User talk:Kyorosuke/Archive/7

Template:Welcome
Hi. Just wanted to let you know that the edit you have just made to Template:Welcome is something that has been discussed (several times) in the past, and current consensus says it shouldn't be done (though I personally tend to disagree with this consensus). You really should take the matter to the talk page instead. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 08:32, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Tarot vs Tarot Reading
I am the one who initially changed the article from "tarot" to "tarot reading" as I felt that the older usage promoted a biased view concerning tarot cards. For a number of people, though a minority, Tarot is primarily a card game and an article focusing on the divination aspects of tarot cards should properly be called "tarot reading" to bring it up to date so it reflects a greater understanding concerning actual tarot history and practices and present a more neutral point of view. See my comments in the Tarot discussion pages on why I am proposing the name change. In fact the Wiktionary, is even defining Tarot as primarily a game and its "fortune telling" aspects are given in the second definition.Smiloid

I find your lack of faith... disturbing.
Dear ,
 * Thanks for voting on my RFA! I appreciate your comments and constructive criticism, for every bit helps me become a better Wikipedian. I've started working on the things you brought up, and I hope that next time, things run better; who knows, maybe one day we'll be basking on the shore of Admintopia together. Thanks and cheers, _-M  o   P-_  22:00, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Requests for adminship/Lar
I've answered on my talk page. I'm not offended. - Liberatore(T) 11:36, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks
I want your help to protect my self from personal attacks. This is the third or so time that this user has made false allegations on me. The first and second time I had no clue about wikipedia rules and regulations so I didn't take any action. I am not going to mention the name of the person here as I believe nobody is guilty unless proven. Please check this diff here and if you believe what I am saying is correct give a piece of advice to the person. Thanks  « ₪ M ÿ š † í c ₪ »  (T) 19:14, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Adminliness: the second post
Er, hey, Ernie. Um, well, I just kinda wanted to, well, say, um, *blushes*... thanks. Thanks a million, mate. Wish me luck... Snoutwood (talk) 03:33, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Golbez
I was mearly creating an article on something that is really going-on. That is what this site claims to be about, isn't it? It is really just a liberal crusade though, so i suppose you are just defending one of the top contributers to liberalisms.

DYK
'''ZOMG! DUDE!' Congratulations... Way to go, well deserved, etc etc... as for "User:Sean Black (diff; hist) . . Sean Black (Talk | contribs) (→Articles - I'm as giddy as a schoolboy.)"''.. um... I thought you WERE a schoolboy?  + + Lar: t/c 11:58, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * :D! Yay! etc. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 14:04, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Woo!--Shanel § 00:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

About ClassicSciFi
Hello Sean. Did you indef ban that ClassicSciFi.com guy? I sort of feel that might be a tad harsh. The guy's site *is* pretty unique in its TV listings for upcoming SciFi showings. It's actually somewhat difficult to find listings like that and it probably takes him hours/week to get that list together. I certainly don't think he should be linked on nearly as many pages as he was going for, but on pages like King Kong and Godzilla there will certainly be a part of the readership that would like to know the next time they can catch these classics on the tube... Was there even an attempt at mediation here? JDG 05:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Umm, sorry to persist here, but I'm an editor generally (usually) uninterested in Administrative goings-on and commensurately ignorant of Admin how-to stuff (such as how to check the block log for blocks of a user who apparently never created a user page). Did you ban him? JDG 21:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok this is starting to bother me. Why no answer? Administrators are responsible for the way they wield their powers. Do I need to contact another Admin to get you to address the question? JDG 17:20, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for responding on my Talk page. So, you did indef ban him. Now, do you disagree that sometimes Sci-Fi aficionados might find a web page showing channels/dates/times of airings of Sci-Fi movies/programs, far into the future, to be of real interest and that such a listing is not common? (btw, I don't know the banned user, have never communicated with him on Talk pages or in any other way, and have never been engaged even in a debate about the qualifications of an external link). JDG 08:36, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

tracker
Please undelete trascker. It is used to track civility warnings, and we are currently trying to make it redundant - but I'd appreciate if it could be undeleted (or sent to TfD) when I depreciate it. Computerjoe 's talk 07:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

User talk:Hermione1980
Hello Sean. I just noticed Hermione's unfortunate—and to me inexplicable—departure. She deleted her talk page before she left, and you redeleted it when someone posted an inopportune welcome note to her. While User pages are routinely deleted on the wishes of a departing editor, user talk pages are generally preserved, because they usually contain contributions from many other users and may be important as a record. Was there a good reason in this instance to delete the talk page? Very kind regards — Encephalon 16:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Sean. I'll restore it and blank the contents, which I suppose should be the least disagreeable option to all concerned. — Encephalon 20:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Pro-EU template
Hi there,

Can you tell me why the Pro-EU template was deleted?

Thanks.

Smiley Template
After some thought I decided to create this smiley template, as I thought most of the arguments in the talk pages are due to misinterpretaion of what is being said, hopefully these smileys will help us (at least me !!) communicate in a much more friendly manner. Hope you all will like it.

(Friendly smile) (Confident) (Mocking) (Hysterical) (Hurt) (Very Sorry) (Sleepy) (You are Nive) (I am not happy) (No Comments)
 * will produce
 * will produce
 * will produce
 * will produce
 * will produce
 * will produce
 * will produce
 * will produce
 * will produce
 * will produce

« ₪ M ÿ š † í c ₪ » (T) 20:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Lawrence Miles
Thank you for applying the correct solution to User:Hamsacharya dan's misguided disambiguation page. :-) &mdash;Hanuman Das 19:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

User:220.227.152.109's block
You blocked this user for disruption of Talk:Khalistan, a discussion of this block is currently underway on WP:ANI. JoshuaZ 20:34, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

FYI
Check out Life Online with Bob Parsons. Wikipedia is tonite. Ardenn 00:39, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Jsmith's block
I noticed that you indefinitely blocked User:Jsmith for vandalism, old page-move vandalisms, and blanking of talk page warnings. I could be wrong, as I am a new admin, but this edit doesn't look much like vandalism, more like a large content dispute over the usage of a template. The old page moves were 3 months old. While I agree that the blankings of his talk page were wrong, I think he was underneath the wrong impression that he could archive his talk page at any point, and don't think that it is worth an indefinite block. Thanks, AndyZ t 23:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

User talk:66.25.132.168

 * Looks like a sockpuppet of Jsmith... Danny Lilithborne 01:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Proverb?
I don't get the proverb at the top of the page. Does it mean that I will get pleasure from delivering a personal attack against you? If so, then your mother wears army boots... and I never forget a face, but in your case I'll remember both of them!!

Actually, this is just a friendly note to say thanks for recreating the JDWTC links to GNAA. I agree with you that they are useful redirects, and I suspect that some overly sensitive people knew nothing about the meaning of "JDWTC". And yes, this is a serious thank you, and no I am not an internet troll :-) (Actually I am technically Jewish) - Abscissa 08:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Could you also change the redirect on "jews did wtc" -- it needs to be clear that GNAA produces JDWTC and it's not some theory about how Jews flew planes into the WTC that is being censored. Thanks, - Abscissa 10:25, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

'Vandalism'
I noticed you wasted no time reprimanding me, yet you said nothing on the vandal's talk page.--CyberGhostface 23:15, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Emmaroberts
You should probably drop a note on her page explaining the situation...on the off chance it's really her, when she comes back and finds she's blocked, she's going to be mighty confused. --InShaneee 18:59, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Template User Preference?
Hey Sean. I don't mean to put you on the spot, but may I question you as to your changes to User Preference?

Before your edit, it was made out to be humourous in nature and without any impact on the society. However, post-edit, it appears to be accusing users of the userbox of not being actual members of the community.

Now, I don't want to start a fight with an administrator, but finding an accusatory userbox on your own userpage, that used to be funny, and then finding out that this accusation was created by an administrator, when almost every other userbox that even remotely seems to express opinions similar to that of the new userbox has been under the burden of a T1 speedy deletion...

When I saw it, I immediately felt like a criminal. It's very strange. I'm very nervous in asking this, but may I question you as to why you changed it?

Sincerely, Logical2u 23:33, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

My RfA
Hi Sean! Thank you for your support on my recent RfA. It succeeded with a final tally of 72/2/0 and I am now an administrator. I'll be taking things slowly at first and getting used to the new tools, but please let me know if there's any adminnery I can help you with in the future. &mdash;Wh o uk (talk), 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Template:Msp
You have violated the deletion procedure for templates.--Patrick 21:51, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Deletion
I wish you'd reconsider your speedying of User:Travb/Tactics of some admins regarding copyright. It is clearly not an attack page in the sense meant by the speedy consideration -- it is a call for policy change/reform, however right or wrong. Deleting it while its vote for deletion was ongoing and pretty mixed in terms of results prevents others from adequately judging it as well. I don't think it did enough harm or insult to justify a speedy, and I think squelching people who complain is not a productive tactic. I say this as the creator of the project which he thinks is the "cabal" in question that he is up against. I don't agree with him, but I respect his ability to voice a disagreement. I would undelete it myself, but I don't want to wheel war. So I'm just asking you to reconsider for now, assuming the best faith. --Fastfission 20:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

RfA Thank You!
Hi,

Thank you for participating in my recent RfA. I apologize for the questioning others undertook of your comments; I accept all the concerns suggested by your selected diff as valid, and will work to improve. I can only hope, by using the tools wisely, to gain your confidence over time. As an administrator, I am your servant. Although you, more experienced, are unlikely to need my aid, I am available whenever you wish. Please do not hesitate to offer advice, or to whack me with wiki wiffle-bat if I make a mistake, as I am sure to do often. Best wishes, Xoloz 03:44, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Infoboxes
The onlyreason, I think, that you might feel I've left more of these than others, is probably that I monitor Template:Did you know for basic stuff (making sure they are correctly categorized and have a basic proper formatting). It's likely that at that time I didn't have the time to add the infobox myself. However, I don't think it would be relevant to ask me to specifically stop putting these on your pages. Circeus 04:02, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I do realize that an infobox is by no mean required to make an article complete. I just think that if an obvious and fairly widespread one exist, and the article's lenght allow it (I won,t request an infobox that would be longer than the article itself in screenspace), then it should be applied. But that's just my little piece of wikipedia obsession. Circeus 04:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

DYK 2
Thank you for your contributions!  + + Lar: t/c 05:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

My user page
Do not vandalise my user page. If you don't know the difference between a personal attack and harmless fun, that is your problem, not mine. You're way too fond of throwing your weight around, Sean. Do it to someone else. Grace Note 23:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Please unprotect my userpage. This is a personal issue and you are abusing your admin powers. Stop right now. Grace Note 23:56, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I took the liberty of posting the most NPOV possible report on this at the administrators' notiveboard. Circeus 00:13, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

User page protection
A user engaging on personal attacks can be warned and if persistent, blocked temporarily. But I am not sure about the approprietness of protecting that user's page where the PA was posted. I am referring of course, to. I would suggest unprotecting his user page and placing a NPA on his talk page. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 01:55, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm far from sure about the protecting either, but I think it's all right. Anyway, WP:3RR is generally supposed to not apply to reverts made in your own userspace: "The 3RR is generally not enforced against editors reverting changes to their own user page space". Bishonen | talk 02:07, 19 May 2006 (UTC).

It is not all right. I am not attacking anyone and Sean is pursuing a personal issue against me, not working within the policies. And Jossi, please don't harass me about blanking my talkpage. If I want it blank, I'm going to blank it, no matter what you or you cohorts put on it. Why don't you boys go and find something useful to do instead of bullying other editors? -- Grace Note.


 * Um, if you have a warning on that page, blanking the warning off is cause for a block.  + + Lar: t/c 02:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

My User Page
I would appreciate it if you would refrain from changing content on other's user pages (namely mine). You have no right to remove content that I have contributed to my own user page. ShootJar 19:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * If by abusive you actually mean true, I agree. User:Can't sleep, clown will eat me has done almost nothing other than revert vandalism.  This issue was raised in his RfA but shoved under the rug, by users blind to the fact that vandalism reverts aren't nearly as important as real editing.  Please do not change my proposal again. ShootJar 20:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Sean Black, you were wrong in blocking Timothy
Sean Black, A big chunk of the discussions on the Joturner's RfA is rooted in your wrong decision of blocking Timothy. --Aminz 22:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Village pump discussion
Thanks for your support. If this discussion doesn't stop I tend to apply WP:IAR and unilaterally archive the section. I'm going to lunch now, so if you see them go at it again before I get back, I would be greatly appreciative if you do the same thing. -- SCZenz 19:46, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Good quick work
Good quick work! -- FloNight  talk  20:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I think I know what she's congratulating you for, and if I'm right, I want to compliment you as well. It's great to have people like you who notice when something needs to be done. :-) AnnH ♫ 20:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you.--Sean Black 20:55, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It's worth a lot. Maybe even ... one MILLION kisses. Thank you. &middot; Katefan0 (scribble) 21:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for changing the block to indefinite. I felt it should be indefinite, but just wanted to block quickly without spending too much time wondering about the appropriate length. I intended to "use that week" to discuss it with other admins, but actually, I think that the fact that that editor even put that information on his own talk page after he knew he had been blocked for putting it on another page indicates clearly that it wasn't an innocent blunder. It's a very sad day for Wikipedia. AnnH ♫ 00:07, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Sad indeed. To be honest, I admire your restraint in only blocking him for a week.--Sean Black 00:08, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for me as well for the indef block, I think a checkuser maybe in place for that idiot harrasser. I agree it's a sad day for wikipedia. Jaranda 00:11, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Hell is Other Robots
Regarding your edits to the quote section of the above page, or should I say the complete removal thereof. I understand that wikipedia is "not wikiquote" but this is the common template used by all the Futurama episode pages and I think it adds a bit of fun to the pages. Someone (in some cases myself) has worked pretty hard to make all the quotes correct and I don't think leaving them in is really causing any problems. I enjoy seeing the quotes there and would rather not have them summarily deleted. To quote your own talk page "If you can make someone laugh, even a little, you've improved the Wikipedia community." I think the quotes make fans laugh (or they make me laugh) so why remove them. Please let me know your opinions on this matter as it looks like my options are to A) put the quotes back or B) remove them from all Futurama episode pages. I prefer option A. Stardust8212 01:00, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with stardust. Removing the quotes can be considered Blanking, which is a form of vandalism. Not only that, you removed all futurama quotes, but not any simpsons quotes!

Micoolio101 (talk)

An RFA thank you!
Thanks, Sean. Jude (talk) 10:53, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Street Fighter
I don't know if you noticed but by changing the target of those two redirects you made a ton of pages that previously linked to the correct page now point to a disambiguation page. Qutezuce 04:49, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

3rd party opinion.
Greetings Sean, I'm somewhat new to wikipedia and got to find out (from other user pages) that you're an admin. I've gotten into a revert war of sorts on the Sufism article. Can you drop by and take a look at the arguments on either side? If you're not comfortable with the subject, can you reccommend someone who is? Thanks much. --Nkv 08:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[No header]
Hi, I'm sorry for causing any problems. They deleted my users page but I don't know what I did wrong. Thanks. Tony

Adding Link for My Bot
thanks I will add the link if it isnt too long for an edit summery thanks for your advice Betacommand 12:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

May I suggest
Sean,

I suggest you review the ban with other admins.

Couple of points:

I have removed material which does not conform to WP:RS - unless you are saying that global exchange is a RS ? If you argue that it does, we should go to ArbCom about it, although it is VERY clear to me that ArbCom rulled against using sources which are much more neutral than Global exchange. So, if you want to base your decision on my ArbCom case you have to respect all of the ArbCom ruling including the part about sources.

Second, the offending editor in this article is Homey. Surly you know he violated 3RR, he blocked me, he refused to respond to my argument in talk (about the exact section that I removed). Such a behavior (correcting Homey's 4th revert for example) can not be ground for a ban. (Homey first charterize my edits there as vandalism although every reviwing admin agreed it is a bone fide content dispute)

Third, Homey has benn engaging in several days of campaign to get me banned from this article. Eventually, after several admins contacted me saying that they refused his request he found you.

Forth, the edits them self are not a violation of my ArbCom probation. I removed a section which should not have been in this article to start with. All I did was 3 edits to this article (removed different part in 2 of them and repeated my edit once after Homey repeatedly violated 4RR, 5RR). This can not be understood as "tendentious" under any reasonable measure.

Fifth, and this is most important: The article itself is a disgrace. Read WP:NOT. No one has a right to turn wikipedia into a place where the arguments (like in a news group bulletin board) are debated: ''' Is Israel an apartheid state or is it not ? '''. If we are to have a disgraceful article such as this we should accurately present to the reader that this is a terminology which is part of the propaganda war. Jimbo wales wrote: "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia ... regardless of whether it's true or not ; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not. "

NPOV POlicy is clear: "Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views"  And I implemented this exact policy. The article in question is clearly a POV Fork of the bigger issue of Israel, the occupied territories, "israel and Int'l law " etc....

Banning me from this article allow exactly this kind of propeganda to continue use Wikipedia for what it is should not be. The current state of this article (such as rediculus accusations that Israel is an aprthide because palestinians who have voting rights to their own parliment should have recived voting rights to the Israeli parliment) is a disgrace. Every admin who contrbute to this disgrafull accusations remaining in wikipedia may be abusing his admin powers (Homey have done that blocking me twice in clear violation of the rules including violating his own 24 H block and blocking me under use of a sockppupet. I am surprized that you wanted to get involve in such matter and I suggest you re-think the situation. The bottom line is that my edits were appropriate under any reasoable measure. You may dispute them but they were appropriate. When they were chalnged again I immediatly removed my self from this article Talk:Israeli_apartheid and open a "sandbox" to iron things out . In fact I was VERY reasonable while your action allow a clear violator of Wikipedia policy (Homey) to continue use this article for what  Wikipedia is not  (see policy below) Zeq 03:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Policy WP:NOT
Therefore, Wikipedia articles are not:

Propaganda or advocacy of any kind. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view. You might wish to go to Usenet or start a blog if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views. .... Wikipedia was not made for opinion, it was made for fact.

Homey using you
Homey tries to use your descision (which I am sure was taken without wighing all facts such his 45 edits in 24 hours to the article in question) to justify his attack on other editors and argue that they also are violators:

"Humus' edit is tendentious and completely POV and is in the same character (and uses many of the same words) as the tendentious edit that was found by other admins and arbitrators to be a violation of Zeq's probation. Fortunately, Humus isn't on probation so he won't be facing Zeq's fate. Homey 06:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)"

Did he told you that "arbitors found my edits in violation of my probation" ? If so this may not be correct since all the info they had was his claim that I did. No one bothered to look at the facts (reac carefully every word here especially the words "If" and "Could" : Hopefully you will check the facts instead of taking part in this whole afair (every other admin refused to take part) .  Zeq 07:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Sean,

I know you have been reading this. I deserve (in fact the whole wikipedia comunity desrve) a reasoned answer to your justification why exactly did you ban me. On what ground (reason) and what evidence you have to support such reason. You should clearly take into account that the person who drove you to ban me himself edited the article 45 times that day, inculding violation of 3RR (5 reverts) while I only edited the article 2-3 times (in which one of them was an attempt to revert the 4th 3RR violation by homey. You and homey are trying to turn a simple content dispute to a violation while in fact there is a clear case of admin misuse of power (by Homey). I wait to hear your reason and justifications. Zeq 19:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Sean,

You silence increase the suspistion that your actions were motivated by your political POV. Wikipedai desrve to hear your reasoning. Zeq 04:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Zeq has violated article ban
Zeq has just made an edit to Talk:Israeli apartheid despite being banned. See Homey 04:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Nothing said anything about the Talk page, only the actual article. --Avillia (Avillia me!) 04:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, yes, you're right - I'd assumed the ban included the talk page but evidently I was wrong. Homey

The above is a clear indication of WP:Wikistalking and again shows that homey did not bother the notice in the top of the article talk page.

Sean, you should have registed your ban in this board where you already have this entry created by homey: WP:AN/I. It is really sad that you Sean have taken part in what is shaping more and more as aperosonal vandeta of Homey against me using every tool at his disposal (including this clear violation of admin power and editing while he was blocked: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3AZeq&diff=55860422&oldid=55150344 . Zeq 05:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The IP that made that edit is a US AOL address. I'm in Canada and have no access to US AOL IPs. My ISP is not AOL but Bell Sympatico. Don't know who added the ban notice to Zeq's page but there are a number of editors who read the ban logs and then go tagging. Zeq is grasping at straws and seems to be spinning himself into a frenzy rather than taking responsibility for the fact that he violated his probation. Homey


 * Homey trying to confuse the issue. the ability, timing, motive to dial up from canada to new-york (uisng an old AOL account) is addressed here: Talk:Israeli_apartheid_%28phrase%29 Zeq 06:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Addressed unsuccessfully. As I said, why would I bother obtaining an AOL account and then dialling long distance to use it in order to tag your page? Homey 06:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

PS if an admin would add the notice to my page he would not do it under a sockppuet anon IP. We can see here that Homey likes to act fast and jump the gun:. The notice by anon IP on my talk page was placed only 6 minutes after Homey applied the block. Zeq 06:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, if it was only six minutes then a check will show that I was logged in as HOTR at the same time as someone tagged your userpage so, for your theory to work, I would have needed two computers and two different phone lines.

Am admin *didn't* add the block notice to your page. An uninvolved party did. Look around and you'll see it's quite common. Ask a programmer to do an IP check on me and they'll tell you I have *never* once used an AOL account. They'll also tell you that the IP address I used to block you was from a completely different ISP in a completely different city than the IP address that tagged your page. All this mental energy you've expended and yet you still can't take responsibility for your own actions in getting yourself banned. Homey 06:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * What you wrote above does not hold water. I don't dispute the technical issues but I dispute the fact that you seem to know that the notice on my page was "placed by An uninvolved party " . If indeed you had no knowledge who placed the notice you could have never know if it was (or was not) "an involved party"


 * It is not hard to use a dialup account that was not used for a long time in order to full checkuser on a one time basis. We should look at your intent, motive, opportunity, intensity of dealing with this issue and timing - all point to one conclusion. Zeq 07:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll try to put this is as plain English as possible. What the notice was "placed by an uninvolved party" means is that it was placed by someone who didn't do the actual banning, ie it was placed by someone other than *me*. How do I know this? Because I didn't tag your page, that's how.Homey 22:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Ya right. Just as you finished blocking me (while you yourselg is blocked from editing! after 3RR violation) "Someone" (who is an admin who monitor the blocked page at night) saw the block and rush to logout used an IP anon address to place a message about the ban on my user page announcing a block by you...... LOL....Zeq 11:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

If you actually look at how things work at Wikipedia you'll see that, yes, it is quite common for uninvolved editors to tag a user who has been banned by someone else. Homey 16:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Homey, I suggested you stop digging yourself deeper. You should partice WP:AGF and understand that I never suggest anything that will not follow Wikipedia policy. Should the Afd fail I will address this issue according to wikipedia policy. Any article created as part of WP:Point shall eventually be deleted (by due process) Zeq 20:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Kittyslasher
DISCLAIMER: THIS IS NO OFFENSE TO KITTYSLASHER

I swear I wrote up the same post you made, wording and all in my sandbox real quick on preview before going to the user's talk; I was laughing to see that you wrote the same. Happy editing! T e  k  e  04:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Democratic peace theory (specific historic examples)
This article has been recreated in a different format. You discussed the deletion of a previous version; please comment at Articles for deletion/Possible wars between liberal democracies; it may be that this version is less POV. Septentrionalis 21:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Another parole violation by Zeq?
These edits are on another page, Apartheid (disambiguation)  and 

User:Ec5618 made the following comments upon reverting Zeq's edit:
 * "rv vandalism or wp:point -> scandalous edit: "..is a a focused, targeted propaganda epithet which is at the center of a campaign [..] is attempting to rewrite and redefine the history of Israel..")"

Ec5618 added the following comment on Talk:Apartheid (disambiguation) saying, in part:
 * Without judging the original text, the change can, in my view, not be seen as a good faith edit, and must be either vandalous, or WP:POINT. Either way, I am reverting. -- Ec5618 22:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

User:MCB added the following comment re Zeq's edits:
 * I concur with Ec5618, and was in the process of performing the same revert when I noticed Ec5618 had already done so. MCB 22:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Samuel Blanning added, in part:
 * "No, it's not vandalism. It's blatant POV,"

In my opinion, Zeq has again violated his parole and should be banned from editing Apartheid (disambiguation). As there would be objections to my taking this action due to a perceived conflict of interest, I'm asking you to consider the evidence, judge whether or not Zeq has violated his probation (again), and take any necessary action. Homey 22:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * This is laghable at best. The creation of these two pages have disrupted wikipedia. Even if they fail the Afd they will eventually have to be renaed, NPOVed and moved as part of some other Israeli-Palestinian conflict article. (see Fred bauder commnet on the AfD)


 * Homey, when you are in a hole you should stop digging. Zeq 05:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Zeq, you cannot move or merge an article if the AFD outcome has been to "keep" rather than "move" or "merge". You are expressing an intent to disrupt Wikipedia. Homey 17:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Nonsense, of course you can. AFD is not binding, and merging and moving are strictly editorial decisions; indeed, "merge" in an AFD debate is largely a red herring. Zeq's editing habits are far from perfect, but please do not criticise him when he hasn't done anything wrong.--Sean Black 20:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Please see this edit made by Zeq today. Bertilvidet 09:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:CHU
I wanted to change my username, WP:CHU. please could you block Karatekid7 and delete the pages that I asked? --TKK3 05:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Ann Heneghan
Could you remove your comment/sig? is bad enough as metadata without having cross-namespace links and such. Kotepho 21:00, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

More Tendentious editing by Zeq
Removing sourced material despite the fact that he is on probation from ArbComm for doing so elsewhere: Homey 18:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Hafrada (today)
 * Israeli apartheid (phrase) (today)
 * Apartheid (disambiguation) (June 2)

Why did you change my userpage?
Jamie 16:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

You are vandalising me. Jamie 08:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-05-27_Notability_%28fiction%29
Hey there, Sean,

Just letting you know that this case (which slightly involves you) is still going. I've taken over from Cowman, who left the case. Reyk YO!  08:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

unblock
Thanks for the unblock Fudge


 * I've indef. blocked User:Fudge12, most probably User:Bugman94. Essjay blocked the IP for a month using checkuser.--Commander Keane 23:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * That's fine with me.--Sean Black 23:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Sean Black/MoreHappiness
I just created same so I could use it on my talk page too. You are an awesome editor and one that is a role model to many of us, please keep doing what you're doing...  + + Lar: t/c 06:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Vote on O RLY template
Hi there, i saw you had an opinion on the O RLY? template but didn't put a vote in bold, do you want to? I personally think the redirect is pretty amusing. Redirects_for_deletion --Awiseman 17:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I think most people see Discussions as a vote count though, in which case it's going to be deleted. I think that's too bad, because it's funny and harmless. --Awiseman 20:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Re:"Rant"
Hi, I have reverted your removal of my decision regarding Template User Christian. See Tony Sidaway's talk for a full discussion, but the reason in brief is that the record should remain intact, however much you might dislike the decision. I also consider the characterization "rant" uncivil, and certainly against the spirit of the admirable header that tops this page. Best wishes, Xoloz 21:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Confirmation of post on Requests for permissions.
was indeed made by me. Thanks in advance.--Sean Black 02:19, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * :-( Jude (talk) 04:44, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * :( &mdash; Nightst a  llion  (?) 21:36, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

O RLY deletion
I remember you saying "There is no valid reason to delete this template," but then why did you go on and delete it, while the RfD was still open? --KJ 02:46, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Um, you didn't have to revert. If you had said something, anything, I might have understood. --KJ 03:56, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Ace Lightning Template Box thing...
Hello again, Sean Black.

I was wondering if you could tell me how to make a infobox for the Ace Lightning portal. I've created several new articles on the series and I was wondering if I could create a template box thing for it if you know what I mean.

Evilgidgit

Salutations!
Happy birthday Sean! H ig hway Rainbow Sneakers 23:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

A Mediation Cabal case involving you has been requested
Hello there! I am Cowman109<sup style="color:darkgreen;">Talk from the Mediation Cabal. A case for mediation has recently been requested and you have been listed as an involved party. Please see Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-06-10 User:Sean Black and Man-Faye and join in on the discussion if you could so we can settle the matter. Thanks! Cowman109<sup style="color:darkgreen;">Talk 20:53, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your response. I understand your reasoning, but I ask that in the future you please try to avoid calling other editor's contributions "crap", as they may be offended and could interpret that as an attack. I am closing the case as there is nothing to mediate any longer, as you said. Thanks again and happy editing! Cowman109<sup style="color:darkgreen;">Talk 22:05, 11 June 2006 (UTC)