User talk:Isotope23/Archive 15

You have mail
Please check your email. – Steel 19:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Tubesteak
Yeah, I hauled him onto AN/I either way. Thanks! Love, Neran e i   (talk) 20:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your support! You can expect some thankspam in a couple of days :). Trolls are bad, but patronizing trolls are worse. Ugh. Thank goodness Merope got rid of him...he'll probably return as a sock though. Thanks again! Love, Neran e i   (talk) 20:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Your awesome

 * Thanks!--Isotope23 talk 14:01, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose. You call that hard work?  You could be working much harder.  You still sleep, don't you?  Wuss. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm still trying to find a way to cut out that 4 hours of dead time I have every night.--Isotope23 talk 12:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi!
I know I haven't said anything to you in a long time; nothing personal. Just wanted to say hi! Best, --Gp75motorsports 14:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks.--Isotope23 talk 14:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. --Gp75motorsports 15:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Another Sock, Seeking Admin Protection?
Just wanted to give another heads-up on another possible sock of SW1955 at User_talk:Jake_R-12. He started by chiming in on another sock's comments, then sought out protection from an admin who was unfamiliar with SW1955's history. I've tried to explain, his sockpuppet tag has been removed for now but I'm still very wary. We've already knocked down two tonight, complete with slurs and threats. Snowfire51 08:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * That admin would be me. See the discussion on my Talk page.  If I'm wrong about the editor, well, that's fine. =)  I gave the editor the benefit of the doubt. -- Gogo Dodo 08:50, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Nothing wrong with assuming the best... though I do find it interesting when any new editor finds a sockpuppeteer's talkpage and RFA the same day.--Isotope23 talk 17:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that was rather unusual. I suppose I could file a CheckUser request, but that seems a bit excessive.  If it is him, then I'm sure we will find out soon enough. -- Gogo Dodo 18:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Restored comment
Fuck You dick, I win Lock Box 07:05, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * If by "win" you mean you've engaged in an futile exercise where you make a series of comical comments about other editors, get your account blocked, rinse, and repeat, while all the while the article changes you want to make are always reverted within minutes and your sockpuppets recognized with ease... they sure, I guess you can claim victory all you want. Trust me, this wastes more of your time than it does mine.  I tried to give you a chance once, but it is easy to see why the rest of the Wikipedia community overruled me there.--Isotope23 talk 18:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Eyrian
Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Requests for arbitration/Eyrian. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Eyrian/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Eyrian/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Anthøny 20:24, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Afrika paprika?
It might seem that this is User:Zenanarh, however there is too little direct evidence that I can claim this with certainty. --PaxEquilibrium 21:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Deletion review
As you suggested, I have posted Television series considered the greatest ever on Deleteion review. -- &#x2611; SamuelWantman 22:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

RE: Your note on TimShuba's page
Isotope, Yeah, I agree my note to Tim was caustic (and therefore not allowable). I'm responding to you post on his disccusion page:


 * Apparently it was opined (AFD's are not votes) upon because editors saw the AFD at the article. It wasn't correctly listed until Dumbot caught it on the 11th.--Isotope23 talk 20:26, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the vote (consensus = vote, even The page itself more or less agrees with this thought,although it never uses the word "vote") was opened Nov 9 at 2047, first vote was Nov 10 at 1257. per [|the page itself].

Thanks ! KoshVorlon  ".. We are ALL Kosh..."  21:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The point I think you are missing is that AFD isn't a simple numerical count (aka, a vote). It is a discussion that leads to a resolution (or no resolution as the case may be).  Consensus is part of that (though even that isn't predicated on numerical weight).  Calling it a vote is a bit of a misnomer; if it were a vote it would just be a count of people saying "keep" or "delete".  The other thing I wanted to point out is that beyond tagging the article, you also have to list the discussion on the dated articles for deletion page.  That was the step you appear to have neglected when you nominated this.--Isotope23 talk 22:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Thankspam
  Thank you... ...for your participation, criticism, and support in my recent RfA, which succeeded with a final count of 90/1/1. I appreciate all of your kind words, criticism, and suggestions. I extend a special thanks to Acalamari for his nomination, and Dihydrogen Monoxide and Husond for their coaching and nominations. If you need help in any administrative matters, please contact me. Thank you again and, best regards, Neranei  This RfA thanks inspired by VanTucky's which was in turn inspired by LaraLove's which was inspired by The Random Editor's, which was inspired by Phaedriel's original thanks.

Giovanni Giove
Giovanni Giove, I'm sure you remember him from the attacks he's made here, seems to be another Paprika puppet. Be ready next time he edits. Best, --Gp75motorsports 14:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * He's not a Paprika puppet. He's a separate individual who is also interested in Balkan related topics.  There are about a half dozen editors who take a keen interest in those topics... but they are not all the same person.--Isotope23 talk 14:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh...yeah, you're right. But this guy should still be watched. --Gp75motorsports 14:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Possibly, but not by me. I've already been mired in that morass and I'm not keen to get back into it.  I'd never even heard of some of the places they were arguing over and within a week of trying to sort it out I was being accused of being "anti- " or a "pro- nationalist".  My ancestors 10 generations back are not even from that area  :) --Isotope23 talk 14:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, sounds like something I don't want to get into. But I'm going to anyway. --Gp75motorsports 15:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Suit yourself... It's already ended up at Arbitration once.--Isotope23 talk 15:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * And it is again. This time, though, it's going to be resolved if it's the last thing I do before I get kicked out (hopefully not) --Gp75motorsports 15:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I hope I'm not raining on your parade too much here Gp75motorsports, but neither you, I, nor any other Wikipedia editor, admin, or abitrator is going to be able to resolve mistrust and hatred that is the powderkeg. I wish you luck, but I'm sorry if I can't believe you will be able to make these two work together amicably.  At this point, short of blocking a good 6-8 editors and a few IP ranges, this POV battle won't end any time soon.--Isotope23 talk 16:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I really respect the effort Isotope put into this matter last time, but I don't like the "stay-away-from-that" attitude admins like to take with these problems. Its understandable if people aren't interested in problems at hand, but this just means places like Dalmatia and Kosovo will remain badly represented in Wiki. Unimportant as that may seem, these matters take up a (relatively) significant portion of Wiki and should be taken care of. DIREKTOR ( TALK ) 16:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand your point DIREKTOR. I don't recall ever saying Dalmatia, Kosovo or any of the other topics that have been continuously argued over were unimportant.  Almost from the beginning of being contacted about this, I've repeatedly stated that I'm not a subject matter expert here.  I'd never even heard of Dalmatia until this dispute was brought to my attention.  On the core question of content, I'm in no way qualified to be making decisions about the content.  As I said above, short of blocking one or both of you, I don't see this conflict ending here... and blocking either or both of you is not something I'm willing to do at this point.  I respect the effort that Gp75motorsports is willing to put into this, but realistically I don't see the arbitration committee accepting this case at this point; they don't rule on content and I don't see any behavior that goes beyond that considered in the original arbitration.  Unless you are both willing to parlay in good faith (which you wouldn't need my involvement for anyway), I don't see this situation ending.  I'm not going to point fingers at anyone here, but I will simply say my reticence to involve myself in this dispute further is due to the fact that, at this point, I don't see potential for you and Giovanni (and several other editors) to ever come to consensus on these articles.  It's a shame too because these articles deserve better.--Isotope23 talk 16:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * We should probably all work together to find some good info and lay down some references. If anybody tries to bias it afer that, then 3RR. --Gp75motorsports 20:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I completely understand, Isotope, I've often stated myself that the real problem of this kind of subject matter is obscurity. What we need is an interested neutral Admin that's both knowledgable in the history of the area and the politics involved. I'm not sure if this "messiah" even exists among Admins.
 * Agreed, Gp75motorsports, references are the key. DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 21:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Judge Judy
Heya. Will you please have a look at Talk:Judge Judy and have a discussion with about the nonconstructive editing and article ownership issues he is displaying there? I would do it myself, but I would prefer to avoid any appearance of impropriety after my vehement opposition to his unblock. Cheers, &#10154; Hi DrNick ! 01:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yep, I will review.--Isotope23 talk 13:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't have the heart to CSD tag this...
Mr. Way

I know we are not a memorial site and I just can't tag this one as CSD as it seems rude. spryde | <font color="#000">talk  14:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * ..and so you brought it to me because I'm a heartless, rude bastard? ;p
 * I'll take care of this. I've dealt with similar situations in the past.--Isotope23 talk 14:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Uh, err, yeah :)
 * Actually I know you have the broom and there is a rug over to your left. I was hoping that this could be relocated to the south side of said rug without too much fuss. Thanks! <small style="background:#ccc;border:#000 1px solid;padding:0 3px 1px 4px;white-space:nowrap;"><font color="#000">spryde | <font color="#000">talk  14:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I know... I was just whistling in the dark a bit. --Isotope23 talk 15:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Someone already userfied it. I deleted the redirect to the userspace and left them a brief note per wikipedia is not a memorial, with a link to the user space.  I'm content to leave it there.--Isotope23 talk 15:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

EHC
Just so you don't feel as if I am being rude to you in anyway, I have erased our discussion as per what we discussed, but read what you said and feel much better. I feel as though your cautioning and advice was sound after your final comments. I never thought of it that way and now I understand. Thank you for being so respectful after I told you how I felt, Isotope. :) EverybodyHatesChris 22:01, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem... like I said, you are completely free to delete what I wrote. I don't consider that rude.--Isotope23 talk 23:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

RfA
I considered not spamming talk pages but not saying "thanks" just isn't me. The support was remarkable and appreciated. I only hope that I am able to help a little on here. Please let me know if I can help you or equally if you find any of my actions questionable. Thanks & regards -- Herby talk thyme 12:45, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The trouble is....
I tend to watch logs.... Did it while you were posting on my talk page :)!  Thanks & regards -- Herby  talk thyme 13:56, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Cool!

Another possible sock
Hi again! Looks like our special friend Nintendude might be back again, though I'm not sure it's him. Check Special:Contributions/65.31.73.217. He's making the same kind of changes and referencing the same kind of subjects, like music radio (very similar to this edit), Michigan radio stations (another), and cassettes, and is making the same kind of unsourced edits, like this. Torc2 (talk) 03:24, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Dealt with...--Isotope23 talk 14:08, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Harassment
Hello, I'm not the type of person to go telling on people, but I really have had quite enough. User: HiDrNick has displayed several examples of trolling and harassing behavior which has only continued since our last discussion. This instance is on the Debra Barone article. The article was tagged as being unsourced. I went through the article and removed the information that caused the article to need a tag. I did this because the tag has been on the article for over a year and the info about where Debra went to college and where she grew up didn't look like it was going to be sourced. Anyway, HiDrNick comes along and places the tag back and all he's provided is this edit summary was this[] and no other reason. He then leaves this message on my talk page []. I am not going to revert the page even though the tag no longer belongs there because he's obviously trying to get me blocked. The user has obviously done nothing more than tried to cause problems for several weeks now []. He's already accused me of making unconstructive edits and displaying article ownership on the Judge Judy talk page which wasn't true and led to the discussion between you and I, and before that we all saw his constant attempts at trying to get me blocked. The editor hasn't made any edits whatsoever and it is obvious he's merely harassing. Since his last 40 or so edits have had to do with me and trying to get me in trouble in some way, I think the fact that he's trolling is even more obvious that it was before. Could you please take care of him. EverybodyHatesChris (talk) 08:57, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, the tag does belong there. The article is unsourced... hence it needs to be tagged until someone provides reliable sources for the text, .  I would really suggest that if you find an article that cites no sources, you don't remove those unsourced tags regardless of how long they have been there... or find a source.  Something as simple as a simple as a reliable site about the show/character would be helpful.
 * Beyond that, I will suggest that if you have an issue with another editor, try following the steps of dispute resolution. In my opinion, I don't see anything warranting admin intervention at this time.--Isotope23 talk 14:00, 18 November 2007 (UTC)