User talk:Dante Alighieri/Archive 4

Archived talk: Clovis et al., AE/BE issues (french fries), Archive 1, Archive 2, Archive 3, Archive 4, Archive 5.

putting that link there
you asked to be let to know if it got to arbitration - Requests for arbitration/CheeseDreams

CheeseDreams 01:34, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Maaaaaaaaax Power!
"Max Power, he's the man who's name you'd love to touch! But you mustn't touch!  His name sounds good in your ear, but when you say it, you mustn't fear!  'Cause his name can be said by anyone!"

Ha! But seriously, I was surprised that no one had it when I signed up! --MaxPower 02:26, 2004 Dec 16 (UTC)

Thanks
Whatever you did to my talk on the CD issue, it was probably just fine, it seems readable now, and I'll happily take your word that it was made more readable. Thanks for the note. Pedant 02:22, 2004 Dec 18 (UTC)

Pet skunk citations
Hi there, it would appear both links I was trying to use for the content in the History section of my Pet skunk article (soon to be renamed Domestic skunk) have been blocked as spam:


 * http://members.aol .com/oddpet/chapterskunk.html
 * http://jwarnick .com/oddpet/chapterskunk.html

I googled for that content, but didn't find it anywhere else.. it's not really a big deal, but it keeps me from editing the History section, unless I eliminate the link. I think the content is useful, although I understand, if they have become notorious spamsters. Nathanlarson32767 13:23, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Whoa, now it's saying that http://www.bellaonline .com is a blocked spamster too. This just changed in the last few hours. What is going on? Nathanlarson32767 13:27, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Okay, it's working again. Never mind.Nathanlarson32767 18:06, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

your recent deletion

 * deleted :Necrobation: recreation of previously deleted article

Um... why do I think that deletig this multiple times is an act of necrobation? *grins* - UtherSRG 19:04, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)


 * Oh, the pun... the pun! --Dante Alighieri | Talk 19:05, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

...go out clubbing with the ex you split up with because he turned out to be gay
I'm a she. CheeseDreams 00:19, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

thanks for the welcome
Thanks for the welcome. RPellessier 09:23, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

CD arbitration
Yes, I would. I agree that it's inappropriate. They seem to be using it as a means of showing what hardcore punishers they are. What would you like me to do?Dr Zen 23:29, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I'll help with trying to find some. My impression is that they have been champing at the bit, waiting for someone to punish. I thought the punishments handed out to CD were very harsh. She (I note from this page she is a she -- she's done a good job of being nongender-specific!) has sinned but she's also been sinned against. I'm not sure she's been judged on the evidence so much as on the perception that's she's a "troll". Banning her from the christianity-related articles sends the message to the editors guarding those pages that they need only kick up a storm and they can chase off anyone wanting to put a different message into them.Dr Zen 23:40, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I would say as an arbiter (and I don't think I'm speaking out of turn on this) that CD was thought to be unlikely to work well with others, based on past experience and her actions during the arbitration. The goal is timeouts and restrictions as needed, not punishments per se - it's got to have a point.


 * We knocked off two cases fast with fresh enthusiasm. The rest will take longer, I fear, particularly as everyone is back at work now.


 * I would say as an editor: on the subject of kicking up storms, I would say the opposite: combining relentless reasonability, evidence of working well with others, a grasp of NPOV and a thick skin will get someone everything they actually want going into Wikipedia. This is based on my observations and experience over the past year of working on it - David Gerard 00:20, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks
for the edit! icut4u

Hey Dante
Thanks for the edit to my user page. That made me laugh! Dr Zen 05:31, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Cape (geography)
I saw you didn't delete Cape (geography) and didn't understand why to speedy delete it. Well, let me explain. The information on the page is redundant. I created the article myself yesterday (or better: moved the content there from Cape), and then found out that the information fitted better on Headlands and bays. So on second thougts I moved the content here. All the links that misdirected to Cape (i.e. the clothing article) I fixed to link either to Headlands and bays or to Cape (disambiguation). So nothing links to Cape (geography) (apart from the talk page of Cape, where someone suggested to move the geographical information there). It is a dead-ended and redundant orphan. I hope you now understand that Cape (geography) was just a step in my thinking process, and allthough you might think that it does deserve an article, it is better to get rid of this version.

links
Hi Dante,

I wished to add the link http:// gruppo04 .100free.com/bookmarks.html (I'm writing it like this because of the spam filter, please remove blanks) in the article "Literature" but something went wrong. The link is about European Literatures. Take Care

Pavel

a broken link
This page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia:Sandbox&oldid=7310538

whose link was on this page: Department_of_Fun

does not appear to work. The message indicates that it should be referred to an administrator, so get to work! RPellessier 03:34, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Formatting problem?
This is a featured article on the main page: Bernard Williams

What is up with the N's?

Should I edit this? Maybe this is a common thing when sending articles across the pond? RPellessier 05:44, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * The weird N's are gone today, replaced by large dashes. I haven't changed browser or viewer, but the last edit of 1/18/05 mentions this. So it must have been fixed. RPellessier 08:51, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Animal sexuality book!
I want to know if my dog is gay! --BesigedB (talk) 00:48, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

And I want to know if Smokey Bear is! Only you can prevent ignorance on this subject, by getting this book out and editing right now! You've been known to waste time on IRC, so consider this an official warning! JRM 00:50, 2005 Jan 22 (UTC)

Mike Garcia RFA
I'm somewhat disappointed in the abusive and sarcastic language used in your recent nomination of Mike Garcia for admin. Looking here, I notice that you cited the policy of not disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. What happened to this? I expect better from a fellow administrator. silsor 05:53, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

I have removed the nomination. Picking at scabs only leaves scars. Danny 05:55, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * In response to you both, I've modified the language, see Mike's talk page for more details. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 08:30, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

Block IP user, please!
I can't do it, but you can: you're an admin. Special:Contributions/68.94.147.220 is vandalizing George W. Bush repeatedly!! Help! --Neigel von Teighen 23:08, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for doing it. I was engaged on an edit war reverting his vandalism. --Neigel von Teighen 23:12, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Redirect of "common" misspelling
What I deleted wasn't a redirect, it was just a statement saying it was a "miss-spelling" [sic]. It's not even particularly common. Google turns up 608 websites with the term "panick attack" (disregarding the band of that name). CryptoDerk 23:49, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

Vfd
Huh? RickK 00:24, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)

It's still January 28 where I am. :) RickK 00:29, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)

I am Locutis of Borg ... RickK 00:32, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)

Need advice on article creation
I want to write an article on an incident that occurred on a lake. I want to write about a topic similar to the african lake whose CO2 emissions kills people, but my incident is far less destructive. How should this be organized? Title the article as the incident, or title it after the lake and describe the incident therein? The lake would not otherwise be noteworthy. RPellessier | (Talk) 07:17, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Blocked
I was very unhappy when you blocked an IP address that was assigned to me yesturday by my service provider. It seems that a vandal using this IP address has made you upset enough to ban him or she. There are so many people using Telkom's ADSL which 198.54.202.242 is in the range (as they hold the monopoly on telecommuincations in South Africa) and who every the vandal is will get a new IP address every few hours if they shut off there modem. I got that IP address yesterday evening.--Jcw69 18:25, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I will try get the IP range used by Telkom for you and also see if ADSL users get different IP address from normal dail-ups. I have in the meantime left a note on Wikipedians/South Africa and user:Wikiwizzy has responded and said that he was also blocked and that this is a transparent proxy whatever that means.--Jcw69 18:43, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I just contacted my ISP (Telkom ADSL) and they said my IP address will always be in the range of 165.165. ... where as 198.54.202.242 is a SAIX IP which is the main internet exchange between South Africa and the world. I can not contact them directly but will logged a complaint with Telkom who will then contact SAIX. Can you give me more details about when some insidents happened so I can pass on? But I can't see any hope with dealing with the government bureacracy--Jcw69 19:23, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

My actual IP address yesterday was 155.239.136.186, from analog dialup.

reverse lookup 186.136.239.155.in-addr.arpa. 67447 IN PTR     wfor-ip-nas-1-p186.telkom-ipnet.co.za.

You will notice the last octet in the lookup, a sure sign of dialup. I was blocked. I mailed you my blocked address, which ISTR started 19x not 155.*

Jcw69 surfed from 198.54.202.242

reverse lookup 242.202.54.198.in-addr.arpa. 86400 IN PTR ctb-cache1-vif1.saix.net

No number, but mention of cache. All port 80 traffic is shunted through a squid cache, making it faster for us and cheaper for SAIX. Almost invisible, except it is similar to the "AOL problem".

Solution: whitelist 198.54.202.242 and ctb-cache1-vif1.saix.net

Wizzy 19:29, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

Blocked IP at 67.52.188.182
Hi, Dante. Yup, that was me e-mailing you last week in reference to the block at 67.52.188.182. The summary led me to believe that the block was an automatic one. Raul654 suggested that I do RC patrolling logged in from now on. I was tagging some single-sentence, near-zero content contribs for speedy delete via the IP. He thinks that might have been misconstrued as vandalism. Ironic, since I seem to be doing more trollslaying than writing at present. :^) Anyway, all is well now. - Lucky 6.9 17:12, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You betcha. Thanks much. - Lucky 6.9 17:34, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sock puppet check
Can you check to see whether 67.15.54.16 is a viable IP used by user User:Ta bu shi da yu. I know this is a strange idea, but 67.15.54.16 is based in melbourne, Australia.

A look at User Talk:67.15.54.16 may give you an idea of what is going on. CheeseDreams 00:14, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I can assure you that I am not a sock puppet. Perhaps now you can see how I hate the harrassment by this user? Oh, for your own personal edification, I live in Sydney. It's disgusting to think that this user is trying to use another administrator to attack me. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:48, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

CheeseDreams
I've reverted your 1 week ban and replaced it with a 2 day ban (expiring 2 days from your original block time). 1 week is meant to be the MAXIMUM penalty allowed by the ArbCom for CD violating the order on Christianity-related articles. I've already argued elsewhere that The Jesus Mysteries is only peripherally Christianity-related, so a warning and a short block seems in order. Now, I'd expect a 1 week ban if CD tried editing Historicity of Jesus again or something. I hope you'll see that using the maximum penalty for the most minor of infractions is ultimately counterproductive. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:44, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * I didn't ban the maximum for my original block. The 1 week block was for editing the article despite being blocked by using sock puppets and dynamic IPs. I think block-evasion to edit an article the ArbCom (or at least the 3 members who have expressed themselves on the matter) have declared off-limits merits the maximum term. But I'll leave it to you. --fvw *  18:09, 2005 Feb 1 (UTC)

3RR on race
Slrubenstein has just broken the 3RR rule on race by reverting the article four times in five hours. He should be blocked for 24 hours. Jalnet2 20:38, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Why did you block them for just 12 hours? I don't think it will have much effect unless they are confronted with a block for a full day. Mgm|(talk) 21:45, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the answer. Mgm|(talk) 09:24, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

3R rule
Some observations on your blocking me for breaking the "3R" rule at the Iraq elections article. Adam 03:01, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Revert wars are an unavoidable event given the way Wikipedia is structured, whereby any malicious, ignorant or stupid person can edit articles, and frequently do. They are in fact a necessary weapon in defending truth and accuracy in articles on controversial topics. If they get out of hand articles can be protected while the issues are negotiated (as happened at this article).
 * I regularly fight revert wars, and I usually win them, to Wikipedia's advantage. See for example my battles with the Stalinists at Kim Jong-il and Khmer Rouge and with the LaRouchites at a range of articles. Wikipedia would be an even bigger pile of rubbish than it already is if it were not for editors willing to fight and win revert wars with these wreckers. We get no assistance from the Wikipedia PTB, but you could at least refrain from sabotaging our efforts.
 * The 3R rule is places the legitimate editor and the vandal on an equal footing. It gives an unfair advantage to one side in any dispute in that whoever gets to three reverts first has to concede the argument to the other side until some kind of arbitration is obtained, which at Wikipedia can take weeks or months as I'm sure you know.
 * You will doubtless argue that whether the rule is good or bad it is nevertheless a rule and must be observed. My answer to that is that I never voted for this rule, and was never given a chance to do so. Rules only have moral authority when they are democratically arrived it. Wikipedia is not a democracy, it is somewhere between a dictatorship and an anarchy. I do not therefore regard the 3R rule as morally binding on me. While I generally observe Wikipedia rules, since most of them are beneficial, when they are not beneficial I feel no obligation to observe them.
 * I will now resume the defence of accuracy at the Iraq election article.

PS: See White Tower of Thessaloniki for an example of what I am talking about. An anonymous Greek nationalist is repeatedly inserting propaganda into this article. I am reverting these edits and will continue to do so. You would have me concede the argument after two reverts, thus destroying the credibility of the article. Adam 03:09, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Adam, if you look at the article now it seems many of my concerns about the original version were seemingly validated by other users. The article's tone is much much much more balanced now, do you disagree?  Are you seriously advocating a 100% pristine picture of the iraq elections?  Have you not seen the iraqi resistance article and watched even the main stream media about the overall situation in iraq?  While we can debate about whether 44 deaths during an election is a "major disruption" that fact certainly shouldn't be swept under the rug?  Anyway, I apologize if I inflamed the tensions during our edit war, but you referring to me as a vandal isn't going to help the situation going forward.  How do you justify the removal of the criticisms section?  zen master    T  11:52, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I doubt Dante wants us to conduct this debate at his Talk page. I will conduct at the article's Talk page. Adam 01:42, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Please check the Ruger PC9 GR section of my talk page
There is a dustup in a related article. See if my solution offers all of the wikiwisdom of Solomon. RPellessier | (Talk) 20:00, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Mediation meeting
Template:Mediation-meeting Please edit the side box here (be brief) to update when you might be able to attend. Thanks. -==SV 22:07, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Republic of Nagorno-Karabahk
Hi, Republic of Nagorno-Karabahk is a slight variation of the page at Nagorno-Karabakh (note the 'hk' vs 'kh'). This is an unrecognized country. I was invited into this dispute as a neutral third party mediator (unlicensed!). If you visit Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh you can read all about it; you could also ping User talk:Theresa knott who cleaned up a lot of the mess some anon made yesterday... it doesn't need to go soon, really, I just thought it was a straight-forward easy way to clean-up a typo. I goofed a few hours ago and created a redirect based on this typo: Nagorno-Karabahk Republic, I just haven't bothered tagging it. Depending on how the dispute resolution goes, we may end up doing a version with "Republic". &mdash;Davenbelle 05:25, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/3RR
One of your recent edits duplicated much of the page content. It's kind of a mess now, could you fix it? -- Netoholic @ 19:46, 2005 Feb 17 (UTC)

Vote on Talk:Gdansk/Vote
Hi. Since you have edited on pages with disputes about the names of Polish/German locations, I would invite you to vote on Talk:Gdansk/Vote to settle the multi-year dozens-of-pages dispute about the naming of Gdansk/Danzig and other locations. The vote has two parts, one with questions when to use Gdansk/Danzig, and a second part affecting articles related to locations with Polish/German history in general. An enforcement is also voted on. The vote has a total of 10 questions to vote on, and ends in two weeks on Friday, March 4 0:00. Thank you -- Chris 73 Talk 11:45, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

Undeletion
Hi, I just wanted to let you know I undeleted Parliament of France since it had a long history and a lot of links pointing to it. It's now a redirect to Government of France. Angela. 21:42, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

copyright
Hi. I would like to use Image:CDR-large.jpg and Image:CDR-small.jpg both under the CC-By-SA-2 licence. I will use it on my site. Thanks, answer to my talk page. It's a great pic. NSK 02:33, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

3RR and 172
I just read the discussion re: user:172 on 3RR. Unfortunately it seems that while he was unblocked he relocked the global warming page under very suspiceous circumstances. I posted a note on 172's talk, but if he's really blocked then he cannot reply. Anyway, could you take a look at the page in question and my note on his talk and give us some help or advice here. There is definetely something odd going on. I have asked others for some help on this also. Thanks, Vsmith 04:38, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Apple v. Does
Hi, I thought you might be interested in helping with Apple v. Does. &#8212;Christiaan 18:22, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Comet Hale-Bopp edit conflict
Am very sorry about the edit conflict which happened 10:41 Australian time. This is only the second time this has happened to me since I was a logged-in user, and I meant nothing malicious. Hale-Bopp really was a mess, with a dozen flying through the article, instead of the proper wikified one. Are you an administrator? I might have left well alone if that were the case. It was a shame to see the article being clogged up while it was the main page. Best regards and thank you, -EuropracBHIT 00:50, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC).

Online Poker lockdown etc
Signor Alighieri... I note you've locked down the Online Poker page due to a Slashdotting. There has been a campaign recently among a few bloggers - infuritated by comment, trackback and referrer spam - to push the Wikipedia page on Online Poker up to the top of the Google search results. Perhaps something appropriate could be added to the page itself referring to this? A suggested form:

In February 2005, frustrated with the amount of comment spam and referrer spam (aka spamdexing) they were receiving relating to Online Poker (which at the time was the service most promoted through these means), bloggers at French Frag Factory decided that the best defense was an attack, and that bloggers worldwide should work to associate Google searches with this particular Wikipedia page - a form of Google bomb. It is to be seen how effective this might be in the long run. 217.155.117.121 01:59, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia usually tries to avoid referencing itself in articles, except so far as the articles are about Wikipedia. There is note made of the slashdotting on the talk page for online poker as well as on the talk page of slashdot effect where there is (for the time being) a list of times that Wikipedia has been slashdotted. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 02:00, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

Tony Sidaway's RFA
Hi, I posted a comment on this on my talk. page. Cheers, Cecropia | explains it all ® 04:24, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * FYI, I've responded to your latest, but have moved it all to Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship so that the wider community can see and diwcuss. -- Cheers, Cecropia | explains it all ® 07:53, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Re: My opposition to your adminship
Whatever. I was shocked and surprised to poll more than about 50%. It wouldn't have harmed me or Wikipedia if I'd had to wait longer, or even indefinitely. Comments, criticism and advice always welcome on my admin log which is linked from my user page. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:56, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Advice
Thanks for the advice. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:33, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks
Hey Dante,

Thanks for the nice advice. I will remember the same from next time.

tkark|wanna Talk 08:32, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)

RFDA
You said "This is a problem in that I do believe we need a means of recalling Admins without resorting to ArbCom rulings ... However, I'm not sure that this is the way."

What did you mean by this? Is there something in the current proposal you don't like? I am not saying the current proposal is the best idea... but it seems like a good start. If you agree we need something like this, maybe you'd change to Support and give some input on the changes you'd like to see? -- Netoholic @ 18:43, 2005 Mar 21 (UTC)

Emirates gays society
I was a little surprised to see that you'd removed the speedy delete on this, especially as you gave no reason. So far as I can make out from the article – whose sole text is: &ldquo;a dream project to have a society to represent the needs of homosexual people in the UAE.&rdquo; – this is about a society that doesn't actually exist, but which the author would like to. Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 21:24, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * The contributor seems to be a real one, and not just some vandal. Since English seems not to be his/her first language, I'm not certain that this refers to an organization that does not exist, rather than an organization which does exist, albeit a rather unknown one. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:30, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)


 * I've been following up his contributions, after coming across a couple. He's created a string of articles, most of only a sentence (or less), most poorly titled.  Most of them just(!) need Wikifying, the English correcting, moving to the correct title, and expanding, but a few seem to be more peculiar (he's into S.F., and doesn't always distinguish clearly between reality &amp; fantasy).  Given the attitude in places like the Emirates to homosexuality, and the phrasing of the article, I'm more than half-way certain that this is fantasy. Mel Etitis  ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 21:44, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * You might also note: Votes for deletion/Al wahila war (another of the articles he's created). Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 22:50, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

HELP
Please unblock me (User:Fish Supper).

"Jayjg" has blocked me claiming I have violated 3RR on Historicity of Jesus, which I haven't edited once!!!.

And if he is talking about Jesus, then he has blocked me without blocking User:Slrubenstein as well, who made 4 more reverts than me!!!, like he is corrupt and biased or something.


 * Slrubenstein has been blocked for violating the 3RR. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 23:20, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)


 * Slrubenstein was at least communicating on the Talk: page. User:Fish Supper is a sockpuppet who continually reverted while refusing to discuss her edits. I was sorely tempted to ban her permanently as a sockpuppet created for the pupose of violating Wikipedia policy; I didn't bother, hoping there would be some response on whether she a CheeseDreams sockpuppet, or is merely a sockpuppet of some other user. Jayjg (talk)  23:27, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * It would have been appropriate to revert an endless number of FS's "contributions" if they were a) vandalism or b) from a banned user. The first is clearly not the case and there is no evidence of the second being true at this time. Slrubenstein jumped the gun and will now have to sit on the sidelines for a bit. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 23:29, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)


 * Someone unblocked him

Papal categories
''I understand the general concept of not doubling up on categories, but in this special case (Popes in general and then subcategorized by name) I feel it is necessary, because Category:Popes also serves as a list of popes. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 23:43, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)''
 * I see your point, but then there's no reason to have Category:Popes named Clement or Category:Popes named Alexander. I don't think Categories should have so many articles in them that you have to scroll through to find a certain page; that's the whole reason for subcategories. --Angr/comhrá 23:51, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

''The reason I started making those pages was that right now there's no way to jump from, say, Pope Benedict VIII to a list of the other Popes Benedict. Putting all of the like-named popes in a category enables that. The reasoning behind it is simple... let's say I know I need a "Pope Benedict" but I don't know which one... so I just go from one to the next til I find the right one. ;) --Dante Alighieri | Talk 23:58, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)''
 * Since Category:Popes is alphabetic, it's as easy to go from one Benedict to another on the main list as it is inside a subcategory Category:Popes named Benedict. Except for the fact that Category:Popes is too large, which is why articles inside a subcategory shouldn't be in the main category. There is also List of Popes, isn't there? --Angr/comhrá 00:06, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

''OK, you've convinced me... I'm gonna figure out a different (see also, more elegant) way of achieving this. Do me a favor and leave the categories as they are for the time being? I'll fix them in a bit. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:04, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)''
 * No problemo. Popes aren't my usual domain of interest anyway; I was just poking around among them last night because of recent events! ;-) --Angr/comhrá 19:43, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Jesus
Okay, you blocked me. But why did you not block Fish Supper? He has reverted that page 13 times, was the one to start the revert war, and, unlike me, never explained his changes or responded to requests that he Cite sources or verify his changes. Slrubenstein  |  Talk  00:45, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't see your message on his talk page. But if you want to prevent a revert war, you must look at the content issues here. Fish Supper reverts any change I make, and has never explained his changes in the talk page. Moreover, he is putting false information in the article. He has never responded to my explanation for my change, and refuses to Cite sources or verify his changes. Please remember that the whole point of this project is to develop an accurate, reliable encyclopedia. Read the talk page and you will see that this is my goal, but not Fish Supper's. Slrubenstein  |  Talk  00:51, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * See my comments on the 3RR report page. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:16, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

Improper unprotection
Dante, what business do you have unprotecting articles that are effectively being vandalized by being redirected. You are also incorrect in calling me an "involved admin," in that I have not edited these articles recently, and simply restored the articles, rather than protecting edits I've made.

I request that you reprotect those articles, as they have already been eliminated again, without consensus, by SPUI, who has already violated the 3RR on them. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 22:10, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have not violated the 3RR; I specifically avoided reverting streetcar for this reason. --SPUI (talk) 22:32, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I apologized to SPUI on the 3RR issue. I miscounted. As to the unprotection, Dante, I apologize for getting heated in my comments above. I didn't know you were responding to a request from SPUI. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 22:55, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Redshirt"
Just a note, one of your user subpages contains a link to Redshirt which has been changed to a disambig page. The information you probably were intending to link to is now at Redshirt (science fiction). --Dante Alighieri | Talk 11:06, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up! -- Blue Mask|Talk 13:05, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

Council of Nicea
Actually, Dante, I wouldn't mind seeing the article Council of Nicea article eventually become a featured article, as at some point I contributed a bit to it. I think we could at least put stubs on the outbound articles, put a few more pretty pictures in there and we'd have something to look forward to! --Bastique 20:55, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Falling Up (band)
Please don't undelete an article until the VfU vote has been properly closed. RickK 23:39, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

It was not improperly deleted, and I will continue to delete it until the VfU process has run its course. What would you think if I started deleting articles on VfD before time had expired for the vote? RickK 23:45, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

I have redeleted it, as I said I would, and have taken it to WP:ANI. Of course it falls under the speedly deletion criteria of the recreation of an article which has had a valid VfD vote. RickK 23:52, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

You saying that it was improperly deleted does not make it so. RickK 23:57, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

The thing is, I really don't have a horse in this race. I didn't vote on the original VfD, and I didn't even know the article existed till it showed up on VfU. But when the VfU listing disappeared after only being there a day, that's when my hackles went up. It's process that I'm trying to protect. RickK 04:02, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)


 * I have to say I don't like this one little bit. If some article is legitimately deleted, now it seems all anyone who liked the article needs to do is write a bit more on the same subject and create an article with the same name, and we're supposed to pretend it's a completely different article and not subject to speedying.  Sorry, doesn't wash. Nothing could be deleted in such circumstances, it would be a troll's charter. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:38, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Well no, someone doesn't have to start an article in a different name, they just have to be someone other than the original author. And as for not using any material from the original, I don't think that's relevant at all.   For instance the current version of Sublanguage contains no material that was in the original (I rewrote it this morning) but it's on the same subject and it has the same name so it's the same article as far as Wikipedia is concerned.


 * A few days ago I deleted Manuel Araullo after I closed its listing. It seems you're now saying that you or I can just create a new article, saying something like:


 * Manuel Araullo (born 1853), was a Filipino judge who held the post of Chief Justice between 1921 and his death in 1924.


 * Such an article, you seem to be saying, wouldn't qualify as a recreation, even though the subject is the same. It shouldn't have to go through WP:VFU, you seem to be implying, and moreover you claim that attempts to speedy it as a recreation are themselves are invalid.  Come off it! This is precisely the kind of problem that VFU can be used to solve. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:47, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * If you want to try and set up straw man arguments, feel free. I'm not arguing anything that would justify the ridiculous assertion you made about the Manuel Araullo page. The "new" page you've proposed has LESS information and is a pared-down version of the earlier article. The new falling up page contains MORE information and substantively addresses the core issue that was raised in VfD, notability. Come off it yourself. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:51, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)


 * I see you've also moved into the realm of failing to assume good faith and personal attacks. Congratulations on upholding a high standard of civil discourse. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:01, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I've just got home and, looking at what I wrote and what you wrote, I don't understand. I apologise if what I have written appears to you to be a personal attack; this was not my intention. I apologise to you if what I wrote appears to question in any way the good faith of anyone involved in this situation; that was not my intention. I'm utterly dumbfounded, please accept my apologies if I have offended you in any way.

On the subject of the band article, we can legitimately disagree but it should be done through a proper process such as the one that exists on VfU, not through your imposition of deletion warfare. If we, as administrators, impose this kind of nonsense on one another in the existence of a clear consensus that recreations are speediable, and an existing clear process for the restoration of articles, then how can we possibly insist that other should use VfU? After all, they shouldn't need to. They just snap their fingers and rewrite the article.

I do contend that you are abusing process. I do believe that you are doing so in good faith. I do urge you to reconsider your actions, which in my opinion are gravely injurious to the deletion policy of Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:18, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Okay, I think we're on the same wavelength now. We disagree on whether the right procedure in this case was to speedy or to abort the VfU.  We're in a dispute on policy.  My instinct in such cases is usually that the solution is not to make more policy, unless in the fullness of time it should prove to be a problem.  If we frequently found ourselves clashing over these things it would be worth fixing.
 * In this case I think the important thing was to make it clear that I crossed the line inadvertently--to accuse someone of abuse of process is, I realise, ipso facto an accusation of malice, and I should have considered your reaction and my own folly in making the accusation rather than simply saying that it was against policy. I can understand your strong feelings because, of course, my feelings are also strong.  This is very bad stuff.  But not enough to justify a falling out with you.


 * Can we agree, without prejudice, that this kind of thing can and should be sorted out without resort to deletion war? If so then that would be a great improvement on the current situation, which I find more then slightly alarming. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:15, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * You write: We both used our 3 reverts within a span of a half hour or so...I probably ought to have just let it be after the one undeletion. I'm not RickK.  One revert, at the right time, is enough.  Three should be  an "electric fence", as WP:3RR puts it, endorsed in Darwin-Lincoln|by arbitrators sannse, mav, Grunt, David Gerard, Ambi and Fred Bauder.
 * We have a duty to uphold the legitimacy of process. There is a case to answer here, that recreation of an article in the middle of a VfU is a defiance of process.  That case can be decided by discussion. We can settle our differences here without warfare. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:50, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Well you describe RickK's attitude as "I'm right and you are wrong", but consider that he has what looks like clear policy, plus a VfD, on his side, and all you have is an incomplete VfU and a belief that policy doesn't apply in this case. So if someone asked me who's being more arrogant, I wouldn't have a clear answer. Nothing is lost by speedying an article while it's being discussed on VfU. You seem to think that the new version of the article strengthens the case for undeletion.  Fine.  But why then pre-empt VfU?  --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:19, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ancient Olympics
Ah, sorry, I guess I should have read further. 776 is the traditional date, anyway (and that's the date the ancient Greeks used). Adam Bishop 20:00, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

By the way, I moved Milo of Croton back to the "Milo" spelling...I'm not sure what the point of moving it is, everything links to "Milo" and that is the usual name for him. (We don't have "Platon" for Plato either, for example.) Adam Bishop 20:06, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

RFC
So I go insane for a day and now that somehow changes the original statement you were endorsing? Run that by me again? --SPUI (talk) 01:03, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Apologies on the whole insanity - it happens every once in a while.

I listed Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion on RFC a few days ago, but it doesn't seem to have brought much. --SPUI (talk) 20:26, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Clay Aiken
Not sure if this meets your bar or not, but I've added new info to the 3rr page on Clay Aiken: 66.82.9.49 has now deleted the same info once: and added nonsense a second time  &middot; Katefan0(scribble) 22:55, May 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * The original blocked anon is back and doing the same stuff. FYI, I added a note to the 3rr page.  Thanks. &middot; Katefan0(scribble) 16:03, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

I don't try to win many friends
I simply reverting ALL edits by Turkish User:Tabib, because I try to give him a lesson of tolerance. My goal is simple: sooner or later he will request page protection on all of the articles related to his TPOV (Turkish Point of View). This is the only way to help him understand the nature of NPOV. To reach this goal I have big pool of different IP addresses, which I am going to use to cut any of his edits, no matter what his POV is... 64.136.2.254 21:22, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Please, see Nagorno-Karabakh, Artsakh, Caucasian Albania, Arran (Azerbaijan), Azerbaijan, Urartu, and since recently, Safavids, Kura-Araxes culture for his persistent vandalisms and personal attacks. This anon is actually one of the anon IPs used by User:Rovoam, who's been blocked many times by admins and was also punished by ArbCom for his disruotive actions and vandalism. I ask you for help in dealing with this person. --Tabib 05:16, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

Possible impostor
I've been doing some impostor hunting lately, seeing as how we've had a rash of them lately and all, and you got the following hits:. Of course, this may be nothing, but I thought I would let you know. – ClockworkSoul 04:41, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Opus Dei link
Reagarding the dead Spanish link. I tried it twice in order to have a quick view of it, put it didn't work. I'll try again. Str1977 08:34, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

NPOV Proclaiming
I guess I should have been clearer. I want to do what I can to make sure that the POV that Jesus is the Christ is fairly represented on pages where it is relevant. To see some examples of how I have started see here, here, here and here. I am sure that if I step out of POV bounds, which I did already I think - I will be quickly reverted and I intend not to get into any revert wars as that is not being a true follower of Christ. Abeo was User Jesus is the Christ 20:09, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Rovoam
He's a POV warrior turned outright vandal who caused a great deal of trouble in mid-March, was blocked for a few weeks, and came back in early April, doing the same things again (which consisted of pasting his preferred version of an article into a bunch of random and unrelated other articles). The lengthy block was mostly a joke; it could just as well have been indefinite. &mdash; Dan | Talk 12:08, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * No, there's no ban, but his vandalism and threats were egregious enough that an indefinite block seemed like a good, uncontroversial idea to me. Please unblock him if you think I was out of order. &mdash; Dan | Talk 19:34, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

He can be blocked but he has lots and lots of spare IPs. We've got a number of articles protected (see WP:PP) because of this one user's vendetta. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:38, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Godamnit!
Dante, it is obvious to me now that many people who use AD/BC really do not believe that God or any belief about God has anything to do with it. For what it is worth, I still think there is the issue of unconscious (or systemic &mdash; which I think has more to do with the culture than individual psychology) bias, which I discuss in my proposal. But please do not think I am dismissing your point. In my opinion, the difference between AD/BC and "good-bye" or "godamnit" is that the latter are informal expressions used in personal contexts, whereas AD and BC are formal and institutionalized. I understand, you still believe you use the terms innocently and I take seriously your belief. Nevertheless, I still perceive a POV and as the NPOV policy implies, people with different POVS often do not understand one antother, and as it makes explicit when talking about unconscious bias, the perception of bias is more important than the intention. You may still reject my solution. I just ask you to tak my POV seriously, and consider what could be an NPOV solution, Slrubenstein  |  Talk  13:12, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Quick Question

 * That is not me - I am not trying to disrupt - however, thanks for bringing this new user to my attention as it (the use by insincere people of similar usernames) is influencing my decision re the rename issue on my talk page. Abeo was User Jesus is the Christ 20:19, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

List of ethnic slurs
I have to admit that the list has improved substantially since I last looked at it. Part of my reservation about the list is that, like the List of political epithets, it will attract people who want a forum to list their favourite ethnic slurs - a way to use these words under the pretext of contributing. I realise that most of the people who contribute are not working from that position, but some appear to be.

More importantly though, ethnic slurs are offensive. Scholarly articles on any one term are useful and informative, even if they do offend. Listing them all in one place, with only marginal reporting on what they mean, moves away from being scholarly - it looks more like a cheat-sheet for racists.

In addition, I don't believe that it can be encyclopaedic. I could add a lot of terms that are used only in Trinidad, or that have currency only within certain segments of Trinidadian society. Chamar is an all-purpose insult for people of Hindu stock, but only within the Indo-Trinidadian community. Madrassi is another such insult. Yet both of these words have non-slur meanings. Given the systemic bias within Wikipedia, any list of ethnic slurs is likely to be biased towards usage in "white" countries. The way these lists are created means that the terms used for non-white people by white people are likely to predominate. While no-one has a monopoly on racism, racism is a much more potent force when it is combined with power-inequalities. Afro-Trinidadians and Indo-Trinidadians can call each other "nigger" and "coolie", and it amounts to nothing more than an insult because, in the global scheme of things, both groups know that they are both "black". When a white Trinidadian says "if it weren't for my ancestors you would still be living in the trees in Africa" (real example from when I was in school), that far more slight insult has a potency, a venom, that the other more serious insults do not, simply because you can't answer it.

I realise that the logical extension of my position would be to call for censorship, something I strongly oppose. An opinion is not necessarily a call to action. I did not mean to impugn your motives in creating the list, I do not plan to list it on VfD, or anything of the sort. But I am not thrilled that it exists.

Hope this wasn't too long and rambling. Thanks for following up on my comment. Guettarda 19:02, 23 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I originally envisaged a comprehensive listing of words, origin, usage, and (most importantly) social/historical context for the words. - if the list is to become that, I would support it.
 * I was actually talking about English in terms of bias. When we think of English speakers we sometimes forget the Caribbean (I am really tired of having people compliment me on my English...I am always tempted to reply "Thanks, I think yours needs a little work), but very often we forget the role of English in African countries (many have it as an offical language), India, Singapore... A list that included names that Yorubas call Hausas or that X!hosa call Swazis belong in the English Wikipedia (as should the contribution of many of these groups to the breadth and variety of the English language).  My guess is that more people speak Indian English than English English.  The AE/BE debates flare up all the time, but no one thinks about Indian English the same way.
 * In the interest of balance, I suppose I should add the Trini terms. I will have limited internet access for the next week, but I can see about it next week.  Guettarda 19:44, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Thank you
for your contribution to the struggle against Rovoam's vandalisms. I am regularly putting disclaimers on his known IPs. If you haven't seen these disclaimers yet, you may visit here User_talk:72.25.94.106. Bests. --Tabib 13:53, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

hallo Dante from Uwe
how long will what you called "temporarily" last? people dig out that old story again and again - you banned me together with Eric that time even without putting it up for a vote (although you gave me some help! and I like your work) - I do not want to use any powers (donated over 100 images) but want to get rid of that stigma - best greeting - uwe kils - Uwe Kils 15:04, May 25, 2005 (UTC)


 * hallo Dante, thank you for answering so quick and nice. I do not want to apply new with all the discussions, I just would like that the old status is reset and the punishment is over. In the old recordings it said temporarily http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2003-May/003941.html and there was not even a democratic discussion or vote - maybe you can ask Eric to lift the ban. Today I have nothing to show (I am very ill and spend much time in hospitals) - all I did at that time with my children was this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fisting&oldid=975276 it was supposed to be a joke and a test to see what happens - good luck to you, keep up with the fine work Uwe Kils 19:02, May 25, 2005 (UTC)


 * "Dante once said that the hottest places in hell are reserved for those who in a period of moral crisis maintain their neutrality." at a time I measured pollution in the ocean and imaged dying fish embryos I did not keep neutrality but my footages were broadcast in prime time television (against the order of my corrupt boss) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen_depletion, with the consequence that I was dragged in legal actions and my student group and my laboratory and instruments were destroyed and my carrier and health ruined Uwe Kils 19:43, May 25, 2005 (UTC)


 * thank you for your long and nice answer. I take your offer, please renominate me, I will never misuse my powers, just want the punishment ended Uwe Kils 20:29, May 25, 2005 (UTC)


 * thank you, I answered the questions Uwe Kils 22:23, May 25, 2005 (UTC)


 * hallo Dante, this is what I expected. it's the reason the growth curves slow down and the reason so few professionals are willing to give their name and material to wikipedia - thank you anyway UK


 * hallo dante, thank you for the friendly words. I hate when somebody puts a link to the old dirt like the sysop comment at the bottom of the page http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Uwe_Kils&oldid=14219271 I will continue to work a little, probably not log in under my name anymore. I could never convince any good colleague or serious student to become a user - good luck to you - UK 66.208.213.26 18:35, 26 May 2005 (UTC)


 * hallo Dante - my students exercised as oceanographers, taking code from my space preparing for a German demonstration project on virtual university, the idea of Erik Moeller (user:eloquence) of the Wikiversity for online e-teaching and e-research and I offered my cooperation as teacher and my interactive  virtual microscope for a course in Meeresbiologie and Biologie der Antarktis - for that project it is important to have reproducible credentials for the teachers. We also plan to move educational content from expensive university servers to the free project (in Germany we don't even have tuition in the University) - I really don't care if I am sysop or not (it would have been better for the politics), I have that all behind me - we try to help the NeXT generation - best greetings - keep up with your fine work Uwe Kils

clay aiken
Hi Dante. The anon reverters are back. &middot; Katefan0(scribble) 04:52, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

uwe

 * thank you, Dante. I will never erase anything in Wikipedia again, work only together with the ideagiver Prof Dr. Dr. h.c. Gotthilf Hempel for the vision of a free cyber university, like our proposals in Wikiversity. We are so many coworkers and students and family that we could have opened hundred wiki accounts, all voting for us, but such was never our style - we are used to work in groups (schooling) -




 * and in a group every member can make an additional wiki account before one can call it sock - user:viking was my family, user:vikings were friends from Scandinavia, user:oceanographer are scientists and friends working for the idea of proposing a cyber university - I got mad when oceanographer showed me this  - we did not expect the reaction and multi-campaign of Michael Snow, the lawyer - it would be nice if you could look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Uwe_Kils and make a vote - it would be good to have as ref point for teacher of wikiversity, that is much more important for us than adminship - I would like to have the punishment ended after so much time - (PS I am retired, do not need extra web space or documentation for my carrier)

keep up with your fine work 68.46.71.104 14:13, 29 May 2005 (UTC) that was from Uwe Kils 14:15, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

hallo dante - can you make a vote on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Uwe_Kils - I think the time runs up soon Uwe Kils 23:11, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

British reckoning
Hi there. I'm trying to figure out the purpose of this edit... Can you explain that? &mdash;Mulad (talk) 04:50, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)


 * Ah.. I must have been wandering Wikipedia around too late at night&mdash;I didn't see the 1234567890 progression :-p &mdash;Mulad (talk) 17:51, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

Your CC-by-SA2 CDR image
hey finally I used your CC-by-SA2 CDR image, thank you very much! See it Here or here. NSK 04:40, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The page Paint by numbers
Hi, I need an admin. The page Paint by numbers is essentially uneditable at the moment as it contains an old link to a homelinux.com site. Homelinux.com is on the spam blacklist, but this link seems resonable, but I can't save the page because of the link. I trust you will know what to do. Zeimusu | (Talk page) 10:27, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Antarctic krill
hallo Dante! can you please take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates#Antarctic_krill maybe help with some editing / formatting / vote - best greetings Uwe Kils 20:43, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Request on RFP
Dante, some time ago you protected a page (Clay Aiken) in which an anon was vandalizing the article repeatedly. I'm now in a frustrating revert war that I think would benefit from having the page protected for a while, but there don't seem to be any admins patrolling RFP at the moment. It's Nuclear power and Price-Anderson Act. If you could even just take a look, I'd really appreciate it. Thanks. &middot; Katefan0(scribble) July 3, 2005 03:39 (UTC)

Are you a sockpuppet?
User:Carr seems to want people to think you are. He put the same sort of thing on my userpage for some reason and then removed it. Weird. --Mr. Billion 3 July 2005 18:15 (UTC)

WIKIPEDIA ABUSE Ril, (81.156.177.21).
Ril has been causing problems at Authentic Matthew. Please help us to resolve.

RIL - M.O.

1) Sock Puppet redirects and hopes nobody notices - Article Gone.

2) SP starts edit war-victim gives up - Article Gone.

3) Later new SP 'merges' and redirects - Article Gone

4) New SP starts edit war - Article Gone

5) If all fails, SP puts up Vfd and makes false statements against his victim often getting THE VICTIM BLOCKED.

PLEASE STUDY THE 'EDIT HISTORY' OF THIS ARTICLE, RIL and 81.156.177.21 for the facts speak for themselves. --Mikefar 05:08, 15 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually, the above is one of the numerous sockpuppets of the article's creator - User:Melissadolbeer - see the user's edit history, and Requests for comment/Melissadolbeer for details. The article in question is Melissadolbeer's original research based on an account by Jerome which is almost universally considered to be an error confusing 3 different gospels (Gospel of the Nazarenes, Gospel of the Hebrews, and Gospel of the Ebionites). It also contains material presenting Eusebius's views of what was Biblical Canon - better discussed at those two articles, and the entire source text of the alleged Gospel, which is otherwise almost universally split into the 3 seperate texts above. The source text was already on WikiSource, and what was salvagable from the remainder of the article was merged to the above 5 articles, and Gospel of Matthew, at the suggestion of User:Wetman. It exists only to support Melissadolbeer's original research thesis. Melissadolbeer's claims of recieving abuse from me, 81.156.177.21, doc, Slrubenstien, Wetman, etc. (whom Melissadolbeer claims to be sockpuppets of one-another) are simply down to the fact that we have at one time or another merged the article elsewhere leaving only a redirect, or have voted to delete it at VFD. The above comment by the sockpuppet has been pasted by it into a vast number of user pages, an act which essentially constitutes excessive disruption to Wikipedia, simply because Melissadolbeer refuses to abide by the process of VFD.     19:23, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Referral from Sango123
Dear Dante Alighieri,

I have been referred to you by Sango123. The following are some of the vandalized and consequently blocked pages by username Joy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pagania http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duklja http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Bosnia_and_Herzegovina http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Travunia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serbs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Serb_lands03.jpg etc...

Please refer to the following discussion as well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_talk:Serb_lands03.jpg

Joy insists on violating copyright protected materials. His map is a flase clone of a published work http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Kpdai30.gif and is in disagreement with the facts. Not only is it inferior, but wholly flase and in violation of copyright material.

According to most historians, all the historical evidence strongly suggests that Serbi-Bosnia's western border ran along the Una and Sava rivers, centered at Srb, an ancient stronhold on the Una River. According to primary historical sources Caslav's rule did extend to the west of the river Una as well. He shortly ruled Croatia. Neither map reflects this.

Last but not least, Joy seems to be in disagreement with the wider Wikipedia community. With only himself on his side, he has blocked numerous wikipedia users. I express my doubt that this should be tolerated. It hurts the whole community.

I thank you for your help in advance. SHould you be unable to assist with this, please let me know who is.

Thanks, UCLA - Pasadena

"UCLA - Pasadena"
Please see Requests for comment/ARD and Jwalker and the linked pages for information about this whole affair. We've tolerated his mockery of our rules (and of common sense, even) for a long time... --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   09:46, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

UH-60
The consensus was reached in ignorance of Naming conventions (aircraft). Articles on US military aircraft are named designation-name, or where there is no official name, manufacturer-designation; but never manufacturer-designation-name. I did look for broken redirects; evidently I missed some. Please undo your recent changes, or open a discussion on the WikiProject Aircraft talk page about changing the naming conventions (note that such a change would affect several hundred articles). --Rlandmann 21:23, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Pluto
The sentence on the current events template says "other than Pluto", but Pluto is supposed to point to Pluto (planet). --User:hottentot


 * Thanks, on it. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:25, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

No non commercial images on Commons
Hello, please relicence your image soon, otherwise it will be deleted :-( Greetings from Bdk 22:36, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

2003 U B Big Rock
Har har. Your joke was slightly worse than mine. -- Cyrius|&#9998; 23:25, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Howdy Dante!
Still here, still reading, not contributing much other than fixing the occasional typo. Having a fabulous summer. Duck season starts soon, maybe I'll write a few hunting articles. RPellessier | (Talk) 09:34, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Mediation
Shouldn't the other people involved be part of the mediation as well? Jayjg (talk) 19:04, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Talk page is always good. Jayjg (talk) 19:42, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

But do you now see the problem? Zen-master simply will not accept the phrase "Conspiracy theory", anywhere on the page. He will only feel a "100% Compromise" has been reached when the phrase has been totally removed. Thus, the "NPOV dispute" is eternal. Jayjg (talk) 20:24, 2 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, he can hardly object to the wording "theories which allege a conspiracy" when they do allege a conspiracy! Noel (talk) 21:24, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

AIDS conspiracy theories
Not sure I can really help, but I threw in my $.005 again.... Noel (talk) 21:24, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Catholic Church of Wikipedia
Not good enough.(Response from Essjay's page)-- Anti-Anonymex2 Come to my page! I've gone caliente loco! 22:23, 24 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Huh? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 22:35, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

MedCom
Hello, I'm sending this message out to all users listed as inactive at WP:MC. Some of you have been on leave for quite some time, and I'm hoping one or two of you may return to active (every active editor has a case assigned). I know some of you are busy with other wikimedia stuff, like Angela Anthere and Danny, and some of you are busy with academic stuff, like MacGyverMagic and ClockworkSoul. However I still want to leave this message in the hope of perhaps getting some more of you on hand. It's by no means mandatory though, so don't worry. -Acting Chair, R  e  dwolf24  (talk) 01:59, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

EKBK
Hi Dante, please don't reverse my blocks without discussing them with me. I have reblocked. This account is either a sock puppet or meat puppet of User:Zephram Stark. I've told him that I'm prepared to be persuaded otherwise, and I've been in e-mail contact with him about it on and off for a couple of weeks, but so far he declines to do what I've asked of him. I posted about the situation to User:Angela, to whom EKBK appealed, and she appeared to have no problem with the block remaining. I'm willing to discuss it with you on WP:AN/I if you want to take it there. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:50, 4 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't know what you mean by saying I need to explain my blocks better. The first time I wrote: "sockpuppet used to evade block," and the second time "sockpuppet used to violate policy." That's not a controversial block. We're supposed to block sock-puppet accounts indefinitely if they've been used to violate policy, and EKBK was used to evade a block. I'm a bit bewildered by your response, and can only assume you've received one of his famous e-mails. I've had them too (including a sample of his poetry) as have several other admins. It's Zephram Stark. He's been doing it for months, with many sock puppets, including the publisher of a chain of newspapers who was conducting an investigation into Wikipedia. See the RfC and RfAr against him for more details. He'd be quite funny if he weren't such a nuisance. SlimVirgin (talk)  00:36, 5 October 2005 (UTC)


 * SlimVirgin is using her authority to bias the content of articles. I have requested that she be demoted.  The excuses she lists for her actions are categorically untrue.  Please feel free to undo any damage that you think she has done until the matter can be decided by the arbitration committee (see also Evidence currently in arbitration).  Thank you for your help in this matter.  --Zephram Stark 15:46, 5 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Dante, by all means continue our e-mail correspondence about this if you want to, but please don't leave any more inflammatory messages on my talk page. I'm aware of four admins who are directly involved in this and fully informed, Angela is being kept informed, and at least two members of the arbcom are aware of the situation (and that's aside from the RfAr). There is already plenty of scrutiny in this case, thank you. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:31, 5 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is transparent for a reason. That reason is to belay corruption.  I would appreciate it if email correspondence relating to this case were copied here, to my talk page, or to the arbcom discussion.  --Zephram Stark 01:21, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

If administrators cannot police themselves, who will police them? Editors certainly don't have any method of demoting administrators. We can complain all we want, but ultimately unbiased administrators must make the decision to involve themselves in the dispute in order for a corrupt administrator to be demoted. --Zephram Stark 01:32, 6 October 2005 (UTC)


 * For the record, in case other interested parties examine this text at some future date, I do not consider SlimVirgin to be a corrupt administrator, nor do I consider that any of her actions are cause for demotion. My concern was a purely procedural one. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 05:41, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * And I think it's odd that she removed your comments off her talk page, after mentioning your "inflamatory" messages left there. --Vizcarra 23:10, 6 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I was talking more about the principle of the matter. SlimVirgin seemed to be saying that this is none of Dante's business, but I submit that the actions of fellow administrators must be every administrator's business if they are to claim to police themselves.  As to whether SlimVirgin should be demoted or not, I feel confident that the arbcom will find the most equitable solution.  If you can find the time to add any evidence you have seen on this issue, it would make their job easier and Wikipedia a better place to edit. Arbcom Discussion  Thank you.  --Zephram Stark 03:19, 7 October 2005 (UTC)


 * For the record, I think that Dante had every right to enquire and make the points that he did, and I apologize for saying that his post was inflammatory, which I retract. I was having a bad day when I wrote that. Dante was right that I should have said in the block log whose sock puppet I believed EKBK to be, so that outside parties would know where to look for further information. I'll be more careful to do that in future. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:19, 7 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for trying to do the right thing, Dante. She won't unblock me, and I think she realizes full well I am no sockpuppet. --EKBK 19:23, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

User:Theblackbyrd
Dante, I probably did welcome this user as I did some welcome wagon work using the user creation logs last week. I would guess that any contributions from the user have probably been speedied, and are therefore not showing up. I don't always check user contribs when putting out the welcome mat - my theory is that vandals and weirdos need especially to be directed towards the five pillars. Not sure why they latched onto you... Cheers, Fawcett5 20:30, 25 October 2005 (UTC)