User talk:Metrocat

=Hello World of Fellow Wikipedians=

'''Welcome to my page. If you feel like adding to this page, please go right ahead, all I ask is that you don't delete anything, ever!..' Metrocat''

'''Please feel free to say anything you like here. This is a censorship free zone].''' Plus, I am a big girl and can handle whatever it is, so admins and others, please  leave all comments here. Metrocat

Hmm, Metrocat here to stay. Metrocat 16:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, welcome to Wikipedia. Please read WP:NLT. "Brought up on charges" is pushing the line. See ya. -- You Know Who (Dark Mark)  18:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I only half-read it. I don't normally fully pay attention to rants to Jimbo unless they are part of the dispute resolution process. I just saw "brought up on charges" and thought I'd remind you about some rules we have here. See you around, my friend. -- You Know Who (Dark Mark)  19:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, what I wrote is not a rant. If you didn't read it then please don't take the liberty of calling it that. Calling it a rant was a personal attack in that it showed lack of respect and did not assume good faith. Metrocat 01:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Yikes, perhaps something got lost in the translation, but I'm not sure you need to use that tone. I called you "friend" because I call just about everybody "friend". I wasn't "sticking you in the back". I don't even know you, how could I be sticking you in the back? I was simply informing you that there are certain rules around here that we all must follow in order to produce an encyclopedia (one of the being "no legal threats"). I said "dispute resolution" because that is the process we all must go through in order to address any problems we may have with an aspect of WP. I wasn't being antagonistic in any way, but was merely trying to help someone who is new to Wikipedia (namely, you). If you have any futher questions, don't hesitate to ask. Cheers. -- You Know Who (Dark Mark)  19:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

"Lord Voldemort" is the main protagonist in the Harry Potter series of books by J.K. Rowling. You can see the article about him here. Hope this explains things. And it's fine, you can call me "old chap". I imagine quite a few people see the name and think it's some little kid on this side of the keyboard. But really, I wanted to see what all the buzz was about and read the books. I thought Voldemort was quite a good character, thought it an apposite name, so I chose it. Funny how things work out sometime. And funny how people can assume things about a person by which handle they choose, eh? Oh well. See you around. -- You Know Who (Dark Mark)  14:16, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I recently reread Where the Sidewalk Ends. It's amazing the things you forget when you haven't read something in about 15 years. :-) But sadly, I rarely have enough time to read children's books anymore. Guess that's life. -- You Know Who (Dark Mark)  14:26, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Copyright stuff
Hi there! I just wanted to say that we generally don't allow users which are being used under the fair use clause of U.S. copyright law on user pages. These images are copyrighted, and it has been decided that the only way to use them without running the risk of getting sued is to use them in articles only, and even then try and use them only for critical commentary (and not just decoration). There are more details about this at Fair use. Two of your images (Image:Carrie sissy spacek.jpg and Image:Krishnawithflute.gif) fall into this category; if you could replace them with free images or just remove them entirely from your page, that would be great! Sorry to be the wet blanket here, but we just want to make sure that Wikipedia is safe to grow forever and ever without litigation issues. Thanks a bunch! --Fastfission 22:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Again, sorry to be a nag about it! --Fastfission 22:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Not at all! Metrocat 22:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey
Thanks for your message. Where do you live? About the admin abuse; even if the situation is chaotic, at least now more people are aware of it and more make their voice heard. --Candide, or Optimism 22:38, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, as it says on my userpage, I'm a he. :) --Candide, or Optimism 22:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

*cough*

 * cough* blatent rock star *cough*--64.12.116.72 23:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * What do you mean? Metrocat 23:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Romania
Have you visited Romania yet? --165.229.47.125 06:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * No, I never have. Have you? Who the dickens is Bonapart? Metrocat 09:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Too pity. You should. There you'll discover your true origin. Romania is Europe and Europe cannot be without Romania. It's a great country with lovely people. Once you get in, you never get out. It's like a drug you'll never forget Romania. Feel free to visit it.


 * You meant Bonaparte. Bonaparte was a good friend of Anittas. Together with Alexander 007 were a team of Romanians that have been blocked by a Russian conspiracy. In fact they opposed as much as they can to any russian attempt to russify the articles from Wikipedia. Together with the ignorance of others, and with passivity of Romanian admins it ended like this.


 * I could make you a list of the enemies: Mikkalai, Node ue, Irpen, Ghirlandajo, Khoikhoi (this one more or less).


 * Thanks for the info. I am checking into it. Nothing gets me madder than goverment oppression and injuctice to the people, of any country. Metrocat 01:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Is there any way for any of his friends to contact him? He has got to be feeling real down and frustrated right now. Let me know if there's anything I can do to help. Metrocat 02:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, you can contact him. I will tell him to look here. Do you have an email adress? --193.227.206.157 16:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Bonaparte. &mdash; Khoikhoi 16:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

See User:Bonaparte/sockpuppetry. If you like to feed trolls, by all means, welcome to the zoo. `'mikka (t) 16:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Mikkalai was blocked for anti-romanian edits. Bonaparte was never blocked for anti-russian edits....And never Anittas....but Mikkalai yes...--193.227.206.157 16:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Trustworthy?
I do not see what you mean. I am confused. -- You Know Who (Dark Mark)  03:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, I am sorry you feel this way. The reason I contacted Sidaway (and SlimVirgin too) that day was purely in the interest of full disclosure. When you have a problem with an editor, the first course of action is to try and clear up the problem with that particular editor. Since you skipped that step, I thought it only fair and reasonable to inform them of your comments (since you named them by name). If Jimbo had said, "you are right, they are banned", they would never had had time to speak their case. If you have a problem in the future, I would encourage you to try and work it out with the person directly first. If that fails, then proceed to the DR process.


 * And I only suggested you were a sock because you exibihited behavior very common to sockpuppets. They included: posting to Jimbo's page first (very few newbies know who Jimbo is), citing intricate WP processes (such as RfA), complaining about specific editors when you have no apparant interaction with said editors), citing specific WP policies and guidelines (consensus, sockpuppets), etc. I was just alerting those people you were trying to get reprimanded that you were trying to get them reprimanded.


 * And I don't necessarily think what you wrote on my page was a personal remark (I'm a little thicker skinned than most), but I would encourage you to refrain from making those remarks to other people. They may not take so kindly (as experienced with Nathan below). Listen, you seem like a bright guy or gal, and would hate to see you blocked (a little criticism is good for the project), but you have to remember to criticise and comment respectfully. Rise above the petty remarks made by so many others. I don't hold any grudge against you at all. I appreciate the criticism. Having someone from the outside (namely, you) look at what we're doing can help point out areas of concern that we might not see because we're too involved. I just happen to think there are better ways of going about it than those you have attempted.


 * I welcome any further comments. See you around, my friend. -- You Know Who (Dark Mark)  14:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I went to your page to thank you for your comment and found I was blocked by Tonysidaway. Now do you get what I mean?

Please don't attack.
I've read your comments on both my talk and Lord Voldemort's and they could be read as sarcastic and attacking in tone.

I'm going to assume good faith here and assume that you really don't mean to attack, so could I ask you to please be careful when making such comments? Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks, which you can read about at WP:NPA. This is a blockable offense, which means if you do this too often, you'll get blocked. Cheers. — Natha  n  (talk) 03:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

If I remember, lad, you were blocked recently yourself. I was not making personal attacks although you are reapeatedly making attacks on me. I assumed good faith for you when I went to your page and left a comment to begin with. Obviously I made a mistake in doing so. Metrocat 22:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Right
TonySidaway has blocked me. He has accused me of "appearing to be some sort of sock, and of trolling and making bad edits."
 * I am neither a sock or a troll. I am in reality and everywhere, known as a person. This because I am a person, and would appreciate it if, in future, you would refer to me as one. Thankyou. too, this is a personal attack Metrocat 21:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Since I am blocked and cannot discuss this anywhere else, Sidaway, will you please comment here and explain this block? And also point out my bad edits and so-called trolling? Thankyou. Metrocat 15:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * His name is User:Tony Sidaway (for future reference). I'll go have a word with him. Thanks. -- You Know Who (Dark Mark)  16:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Lord Voldemort. I called him Sidaway because you just did above. Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Metrocat&redirect=no#Trustworthy.3F

Can you respond, Tony Sidaway?
Also, your editing style is very similar to that of. -- 16:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * In what way is similar to User:thewolfstar or User:5 orUser:5? Can you be more specific?


 * Both you and User:thewolfstar have a complete inability to read THE RENDERED TEXT instead of looking at the source (i.e. the edit window). And both of you have trouble with section headings.  As far as any other clues... well, I don't want to reveal them all.  Let's just say I KNOW.  Also, new users very seldom come up out of the blue and restart the same arguments that User:thewolfstar started. --Elkman 21:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't know who you are, Elkman.


 * same arguments that User:thewolfstar started read User:Jimbo's talk page. Most of it is full of admin abuse concerns. So what the hey are you blatting about?
 * I was asking for Tony Sidaways responses not yours.
 * You KNOW? Are we to take this as, What Elkman thinks is truth is TRUTH? Are you God, Elkman, or are you on hallucinigens?
 * Please go away, kid. You bother me.


 * Are you accusing me of being a sock of Elkman, user5 or thewolfstar? I have also been accused so far as being Mediacrat and a Romanian guy. I forget his name. I'll look it up in a sec. User:Bonaparte

Apologies for not commenting earlier here.
 * That's okay.

The majority of your edits have been to your user page
 * 1) True of most editors.
 * 2) I was making my user page. I just joined.
 * 3) What's your point?

(about 50 edits in three or four days).
 * What's your point?

You have made about a dozen low-quality or just-plain-bad edits.
 * Can you point to these edits and explain to me exactly how they are bad edits or low quality? I find this singularly insulting and can easliy be seen as a personal attack. PA

The remainder of your output has been somewhat trollish to say the least. For instance, your first edit outside your user page and talk page was on User talk:Jimbo Wales and had the provocative edit summary: "If you move this is it is vandalism, and you will be caught and brought up on charges".
 * I joined Wikipedia as and editor because I would like to see Wikipedia become a real encyclopedia and Jimbo Wales is the president. It seemed logical, and more fair, to me to contact him with my concerns before discussing it with anyone else.
 * That is because moving it would be vandalism. And this sort of move is a common occurrence here. It seems clear to me that moving something that is in full view of the community, that is written to the president, should certainly not be moved. And yet it was in fact moved. I moved it back. I only warn you of this, many editors are aware of the situation. This is obvious by the number of complaints on Jimbo's page.
 * There is obviously vast groupthink in the Wikipedia community. A child could  see it. Or, certainly, a child young enough to have avoided brainwashing as of yet.
 * Wikipedia has policies. Does it not? 'Brought up on charges' was a way of saying going to Arbitation or whatever the correct procedure is in a case of vandalism. Vandalism is a serious offense anywhere.

The edit itself discussed "groupthink" and "power hungry admins" and predicted that Wikipedia was bound to become "a comic book from hell", strongly suggesting that you are the sock of a banned troll.
 * Again, I don't understand your accusations. How does discussing these matters suggest that I am the sock of a banned troll? Or even a banned not-troll? Can you explain this please?

You have continued to make edits that support this initial impression, saying "The present discussion by the board concerning admin abuse needs to be held out in the open rather than held behind closed doors" (there is no such discussion).
 * Oh. I was under the impression that there was a discussion. It was suggested on Jimbo's page, in more than one place, I believe. I'll find it. Furthermore, there has much discussion on the mailing list of admin abuse at Wikipedia.


 * Thank you, in advance, to anyone and everyone who will help get this blocked user unblocked or for trying, including User:Nathanrdotcom Metrocat 20:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing to fear but fear itself. Franklin Delano Roosevelt

Wikipedia is tolerant and we do assume good faith where it is merited, but we're not stupid. --Tony Sidaway 16:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Now there is just no way you can bring anyone up on criminal charges for removing anything on Wikipedia. Don't you think that's a little bit excessive? The use of legal threats is a blockable offense. — Natha  n  (talk) 18:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Uh, yeah. Nathan, I would be careful who I trust. If I remember correctly you were blocked yourself recently for having a long signature or some such lame reason that doesn't exist. Or have they gotten hold of you now and altered you somehow? Metrocat 21:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

In case anybody is confused as to what went on above (and I freely admit that I count myself among the confused on this point), this is the diff for my response, into which Metrocat has interleaved his responses. --Tony Sidaway 22:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

to the above comment by Tony Sidaway
I am just as confused as you, believe me. Someone has been messing with this page. (Changing edits around.) Can you still answer my responses to your accusations? Thanks. Metrocat 22:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Unblock
Unblock Anittas and Metrocat. Please use CheckUser to see that is not the same person. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Metrocat

if you would. Danke.

= Sasquatch removed my unblock code =

For the record I am putting it back now.

That's not very Esperanzan of you Sasquatch. Not very friendly at all. As a matter of fact it's called vandalism. Hey everybody, Sasquatch is a vandal. Sasquatch is going to get policied for harassment and vandalism, aren't you Sassqwitch? Kindly keep your paws off my page. Thank you. Metrocat 06:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Request denied again; if you hadn't already been blocked the above incivility/trolling would have at least garnered you a strong warning. (ESkog)(Talk) 06:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

= the above incivility? =

Are you serious? The incivility was removing the block code. Metrocat 06:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * That's enough, your point has been taken and unblock denied. -- Tawker 06:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)