User talk:Isotope23/Archive 9

Claudette Colbert again
Hi, sorry to bother you but I see you still occasionally look in on Claudette Colbert and have edited in the last couple of weeks. I think the old problem is resurfacing. I was accused in an edit summary of WP:TE and WP:OWN and I attempted to discuss the situation on the talk page. No response of course. Now this image has been replaced with this image. It's the same image. This is after I argued the value of that film frame as opposed to 3 other frames that the other editor substituted over a couple of days, and now he ends the argument by replacing my image with an identical image. With this edit summary "a composed image supersedes the obscene, provocative image in the biography article". (What the...?) I'm shaking my head - it's the same image and the edit summary has a familiar sound. Do you think that is WP:TE? I'd be interested in your opinion, and I have no idea how to check if it's the same user. Rossrs 07:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm, it certainly looks like an old friend doesn't it? I hear the faintest echo of quacking here.  I'll keep an eye on the situation; request for checkuser is an option, but I'm not sure I'd bother them with it yet.--Isotope23 17:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * thanks, I appreciate it. (and I'll try to avoid overreacting) Rossrs 20:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Mistaken Speedy Deletion
Sorry about my proposed speedy deletion of Battery K 1st Regiment Michigan Light Artillery. I should have paid more attention, I had seen Battery "I" before, and had thought it was the same article again. I shouldn't have been so quick to pull the trigger. --Tdmg 19:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Page Deletion
Hi, I am a new user trying to create a page. While creating it, I accidentally posted it before I was ready, and then a few minutes later I noticed that you had deleted it. I know I was writing about a company, but I search many other similar companies and many had pages and so I assumed that if they could have a page created about them then this company could probably have one as well. Also, since I posted before I had finished, I did not get to include all of my citations. Do you think you could explain to me why you decided to delete it? --User:Kpapadopoulos

Sorry, the page was ESI International. I can get you some of the page names of similar companies if it helps to maybe compare. --User:Kpapadopoulos 3 July 15:59
 * No problem, I just found it and responded on your talkpage. Let me know if you need further clarification.--Isotope23 20:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Page Deletion
I am attempting to create a "Caribbean Conservation Corporation" information page. I have the right to distribute the informatio, which does reflect our history page on our Website. I can't figure out why it is being deleted. Can you please help me figure out how to incorporate this page into Wikipedia without having copyright problems? User: cccturtle

Wrong speedy deletion
Hi, I'm a new user and I was working on a new page but you suddenly deleted it. Can you explain me why you decided to delete it please? TizianoF 13:57, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The game is well known, it won a few awards and there are already both an italian and a spanish page for it. TizianoF 13:57, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * There's the MPOGD Game of the Month award, plus others I don't have the links to right now. The game right now has over 12.000 active users, and both the italian and spanish wikipedia pages demostrates that it's well known. Plus it has been around since February 2004. A lot of games included in this page List_of_browser_games are less known and have a lower user-base. TizianoF 16:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I am certain that this user is Matrix17, but since I'm the 'abusive' and 'unfair' administrator that's been doing all the blocking of her and her IPs, I would appreciate a second opinion. My evidence here is that Usernamedit uses the same poor English, and creates the same kind of totally unsourced biographies Matrix does (I consider Lina Hahne a BLP violation). Additionally, whingy 'unblock me' requests were posted to ANI yesterday (see Special:Contributions/86.90.169.62) and these are quite unquestionably from Matrix17. – Steel 14:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah I updated the ANI request asking another admin to look at it because of the very loud quacking I heard. Strange that a friend of Matrix17's (from a different country) would show up right about the time his autoblock would be expiring and start editing all the same articles Matrix showed an interest in...  I'd like an uninvolved admin to look at it though... don't 4 admins make a cabal?--Isotope23 14:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, I hadn't noticed that you commented on ANI (I assumed those edits had simply been rolled back - perhaps it's just me who does that?) so that seems fair. If no uninvolved admin turns up within 24-48 hours I intend to go ahead and block myself. – Steel 14:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That's fine, I'm cleaning up the BLP problems right now.--Isotope23 14:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Case Giove
Just to let you know, where Giovanni Giove's behaviour brought User_talk:Steel359. But, a new "parachutist" has appeared WP:ANI. Sincerely, Kubura 15:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest you take Steel's advice and request a check user on Giovanni.--Isotope23 15:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

As he told me, it was already done. Possibly a case of two persons in cooperation. Now I have to ask you one thing. Giove again inserted the links towards Italian revisionists sites, and he also inserted an internal link titled as Italian name of the city of Zadar. (shall we provoke Poles with: see more "Posen", "Breslau", Czechs with "Budweis" and "Brünn", Romanians with "Nagyvarad", Montenegrins with "Dulcigno", French with "Straßburg, Mülhausen...". Point is, this is en.wiki. Giove is persistently avoiding mentioning and using Croat toponyms in theirs original form. He's persistently "pushing" Italian version. He's persistently italianising Croatian toponyms. He continued his edit-slaughter (not an edit-war, it takes at least two for the war). Of course, Giove never uses talkpages for explanation of his actions (if he do so, he does it only to say his self-conclusive sentences "you're vandal", "you're now reported to admins", "my changes are sourced", "you haven't explained anything", "you're nationalist", "your sources are nationalist"). We're dealing with an Italian irredentist and revisionist. Can we do something about it? We cannot make any normal dispute resolution with him, neither first steps. He ignores the talk with other parties involved. I (and others that had disputes with him) did disengaged on the articles where we had "clashes" with him. But, what happens then? He makes a slaughter of the article. It's enough to see his contributions on 8th and 9th of July, when his blocking expired. Thing is even bigger, because now he ignores the sentences explicitly mentioned on the pages (on the very same url's), that he gave. He took only one sentence, that "suited" him, but ignored whole paragraphs before and after. I've explained it on the talkpage of Jakov Mikalja. He ignores, not just the third side, he ignores even "his" side, Italian sources. His changes on articles Jakov Mikalja, Republic of Dubrovnik, Zadar etc. 'll go on RfC, but the changes on the article Dalmatian Italians are blatant revisionism. The article itself is a candidate for speedy deletion (otherwise, shall we make articles for Yorshire Pakistanis, Kent Zulus, Hampshirian Germans... - these aren't special ethnic groups. These may belong to articles like "Pakistanis in UK" or "Pakistanis in England" etc.. We don't avoid countrynames here. If Giove wants to make an article about Italians in Croatia, then why don't he makes an article with that name? But no, Giove denies any connection of Dalmatia and Croatia. Kubura 08:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC) Of course Kubura lies, one sohuld read each single article. Apart this, Kubura is well known to  be a fanatic nazionalist.--Giovanni Giove 08:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You guys really need to take this to a Request for comment.--Isotope23 13:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Copyright violation or agenda?
Someone needs to review Eseymour's changes and edit summary. Note the edit summary: "rmv weasel wording; copyright vio; "mole" accusation."

I think this user is trying to downplay criticism. Looking at his history he has removed whole blocks of information that was critical of Thompson. But he adds positive information.

Alan Feduccia
Hi. I wondered why, when deleting Alan Feduccia, you didn't leave a message on my talk page, as requested at the article's talk page - did you see my request? Thanks. SP-KP 18:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I just deleted it about 3 minutes ago... started writing you a message, got a cup of coffee, and then finished and sent the message on your talkpage. Patience young grasshopper  :).--Isotope23 18:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, wrong way round then :-) No probs. I can't find the talk page any more though - any clues? SP-KP 18:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC) Thanks. Enjoy your coffee! SP-KP 18:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Nysted
Text dump Yes, do it. I replied on my talk but this will get you the ol' yellow bar :-) Guy (Help!) 17:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Doing it now :) Cheers, ✎  Peter M Dodge  (  Talk to Me  &bull;  Neutrality Project  ) 18:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Do I deduce correctly that THIS is why you felt the need to remove all of the links to reviews from the Nysted page? Despite the fact that I assume you knew that the links were there specifically to help assert notability? It MIGHT have been defensible to remove half of them with a note that notability is established and no further review links will be needed, but to delete them and try to call it link-spam! Shame on you! --Bill W. Smith, Jr. (talk/contribs) 19:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Do please read WP:SPAM an WP:EL. Commercial websites selling products are spam.  They have been removed.  Readding them is drisruptive.  Please do not do so, or you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia.  Cheers, ✎  Peter M Dodge  (  Talk to Me  &bull;  Neutrality Project  ) 19:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

End Text Dump What a disgrace. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.191.63.2 (talk • contribs)
 * Well done. Guy (Help!) 22:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Cheers, ✎  Peter M Dodge  (  Talk to Me  &bull;  Neutrality Project  ) 22:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * ...and I care about this why?--Isotope23 13:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break
I apologise if I offended you - santini2007

If you don't mind...
Hey buddy, if you don't mind, can I "borrow" the collapsing tracker for Rfa's you have on your userpage? I am quite a fan of it, and figured I should ask first. Puh-lease? :) Jmlk  1  7  18:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * of course... I basically just ripped it off from WP:BN...--Isotope23 18:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Sweet...thanks! Jmlk  1  7  19:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank You!!!
Thank you so much for helping get that nasty comment of my page! God Bless!!!

Captcha Help
The help page I'm talking about that needs changing is Special:Captcha/help
 * Ah OK thanks...--Isotope23 17:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Issue
You caught and surprised me there. I didn't realize what I said was anti-Semitic. You're the first person to tell me of this. I agree that it was inappropriate and I apologize for my remarks. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.

Fried by Billy
My sincerest apologies for opening that can of worms this morning. If I had known it would require so many people's time, both on the Incidents Noticeboard and at this Article Deletion page, I wouldn't have bothered. I was, however, curious what the Wiki community thought about BillyTFried's posting his gun video on My Talk page. I believe this user doesn't have the temperament to edit or write articles on Wiki. I'm sorry for thrusting him upon you, and I appreciate all the work you did today. Griot 00:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Isotope23! Pretty immature of Griot to make fun of my surname like that, but anyway I'd just like to point out that even his friend was able to see it all clearly...


 * Chris Daly, gun control, user talk page stuff, etc. I was a little surprised by the message above with the YouTube video as well, but it looks like it has been expanded and explained. I just take it at face value, that is, a statement that there are gun enthusiasts in SF as well as elsewhere, which does not strike me as particularly controversial. As for the article, I'd agree with BillyTFried that Chris Daly has been associated with pro-gun-control factions and legislation for quite a while, and don't see why that should not be mentioned in the article, along with his various other positions on issues and advocacy. It seems factual and neutral to me. Cheers, MCB 20:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Cheers! --BillyTFried 00:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * For future reference, it is probably better to post a diff of someone else's comments (like this) rather than just cut and pasting their comments to other pages. As I said several times on the WP:ANI report, I believe it was not your intent to threaten Griot, but it is easy to see how someone else could perceive that as a threat if that ended up on their talkpage.  I'd suggest you be careful about that in the future because something like that could quite easily get you blocked if you put it on the wrong person's page.  This isn't a threat; I've seen people blocked for much less.
 * ..and yes, Griot making fun of your surname was not necessary or helpful. If you two can't play nicely, maybe you two shouldn't play together.--Isotope23 00:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I hear ya. Thanks! --BillyTFried 00:43, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Moved from main page to my talkpage

 * Excuse me, but can you unblock the Kige Ramsey page? There is no reason to block it. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MightyRamsey (talk • contribs)
 * It's been deleted 4 times as making no claims of notability per our biographical article guidelines. I'd say that is an excellent reason to block it from recreation.  If you feel he meets the guideline I linked, kindly post some sources that demonstrate that and I'll be happy to unprotect it.--Isotope23 02:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Adoption of Matrix17
I have offered to adopt Matrix17 and, noticing the comment on their talk page, have notified you. Whether they accept or not is another matter, but I have hope. :-) I'll let you know if there are any problems.

Thanks, Carrot  Man  07:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll keep a watch on his page to see if he accepts.--Isotope23 13:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Hanlon's razor does rather neatly describe WP:AGF, and I think it's a good quote. It does seem to imply that anons are stupid, though. :-) Carrot  Man  08:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Added section
Note: Section was cut and pasted here

Don Murphy
Thank you for fixing that. The fact that there might be a sane Editor like yourself never really entered my thoughts. Appreciated!ThisNeverEnds 07:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm curious as to your involvement with this article. Can you explain the reason for this edit? --  Zanimum 15:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * My involvement is purely my distaste for the previous edit summary. --Golbez 15:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * So it was entirely that very odd edit summary that made you revert the edit, nothing to do with the actual content? You have never been contacted about this article by Murphy or any of his fans? --  Zanimum 15:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * First of all, I'm not entirely sure why it matters. Second of all, I was alerted to his ranting, and decided to see what he was ranting about, and saw that edit summary. I wasn't contacted by him until after I made the edit, on my talk page as you can see. As for the content, I saw the editor had reverted many editors worth of work on the pure derision of "committee", which I disliked. --Golbez 16:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I have to concur with Golbez, there was no reason for the original edit adding that text back into the article. If it was done "by committee", that would denote some level of consensus and furthermore the text just isn't terribly relevant.  I say this, by the way, as someone who blocked the above sockpuppet who thanked Golbez.--Isotope23 16:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

End of cut and paste
 * I agree the content about this fight, whether addressing a real fight or a persistent rumour about one, should only be very minimal in the article. It was one night of his life, not a major element to his personal existence. However, this incident is unfortunately what he received the most press for from major publications, before Transformers.


 * What committee had removed the content? Unless Arbcom was involved, the only group attention his article received was through the Administrator's noticeboard. For all I know, the person who readded the content was full of themselves, and I don't support them at all. However is it not factual? Is it not citable? --  Zanimum 16:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the "committee" reference was to the fact that several editors have at various times removed content such that the gestalt was removal of the section. I'd also add that just because something is factual and citable != it being notable enough to mention in a Wikipedia aritcle.  I'm sure I could cite the lunch menus of any number of of elementary schools with articles here; that doesn't mean I should.--Isotope23 17:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * No, things are only truly citable if a third party writes about them. As far as I know, school lunch menus are not published in peer-reviewed publications, even in the smallest and sleepest of towns. In comparison, Murphy and Tarantino's (supposed) incident was mentioned in Time and Entertainment Weekly, two of the highest circulation weekly magazines in America. Both have very, very good reputations, and are not generally tabloid outlets. EW only dedicated a 4x4" box to Paris, upon her release from prison. --  Zanimum 17:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Even if it was mentioned in Time and EW... that still doesn't mean it is important in the grand scheme of things. My personal opinion is to leave that out as well as mention of Murphy's website.  It's just stuff that really doesn't matter.--Isotope23 17:12, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Puppets, etc.
Thank you for taking care of User:Long levi for us. :)


 * We thank you very sweetly
 * For doing it so neatly
 * You've killed it so completely
 * That we thank you very sweetly

Enough!

I like your Lewis Carroll quote. Here's one of my favorites:
 * Tweedledee says to Alice, "If it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain’t. That's logic."

Baseball Bugs 22:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I heard the quacking... Actually, my favorite Carroll quote is something Humpty Dumpty said:

`When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'--Isotope23 23:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yep, that's a good one... a universal truth. If someone has a really dark iris, would that be an eye-so-taupe? Baseball Bugs 00:06, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

That duck is still quacking. What he really wants is for someone to tell him how you do the checkuser, so he can be more clever about evading it the next time. Meanwhile, could you help me with something? Epeefleche asked Irishguy about it, but I think Irishguy is taking Friday the 13th off, begorrah. I noticed that the "sockpuppet" and "suspected sockpuppet" templates apparently spawn an automatic category, but it's not populated. So I tried to populate those two red-link categories, but I've got a hunch I'm not doing this the appropriate way. Also, I wonder if a single template, i.e. the one on Long Levi, could be applied to his other sockpuppets, namely El redactor, Blacksoxfan, a couple of IP's, and Tecmobowl himself, so they would all link via one category? Or is there a preferred other way to do that? In any case, I can't put the label in User talk:Tecmobowl because it's blocked, although the user page itself isn't, but I'm not sure it's my place to be posting such notices in any case. Baseball Bugs 01:02, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, I see that the sockpuppet notice is on User:Long levi rather than on the talk page, so I could do that anyway... unless that's stepping on toes. Baseball Bugs 01:03, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

If he has come back as yet another sockpuppet, I haven't noticed him yet. Meanwhile, I'm done messing around with his comments. You agree that his previous comments are irrelevant, so as long as that point is clear on the talk page, that's the main thing. Miss Mondegreen has been a minor "crusader" for Tecmo/Levi for awhile, but that's as far as it goes and as far as I care to see it go. When or if the Shoeless Joe Jackson page is unblocked, that spamlink of Tecmo's should be deleted, just like it has been from the other pages he put it on. But I'm in no real hurry for that task. Baseball Bugs 00:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * If Tecmo wants to be unblocked, he has been given a avenue to do so. If he doesn't want to take it, that is his decision.  By the way, I just saw your message from the 14th... I missed that before.  That category should populate every time you use that tag...  Usually the tag goes on the userpage.--Isotope23 00:16, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The question is whether I should be consistent and put "sockpuppets" on all his pages, or just leave them as they are, with "suspected sockpuppet" on some and "sockpuppet" on the other. By now, in any case, I have populated them on two different pages. The main point was for me to find them easily if necessary. If someone else wants to improve upon them, they can. Baseball Bugs 00:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Meanwhile, I would like to copy your paragraph from my talk page onto the Shoeless Joe talk page, as a point of clarification. Baseball Bugs 00:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Your un-strike-throughs on one of Tecmo/Levi's comments on Talk:Professional baseball today, for policy reasons, is understandable. Just be aware that he himself took away Epeefleche's strike-throughs by using an IP address yesterday, and I restored those strike-throughs yesterday. Rather than get into a stupid edit war about that now, I added some comments to the Talk:Professional baseball page explaining what's going on. In any case, the page in question (List of major baseball leagues) should be deleted soon, as it's wholly redundant and was invented by Long Levi for no obvious reason. Baseball Bugs 14:12, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I think I'll just leave well enough alone, then, and just try to be alert for his unwashed socks. Baseball Bugs 14:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

It's a funny not-very-subliminal message he sent, starting his attempts at corrections by working on Louis SOCKalexis. d:) Baseball Bugs 14:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

It probably is a range, which could mess a lot of people up if it gets blocked, which he might be counting on. As he himself noted as part of his non-denial denial plea for unblocking, on User talk:Long levi, "My ip for this edit is 70.223.193.159. That is owned by verizon as i use vzwireless to connect .... NOTE: I am now editing this page from 75.202.53.176, I simply disconnected and reconnected my internet connection." Baseball Bugs 15:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry
Sorry for puting up the hyperlink on the user:Melbourne_DX page. Didn't mean to be a pain in the ass to you Dingv03 06:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Abusive language
Hi, Isotope23. Please see this message from an (unregistered?) user, that signs as "LEO". This message is a racial insult (pointed against Slavs), implicite or explicit, treat it as you want. If you don't know Italian, here's the translation of the important part: Original tekst: "...Vedo che altri slavi ti lasciano messaggi con provocazioni: certo che ne stanno molte teste di cazzo ". Translation: "...I see that other Slavs are leaving to you the message with provocations: sure there's lot of p*nisheads .". Note: "Cazzo" doesn't have milder meanings like "dick" in English. It denotes male organ, and that word isn't used in decent communication. Will you, please, keep an eye on this user? Sincerely, Kubura 14:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Alfonso DiMino Deletion
I just found that you had deleted the page I added about Alfonso DiMino. I am hoping that this page can be restored and that I can correct it to meet the Wikipedia requirements. I am a new user and this was my first post.

If you could help me with this, I would greatly appreciate it. I write a column for a national newspaper on lesser-known scientists and would like to add these scientists to Wikipedia. This was my first.

Thanks, in advance, for your consideration and help.

Sincerely, Science333 14:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

and TV station articles ANI report

 * I deleted/reverted a bunch or mmbabies crap right after I got sysop'd so the ANI report caught my eye. There will be collateral damage from a range block and I just don't know enough about the level of disruption to enact the blocks that would need to be done right now.  If you want to know the ranges to block and how to do a range block, email me and I can give you the info.
 * I don't have a particular interest in performing this range block myself, but I would like to know how. Also, how could I watch for and repair collateral damage? This is new to me. --Fang Aili talk 20:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll email you tomorrow... I have to give away trade secrets :).--Isotope23 20:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks! If you don't mind, when you email me I will forward it to Firsfron as well, since he is the one who posted at AN/I, and we are friends as well. Cheers, Fang Aili talk 21:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

THE WATCHMAN
Good Morning sir. I read with interest your comments. I have long held the idea- a view reached by a great deal of comparison, I might add- that far too much of tghe Wiki landscape was dominated by a type of fan-boy guys club. This it must be said, is almost exclusivly male. No body is allowed to ruffle the feathers of the few by daring to think they have the wherewithall to actual make edits themselves- that's for the few. Enough of that for now. I come to you with a complaint. Quite simply, WAFULZ has dis[played all of the attributes of the bullied kid now in a position of power. Without going over old ground, I respectfully request you read all of my edits, and all of his replies, paying careful note to the fact that he has activly followed me about the Wikiscape, showing up wherever I do. He's been asked to stop and will not. He has offended my friend by following me to her userpage and passing what can only be personal remarks, of the very nature he himself complains. Please read over the information as per request. If his complaint is upheld, and people can use wikipedia for their own agrandisement, going as far as to change the layout and title headers on my personal site to suit themselves, then I will have learned a very valuable lesson. My newspaper have taken an interest in this case, and look forward to the verdict.

STEALTH RANGER 07:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I've blocked this user for a week. The ANI thread is here. I've had enough of being badmouthed on other users' talk pages.-Wafulz 13:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Inspired by your userpage
Click here -- Y not? 18:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Hah! To be fair, though, their position is not without merit, even if the propaganda-style means they employed were stupid. Science is a fine set of tools to investigate the rules of the Universe, but Science does not speak to matters extrinsic to the system it is part of - for example, its origin or purpose. -- Y not? 19:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the acrobatics probably were as result of trying to avoid establishment issues. See you around. -- Y not? 19:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

For a page that has no third party sources and people justifying their keep because they are fans or because they either didn't look at how the page has changed since the last delete, or ignored that the last delete process resulted in many people calling for merges, or from people who claim its a minor character but do not want to follow Fiction policy to merge it with a list of minor characters, I don't think its right to claim there is a SNOW without there even having time to appropriately discuss an issue. Its not a vote, but a discussion, and people haven't provided legitimate third party sources that establish the notability of the character, only plot summaries of his minor interactions with characters that may be notable. NobutoraTakeda 20:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Take it to WP:DRV. There is no realistic chance that there would be a delete consensus as a result of the discussion and frankly, your meteoric two day mastery of wiki markup, knowledge of policy, and checkuser return result that you are possibly the sock of an indefinitely blocked editor stretches my assumption of good faith to the limit.--Isotope23 20:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

AfD result on Pseudopod
A question on this. I did not detect any consensus in the discussion, and based on the result it seems that your judgment was the only one that counted. Is that how AfD is supposed to work these days? I am honestly curious. Thanks, Cleduc 04:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I saw consensus. Consensus comes from users' agreement on whether the article meets the guidelines.  The comments that were focused on whether the article meets the notability guidelines were nearly all recommending deletion, and while there were a number of 'keep' nonvotes, they didn't make any argument that the article met the notability guidelines, or offer sources that would help the article meet them.  I say this as a user who is strongly biased in favor of keeping the article, since I'm a fan of Steve Eley.  -FisherQueen (Talk) 12:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Eley provided a great deal of evidence of notability, enough that others didn't really need to add to it. I appreciate your input, but the question was not posed on your talk page. Cleduc 16:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * is always welcome to comment on my talkpage and answer queries. Beyond that, Steve provided several contentions, but none that were sourced and met WP:WEB.  Most of the keeps (other than yours and Steve's) were essentially "keep per BrentN", who simply had stated that the notability was clear to him.  As I explained in my closer notes, when taken all together, their was not a strong argument advanced to keep the article at this time.  I contacted Steve and informed him that if sources become available demonstrating WP:WEB he can contact me directly and I'll undelete.  deletion review is another option if you disagree with my AFD close.--Isotope23 16:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. I remain genuinely curious as to how AfD works these days, as I know it has evolved beyond voting – but that having happened, it remains desperately unclear what precisely has replaced it. I have read the guidelines but haven't found an implicit assumption of deletion to which you seem to refer ("not a strong argument advanced to keep the article at this time").  Guilty until proven innocent?  Cheers, Cleduc 16:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * "Guilty until proven innocent" isn't probably exactly a good analogy, but it is "burden on those contending an article meets a particular guideline". When you hold the article up to WP:WEB, I didn't see clearly sourced evidence that it met the criteria.  I don't do a ton of AFD closing, but when I do I look at strength of argument first, and number of participants opinining a particular way second.  Personally, I fully expect to be contacted by someone with evidence leading to an undelete in the next few months...--Isotope23 17:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Awesome. Sounds like a good use of everyone's time.  But then I guess that's what WP's for, huh?  Cheers, Cleduc 17:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Disruptors' support
Hi, Isotope23. Here's the message of user Brunodam, where he supports user Giovanne Giove. Support by itself isn't a problem, but problem is that that support is given to a user Giovanni Giove; and I told you that I find Giovanni Giove as heavy disruptor of Wikipedia. The message is in Italian. "Comunque, egregio Giovanni Giove, le rinnovo la mia simpatia per il suo comportamento verso di loro ." loro = ("...nazionalisti serbocroati..., DIREKTOR, Kubura, Kmaj, Jesuislafete, Paxequilibrium...") from his previous message. Translatio is like "So, dear Giovanni Giove, I renew my sympathy for your comportation against them ." them = ("...Serbocroat nationalists..., DIREKTOR, Kubura, Kmaj, Jesuislafete, Paxequilibrium..."). from his previous message Not to mention that call a Croat as a "Serbocroat" is considered as insult to Croats (I don't know for Serbs).Kubura 09:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I am seriously losing my patience with this guy, and I have a feeling Tariqabjotu is too... Unless some serious action is taken, the guy will probably get indef blocked for his incivility. -- Dark Falls  talk 10:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

question
I just seen in the block log that you blocked a particular user called "STEALTHRANGER" or something like that for an indef duration for being a role account. Can you explain to me what a role account is? 86.148.190.134 15:25, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, I just extended an existing block. A role account is an account being used by more than one person (see WP:USERNAME).  You can see the whole conversation at User talk:STEALTH RANGER.--Isotope23 15:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. 86.148.190.134 16:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Article you just protected
Can you please revert the changes made by unregistered user 209.215.160.114 on Istrian exodus and History of Dalmatia. Basically locking these pages with his reverts is a reward to him as can be seen here. Perhaps a semi-protection would have been better as your block on 24 hours means nothing to him. He obviously has modulating IP. Regards. --No.13 19:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No, sorry. Protection is always of the wrong version to somebody.  This isn't a "reward" to anyone and semi-protection would just punish the IP editors.  I fully protected this whilst the situation is sorted out.  The protection is temporary.  Besides, it would be against policy for me to protect on version over the other... I just protected the one that existed at the time.--Isotope23 19:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

...and yes I know it is a Bellsouth dynamic IP...--Isotope23 19:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The only thing needed here is semi-protection to remove this person from editing these articles, that is the way to sort it out. There is no need for full protection. You have indeed rewarded him wheter that was your intention or not. I again point you to his gloating comment made after you locked the pages with his disruptive edits. Oh and don't think of this as me pushing you, I am just stating certain circumstances you aren't maybe aware of. Regards. --No.13 19:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Right
Right, won't happen again. I was also mislead. I appologise. DIREKTOR 19:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That's why I'm just warning you. --Isotope23 19:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Terrible misunderstanding
With blocking the articles with the current version I'm afraid you have (unvolontarily, I hope) doomed any possibility of debate. I am aware that this is not an endorsement, but, even though I am not impartial in the debate, please note these objective facts: 1) my opponents are not proficient in English and therefore are not capable of constructive discussion. 2) Even if they were, they have been invited on a myriad of occasions to begin debating, they did not (probably due to the said icapability), there is certainly no reason to believe they will start now. 3) If the version they oppose (wether correct or not) is currently posted they might initiate a debate, despite their frequently expressed disgust for me and other Slavs. This is, I believe, the most beneficial outcome, in the interest of writing an NPOV version. Thank you, DIREKTOR 19:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC) P.S. This applies only to the Istrian exodus and History of Dalmatia articles. Zadar will probably be constructively debated upon.
 * Well here is the thing... the protection will expire (or be removed) if it isn't necessary. I didn't protect these to strong arm debate.  I protected them to stop the edit war whilst I decide the correct next step (which should be an RFC).  If those Anons choose not to participate in that RFC, they are basically losing a chance to form consensus and have their voices heard in that process.--Isotope23 19:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps that will be for the best... I assure you, though, the anon(s) is quite violent about this matter, due to personal reasons. He/they will not sit still. I think we will hear their voice (POV), and how! (btw, don't believe for a second what they accuse me of (Slavist fanatic, vampire etc...), I'm part Italian and am not motivated by national differences in any way. DIREKTOR 19:58, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * After seeing some disruption by that anon under other IPs... I've dropped the protection to semi.--Isotope23 20:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Small update, it seems History of Dalmatia is still fully protected. Regards. --No.13 21:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Propaganda
Some Slav users make communist propaganda and ruins articles about foibe massacres, Istrian exodus, Tito, History of Dalmatia, Zadar and other articles. Their points of view are always the same: Tito was a good person, communist party was liberal not communist and other crap of propaganda. You can read democide and you can see -Yugoslavia (Tito) 1944–1987 1,072,000- mass of persons killed! Tito was a mass murderer but he has a mausoleum in Belgrad because for fanatic communists he was a warrior for communism and these users are editors communist warriors in this site! With these fanatics is impossible discuss and you can read user talk:Lights. Regards, LEO 18 July
 * I suggest you initiate a request for comment.--Isotope23 20:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Isotope23, first of all, neither I, nor any of us are communists. You can clearly see the numbers mentioned here are riddiculous, a million persons killed :D? That is truly laughable, but not nearly as much as the fact that Tito passed away in 1980 and he lists the dead all the way from 1944 to 1987. Please note that Yugoslavia under Tito was THE most liberal of all socialist states and was economically (and with respect to it's size) far more advanced than the Eastern block. I never thought there were so many revanchists on Wikipedia. These people fail to realise that Italy lost the Second World War and are basically trying to make it seem like a great injustice has been inflicted upon them, while they actually got off easy. It is a little known fact that almost no Italian fascist war criminals were prosecuted. DIREKTOR 09:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, I suggest a request for comment here.--Isotope23 13:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Isotope23. Unless someone is "framing" it to someone.... Above we have user signed as LEO. I wrote something about that user in the section " abusive language ". Is there a possibility that you can check if it is user Lights and self-signed user LEO are the same users? Kubura 13:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I can't, but you could file a request for checkuser and request them to investigate. They have access to tools that general administrators like myself do not.--Isotope23 13:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

User talk:BillyTFried
So, just to be sure, you don't mind if I unblock this one? I think the point's been made, or at least as well as it's going to be, and unblocking will hopefully be a sort of olive branch to convince him we're not all evil. Or that's my hope, anyway. Thoughts? – Luna Santin  (talk) 01:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Hard to have good cops without bad cops, I suppose. Although I generally prefer to avoid thinking of it in those terms, the analogy makes sense, I guess. In any case, thanks for the time you put into this, I hope this was the right way to go for everybody. – Luna Santin  (talk) 02:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

You gotta read this
Check out what he (you know who I'm talking about ;) ) wrote on my talkpage and on the talkpage of the Foibe massacres, this is truly unique... can anyone do something? DIREKTOR 16:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I already removed the trolling from the other pages, though not your talkpage because as a rule I generally don't edit others' userspaces without a good reason. I'd say future trolling should just be removed and not responded to.--Isotope23 16:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Can anything be done about this guy's threats and personal attacks? Is it possible, I mean?
 * I actually think I'm gonna leave his deep comment on the issues, it's very enlightening. Not to mention hilarious... DIREKTOR 16:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, something can be done if it becomes necessary to deal with the situation, but at this point, I think revert of trolling by that individual is the way to go.--Isotope23 16:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you're probably right, the erudite needs no advertisement from me...

Illvminati
Somebody is creating socks to make this fork. I vaguely recall some big blow up on the Illuminati article but I don't know that much about it. Related? Or just weird? Dina 17:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * By all means, it was another thought I had. Dina 17:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Excuse me jumping in... I reverted your user and talk pages from the editor related to this. I also added the Talk page of the article/redirect to WP:PT. -- Gogo Dodo 23:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks!--Isotope23 02:00, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Vandalism Barnstar

 * Thanks.--Isotope23 17:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Robert Digby (1732-1815)
Hi Isotope

I was little frustrated that you moved Robert Digby (1732-1815) to Robert Digby (MP) only three minutes after I had created the article, while I was still sorting out the links.

There was a good reason for not using (MP) as the disambiguator, since the Digby family had many MPs over the years, and I was in the process of differentiating them all. A few further checks confirmed that he was also an admiral, so I have now moved the article to Robert Digby (admiral) ... but for families such as this, MP is rarely either a defining attribute or a useful or unique disambiguator.

Before renaming an article which has only just been created, wouldn't it more collaborative to ask the creating editor why they had used that naming format? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I apologize if I caused you stress as that was not my intent. I saw a non-standard naming convention, so I boldly changed it.  I noticed you changed it afterwards to a more correct disambiguation... it got where it needed to be eventually, but, again it wasn't my intent to make that a painful process.--Isotope23 02:00, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * In this case, yes, there was a better dab available in the end, and I have now expanded the Robert Digby (admiral) to focus more on his naval career (which appears to have been much more notable than his 4-year stint in the House of Commons). But British MPs are one of the few categories of people where disambiguation-by-date can be useful, because for several centuries, parliamentary seats were often in the control of a small number of families, some of whose family trees include dozens of MPs, and there are often others of the same name. Editors working in this area are slowly sorting them all out, and many can be disambiguated by the peerages or baronetcies which they held, but many of the MPs did not hold a title, which makes disambiguation much more complicated. I'm sure that you acted here in good faith, but I'd be grateful if you could tolerate some date-disambiguation of these people as a holding measure while we sort out the tangle of several hundred years of ambiguous parliamentarians!  Thanks. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Disruption
I accept your suggestion about RFC but in many articles disruption was by DIREKTOR, Kubura, No.13 and message user talk:DIREKTOR by IP 209.215.160.114 is not offensive for a block. You blocked Istrian exodus rightly in version of IP 209.215.160.114 and request of DIREKTOR for block in his version was illegal but you accepted flamer request of DIREKTOR. I hope you want be neutral. Regards and best wishes. LEO, 20 July
 * There is no "right" version. Beyond that, user talk:DIREKTOR was inflamatory, unecessary, and not made in good faith.  It warranted a block.  I have no POV here; I don't particularly care which version of those articles exists at that namespace.  I'm not from the Balkans, nor am I Italian... nor do I have any ancestry from those regions.  What I do care about is that we are not having a constant edit war between 2 sets of editors who don't appear willing to compromise in good faith on their own, hence my near constant suggestions that an RFC gets filed.  If, when these articles get unprotected, the edit war continues and no RFC has been filed, I will likely protect the articles and file an RFC myself with the caveat that none of you edit the articles until the whole thing has been sorted out.--Isotope23 18:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I think you can be neutral but actually DIREKTOR continues in his flamer edits because he is logged but for me log in is impossible for technical problems: my request is that DIREKTOR stop editing in disputed articles. In talk:foibe massacres Ilario and E.Cogoy agree me! Regards and best wishes. LEO, 20 July
 * Again, this is why I suggest an RFC... so everything can be put on the table and uninvolved editors can weigh in here.--Isotope23 18:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * One thing, if I may: my hand hurts from all the invitations to civilized, argumented discussion I have written to this guy. I am more than willing to engage in debate, since I am not so presumptious as to believe in the perfection of my knowledge on the subject. DIREKTOR 19:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Charazay. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. TizianoF 20:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. Sorry I didn't get back to you sooner... I reviewed that link, but then I got busy elsewhere and completely forgot to respond.--Isotope23 talk 20:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

On weasel words on WP:UP
My issue was with "preferred" - it's preferred by whom? --Random832 00:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Happy Isotope23's Day!

 * It's your day, Isotope23? Excellent! :) Acalamari 15:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * What if I told you (and I swear it's the truth!) that I didn't realize about the coincidence with the day until you told me? :) I hope you enjoy your day, friend - you've earned it with your hard work and the cheering, beautiful person you are. Be happy today, dear Iso! :) Love,  P h a e d r i e l  - 18:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Seasonal articles
Well, I'm putting it on hiatus. I will get the help of others to work on this. I am just so tired of the redirects. Hey, I would love your help on this. I just want to get all the teams that I've started completed. Only 4 of the teams have deep history. Most of the teams that I've worked on have been around for only about 50 years at the most. Thanks for the pointer Soxrock 13:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry. There is already a huge discussion of it on the baseball project board. People will help out, I know that. So I'm not worrying about deletion right now, thankfully. Soxrock 13:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't its just when I am in the middle of trying to write a worthy encyclopedia article in my own words compiling various sources and then referencing them - to keep getting branded with a speedy delete tag is the wrong way to go about it and very frustrating. Copywright is unacceptable yes but I thought I made my intentions clear with the initial summary "under construction". ♦ Dr. Blofeld ♦ "Expecting you?" Contribs 18:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I should have written it in my sandbox first but I find it easier to work this way ♦ Dr. Blofeld ♦  "Expecting you?" Contribs 18:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry its if the article is tagged with an "under construction" and this was asserted when I initially started I thought my intentions were pretty obvious to rewrite it. I am trying to help the encyclopedia after all and haven't had two DYK'S in two days for nothing ♦ Dr. Blofeld ♦  "Expecting you?" Contribs 18:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Now is there a problem with Kampuchea Thmei Daily ? ♦ Dr. Blofeld ♦ "Expecting you?" Contribs 18:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

That would be the best thing is the write it first in my sandbox but I find I work better if I go ahead and do it. You're right about the copywrighted text still being there whilst under construction - I guess I should really get into the habit of completing it first before posting it!!! Hey I'm amazed you found the article amongst the zillion new articles by Polbot!! -its quite astounding how many articles its creating - an ingenius idea. All the best ♦ Dr. Blofeld ♦  "Expecting you?" Contribs 18:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Grumpyrob
RFCU came back. I hate to brag, but damn, I'm good. Can you block the offending socks? MSJapan 22:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Done!--Isotope23 talk 00:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Help required EDIT WAR
Please can you help EDIT WAR. Please can you apply the same rigour you have applied to articles on wikipedia to the article on the Porus article there is user (User:Intothefire) saying King Porus was from the Kukhran according to Oral history. I mean come on this outrageous to even post something like this on Wikipedia without any references or verifiable references but say ORAL HISTORY says he was from the Kukhran is appalling. I am Indian and there is NO scholar or University academic who says he was from the some fringe group called the Kukhran. Most Indian academics would be appalled by this falsehood and unsubstantiated claim. Please take this up immediately and apply you regular rigour to this article - absolutely appalling abuse of Wikipedia.--Sikh historian 23:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll look into it.--Isotope23 talk 00:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

A reporting of Possible vandal
Hi, Isotope23. Some user, that has purposely registered himself. A user named user:Wermania has put tags and.

A reporting of vandal
Hi, Isotope23. Some user has purposely registered himself for vandalising/trolling. Behaviour pattern is typically of vandals. See below. A user named user:Wermania has put tags and  on the article Saborsko massacre and Baćin massacre. Here're are his contributions Special:Contributions/Wermania. Only three edits, and all three are adding of those tags above. These were also his first edits. First, and immediately disputing. He also gave no explanation for his actions on the talkpage. We should block him. Sincerely, Kubura 08:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

SOME QUESTION MORE
SOME QUESTION MORE: Did you analise the very first block Tobias Conradi received and how this was out of policy? And when he complained he got out of policy blocked again? And then he got blocked for moving a town article to the correct name, but the admin without any grasp of the topic thought this was vandalism and blocked Tobias, protected even his talk? Did you see this?
 * Yes... and you were not blocked for vandalism... you were blocked for violating your civility parole. Instead of serving your one hour, you chose to engage in a diatribe that got your block extended and your page protected... now you are sockpuppeting which I'm going to guess won't do anything to reduce your block time.  You are only making it worse for yourself Tobias.--Isotope23 talk 15:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Tobias cannot make annything worse by saying the truth.

"you were blocked for violating your civility parole."

Where should that have occured???? And: Is this whole civility blabla by admins that do not follow the rules worth anything? Isn't it only here to censor those that have different opinions, and which express concerns with admin culture? Isn't that only a vehicle for Xenophobia? Someone talks different and you say he talks incivil. And you have some rule somewhere which allows people to block on that basis.

BTW "Did you analise the very first block Tobias Conradi received" - means the VERY first. I don't care if I get banned for saying the truth. And what you say at SANC page
 * Your very first block has no bearing on your current situation. You know the correct avenue to follow if you want to contest your block or the sanctions imposed upon you... email ARBCOM.  Sockpuppeting with a rotating IP to evade your block isn't going to have any other effect than you being eventually banned from editing.  There is no way you can legitimately argue that this comment to  is just "talking differently"; it is a clear attack on that editor as was your subsequent claims of corruption against the editor who blocked you per your civility parole.  Perhaps before you blame the cabal for the situation you are in you should take a look at how you treat your fellow editors (and I mean all editors, not admins).  There is a respectful way to disagree with others and there is an incivil way to do it...--Isotope23 talk 16:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

- I don't know enough about Tobias to say if his behavior outweighs the value of his contributions, but it seems clear to me he doesn't accept the validity of the ARBCOM sanctions, he doesn't intend to follow them, and he sees the enforcement of the sanctions as illegitimate. - needs explanation. Which illegal ArbCom voting that I not support do you refer to? People like you are dangarous. Illegal ArbCom actions CANNOT be supported. We OWE this to the project. You behave slavish. Stand up. Use your brain. Support TRUTH, JUSTICE, TRANSPARENCY.

You say "it is a clear attack on that editor " what I wrote. It is clear not! It was a suggestion! And only a suggestion to his behavior in WP, not to him as a person. No personal attacks! I wrote to Salaskan: "Before applying for adminship you could improve your reading skills and/or logical thinking." after he did write something which was wrong. Verifiable wrong.
 * What needs explanation Tobias? I said you would likely be banned if you continued to sockpuppet; given the fact that there is now a conversation about you at WP:CSN it appears I was correct.  It appears you reject ArbCom's sanctions against you and you are committed to soapboxing against them.  Nothing ArbCom did was "illegal", this is Wikipedia, not a sovereign nation.  There are no "laws" here.  You may disagree with my comments there and I'm fine with that, but I point out that calling other editors "slavish" and telling them to "use their brain" is exactly the sort of rhetoric that has gotten you where you are now Tobias.  If you want to tilt at windmills Tobias all I can do is wish you luck... and if you don't see how your comments are a personal attack then I sincerely doubt anything I say will enlighten you in that regard.  As I said before, there is a civil polite way to communicate with your fellow editors and an incivil way.--Isotope23 talk 19:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * use your brain was nonsense, I should not have written that. I think any alive human uses it anyway. But what is incivil with that?

Of course my current situation has to do with the previous blocks. I would not be under ArbCom ruling without them. It is all a corrupt mess here.
 * In that case, why do you persist in editing here if you view Wikipedia as so corrupt? I'm genuinely curious...--Isotope23 talk 19:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I do not insist. I just do it. Wiki technology is great. And Wikipedia is nice. It could be much better lot's of things have to be done. But for me since 2006, especially the summer incidents, there is a serious flaw: admins using their tools out of policy. This is corruption. And I name it as such. Why? Maybe to warn other. Maybe to raise awareness and to one day stop this. I hope we get more transparency on admin actions. I regard Accountabilty and Transparency as important.

Below a small list of admins that were engaged in out of policy and/or pro-corruption actions:


 * User:23skidoo is a Wikipedia administrator and trivia fanatic in Calgary, Alberta.
 * User:TexasAndroid Computer programmer from San Antonio, Texas.
 * User:Pschemp
 * User:InShaneee
 * User:Lar - US?
 * User:JzG
 * User:Zscout370
 * User:Gnangarra
 * User:Ryan Postlethwaite: I'm Ryan, I'm a final year student studying pharmacology at Manchester University.
 * User:Danny - US
 * User:Isotope23

So essentially it is your view that every administrator who has ever blocked you has acted out of policy and is pro-corruption? Well Tobias, I can't say this has not been an interesting conversation, but at this point there is really nothing more I can say to you. I can't speak for anyone else, but my admin actions are pretty transparent... You can see what I did and why I did it, which of course doesn't mean you have to agree, but it is all there in the open. I wish you luck, though given the current state of the discussion at community sanction noticeboard I suspect that a ban isn't far off here.. but if that is the case I still wish you luck in whatever other endeavors you find to fill your time.--Isotope23 talk 19:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * So essentially it is your view that every administrator who has ever blocked you has acted out of policy and is pro-corruption? - NO. That is not what I wrote. You may try to improve logical thinking/carefull reading. ;-) .... and I may try to improve my writing.
 *  I can't speak for anyone else, but my admin actions are pretty transparent. - I am denied to compile lists of corrupt behaviour.