User talk:NeoFreak/Achive 1

USMC Portal
Welcome to wikipedia. We are always looking for new people to help us out creating articles for the USMC portal. Check out the link to the right and have a look. Anything you can do would be greatly appreciated. If you have any questions please ask myself or ERcheck and we'll be glad to point you in the right direction.

WikiProject ASOIAF
No problem about deleting the autofilled stuff; I was going to do it myself pretty soon, since most of it is pretty useless for us. I don't know of any prepackaged message for announcing the project on user talk pages; there's a generic one for article talk pages at Template messages/Talk namespace that I'm about to start adding to everything in the ASOIAF categories. Someone who's good with templates could also make a specific one, which a lot of the individual projects seem to have. Brendan Moody 05:54, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Sounds great. I'll reply here if that's fine with you. I would think the top priority right now should be to slim the project down to the bear bones and then begin to fill from there. I've added a statement to the strategy section that I think you'd agree with. Add a comment. NeoFreak 05:58, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Kingsguard image license
Hi Neo, could you point us to where Amok has released the Kingsguard image (Tower of Joy) under the GFDL? Arbor 10:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

proof you asked for, Goodkind bashing and instigation of people to vandalise Goodkind's Wiki page
I have most of the information you asked for re Werthead and his overt Goodkind Bashing, not to mention pages of material, some including people from ASOIAF discussing and asking for people to vandelise Goodkind's page, giving them ideas etc. ALso is a post from one person who was from ASOIAF who was caught and banned for it. Let me know where you want it... Mystar 05:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a chatroom
I am quite amused by your warning me for an edit I made long before you joined the wiki ;-) Warnings and blocks should only be made for current ongoing behaviour.

Note that wikipedia is not a chatroom, so reverting abuse and enforcing the use of the wiki for encyclopedic purposes was the correct action.

Kim Bruning 16:07, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I would like to point out that restoring abuse can also be seen as abuse in itself. For that reason, I've reverted your edits. Please use use common sense in future! :-) --Kim Bruning 16:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for making a notation on my talk page. I have returned the courtesy along with an explanation of my edits. NeoFreak 16:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree. While Talk Pages have far looser standards than articles, their primary purpose is the discussion of edits of the article.  Thus, the Talk Page edits in question were inappropriate and bordered on vandalism.  So does your restoration of them.  We do not archive vandalism, we delete it.  I was going to re-delete the edits but Kim beat me to it.  Please cease and desist.  --Richard 16:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your input. I have left a comment on your talk page for further reading. NeoFreak 17:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

OK. According to the Talk Page guideline, you're right and we're wrong. But... "if you don't like the rules, think about changing them." And that's what I have set out to do. Please look at the section titled "Deleting contributions which are inconsistent with the purpose of Talk Pages" in Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines where I propose changing the guideline.

In the spirit of collaboration to build a better Wikipedia community, I am inviting you to express your opinion for or against my proposal.

--Richard 07:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

TPG
TPG states clearly at the outset:
 * A talk page is research for the article, and the policies that apply to articles also apply to talk pages. Research and debate should meet the same standards of verification, neutral point of view and no original research. There is reasonable allowance for speculation, suggestion and personal knowledge with a view to to prompting further investigation, but it is a serious misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements.

The talk that was removed would thus seem to be "a serious misuse" and therefore cannot hope to be protected by later caveats in the guidelines. If editors persist in misusing talk pages, after having been warned, they should be blocked.

Additionally the guidelines say:
 * Don't misrepresent other people: The record should accurately show significant exchanges that took place, and in the right context. This usually means:
 * Don't edit others' comments: Refrain from editing others' comments without their permission (with the exception of prohibited material such as libel and personal details).

(My underlining above.) Note "significant exchanges". Note "usually". Note "such as..." &mdash; "libel and personal details" are examples of prohibited material. Other prohibited material is stated in the first paragraph of TPG, as I have cited above.

Tyrenius 08:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Heh, so much talk about a bunch of teenagers using wikipedia as a chatroom last year. Very strange! Together we probably just disrupted wikipedia more than those kids ever did. How about that? :-) Kim Bruning 09:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Warning
Edits such as parts of this, which restore vandalism/disruption/patent nonsense are not conducive to the writing of an Encyclopedia.

Attempts have been made to communicate with you, but you have refused to listen.

If you make similar edits in future, note that such edits are disruptive, and can be reverted. Also, since you've already been warned, an admin might choose to block you without much further discussion.

-- Kim Bruning 15:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Much thanks for the "warning". I'd reciprocate it with one for "vandalism" but it would be equally childish and ridiculous so I'll refrain. Happy editing. NeoFreak 15:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Kim, I see your attempt to communicate, but I don't see where he has refused to listen after this communication. It seems that the content has been removed and NeoFreak has accepted that as he stopped reverting before that communication. HighInBC 16:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * -- Kim Bruning 16:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * (to Neofreak) Didn't you already try that? ;-) --Kim Bruning 16:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * No. I was extending you the courtesy of leaving a notation on your talk page informing you of my revert of your edit and the justification based on the offical policy of wikipedia. Unlike some I assume good faith in dealing with other editors and did not consider you edit to be intentional vandalism, otherwise I would have reported it. NeoFreak 16:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * You're the only person to have stopped assuming good faith. That's why I finally resorted to a PowerAnswer. This warning is valid, and that's that, end of story. Since you don't want to discuss further, I've put the ball entirely in your court. It's now up to you to figure out what your mistake was and why. Consider asking some of our older users, for instance.
 * In future I hope we'll be able to work together better. Have a nice day. Kim Bruning 16:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll continue to enjoy that irrelavent link as much as I have the rest of them you've brought up. It's unfortunate that you have the high and mighty hubris often found in "old" (but not older) editors. My position and wikipedia policy is clear and if you don't like it I think it would be more constuctive to contribute to the discussion on how to change that policy (which needs ammendment). NeoFreak 16:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Pot, kettle, black re: hubris. Your view of policy is incorrect, as stated previously. Policy is not changed upfront (descriptive, not prescriptive); request denied. Kim Bruning 16:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Haha, well thank you. Barring any other mature and helpful dialouge I think this conversation is over. NeoFreak 16:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * You already ended the conversation here. I'm just clarifying the warning I gave you in response. I do hope to work together with you better in future. Have a nice day. :-) Kim Bruning 17:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Your interpretation of policy, and indeed of what policy is, is incorrect. Policy is not a tool for doing the wrong thing, even if it were to say what you wrongly think it says. You should only be re-adding these comments if you think they actually belong on the Talk page, not as a moot point of a bogus interpretation of procedural letter. Talk pages are specifically and only for comments related to the articles to which they are attached and your assertion otherwise appears ridiculous to the various established users and administrators who were deleting irrelevant talk page comments long before Talk page guidelines was created and long before you could ever have conceived your peculiar, unsupported, and inexperienced notions of what Wikipedia policy. —Centrx→talk &bull; 04:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * That is, the policy pages are sometimes inaccurate and they are not a strait-jacket for preventing actions that facilitate the development of the encyclopedia. Perhaps a policy page should be changed, but your ambiguous interpretation of policy is not an excuse for re-inserting patently irrelevant text into the Talk page of an article. —Centrx→talk &bull; 05:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to the Military history WikiProject!
 Hi, and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:


 * Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
 * The announcement and open task box is updated very frequently. You can [ watchlist it] if you're interested; or, you can add it directly to your user page by including WPMILHIST Announcements there.
 * Most important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you [ watchlist it].
 * The project has a monthly newsletter; it will normally be delivered as a link, but several other formats are available.

There are a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—and wherever—you'd like:


 * Starting some new articles? Our article structure guidelines outline some things to include.
 * Interested in working on a more complete article? The military history peer review and collaboration departments would welcome your help!
 * Working on featured-level articles? We have some advice for nominators, and an A-Class review process to help check high-quality articles.
 * Want to help with specific requests for assistance? Our requests page has extensive lists of requested articles, images, maps, and translations.
 * Interested in a particular area of military history? We have a number of task forces that focus on specific topics, nations, or periods.
 * Want to know how good our articles are? The assessment department is working on rating the quality of every military history article in Wikipedia.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask one of the project coordinators, or any experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Kirill Lokshin 09:51, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Terry Goodkind Moderation
Hi Neo, I too am disappointed with the actions taken by Mystar, but the situation on the TG page really has gotten out of hand. We need some stern administrators to dish out some rulings, I think.

Just so you know, what I was referring to on my talk page in response to Mystar was that I had already made a request for help from an informal mediator from the Mediation Cabal (here was my request). I had yet to hear back from the cabal, seeing as their cases are backlogged at the moment, but after further warring, I decided to withdraw my request. I think that in this case, either formal mediation or arbitration are the only methods to deal with Mystar. Happy editing, Runch 22:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that a formal intervention is required at this point. I would perfer to see Mystar enagage in a mediation and have an admin/moderator explain to him why what he is doing is not acceptable. If this goes to arbitration I fear that he will be banned and despite his hostile and belligerent tone and border-line vandalism that is not my goal. I think he honestly is doing what he thinks is right but he just won't listen to anybody else. Are you aware of any other parties that would be willing to be part of a moderation? Brendan Moody, Werthead, Omnilord, Arbor and a few others come to mind. NeoFreak 22:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh I agree with you entirely, and to be honest, I really do think Mystar has been making some (though very limited) progress in his understanding of Wikipedia and it's policies. He means well, but he doesn't seem to want to put any effort into learning what is and is not acceptable Wikipedia behavior.  However, moderation is still our best option at this point.  Besides the individuals you have mentioned, Paul Willocx has been involved in several of the discussions on the TG talk page, as has an anonymous IP that once identified themselves as MB (IP# 198.96.2.93).  For now, all we can do is wait to hear back from Mystar to see if he consents to the mediation. - Runch 23:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, of course, I forgot about Paul Willocx. Do you want to ask them or should I? Regardless you can only wait for Mystar to respond for so long. I think your timetable of 48 hours was appropriate. I'm hoping that everyone will refrain from editing the TG and SoT pages until this can be resolved but we shall see. NeoFreak 23:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, go ahead and contact the parties involved, if you don't mind (but if you'd rather I do it, I'd be more than glad to do so). Also, good work on the TG talk page.  I think we may already be starting to make some progress! - Runch 03:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I would be willing to participate in any dispute resolution process that proves necessary. Brendan Moody 16:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I am of course willing to participate in an organized mediation session. The sooner the better. Let me know if you need any help with the request, Neo. - Runch 16:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I can actually submit the request, if you like. I've looked over the associated rules and guidelines, and I feel pretty confindent in how to write it to make sure our request is accepted.  I'm just waiting to see who is and is not interested in mediation, because everyone listed on the request must sign within 7 days of submittal. - Runch 17:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't have the patience for things like mediation. My view on things is "point them to the specific rules that they are breaking; if they break them again, insta-ban". So I'm not really helpful in a mediation attempt. :P -- Mystman666 (Talk) 17:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I have to say that past conflicts with Mystar have sapped my will for dealing with this individual in any formal arena. I don't like TG's books but then I don't like David Eddings or L. Ron Hubbards, yet didn't find anything on their pages or on their books' pages that needed attention. On the other hand, the TG page needed some work (like sources for some of Mystar's comments). Ironically, despite all the vitriol, the personal attacks and the accusations of dishonesty levelled at me, it did seem to work as Mystar's conduct improved slightly and the content of the page was improved somewhat. Because of prior comments made by Mystar on other forums (such as threatening one poster who lived near him by saying he'd pull out all the stops to make sure he couldn't get a new job) I decided that reasoned debate with this individual was impossible and withdrew from any discussion on the TG page about 6-8 weeks ago. I didn't even look at the hell that has broken loose there until today. I fear my presence in any moderation arena would only incite Mystar even further. I am going to tell him that myself and Paul Wilcox are not, to the best of my knowledge, the same person though.--Werthead 17:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * How difficult can it possibly be to spell a name correctly? And you know, I'm a regular of one of the sites you're a regular at, so clearly we must really be the same person in disguise... or something. Nevermind that we don't even have the same opinion or that I like Goodkind's books a whole lot more than you do. And that threat you are talking about was indeed fairly amusing. Paul Willocx 17:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Assuming the messages still exist from the TG page, I believe I have offered Mystar a 'truce' (dear God, I feel about nine years old again) a while back and just got petty insults levelled at me, so I just gave up talking to him. Neo, what exactly would mediation require? The opening up of a mediation page and people just posting in it until the admins decide what to do? That sounds okay, since it's what's going on at TG's page anyway.--Werthead 18:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * More or less yes. For the most part you really won't have to do much at all. Runch can explain it better and he is the one that will actually make the request. NeoFreak 18:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Requests for mediation/Terry Goodkind, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible. - Runch 15:54, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, Werthead, I would tend to disagree that you offered anything but vitriol. I've countless pages of attacks and openly encouraging attacks about Goodkind, starting and instigating Goodkind bashing etc. from you on everything from ASOFAI to Dragonmount to Bakkers page. I simply do not see you as having any ability to be neutral about Goodkind. According to your own admission of a few days ago, you edited several pages of material you had posted in the past, in an attempt to make it friendlier. Every time anyone on any page you visit has anything in any way shape of form positive to say about Goodkind, or how they like his works, your the first one to jump in any bash Goodkind and post vehemently negative opinion. I don't exactly call that offering any kind of olive branch. Given your history of attacks on the Goodkind page and your attempts to post disingenuous information, you'll forgive me if I have doubts about your sincerity

I will offer up an apology for worthead rather than Werthead. Yes very childish of me. I am sorry. I did in fact as I so stated on another post, have that edit saved in my word program, and after I do a spell check, I never look at it again. I did delete that though. Mystar 04:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * (apologies to NeoFreak for hijacking his page) If you note the discussion on Dragonmount (under the adaption thread), it was carried out in a fairly reasonable manner between myself and Kadere and concluded in an amicable fashion. I anticipate no further need for debate there. I have not actually taken part in any discussions about Goodkind whatsoever on Bakker's page, only having joined there a month or so ago and not said much beyond "Hello," yet. Most pages I went back and re-edited due to the Wiki learning curve were unrelated to the GK debate (mostly the Erikson pages, which were the first things I visited on Wiki months ago now and generally put up some NPOV comments, which have now been adjusted and altered). The olive branch incident was my request for an apology after you accused me of being a liar and of deleting comments from the TG page (which any moderator can confirm I did not do by tracking ISP numbers) when I had not done so.--Werthead 21:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Good day NeoFreak, do you know anything further about the moderation? And can we get Mystar banned from further editing of TG's bio page? I've been banned from anonymously editing the page, and that happened pretty quickly. I don't know the process involved but I'm assuming you do. WLU 14:49, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


 * No the moderation has still not been picked up. You can view it here. W've been waiting for two and a half weeks nows so I'm not really sure how constructive waiting any longer will be. I don't want Mystar to get banned. I just want him to get what wikipedia is all about and to just learn to play well with others. I'm at the end of my rope with him, I'm just not willing to spend any more time yelling at a wall. If yuo want to persue a ban or tem block that is your choice. Unless he violates an obvious rule (another personal attack, 3RR, blanking o rtoher vandalism) then a speedy block won't happen. Use the admin notification board or just go straight to an admin that you know and have dealt with in the past and explain what's going on.


 * I'm going to try to get the work done that needs to get done but I'm done trying to convince Mystar of anything. He is totally incapable of breaking down his bigoted little conspiracy laden paradigm. I'm sick of trying to be being patient with him; I'm just not dealing with him anymore. If you have any specific questions then by all means go ahead and ask but for now I'm going to try and do more editing and less talking. If you prefer I can reply to your talk page in the future. NeoFreak 19:04, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Neo Please stop attacking me. If you persist I will report you and you may be blocked under the "disruption" clause of the blocking policy,

Be civil and adhere to good  wiki etiquette when stating disagreements to avoid personalizing them and try to minimize unnecessarily antagonistic comments. Disagreements with other editors can be discussed without resorting to personal attacks. It is important not to personalize comments that are directed at content and actions,

Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks will not help you make a point; they hurt the Wikipedia community and deter users from helping create a good encyclopedia.

I'll thank you to direct your negative energy to less abusive actions. Not only do you not know the material you do not know how to place the material in question. What you "DO" know how to do is to remove anything that is of any import and quality, unless it is your "special" pages. I also see you are in another similar battle where your editing has caused similar disruptions and are being warned there as well. I'll offer up a bit of advise here, you are no more important that me or any other person here. We al have the same rights to edit. I'll thank you to remember that policy.

Mystar 20:13, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

NeoFreak seems to be taking the high road, which is laudable, and wish I could imitate. Mystar, I find your comments and warnings so laughably hypocritical, they are hard to believe, it's almost like you are trying to be ironic, in the Alanis Morissette sense. She's Canadian by the way, even with dual citizenship. NeoFreak, feel free to remove my comments, please do so immediately if you would rather not have them on your talk page. WLU 01:37, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * By all means, this is what talk pages are for. NeoFreak 04:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

On the whole ongoing Goodkind/Martin/Erikson nightmare, I'd like to say a couple things. I think it's a good idea to withdraw if you find the situation too stressful, both for your sake and for the good of the ongoing discussion. You should be sure, though, to keep any descriptions of the dispute that you do make civil. I know you find all this frustrating, but characterizing User:Mystar's behavior as a "bigoted little conspiracy laden paradigm" will only fan the flames further, and isn't really justifiable. I do think that generally you've done a good job keeping your comments direct and civil, and that examples like the above are exceptions to the rule, but even an occasional exception can cause problems, so I thought I'd just drop you a note. Thanks for any help you can provide. Brendan Moody 05:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

My Little Rant over on the Complaint Forum
Just for the record, my rant on the complain forum was just that - I needed to release some steam from my ears and I felt like writing something for some hopefully sympathetic ears.

Also for the record, I don't think a ban or block against Mystar is either necessary or justified. Despite his frequent inability to keep a cool head on talk pages, he brings up a lot of good points that few others are willing to talk about, and he also makes a lot of good contributions (the plot intros to the SoT books, for example, are looking a lot better).

Anyway, just my 2 cents, so you know. - Runch 03:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Your sudden Goodkind deletion frenzy
Neo, rather than continuing your rabid removal of anything Goodkind related, why not be constructive? While these are minor characters, they still have significance to the Sword of Truth Series. We could combine the minor characters on a single page or something like that. I see you simply removing things and never adding anything of content. Editing spelling, wording etc is not adding content. If you are acting in retaliatory fashion (which it looks like), then please stop and act in good faith from now on. How about adding content for once rather than trying your best to remove content.--Mystar 03:04, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * To an extent, I'm going to second Mystar here. While a lot of these characters are non-notable and should probably be deleted, I'd ask for you to wait until we get the SoT Wikiproject started and have a chance to contruct the "Characters in the Sword of Truth" page (possibly both a Major and a Minor page) before you nominate any more pages for deletion.  I'd much rather be able to merge the information first rather than get it deleted and potentially not have it available later when compiling the character pages.


 * Also I suggested that the pages for the Mud People all be merged and redirected to Mud People rather than be deleted outright.


 * I'm seeing what I can do about the Wikiproject. Hopefully shouldn't take too long to get it started. - Runch 15:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Runch, I've got no problem with a Characters of the Sword of Truth page but right now it doesn't exist and the idea of the characters page has been sitting on the burner for weeks (months?) now. No one has made any effort to create one despite my advice and offers of help in the past on about how to go about it. I said way back then that I would wait on an AfD for the page to get going but it never did. Most of these characters are of so little note that reconstrucing them into a minor characters page wouldn't require much work. On the other hand these pages as they are fail criteria for articles and need to be deleted. I would have started the page myself but I have alot of other things going on and with the wikiproject coming down the pipe (need any help with that?) the issue of covering relavent material will soon be resolved within wikipedia guidlines and policy, two things these articles fail in. NeoFreak 15:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

So instead of marking them for deletion, you could have put something up on their discussion pages, or on the general SoT page notifying people that you would like to delete them/ consolidate into one page. I think you are jumping the gun. Sure they may be minor characters and according to Wiki policy (which I still need to read) may not merit their own full pages. HOWEVER, I am sure there a ton of pages like this througout Wikipedia. In the future, please refrain from marking things for deletion until there has been a discussion about them in some way/shape/form. You say you would have started the compliation page yourself? Well then why would you go and mark these others for deletion? I think that until a compilation page is created, these minor characters' pages should not be removed. And since you have "alot of other things going on" then perhaps you should take a break from some of them. Merrit 15:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmmmm. Point by point:
 * Reread my last comment. It seems you missed the first...half.
 * Other violations do not make a legitimate precedent.
 * AfD is there for a reason and serves a specific purpose. Review that function.
 * No, thanks. I too have to manage my time. Glad to know you think highly of these pages, maybe with that in mind you should get cracking on them. Unless you have other things going on. NeoFreak 16:05, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Sword of Truth
The Sword of Truth WikiProject is now up and running. Thought you might like to know. It still has a long way to go before it'll look truly respectable, but it's a start. - Runch 18:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

AfD Contribution
Hey, I'd like to ask you to reconsider your vote on the Articles_for_deletion/Drug_Watch_International debate. I think my original post didn't really make clear my point. With just a hint more digging, you might change your mind. Thanks! /Blaxthos 01:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history Newsletter - Issue VII - September 2006
The September 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by Grafikbot - 19:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Good luck in deployment, don't get shot. WLU 22:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * This one is only a month long course out in the desert called Weapons & Tactics and Instructors course, but thanks. I hate getting shot ;) NeoFreak 22:52, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sick of Mystar
Hi Neo, I'm soliciting comments regarding Mystar, he's really pissing me off and I'm sick of it. I'm putting in a request for comments in a bit, in the mean time I'm soliciting people who've been pissed off by him in the past. If you're willing to have any input, I'm asking for help. Both people involved are scrutinized, so if there are comments where I've pissed you off or made stupid comments, I would also like those - they'll help me improve my conduct. I'm also posting this on other people's page, check my contribs for this chunk of time. WLU 22:49, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Request for Mediation
This message delivered: 12:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC).

Terry Goodkind mediation
Hello, I'm sorry it's been awhile, and I'm not sure if all of you are still interested in formal mediation, but I recently agreed to mediate that case. Please either accept or reject me as a mediator there, and if you accept, please let me know if you would prefer public or private mediation. If it's a stale issue, just say so. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 16:00, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue VIII - October 2006
The October 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 22:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

SEAL non-POV
71.154.158.70 put back that non-POV statement about Force Recon, [here. --[[User:ProdigySportsman|ProdigySportsman]] 03:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

shitty Djibouti
On a lighter note. What time period were you in Djibouti? I doubt/hope that info is not compartmentalized --ProdigySportsman 03:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

FYI 3RR
The three revert rule Please remember that the 3RR applies to reverts after the third within a 24 hour period

What the 3RR does not cover Please also be aware that this page is not the place to bring disputes over content We really do mean this; this is not the page to bring up accusations of bad faith, or POV pushing.

So, as it stands the fact that you poped in and reverted the page that stood for some time, when other people had edited after (they all felt it fine) and then you make som elame commentary about fanboy wording and revert it again... dude... get a grip.

I did not violate the three RR rule. I only reverted twice, and edited a third time. BUT the fact is we have a consensus on the sentence you dislike, so it would seem that you are the one in violation of vandalism not me. Please take your bad faith and retaliatory editing elsewhere. We have a good start on the whole Wikipedia project, which you are not a part of. Join if you wish, but this is not about your personal dislike for Goodkind or me. It is about you attacking a good article where consensus had agreed upon the wording Mystar 22:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Neofreak, Your use of bating words

This is twice today you have attempted to bate someone with your childish words. This is a friendly admonishment. Surly a man of your abilities has a higher vocabulary than to resort to such childish antics. I’m asking you to please stop. Lets not go down that road. As mature reasonable adults I would think that sensible discussion is more the course. Mystar 04:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

3RR

 * Please* don't list people for 3RR with only 3R, except under exceptional circumstances. I've removed the report William M. Connolley 23:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)