getting childish. Zeq 19:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

"Do you want diffs and time stamps ?"

Good idea. 06:59 am 5 July 2006 - that post was made first and you had made insinuations previous to that. As I said, had you not attacked me I would have not needed to reply.Homey 21:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Like you, I reserved the right to participate in the arbitration. So Now I understand:Since I posted in the Rfa you attacked me on slimVirgin talk page. Zeq 03:15, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't *attack* you, I simply explained why it was incorrect to list you as a party to an article that you're banned from editing. Because you attacked me in the ArbComm request I replied to your attack in the RFA. Now cease and desist. Homey 05:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

OK - do you want to resume the agreement that we do not make comments on one another on any talk page ? I will do it if you re-commit to it and agree to a voluntary 3 day block if you violate the agreement. Use of sockppupet during such blocvk would double the duartion. Zeq

Recommit? I never committed to any such thing in the first place. Remember, you are the one who violated Wikipedia:Harassment and this is all an agreement so that you can avoid being blocked or taken to ArbComm for harassment. But I will agree not to make any comments about you anywhere at all if you remove everything you've said from the RFA and withdraw from it entirely.

In regards to the RFA, you said earlier concering removing everything you've said about me: "I will do that If Homey will agree to my participation in the mediation over these issues."

Fine, you win. I will drop my objection to you participating in the mediation if you withdraw completely from the RFA ie agree you are not a party and remove *everything* you have posted to the RFA and/or the talk page. I simply do not have the hours it will take to write up a detailed response to your accusations and it's tiresome responding to accusations that have been refuted several times already. It would also completely sidetrack the RFA if I did it. Homey 13:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Userboxes
(in response to your message)

Indeed, this is a problem. You do know the full scope of the German solution, right? All userboxes are moved away from project space and into userspace so it is clear that they aren't endorsed by the project. That means Userboxes and all of its subpages need to go too. I think it's time to start moving forward with this. -- Cyde↔Weys 04:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Baskervilles
Hi, I restored only one piece of history that redirects the article to The Hound of the Baskervilles. I hope that's ok.-- Kungfu Adam ( talk ) 01:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

FYI 4
I am really concerned by the marked activities of sock puppets in every area in which Homey has a conflict.

Soon after Slim added me the mediation request (Homey objected to it) and to make his point some sock puppet add these as well: Zeq 04:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

JDoorjam, feel free to go to the checkuser page and request a check on myself and SlaveCrixus - checkuser will show we are not the same user. Homey 05:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, don't worry about it, I've done it myself. See Requests for checkuser/Case/SlaveCrixus. Homey 05:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

No surprize as for the results: Zeq 08:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

as well as the sock puppet response to Homey's request: vandelizing my user page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Zeq&oldid=62530022 Zeq 10:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Zeq, I am not SlaveCrixus - go make a Usercheck request yourself then if you don't believe me. Homey 13:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you think I'm an idiot Zeq? If I did have a sock puppet do you think I'd go out of my way to try to prove the suspicion correct? Perhaps the puppeteer is someone trying to discredit me but it's certainly not me. Homey 13:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, see User talk:SlaveCrixus. I don't know who the sockpuppet is but I have some suspicions. Homey 13:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Alternative to checkuser
An alternative to check user is to send e-mails (not through wikipedia, but direct from your e-mail program) to a mutually trusted admin (or editor) who can do some verifications. This comes down to the same level of security as checkuser has (or even better). -- Kim van der Linde at venus 13:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * And I am willing to be that admin (I have the tools for the checks available. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 14:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll agree to this. What do I do?Homey 14:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Just send an e-mail with your regular mail to me (mailto:kim@kimvdlinde.com). That is all. As soon as I have both, I will run some checks. I only will report if you are the same, likely the same or not, without revealing any personal information (logical) or details about how this was checked (WP:BEANS). Ideally, if both of you could indicate your real name (which I will keep confidential at all times), that would be a good additional verification method. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 14:13, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your help in this, Kim. Homey, you must admit that SlaveCrixus, with a short and volatile edit list, does appear to be a sockpuppet (though not your sockpuppet). Zeq, remember that the issues and articles you and Homey are involved in are controversial, and, though your conflict is perhaps most pronounced with Homey, there are other editors who you might have a disagreement with who could potentially resort to sockpuppetry. JDoorj a m  Talk 15:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The user already has admitted that it is a sockpuppet, and voiced his/her motivation for doing so . -- Kim van der Linde at venus 15:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I recieved e-mails of both parties, and they are definately different persons, at different continents as claimed by both editors. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 17:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Kim, good, how about son of Zion ? (also a sockpppupet) and how about all those sock puppets (anon IP) coming from Homey's home town ? Zeq 17:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You can post a copy of this at the son of Zion page, and I will see an e-mail or not. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 17:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * This isn't a fishing expedition, Zeq. Assume good faith unless you have concrete proof that leads you to do otherwise. JDoorj a m  Talk 17:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Son of Zion was active in the 48 hours Homey was blocked for 3RR and edited the same way as he (reverts etc..) - id this good enough ? Zeq 18:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * That account is indef blocked as a sock from homey, and if there is no request from that the blocked account, I am not going to do anything with it. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 18:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

FYI 5
Zeq 18:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the block on SonofZion was done in a prejudicial manner and with insufficient evidence. The fact that I was never contacted about this alleged sockpuppet, except by Zeq, makes me suspicious about the evidence, particularly as it was "analyzed" by someone who is hardly objective in this matter (Jay). If an impartial analysis can be done of this user I would appreciate it. If indeed it was my sock then I would have been blocked as a result but it seems the evidence wasn't there for anything beyond a suspicion - a suspicion that is relatively easy to deal with if one considers that I live in Canada's largest city, that Canadians are more likely to use the internet even than Americans, and that there is a large population of both Jews (Israelis and otherwise) and Palestinians.

As for SlaveCrixus, it's telling that Zeq has failed to apologise for his false accusation - he simply says "good" and then moves on to another accusation as per usual. No reflection on being wrong - nothing. Simply a desire to keep throwing as much dirt as he can in the hope that something will eventually stick.

Zeq, I have accepted your offer to agree to your participation in mediation if you remove everything you've said about me, directly or indirectly, on the RFA. I've also agreed not to post anything about you on other pages. Yet, despite the fact that I have agreed to *your* requests you are silent. Can you give me an answer? Or was your offer made insincerely? Homey 19:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Homey, could I ask you as a gesture of goodwill to stop posting to Zeq? I am going to ask him also to stop posting to you. I'm asking that you please concentrate on being part of the solution and not part of the problem, and that goes for Zeq too (and everyone else). If we can get the mediation up and running, I'm confident we'll find a compromise to all of this, but we have to get there first. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Zeq has offered to remove his offending comments and not post any further comments on me outside of this page if I agree to his participation in mediation. I am willing to agree to this now it's just a matter of his living up to his word and removing his comments from the RFA. If he does this then this will be at an end and your suggestion above will come to fruition. It's up to Zeq. Homey 19:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * No, the deal is that you agree to mediation, and that Zeq is allowed to take part. You have to agree to it or else there's no point to it, because you are at the center of the dispute. In the meantime, Zeq is more likely to agree to his part in this if you stop posting aggressive comments to or about him; and you are more likely to agree to your part if he stops posting aggressive comments to or about you. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I need to hear from Zeq first. Homey 20:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * He's removed his comments as he said he would. Now it's up to you. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:23, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Done. Conditional on no more comments about me off of this page and I will do the same for him. Homey 20:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Done. Zeq 20:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Block of User:ARYAN818
Hello,

I've unblocked this user. This user is from India, and his first name is Aryan. He requested to be unblocked on unblock-en-l.--Eloquence* 00:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Looking further, there seems to be a bit of a history here. If the user's edits are problematic and justify a block, please use this as a block reason -- the name thing seems to be genuine, given that "Aryan" was also the first name in the e-mail he wrote in his request to be unblocked.--Eloquence* 00:35, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm German and know a bit about the neo-nazi subculture -- 818 is not a number I've ever seen used for "Heil Adolf Hitler", and Google does not indicate popular usage. However, I do understand the objection, and only saw these comments after I had unblocked the user (he had blanked his own talk page). The user also seems to be a bit confused about how Wikipedia works. I'm not sure what the best way is to deal with this situation, but for now I would suggest gently advising the user to change his name to a version without the "818".--Eloquence* 01:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * or without the "ARYAN". That's not just his first name, all his edits are pushing a Hindu racialist pov on "Aryan" related topics. He is not a Nazi, obviously, but something like the Indian counterpart. We don't need this kind of contribution here, regardless of the contributor's username, and the dodgy username is just the last straw. dab (ᛏ) 08:42, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

You changed my page again
The user Eloquence blanked my page so that he/she could explain for everyone to read my user name....Eloquence was trying to make it easier for anybody to find the information about why I should not be blocked, just in case somebody was trying to block me....And then you came along just now, and decided to erase that and put my page back to the way it was.....Can I ask you somethign....Why do you keep interfering with me? Cant you be nice and just leave me and my page alone? ARYAN818 08:13, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? Check the history. I put the boilerplate for an indefinitely blocked user on your page once, after blocking your account. No one's reverted your page since Eloquence edited it (though he did remove his signature). Hope this clears up any confusion. JDoorj a m  Talk 18:56, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

FYI 6
As a participant in Wikipedia I hope you will read the words of the Palestinian writer Hanina here: especially the part about History which is where Wikipedia takes part. Best Zeq 10:09, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks re: SFGate on BarCamp AfD
Just that, thanks for the link! Oh, and Chris Messina has now followed up with a posting to the BarCamp weblog. Latrippi 03:52, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Your comments at WT:RFA
Re:. You're not putting words into my mouth. Well done :) --Durin 18:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 10th
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.

Signpost delivered by: RoyBoy 800 04:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

real sources?
how are these two sources not real? Themindset 00:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Disruption
I'm very disappointed that you've decided to go oppose all the individual stable article discussions. I know you don't approve of the general idea, and you have been appropriate voicing your objections on the talk page... but it's unfortunate that you feel that your arguments are not strong enough to prevail and that you must also sabotage the efforts of others elsewhere. :( --Gmaxwell 13:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Come now. "Disrupt"? "Sabotage"? I put arguments against static versions on a handful of talk pages. The problem is not that I feel my arguments are not strong enough; the problem is that certain users have taken it upon themselves to start a forest fire. There's no longer one single point of discussion, because instead of inviting people to all come discuss it at your page, users have specifically invited everyone to start talking in a dozen different places. So now anyone who has an opinion about the matter and wants that opinion heard has to go forum shopping. I'm not the one to blame for this. If you think speaking on multiple forums about an issue that should be on one page is counter-productive, as I do, then you'll join me in steering discussions toward the Stable versions now talk page. But please don't use loaded language to describe actions that clearly do not qualify as sabotage and disruption. JDoorj a m  Talk 14:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: Tonic Sol-fa
Why do you keep reverting the Tonic Sol-fa page? I have permission from the group to set up this page for them. Also, they are a national recording group, and have performed with groups such as Rockapella, thus thet should be list on the Modern A cepplla page, and Contemporary A cappella page. Thanks for your consideration —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mawebpgs (talk • contribs)

My comments on stablization
Thanks so much for your support for my comments. I've decided to break them out into a Wikiessay, at Wikipedia.org is a project to write an encyclopedia. Please look it over, make any changes you like, improve the wikification or formatting if you wish, or what have you. Thanks again. JesseW, the juggling janitor 19:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Cornell
I have just started WikiProject Cornell University, an attempt to thoroughly cover topics related to Cornell. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Thanks! — mercuryboard talk 05:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Zeq yet again
See Zeq has broken his agreement by making a rather thinly veiled (at first) attack on me - an attack that was obstensivly in response to a motion I was making but completely irrelevent to it. I suggest that Zeq's comments need to be removed; I will then remove mine. Otherwise, action should be taken against Zeq for violating the agreement.Homey 08:36, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I have made a very general comment about activists using Wikipedia (in violation of WP:Not and WP:NPOV) to push their POV. If Homey thinks this is a violation of our agreement this means he knows he is indeed a violator of WP:Not. Clearly his reponse to my comment was a direct attack on me personaly. Also as Homey resreved the right in out original agreement to comment on me in a RFA I have kept the same right and still do. My previous gareement to remove comments from the RFA was just to allow tghe mediation to continue but since it was stopped I resrve the right to post commebnts on the RFA (which I have been doing for a while long before Homey started to attack me) Zeq 08:45, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I will agree to removing my comments from the arbitration page if Homey will do the same. Zeq

I have made a very general comment about activists using Wikipedia (in violation of WP:Not and WP:NPOV) to push their POV.

Why did you place your comments in a completely irrelevent place, ie as a response to my motion regarding Fred? It was clear from your placement of the comments that they were aimed at me as they had nothing whatsoever to do with Fred. Your subsequent comments when I responded to your proposal were quite direct attacks on me. You said:

Clearly, I have not edited the article at all and highlighting policy violations of people like you (on talk pages) is not considered as "POV PUSHING"

When you respond to me by saying "policy violations of people like you" you are explicity attacking me. It's not a matter of interpretation, Zeq, it's quite clear and in your own words. Now remove you posts and I will remove my responses to them.Homey 09:11, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

This was my response after you accused me as being an activist. Clearly highlighting policy violations of people like you does not make me an activist. Zeq 09:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

No, but acting on behalf of what you see as Israel's interests does make you one.

Anyway, calling you an "activist" isn't an insult (if it is then you shouldn't have called me one)- the point I was trying to make, however, was that banning activists, as you suggest, would eliminate most editors from the article particularly since your definition of activist is quite loose (see next point). The other point I was making was that if I am an activist so are you and the others who have been editing on both sides of the issue. Sorry Zeq but in "real life" I'm not an "activist" on this issue. I don't go to demos, I don't belong to the ISM or any Palestinian rights group. I've written a single letter to the editor but that's no different from you posting the various things online that you've posted arguing in favour of Israel's position on various issues. If I'm an activist then so are you. Anyway, you clearly broke the agreement by trying to bait me (by responding to my proposal on Fred in the way you did). Now yes, I had said I was an activist against apartheid in South Africa but that is a completely different country (and a completely different article) and it was also about 20 years ago!

I will agree to removing my comments from the arbitration page if Homey will do the same.

So can I remove both sets of comments then?Homey 13:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes. We had a power outage so I could not do it . In the meantime it seems someone delted it. Please remove  ALL  your comments from the page as well. Zeq 18:30, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) You've both already agreed that your comments can be removed if the other agrees to the removal of theirs, ,but not all of your comments are necessarily problematic. I have reverted the move of the comments and deleted of comments below and including when you ask, Homey, whether Zeq "includes [himself] in that category". Above that point, the conversation was at least in general terms, and somewhat constructive (though Homey does have a good point that on controversial articles, banning anyone with a strong point of view one way or another would probably ban nearly everyone). The conversation also involves other users and so shouldn't simply be removed. Discuss ideas and ways forward (that's what the "proposed principles" section is for, after all) but do not make it personal. But simply moving it to the talk page to continue yelling at each other is not an option. JDoorj a m  Talk 18:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You make a good point. Maybe "banning nearly everyone" is a bad idea. But some oversight mechanism where POV edits in sensitive articles can be reviewed before they become public should be interduced. Zeq 13:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Which is why I partially restored your comments: I thought that you had something of a good point, and didn't want a personal conflict to get in the way of constructive discussion. Again, you can remove your comments if you'd like to, but IMO they might lead to a productive discussion so long as it doesn't get personal. It's your call. JDoorj a m  Talk 16:40, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

And Zeq again!

 * See .Homey 02:28, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Zeq, I put the comments back because the thread started (albeit in a different section) to introduce the principle of keeping "political activists" from editing. As explained above, the content was replaced but without the more direct, personal comments that started near the end; if you would like to continue discussing your suggestion in general terms, you can. If you would like to withdraw your suggestion and the content in that section, you are, of course, free to do that as well. JDoorj a m  Talk 02:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I think Zeq should withdraw his personal attack on me, particularly since it seems to be a case of mistaken identity - though I suspect that he will not accuse you of disruption even though he accused me when he thought I had done the deed. Homey 04:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Anyone explaining himself is always less disruptive than doing something which seems to reverse a prvious edit without explnation. So thanks for explaining. Zeq 13:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Zeq, you falsely accused me of doing something and moreover accused me of being "disruptive" by doing it. Clearly that accusation was in bad faith as it seems it doesn't apply now that it turns out that someone else did it. Perhaps you should take that as a lesson to stop throwing out accusations? Homey 16:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Further, you haven't apologised at all. Indeed you've simply removed your comments and ironically leaving the "I agree with doorjam" part on not engaging personal attakcs while removing your personal attack without apology. Clearly you are embarassed - remember that embarassment and use it as a reminder not to curb your habit of throwing around baseless accusations. Homey 16:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Homey, try not to let Zeq's error cause further hostility between you two. Zeq, I would appreciate it if you would apologize to Homey for falsely stating he replaced the section we've been discussing, and ascribing negative motives to that action. Homey will not gloat or hold it over you that you've apologized, in case that is a concern. Both of you should realize that focusing on each other, and not the content of the encyclopedia, is what gets you both in situations where you say things to or about the other that shouldn't be said, regardless of their accuracy. JDoorj a m  Talk 17:28, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I appologize. I do focus on the content of teh encyclopedia. The problem is that Homey's behaviour, a very disruptive behaviour, have turned this encyclopedia to propeganda distribution tool. All I am trying to do is to NPOV or mitigate his misuse of the encyclopedia. Zeq 08:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Apology followed by personal attack.Homey 12:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Agonizer (band)
When I googled the members this came up can I incude it in the afd/criteria if I decide that is an opt.?-- John Lake  18:09, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I suppose you can, except that if you click on the link, you'll see that ; that looks like a consensus to "keep", so I'm not sure it'd be helpful for you. JDoorj a m  Talk 18:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I can't read that language and thought that was a speedy. It was one of the hits that came up. At any rate I have to be done with it because duty calls in 2 more days I'm gone for 3 months. I listed some valid concerns on the talk page which led me to speedy it which I see was a mistake should have maybe proded. Thanks.-- John Lake 19:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Personal attack by Zeq
See. Homey 05:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I do not know for sure, although I am 99% sure that sonofZion is indeed Homey. The fact that Homey identify an alleagtion on "some editors" that used the son of Zion sock puppet increase the possibility that it is indeed him (so now I am 99.7% sure it is him) I would not be suroprized if suddenly a "mediator" will show up and ask sonofzion to send an e-mail to "proove he is not Homey". Zeq 08:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

You do not know at all. In any case, as we agreed, if you have any accusations against me make them here and JDoorjam will investigate them. Remove accusations (direct or indirect) that you've made against me elsewhere as per your agreement. Homey 12:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Any agreement you had with Zeq was subject to the mediation going ahead, which it didn't, thanks in part to you, so Zeq is under no obligation to remove any comments. SlimVirgin (talk) 12:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

No Slim, we had an agreement prior to that as a result of Zeq's violation of my privacy by posting personal details. The settlement, negotiated by JDoorjam was, in part, that he would not go around posting accusations against me but would post them here so JDoorjam would negotiate. See above. Homey 12:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The Previous agreement did not include participation in Arbitrations. You resreved the right to participate and so did I. Zeq 12:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The previous agreement included any accusations made by you against me. JDoorjam can investigate them and take action if there's anything to them. In any case, the second agreement still stands as well as I agreed to consent to mediation and to your participation in exchange for you withdrawing from the RFA. The fact that mediation did not go ahead does not free you of your obligations and, in any case, it seems there may still be a mediation process coming out of this which I assume you would want to participate in. Homey 12:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

SV has posted the following on my page in response to my pointing out the other agreement: ''Okay, fair enough. My apologies. SlimVirgin (talk) 12:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)''

Homey 12:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Zeq has broken the agreement. Homey 14:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

" I would not be suroprized if suddenly a "mediator" will show up and ask sonofzion to send an e-mail to "proove he is not Homey"."

So you prefer suspicion over fact. So be it. Homey 14:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 17th
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. --Michael Snow 05:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Brad Wall
An unregistered user (64.110.251.69) continues to revert this article to one with some major NPOV issues and accuses other users and administrators who are trying to fix it of vandalism. Perhaps I'm out to lunch and I'm in the wrong, but I would appreciate an objective point of view. AnnieHall 07:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Serious violation lead to my block
Homey made a false accusation of me of using sockpuppet. I provided him with info showing it is not me yet he continued (without even to wait for the end of the checkuser) to instruct and admin to block me:. Zeq 04:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The information Zeq provided has proven to be wrong as Checkuser found the suspected sockpuppet was in Israel, not the United States as Zeq's "info" suggested (that Zeq's trace was inaccurate was suggested by the fact that it also identified an Israeli ISP - unlikely if the location was in fact the US). My own IP trace showed the IP was based in Herzlia, Israel. Zeq did not confirm or deny he lives in Herzlia when I posted this info on his userpage.

I suspected Zeq of using a sockpuppet as this Herzlia, Israel IP edited both Zeq's user page and an article Zeq was banned from. Since Zeq has broken our agreement and is again posting accusations about me I saw no reason not to voice my own suspiciona and so I requested that Checkuser be run on him but the checkuser people didn't immediately act. In the mean time another admin blocked Zeq based on the existing evidence. I posted again asking that Checkuser be run so that he could be exonerated if in fact he was not the same person. My exact words were:
 * An admin (not me) has banned Zeq for sockpuppetry over this. It would be prudent to run checkuser so that the ban can be lifted if checkuser exonerates Zeq.Homey 17:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

 This was done, it was found that while both users are in Israel they are in different cities. As a result I lifted the block myself. See Requests for checkuser/Case/Zeq. Homey 13:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

This is total BS. Homey was provided with info showing one of thiose IP which he claim is from israel is from califiornia. (it belongs to a company that has it's HQ in Israel) In any case Homey should have waited for the checkuser instead of instructing an impulsive admin (which behave ina childish way) to block me. Zeq 14:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes Zeq, and if you look at Requests for checkuser/Case/Zeq you'll see that the IP you claim is from California is actually from Israel. Jay said they are "not from the same city" rathe than not from the same country. There was enough evidence to justify a checkuser request and evidently there was enough evidence for another admin to block you. Perhaps the lesson you should draw from this is that suspicion and fact are two different things. Homey 16:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Homey, the issue is not if the IP is from california or not . The issue is: Is it me ? Well, it is not and you could have waited for the checkuser to find out if it is me or not instead of using an admin that behave implusvly (like 15 Yr old kid which he is) to block me. That is misuse of your admin power by proxy. I expect that Doorjam will give you the 30 day block we talked about. OK 15. Zeq 17:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't block you Zeq nor did I ask for you to be blocked. The only admin power I used, proxy or otherwise, was to unblock you. Our agreement was to bring any complaints about the other to JDoorjam who would investigate. You have broken that agreement so you can hardly complain now that I followed the usual channels in posting my suspicion about you having a sockpuppet rather than asking JDoorjam to look at it. If you want to resume the agreement then say so. Homey 19:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Zeq made the following attack on me on 17 July that violated our agreement: 

I would like this attack removed (particularly as it has nothing to do with the Israeli apartheid article, the alleged sockpuppet never edited that article and my 3RR ban at the time was for another article) and I would like Zeq to agree to no more personal attacks or accusations on any page other than your talk page. If you then think his accusation has merit, fine, but otherwise he should be leaving me alone - and he's not.Homey 20:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Homey, This is "an attack" or is this a valid arbitration evidence about the use of sockpupets ? Zeq 21:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The alleged sockpuppet never edited Israeli apartheid so it's irrelevent and gratuitous and you only said it because you were mad at me for pushing you on your AGF comment. Homey 22:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

IE you were angry that I responded to you by saying this in the AGF thread:


 * "Good question" I didn't ask a question. "We should identify  those editors who continusly acted without it  througout this crisis." This statement does not Assume Good Faith, quite the opposite. Please read WP:AGF.Homey 04:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

You were angry and you reacted with a personal attack that had nothing to do with the Israeli apartheid article. Homey 22:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

For all your Tireless work here...


You really, really deserve this JDoorjam, not only for all your great work as an admin, but for being a wonderful wikipedian who is always ready to help out. All the best, Th ε Halo Θ 18:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey, thanks -- you made my day! It's nice to feel appreciated. Cheers, JDoorj a m  Talk 18:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Misconceptions about Iran
Hi JDoorjam,

I had three questions regarding your comment: ''The result was delete. The article inherently cannot be neutral. There is no metric for what constitutes a "common" misconception about Iran. The page has already been userfied at User:Khorshid/Misconceptions; any factual information not already present in our Iran-related articles can be gathered from there.''

1. Would you please reply to the view posted by me (User: Aminz), User: Tom harrison, and User: Itsmejudith and User: Joe Dynue who agreed with me and Tom, in your closing comment as well.

2. Your comment ''There is no metric for what constitutes a "common" misconception about Iran. The page has already been userfied at User:Khorshid/Misconceptions; any factual information not already present in our Iran-related articles can be gathered from there.'' seems to me to be your personal comment rather than the closing comment that summerizes the discussion. Honestly, Particularly, I am still confused the relevance of "The page has already been userfied at User:Khorshid/Misconceptions" as a closing comment.

3. Would you please let me know why the article should contain the "common" misconception about Iran? As long as an established, recognized media spreads somethings which is not true, the wiki article can quote it. I don't think in wikipedia anybody is supposed to figure out what the truth is, or similarly what a "common" misconception is, in the first place. So, I can't really get how your comment is relevant to this particular article. --Aminz 19:38, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks in advance, --Aminz 19:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * JDoorjam, I just noticed that someone has recreated the Misconceptions about Iran article. I am unhappy with this myself. I have requested Tom harrison to remove it for now. We will wait for you to come back. --Aminz 09:27, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Could you please reply to my post. Thanks --Aminz 04:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * If I should beg you to get reply for my post, I do. I do beg you to reply back to my questions. --Aminz 07:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

1. You believe the article should be moved to one relating to media perceptions of Iran. I think this is inappropriate for a tertiary reference, in large part because Iran should aspire to be the impressions of secondary sources, i.e., the media (books, television, magazines, newspapers).

2. This doesn't seem to be a question, but I'll respond nonetheless. There has been concern in other articles that a page contains valuable content, though the article itself should be deleted. The article that comes most rapidly to mind is Rationales for the impeachment of George W. Bush, or something similar to it (we'll find out how well memory serves when I hit "Save page"). My point was that, as the page has been userfied, it can be accessed to add content to other articles; one need not fear that its history has been deleted.

3. You saw this article as an opportunity to correct misperceptions in the media? That's not the job of this project. Your proposition seems like watchdoggery and original research. Again, you haven't asked a question, but I'll infer one, and reply: there would need to be a metric by which misconceptions could be measured. Please, omit the word common and you'll (I hope) see my point: that the media has mentioned a thing does not a notable thing make. You'll end up with a catalog of misstatements about Iran. That's not an encyclopedic article.

I hope this helps. JDoorj a m  Talk 07:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks JDoorjam. Well, beging was the last thing I had to do in order to complete my collection of experiences full in wikipedia

JDoorjam, a person from the axis of evil, would likes to greet you . I'll get back to you soon. --Aminz 08:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Explanation, just noticed that

has an irrelavant image-title (can we change it? ). I meant this :P --Aminz 08:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

FYI
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#HOTR - I just saw that I am not the only one who suffered from his abuse of power. Zeq 03:35, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 24th


You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. --Michael Snow 04:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very much for protecting my user page. I appreciate that, and I am pleasantly surprised by the muted response to my LA Times editorial. Best wishes, Bernard Haisch Haisch 15:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

420
hey, just wondering why you deleted the slang terms. ReverendG 17:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC) fair enough. ReverendG 17:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I really don't see any evidence of empathy from KSmrq as you suggest; wish I could. On his talk page he complains that I took one of his self-descriptory sentences and omitted another to cite in my op-ed piece and that this left an erroneous impression. But that is exactly my complaint about the original ariticle about me: that it was based on selected information which resulted in a major misrepresentation of my career. Too bad KSmrq cannot see his own reaction to that.

Again, though, I thank you very much for your willingness to look into the matter if this flames up again.Haisch 22:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

How Did yOU?
How do you protect your userpage from anybody editing it. --So Fresh and So Clean_Wish U Was Me 20:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Does the fact that you're asking mean you originally wanted to edit, with malicious intent? -- JD [ don't talk|email ] 21:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 31st


You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 03:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

wikiality
Your contention that the Colbert incident is "not notable" is purely Wiki-biased opinion. Why don't you go take a look at List of neologisms on The Simpsons if you want to get up in arms about the notablity of terms. I think really, you are just up in arms about a slight to the wikipedia.Ivymike21 19:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, I don't think that page is a pile of crap. It offers a ton of information to someone interested in knowing more about the Simpsons. What would be the reason not to include it. The reason why Wikipedia is so vast, and so deliciously superior to traditional encyclopediae, is that it gets down into these minutia of details, propelled by editors' interest in including these facts.


 * Wikiality is no different. I don't know why you delay, because the term is going to end up in the article. Ivymike21 19:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Very simple answer. Someone added it. Wikipedia survives and grows because there are people out there who are willing to write about something they found interesting. It's not relying on paid experts. Sure, we need to keep things both neutral and verifiable, but beyond that the site needs to be open to the contributions of users.


 * We should "start" with Wikiality because someone (in fact, many people seperately) was interested in including this term. That ought to be reason enough, not based on your or some other individuals subjective validation of what is "notable". You have to admit that the word is essentially being kept off the page because YOU (and some others with you) don't think it is noteable. Who are you to say? If it is for a consensus of wikpedians to say, those for it currently carry the tally. It certainly should not be for the New York Times to say.


 * Who would you argue is benefiting from its exclusion from the site? It is upsetting that this exorcism goes beyond the mere term, but also of the obvious events which occurred when Colbert listed vandalism ideas, and those ideas happened. It's a significant event in the history of the world's most successful open source encyclopedia.


 * I'm not simply in favor of burying this down in the "trivia" section; I think the event probably should have its own page.Ivymike21 20:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Article: The Colbert Report
Please unblock The Colbert Report. Not enough vandalism has occured to justify such an action. By doing so, you are violating Wikipedia's rules on vandalism. Two occurances are not enough to block edits. Many people want to edit the article. aido2002 20:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. Furthermore, I don't fully understand why you wish to censor the Colbert/elephants event from the Colbert Report article. It certainly seems as though there is some importance to it--After all, quite a few people seem to have been involved. The Steven Colbert article as well as the Elephant article are not the appropriate places to to doccument this event. The topic has been concidered on the discussion pages of each, and the same conclusion reached as well: The Colbert Report page is the proper place to document this event. I just don't understand why an unbiased description of the event isn't allowed to be noted. Somnabot 02:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The article is unprotected and has been vandalized seven times in the past half hour, so I'm not sure what you're agreeing with. If you read through the talk page, you'll see that I and the other users don't believe that the notability of this particular "The Word" segment rises above the notability of any other "The Word" segment. Individuals arguing for its inclusion have had a difficult time refuting that. An unbiased description of the episode should absolutely be noted where it belongs, at List of The Colbert Report episodes, which provides synopses for all the episodes, and even has a blurb for "Wikiality". But include it on the main page, even though (except for truthiness) none of the other "The Word"s are there? Nah. "Wikiality" simply isn't that notable in the history of the Colbert Report. JDoorj a m  Talk 02:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Personally, I don't care one way or the other... I just feel that every article keeps trying to push the issue onto another article. As stated above, The Colbert Report article seems to be the prime place to mention the event--who seriously looks at the episodes list. For being one of the most felt effects of the show, I really don't feel the issue should be downplayed. Apparently, I am not alone: at least one of the vandalisms you mention above mentions the incident. Four of the seven vandalisms was a repeditive statement about Oregon. Somnabot 03:14, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You should up the protection level of the article Stephen Colbert as well. There are too many sleepers that have created issues for this article in the past 24 hours. Hockeyizlife 15:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Daily Show logo
I got the hires logo from the Comedy Central press site while looking for a headshot of Jason Jones (actor) for that article.

http://www.comedycentral.com/press/series/thedailyshowwithjonstewart.jhtml --waffle iron talk 04:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Regarding this edit to WP:AN/I
Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, some edits, such as those you made to the Administrators Noticeboard, are considered hilarious. If you continue in this manner you may be giving me a heart attack. Please stop, and consider sparing the weak hearts of myself and others. Thanks. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Ha, that's a great warning template. Ok, I promise I'll be on my best behavior -- I wouldn't want to be responsible for a Wikitality (or is that too close to Wikiality? Hey, maybe I'll hijack it from Colbert!) Cheers, JDoorj a m  Talk 04:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * FINISH HIM!! Shao Kahn 04:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * That's honestly the first thing I thought when Colbert said the Word was Wikiality. I thought, "Oh, shit, he's going to tell people how to kill other people using Wikipedia."

Importance?
You have placed an importance tag on the article List of neologisms on The Simpsons, but have not posted in the talk page to explain why you think so. I believe that the intro paragraph clearly indicated the importance of the list in that many of such phrases have penetrated pop culture and even the english language in some cases. Overall it simply shows that the show has a notable influence. Thoughts? TheHYPO 20:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, sorry, it's been a busy day. I'll leave a comment in a sec. JDoorj a m  Talk 21:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Reverted my edits
Thanks for fixing my cutting of the eminem article, but the RIAA stats are correct (you can see my source) and you should put back the correct info I put in. I would do it myself but I don't want to look like i'm overriding you.

Thanks. --24.14.103.32 00:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

wikiality.com
Do you know if anyone is working on a Colbert Vandalism template? --JWSchmidt 03:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * What do you mean -- something to put on the top of the page that says "Colberrorism has forced this page to be locked down"? I'm of the mind that would only encourage vandals; we should keep response as mundane as possible. JDoorj a m  Talk 03:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe such a template could contain just a an external link to the wikiality wiki....send all the vandals over there to play..... --JWSchmidt 03:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Ahh, I made just such a suggestion on the noticeboard recently. I think warnings, blocks, and discussions of all future Colberrorism should mention wikiality.com in order to drive Colbert fans to that project, where their edits will be greatly appreciated. People might flinch if we make a template for it -- it could be seen as a sort of monument to that particular species of vandal -- but you could certainly put "blatantvandal Such edits might be more appreciated at wikiality.com" as the warning (or block) message. Kind of a grass-roots thing. I'm definitely onboard with the concept. JDoorj a m  Talk 04:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

elephants
thanks, sorry i didnt know there was a discussion going on

"Colberrorism"
You sir, owe me a new keyboard.

Userboxes
How do you know what code to write for your userboxes to save them? --ScreaminEagle 21:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Template & Colbert report
What was wrong with this edit? - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Colbert_Report&oldid=67711387

Any advice is appreciated! --TheM62Manchester 22:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the advice! It was helpful!



has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing! --TheM62Manchester 22:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

endowments and university alums using wikipedia as a propaganda device
JDoorjam (by the way, great name!), I have been watching wikipedia go from opinionated in college articles to downright propaganda. So having nothing on endowments in the ivy league article suddenly became better than what was there. So I erased, and hoped to start from scratch.

The data in ivy league was so *not* npov that it was best described as misinformation. Especially with the endowments per student. Here school alums selectively decide who to call students, so to minimizing their count and maximize value per "student". At the same time the alums inflate their endowments by either giving a high value without reference, or comparing 6/05 values with 7/06 values. I wouldn't care so much, but kids read and believe this information. As a concrete example, Penn has played the USNews game to attract better and better students; Cornell, in contrast, chose to take the high road, and its students have grown less capable in recent years. So I feel a need to make some edits (however sporadic) in these propaganda forums, even if I don't have real time to spend reasoning for hours with crazed alumni.

So I will poke around at unpredictable times and try to keep crazed alums honest.

endowment logic
Hi DoorJam,

I left you an explantion of my thinking on your talk page. Nothing you probably don't recognize already -- I just come out an say it.

Was Autoblocked
Not angry, but is there anything you can do about it? Foster2008 21:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I left the above comment using Mozilla. It's fine, actually, I just won't use AOL from now on. Foster2008 22:39, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Hate to bother you, but same as above, churning out autoblocks, 1 recent--152.163.100.7 05:02, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Not a bother; it's part of the job. I've unblocked the autoblock in question. Please continue to let me know if any of my blocks (or, really, anbody's blocks) lead to AOL collateral damage. JDoorj a m  Talk 05:07, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 2 more recent autoblocks i think, looks like they're going to keep doing that every so often--152.163.100.7 21:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Colberorrism
Could you look at Wikipedia talk:Dealing with coordinated vandalism and let us know if you were, in fact the first person to use that term, and if not, where you saw it? Thanks! -Harmil 14:47, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Right. I figure this term will stick around, so it seems worth tracking down where it's from. Harmil suggested it was this edit. -- SCZenz 18:15, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

mind the beans taken a bit far
I really don't agree with this edit. I don't care enough to revert, but I think you're wrong and I have to get it off my chest. I won't bother you about it anymore. Honestly, if Wikipedia can't handle itself with something as minor as that, then maybe there's a bigger problem in the system that needs to be addressed before someone take a real, malicious swipe at the site. At this rate I fear we'll implode into the Wikipedia version of the USA PATRIOT Act. Anyway, thanks for reading. --Bobak 00:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 7th


You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Elephant article
Thanks for the praise on the elehant reorg, but don't give me too much credit for grand vision. I just couldn't stand a TOC that had "Allomothers" as a sub-section of "Body Characteristics".

University of Navarra entry
Cool. Check out this one Complutense University of Madrid. It uses prestigious. There is a problem with vandalism of the IESE entry too. Know how to block the vandal? Best wishes! Democratbob 23:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Email
My email is enabled. Sorry I didn't respond sooner. — mercuryboard talk 04:23, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Mrs. Doubtfire 2
You have the page for Mrs. Doubtfire 2 locked, following it's deletion in May. It was justified at the time since the movie was reported to have been scrapped, but it's since been rekindled. It's now listed in the IMDb, slated for 2007 release. A quick survey of Google News also shows it mentioned as a sure-thing several times. Seems about time to open the page back up... --relaxathon 04:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to see it... but I'll certainly unlock the article real estate. Thanks for letting me know. JDoorj a m  Talk 05:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

John Gibson vandalism
Thanks. One of my friends expressed disbelief of my ignorance of the subject when she had to explain it to me a few moments after. It just didn't look right. Why can't people do intelligent, clever vandalism, like I tried to get away with tonight? &mdash;ExplorerCDT 07:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 14th


You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 21st


You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 04:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)