User talk:Chooserr/3

Roman Catholic
Fine.. but what's the real difference between these two categories? Jfreyre 22:14, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

CAoW
Sorry to double-post... but anyway: Since you are listed as a Roman Catholic, I figured I'd send you this. Catholic Alliance of wikipedia has been nominated for Deletion. Please vote and/or tell other people to vote to keep this organization on wikipedia. --Shanedidona 01:32, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I know we have our differences...
...but that shouldn't stand in the way of you having a Merry Christmas. God bless you.--SarekOfVulcan 05:22, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

"Alleged" unencyclopedic?
Chooserr, how do you figure that the word "alleged" is unencyclopedic? What better word for something that one group of people claims exists, while another group claims that it doesn't? If we don't call it alleged, aren't we suggesting that the group that says it exists is right? (This is in reference to War on Christmas, by the way, and Merry Christmas, by the way.) -GTBacchus(talk) 23:41, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

The word Alleged isn't unecyclopedic. It was its usage. "Alleged Specific". It sounds startlingly like an Oxymoron. Chooserr 23:43, 25 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Ok, "alleged specific" is no good; true. What about "specific allegations", seeing as that's what they are, and some of them (i.e., Plano schools) are manifestly NOT instances of secularization, seeing as they never happened, although the allegation did? -GTBacchus(talk) 23:55, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

RE: War on Christmas
I've restored some of your edits. Any revisions were because they got caught up in my edits while under the inuse flag, not because I dsiagree--Tznkai 23:54, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Just wait 2minutes for me to finish up and you can check what still needs to be done--Tznkai 23:59, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Condoms
NP: It looks like good information. I'd just like to see it in a place where the people who could use it are most likely to find it. Happy holidays, Durova 00:08, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Diaphragm (contraceptive)
I see you reintroducted the sentance on increased risk of urinary tract infections plus the reference itself, after I had merged this into the first sentance of the 'Risks' section. I had in my comment on the edit indicated why I thought cystitis was probably more accurate than the less-specific urinary tract infection. I try not to revert edits within 24hrs (let alone go near the 3 revert issue), so I'ld appreciate your thoughts. I agree the pages lack perhaps some clarrity and have circular linkage. Whilst as a doctor I have some initial thoughts on changing the tone in these articles, Wikipedia is not a medical textbook, so your comments gratefully sought. davidruben 00:14, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Is the problem that of 'cystitis' being a technical term that needs clarification, eg as 'cystitis (a form of urinary tract infection)', but this seems excessive when people can follow the 'cystitis' link for any clarrification needed.
 * Is it that the cystitis article fails to make clear that the vast majority of cases are bacterial and the link to bacterial cystitis is in fact to the urinary tract infection page, which in turn is has less about bladder infection than kidney infection pyelonephritis ?

Happy Christmas from Ann
Hi, Chooserr. I just want to wish you a Happy Christmas, and to say that I hope Wikipedia becomes a little more friendly towards you in the New Year. I don't think you've always gone about editing in the wisest way, but I feel that some people here certainly violated WP:BITE where you were concerned. Could I suggest that in the New Year, you try not to fight so hard for things that don't matter so much. This may surprise you, but there are a few Christian, pro-life editors here who have gained respect from people of opposing POVs without ever violating their own consciences. Happy Christmas, anyway! AnnH (talk) 00:24, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Giving barnstars to hit and run vandals

 * DECEMBER 25TH is not for ANYTHING BUT JESUS CHRIST! SAY IT WITH ME: CHRIST-MAS!!!!!!



Wow, that was a Great Contribution!!! That's why I'm awarding you the original Barnstar. Chooserr 01:06, 26 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Stop providing the vandals with positive reinforcement--205.188.116.7 01:48, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Vandal
I know that was a vandal, but as you said it was a "hit & run vandal". Why would it matter then if I express my personal opinion and award him a barnstar? I will not repent for my edit for it is heart felt. Chooserr 01:54, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh and it looks like you are a vandal too...Chooserr 01:54, 26 December 2005 (UTC)  As they say in the movies, "ooh behave". Seriously, though, we are trying to write an encyclopædia here, so don't make joke edits. Some readers looking for a serious article mightn't find them amusing. Remember, millions of people read Wikipedia, so we have to take what we do a bit seriously here. OK? --205.188.116.12 02:06, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm a sharedip, clearly, since you're a username, I'd like to hear your explanation for what looks like a long history of vandalism from your account--205.188.116.12 01:57, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Kilogram
The edit that you made to Kilogram wasn't really expressed very well and is already covered in the "Link with weight" section. -- Curps 04:33, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Condoms
Thanks for the message. I'm sorry I undid your work and necessitated a revert from you. Careless, sorry. Should call it a day ;-) James James 05:38, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

It's okay! I didn't feel I had been bitten. Slobbered on a bit maybe ;-) Happy festivities to you. James James 05:42, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

AfD tag removal
Chooserr, hi.

I just reverted your removal of the AfD tag from Turtle racing. Although the article will just about certainly be kept, it messes up the process to just remove the tag prematurely. There's a whole process that involves closing the AfD, not just removing that tag, and if you're not familiar with the whole process, you end up making it a mess for the person who does deal with it according to proper procedures. Don't worry, Turtle racing won't be deleted, but please don't remove the tag without following procedures. Thanks. -GTBacchus(talk) 06:59, 26 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Check out Guide to Articles for deletion. An admin will be around soon, and close the discussion.  Since there wasn't consensus for deletion, the article is safe.  How soon the AfD gets closed depends on how soon some administrator gets around to it - as a recently promoted admin, I could probably do it, but I haven't closed any AfD's yet, as I want to be sure I know how to do it right first.  I'll see whether I can't figure something out about this one... -GTBacchus(talk) 07:09, 26 December 2005 (UTC)


 * That's done. Whenever you need administrator help; feel free to tug on my sleeve, by the way.  If I'm online, I'll be glad to assist with whatever it is. -GTBacchus(talk) 07:21, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Illegality of condoms
''Since I started the section, I was wondering if you might help in its expansion? I think it would be a valuable addition, but don't think I could do this all on my own because so many countries allow condoms and other forms of birth control. Chooserr 08:22, 26 December 2005 (UTC)''


 * Probably not something I'll be expanding.--SarekOfVulcan 08:29, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Unfair block
I hope whoever blocked me is watching my talk page. It was unfair. I was blocked for a "personal attack" which was simply stating my POV on a users talk page. I didn't cuss, swear, curse, use profanity, or do the above under any differen't name. I simply said "From what I can see of your user page you hardly qualify as a devout Catholic." I would like there for to be unblocked immediately, and as an aside I've had worse things said to me - Including Calton's "Elton John is coming to destroy your marraige" above. This is unacceptable. Chooserr 23:47, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

One week block
I have blocked you for a week for disruption, specifically regarding your absolutely beyond the pale comment on User_talk:Endomion. Editors do not contribute to Wikipedia only to have a total stranger insult them or the way they practice their religion. Nandesuka 23:50, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Opinion
It was a simple opinion, she is entitle to disagree with me and/or respond but a blocking is uncalled for. I didn't swear at all. And I believe I was calm - please block Aolanaonwaswronglyaccused along with calton for their insults against me if my comment warrants blocking. Chooserr 23:52, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

One week
I believe that you are in the process of warring a campaign against me - I don't deserve a week for this. It wasn't even a personal attack! It was a simple statement that I made. I wasn't profain. She has a right to respond, but you haven't a right to follow me about and block me for making comment. Chooserr 23:58, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

UNFAIR
Nandesuka, I must say that I wasn't throwing my weight around, and my comment wasn't in response to her vote. I wasn't browbeating and no other editor was invovled in my decision to make that comment. But the comment wasn't a personal attack, it was a simple statement. I shouldn't be blocked for expressing a POV on a talk page. As for you starting a One week block section where I haven't the opertunity to reply that is not only rude but not a proper debate. Chooserr 00:04, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Plural Problem
Wow it is clear that you, Nandesuka, are biased. You use pharses like "browbeat editors". I haven't browbeaten one, let alone 2 or more editors. Maybe you should do some research before blocking me. Chooserr 00:07, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Why can't you patrol my talk and debate?
Well that's about it.

WP:NPA
Okay I'll try another avenue Nandesuka what makes my comment a personal attack - you can check the WP:NPA section for there happens to be a list of what'd qualify. Also why may I ask is it that I get block. Even if it were a personal attack, which I adamently protest it isn't, it would be my first meaning that the appropriate action would be the removal of the comment not a block. "For repeated personal attacks" is the reasoning for a block. Awaiting your reply, Chooserr 00:24, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Nandesuka can you please define how it was a personal attack. Chooserr 00:30, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Chooserr
Oh dear... a week? Even though it wasn't a very nice comment, that seems a little harsh... Lemme look into this a little more... -GTBacchus(talk) 00:38, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I believed it [my comment] accurate, and not an a personal attack. I don't think I should be blocked at all, and it seems wrong that people who have a clear bias against me can block me. She can't even define why I should be blocked, or what category of "Personal Attack" it falls under. Please can you unblock me. Thanks, Chooserr 00:40, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


 * For the sake of GTBacchus, and to give Chooserr a chance to respond, I'll repeat my comment here.
 * I see that you're looking in to the latest Chooserr block, so I'll take the initiative and drop you a line. I think that Chooserr's block log makes for very interesting reading.  Basically, since User:Chooserr has arrived, he has engaged in disruptive behavior nearly everywhere he has gone.  Compared to that, I'd like you to consider the thousands upon thousands of people who manage to be constructive, frequently contributing editors and who manage not to run afoul of nearly every policy we have.  He has had a huge number of second chances here, and he consistently manages to find a new boundary of civility and disruption to push.  To top it off, after this block was in in place, he claimed to not understand how "I don't think you are practicing your religion correctly" (I paraphrase) is offensive.  He is clearly trolling, and I urge you to seriously consider the message you will be sending if you reduce or lift this, his seventh block in a month.
 * Kind regards,
 * Nandesuka 00:44, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


 * It has been reported here, so it's likely that several adminitrators are aware of it. I will see if I can get it shortened, as I also think that one week is a little harsh. But, please, please, Chooserr, if you are unblocked, could you try not to be so confrontational. I can understand, for example, that if an article said that Holy Communion was just bread or that the fetus is just a clump of cells and isn't human or that there are no credible reasons against the ordination of women that you might feel obliged in conscience to keep fighting, at the risk of being blocked. (The articles don't say those things because there are some people on both sides who respect NPOV.) You didn't have to make that comment. I can't imagine that you thought God would be offended if you refrained from making it. You've been blocked so many times now that you must know you're asking for another block if you make those kind of remarks. And yes, I'm fully aware that people have said very rude things to you and have not been blocked for it. AnnH (talk) 00:55, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Ann, I wasn't asking to be blocked. I wasn't even lasing out. I was simply making a statement, and hoping that she'd reply on my talk page. Chooserr 03:07, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

My block
I don't know what else to say. There really wasn't a reason for my block, and Musical Linguist pleaded my case for me. If wikipedia was a debate I'd win, if wikipedia was fair I wouldn't be blocked, but unfortunately wikipedia is a republic, and not all republics are democracies. I wish to be unblocked, it would be lying to say that I don't, but since no administrator/administratrix will be fair enough to unblock me - not even musical linguist who was kind enough to plead my case - I will stop screaming and shouting in the hope that wikipedia or its members will eventually right this wrong. I will monitor my page mutely, and I will not edit anything for I don't really want to screw around changing my IP. Sincerly, Chooserr 02:45, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The fact that you still won't take responsibility for your action militates strongly against me or anyone else looking at this block. I'm afraid that from my perspective, you're going to have to serve this one out. I hope that you will use that time to consider your style of editing and personal interaction. The way you're going right now is a one-way street toward the ArbCom or a flat-out community consensus ban. I think you have some good contributions to make to the encyclopedia, but if you can't edit in a fashion that promotes civility and respect, you won't be allowed to edit at all.
 * Chooserr, I violated the WP:3RR a couple months back and served out a 24-hour block. It was over something petty and stupid - kind of like CE vs. AD. Yeah, edit warring is a rush, for a couple minutes. Then you realize, it's pointless, senseless and useless. Use your week like I used my day - Think about what you're typing, and think about what's important. Were the 90 seconds of satisfaction you got from typing that petty and hurtful verbal barb really worth the 604,800 seconds you won't be editing Wikipedia? FCYTravis 11:21, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I would agree with FCYTravis that you are not making it easy for administrators who are looking into this block. I think if you were willing to apologize for your remark, you might have some chance of being unblocked early. I personally don't think what you said was as bad as Nandesuka thinks, because you didn't tell Endomion that she was bad. But it was still quite rude, provocative, and uncalled for. Remember that administrators tend to block more severely people who have a history of being blocked. My advice is:
 * Register an e-mail address with Wikipedia so that you can communicate with others and they with you. If you are blocked, you can make contact with administrators that way. People who e-mail you through that facility will not find out your e-mail address unless you choose to respond.
 * Do NOT edit your talk page every few minutes during blocks with long sensational edit summaries about unfair blocks. You have been so controversial that I can almost guarantee that any administrator who has had dealings with you will have your page on his or her watchlist. We have other Wikipedia business to look at, and we don't want to see this kind of thing appearing every time we refresh our watchlists or look at recent changes.
 * If you think that a Wikipedian is not a good Catholic, and you strongly want to do something about it, say a rosary for that person in private, rather than posting uninvited and confrontational remarks on that person's talk page. That's much less likely to get you blocked, and probably by your own beliefs will do more good as well.
 * If consensus goes against you, accept it. Don't make big controversial changes in articles without discussing it first. Don't fight over things that don't matter &mdash; and the A.D./C.E. dispute doesn't matter. You prefer A.D.; so do I. But it's possible to use C.E. without denying your faith, just as it's possible to refer to Thursday, which is named after the Norse God Thor without denying your faith.
 * Take off your user page that list of Wikipedians that you watch. Although I have seen evidence that you are being wiki-stalked and harassed, having a list like that weakens my case when I try to point that out. People have not been nice to you here, but you're certainly not above reproach yourself.
 * For the record, I don't disagree with Nandesuka for blocking you, although I think a shorter block would have been in order. I do not see what you said as being "just a comment". It was very impolite, and I am sure that you did not intend it as a friendly, helpful remark.
 * If I manage to get your block shortened, I do not want to see anything else that could lead to a renewed block. If I do, I will not try to help you again, and may even block you myself. And by the way, I think that this shows a serious misunderstanding of Wikipedia policy. I am trying to help you because I believe that the harassment you have endured excuses some of the disruption you have caused, and because I think that one week is a little harsh, not because I believe all the teachings of the Catholic Church (although I do). Please try not to cause trouble for people who want to help you. AnnH (talk) 13:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * AnnH, this is an excellent and very patient explanation. Chooserr, I think that you could do very well by following her advice. I need to add one thing. Chooserr, I don't think you recognize when you are making a "personal attack." Wikipedia has standards of civility and no personal attacks that are very important to our community. They may be different than what you are used to, in other Internet forums or in daily life. You said on my talk page, "I don't act badly tend to explain my edits, sometimes debate, but hardly ever swear at people out or call them names." I think that some of your "debating" style is what we call "personal attacks." You can agree or not with these standards, but you must follow them in order to contribute to Wikipedia. FreplySpang (talk) 19:02, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


 * FreplySpang,


 * my "debating" isn't personal attacks. My debating is visible under the heading WP:NPA. I ask reasonable what category of Personal attack it falls under, and there isn't a reply. I point out that this would be my FIRST personal attack if indeed the community deems it as one. I point out that there are actually Personal Attack templates like there are for vandalism that start out by saying please stop, and continuing on to You are now blocked with several steps between the two. That is debating, but what happens is no one replies. I know if I were an admin I'd patrol the user-I-blocked's talk page, and give them a chance to plead their case. Not just ignore what they say, and go on about my merry way.


 * Also on the subject of an apology getting me unblocked, while I'd love to be unblocked I can't offer an apology. If I could I would, but a forced apology isn't an apology at all. The way I see it I'd rather not be apologized to if it was forced - It would mean less than spit.


 * Maybe as for the list of people to watch I could remove that, but due to the heavy amount of blockings - each and every one of which I feel was given wrongly accept for SCZenz's first ones which were reasoned out firmly - that have occured I feel the need to watch the users who might block me, or go behind my back and request these blockings so I'll have a chance to reason my case out. Aolanaonwaswronglyaccused is a perfect example for he leaves messages on the incident boards, and tries his best to get me blocked. If I didn't have the list I wouldn't know, and couldn't reason it out on the board. I'd simply get blocked more often if I didn't have the list. So I don't know what to do. I might remove it, but I believe that would give me less chance to fight any charges raised against me.


 * I don't really know what else to say. In the future I'll try to refrain from making any comments on people's talk pages, and there are already enough people against me - as is evident from the length of this block, and the fact taht I wasn't given the benifit of the doubt for the first "Personal Attack" I've made - so I oughtn't give them a reason to block me. Chooserr 19:31, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


 * It's good that you're taking the time to think about this. That's a very productive thing for you to do in this situation. This isn't the first personal attack you've made. I've seen you tell people (or imply very strongly) that they are stupid, ignorant, illiterate, alcoholic, and so forth. As Nandesuka said, your comment to Endomion was the last straw, not the first one. The warning templates you mentioned are optional. You have received multiple warnings about civility and personal attacks. Finally, don't worry about people like Aolanaonwaswronglyaccused. Nobody would block you just on his say-so without looking at the evidence. And don't change your IP to get around blocks. FreplySpang (talk) 19:51, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


 * For the record, I have been monitoring your page, but I don't know what, exactly, you expect me to do. I certainly am not going to engage in a "debate" with you about whether or not your civility is required.  It is required.  I will not engage in a "debate" about whether what you posted on Endomion's page was or was not a personal attack.  It was.  That every single person who has read it &mdash; including those who sympathize with you &mdash; has agreed that it is beyond the pale should tell you something.  Generally speaking, personal attacks are easy to recognize.  All it takes is to ask yourself "would I be offended if someone said this to me?"  If the answer is "Yes," then it is a personal attack.
 * You cannot tell me with a straight face that if someone starting implying that you weren't a good Catholic that you would not be offended. That you tried, above, to claim that your insult was "just a comment" suggests to me that not only do you think you can game the rules here, but that you must think we are stupid as well.
 * It seems to me that in painting yourself as a victim here, you are missing an opportunity to ask yourself some good questions. Thousands of people edit Wikipedia every day, many of them taking strong editorial stances and expressing themselves firmly.  The vast majority of these people are never blocked once, let along seven times in one month.  One hypothesis, that you've expressed a few times, is that people are somehow out to get you.  It's possible, I guess, although why they should pick you from all the thousands of editors they also probably disagree with is beyond me.  Another hypothesis, that I will gently suggest to you is more likely is that you are doing something wrong.  Perhaps you can take these days to meditate on what it might be that you are doing wrong, and resolve to not do it again.
 * Read the Administrator's Noticeboard sometime. People are constantly reporting other people as troublemakers, or asking for blocks, etc.  Many of these reports come to nothing, because the people who are being reported have done nothing wrong other than simply been zealous editors.  If you want to avoid blocks in the future, your best path to this is not to plead for special privileges, more second chances, or seek retribution against those you think are "out to get you."  Your best path is to conduct yourself in a manner that is beyond reproach.
 * Most people who edit Wikipedia never learn the details of what a block for disruption entails, and probably don't even know who admins are, or what they do. This is because they are not, generally, pushing the bounds of civility.  I think you should strive to emulate these people.  If you are unable to determine what behavior is disruptive and what behavior is not, then I suggest you err on the side of caution.  If you feel you need to hold off on leaving comments on people's talk page until you understand what is and is not incivil, then maybe that's a good thing to try for a while.  If I see people crossing a line in debate with you, I will call them to account.  You can even drop a note on my talk page asking me to look in to it if and when it happens.  But that does not and will not free you from your responsibility to conduct yourself in a manner that is not disruptive to the other editors of the encyclopedia, now and in the future.
 * Regards, Nandesuka 20:08, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello again, Chooserr. I appreciate your honesty in saying that you can't apologize, although I would have been happier if you had been able to, with sincerity, of course. I have to agree with FreplySpang that it was not your first attack. This, for example, is an abusive edit summary, although the one that provoked it and the one that followed it are more abusive, in my view. But, as Nandesuka says, you have to be above reproach yourself. In the next three weeks, I need to reduce, and then eliminate, my Wikipedia time, in order to work on some college assignments, but I'll be back in the middle of January, and I promise I will do everything I can to see that you are not taunted and harassed. In the meantime, I will ask a few other admins to check for abuse directed at you.

With regard to keeping on your user page the names of the users whom you watch, it looks as if it's to monitor their edits, which is rather offensive. If you're afraid that they might be reporting things about you, I suggest that you add WP:AN, WP:AN/I, and WP:3RR to your watchlist instead. If you find that acceptable, and would like, as a gesture of good faith, to remove those names from your user page while you are blocked, please say so here, and I or another administrator will remove them.

I suggest again that you enable e-mail from other users. You can do this by going to "My preferences" at the top of the page, adding an e-mail address, and ticking the box that says, "Enable e-mail from other users." It's quite safe and you won't get spam as a result. Cheers, AnnH (talk) 00:03, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


 * AnnH,


 * I've enabled the e-mail, and I'll allow you or another admin to edit my talk and remove the Users to watch section so long as they don't get rid of anything else.


 * I honestly didn't remember making those personal attacks until I saw that link so I guess I deserved this block - heck I may even make good use of it and find something else to do in the mean time. I only wish that one of the users had placed one of the "optional" templates on my talk before so as I wouldn't be in this predicament, or at least would've been wiser.


 * I'm still upset that I'm blocked, and hope all that I've worked for on wikipedia isn't erased whilst I'm impounded, but there's naught I can do about it anyway and in the long run I know it's pretty daft to think any of my edits really matter.


 * Nandesuka,


 * I appreciate you replying to my post, I just wish you'd be a little more observant and care what the blocked user has to say. I'm not above reproach or admiting I'm wrong when I feel that I am. I'm not even above changing my POV so long as the person attempting to change it presents a strong arguement.


 * But I would like to talk about my comment. Maybe it was a personal attack, it probably wasn't nice any way, but I didn't mean it in that grave evil fashion you seem to think I did. If someone said I am not a good Catholic I might even agree with them to some extent. I have a problem turning the other cheek, I hold grudges, and I even like to feel superior in some ways. I know I'm not pious or holy, but I do say my prayers attend mass, and try my best to obey what the Pope says. So overall it would make me think.


 * The last thing I would like to talk to you about it my thoughts that users are ganging up on me. I truthfully believe that many of them are. I can say this because when I was unblocked from my 36 hour block, I didn't violate the 3 rvt rule, and yet was blocked nearly instantly for just because it was a AD/CE revert. But if you could try to picture it from my POV for a second you'll see what I mean...you've blocked me twice I think, Sean Black's blocked me or my IP more than once, it seems to be the same names again and again. I just can't help but think that I'm either being stalked or just that I'm hanging out on the wrong articles...


 * FreplySpang,


 * I've made personal attacks, but I don't remember being warned...


 * As for my IP and circumventing the fact is that once I turn of my computer the IP I was under expires and I need to sign in for a new one - I'm intending to get that fixed by the way - but aside from that I won't edit or take advantage of this.

Chooserr 00:55, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Chooserr. I have removed the "users to watch" from your user page. Let me know if you'd like anything else. And I promise I'll do my best to see that you're not harassed. In return, please try to spare me the embarrassment of discovering that someone I've been trying to defend is in trouble again ;-) Cheers. AnnH (talk) 01:14, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

AnnH,

I really do appreciate your help, and I hope that my concessions might earn me a reduced block, even though I'm unable to apologise for my comment. I will also try my best to abstain from doing anything to embarrass you.

I did want to ask of you one more time though. My talk is getting pretty long so could you maybe archive the first half or what not? Chooserr 01:25, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Done. Cheers, AnnH (talk) 01:34, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


 * (not sure where the best place to put this is - things are really sprawling here!) You don't remember being warned about civility and personal attacks? I've done it at least a couple of times myself, and I can't be the only one:, . FreplySpang (talk) 04:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Well I truelly can't remember being warned yet the computer says so and you can't lie to it. Chooserr 06:48, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Jayjg
Jayjg decided to switch the date format on Xenophon even though it had been consistent under BC/AD since Dec. 16. I hope that anyone browsing my talk page will understand that his edits are uncalled for, because it was already consistent. Chooserr 03:16, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Chooserr, you're still checking in here, yeah?
Hi. I imagine you've been keeping up with this section at WP:AN/I. If not, please have a look at it. It's kind of long by now, but you're perhaps unlikely to find it boring, as it is about you. Like I said there, I think you haven't been shown the fairest side of Wikipedia, which is a shame, and I'm working to change that situation. I'd like to unblock you before your week is up, but first, I want to ask what you think about what's being said there at the Admin's noticeboard. Does anything there stand out to you as particularly wrong, or particularly right?

Regarding your comment at User talk:Endomion, I understand that you didn't intend it as a personal attack, but I've also learned to be very careful with how I talk to others about their own religious beliefs. However well intentioned my remarks, that's a topic on which it's very easy to cause offense, which is why some people refrain from talking about it completely, except with very close acquaintances. Add in the fact that tone carries so poorly over the internet, and... better safe than sorry, as it were. Do you see where I'm coming from here?

Let me tell you a story that happened to me recently. I was talking to someone who asked me - and I don't really know why he asked me, seeing as it was a professional setting - whether I was raised Christian. I told him yes, I was raised Catholic, and he said, "no, I asked whether you were raised Christian," implying by his words and tone that I wasn't. Even though I no longer self-identify as a Catholic, I thought his remark was very inappropriate, and said so. I don't think he meant to be insulting; he just believes that Catholics aren't Christians. Do you think I was right to be upset with that guy?

By the way, if you'd prefer to communicate in a less public forum, please feel free to email me. If you do, I certainly promise not to reveal your email address or any details about our correspondence. -GTBacchus(talk) 06:30, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I sent you an E-mail - hope you unblock me soon :D. Chooserr 20:03, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I hope he unblocks you soon. However, I think two good things may possibly result from this block. I think you'll think more before you press "save", and I think that more administrators are aware of the problem with Aolanaonwaswronglyaccused. I'm certainly prepared to block him if he continues his harassment. So cheer up, and hopefully you'll soon be back editing &mdash; prudently! AnnH (talk) 20:54, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

AnnH,

As I said I'll try to be more careful in what I post on people's talk pages, and if I do post anything "controversial" I'll be sure to do so respectfully. Also I too am glad that notice has been drawn to Aolanaon's harassment [of me]. Chooserr 21:04, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

GTBacchus,

I'm wondering if you (or anyone else) might be able to unblock me now because I'm not sure I'll be here later today or the next day and I want to contribute some important information and create new articles including Rockabelly Lifecasts, and an Article on the Catholic Church in Iraq - if I find any information on it. I also would like to remove a section on the condom page under the French Letter section about the section instead of the article matter. It reads something about a movie & France's position on Nuclear weapons. I also would like to as Jayjig politely and respectfully to revert his erratic changing of the dating system on the Xenophon page, and add a few other tid bits of information. Thanks, Chooserr 02:46, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I'd also like to fix up my user page, make a few templates, and correspond with a few wikipedians if possible. Chooserr 03:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, since I don't have any authority (or ability) to unblock, I'll just comment. What are you going to put in the Lifecast article that is above and beyond the fact that they exist? When I created the first version of Tom Smith (filker), it was AfD'd on the grounds that it was minimal and appeared to be vanity: you'll want to avoid that here. Re: Iraq: don't you think you should do the research before creating the article? Re: French Letter: I'll look at breaking that whole section out into a separate article, if someone hasn't already merged "French Letter" into the condom article. *looks askance at Xenophon* Hmm. That is a mess. I'll see if I can make it consistent. --SarekOfVulcan 03:18, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * SarekOfVulacn,


 * I would like to make the lifecast article because it looks genuinely interesting. There's plenty of information on there website, along with a BBC new report, and a few others to justify making an article. And when I read the section today I found that it seems rather interesting. Also she states that other people are doing similar things for she has "collegues".


 * As for the Iraq article I didn't say I'd make it before I had information. I said I'd make it if I "I find any information on it". That means it's a maybe. I think it would make a great addition, but the information is hard to find.


 * If you break off the French Letter I'll have less of a case to be unblocked - please let me do it! (g).


 * On the Xenophon article I hope you aren't thinking of turning it into a BCE/CE article, because it was as of Dec. 16. BC/AD (It was inconsistent before that).


 * You didn't address the templates and my user page though...(g)

Chooserr 03:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Request for unblock
I have reviewed your request for unblocking you. One week is certainly a harsh punishment, but seeing that: I see no reason to show clemency and shorten the block. I'm going to remove the unblock tags from this page. Unless you have new evidence to provide, please do not repost this tag. Owen&times; &#9742;  17:20, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) this was not an isolated case of incivility;
 * 2) you have, in fact been warned prior to that; and
 * 3) you have shown no remorse for your actions,

OwenX,


 * I think you are mistaken in your judgement. While I stated freely that due to certain beliefs I have I will not issue an apology that I do not endorse I have still tried to make strides and show good faith. I have also communicated regularly with the users who came here, explaining my situation, and resolving not be more careful in what I post on people's talk pages. I still wouldn't call it a personal attack, and if it is it isn't my first as I've found out - but I do believe I've learned that Nanesdesuka had the intention for me to learn. "Try to be more friendly, and careful." Chooserr 17:30, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * True, you have been cooperative in discussing this with others on this page. Indeed, AnnH has gone to great lengths fighting on your behalf. However, until you recognize that what you have done is wrong, I (and probably Ann too) will not do any more for you. Please note that I never mentioned any personal attack; even if your comment was a good-faith assessment of someone's adherence to their religion, I still see it as a very rude way of doing so. If your faith requires you to correct this person's behaviour, it should be done politely, and in private, or not at all. Owen&times; &#9742;  18:05, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I tried to do it in private that's how I saw the talk pages, and still in part do. And it wasn't even totally out in the open until she drew attention to it. If she'd brought it up with me I would have been more than glad to talk to her as I intended. And OwenX while you didn't directly mention "personal attacks" you said this, "[it] was not an isolated case of incivility; you have, in fact been warned prior to that -" by which I thought you meant personal attacks. Since you just stated it wasn't a reference to personal attacks though I will be glad to talk about what ever edit was a case of incivility, for which I haven't shown remorse. Chooserr 18:10, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Also while I appreciate AnnH's help, she has indeed gone to great strides to help me and make sure I'm treated more fairly in the future, I didn't divert this section of the coversation to encompass her, so I don't understand how you can logically say "Indeed, AnnH has gone to great lengths fighting on your behalf." It seems a bit off topic unless you are trying to make a broader point which you haven't reached yet. Chooserr 18:16, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Owenx, I also would like to make one last comment. My faith and relegion didn't make me make that comment. It was my personal judgement based on the teachings of my religion. There is a subtle difference which I wanted to clarify, and I've already talked to GTBacchus about diplomacy which was enlightening and probably will help me in the future. Chooserr 18:20, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Chooserr, I am still around, and will get back to you later tonight. I am satisfied that you did not intend it as a personal attack. I am satisfied that you have recognized that what you did was wrong, as you agreed that it may have been a personal attack, and probably wasn't nice in any case. I am also satisfied that there are some mitigating circumstances, in particular the abuse from Aolanaonwaswronglyaccused, though of course, that had nothing to do with Endomion, but it may have led to greater frustration. I am also satisfied that there has been a certain unfairness in that you have been repeatedly blocked, and Aolanaonwaswronglyaccused has not been penalized in any way. GTBacchus suggested reducing your block to four days, in which case it would expire this evening. Tznkai has also stated that your block should be lifted (on account of Aolanaonwaswronglyaccused, though not condoning your remark). Nandesuka does not agree with lifting the block, but has said that he will not stand in the way of anyone who decides to do so. If GTBacchus hasn't lifted it later this evening, and there is no vehement opposition, I intend to do so, as you have promised to be more careful in future. Regards, AnnH (talk) 18:25, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:CVS.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:CVS.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this:.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.--SarekOfVulcan 19:15, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

SarekOfVulcan,

I can't exactly leave a message on your talk or on the images' page, so will do so here. I don't know the exact copyright, but it was used in a news article, for which I gave the web URL I believe. If I didn't I'll be glad to do so. As I said in the summary I believe that it is copyrighted but can be used under fair use. I do not know the exact copyright laws, and will alow it to be removed without a fuss if wikipedia deems it inappropriate or something like that. I'm sorry if I caused wikipedia trouble or infringed on any copyrights for I've been trying harder to upload valid Images. Chooserr 19:22, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

The URL is |here. And the "newspaper" whose article it is is the Sentinel. At the bottom of their page it says Copyright 2005 all rights reserved but I believe that means the information, their logos and such. Not pictures. Chooserr 19:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, you have 7 days to clear it up, and your block expires in three at most. I would suggest doing some serious research in the meantime on Wikipedia copyright policies, copyright law, and the definition of the word "all".--SarekOfVulcan 19:34, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete it now, for that's the all information I have. Chooserr 19:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Welcome back
Hi, Chooserr. I was just going to unblock you (I was waiting for 23:38, when it would be exactly four days), and was writing a message to WP:AN/I, but GTBacchus got there before me. Welcome back. We'll do our best to see that you're not treated abusively by other users, and in return, you'll do your best to see that we're not shown to be wrong for the trust we're placing in you. By the way, I don't think it's a good idea to start straight on the AD/CE battle again, even by discussing it with Jayjg. You're unlikely to get him to agree with you, and since you have a record of being blocked over that issue, you're in a weaker position, and may find it frustrating. How about helping out at something like Rosary? There's a lively discussion going on there, but I don't really have time to join in. Happy editing! AnnH (talk) 23:54, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

AnnH,

Well I'm glad that I've been unblocked in any case, and wasn't intent to start up on the AD/CE thing again...only to discus, but if you don't think that's the best option I'll let it be. Some Anon user already reverted Xenophon and I think SarekOfVulcan left a message on the talk giving the reason it should stay that way. I'm not sure exactly where to start editing though, so will browse a wee bit more before pressing that "edit" button. Thanks, Ann, Thanks GTBacchus, and thanks to anyone else who worked to get me unblocked.

My IP's Not Unblocked Yet (G)
Guess I'm not welcome back...? I just got a message saying your IP is such and such and you have been blocked. Then it gives Nandesuka's reason for blocking me under it. Is it possible that my IP needs unblocking as well? Could Somebody do that? Chooserr 00:02, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

The IP is 69.239.243.155. Chooserr 00:03, 31 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Let me add my voice to the welcome. I hope that we can work together productively in the future.--SarekOfVulcan 00:07, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Well thanks SarekOfVulcan, I'll try to get along better with you in the future, but I've yet to be full unblock :D...my IP is still blocked. Chooserr 00:08, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I'll look into it. Not sure how to unblock IPs, but will do my best. AnnH (talk) 00:17, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Chooserr 00:18, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Nuns-bru
Since you uploaded it and nothing links to it, I'd just put in a Speedy request.

should do the trick.

Your unblock
Welcome back. I hope you stick around. You got on my watchlist a while ago and I never got rid of it. It's been a fun show. I really think you have a lot of good to contribute to Wikipedia. I hope you stick around, as I appreciate your wit. --Elliskev 00:48, 31 December 2005 (UTC)