User talk:Mirv/Archive 7

Administrator powers
If I have misused my magic powers in any way, this is the place to tell me.

Protection
Every page I protect is on the wrong version, of course, so to conserve valuable electrons, just leave a link to the page and a number from the list. Thanks.

If I accidentally protected a page to which I have made substantive edits, tell me here. I will unprotect it immediately.

Deletion
Did I speedy-delete something that wasn't a candidate? Did I delete something for which there was no consensus to delete? Tell me here.

Rollback
Did I use the admin "rollback" feature on one of your edits without warning or explanation? Then I probably thought you were vandalizing, spamming, or otherwise editing in malice, and chances are good that you were: most of my rollbacks are of such edits. If you want to know why I reverted your edit, append your question to the end of this talk page.

Votes for deletion/Pokemorphs
Please read the revised nomination remarks and see if you still think the page should be deleted. Gazpacho 07:49, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Templete:Welcome
This is my mistake. Please forgive me. Rantaro 13:52, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Many thanks
Thank you very much for your work on Economy of Africa, without your improvements I doubt that it would have been chosen by Danny's contest. - SimonP 17:55, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)

Lost episodes
Please restore Confidence Man (Lost episode) and The Moth (Lost episode) - I was merging those into Lost (TV series). Thanks. -- Netoholic @ 02:29, 2004 Nov 4 (UTC)


 * Done. Those were valid CSDs, though; they lacked any context or definition. &#8212;No-One Jones (m) 02:33, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * "What links here" would have shown the context. They were (at the time) linked from the Lost (TV series) page, which is how I knew what they were. Thanks for the restore. -- Netoholic @ 02:44, 2004 Nov 4 (UTC)

Yasser Arafat
Hi there. I thought I had unprotected the page around 6 PM, then was surprised to see later when I added the recent news that the page was still protected. What a mess! David.Monniaux 19:49, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Reverts and lagging database servers
Wow. Annoying, that! Thanks. Terrapin 21:42, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Dedham, Massachusetts
complaints about protection on the wrong version binned

Thank you for agreeing to help at Dedham, Massachusetts. You are a super guy! 216.153.214.94 04:30, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Why?
Hi Mirv again why did you remove my addition to Occupation of the Palestinian territories ? It's not POV I swear.--198 04:05, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Your additions stated an opinion as fact and were therefore POV. I could (but won't) just as easily write "The reason why Palestine remains occupied is the racist colonialism on which the state of Israel was founded and rests today", which would be roughly equivalent: stating a hotly-disputed opinion as a fact. &#8212;No-One Jones (m) 04:11, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Maybe I was being a little hard headed but that's the reason why they're being occupied, however if I say a minority of Palestinians would that sound better?--198 04:14, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * No, it would still be POV. Sorry. &#8212;No-One Jones (m) 05:40, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Some other users like Ed Poor (Is that his name?) agree with me though, I did see the point you made. I do want to work with you to fix this article.--198 00:07, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Kurt Cobain
hey Mirv, you did a rv "Reverted edits by 80.58.0.109 to last version by Blankfaze" for an added external link, link was not an advertisement, and contained valid content. Is there a particular reason you removed it? Alkivar 00:43, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is a reason. I'm very suspicious of anonymous IPs who spread links to the same site over dozens of different articles, which is what 80.58.0.109 was doing. Such editors are usually spammers trying to raise the profile of an insignificant website; see for example the contributions (which I've since reverted) of 67.9.101.114. That said, if you want to replace any of the links, I will not object. &#8212;No-One Jones (m) 01:33, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, thanks for the clarification. Alkivar 01:44, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Libertarian capitalism
Thanks for protecting Libertarian socialism, but I'm afraid the edit war has just moved to Libertarian capitalism, see also User_talk:Solitude. This seems to be a long-running conflict, I am not sure how to proceed, they both seem to require a cool down period. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 14:02, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

User:AaronSw/Song lyrics
What is the copyright status of these lyrics? &#8212;No-One Jones (m) 09:24, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * The Yes Men's work is under a Creative Commons license.

Regarding Ron paul
Just to inform you ron paul was blocked because of an already blocked user's vandalism of it - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Reithy/Evidence#Temporary_block_of_Reithy. I really don't think you should leave his protected version obviously vandalized version of it up, just compare versions(I mean look at the picture) Chuck F 03:32, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Ron Paul was protected (by me) because of an edit war. I see now that one of the versions was highly POV, but that does not constitute vandalism; in fact, it is explicitly stated that such editing is not vandalism. Furthermore, Reithy was blocked (by me, again) for tampering with the evidence in his arbitration case; his article-space edits are a different matter and I haven't been looking into them closely. &#8212;No-One Jones (m) 03:44, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * well besides the fact that version is factually wrong. I really think it sets a bad precedent to allow a blocked user to come in avoid the ban and create sockpuppets enange in edit wars, then get thier veison of the page protected, and unable to be edited for days. Aka I think if a page is protected because of a blocked user edit warring in it, the page should be reverted back to the last non-blocked person to edit it. otherwise it leads to blocked users just creating accounts to purpoesly get thier version of the page protected. Not only that but it encourages block-evading.


 * Let me be clear: My block of Reithy was for tampering with the arbitration proceedings against him, which I considered extremely malicious vandalism, and was not an official ban. If I block a user for vandalizing an important page (like his own arbitration case, say, or the main page) I'm not going to pursue all of his other edits: those are a different matter, one which the arbitration committee should handle, not me. &#8212;No-One Jones (m) 05:38, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * so Just for checking, it's perfectly fine for a blocked user to continue editing articles under a different named when they are blocked? and thus causing thoese pages to get protected to thier version of the page? what's the point of a block then? (aka Reithy's sockpuppets after you blocked him were the reason the page was potect) Chuck F 05:42, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Blocks are not bans; it's a subtle distinction, but it exists. If a vandal is blocked for vandalism, yes, it's perfectly fine if he goes and edits something else, as long as he doesn't continue vandalizing&mdash;and Reithy's sockpuppet edits on Ron Paul were not vandalism. On the other hand, if a block is made as enforcement of a ban, then any new aliases need to be blocked as well, but Reithy isn't (yet) banned. &#8212;No-One Jones (m) 05:45, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

-->Requests for arbitration/Reithy/Evidence


 * aww come on now he even admits it was vandalism --- I think it's proper to revert back to the other version of the page, also he's started up on michael Badnarik (although just really stupid minor stuff so far) with his different accounts Chuck F 16:38, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Arbitration
Many thanks for your contribution to the evidence on Gzornenplatz. Does it remind you of anyone in particular? --Michael Snow 18:00, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I see I'm not the only one. Some notes are available at User:Mirv/gzp if you've seen anything worth adding to them. &#8212;No-One Jones (m) 18:58, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ron Paul
Was unprotected six hours ago. Looks like it requires protection again - User:Weaselwords and User:Trexgrrr, presumably sockpuppets of User:Reithy and/or User:Chuck F, are bombarding it with POV.

Some I've missed
True enough. Jayjg 18:12, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Israeli West Bank barrier
I've noticed you protected the page, unfortunately, you protected the vandalized version by Alberuni, who vandalized a page in which a concensus was reached after long discussion (see Talk page in here, in here, and here). You may also check in history (for example: Revision as of 21:34, 4 Oct 2004) to see that Alberuni's version is out of consencus. Please revert it to Jayjg version and then protect. MathKnight 19:00, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Protection does not imply preference for one version over another. When there is a duispute, there is no "correct" version to protect. The "consensus" you claim existed is a figment of your imagination. Read the Talk page. There was a great deal of dissent against the Zionist POV version but the Zionist POV version was rammed down everyone's throat. That doesn't reflect consensus. It reflects the usual bullying tactics used by Zionist POV pushers who ignore dissenting views so they can ram their POV onto Wikipedia. --Alberuni 19:09, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * If you have read the Talk page you'd knew the name "Israeli West Bank barrier" was selected by everyone. MathKnight 19:10, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * That was not agreed by everyone. Your Zionist bias even affects your reading comprehension and arithmatic skills. --Alberuni 05:10, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, when I became a admin I took a vow to always protect pages on The Wrong Version. If I went back on that they would revoke my sysop status. &#8212;No-One Jones (m) 19:45, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't have intention to start a pointless fight with you. I just think you made an honest mistake here. As you can see, many aren't satisfied by Alberuni's vandal changes, and since he is not willing to cooperate and just blaming everyone who disagrees with him in being a part of a Zionist conspieracy, I ask you to reconsider your stand here, and revert to the accepted version. See again the links I gave you to more background information. MathKnight 17:00, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * That was one of the funniest things I've read in a while. Anyway, I just want to voice another voice against Alberuni's vandalism. If many people will voice their opinion then we might have more or less an idea of the popular demand. --Anton Adelson, Western Australia 00:01, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * It only appears to be vandalism if you are a Zionist. Otherwise it's also known as NPOV. --Alberuni 05:10, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * How is "Wall" more NPOV than "barrier". Even though it's mostly fence, I'm not even recommending we primarily identify it as "fence".  That's being NPOV and compromising, no? (Not to mention this is the consenus reached after a year of discussion on the Talk page) Jewbacca 05:21, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)


 * Why didn't we call the Berlin Wall a fence or a barrier? Because it was a wall built to keep people in. This is a wall built to keep people out. Very simple really. This wall is about three times as high as the Berlin wall and is supplmented with cameras, detectors, electric fences, razor wire, mines, dogs, and Jews with machine guns. Hardly a simple fence. But if the issue is so meaningless and the word has no propaganda value for Israel, why do you care so much?--Alberuni 05:27, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Because I'm interested in NPOV, not propaganda value. And yes, the Berlin Wall WAS a WALL.  This barrier is, fences, electric fences, razor wires, concrete walls, and trenches with Israeli guards.  Wow! That's a hodgepodge of various security items.  Sounds to me they are all barriers to unauthorized entry, and only part of it wall.  I care so much because I care about accuracy.  Very simple really. Jewbacca 05:35, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)


 * It seems preposterous that this page was protected to a version that uses POV terms (Wall is clearly more POV than barrier ... if pro-Israelis had their way it would say fence. An inbetween is barrier which can be a fence and a wall, as is the barrier -- both a fence and a wall and different points) immediately after Alberuni reverts to his POV version which overdoes discussion on the so-called "hardships" the "Wall" brings to Palestinians.  The consensus reached in Talk: should be a version protected if any.  Wikipedia is an embarassment in its current POV form discussing an object that is 98% fence as a Wall. Jewbacca 05:03, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't see you complaining about the protection on your POV version of Munich Massacre. --Alberuni 05:10, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

All this aside - who and when is going to resolve the issue with Alberuni? --Anton Adelson, Western Australia 13:33, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Son of Man
I have just received permission to include the Son of Man article from the author. How do I do that? Amgine (sig added)


 * The best way to do that would be to copy the email you received to the article's talk page (which I've done) or a subpage thereof (something like Talk:Son of man/Georges Metanomski permission letter). However you should check to make sure that the article meets Wikipedia standards, especially Neutral point of view and No original research, before posting it. &#8212;No-One Jones (m) 23:28, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * p.s. you can sign and datestamp your posts with four tildes, like this: ~

''text of permission e-mail moved to talk:Son of man
 * Just a quick note to thank you for your kind words of support jesse 01:47, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)

Anal sex practices
Ass to Mouth and Anilingus aren't the same thing. I think that Anal sex should link to Anilingus, which should link to Ass to Mouth. Read all three articles, and you'll see that they are not the same.
 * Ergh. . . yes, I see. There must be a better title for the page, though. &#8212;No-One Jones (m) 04:33, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

As the author of Ass to Mouth I completely agree. If anyone knows of a more clinical title, then please use it.
 * I'm so pleased with myself for resisting the urge to click on those links. :-) Jayjg 17:00, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

List of Jungle and Drum and bass Artist, and list of Alternative Hip Hop Musicians
Hi, you deleted to entries of these two list. One on each list. On The Jungle/DnB one you deleted Galbis. On the Alt Hip Hop one you deleted Organized Confusion. In the Edit summary it said rm ref to delete. Could you provide an explination for these deltions? ZaQ 09:41, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Sure. I had just deleted Galbis and Organized Confusion (not Organized Konfusion), which had gained consensus to delete as vanity articles, and was going through Special:Whatlinkshere removing references to them. &#8212;No-One Jones (m) 13:43, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Was Organized Confusion referencing a different article than Organized Konfusion]? Thank you for the explination. ZaQ 14:25, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * It was. The version of Organized Confusion that I deleted was about some garage band. &#8212;No-One Jones (m) 14:28, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Template vandalism

 * I was the person who reverted the template after someone messed with the picture. I put in a picture of Condi Rice instead, although I didn't know how to format it properly. My question to you is: why isn't access to the Main Page templates restricted to Admins? (I'm not one, by the way). It's too easy to tamper with them, I think. -Litefantastic 19:54, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * The original idea behind using these templates was, I believe, that non-admins would be able to update the main page&mdash;previously all edits were to the protected main page itself&mdash;and their obscurity would provide security. Since the vandals are catching on, perhaps it's time to restrict main page editing to admins again; Talk:Main Page would be the place to bring that up. &#8212;No-One Jones (m) 19:58, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Haydes
I wouldn't mind seeing him blocked. RickK 21:42, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)
 * Way ahead of you. :-) &#8212;No-One Jones (m) 21:45, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Wikinews demo up and running
Hi!

I'm writing to let you know that the Wikimedia Board of Trustees has approved the first stage of the Wikinews project. There's now a fully operational English demo site at demo.wikinews.org. This will be used for experimenting with various review models and basic policies before the site is launched officially in about a week. demo.wikinews.org will become the English version later. You voted for the Wikinews project, so I'm asking for your participation now. Everything is open, nothing is final. What Wikinews will and can be depends in large part on you. There already is a global Wikinews mailing list for discussing the project. If you are interested at all, please subscribe -- coordination is of key importance. There's also an IRC channel #wikinews on irc.freenode.net. Realtime discussion can help to polish up articles. If you're looking for something to do, check out the articles in development and articles in review. Or start a new story in the Wikinews workspace, or ignore the proposed review system - it's up to you. I hope you'll join us soon in this exciting experiment.--Eloquence* 01:58, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

Deleting Material
Hi, the 168.209.97.34 has been continuously deleting material from the Aisha page. You already know the abuse by this user. This guy needs permanent ban. He is a vandal OneGuy 09:36, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * OneGuy is a known muslim apologist who is constantly on a godly mission to make Islam, Muhammad and friends look to be flawless saints. Aisha was the child "wife" of Muhammad whom he married at the age of 6 and consumated at the age of nine.  Muslims are often embarassed of this fact despite that it is very well documented in serveral different hadiths.  So the apologists have invented some quotes from a supposed book that can not be verified. I would have no problem with the quotes being there, but the placement of the quotes were above the authentic ones.  This is like having an article on the Apollo mission which first states the conspiracy theory about it being staged first and then only at the end getting to the relevent facts.  If you do the research on the quotes he gave and compared them to the quotes I gave, you will see which one the mainstream scholars believe in. 168.209.97.34 10:58, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I have temporarily protected Aisha due to a continued revert war. Neither OneGuy nor 168.209.97.34 show any inclination to abide by Wikipedia policy.  Both users ignored the messages I left on their talk pages and on the article's discussion page.  SWAdair | Talk  10:02, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * You should notice that I left a message on talk page "Ready to comprise" 168.209.97.34 didn't reply to me and came back the next day and deleted the contradictory quotes. He refused to discuss or comprise. Keep in mind, this user has a history of adding the words, like "rape" "terrorist" etc in Islamic pages. Just today he was adding stuff to Margaret Hassan article and was being reverted by others OneGuy 14:14, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hello again, Mirv
I just noticed the warning you added to the ITN template. Was there any discussion before this warning was placed, or was it by your personal discretion? 204.60.171.230 17:47, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I placed it based on broad agreement that vandalizing the main page deserves immediate blocking. If you can find anyone who disagrees direct them to Template talk:In the news. &#8212;No-One Jones (m) 17:54, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

FYI: Temp injunction in Requests for arbitration/Gzornenplatz, Kevin Baas, Shorne, VeryVerily
1) Gzornenplatz and VeryVerily are banned from editing any article having to do with German or Polish subjects whilst Arbitration is on-going. Sysops may use their discretion in determining what falls into these areas, and are hereby authorised to enact 24 hour blocks for violations of this.

2) Gzornenplatz, Kevin Baas, Shorne, and VeryVerily are banned from reverting any article more than twice in one 24 hour period whilst Arbitration is on-going. Sysops are hereby authorised to enact 24 blocks for violations of this.

3) Shorne and VeryVerily are banned from editing any article having to do with the Cold War or communism whilst Arbitration is on-going. Sysops may use their discretion in determining what falls into these areas, and are hereby authorized to enact 24 hour blocks for violations of this.

--mav 21:08, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for your thoughtful comment on Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2004/Candidate statements/Endorsements. Perhaps I have been wrong to assume you are entirely malicious and biased in my regards. I will strive to assume good faith in the future. Sam Spade

Death of Jeremiah Duggan
Mirv, thank you for responding so promptly to the request for page protection. The various contributors will make efforts to resolve our differences quickly so it needn't be protected for long. Slim 23:05, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

Mistakes on the RaD Man VfD
Hi Mirv. Thank you for archiving the second round of VfD's on the RaD Man article. Although you correctly noted that the overwhelming vote (this time) was to keep, you incorrectly stated that there was "no concensus" on your rm vfd from the real article, and you incorrectly stated to "see above" for results of the debate. The results of the debate were forked as a result of Oven Fresh re-creating a page called "RaD man" with a lower case M.

Yes. It's all very trivial. [[en:RaD Man|RaD Man (talk)]] 02:39, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Thanks for bringing that to my attention; I'll fix the latter if you haven't already. &#8212;No-One Jones (m) 02:42, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Endorsements
I had seen your earlier list and simply reverted back to it, as I figure you can present your endorsements in the format you prefer. I didn't edit it further, although I assume you'll want to do that to fit in your endorsement of Theresa knott. --Michael Snow 09:03, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Please ban VeryVerily
I posted the following complaint to Vandalism in progress. VeryVerily keeps deleting it. Perhaps that isn't the appropriate page&mdash;I can't figure out precisely what to do&mdash;, but I don't think it's right for him to remove the complaint. Would you mind attending to this? Shorne 10:59, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * VeryVerily deleted the complaint posted below. Please block him immediately. He is also deleting Arbitration Committee Elections December 2004/Candidate statements/Discussion. Shorne 10:41, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * VeryVerily has violated a temporary injunction of the arbitration committee by reverting Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Gzornenplatz, Kevin Baas, Shorne, VeryVerily/Proposed decision three times in twenty-four hours (actually, only one hour). Please impose the twenty-four-hour ban that the injunction specifies. Shorne 10:26, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Update
On VeryVerily. Please block him; he is wreaking havoc on numerous articles. Thank you. Shorne 12:47, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * NEW: VeryVerily has now reverted Arbitration Committee Elections December 2004/Candidate statements three times within the past two hours, in clear violation of the arbitration committee's injunction against him.


 * VeryVerily has violated injunction #3 at Requests for arbitration/Gzornenplatz, Kevin Baas, Shorne, VeryVerily/Proposed decision. It says "Enacted 3) Shorne and VeryVerily are banned from editing any article having to do with the Cold War or communism whilst Arbitration is on-going. Sysops may use their discretion in determining what falls into these areas, and are hereby authorized to enact 24 hour blocks for violations of this."  Yet he not only editted, but just reverted changes that me and Ce garcon had worked on  pertaining to the very Cold War Gwangju massacre (with the South Korean dictatorship claimed had been instigated by North Korea and so on).  It appears this is breaking the temporary order but the arbs would know best. Ruy Lopez 11:01, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * VeryVerily has violated the injunction below (#2) by reverting Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Gzornenplatz, Kevin Baas, Shorne, VeryVerily/Proposed decision three times in twenty-four hours (actually, only one hour). Please impose the twenty-four-hour ban that the injunction specifies. Shorne 10:25, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * VeryVerily has also thrice deleted Arbitration Committee Elections December 2004/Candidate statements/Discussion. Even his deletions were not done in accordance with policy. Shorne 11:54, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Since both of you reverted the candidate statements page at least thrice, I've blocked both of you for 24 hours. &#8212;No-One Jones (m) 17:30, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Good job!
I hate move vandalism - thanks for fixing it! :) --mav 19:17, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Do you know when, or if, we're going to get a move rollback tool? I remember hearing something to that effect but I don't remember if anything came of it. &#8212;No-One Jones (m) 19:19, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Endorsements page
Sorry to bother/spam you, but I thought you might be interested in weighing in on the state of the endorsements page on its talk page. --Michael Snow 01:16, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Speech Bubble
You protected one of the images from change. I found a better version of the same picture on the Japanese WP that I'd like to replace it with; I explained in full on the talk page. -Litefantastic 01:35, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * The image is unprotected. &#8212;No-One Jones (m) 03:07, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Francis Bacon
Thanks for your help with the Francis Bacon mess I created. I apologize for that. --Woggly 08:39, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

response to foolishness
Thank you for your reminder of the rules. It is worthy to note that both users were ignorant of Chameleon's violations or at least the frequency they occured. One user Knott thought it was based on an isolated incident (which would indeed not be worthy of a block) and the other just doesn't agree with blocking much at all particularly users who go through the incredible labor of getting a username.

I think my point has been made and since I won't be monitoring wikipedia much I can't very well enforce a block that other ignorant admins will remove. The point being made and continued effort being fruitless, I won't reblock.

Please feel free to make any case against me you like. I honestly don't care that much. As far as not having a valid reason you obvisouly don't know what you are talking about, which doesn't surprise me. Chameleon continually attacked other users personally, as well as myself.

BTW don't restore previous comments that I removed to my talkpage, If you vandalize my talkpage I will take the appropriate steps to have your admin abilities removed, as you will have proved yourself incapable of using them in a becoming manner. Arminius 11:45, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Chameleon continually attacked other users personally, as well as myself.&mdash;That is still not a valid reason for blocking, unless he attacked you in such a way that you were exposed to real-life danger, which I strongly doubt. Even users who make endless personal attacks need to go through arbitration first; they may not be blocked by any sysop who's offended at being called something nasty. &#8212;No-One Jones (m) 18:30, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I strongly resent your implication
I'm not going to speak for Viriditas, but I for one strongly resent your implication here. I've never edited using a sockpuppet, and (against my better instincts) I've even revealed my IP right here on Wikipedia, after similarly baseless accusations from Xed, which is the only IP (that I know of) that I've edited under, and that only when I've been accidentally logged out by Wikipedia. You have descended to the level of Xed. Jayjg 14:28, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Medha Hari
By not deleting the article Medha Hari you have promoted spam on the wikipedia. It has shown that a person can retain a spam page on the wikipedia by making more than one user i.d. and create support for his own spam page. This is an ominous sign for the wikipedia. Doesnt the wikipedia have any mechanism to stop people from creating hundreds of I.D. and create support for themselves in vote for deletion. The wikipedia ought to have mechanism for this otherwise it is doom for the wikipedia. Water Fish 16:17, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Counting the obvious sockpuppets as a single user (most likely the author), I see five votes to delete and three to keep. The usual threshold for a deletion is around 80% of votes; had I deleted Medha Hari with less than 66% in favor of that deletion, I would have been remiss in my duties. Sorry. Try VfDing it again in a little while if you really, really think it's delete-worthy spam. &#8212;No-One Jones (m) 18:38, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Clitoris
Your idea of "discussion" is to do it in the edit summary? That's how you build consensus? Backing RtB is encouraging a POV pusher. I'm disappointed that you did it without discussion on the talk page.Dr Zen 02:09, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)