User talk:Cailil/archive9

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page To leave me a new message, please click here.

User:RichSatan
Hello,

I noticed that you tagged 82.152.165.79 as a possible sock puppet of RichSatan, but you have not taken any further steps to pursue the matter. I just had the person behind the IP right now talk to me on IRC saying that he/she is not RichSatan. I strongly recommend that if you wish to further pursue this that you start an WP:SPI case and allow the accused IP to presume his/her innocence. Regards, –MuZemike 17:37, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi MuZemike. This is actually an old case and is linked to an ANI thread from March 2008.  Both the behavior and the general IP range are a match for the IP User who was replicating the same behavior as RichSatan and pursuing the same series of personal attacks about my editing of the Games Workshop article (which I haven't edited since 2007 but for one anti-vandalism edit to it in 2008). The relevant RFCU is here and resulted in "no comment" on the IPs. This user has had this aired in 2 fora and abused that privilege on ANi. I am happy to re-open this MuZemike - especially considering they have renewed their personal attacks on me and the use of talk-space for forum style comments. If you're asking me to reopen this I will but considering the length of that the RichSatan account has been blocked the case would be based on purely behavioral evidence and that has already been presented at ANi and I thought I was labeling in accordance with that old ANi thread - if not I'm happy to reopen a new ANi thread and pursue a SSPI if necessary. Regardless of the socking (and if I'm wrong about that I'll be happy to remove the templates) this person is using the Talk:Games Workshop page to attack me, and anyone they disagree with and has been doing so since 2007-- Cailil   talk 22:45, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, for the record, I asked another sysop to examine this situation about a week ago -- Cailil  talk 22:50, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * This is (one of) the users who's been the target of this. I am not RichSatan and there is nothing more I can do than tell you again and again: I am not RichSatan. The location you are getting when you look up those IPs (which I have just done myself) is that of Eclipse Internet, my ISP, who are indeed based in Exeter. I am in Essex and you may take this note as permission to ask Eclipse to verify that. You mention several times on the ANi page that the IPs are "from Exeter" and this is simply incorrect. I should also point out that although you say "This user has had this aired in 2 fora and abused that privilege on ANi." Prior to this conversation I had no idea what an "ANi" was, since I've never had any previous contact with Wikipedia's administrators. There is nothing more I can say to you on this: you are mistaken.
 * As to the substantive matters of the case, the critique mentioning the Qualiport share portfolio and certain management comments that were removed are perfectly well sourced, perfectly well supported and entirely encyclopedic. Their removal was sheer vandalism. This is why I am disagreeing with you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.152.165.79 (talk) 00:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * First of all, are you saying you are not the same user as the ones listed at, and who took part in, the ANi thread in Match 2008? Second if you are new to wikipedia, or this discussion, how did you know I ever edited the Games Workshop article? Third, are you accusing me of removing something? If so present the diff showing what I removed. Fourth, FYI removing original research is not vandalism (which is what I did here). Removing improperly sourced or unsourced material is not vandalism. Removing material given undue weight is not vandalism. And accusing another editor of vandalism (which is what you have just done above and the talk page of the article in question) when they were following site protocol and policy is completely inappropriate and uncivil. Fifth the content matter with which you disagree reached a consensus that does not agree with your position two and half years ago. The matter is closed unless you present properly sourced, due and properly integrated material. In all cases if material is not presented thus it will be removed per site policy. Sixth since I have not edited that page in over 2 years (except for 1 clear vandalism reverts) your continued and continuing attacks on me - which brought you to my attention again and which mirror exactly RichSatan's behaviour - is harassment and will be dealt with as such. Finally, if you have an actual issue bring it to WP:ANI or move on, wikipedia is not a forum and not a battlefield-- Cailil   talk 01:47, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "First of all, are you saying you are not the same user as the ones listed at, and who took part in, the ANi thread in Match 2008?"

I am not that user. As I said, prior to this discussion (having been an occasional wikipedia user for many years) I had no idea what an "ANi" was. "how did you know I ever edited the Games Workshop article?" Because it's documented in the talk page. "Third, are you accusing me of removing something?" You later admit that you did. Please don't ask timewasting questions just to wind people up. "Fourth, FYI removing original research is not vandalism" Please refer to the material I mentioned above. It is not original research, it is properly sourced and it is entirely encyclopaedic. "And accusing another editor of vandalism (which is what you have just done above and the talk page of the article in question) when they were following site protocol and policy is completely inappropriate and uncivil" So are many of the things that you have incorrectly accused me of doing, and you will note that to date I have put up with it without comment. This is the most appalling hypocrisy. "the content matter with which you disagree reached a consensus" That consensus does not address the matter in question and is not relevant to my concerns about either the content I described above or, now, your conduct. "The matter is closed unless you present properly sourced, due and properly integrated material." Properly sourced material is in the history of the page. "your continued and continuing attacks on me - which brought you to my attention again and which mirror exactly RichSatan's behaviour - is harassment" No, it isn't. All I've done is disagree with your position. You can't try to paint this as harrassment; it is the very core upon which wikipedia operates. The only way in which my behaviour is in any way similar is in that I am supporting the inclusion of material critical of Games Workshop in a Wikipedia article. I entirely accept that much of what is in the history of that page is inappropriate. However, some of it is perfectly OK, and it should be in the article. I should also point out that it is now a matter of absolute public record that you have been far more personally unpleasant to me than I have ever been to you - inasmuch as the only criticism I have ever offered you is to point out that your position on the article in question is incorrect. Making this statement cannot reasonably be considered harassment. Also on public record is your history of using threats of censure to quell opposition, clearly deliberate misapplication of the rules, and other unpleasant smear tactics. I have done nothing wrong, but you most certainly have. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.152.165.79 (talk • contribs) 10:50, 19 July 2010


 * Absolutely there is a public record of my actions and comments - which I am bringing to wide attention on ANI - also there is a public record of your comments and actions and those of the IPs in your range. You will find that what you claim about me is not only inaccurate it is false. Also I'd recommend you step back and re-read my comments - you will I am not being unpleasant but rather direct.  And as above, if you have a claim about someone it is only good manners to present diff.  I presented the diff you had issue with for other people to see. I have absolutely nothing to hide.  And just so you understand this isn't about content this is about IPs targetting me for an edit I made in December 2007 on an article I haven't edited since - replicating the behaviour of an indefinitely blocked user.  Also from now on I will only be responding to you through ANI-- Cailil   talk 14:35, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Alright, fine, let's assume I accept everything you're saying, but do me one favour - what's a "diff", and how do I present it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.12.72.1 (talk) 15:18, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Diffs are panels that show the difference between two versions of a wiki page. WP:DIFF and WP:CDLG explain all about diffs and linking to them-- Cailil   talk 16:28, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

NPOV proposal
Cailil, I think the NPOV policy needs to provide more guidance about how properly to identify a view. I would like to know what you think. I want to propose something to the NPOV policy along these lines: that (1) we should identify the POV of texts, not authors (as we cannot read people's minds only what they write) and (2) POV should be detemined by explicit statements about one's view made by the author of the text, or descriptions of the the text's point fo view found in another reliable source. (3) one cannot assume POV based solely on biographical information about the author; the value of biographical information depends on (1) and (2). Do you see the sense in this? If so, could you take a stab and coming up with an elegant, clear, and appropriate way of wording it? Thanks, Slrubenstein  |  Talk 22:11, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This is a good proposal - it reminds me of Barthes' 'The author is dead' approach to literature. Let me have a think on this for a day or two and I'll drop a line to the NPOV talk page soon.  Thanks for the heads-up-- Cailil   talk 23:36, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I do not want to propose it at NPOV until we have carefully worked out the wording. One editor - Vecrumba - has already declared this a doctrine of POV-pushers although I cannot imagine why he thinks that!  So we need to work it over carefully!  Slrubenstein   |  Talk 09:57, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Perhaps they've misunderstood what you're proposing - from reading their user page I would have thought that this is exactly what they'd want to see added to NPOV? But no problem we can thrash this out on our talk pages beofer bringing it to NPOV. Basically this approach mirrors how we assess the reliablility of a source - we look at how others cite and assess it. All this proposal adds to that research is recording how they position it ideologically. People might be thinking in two dimensions about this proposal (pro and anti views) but its a much grander than that.  For instance if we were writing for the Role article, we would categorize POVs (and the arguments within them) on "role" in terms of sociology, antropology & ethnography, cultural studies, theatre and film studies, biology, maybe game theory.  We should do the same in an article like Patriarchy etc. And if we were writing about String theory we'd do an analagous process and group the major views onit as they are discussed in reliable sources. Seems logical to me to identify from what angle a source is coming from and it seems perfectly in harmony with our policies on attribution-- Cailil   talk 12:54, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * So, do we need a proposal, or does the policy already cover it? If we need a proposal, how would you word it (given your point)? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 13:44, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

My suggestion for a wording of the first part would be: "When assessing the point(s) of view presented in a source other reliable sources should be used." Or "In the event that a source's point of view needs to be described editors should verify and attribute the description of that point of view to other reliable sources as per WP:PROVEIT." Both of these are a little clunky and need work-- Cailil  talk 19:24, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

As regards the second: "When describing the point of view of a source the biography and/or ideological stance of the author is not necessarily relevant (except as contextual information). A single source may contain multiple points of view and each of these should be described and that description attributed." This is a very clunky wording and I'm not happy with it yet-- Cailil  talk 19:29, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

bigotry
I appreciate your comments at my RfC. But to be frank, I was really hoping for a community discussion about bigotry, and not just a discussion of me (or even Noloop, personally). I really believe bigotry is a real problem at Wikipedia and not just a "personal attack." I feel the same way about "racism." I even once floated the idea of a policy against "impersonal attacks" (which would be our equivalent of a sanction against hate speech) i.e. attacks against entire groups or classes of persons rather than specific individuals - and NO ONE expressed any interest. As for bigotry, well, obviously a few other people agree with me, but not many. I was hoping with my reply to Noloop's complaint against me that I could open up a serious conversation about whether bigotry is a problem, how one might recognize bigotry (as opposed to another valid point of view among editors). I wouldn't even mind if the discussion ended up largely going against me, if at least there were a thoughtful discussion of the concept. But it seems like there is no space or not enough editors who even wish to talk about it ... Slrubenstein  |  Talk 10:09, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that that can still happen SLR. I think any kind of disruption / misrepresentation of sources whether racist, bigoted or ideological is serious and needs dealing with. In my experience this most commonly happens (with all 3) in arguments about competing nationalisms. I see a place along side WP:POINT, WP:NPOV or WP:NOT for something like "WP:NOAGENDA" - that editors cannot deliberately misrepresent a source to further a POV on Talk pages or in articles. I also think we could probably apply WP:BLP to edits that claim incorrectly that sources are biased/wrong/disregarded as it is a negative comment about a living person's work. Perhaps the thing to do is write an essay and propose it as a guideline-- Cailil   talk 11:56, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Now is not the right time for me to do that but if at some point you would wish to collaborate with me on such an essay I would like that. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 17:07, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. Sorry if my above suggestions are a bit sub parr btw - I'm going to revisit them in teh coming days-- Cailil  talk 01:35, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

its an F jim but not as we know it
Saying Fuck is not incivility (even if you say fucking civilit yppolice). [] I quote “You were fine until you directed the incivility at someone” in relation to [] the swearing bu8t not at some one [] []. None of thi8s was considered uncivil by admins. Some even say they were sorry he was blocked for it [].Slatersteven (talk) 12:58, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course it's not! It's very crude but it's not ad hominem. However, once warned to stop it needs to stop. Ignoring a warning is probably what happened here. This is actually comparing apples with oranges. Or rather apples with Iguanas.  Crudity is not at issue what is is calling a duck a duck. Look if, someone said "Cailil is a chauvinist" based on nothing but speculation about motives etc that would be a personal attack. However, if after weighing evidence (based on diffs) users come to the conclusion that an editor is making anti-woman edits then IT IS fair to call their edits "chauvinist" or "anti-woman". It is not against site policy to call a duck a duck. Some people might call it a 'bipedal water-going avian that quacks' or even 'Anas platyrhynchos' but it is not uncivil to call it a duck! (BTW that last sentence is both humourous and serious.)-- Cailil   talk 13:13, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If you want more clarification on this I suggest you use teh talk page at WP:DUCK-- Cailil  talk 13:13, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * But what about the fact that admins say he should not have been bloked, or syperthised with him (which is my point lack of consistancy)? Also Duck says we should still stay civil. Indeed I bleive it says it is not a justifcation for personal attacks.Slatersteven (talk) 13:22, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * RE: that block - that happens one admin takes a stricter view than another. basically if one gets asked to stop doing something border-line disruptive it's best to stop.  Not stopping after being warned is disruptive and therefore blockable. RE: Duck: yes, but calling a racist remark racist isn't a personal attack. Calling a good faith one racist is. It's about context. Even a person saying "you've made a personal attack" when there was no attack IS technically a breach of civility. Being civil and being polite are not always exactly the same. Generally they are, but when someone does something demonstrably offensive and abusive calling their behaviour offensive and abusive IS appropriate (within the bounds of common sense). However, labelling someone's good faith edits as abusive is not appropriate-- Cailil   talk 13:50, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * But if Edd A says that Eds B's remark is rascist and Edd C says its not is it? Who determines if something breaches civility or is PA? For example if I now use the racist word to demonstrate a remark that may not be racis does tyhat mean its racist or not?Slatersteven (talk) 13:56, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Diffs. If an edit IS problematic experienced editors will see it in diffs when they examine the conversation's/article's history. That's why when we use article RFCs, wikiProjects, and where necessary WP:Ani or WP:RfAr we ask for diffs. Anything out of context is meaningless-- Cailil  talk 14:01, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * But in (for example) the Rubbers situation some experianced edds felt he had a case to answer and some did not, who is right? Thats the problom with subjective terms, they are subjective. This is where I think some of Noloops probloms stem from. He was involved in the Webbhammster case. He sawe double standerds from admins, and still (rightly or wrongly) sees them. The defence of Rubbers is an example. He has (Noloop) said that if he had called Rubbers a bigot he would have been blocked, but Rubbers has not (he may not be wholey right there, Noloop has himslef benifited from the same kind of indlugence I am talking about). As such there is (and I do not entirely disagree) an appearance of the double standerds that noloop has seen before (its not what you say its who defends it). Moreover if (as I suspect will happen) Noloop and Civedd start to play the system and just call edits bigoted (or whatever lable they happen top fancy) it will have the appeance of hypocricy if tehy are then blocked. Ther is something to be said (unfair though it is) for justice appearing to be done.Slatersteven (talk) 14:13, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Slatersteven, Griswaldo answered this at 14:11, 20 August 2010 on the RFC talk page. You need to let it go. If you don't understand policy I recommend rereading it and considering how it'd work in real life (eg in work - if somebody is sexually harassing you it is appropriate to call them out for sexual harassment - it is 100% inappropriate not to). Calling a duck a 'duck' is never an attack because it is an accurate description. There is nothing more to say-- Cailil  talk 14:33, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I would also appreciate not being called Rubbers. Slatersteven, why do you do it? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 17:09, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

talk pages
Thank you for the explanation and the advice on using talk pages -- it made a great deal of sense and is much appreciated. After using talk pages very briefly when I first started editing I had actually forgotten they existed altogether and conflated them in my mind with editing other users user-pages. Admittedly, I am working on the "assume good faith" and "be polite" policies (and have improved). Habits acquired from years of using usenet and internet forums and a general penchant for debate can be hard to overcome (wading into some of the more controversial topics hasn't helped..) I was also entirely unaware of the sensible issues surrounding edit summaries. Kind regards,--Cybermud (talk) 21:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem - it's very understandable. Wikipedia's ruleset is a bit different from the cut and thrust of the rest of the internet =)-- Cailil  talk 21:20, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Vis-a-vis your recent warning

 * Note this edit made after your warning. Nandesuka (talk) 16:34, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Sarek of Vulcan seems to have dealt with it-- Cailil  talk 17:05, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

mail
'''Hello,. Check your email – you've got mail!''' You can [ remove this notice] at any time by removing the You've got mail or YGM template. &mdash; TFOWR 08:12, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

PlaneShift (video game)
Hey, thanks for the help cleaning up this article. Unfortunately the creator of the game which the article is about is back to reverting all edits to the article. Just a heads up. Thanks! Spigot Map  17:38, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Your conduct at User talk:Scolaire
This, this and this are totally unacceptable. Each is more outrageous than the one before. I have raised your conduct at AN/I. You may respond here. Scolaire (talk) 20:57, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

WT:BISE, james Kay
Hi Cailil

Re: your edit here, I'm pretty certain that it was me who had "tlx"-ed the resolved tag. That said, I did ping Black Kite for input and I'd welcome input from you, too, if you feel the resolution is acceptable. TFOWR 13:27, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah sorry TFOWR. I've restored that now. I had just noticed your re-arrangements and archiving and thought I'd give the page a once over. I saw that that discussion had a 'reopened section' who's last comment was on "August 30" but missed the arbitrary break (which starts on Sept 6th). Which brings me to a suggestion. Would it be better for very very long discussions to have some collapsed sections (ie the old closed sections of teh Flora or Republic of Ireland debates) just so it is quickly apparent which sections are current?-- Cailil  talk 13:39, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Someone (GoodDay, perhaps?) has suggested collapsing discussions, and I've floated the idea (somewhere, not sure where, and it's highly likely to have got lost amidst all the noise). I'm up for it - even for still-current discussions - just to aid navigability. For now, I think collapsing resolved/closed discussions is an excellent idea. I'll pop off now and collapse the bottom three (resolved) discussions. TFOWR 13:45, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep, it was me. GoodDay (talk) 13:47, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Re: your hypothetical
concerning meatpuppetry and so on, was the hypothetical just a general curiosity thing or were there more specific circumstances that you were basing it on? The latter is easier to answer so wanted to check. :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:57, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi NCM and thanks for responding. It's more hypothetical I'm afraid.  There's an interesting SSPI here - it looks more like WP:TAG or WP:NINJA than socking to me personally. There's no direct evidence of requesting edits here - but it made me wonder what exactly is the policy position on this for topic banned / edit restricted users. My own understanding is WP:RBI does apply if you can prove that the edit is solicited but in a situation where the editor who makes the edit is working in that area already the waters muddy significantly-- Cailil   talk 09:06, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

intelligent discussion
I am sorry Cailil, but that is intelligent discussion between TRFWOR and I about what exactly defines "personal comments".

Please allow him to respond to it and clarify.

It would help me to know which part EXACTLY you consider inappropriate. --Triton Rocker (talk) 03:30, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * This part of this edit is (after you have been told to stop making personal remarks) is inappropriate as it fails AGF and attempts to wikilawyer that policy: "TFOWR, I am sorry but, no. Including in the discussion one's political motivations is relevant and not 'a personal comments'. This is why I argued before that all participants, any individual wishing to be part of this workgroup, should list themselves and where their nationalist interests lie as a guide and courtesy to others." Also the last paragraph of that post is inapprioriate for the same reasons: "In my book, it is one degree to having nationalist sympathies but to feel strongly enough to have to advertise them is another level all together. It is a very strong indicator of POVs and the politicisation we are discussing here. One has to filter accordingly." People's personal details, perspectives etc are irrelevant as long as they are acting in good faith. We assume good faith of all editors on a prima facie basis here, regardless of their point of origin - there is no special derogation for WP:BISE to be excluded from this. Arguing against policy in order to make a point is disruptive, inappropriate and tendentious. It is also off-topic, that board is for discussion of "specific examples" not for generalized discussion, or discussion of policy. Furthermore, for future reference please do not confuse the fact of a person's nationality with a political or content position - just because someone “advertises” (ie displays in a user box) where they come from, or which religion, gender, or race they are does not mean that their content position will be chauvinistic – assuming so is assuming bad faith-- Cailil  talk 13:18, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, these edits discuss other users in a manner (ie "HighKing's strategy") that ascribes bad faith to them and their intensions. This is especially inapriorate: "Self-declared Welsh nationalist Snowded, acts as a self-appointed policemen, provokes the issue by habitual, unnecessary and even erroneous reverting any corrections. They are supported by other minor Irish editors, such as Brendanjmullan who persistently 'troll' to game the system unquestioned and unchallenged." Together these comments are harrassing, as well as in breach of AGF. A small number of editors in this topic area seem to think wikihounding and talk page policies are a joke - they're not and breach of policy will be prevented.-- Cailil  talk 13:28, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Also for your benefit - after being warned for breaching talk page guidelines it is best to avoid using "screaming caps" inyour reply - it can be taken the wrong way-- Cailil  talk 13:41, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Cailil, your continuing assessments of other editors' comments are getting beyond a joke. As an administrator your job is to oil the wheels of Wikipedia by undertaking certain janitorial tasks. It is not especially to assess and pontificate on the comments of others, unless there are clear violations of policy. Triton's comments, to which you have taken exception, are a very long way from that - maybe not in your opinion, but I assure you they are. Please dissist from your harrassment of this user or I may have to raise the issue at AN/I or some other appropriate forum. LevenBoy (talk) 19:48, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I think we will have to quietly agree to disagree on some of these matters Cailil. And, I promise you, my capitals are not screaming, they are quietly adding emphasis to my sentences where I want it. Please, I do not go about tell you how to write.

Yes, one has to assume good faith, and it is wise to be polite, but it is also fair to:

a) To examine whether one or more individuals are on nationally and politically motivated campaign or not and discuss it with others. b) To ask them plainly what their motivation is and examine their response with others. c) To discuss within the wider community the implications of such campaigns on the greater balance of the encyclopedia.

That, again, is not harassment. It is intelligent and necessary discussion in such an area which we have not yet been able to have and inspection which would certainly take place in academic contexts.

One of the issues I have often raised is how strangely asymmetric the punitive actions is; the threats, the blocking and the banning. In my opinion, there is clearly collusion, and collusive provocation going on between the others (although I agree it is probably not coordinated, just arising from mutual interests).

Flying an Irish Tricolor yourself, would it not be more safer and fairer to recluse yourself from this particular dispute? --Triton Rocker (talk) 09:58, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


 * You were told not to conflate a persons race/nationality with their content position as that is an assumption of bad faith as is your spurious accusation of collusion. This matter will now be escalated based on your repetition of remarks of this nature. As you are currently blocked you will be informed of the outcome-- Cailil  talk 14:02, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Also you should be aware it is inappropriate to claim that an uninvolved sysop is involved-- Cailil  talk 14:03, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Cold dead hand rising
Thought this was sorted. RashersTierney (talk) 23:01, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It is - just hadn't revoked talk page access - have do so now-- Cailil  talk 23:19, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Factocop
You might want to comment here user is denying the evidence found by CU claiming The CheckUser obviously is not working or is not without its faults as I have never used another account. VirtualRevolution (talk) 11:22, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Sanctions imposed against Triton Rocker and LevenBoy
I have commented on your actions regarding the above at AN/I. Please see the thread here. LemonMonday   Talk   15:10, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

ANI
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --LevenBoy (talk) 23:29, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joker264 (talk • contribs) 12:53, 9 October 2010