User talk:Rose-mary

Welcome!
Hello, Rose-mary, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for joining us, and I hope you like it here and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place   on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! — The KMan talk 21:43, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

helpme
Why nothing has been done to stop the NPOV violations by Pmanderson in the article Phaistos_Disc, as I requested in Vandalism _in_progress on 18:41,16 February 2006 ? Thank you to the administrator who will deal with this problem (Rose-mary 22:34, 19 February 2006 (UTC))


 * Violating NPOV is not Vandalism, that's probably why an admin did not do anything to User:Pmanderson. This is a content dispute. Resolving disputes outlines some methods that may help. I didn't notice your signature (hence comments) at Talk:Phaistos_Disc or at User talk:Pmanderson (sorry if I didn't see them and you have tried communicating).--Commander Keane 22:46, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your answer. Sorry if I've not been explicit enough. Since the article has been protected by Woohookitty, the User Pmanderson has first vandalized a compromise to end the Edit-War, proposed by David Monniaux, which seemed fair to me (therefore my notice in Vandalism_in_progress), then has gone on violating (in my opinion) the NPOV rule. As an anon (who seems a lot more competent than me on the subject) was criticizing Pmanderson's vandalism in the Talk-page, my intervention has been minimal, what explains that you didn't notice it. (Rose-mary 23:20, 19 February 2006 (UTC))


 * I can't see any edit where User:Pmanderson vandalised. It's all content dispute. Perhaps you should consider Mediation.--Commander Keane 23:32, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry
User Rose-mary, in Requests for page protection, referring to anon 80.xxx's edits to Phaistos disk, your edit says
 * Being this anon, I strongly contest what ∏manderson]] has written. I've never used several url in the 80.range. In fact, Pmanderson uses now the semi-protection of the article to vandalize the attempt by other administrators to put an end to the Edit-War he started himself. I am asking a)- for a total protectionof the article, in order to find a reasonable solution to the Edit-War and b)- for the suppression of Pmanderson from the list of the WP administrators.


 * [ [ [ The following was added by 80.90.37.136 to the above: (User 80.90.57.154 !!! Yes, it's me, not Rose-Mary who wrote this. Anybody, including you, may have free access to her User Talk Page). ] ] ]

I believe this constitutes an admission that you are a sockpuppet of 80.90.xxx who has been editing on Phaistos disk. You have used the Rose-mary account to support 80.90.xxx's position in discussion on the talk page in violation of Wikipedia policy on sockpuppetry. I am putting a sockpuppet notice on your User page. --Macrakis 18:38, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * See hereabove. (User 80.90.57.154, 11:20, 22 February 2006)

3rr on Phaistos Disc
I've blocked you for WP:3RR on Phaistos Disc. Please don't try to evade 3RR by using anon sockpuppets. William M. Connolley 22:13, 27 February 2006 (UTC).
 * In addition, please avoid any future stalking, personal attacks, and rallying of people who disagree with a user on unrelated topics against that user. If you continue, this account, and any alternates will be suspended indefinetely. Voice -of-  All T 15:50, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

As you are a sock of a blocked IP for 3RR violation i ahve blocked you for 48 hours as well.Gator (talk) 21:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Indefinite block
Rose-mary, I'm sorry to see that you've had trouble here at Wikipedia. Unfortunately, Wikipedia's blocking policy is very clear about not tolerating revelation of personal information or threats to get people in trouble with their employers... both of which you did here. I understand your frustration at being unable to include your views without opposition, but this kind of action is very damaging to Wikipedia and therefor always dealt with in draconian fashion. Even an administrator was permanently banned from the site for doing the like once. I hope you reconsider your anger over this situation and find a way to work with those who oppose your views without attacking them personally. --CBDunkerson 12:59, 8 April 2006 (UTC)