User talk:Picaroon/Archive 5

Cameroon
Indeed. Simply pressed the wrong button in VandalProof. Thanks for the heads up and happy wiking! Alexf (t/c) 20:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

CSD AutoReason Updated
Attention spamlist! I've just updated CSD AutoReason to account for the new image deletion page. If you'd just hard refresh (Ctrl+F5 in most browsers), you'll get the new version and be on your way.

SevenOfDiamonds
SevenOfDiamonds has declared his retirement and posted links on my talk page to two evidence subpages he would like posted to the case. I advised him of their excessive length but he does not want to trim them. Will you post them to the case, please? Thanks. Thatcher131 00:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you very much Picaroon for your comments, they are most welcome. Unfortunately, I am now in a very busy period of my day to day work. However as soon as I get some free time I will replace some of those paragraphs into diffs. Unfortunately, the dispute between Shervink's group and I have been going on for a rather long time. I am hopping that the arbitration committee spends some times in exploring the truth of this case. Shervink and his group utilize a rather sophisticated method to supress the views of various minorities. To discover their tactic one needs to look at the talk pages of the users like (shervink, mehrshad123, Rayis, SG, Sina Kardar, Khorshid, and many more), as`well as their messages to each other, and the talk pages of the disputed articles. This is why I need some time to go through this material and organize them. All the best. Artaxerex 05:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 27th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Whirlygig of Doom
Possibly not, but the clues I gave were fairly vague. It's not exactly top secret information anyway, though. The only possible use for it is vandalism, so we can always just block anyone who uses it. I like the cow. Neil  ム  16:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Ping
Would it be possible to courtesy blank my Arbcom case pages? Not delete or hide, but just blank? Thanks. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - &lt;*&gt; 01:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Alright, will do. Picaroon (t) 01:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The Fabelurin Family - deleted
The fabelurin family was deleted because it was allegedly self promotional. Yes, I am a member of the Fabelurin family but I can assure you that this is not self-promotional by any means. What the Fabelurin stands for extends beyond my nuclear family. At the moment we are working on building the website for the nobel family and I know it may not rank with the Queen Elizabeths or the Murdochs or the Bill Gates at the moment but the family is important to people in the Ijesa land of Nigeria. How could the Owa-Obokun of Ijesaland be appropriate enough to be here but the Fabelurin family not.

I would appreciate it if you could please reconsider the decision you made in deleting the topic, if you want me to re-draft it, i would do so gladly.

Many thanks for this.


 * There are several issues with writing your family. First, the issue of neutrality comes up - please see Neutral point of view. Next, there is the question of whether what you write is verifiable. This requires independent, reliable sources to source your information to. The threshold for inclusion on Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth, and this is often hard to accept when writing about your family, as surely you know more than what could ever be sourced. These issues are expanded on in the Conflict of interest guideline.


 * If you feel that you can recreate the article while adhering to Wikipedia's rules, by making it neutral (so readers couldn't guess that a family member wrote it) and verifiable (so that what you say is cited to reliable sources), then you may go ahead and recreate it. The link to your own site may be used as an external link, but shouldn't be used to reference information. Tell me if you need any help with doing this. Picaroon (t) 19:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Help with uncivil user
Hello Picaroon:

User Corticopia is modifying several pages related to North America and imposing a particular geographic model to divide the continent in several articles. That's not the problem, the problem is that the modifications are controversial given the fact that several models exist and that the model he is trying to impose is not very used (undue weight).

The real problem is that he refuses to listen. I have tried to be reasonable with him, asking him to reach a consensus before making changes, but he just won't listen. He is doing this in several articles such as in Metropolis and List of American stock exchanges. I understand that the best practice to compromise in reaching a consensus is undo the changes and talk (best if done by the user that started the changes). So I restored the articles to their previous original status, in Metropolis that is alphabetical order. He just won't listen.

I don't want this to become an editwar because I have sadly been blocked before because of his fault. Please I need your help to make him understand. He is known for using profanity and being very uncivil, he has been reported for that several times, and he has been blocked several times for edit warring. I guess that's why he just won't listen to me, he's kinda extreme. Please mediate. Desperately, Alex  Covarrubias  ( Talk? ) 20:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Your comments have been noted, P.; however, I will continue to mark edits as minor (as appropriate, of course) because they are minor in the grand scheme of things. As for other comments, well, no comment. Corticopia 21:18, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Your comments have been noted, P., but I will continue to edit judiciously ... and that means marking my edits as I see fit. Edit comments elaborate further.  I appreciate your willingness to 'mediate', but you should scrutinise the requestor (e.g., for more, glance at Talk:Mexico) before taking him at his word.  Corticopia 21:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello again Picaroon and thanks for your fast answer. The revert I'm doing is not to my version, but to the original version in which North American cities are not divided into subregions, but in plain alphabetical order. See.

Several weeks ago I tried to introduce the most common division of North America, into Central America and the Caribbean, leaving Canada, Mexico and the US uncategorized, according to the most common descriptions of the North American continent. Then the article was restored to alphabetic order and it remained that way for a [short?] period of time. Then Corticopia introduced the new division (Northern and Middle America). I couldn't do anything about it because my PC was broken, so when I returned I tried to resolve this. Thanks. Alex  Covarrubias  ( Talk? ) 21:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, if memory serves, AC was blocked for a month. I am not a saint, but I defer to my prior comments.  'Commonality' is in the eye of the beholder, and alphabetising lists when further organisation (subcategorisation) is possible is both minor (IMO) and (when continually reverting) inane.  Corticopia 21:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Not when the vast majority of geographic publications and encyclopedias (such as Britannica) describe North America as comprising Greenland, Canada, Mexico, the US, Bermuda, St. Pierre and Miquelon AND Central America and the Caribbean. That clearly indicates the most common division of the continent, just into to well defined entities. Alex  Covarrubias  ( Talk? ) 21:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Time and again, we've been through this: numerous common publications also exclude Mexico from the definition for North America. (Note, I am not advocating for this.)  Remember, you tried to remove this from 'North America' (or, more correctly, you removed a citation after claimed a reference was false and checking it), to no avail.  I have no comment regarding other assertions.  Corticopia 22:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I've made a proposal that neither of you will like but both of you will find to better than your opponent's preference at Talk:Metropolis. Please comment. Picaroon (t) 21:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you, I've responded. Please don't forget the other article in which Corticopia started his editions. Alex  Covarrubias  ( Talk? ) 21:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Related things
Hello Picaroon. What do you think about this? It is highly suspicious to me. Alex  Covarrubias  ( Talk? ) 19:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Owdki
This user is requesting unblocking. You had blocked him as a checkuser request was pending but that request has now been declined by Deskana (saying that ArbCom should be able to handle its own checkusering). I feel somewhat uneasy about the idea that Owdki should remain blocked pending a checkuser to be run by ArbCom, when they're probably not aware that the user is blocked only because a checkuser is pending. I feel the user should either be unblocked, or the block should remain in place, but if the latter, a better reason is needed. I note that Owdki only posted on any of the arbcom pages after he/she was already accused of being a sockpuppet -- so no, he/she didn't jump into the arbitration out of nowhere, just into the discussion of a controversial article. Mango juice talk 13:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

KarenAER - sockpuppet
You probably know more about this than I, so all I can offer is my limited perspective. My gut feeling from working alongside and more frequently in opposition to Karen is that she is bona fide. I found her to be rough edged in many circumstances but a very good researcher. I had hoped that the WP experience might broaden her perspective. I was wondering if she could be allowed another opportunity, perhaps with a short ban from editing in the racial topics if such is practical. Perhaps I'm naive. Cheers! --Kevin Murray 18:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC) (I forgot to sign earlier).
 * Sorry, I read further into this and now agree that you were right and I was naive. --Kevin Murray 18:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't worry about it, he did a pretty good job as sockpuppets go - obscuring IP data, changing demographic info, providing almost-reasonable explanations for odd familiarity with Wikipedia, etc. Picaroon (t) 19:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Template
Apologies for the oversight. I was editing the template from article Military of Cape Verde, hence the misunderstanding. -- Asterion talk 23:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It's happened before, no problem at all. In the case of links that shouldn't exist, like militaries of dependencies, redirects to either the dependency's article or the military of their country is the usual solution. Picaroon (t) 23:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

An Urgent Request

 * Dear Picaroon, There is a real urgency for dealing with Reza Shah and Mohammad Reza Pahlavi pages. The shervink co-accusers of I are deleting the sourced materials and they do this despite my plea to refrain until the verdict of the ArbCom. In response Dfitzgerald, simply have asserted that the ArbCom decison is irrelevant and have deleted important sourced materials from Mohammad Reza Pahlavi page.

I'd like to know if it would be possible for you to lock the article after including all the deleted sourced materials (that can be balanced if anybody finds them biased). Regards Artaxerex 01:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I'm going to have to decline for two reasons. One, the arbitration committee does not rule on content. It isn't going to solve the issues with the content of the shah's article. The point of arbitration is to deal with violations of policy by users that the arbitrators judge can not be solved any other way. In addition, since I'm clerking the case, I'd prefer not to become involved with the content dispute issue, even as a neutral admin. If there is edit-warring, you can request protection at WP:RFPP. Picaroon (t) 01:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

New name
As requested, I've renamed you Picaroon on fr.wp. Regards, Blinking Spirit 20:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks Picaroon for all your hard work and attention to detail on ArbCom. Fainites barley 20:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet
You sent me a warning that I am a sockpuppet for User:Tejam. If someone else uses the common internet connection we have in our institute, I cannot help it. Please consider all factors before you reach a conclusion.Kumarrao 11:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * That's an interesting way to say "I'm sorry for the sockpuppetry which was proven by IP data and reaffirmed by editing habits, and thank you very much for not blocking my main account too." Picaroon (t) 19:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

--I made an appeal to you to look into my concerns by citing one possibility. You have interpreted that as a reality. I sincerely state that I am not at all a sock puppet for User:Tejam. Please see his contributions. It seems he/she started with editing articles on Andhra, Kapu (caste) etc. He got into editing Chalukya only recently, that too after I put a message in his talk page to protect Telugu-related articles, which was attempted. How else can I convince you? Please absolve me of this charge. Kumarrao 05:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * A checkuser has stated that you two are the same user based on IP evidence. The fact that Tejam sprang out of ten days inactivity to revert to your preferred version on Chalukya dynasty, Kakatiya dynasty, and Bhattiprolu confirms the technical finding, as does your writing style and and your frequent lack of a space between the final period and your signature. It isn't a big deal, I'm not even going to ask you to admit to it, but please don't bother with any more denials. Picaroon (t) 22:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Updating blocks
MarkWood is still down as running 3 of DPetersons socks on his user/talkpage, whereas DPeterson ran all 5 of them. Just thought I 'd mention it in case it needs updating. Fainites barley 14:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I've left a note on his talk page to prevent further confusion, thanks for reminding me. Picaroon (t) 18:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom
Sure, I can make User space page. -- David  Shankbone  21:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Occupations of Latvia
RE: ''I'm going to have to agree with Thatcher that the addition of that picture was not helpful, which I think you agreed to in your latest post to Thatcher's talk page. Are there any active discussions on Talk:Occupations of Latvia which you think should be removed as a misuse of the talk page for political commentary? If so, or if any start in the future, you can point me to them and I'll see if they're worth blanking or archiving so as to get the discussion back on track. Picaroon (t) 01:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)''

Thanks Picaroon! Although the question here was not about removing or blanking anything but just ending the political debates over there and concentrating the efforts on citing reliable sources only and editing the article accordingly. Now, I've slammed a similar troll tag on Talk:Occupation_of_Baltic_states long time ago and things cooled down immediately and the article and the talk page have been stable ever since.. Therefore I have to preserve a different opinion here regarding "the addition of that picture was not helpful" since the practical example speaks of exact opposite. Now, well, let’s see how it turns out at Talk:Occupations of Latvia. But in case it ends up to be a mess again like the history on the talk page shows, any help to cool things down is going to be appreciated. Thanks!--Termer 07:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom
I have not left. I have just taken a step back, why add content that may be removed on cherry-picked evidence? I would like to help the project, however people chasing after their past demons is hindering that process. I hope Arbcom decides quickly so I know if this project is serious about its attempt to build an encyclopedia and content, or if it is really just a social experiment in politics. Considering MONGO has not presented any evidence of me being disruptive. And I have refuted all of his "evidence" of me being a sockpuppet. I am optimistic that a fair panel would see the evidence for what it is, a clear case of confirmation bias. You really should refrain from coaching people considering you are suppose to be neutral. --SevenOfDiamonds 16:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I put myself in MONGO's shoes and gave him advice on how to proceed. "Coaching" him, as you call it, involved making the assumption that you are a sockpuppet of, because this is obviously what MONGO thinks. I don't see how doing this compromised my neutrality. My advice to you is to continue to refute the evidence of sockpuppetry, and to show that you have been a productive editor during your time here. Picaroon (t) 17:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I cannot see how this is an appropriate edit for an ArbCom clerk to make. By appearing to not consider all the evidence presented and by treating the case as open and shut it may look like you are trying to pre-empt the arbitrators. Catchpole 17:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I was under the misconception that Seven had left when I made that suggestion to MONGO. As I explained above, I was telling him how he could proceed (he had not yet edited the /Workshop, even though he had presented his evidence several days earlier). How is my trying to get the case moving by nudging MONGO to make some proposals inappropriate? Picaroon (t) 17:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Nudging MONGO isn't a prolem, it's the content and tone of the nudge. I was under the impression that clerks should strive to remain neutral in cases they are involved with. Catchpole 18:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Getting someone to do something sometimes involves an agreeable attitude, no? Picaroon (t) 18:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

uncharitable
your block was, especially after detecting that copyvio. Here's another one for you to block. Btw, why did you surreptitiously remove my comment on Yellow Monkey? 59.91.254.42 19:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

More updating
Don't mean to be officious, but look! Fainites barley 20:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Right, that fixed too. Thanks. Picaroon (t) 20:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

THF-DavidShankBone
Am I permitted to submit the same evidence, or am I expected to present something new? smb 21:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Same evidence as what? Picaroon (t) 21:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It's okay. I've done it. Thankyou. smb 22:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Funkynusayri
In general I agree that it is not good practice to make edits to other user's comments and I generally refrain from it. However if a user is being graphic or is using language that is inflammatory, I may take the liberty to do so. In this case I disagree with you. While wikipedia is not censored, innappropriate use of the n word ,especially outside the context of the article, is not good practice. He needlessly mentions it five times. This is clearly trying to rub it in than making any comments about article. WP:CIVIL states Strike offensive words or replace them with milder ones on talk pages. Muntuwandi 18:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes his words are gratuitous. He keeps repeating that there is an actual n word article, when in fact I first brought up the subject of the term with a link to the article. So he knows that everyone else knows that the article exists. Needlessly repeating that there is such an article is just trying to find a creative way to use the term, while appearing to be making a point. Wikipedia allows a lot of freedom so I don't expect any action will be taken against him, but it is plain to see that he is just being gratuitous. This type of behavior just contributes to a hostile environment on the talk pages. Muntuwandi 19:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Trivia petition
Geez, thank you for deletiong my page. That was the last page I will ever make, beacuse my Wikipedia career is over. --Alien joe 19:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Pavarotti.jpg
Thank you for removing this image from the mainpage. I (and I'm sure many other people) appreciate it. --Pixelface 23:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure thing. Picaroon (t) 23:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: Stub category
Thanks for that. I've listed it at WikiProject Stub sorting/Discoveries, which is where odd stub types created from outside WP:WSS usually go. Actually, on second thoughts, I'll take it straight to Wikipedia;Stub types for deletion, since there are problems with it that will need fixing and renaming (though probably not actually deleting). Grutness...wha?  01:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 3rd, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. R Delivery Bot 04:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Diff
Oh yeah, sorry about that. I have now provided the diff I originally intended to provide. Take care,  Sebi  [talk] 00:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Apostrophes
With regards to edit summaries like this, could you please consider using "apostrophe misuse" as opposed to "apostrophe abuse"? I'm sure 95% of editors wouldn't care, but for the 5% that would, removing a lone apostrophe with that edit summary could be construed as an unnecessary slight. Picaroon (t) 01:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Picaroon!
 * Thanks for your note. No, I will not consider changing the edit summary. It's the same edit summary I've been using since early 2006, and it is correct. Abuse means "to use wrongly or improperly" which is what this is. There are 33,200 google hits for "Apostrophe abuse". It's a perfectly acceptable expression. There are 10,000 articles on Wikipedia right now with incorrect usage of "it's" and there is no way to use a fully automated bot to correct it. If I don't do it, it doesn't get done. Best wishes and happy editing, Firsfron of Ronchester  02:37, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair user images in user-space
I am doing significant edits in my userspace which I am then planning to move into the mainspace, therefore is it OK to leave the image in? Thanks, OK, I understand now. Davnel03 19:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Weissundblau
Replied at my talk. Raymond Arritt 20:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Response
I take heed to your concern and agree that an apology may be in order; however, such an apology would be in vain since the same antics that I recently lashed out at will persist. Alternately I'll just refrain from such rash comments. Just a bit perturbed by some of the blatant and passive racism/ethnic bias rampant on wikipedia, as it is an endless task to repel. Admins do nothing but suggest that we "assume good faith", even when motivations inferred from repeated patterns are observed. That was a way of letting off steam, but it won't happen again as I agree, it is inappropriate to address in this environment, even if true. Thanx for catching that and speaking out on it.Taharqa 20:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I also would like to thank you for your neutrality and I actually just noticed what you edited out and see how a few of those statements could have been problematic. Good job with refining the info and reflecting accurately the implications. Again, I will continue to watch my attitude and tone when responding to such occurrences, since sometimes I do react somewhat inappropriately. Peace..Taharqa 21:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Why can he address me, but I cannot respond?
Why is a sysop allowed to make comments toward me without my being allowed a response? Why can't I just have my response if someone directs something toward me? How is this right or fair? Italiavivi 21:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Removing others talk page comments
this edit is kind of obnoxious, removing someone elses talk page comment and suggesting they go do something useful. Rather poor behavior, especially for an admin. They have the right to express their opinion on the main page contents, thats what talk pages are for. Russeasby 23:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. what I wrote at talk:main page was relevant on-topic and at the right the place. Please do not remove it. I am a long-time contributor. Andries 23:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Andries is not expressing his opinion on the main page contents, he is trolling. Talk pages are for constructive contributions, not complaining about the results of arbitration cases. No one has the right to be disruptive, not even a "long-time contributor". Picaroon (t) 23:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I am a long time-contributor and am disappointed in Wikipedia and hence do not want to be thanked by Wikipedia. Please remove that statement from the main page. Andries 23:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * If you are disappointed in Wikipedia, leave and start a fork. Picaroon (t) 23:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * So only Wipedia fans are allowed to make comments? Not the people who are disappointed. I do not agree with this kind of reasoning and it sound quite cult-like. Andries 23:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * If you wish to appeal your topic ban, you may make a request of the arbitration committee. Complaining about not wanting to be thanked for your edits on Talk:Main Page is not helpful and you know it. Picaroon (t) 23:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I was and am aware that my sincere request was unlikely to be fulfilled, but I do think I made a constructive attempt to improve neutrality and fairness. Andries 23:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not a troll, but a long-time contributor. From Internet trolling "An indignant user who has had a previous normal relationship with the group is not a troll, even if the user uses methods of attack that are characteristic of a troll attack." Andries 23:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Replacement of removed trolling
I'm just letting you know that User:Xihr has been reverting your edits. Epbr123 23:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know, I've explained my removals and asked him to revert himself. (Header added by me, and may not accurately reflect Epbr's opinions). Picaroon (t) 23:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi there. I would like to hear your justification for striking out excising votes at AfDs, since it is not your place to remove votes en masse, despite your belief that it is "trolling". If a vote is trolling, it must be noted on the page, so that the closing admin can take all votes into consideration. Do remember that the articles for deletion process isn't voting, so quality comments are given better weight than those without quality. I have since reverted your changes, since it is not your place, or mine, to deny anyone's vote for any reason. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 14:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I would like to second Joe's comments - outright removal of comments or AFD !vote statements without clear evidence that they were made by a banned user is a violation of Wikipedia policy. Your having done so without clear evidence that they fell under the "banned user" exception puts this into the general category of violation of Wikipedia rules for which blocking may be applied.

I strongly urge you to explain what exactly you were doing and why. I do not think you will be blocked or anything worse than clearly warned if you've stopped and do cooperate by explaining, even if the explanation indicates a misunderstanding of policy or procedure. But you do need to explain.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert 20:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I concur. It isn't your place to decide which votes are important, that's left to the closing admin. Please explain yourself. (If you acted in good faith, fine. But please note that under WP:AFD, only clear personal attacks may be removed, other reverts would be construed as vandalism). -- B figura (talk) 20:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, now this if funny. The user has admitted to trolling, but you're saying since he isn't banned I'm not allowed to remove his comments? That is what we call wikilawyering, and I direct you three to Ignore all rules. My actions improved Wikipedia, and I challenge any of you to say removing what the user himself admitted to be trolling did not improve Wikipedia. Picaroon (t) 21:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * There are at least two very serious problems with that.
 * One, it creates an impression that WP admins have free reign to suppress merely annoying speech. Our relationship between admins and users is already strained by admins using powers too freely at times; this (though it didn't involve any) doesn't help.  AFD is one of the areas we encourage everyone to have a say, even if some of the things they say are enthusiastic, annoying, questionable, etc.  Stomping on anything there has to be done for the strongest of reasons and most delicately if at all.
 * Two, you reverted a whole series of !Votes, of which only two failed to state a reason to keep ( and "Don't know why").  Even if those had been trolling, the other 4 you reverted stated that the keep reason was WP:PORNBIO, which rises to the level of a legitimate comment/!Vote even if the user's being a little disruptive.  If they're being a little disruptive the approved remedy is to tag their !vote with a comment.  Even a slightly trolling user may make legitimate comments in the process.
 * Even if they were trolling, precedent and the AFD rules specify that you fix it by commenting to the closing admin (or the troller), not delete the troll.
 * Using IAR to stomp on people is unacceptable abuse of IAR. The WP policies exist muchly to protect people from admins and set up a framework in which admin powers and user interactions proceed in a smooth and friendly manner.  Taking a very moderate troll and removing it like that runs the risk of a major policy level blowup.
 * Simply ignoring the troll would have been perfectly acceptable here; it didn't really do any damage. Putting in comments to the troller, others, and/or closing admin would have been fine too.  Warning the user on his/her talk page was good.  This actual deletion was a policy violation for no good reason.  If you can safely leave a situation alone without any further damage being done, then applying force to it is the wrong solution.
 * This was disproportionate as a response to his trivial provocations, and caused all of us to come here and complain and you to have to defend your actions. Was it worth it?   Was it even necessary?
 * Please don't do it again. Georgewilliamherbert 22:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * AFD is one of the areas we encourage everyone to have a say – I doubt that, considering recent events. What's the difference between removing another's comment and striking it? Epbr123 22:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Striking does not remove the text - it indicates that someone has felt the need to mark it out, but anyone can still read it and tell that it was there. In the case of double-voting, or identified sockpuppet votes, that's the preferred solution.  It's not like simply removing it at all.  Georgewilliamherbert 22:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * A negligible difference. A closing admin would generally ignore any stricken comments, making it akin to being removed altogether. Epbr123 23:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It is not negligible, because users are aware that it's still there and can review it if they want. A closing admin may for example chose to take it into consideration even if someone struck it.  And nobody can be accused of censorship - the words are still there.  For this last "for appearances sake avoiding censorship" reason alone it's an important difference.  Georgewilliamherbert 23:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * An important difference. Since the closing admin would get to see the vote in the first place. Closing admins do not sift through page histories for removed votes, something I suspect that even you know. Since Picaroon was not the closing admin, he did not have the right to make the choices of the closing administrator for these AfDs. Again, you fail to understand the policies of Wikipedia and the reasons why the process behind them exists. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 23:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You two are entitled your opinion. Not keen on the personal attack though, Beaudoin. Epbr123 23:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * What personal attack? Picaroon (t) 00:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

George, it wasn't "annoying speech", and there isn't a question of "if those had been trolling." He admitted he was trolling in response to my warning. From What is a troll?: "Trolling refers to deliberate and intentional attempts to disrupt the usability of Wikipedia for its editors, administrators, developers, and other people who work to create content for and help run Wikipedia. Trolling is deliberate violation of the implicit rules of Internet social spaces." (Emphasis mine.) Just because we don't have any policies that explicitly disallow disruptive, thoughtless comments does not mean it is okay. Hence my ignoring the rules and removing his trolling. Saying I was stomping on him and levying the word "unacceptable" at me doesn't make you right. That said, my IAR response was a bit flippant and could have been elaborated upon, which I'm doing now.

Think of Wikipedia as a large apartment building. By letting it go because he was "a very moderate troll" and wasn't being that disruptive we're letting the windows be broken and the walls be graffitied. When the windows are broken and the window-breakers see the janitors won't do anything about it, and when the graffitiers see their messages remaining for days and weeks, they are going to become worse and worse. I'm not going to let that happen, and will continue to remove blatant, self-admitted trolling, even if it "isn't that bad." Preserving disruption encourages disruption.

Hope this helps. Picaroon (t) 00:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 10th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. R Delivery Bot 20:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

the added fact tags in "Black Belt Region"
You added fact tags to a section that said:

Most of the Black Belt remains rural, with a diverse range of crops including most of the nation's peanut and soybean production. Despite many changes, because of the social, economic, and cultural developments in the South, as well as the Great Migration of many African Americans to other regions in the early 20th century, the Black Belt is seen by some as a national territory of the African American people within the United States, where African Americans have the right to self-determination, up to and including the right to independence.

I added the following reference: Haywood, Harry (1977). For a Revolutionary Position on the Negro Question. Chicago: Liberator Press.

I had the 3rd edition as a reference, however the statement was first written by HH in 1957 and it was intended to be presented at a congress of the cpusa if I am not mistaken.

This writing can be found on the internet I believe. I will try to find it, but best to leave a book source also I think. It's a short book.

oh one more thing, this writing addresses the right to self-determination, up to and including the right to independence but it doesn't address the agricultural products of the region, certainly it's not disputable that this productive agricultural region produces peanus and soybeans.

Humbabba 03:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your effort, I will try to find the relevant part. Yes, the statement that I was looking for a citation for was the idea that the Black Belt is a place where African-Americans have the right to independence from the US. Picaroon (t) 00:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Aberra Molla
Aberra Molla 01:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)The last time a topic was created about Aberra Molla, you deleted it. There are two articles written about him by other at the following web site. http://www.ethiopianmillennium.com/news.html Are these enough to start with?
 * Hi again. Yes, that window that pops up on the main page of the site is a good source. It establishes your notability and provides plenty of information for an article. As I think I mentioned last message you left me, the Conflict of interest guideline recommends not writing about yourself based on the fact that it is very hard to do this objectively and based purely on published sources (ie, if your birth place has not been mentioned by a reliable, published source, it should not be included). See Verifiability for more on why verifiability, not truth, is our standard for information).


 * If you think you can write a neutral article on yourself that steers clear of original research and is based only on reliable sources, then you may be bold and go ahead, although this regularly proves hard. I'm logging off now, and will check back tomorrow. If you haven't started an article then, I'll give it a try. Picaroon (t) 01:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

No worries
It happens. I still don't think this was properly looked at and as several other editors pointed out they felt this editor was not only in the wrong but editing disruptively.--Crossmr 01:46, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Can you take a look at this...
You are listed as the clerk for the THF arb case, so that's why I'm coming to you with this.

I understand the analogy that DS is trying to make here but do we really need another gratuitous mention of his name and his chin? I've asked DS politely to redact it, but he refuses, and I don't feel comfortable doing it since the message is directed at my own behavior. Can you look at it and redact the personal stuff about THF? Thanks. ATren 18:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree, it's illustrative, it is not a "gratuitous" use of THF's name, which has already been used by one of the arbitrators in the case, and Wikidea's gross comment about THF was a very big issue in this case, so the reference to that is quite appropriate. It makes exactly the point I wanted to make, which is perhaps why ATren is feigning such horror at it; considering his own dirty laundry with User:Avidor, I find it unlikely he has taken such high offense but more wants to make an "issue" of an example I use for yet another strawman purpose.  -- David  Shankbone  18:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Setting aside the fact that my behavior is not germane to this case (making your entire comment irrelevant to that talk page), the point can still be made without repeating that personal attack against THF which has already been condemned by several users. Now I ask you again David, please redact it. And as I indicated, feel free to open a case against me if you have a problem with my history. ATren 18:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Since you, THF, and CHL have all raised double-standards as an issue in the case, bringing in a multitude of editors (CBerlet, William m Connolly, et. al.) into this, I find it hypocritical for you to posit that your own questionable behavior, when you are taking an active part in the ArbCom, should in no way be discussed. After all, about 90% of your edits in the last week have been to the ArbCom case. Sounds like a double standard, ay? -- David  Shankbone  18:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not suggesting you remove the entire comment (even though I believe it to be entirely irrelevant to this case), I'm only suggesting that the analogy you use is an inappropriate rehashing of a repulsive personal attack, and you should remove that portion of your comment. It has nothing to do with me. But you've made your feelings clear on this, so I won't pursue any further. ATren 18:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

David, the comment is not helpful and can not be construed as an attempt to work towards an amenable resolution. I think it would be in everybody's best interest if you remove it. If you want to escape the case without sanctions, I strongly suggest showing that you are able to interact without stooping to the level of the "Double Chin Watch" comment. I'm not going to remove it because - word to the wise - the arbitrators sometimes consider comments like this in determining whether the user is going to make an attempt to improve their behavior. For the record, is that case's clerk now, so although I will still monitor it, he is the one to go to for future concerns. Picaroon (t) 00:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Attack sites opened
Hello, Picaroon. The arbitration case in which you commented to has opened. Please provide evidences on the evidence page for the Arbitrators to consider. You may also want to utilize the workshop page for suggestions.

For the Arbitration Committee, - Penwhale &#124; Blast him / Follow his steps 20:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Africa delsort lists
Hi, I have copied your query to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting as Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Deletion sorting/List control is about to be closed. John Vandenberg 14:01, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, thanks. The talk page for the Africa list page redirected there, may want to update that if you haven't already. Picaroon (t) 19:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Restored article
Hello Picaroon. Thank you very much for your assistance in restoring Bob's Discount Furniture. One minor question: are the old contents of the talk page typically also restored when articles are restored? If so, I believe this article had a prexisting discussion page with a few comments. I'm not sure if they are worth restoring, since I don't remember the exact contents of the Talk page. Thanks again.--GregRM 03:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Not worth restoring, in my opinion - no substantial discussion actually about the article. Largely "is it the real Bob?" speculation. Picaroon (t) 03:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, thank you.--GregRM 03:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

About Catalonia Request
Hello again, Picaroon. Please, after read this: if both users are the same person, what this means for the Request?

Thanks. --Owdki talk 16:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 17th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 03:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Supaman89
Hello Picaroon, it's me Supaman89, I've just been informed that someone... has asked for a usercheck on my account arguing that AlexCovarrubias and I might be the same person, so I just wanted to let you know that I strongly support the checking so we can clarify all this issue, Alex and I would like a public checkuser and if necessary I give permission to do it, regards. Supaman89 19:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I ran the check. Checkuser is not normally done publicly, and it is not normally done to "clear" people. The finding was "possible", which is not the same as "Likely" or "confirmed". I would focus first on being a good wikipedian with positive contributions instead of this. ++Lar: t/c 19:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Lar, with all do respect, but I don't think that our IPs were checked. I tend to think that you possibly reached the conclusion that it was "possible" because of the history of the Template:Mexico topics, that Supaman created and then an anon. IP from Mexico edited.


 * I'm sure a real IP check wasn't done because Supaman is from Canada, and I am from Mexico. Our IPs are surely very different, and I believe a simple check for our past used IPs would have revealed that. Alex  Covarrubias  ( Talk? ) 00:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I know Lar ran the check, because he answered a question of mine about it. It surprised you that it was not "unrelated", it surprised me that it was not "confirmed". Let's settle on the fact that IP addresses can be complicated things. Picaroon (t) 00:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Well Picaroon, IPs are not that complicated. Unique IPs numbers and ranges are assigned to each country, so people can know where a person is connecting from. This is exactly why I want the public full disclosure of my IP log =(, because I am 100% sure that something is wrong here, and I don't like people thinking that it is "possible" that I am Supaman or viceversa. Supaman is from Canada, so his IPs must show that and I am from Mexico. My ISP provider is Telmex. I cannot edit from both countries! How?! Please let's do something about it. Alex  Covarrubias  ( Talk? ) 00:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Checkuser is about more than mere IP addresses, which can be spoofed, forwarded, defeated, proxied around, etc. I carried out the check using means available to me as a checkuser, and by policy we do not discuss exactly what was or was not checked, and I gave my conclusion based on my considered judgement. The conclusion was "possible". "Possible" does not equal "Confirmed" nor does it equal "Definitely not".  I suggest you both drop this because you would both be better served by focusing on how to contribute positively to the project. I see no need to violate privacy (even if you suggest that it be done) by disclosing IPs. ++Lar: t/c 02:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks Picaroon for trusting my word. I will do exactly what you told me to and strictly follow your advices. Thank you. Alex  Covarrubias  ( Talk? ) 00:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Editing at subregion
I see you unblocked, strangely/disagreeably, this editor after having agreed to 1rr. Well, observe 'subregion', where said editor made two reverts to place his added Forestry reference first after my addition of references. Corticopia 11:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * This is one revert. Which of those other two edits he made is his second revert? Picaroon (t) 14:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Here and here: the same notion is repeated. In between, I added a scheme used by the UN OHCHR.  Corticopia 17:10, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Now Picaroon you can easily notice how Corticopia is always trying to make problems. He's got a problem with Mexico being considered part of North America. The reference I pasted is from the FAO Forestry Comission in which the region of North America is composed of Canada, Mexico and the US. In his mind, North America must be Canada and the US only. That's why he didn't like my reference to go first. That's also why he pasted some other references, and included them ahead of the older one, when the usual way of add references is adding them AFTER the older ones.


 * I'm sure you can see his biased edits now, not only because I'm telling your this, but because of his contribution log and the log of his other past accounts. Thanks. Alex  Covarrubias  ( Talk? ) 18:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Warbling aside, I initially changed the order because the Forestry reference from the FAO deals only with North America (perhaps to to further the above editor's boosterism, noted in RfC) and is arguably pointless, whereas the other ones I recently added are subregional schemes for all countries (harking of the scheme of note) that are used by UNESCO, UNOHCHR, et al. As well, the ordering based on history is only in the mind of the proponent and not rooted in policy.  Alpha also works.  And the compulsion which the other editor may have about reverting nonsensically is a problem solely his.  Corticopia 18:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The order of references is really a pointless thing to revert over. As long as the content of the article is not changed, why does it matter? The two diffs Corticopia showed up there constitute two reverts in less than 24 hours, and therefore a violation of the conditions of your unblock, Alex. Please absolutely stick to one revert per page per day until the point at which your block would have expired, the only exceptions being vandalism and linkspam. Picaroon (t) 00:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I would like to draw your attention to another involved editor, recently implicated in 'possible' sockpuppetry and up to the same. An anonymous IP 74.110.220.11(from London, Ontario, Canada) made this (subjective, incorrect) edit without comment at Middle America. Having noticed the IP address from a similar discussion at United States regarding similar notions, with said editor playing dumb, I called him to it in this instance when correcting his edit. You may want to scrutinise further. Please advise on next steps or corrective actions. Thanks. Corticopia 17:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * As long as it is known that Supaman89 and the IP are the same (which doesn't seem to be in dispute), and he does not violate the Sockpuppetry policy, I don't think his use of it is inappropriate. Picaroon (t) 19:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Mexico
Hello Picaroon. I think you have followed the debate in the Mexico talk page. Finally, the debate has come to a solution agreed by most of the editors that has been involved, minus Corticopia. The problem here is that I think he's not going to respect the debate we had, just because the result is not what he expected.

I just want to remember you that Corticopia changed a previous consensual version agreed months ago, on the basis of only 2 opinions: his and Wanderer57's. When he changed that consensual version, his summary was "per talk". Now that most of us reached a solution, he's using Ad Hominem arguments to call the debate "not valid", and I guess, to not respect what we have agreed.

Remember in the article Metropolis? He did the same, changed the original status of the article, and THEN asked for a consensus to revert it to the original, uncategorized list. He's clearly playing with the rules, following a logical procedure, and then abandoning it when it doesn't fit his needs or agenda.

I'm asking you to keep an eye on this. I'm going to change the article to what we agreed in the debate. Thanks. Alex  Covarrubias  ( Talk? ) 18:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * No, I haven't been paying attention to any discussion on Talk:Mexico. I will go take a look. Picaroon (t) 19:48, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It is the last open discussion. Thanks. Alex  Covarrubias  ( Talk? ) 19:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The third proposal looks to have consensus. Go ahead and make that change if it is not already in the article, and if Corticopia objects he can file a geography request for comment. With regards to "described as", this wording should have a citation or two showing who describes it as being there. Picaroon (t) 20:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I will be doing just that, since there is 'consensus' (among four editors, the instigator of which has departed the discussion) for a version with wording that may be more flawed than its predecessor, also arrived at through consensus.  Corticopia 21:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

As I told you, Corticopia always is trying to trick the system or play the rules whenever it fits his interests. He just reverted the consensual version. That's clearly disruptive behaviour and if I'm not wrong, it is a cause of blocking. May be is time for me to post that report about his past activitives and all the evidence I have, can you please indicate me how to start? This is just untolerable. Alex  Covarrubias  ( Talk? ) 20:28, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * As I told Corticopia, four users in favor and one opposed can pass for consensus in small-scale discussions (obviously counting up like this won't always be appropriate, but it is here). Corticopia, until consensus forms to retain the old wording, please refrain from reverting - you're the only one who supports the wording you're changing back to. You can file a request for comment if you wish. Picaroon (t) 20:36, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I will file an RfC shortly. That being said, where is the consensus?  Peruse the lengthy discussion instead of taking the misrepresented notions by AC above at face value.  I support alternate wording, not necessarily an edition that someone else decided to affix my name to and tallied/summarised by the editor above.  Dunadan prefers prior wording consensually arrived at as I do, and Wanderer57 (incensed) may support current wording and also indicated support for a prior rendition (before this all began).  I will not support any version rammed down our collective throats by the boosterist editors involved in the discussion (AC, Supaman89, perhaps JCmenal) unless it is supported by a somewhat wider consensus.  If someone uninvolved is willing to mediate agreeable wording, I'd support that; until then, consensus is dubious at best and, at worst, doesn't exist at all. Corticopia 12:01, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Consensus is dubious only in your mind. Basicly you're arrogantly admitting you won't support any other description but what suits you the best. Picaroon, this is the second time Corticopia reverts the article . Alex  Covarrubias  ( Talk? ) 22:07, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm aware. I'm waiting for him to file an rfc. Picaroon (t) 22:10, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Open proxies
You are not the first to remove this comment. Someone insists on restoring it. --Ghirla-трёп- 21:37, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No idea why Calton restored it the first time, but thanks for pointing it out. Will ask him about his motivations for restoring if he restores it again. Maybe he's not aware this anon has been trolling us for days via various proxies. Picaroon (t) 21:40, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) Define "trolling": The proper answer to "Why is this trolling?" isn't "Because" or "Because I said so."
 * 2) Define "for days": I count twice, including this one. Where are the others?
 * 3) Don't like the comparison he uses? Redact it.


 * Any questions? --Calton | Talk 01:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) Comparing other editors to rapists is trolling.
 * 2) See the history of.
 * 3) I redact it by removing it.


 * Nope. Picaroon (t) 01:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Regarding,. No issue with the removal, and I agree on the not comparing editors... Just referencing the open proxy part. Please note that using an open proxy is permitted until it is blocked. Best regards, Navou banter 21:54, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Jafari
How come you are sure that the photo was not taken by me???? This is crap.

RS1900
Hello Picaroon! How are you? I think only fe names can be included in the Category:Regions of the Middle East. I think it should be deleted.

Please delete Category:Washington University faculty. The name should have been Washington University in St. Louis. There is another University with similar name (University of Washington). I created another category Category:Washington University in St. Louis faculty and recategorized the names. Thank you. RS1900 10:00, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I've deleted the category. Picaroon (t) 14:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Picaroon! RS1900 03:19, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Giovanni's evidence
Hi there. I noticed Giovanni posted well over 2000 words on the evidence page. Can you please ask him to reduce it to 1000 or there-abouts, otherwise it is unfair on other editors who would like to say more but restrict themselves to around 1000 words. John Smith&#39;s 19:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Will take a look shortly. Picaroon (t) 00:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Concerning Giovanni33-John Smith's
Hi, Picaroon, would you happen to be able to answer a question for me concerning this case? Is the scope of the case only Giovanni33 and John Smith's's edit warring at Mao: The Unknown Story, or is the committee interested in evidence relating to other edit warring by either of these editors? I may have some evidence, but don't want to waste anyone's time if it's not what the committee's looking for. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 20:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Giovanni has certainly brought up other edits I've made outside the article, so if they're not removed I think you are free to discuss other articles too. John Smith&#39;s 21:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * All relatively-recent edits by these two can be presented. For example, March 2007 edits would be viewed as relevant by the committee, but not ones from March 2006. Picaroon (t) 00:19, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Gotcha. I'll see what I can do. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Newly-industrialized country
Picaroon, I need your help. After I warned a user of deleting sourced information, he stopped (I reverted several times but it was vandalism, since he deleted sourced information, check my contributions log). After that I tried to be reasonable with him and I even followed ALL his suggestions to correct a problem in the article.

But then after that, he insists in changing the page to add Egypt in a table, even if he asked me to move Malaysia down because it had only one reference (that was the advice he gave me and that I followed). I know you told me to revert one time per article a day, so I don't know what do to at this point because I already reverted him once, and I think that revert is not considered vandalism so I can't revert him again.

Thanks in advance for your help. Alex  Covarrubias  ( Talk? ) 00:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, the earlier edits that you reverted were vandalism, and the latest ones are not. Why can't all the countries that have been labeled newly industrialized be listed in the table? If a reliable source has called them such, we can just report it and cite them - unless another source disagrees, it doesn't matter they only have one source calling them and NIC. Would that be an acceptable solution? Picaroon (t) 00:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Picaroon, of course I know that if an information is reliably sourced it should be included. I am also familiar with the policy undue weight. Adding a country that is rarely considered a NIC by the economic community and authors in the main table is giving that information undue weight, since the other countries such as Brazil, China, Mexico, India, etc. are widely considered NIC and can be easily referenced. In fact, the undue weight policy indicates that: "To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute"


 * On the other hand, countries such as Egypt, Jordan or Cyprus are not considered NIC but only by one author (so far). That's why I created the subarticle "Other NIC countries". In that section all the countries that due to the nature of the economic analysis/opinion of a particular author are labeled as NIC, can be included without giving that information undue weight. Again, the undue weight policy indicates that: "If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts". That is not the case of those countries.


 * I think that the subarticle I created is the best solution. Alex  Covarrubias  ( Talk? ) 01:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Also please note that the anon. IP user (who claims that I am being unfair) is only adding Egypt to the table, ignoring the other countries that are also mentioned in that bookpage. That indicates purely boosterism. Alex  Covarrubias  ( Talk? ) 01:19, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It wouldn't seem to be the case that only one source thinks Malaysia is an NIC. and  both say so too. Picaroon (t) 01:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Exactly, that's why Malaysia was originally in the table. I'm studying political science and I know a little about this. However, I moved Malaysia down today, because that was the fair thing to do and partly following the advice the anon. user pointed (that Egypt had only once source and Malaysia too). I was planning in adding more references to sustain Malaysia's inclusion in the list, because that country is widely accepted as a NIC. So what do you think? Should I revert his changes and advocate undue weight policy? Alex  Covarrubias  ( Talk? ) 01:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Picaroon, I have to go now, but please, if you agree with me, fix the article and please make the anon. IP user understand the situation. I think he is just ignoring me. Alex  Covarrubias  ( Talk? ) 01:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * implies others have called Egypt an NIC, but their use of quotation marks suggests they don't actually stand by the label. I will partially revert to your version and explain that unless more sources can be found (I would've thought they could, but can find nothing besides that book), Egypt should stay listed as not widely-acknowledged as such. Picaroon (t) 01:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I give up, I can't format the table. You can revert for me and use the citation "" Picaroon (t) 02:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Hehe, tables are tricky I know! For some reason I like doing tables. I have reverted and added the source you indicated for Malaysia . Malaysia is also mentioned in other of the cited books, but I guess somebody erased that citation, so I am also adding it back. Thanks for all your help Picaroon. I owe you a lot. Alex  Covarrubias  ( Talk? ) 04:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 24th, 2007.


You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. R Delivery Bot 02:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Jmfangio-Chrisjnelson
I see the comment you left on his talk page, about the result of the ArbCom case. I'd like to point out that since then, he was reverted me twice on each of the following articles:
 * 1) Ted Ginn, Jr.‎.
 * 2) Jonathan Smith (American football)‎
 * 3) Derek Schouman‎
 * 4) Brad Cieslak‎
 * 5) Matt Murphy (American football)‎

Ksy92003 (talk)  03:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I've only reverted once on each page I believe, seeing as how the first instances were merely edits and were followed by one revert each.► Chris Nelson  04:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * For example: My edit at 19:37 on Ted Ginn, Jr. was not a revert, it was an edit. My edit at 23:32 on the same article was a revert. Hence, only one revert. If I am mistaken, please let me know.► Chris Nelson  04:10, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, your edit at 19:37 was a revert. Here are all the differences between the edit at 19:37 and the version of the article at 11:43, August 29, 2007, the edit before my first to that article.  Ignore all the changes to the article with exception to the introduction of the article.  Your edit at 19:37 reverts my edits back to the one from a month ago.  I know this isn't a good example, but technically, it was still a revert.  It still was reverting my version of the intro to the one you had, and even though it was some time ago, that was still a revert.


 * And even then, what are your excuses for the other four articles? Ksy92003  (talk)  04:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Well I don't consider altering something that was initially done a month ago a revert. I consider it an attempt to add to and improve the articles. And my "excuse" for the others is the same for Ginn - one plain edit, one revert each. I think you're reaching.► Chris Nelson  04:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Really? You didn't revert the first time?  Let's look at Jonathan Smith (American football).  Here is the edit that I made.  Here is the following edit, made by you.  Now, look here.  You can see that there are no changes between the edit before mine and your edit, which proves that you did, in fact, revert me.


 * I don't understand what you mean when you say that I'm "reaching," but I don't know how you could deny reverting me. It's quite clear, and I've proved it.  Ksy92003  (talk)  05:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

A side note: this has been continued with a string of insults, profanity, and vicious personal attacks made against me via e-mail, something I've no doubt that Chris would deny because it's an e-mail, and Chris will probably say "well, you could make it up to frame me" or something. Ksy92003 (talk)  05:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Picaroon, I'm really sorry that I had to bring this issue here. I'm sorry that Chris violated his restriction by reverting twice on five articles when he wasn't supposed to do it on even one.  I'm sorry to waste your time, but I think this is a serious matter, as Chris has in the past month admitted to lying to another sysop by pledging to accept a topic ban and blatantly ignoring it, as well as making personal attacks, including a remark in which he referred to me as a Nazi, and this is just the tip of the iceberg.  He says things, and doesn't mean them.  He doesn't heed any warnings and feels he's omnipotent.


 * I'm really really sorry that I had to mention all this to you, but I think the evidence should support the fact that Chris did exceed his limit of one revert per page per week by reverting twice on five pages in a 4-hour span. I don't think somebody should be "off the hook" for such a blatant ignoring of a "suspension".  Ksy92003  (talk)  06:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I didn't intentionally ignore any suspension. Why would I? My edits will be heavily scrutinized for six months at least, it would be impossible to hide and of course I have people like Ksy here who have it in for me, follow me around and will report my first slip-up. But it appears I mistakenly reverted twice on a couple of those articles. Only being able to revert a page once in a week-long span is going to be a hard habit to make. It's fine if I need to be blocked a bit for that, even if Ksy is lying about a lot of other things.► Chris Nelson  14:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * What the heck have I been lying about? The fact that you violated your restriction the day that you were told about it?  The fact that you're lying when you deny what you've done?  Ksy92003  (talk)  21:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * And so what that you "didn't intentionally ignore [your] suspension?" First of all, that comment implies that you acknowledge violating the restriction, albeit "unintentional," but you admit that you did it.


 * Anyway, say you did something illegal, like speeding through a stop sign or something. A cop pulls you over.  You say "I didn't mean to do it; it was a mistake."  Does that ignore the fact that you still violated the law?  Whether you did it on purpose or not, you still violated your restriction.  Ksy92003  (talk)  21:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The difference is that speeding endangers others, while here I just made an honest mistake that can be corrected with a revert. Maybe an honest mistake, made as a result of old habits after months/years with no restrictions, could go unpunished once. If I get reprimanded, that's fine. Either way, I'll work harder not to make the mistake again. It's not really any of your business.► Chris Nelson  21:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know what more I can even say to you. The evidence is there: you violated your restriction shortly after Picaroon told you about it.  You did it five times.  Picaroon told you that you couldn't revert more than once per page per week.  That's not something that you can forget so easily.  You still did the crime, and you should be responsible for your actions.  Ksy92003  (talk)  21:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The "speeding" analogy was in example so you could understand my point better. The point is: if you do something illegal, whether you meant it or not, you are still held responsible for your actions. Are you honestly going to tell me that if you accidentally do something wrong that you can just ignore that you did it? Ksy92003 (talk)  21:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Picaroon - let me know if you feel the need to punish me for my mistakes in multiple reverts. Obviously I'd understand it if you feel it's necessary, but I can tell you they were honest mistakes, as it's just kind of hard to break old habits and remember I'm so much more restricted than I used to be. Thanks.► Chris Nelson  21:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * If you want one man's opinion, I feel you should be punished. If you don't want one man's opinion... well, I still feel you should be punished.  At first, you denied that you had violated your restriction.  Now, today, you say that you did, but didn't mean to.  You are completely untrustworthy, and I feel that you did intentionally violate the restriction, just as I feel that you did intentionally call me a "Nazi."


 * But I stress this again: yesterday, you said you didn't do it. Today, you say you did do it but it was an "honest mistake."  Which is the "truth?"  Ksy92003  (talk)  21:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Ugh, okay last reply. I looked at Ted Ginn, Jr. yesterday and saw I didn't violate my restriction, and since I did all the other edits at the same time I assumed I'd reverted the same amount of times. Upon further inspection, it seems that while I only reverted once on Ginn I reverted twice on some of those other articles. So yes, I was mistaken yesterday in saying I didn't violate the restriction, and I just explained why I was mistaken. Now, I have seen I was mistaken so I am fully acknowledging that. Whether you want to believe me or not, it was an honest mistake. I like to think an honest mistake, especially a harmless one, can go unpunished once. If it happens again, I would say definitely punish me. I will definitely understand if I'm reprimanded now, but I'm hoping for a single instance of leniency for a one-time honest and harmless mistake. I will not be replying to you here anymore as I feel you have no place here and, quite frankly, I can't stand you. The end.► Chris Nelson  21:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey, you've no more place here than I do. Since Picaroon hasn't edited in quite some time, if s/he doesn't say anything later tonight, then I'll ask for somebody else's opinion, as I am now under the impression that you're trying to get out of any punishment.


 * To me, it seems that you did something wrong and are trying to make excuses to get out of trouble. Of course that's not my call, but I believe your reputation, as well as the evidence that you have lied in the past, are not in your favor.  If Picaroon doesn't say anything about this soon, then I may grab Durova's attention.  Ksy92003  (talk)  22:41, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Chris appears to be unaware his edits constituted multiple reverts; as he is now aware of this, and I presume aware of the consequences if he does this again, I think a block would be purely punitive at this point. In the future, Ksy, you can post requests for enforcement at Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement. Picaroon (t) 00:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey, if I slip up again, block me all you want. While I do believe it'd be okay for an honest and harmless mistake to go unpunished the first time around, I think repeated violations, even accidental ones, need to be met with a punishment.► Chris Nelson  01:05, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm still clueless as to how somebody could just completely forget something as major as that, but whatever. I have no idea how Chris couldn't have known that he had violated this restriction.  Ksy92003  (talk)  01:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Complaint over evidence submitted
A row has broken out over comments Endroit has made on the arbitration case. Some users have labelled them personal attacks - as clerk can you please get involved and clarify the situation. John Smith&#39;s 13:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Additionally Giovanni has not reduced his evidence - he has only deleted his response to other points. At the top of the page it says please limit your main evidence to 1000 words. He hasn't touched that at all. John Smith&#39;s 18:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Brazil page
Greetings.

There is a problem in Brazil’s page.

Two groups are debating over the use of a certain picture in the article, each group having their own valid claims as for why the picture should be included or not included. So far so good.

The problem started when users AlexCovarrubias, Opinoso and Supaman89 resorted to calling people that didn’t agree with them “racists”, “white-rich” Brazilians and a number of other similar names. I take great offence at being called a “racist” simply because I disagreed with someone. We have a case of at least three rules being violated: Etiquette, Assume good faith and no personal attacks. The insults have been directed towards everyone that hasn’t agreed with them, effectively ruining the possibility of a civil debate. Thus, I believe an administrator needs to take it from here.

Unsurprisingly, many of the users responsible for the insults have been blocked several times in the past.

I have already contacted other administrators and I’m currently awaiting their response, but I’m also contacting you because I’ve noticed you are familiar with some of the users involved in this discussion.

We need help.

Thanks in advance.

Sparks1979 14:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * In support of this, you will note that two of the users are cited in boosterism elsewhere. (PS: I'll file my RfC today or tomorrow.) Corticopia 18:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Sparks, as I told you in the Brazil talk page, don't be hypocritical. You and Joao turned this into a racial problem, when you both suggested that adding such a picture (the Brazilian Soccer Team in which almost all of them are black people) was something "bad" and you suggested that we should "add a picture of indigenous people in the article Mexico instead" to be "fair and don't play double standards"  Comments like that clearly indicate that you both think that adding picture of black people or indigenous people is something that can demerit or harm a country.


 * I stopped reading here. Anyone that reads the messages you mentioned will see you are distorting everything I said. I will let anyone interested make their own judgement. Sparks1979 04:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Our arguments were plain and simple: The Brazilian Soccer Team is one (perhaps the most) famous thing about Brazilian culture, along with the marvelous Rio de Janeiro Carnival.


 * Joao went even further. He went to the article Mexico and added a picture of indigenous people, thinking that would make the article Mexico look bad. Even, this Brazilian editor considers that his attitude was wrong and that he i fact attacked the article Mexico . And as Opinoso said, you were both saying that in portugues in your respective talk pages. That was pure vandalism.


 * Also, you suggested that adding a picture of the Brazilian volleyball team (world-wide unknown by the way) would be better... of course, because it is composed of only white people. And what about your "argument" that soccer doesn't represent well "all the sports". So volleyball does? I don't think so.


 * So don't blame ALL of us for thiking you are a racist. I believe that if you don't want to be considered a racist you should be careful when you talk, because so far your actions and words indicate that you think that black or indigenous people make a country look bad. And that is a racist way of thinking.


 * As I already told you, I won't comment any further in the Brazilian talk page, because it is useless and it is really painful. Alex  Covarrubias  ( Talk? ) 22:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * One more thing Alex, isn't it interesting that you persist on your "racism" accusations, when two external opinions ( the D únadan and  The   Hyb  rid ) and one administrator (  Ca ri bb e a  n ~ H. Q. ) have already declared there was no racism in the whole debate? Sparks1979 04:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Where did Sparks say a picture of the volleyball team would be better than the football team? Where did Alex call you "white-rich"? Where did João disrupt the Mexico article? If you'd like me to look into something, please bring me all the relevant diffs. Picaroon (t) 22:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello again Picaroon. Sparks did say a picture of the volleyball team would be better, but that doesn't matter anymore. Also, I want to asure you that I never called anybody "white rich" or something like that (I think it was Supaman and he was warned by another admin). I would never call anybody that, I only called his behaviour racist.


 * However, the most important thing here is that Sparks left me a message asking to work as a team and I take that as a friendly approach. I also left a message in his talk page. And as I already said in my past messages, I stopped debating in the Brazil page because I felt offended by what I considered racist behaviour (Sorry but I still feel that way, I can't change what I felt).  Alex C.  ( Talk? )  23:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Chinua Achebe
Hey there; I've started working on Chinua Achebe in an attempt to move it toward FA status, and I disagree with the correction you made there today. Page 6 of Ezenwa-Ohaeto's Chinua Achebe: A Biography says "Isaiah Achebe was teaching at St Simon's Church, Nneobi, when his fifth surviving child and fourth son was born on 16 November 1930. … In 1935, … the family returned to settle in Isaiah Achebe's ancestral village of Ikenga, Ogidi.…"

Do you have a different source for listing Ikenga as Chinua Achebe's birthplace? Or is this just an oversight? Thanks. – Scartol  ·  Talk  13:30, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * An oversight on my part; it referred to the family as from Ikenga and I didn't see a reference to "Nneobi" on page 3, which is cited at the end of the next sentence (it didn't occur to check later in the book for a reference to Nneobi). You may wish to site the sixth page for his birthplace. Picaroon (t) 19:28, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I will. I also left a note on the article's talk page. Sorry for the confusion. – Scartol  ·  Talk  19:54, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Since we're both interested in this article and we obviously both have the same book, I wonder if it would make sense for us to work on different parts of his life? One of us could add info from the even-numered chapters and one from the odd? Or (which would make more sense) one of us could add info from p. 1-142 and the other from 143-286? Then when we finish, we can go over each others' work and see if anything needs work. Lemme know what you think. – Scartol  ·  Talk  20:01, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * No no, the confusion was my fault. I shouldn't have assumed he was born in the place he grew up without seeing it explicitly stated. I don't have the book, actually, I was just viewing it on the surprisingly generous Google Books, which had the two dozen or so pages available for viewing (later pages were unavailable). So while I'm willing to help out however I can, I'm unable to contribute content that I can't find online (my library has poor Africa coverage, but I'll nevertheless check to see if they have this or anything else on Achebe). Good luck improving the article, all of at WikiProject Nigeria are very grateful for improvements to Nigeria-related articles. Tell me if there's anything else I can do. Picaroon (t) 20:09, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I see. No worries – I'll just keep plugging away. Thanks again for the attention to detail and feel free to make comments or corrections to anything I put in. – Scartol  ·  Talk  20:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Seychelles
It's standard to have separate Presidential and Prime Ministerial templates, so I don't quite see the need for a merge, but I wouldn't object if one happened, either. Biruitorul 21:07, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Talk:2007 New England Patriots season
I'm sorry to come back to you with another scenario, Picaroon. At Talk:2007 New England Patriots season, there was a discussion about the title of a section heading at #Section heading. At first, Chris had one opinion about something, the same opinion as me. At the talk page, there was a discussion, and all of a sudden, Chris changed his opinion. I simply questioned why he changed his mind all of a sudden, because he didn't explain why he changed his opinion. lashed out at me with "Enough. Stop. You're trying to start stuff and I don't want to see this happen again. Chris stated his opinion, deal with it." I come out to defend myself in my next comment, and now, Chris says that it's entirely my fault that the discussion has diverged off-topic, and he has said "Any reasonable admin (or person, really) would say you're the one in the wrong here" and "You drove the discussion off-topic, you made it personal without reason, you made personal attacks, and you're the one behaving like a child. Everyone else would see it exactly the same way, so the problem here is with you." Long story short, he challenged me to find an admin to see whose comment instigated the off-topic discussion.

Also, he made another personal attack with this edit:, which according to User talk:Chrisjnelson/Archive 8, is in violation of his restriction. Ksy92003 (talk)  22:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Ksy92003 drove the discussion off-topic because he couldn't handle that I changed my opinion on something. Then he made some personal attacks against me. Then he denied any wrongdoing despite the fact it was all on him. The end.► Chris Nelson Holla! 22:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I didn't drive the discussion off-topic. Once again, I asked a question as to why you changed your opinion.  Pats1 got all mad at me.  I was defending myself.  Pats1 made the initial non-related comment, not me.  In the past, you have said that you and Pats1 talk frequently on AIM, and perhaps that friendship is clouding your judgment.


 * And are you denying personal attacks you made? Saying that I need to grow up and that I'm not a mature adult, with this inappropriate comment: "There is a difference between having pubes and behaving like a mature adult."  Ksy92003  (talk)  22:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Picaroon, could you please respond? I know Chris has already been blocked for 24 hours earlier this evening by, but I hardly feel this is a long enough block. Considering Chris' extensive history and countless warnings, 24 hours seems far too lenient. I am interested in hearing your opinions on this situation. Please respond, as soon as possible. Ksy92003 (talk)  06:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I endorse Durova's block. 24-48 hours seems right as a first block for this offense, given that it is in violation of an arbitration ruling. If there is a next block, it should be longer - at least twice as much - but I hope this will never be necessary. Please treat Chris civilly in return for the good behavior he will strive for once his block expires. Picaroon (t) 19:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I didn't realize that the blocks reset in time if they were made because of an ArbCom ruling, despite what had already occurred in the past. The ArbCom aside, this definitely isn't the first time he's been blocked for WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, and I assumed that the blocks wouldn't reset.  Ksy92003  (talk)  22:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. Block-length determination generally resembles pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey more than it resembles science. Picaroon (t) 01:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Is it an "eye of the beholder" type thing? Whoever issues the block makes a judgment call as to whether or not to include that?  Of course, Durova is knowledgeable about the suspension, and she most likely took that into consideration in blocking Chris.  Most likely, somebody who doesn't know about it and looks at past blocks would make it a lengthy block.  Thanks for clarification.  Ksy92003  (talk)  01:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure, really. Maybe ask Durova how she factored in the previous blocks and the fact this was due to an arbitration decision. Picaroon (t) 01:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't mean any offense to you, but I don't feel the need to ask here. Durova is a very responsible admin who seems quite knowledgeable when it comes to certain policies (like WP:POINT, which I still don't understand at all) and I trust that when it comes to matters such as these that she will always make the right decision. It doesn't really matter if I know or not because I trust her and I trust that she will do what's right. Ksy92003 (talk)  03:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 03, 2007


Automatically delivered by COBot 02:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Help with template moved (by mistake)
Picaroon, please help me out with this. Thanks in advance for your time and help. And sorry!  Alex C.  ( Talk? )  10:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- ForteTuba 12:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for speaking up
Hey. I've already thanked Jpgordon and now I want to extend my thanks to you for your lucidity and fairness. Elsewhere, too. All the best, El_C 02:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure thing, El C. Glad to see Commons kept your chipmunks, too. Cute critters them. Picaroon (t) 02:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That commons IfD is a bit misleading. They still wanna delete a whole lotta of em, but I'm gonna try my best to minimize the damage. El_C 03:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for finding that diff for me. Viridae Talk 02:49, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Content of the evidence page
Hi, Picaroon. I'm referring to you, because I see, that you're dealing with the RFARB, case Dalmatia. Please, keep the /Evidence page from adding the content that isn't supposed to be there. See this change. Wikipedia is not a childish thing. Giove cannot "spit at someone, than lick it, and go further like nothing happened". I'm notifying you because, as I see, a new edit Giovanni Giove's edit war is about to happen/already happening. See the article Mauro Orbini. Also, he continues with its "crusade" of Italianizing of Croat surnames in historical articles, although the RFARB/Dalmatia, that deals with him, is in process.. E.g., where Giove ignores the talkpage and opponent's contribution, calling the latter one "unsourced POV". Also, please, inform other arbitrators to "wake up". We don't need to suffer another year of Giove's vandal crusade on wiki, just because arbitrators are too slowly thinking. Sorry for taking your time, sincerely. Kubura 08:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Arbitration deals with conduct, not article content; it is the goal of the process to end further misconduct so editors can go forth and reach agreements on encyclopedia content. I will try to nudge some arbitrators to get moving, but be aware ten days of stagnation is not at all long compared to the months the voting stages of other cases take. Picaroon (t) 16:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, I agree with that. Arbitration is a serious thing, decision aren't being brought over the night. I just wanted to draw your attention to new clash-areas appearing. When I've said "content" on the /Evidence page, I've wanted to say: /Evidence page is supposed to deal with evidence material. /Evidence page is not a place to write childish "I'm sorry" messages "We want be bad anymore, we'll be good from now on". And those "we're sorry" messages appeared only when users concerned saw what wiki-punishment they might get. Sincerely, Kubura 07:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Kelbessa at DYK
Hi, your DYK hook reads: ...that Kelbessa Negewo was charged with murder in his home country of Ethiopia after one of the women who claims he tortured her discovered him working as a bellhop in an Atlanta, Georgia hotel elevator? However, in the article it doesn't mention that the woman was one he had tortured, but just that she knew who he was (and presumably why he was notable) without making the direct personal connection. Could you fix one or the other so they line up with whatever the sources say? Rigadoun (talk) 20:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for telling me. I've fixed the article. Picaroon (t) 00:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

RfAr - Biophys
Hi; you posted a note to my talk page to shorten my statement on the RfAr page. I shortened it to 500 words as requested. But my statement was not requesting an RfAr - I was actually disputing Biophys' request. The rules seem to require that all requests be 500 words or less; it does not clarify whether responses should be that length. Biophys' request is currently almost 1000 words; will you be asking him to shorten his statement as well? Thanks. csloat 07:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Response should be that length, too. I will check the length of his now. Picaroon (t) 23:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you
For this. Reasonable people can disagree respectfully. Cheers, Durova Charge! 06:25, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course. And thank you for the commitment to keeping Wikipedia running smoothly. Picaroon (t) 15:50, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Re:arbitration
Yes please do. I keep hopping to find some wiki time, but real life keeps intervening. - SimonP 23:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Bad judgement on my part
Simple as that. But linking to a website where the primary contain address is a yahoo mail address and the primary contact numbers are mobile phones, additionally the website was put together by a single editor whose only edits were to that article. The website is registered to what may or may not be the Intercontinental Bank Plc, whose own website admits that it's name has been used in scams. Can you see why that might have raised alarm bells. Are you sure the website is associated with the institution in question ? Are you sure the details on the page are accurate (i.e. the individuals named on the page are associated with the university ?). Please provide sources. Megapixie 23:25, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

AN/I notice
Thanks Thanks for the heads-up. You can see [|my reply]. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 23:52, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

IRC message
You can re-active me. Raul654 20:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Refactor request
Can this IP trolling be removed?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 04:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * IPs in the 86 and 87 ranges have been making nonconstructive arbitration-related contributions in the last few weeks; I'll check if this is one of them, and if it is remove the comment. Picaroon (t) 15:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Not a new user by his own admission, but I don't see any evidence he is acting in bad faith. This isn't one of the IPs that's been annoying on the attack sites and apartheid cases. Picaroon (t) 15:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Alkivar arbitration
I'm not involved in the dispute (other than being opposed to admin abuse in general, and calling this as i see it), I really don't care about pop culture sections (certainly I wouldn't take the extreme position either "side" here is taking); I was the one who suggested taking it to arbitration. I probably shouldn't be listed as a party. —Random832 21:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Alright, I'll remove you in that case. Suggesting arbitration does not make you a party. Picaroon (t) 21:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I think he may have been included for this: Viridae Talk  21:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but I don't quite think that makes him a party to the dispute - it seems Alkivar would've rolled anybody back at that point in time, so there's nothing extraordinary about it being done to Random832. Picaroon (t) 22:00, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) I agree there is no reason for Random832 to be considered as a party to this case. Of course, if the case is accepted, he can present evidence or workshop proposals without being a party. Newyorkbrad 22:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Breach of 1RR violation regarding blocked editor
In breach of the conditions you laid out regarding this editor, I direct you to the 'Geography of Mexico' article: and, where the layout and lead were reverted twice today. Need I say more? (And no, I haven't forgotten about my RfC; it will come shortly.) Corticopia 22:21, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * His one revert parole expired when the initial one-month block would've expired, which I believe was a couple days ago. Picaroon (t) 22:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, he was blocked on 2 Sep. for two months by admin Tango Corticopia 22:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, but that was after it was extended by Tango. See here, where Tango agrees with me that two months was a bit much for self-admitted block evasion. Of course I'd still appreciate it if both of you could reach a compromise that would stop the reverting, but my hopes aren't that high. Picaroon (t) 22:37, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes -- that appears a flawed judgement, given this editor's prior history. (I am not a saint.)  Anyway, you acknowledge and realise he's up to the same old sh*t, and just shrug it off?  He is systematically returning to articles he has previously edited and restoring his preferred versions of them.  And, frankly, you encourage co-operation but are partially to blame for matters: while I have been tardy regarding my RfC, you have also been at 'Metropolis' regarding the Americas.  Given that, I shall not rush.
 * Really, if blocking an editor is supposed to be an 'electric fence', a fatal voltage may be the only solution in this instance. I encourage you to act.Corticopia 22:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm writing an article, and this takes priority. I'll check up on the Metropolis talk page eventually, but I make no guarantee whatsoever of doing so speedily. I've got an idea, why don't you two try filing a request with the Mediation Committee? They're quicker than me, and they have more patience. Picaroon (t) 22:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Uncivility, use of profanity, multiple accounts, POV edits, disrecpect for agreements, edit warring, disruptive behaviour and the list goes on... All I have to say is the realted info is already on my user talk. Cheers Picaroon. Alex C.  ( Talk? )  23:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds like the MedCom could make a difference. Want to file one, or should I? Picaroon (t) 23:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Please do it, because I don't know how it works. I think it is time to end Corticopia's agenda for imposing/faking "Middle America" as a broadly used division in North America. Well, sorry for the last words but this is frustrating.  Alex C.  ( Talk? )  23:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The offending editor, in his list, must be looking in a mirror. Besides: my editing doesn't require me to unnecessarily interact with this ... editor, if at all.
 * Anyhow, from what I've observed, the MedCom is rather (unsurprisingly) dysfunctional. Feel free, but I make no guarantees or commitments.  And, the offending editor needs to be put in one's place regarding his persistent boosterism.  Corticopia 23:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Boosterism? Do you even know what it is? Boosterism is when one tries to "talk up" their city or country. If you believe that relating Mexico to North America is "talking up Mexico", then it is because you believe relating Mexico to "other regions" is bad. That's why you insist in the term Middle America, to "separate" Mexico from the US and Canada.


 * Mexico is a North American country (you may like or not, but it is), both geographically and geopolitically. Trying to divide the region into geo models that are not common is undue weight. Also, tagging me as the "offender" editor, just shows (again) your uncivility, and was that again profanity in your above comment? Yes, it was.  Alex C.  ( Talk? )  23:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I've spoken to a mediator, and he doesn't think mediation would work here. Alex, you say you've got evidence of policy violations by Corticopia. Why not file a user conduct request for comment as explained at WP:RFC/USER? Picaroon (t) 23:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * An RfC was already initiated by pernicious point-of-view editors, and was a snowball. And, if not already evident, a similar RfC was also conducted of the offending editor.
 * As well, the offending editor seems to have things (unsurprisingly) messed up. There is no debate that Mexico is part of the North American continent; however, the offender cannot and will not recognise that various sources may reckon differently North America and Mexico place's in it: see 'subregion' for example.  Always indicating one thing to the detriment of others is boosterism, and must be dealt with.
 * The offender also has a long list of policy violations (consult his block log), sockpuppetry, and misbehaviour; per above, perennial edit warring with 'competitor' Brazilians. So, IMO, admins cutting him any slack given his behaviour amounts to condoning it ...  And that's all I have to say regarding this.  Corticopia 15:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I just readed the whole RfC article. I think it is not the first step to take. I think the first thing to do is get the attention of some admin. to take a deep look into this situation (check user), because it involves a lot of violations with the use of several accounts over a year-long period. The best thing to do (in my opinion) is to check Corticopia and his past accounts to clearly and officialy relate all his past accounts. Do you know how to do this? Advise me.  Alex C.  ( Talk? )  04:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * IP data expires after a while (I won't say how long, as I'm unsure if this info is public). If these alleged alternate accounts have not been used in the recent past, checkuser can not connect them. So a request for mediation isn't going to work (in the opinion of a mediator), and a request for comment isn't going to work (in your opinion). And I'm not going to just block one of you two and hope it solves the problem. The only other thing I can think of is arbitration, but they wouldn't accept the case (because there have been no attempts at mediation or requests for comment). So please try a user request for comment, outlining where you think Corticopia has violated policy. Picaroon (t) 00:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Picaroon this is frustrating. Corticopia is not honoring the consensus in the article Mexico. Months ago when we agreed to change the article, he took those changes to the article Geography of Mexico, even if the discussion was in the article Mexico. Nobody said anything, nobody opposed Corticopia because it seemed like a natural step.

Now that we reached a second consensus, I, Supaman and JCmenal have tried to reflect that consensus in the article Geography of Mexico as Corticopia did months ago. However, we have noticed that Corticopia uses the argument that the consensus was "false" and that the consensus affects only the page Mexico.

So based on that argument, I have also added back the original version, because if Corticopia is not going to honor the second consensus in Mexico, there's no reason for us to honor the first consensus either, since it was agreed in the Mexico article, not Geography of Mexico.

I don't want to revert him again, please do something. This situation is ridiculous. He's just being disruptive.  Alex C.  ( Talk? )  21:53, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You shouldn't dishonor consensus just because someone else is. Two wrongs don't make a right. The only thing I can do is protect the article, but this would be a false respite from conflict. Picaroon (t) 00:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Picaroon, let me reword my comment. The first consensus applied only to the article Mexico, not the the article Geography of Mexico. However Corticopia decided to change the second article and nobody opposed, because we all saw it as a natrual step. Now that we reached another consensus in the article Mexico, we wanted to refeclt that in the article Geography of Mexico, and Corticopia reverts saying "it was agreed in Mexico not in this article".


 * What I'm saying is that if he's going to use that argument, then the same is going to be applied to him. His changes were approved by consensus in the article Mexico, months ago. So based on his own argument, I've restored the original version, because nothing has been agreed in that page.  Alex C.  ( Talk? )  01:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Correcting falsehoods: AC, you supported a certain representation in the 'Geography of Mexico' article when decided to add that Mexico was also in the northern latitudes. You -- in your never-ending and senseless quest to push a particular viewpoint -- then disregard that because you are unable to persuade, while claiming that a consensus exists in the parent article of note (which is debatable).  Consensus in one article is not a 'blank cheque' for action elsewhere ... which you have apparent difficulty grasping.  Too bad.  As soon as able, plain and simple, your willful edits will be rectified.
 * Picaroon, you can probably tell that the offending editor is rather juvenile in his editorial style, and creates situations to deflect from or contributes to his own boosterism and disruption. Even glance at Americas (terminology), where the offending editor has removed references based on nonsensical rationale (they deal with usage, go figure, in an article about terminology of relevant terms) to further a pernicious viewpoint -- this is completely consistent with prior edit pattern (see Talk:North_America).  So, who is/should be frustrated?  Given the source of this flotsam, why should I even waste my time?  Hereafter, maybe I just won't.Corticopia 02:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * This is just too much. You are deliberatly mischaracterizing my edit, trying to trick another person into believing a lie. That's clearly disruptive. The section header in Americas terminology said "Geopolitical regions", in which a reference from an "English usage dictionary" is clearly out of place. The terms are/were grouped in geographical, geopolitical and UN geoscheme terms. As I suggested, an usage section could be included, just as in the article North America. Picaroon, that is just too much, do something. Alex C.  ( Talk? )  04:24, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * If we filed on request for comment on Talk:Mexico, on the subject of how to describe Mexico's geographic location, would you both agree to abide by the consensus gained there? Not just on Mexico, but also Geography of Mexico, Metropolis, and any other article that uses lists in the manner of Metropolis. It's a yes or no question: do both of you agree to respect the outcome of an rfc, regardless of whether you agree with it? Picaroon (t) 15:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes:
 * To get the widest possible consensus, and since nothing exists in isolation, notice of such an RfC would have to be placed on applicable articles/topics (e.g., North America, America, Americas, Wikiproject Geography) and as well on other relevant articles as needed (e.g., United States), etc. (However, canvassing (as done by the usual suspects in the Spanish Wikipedia et al.during the successful AfD for a related article, must be prohibited and sanctions placed if done.)  If these conditions can be assured, yes.  Corticopia 19:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No:

Alex, what do you say to my proposal? Picaroon (t) 01:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Notice on my talk
Hey you meant Requests for arbitration/Commodore Sloat-Biophys, right? Cheers &lt;&lt;-armon-&gt;&gt; 01:36, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello I need your help
Hey Picaroon, I'm Supaman89, and I just wanted to ask you to block user Nikyjim and his IP so he won't create another account. He vandalized the Mexico article once, so I warned him, (I believe I wasn't the first one, in fact he only uses that account for vandalism link), then he vandalised my userpage link, so I need to know if you could help me with that, please do NOT warn him again, he's been advised before, and he probably has another account and only uses this one for vandalism, and if we don't block his IP he'll create another one again, thank you. Supaman89 21:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Someone blocked him. In the future, please see WP:AIV. Picaroon (t) 00:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, ok good to know. Supaman89 02:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Titles
Dear Picaroon:

Thank you for explaining your policy on titles. However, I think it needs change to show proper deference. It is not like the Cardinal's name appeared several times in a long essay. You showed his picture once on your homepage. It is proper and courteous to use his title with his name. If it was my picture, I would not mind. I don't have a title. I am nobody. But Cardinal Arinze is somebody. You will write President Johnson or President Nixon, wouldn't you? Otherwise, how do we differentiate one Johnson or Nixon from another? -onyeulo
 * "President" is an occupation, not an honorary style of address like "His Eminence". It's fine to call LBJ "President Johnson", as President was his occupation. But we would not call him "The Honorable President Johnson" or anything. Similarly, we can call the cardinal "Cardinal Francis Arinze" to provide context to the mention of his name. But "His Eminence Cardinal Francis Arinze" is unnecessary. Hope that helps. By the way, if you intend to contribute regularly, you might wish to create an account. Picaroon (t) 01:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet question
Hi there. I noticed you blocked User:I Am McLovin It for being a sockpuppet. However, you did not block the sockpuppeteer, User:I Am Mclovin. Is it appropriate for me to ask you to block the puppeteer too? Thank you.  NA SC AR Fan 24 (radio me!) 12:22, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Blocked. Picaroon (t) 19:43, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Coon
What is it with you, Musharaff is not a President he is a General so dont change his picture to make him look like a human. YOu are violating the policy and I will report you and we will have some discussions.
 * Best of luck with that. Picaroon (t) 01:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:AJ
Hi, do you mind if I repurpose WP:AJ to point to WikiProject Academic Journals? The usual acronym is WP:AAJ. Cheers, John Vandenberg 12:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I've retargeted it, and fixed the only use. Just for the record, I did create AJ a week before the other one - but no matter, as it is less used. Picaroon (t) 19:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Alkivar
Could you possibly add me to the lis of parties in this case as I have had a "history" with Alkivar, as said in my previous comments. Is this possible? Thanks, Davnel03 21:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The main issue in this case is the one surrounding his recent blocks - past things will be looked into, but are secondary. Being a party won't really affect you. Make a motion to add yourself on the /Workshop, if you wish. Picaroon (t) 21:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Also please note that you can submit evidence on the evidence page, and/or add proposals to the workshop page, without being listed as a party. Newyorkbrad 22:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 15th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 10:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

FYI: DYK doesn't quite meet standard
The article on Alhassan Dantata has not been expanded 5 folds so it doesn't qualify. "an expansion of five-fold or more" it says.

I won't say another word! I didn't make any comment on the DYK page so your entry may sneak its way in. :p  Chergles 19:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, for one, I only started it on the ninth - if I had more free time, I would have written it all then and nominated it as a new article. Second, its only 30 words short of being a fivefold expansion - I could add some fluff, but what's the point? "Richest man in West Africa" is a rather interesting hook if you ask me. Picaroon (t) 20:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Dahiru Musdapher
Now stop fiddling with my essay! :) – Gurch 13:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey, it works! /me goes and tells everybody about the magic essay that does work for you. Thanks Gurch. Picaroon (t) 14:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The Arbitration
Thanks for the notification. Acalamari 23:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration
Copyedit from my page: "The placement is acceptable now that you're mentioning the comment in your statement; doing so at the top of the request for arbitration, above everything else, wasn't exactly adhering to the procribed format. Also, please note that "Arbitrators or Clerks may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment." Picaroon (t) 03:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)"

Picaroon, I appreciate your explanation although I did feel that in the midst of charges and countercharges, that this statement should not have been edited as it was an example of how the editor who launched the arbitration did not have an understanding of the process as well as being illustrative of inappropriate editing of my comments to suit his purposes. FWIW Bzuk 03:42, 21 October 2007 (UTC).

Header
Sorry, my mistake with the level 3 header, was not intentional.Nimbus227 01:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Userfy request for The New Jersey Herald
Can you please create a userfied version of The New Jersey Herald under my username, so that additional material can be added. I had seen a version of the article for the paper, one of the oldest continuously published in the state, and was shocked to see that it had been deleted. Your assistance will be greatly appreciated. Alansohn 20:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I've moved the history to User:Alansohn/The New Jersey Herald and redeleted the redirect. Still not seeing an assertion of notability, though. Picaroon (t) 21:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks good now! Do you want me to delete the redirects? Picaroon (t) 15:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Re. Your accusation of vandalism
Sorry, I do not know anything about the article in question, but removal of such large amounts of information initially looked liked vandalism, please accept my upmost apologies, Schumi555 15:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't worry about it, it's a common enough mistake. Just remember to always check the last few edits of an article, to see if they shed some light on the matter at hand. Vandalism reversion isn't a race, you can afford to spend an extra 15 seconds making sure reversion is the right solution. ;-) Picaroon (t) 15:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Khachen
Yet another baseless and absolutely irrelevant tag by Andranikpasha. He is claiming that Caucasian Albania (which has nothing to do with Albania in Balkans) is dubious because it contains title Caucasian. I am sorry but I don't see this as anything else other than attempt to simply get rid of Dowsett quote, which does not fit the POV. Atabek 19:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * And now User:MarshallBagramyan simply removed everything, including your version, back to old POV version . Atabek 22:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I've left AP a warning. As to the revert, well, I was trying to provide a compromise version. It seems that I was unsuccessful, so I guess back to the drawing board. Picaroon (t) 02:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Hogwash
I have to kindly ask you not to use incivil words such as hogwash in your warnings. I will also request that you warn Atabek not to repeat incivil words used by other users or administrators. , This is called baiting new users and is one of the AA2 principles. VartanM 08:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 'Hogwash' is not incivil, it's just a synonym of 'nonsense'. Conflating a modern country in the Balkans with a historical entity in the Caucasus is nonsense as far as I'm concerned. Picaroon (t) 16:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not questioning your warning, I'm questioning the words you choose to warn the user.

hog·wash (hôgwôsh, -wsh, hg-) n. 1. Worthless, false, or ridiculous speech or writing; nonsense. 2. Garbage fed to hogs; swill.

I'm sure there is a policy somewhere that prohibits calling other users words worthless garbage fed to hogs. And was Atabek's harassment of Andranikpasha warranted? VartanM 18:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Andranikpasha's claim that it was original research to affix "Caucasian" to the word "Albania" was ridiculous, useless, and intentional stonewalling, so my use of the word "hogwash" seems accurate enough to describe said assertion. As to Atabek, is he doing anything he doesn't normally do? Better he use the word "hogwash" than something actually insulting.


 * Really, the conflict amongst you guys is going in circles; us administrators can try to de-escalate it, but the day-to-day pettiness Atabek, Andranikpasha, and the rest of you engage in and complain about on WP:AN/AE seems insolvable - two arbitration cases, and what has improved? Evading checkuser detection of sockpuppets is the only thing I can think of. If you have any novel solutions, I'm sure Moreschi, Thatcher, Tariqabjotu, myself, and the other admins who try to keep the peace on these articles would love to hear them. Sanctioning Atabek for (semi)-accurate use of the word "hogwash" isn't a novel solution. Picaroon (t) 20:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I have reported to AE specific attempts by VartanM, Andranikpasha, and MarshallBagramyan who utterly violate NPOV in the articles. Unfortunately, I don't see any other way to deal with such situation, if you have suggestions, maybe you could advise me. I don't know why I am being immediately targeted for "pettiness" along with this group of people. Personally, I have nothing against these contributors, unless they stick to neutrality and discuss references which obviously should be included. But instead of attempting in good faith to discuss, they stonewall, as you say "hogwash" or simply revert. So I am sorry but outside of very slow and ineffective mediation process, I don't know of any other civil way to deal with situation than bringing attention to the issue in AE board. Of course, I could choose not to care, but honestly, the foundation that these 3 folks lay here with their WP:SOAP and WP:POV, later serves as propaganda tool in the hands of others who lay territorial claims, start wars, cause more people pain and suffering. So someone, even if it's only me, has to stand up against it. This is not about Wikipedia constitution, it's about something that's a right thing to do. After all, there is exists a version of history, which is not just plainly Armenian. And for encyclopedic purposes, all positions must be heard and incorporated. Thanks. Atabek 07:03, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Atabek, you must know better than to say things like that. These three are Wikipedia editors, and asserting that their edits on this online encyclopedia project somehow contribute, even indirectly, to pain and suffering in the real world is a rather contemptible personal attack; it also indicates an overblown sense of the importance of Wikipedia. If you want to deal with the situation civilly, I ask that you not attribute, even indirectly, any other users' contributions to the starting of wars and the causation of pain. If you don't want to deal with this civilly, you're going to find yourself blocked for further incivility, because such suggestions will not be tolerated whatsoever. Please adhere to the courtesy courtesy principle from the second arbitration case, and please consider apologizing to these three. Picaroon (t) 02:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Picaroon, I have nothing against these contributors personally and if anything I told them is offending at that level, I do bring my apologies at any time. I wouldn't underestimate the importance of Wikipedia though in any context, it's now read and interpreted by a large audience worldwide, and to preserve the quality of information there exists a WP:NPOV policy. Unfortunately, I don't see above or in here a suggestion for a way out of deadlock and POV at Khachen page. Atabek 20:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Attacks by an anon
162.84.187.178 (who also appears to operating as 141.155.140.142) seems to have inserted himself into a running battle in the F-22 Raptor that may be associated with the Requests for arbitration/Stefanomencarelli‎ entry he has made. It appears to be an ongoing issue with another editor. Since you have taken an interest in resolving the arbitration and have admin tools, can you check on the anon's actions? FWIW Bzuk 06:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC).
 * I'm only somewhat familiar with this dispute, but I see no reason not to believe that this is Wikzilla. The IP he used the second time has been blocked by another admin, and if he returns I will block him as soon as I see him (I've watchlisted the article in question, please tell me if there are any other pages I should keep an eye on). As to his arbitration edit, well, it's been reverted, as it should be. Picaroon (t) 15:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know who the editor is either, someone else had tried to trace him down. He seems to be operating under the following IP addresses: 68.244.198.204, 162.84.187.178, 141.155.140.142, 70.107.171.151, Stoptheabuse, 70.107.173.5, 162.83.226.72, 162.83.226.119, 141.155.128.109, 76.102.190.6, 162.84.182.189, 162.83.254.13, 162.84.184.78 and 162.83.254.139. FWIW Bzuk 06:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC).
 * Hi Picaroon, I've been dealing with this editor for some time now...I can provide some fairly extensive diffs if needed. Wikzilla bragged that he had mulitple accounts and could IP hop in order to make sure that his edits got added. The limitation we have here is that he has a different IP each time he logs on, so blocking one IP solves the problem for all of five minutes. The conncetion in the IPs is really the writing style. I became the target of his anger initially because I s-protected 2 pages that were targets of an edit war against consensus, and so he registered a bunch of user names and began to use sockpuppets to try to get his contentious material in, and to blast abusive and vandalistic messages. When he found that the user names would be quickly blocked, he went back to IP hopping. Because of the nature of Wikipedia with generally open IP editing, events like this are pretty much inevitable, and my approach is to essentially ignore the abusive edits as just part of the background noise. He isn't going away, there's nothing we can do to stop him, so I'm just not going to worry about it. If you still want to look into it more, let me know and I'll post the history for you to review.  AK Radecki Speaketh  13:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, he's certainly unwelcome, to say the least. I think we should just remove his comments wherever we find him, and then block the IP used for a short period. Bzuk, you can report him at WP:AIV if neither Akradecki nor I are online. Picaroon (t) 16:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Don't know if you saw the latest, User talk:NotASockPuppetOfWikzilla.  AK Radecki Speaketh  00:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * No, hadn't seen that one. Picaroon (t) 00:42, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Rulers of the Hausa state of Kano
Hi, Picaroon and thanx for contacting me. Such professional courtesy is rare to find, and I will bow to your judgement on the merging of the articles in question. However, I do believe it would be best to merge the LIST on Emir of Kano into the Rulers of the Hausa state of Kano, just under a different headline (perhaps Fulani dynasty or something of that sort). Meanwhile, you could preserve the Emir of Kano page and just devote it to the office and history of the office. There is a bit of precedent for this. For instance, there is a Manikongo page dealing exclusively with the subject of that particular office. Meanwhile, there is a separate page called List of rulers of Kongo where the list is maintained. As you pointed out, putting all rulers (emirs or otherwise) on one page is best. Since all emirs are rulers but not all rulers were emirs, Rulers is probably the best page for the list. Thanx for listening to my side. And like i said b4, feel free to do whatever you think is best (not that you needed my permision). Good to hear from you and keep up all the good work. :) Scott Free 20:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Not a problem, and holla at me if there's any info I can help u too (JSTOR pdfs, reference books, etc)Scott Free 20:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)