User talk:Theresa knott/archive10

archive 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Welcome to my talk page. ''If you've come to complain, whine, moan, question my judgment, my intelligence, my sanity, or tell me off in anyway, that's fine. I'm a big girl who can take it.If you've come to chat, compliment me, have a laugh, or discuss articles that's even better''.

Photo
WikimeetlondonPic1-03.jpg

SudarshanP 17:20, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Corporate Singularity
Hiya, just curious as to why my edits on this subject were reverted. I am not taking issue with the decision to revert the changes, but would like to know your reasoning...

Sock puppets
Hi Theresa, given your well documented inerest in sock puppets I was wondering why you have shown no interest in Robert Blair. Funny thing that ... makes one think. - Robert the Bruce 05:07, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Makes one think what? Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 06:23, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Hmmmm ... now where to begin ... - Robert the Bruce 17:46, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Have you thought where to begin yet? Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 11:55, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Cheung1303
Have you deleted the ones on the Copyright problems page, or should we just leave them there since they've already been listed? RickK 06:41, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)
 * I haven't just yet, but I will - I've got to go to work right now! Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 06:43, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

More Picture Removals
Hi Theresa, I remember you've been active in the clitoris/vulva/penis etc. debate about including pictures. User:Anthony_DiPierro has taken it upon himself to unilaterally remove the pictures in clitoris and vulva because he doesn't like them, and will not accept the community decision to keep them (Uggh!). What are we doing about this these days? Didn't we block some of the other users who continually removed the pictures for 24 hours? Just a heads up. Thanks, Timbo 22:17, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * That's weird... isn't Anthony the ultra-inclusionist who doesn't think anything should be deleted? func (talk) 22:21, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yeah we did block some of them for 24 hours at a time rather than have to have the page permenantly protected. There's a waring in the archives somewhere from three different admins one of whome was me. I wont block though because of the argument i had with Robert Brookes on the VP which Anthony was a party to. Basically I said to RB to remove the pic and see what happens. This is because i knew someone would replace it - but it could be interpreted that I was baiting him in order to block him. For this reason i don't intend to block anyone.

My advice would be to wait. There's plenty of time - Anthony will realise the meaning of consensus when he finds himself reverted over and over by different people. Anthony has many enemies here on wikipedia, I am not one of them. Some people are quick on the trigger with him because the arbcom ruling, and the fact that he rubs people up the wrong way sometimes. Whist i agree that he sometimes lacks social skills - i do believe that he is editing in good faith. For this reason I beleive we should allow him at least a few days to learn he is not going to get community support on this. If he continues to revert war, when it's clear he cannot win, and if he is explicity warned first, then I'll support a block ( although i wont do it myself) Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 23:43, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Theresa, once again youmisrepresent the consensus arrived at through the vote on the Clitoris talk page. But this exchange does inform that the issue seems to be that there is a greater need to preserve the use of pictures at all costs among some. I am not sure that the use of pics has ever seriously been challenged but sadly when this presevation of pics extends to any pic no matter how unsuitable it becomes unhealthy for Wikipedia. As to your comments about me, Theresa. Of course I am aware that you (and one or two others) are trying to set me up. Sorry not taking the bait on that. I have no reason to personally remove or replace any pic but remain fascinated by the antics of some around this issue. I am confident that sanity will prevail inthe end. - Robert the Bruce 04:23, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * 1) Yeah whatever. Troll all you like -unlike Anthony who edits in good faith - you do nothing but try to cause trouble, troll and POV push. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 06:37, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Careful now Theresa ... or you will have Tony on your case over your lack of civility. - Robert the Bruce 16:39, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Your are threatening me - how daft! I have nothing to fear from tony or any other respected wikipedian. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 22:47, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

London Meet
Hello. Cheers for the notification. I'll feel a bit of a fraud cos I've hardly been contributing at all lately. I've been busy working on my web site since I'm due to have my first ever article published and I'm plugging it.

I'm also a bit shame-faced with Wikipedians since the last meet I ended up getting escorted from the restaurant after continually trying to smoke in the non-smoking section (I remember nothing about it but Angela told me a few days after).

But I may pop along, see how I feel... things are a bit strange at the moment. Thanks for thinking of me. Hope you're well. Best, --[[User:Bodnotbod| bodnotbod »  .....TALK Q uietly  )  ]] 05:00, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

American West and U.S. West need your review
Will you please review American West an U.S. West I strongly believe these articles be merged and am somewhat suspicous of the American West article as it seems to be very POV and biased against the use of the census bureau regions as well as far to authoratative on what is and shouldn't be included in the region. I am far to frustrated and angry to deal effectively with these people at this point in time, if you want to know why please e-mail me. -JCarriker 07:46, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)


 * Jay I'll take a look, but it'll be the weekend probably bedore i get enough time. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 22:05, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Dispute about RfC protocol.
Greetings. User:HistoryBuffEr and I are having a disagreement about the protocol of an RfC page here, and I wonder if you could lend your expertise.

HistoryBuffEr started an RfC against me, and I responded in the Response section. Several other users endorsed the Response. HistoryBuffer commented on the various users' endorsements in the same section. It seemed to me that the Response section wasn't the place for the complainant to make further accusations or other statements, so I moved these comments to talk. Was this an appropriate thing for me to do? HistoryBuffEr objected, and moved the comments back. So where should these comments go? Any help you could offer would be appreciated. Thanks. – Quadell (talk) (help)  20:29, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

cc: User talk:Ambi, User talk:Ta bu shi da yu, and User talk:Neutrality.


 * I haven't edit-warred with HistoryBuffEr, but I have encountered him. For instance, on Rachel Corrie, I went to the talk page and tried to work out a solution. He took my questions as insults, I think, although I didn't mean them that way. (I never actually edited the article page at all, however.) The same thing happened on Sabra and Shatila Massacre, and there I actually made a change, which he reverted. I did not revert him back, however.   – Quadell (talk) (help)   13:39, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)
 * I just wanted to chime in here and add my support to Quadell's statement. As someone who has had to read and examine all 1,087 edits by HistoryBuffEr, I can tell you that Quadell's experience with HistoryBuffEr reflects the experience of 90% of editors who have tried to work on articles with him.  If you can find the time, please review the evidence against HistoryBuffEr in the arbitration case.  HistoryBuffEr's claims are absurd, and he has a sordid history of making false claims about users.  As someone who is familiar with his edit history, and his interaction with other Wikipedians, I can tell you that he has come into conflict with close to 90% of the editors on the pages he edits, mostly because HistoryBuffEr refuses to compromise or collaborate.  In my personal opinion, Quadell attempted to help create a compromise on pages that HistoryBuffEr was attacking, and for being a peacemaker, HistoryBuffEr "rebuffed" Quadell's valiant efforts.  I don't recall any "conflict" on Quadell's end at any time, nor can I find evidence for it.  HistoryBuffEr, on the other hand, comes into conflict with most editors, many times for no apparent logical reason, other than the fact that those editors (like Quadell) have attempted to make peace instead of edit wars. --Viriditas 01:42, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hello again. The RFC has expired without being certified by two users. I think it would be inappropriate for me to delete the page, though – could you do the honors? – Quadell (talk) (help)  12:25, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC) OK I've done it. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 13:13, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Wikimeet 3 Dec
Thanks for making me aware of it, and you're right, I am in London. But I'm going to be giving this one a miss. Maybe next time. jguk 00:20, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the invite, Theresa. As it's very short notice, unfortunately I can't make it this time -- but I hope to be able to get to the next one. Bruce, aka Agendum | Talk 00:28, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I'll be looking by, I reckon. Thanks for pointing it out! - MykReeve 15:14, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

A Message to my Fellow Candidate
Friend, The Arbitration Committee elections are almost here. I humbly ask for your vote in this election cycle. I have been a user of Wikipedia for over a year. I was here before the Community Portal, categories, or. I know how Wikipedia operates, and I am prepared to do my part to deal with problematic accounts. I wish to cut out the bureaucracy that makes our website stagnate. We need solutions to our problems now. If you want an arbitrator who believes in action, frankness, honesty, and fairness in every case, I am your arbitrator. Thank you for your time. You are under no obligation to answer this message.
 * --Paid for by Mero. for ArbCom

RfC
I have added the diffs, and an explanation as to why you might have arrived at that misaprehension. CheeseDreams 22:28, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Requests for comment/Slrubenstein

Irate
Thanks.--Jirate 23:34, 2004 Dec 2 (UTC)


 * Check my reply on the mailing list - and make sure you don't break the rule ever again Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 23:39, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * OK --Jirate 01:51, 2004 Dec 3 (UTC)

Talk:Christmas
The commercialization of Christmas has been mentioned there by cheung1303. You can make reply to this part. Click here.

HistoryBuffEr on Ariel Sharon

 * 1) (cur) (last)  06:46, 3 Dec 2004 HistoryBuffEr (The NPOV version with no objections to it replaces the POV hagiography)
 * 2) (cur) (last) 06:35, 3 Dec 2004 Viriditas m (Revert edits by HistoryBuffEr to last version by Ferkelparade. We arenot required to fallaciously "prove" a negative. You are, however, required to discuss your proposed changes on talk.)
 * 3) (cur) (last) 06:15, 3 Dec 2004 HistoryBuffEr (Updated neutral bio (still no objections in Talk))
 * 4) (cur) (last) 12:34, 2 Dec 2004 Ferkelparade m (rv)
 * 5) (cur) (last) 12:30, 2 Dec 2004 130.37.20.20 (Six-Day War and Yom Kippur War)
 * 6) (cur) (last) 09:06, 2 Dec 2004 MPerel (HistoryBuffEr, stop replacing article with your personal version)
 * 7) (cur) (last) 08:59, 2 Dec 2004 HistoryBuffEr (Restore the neutral version, to which NO objections have been made)
 * 8) (cur) (last) 08:43, 2 Dec 2004 Viriditas m (Reverted edits by HistoryBuffEr to last version by Wk muriithi. Please propose major changes in talk.)
 * 9) (cur) (last) 08:35, 2 Dec 2004 HistoryBuffEr (The more neutral bio is back, post objections in Talk (haven't seen any yet))

While his previous blocking appears to have been a mistake, this looks to me like 4 reverts in 24 hours, and is quite provocative given the recent RfC against Quadell. What do you think? Jayjg 16:23, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Blocking of HistoryBuffEr
Greetings. HistoryBuffEr has violated the 3RR (again), and I have just blocked him. I left a detailed note on his talk page here explaining my action.

The last time I blocked him, he was very upset. I was mistaken in my time frame in that instance, thinking he had reverted four times in 24 hours when he had only reverted four times in 26 hours, and I had to back down and apologize. Still, he launched an invalid RfC against me, which was, in my opinion, an attempt to punish me. He then disendorsed many of the Arbitor candidates who endorsed my summary on the RfC, which seemed to me as a way of punishing them as well.

I am quite sure the blocking this time was appropriate – I dotted all my i's and crossed all my t's. But I suspect he will be no less upset. I'm asking you to keep an eye on the situation. If he acts in a vindictive way, I ask that you support me, if you feel this is deserved. – Quadell (talk) (help)  16:57, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm happy to keep an eye on things but not tonight. I'm off to the London wikimeet now so I won't be online again until tomorrow. Theresa Knott  (The snott rake) 17:12, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Okay. Have fun!   – Quadell (talk) (help)   18:14, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

arbitration
Do you have any more questions for me? If so please submit them as soon as possible. I'm hoping to give a closing statement in the evidence talkpage because people seem to have run out of submissions. Thank you. Arminius 03:50, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * No I think I've said everything there is to be said. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 19:54, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If you would, could you make a statement in full of why permanent desyosping is necessary in your opinion. Being one of the two main parties to the case your input is very important. I would really appreciate it as I answered all of your questions and responded to each of your statements as requested. Thank you. Arminius 22:28, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The meet
Obviously I didn't make it. I couldn't really justify the expense this close to Christmas. How was it? --[[User:Bodnotbod| bodnotbod »  .....TALK Q uietly  )  ]] 08:21, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)
 * It was great fun - though I did get home rather later than I intended)


 * Was nice to have met you last night, albeit briefly. I had to leave as I'd had too much to drink - but I did enjoy myself. In other news, you have my vote for AbCom. Martin TB 16:04, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Likewise, twas good to meet you there, Theresa. Always good to be able to put a realworld face to a name! :o) &mdash; OwenBlacker 16:08, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)


 * And it was good to meet the two of you! Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 19:48, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

input
There's a discussion under way on the appropriateness of a particular illustration at Woman. Since you always seem to have good sense, yet no prudery, I wonder if you'd care to comment on it. I'm interested in your opinion (though I'd feel better about asking for it if I were sure you'd agree with me). - Nunh-huh 19:12, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Salvation Army article
Dear Theresa

I know you're very busy but I think the Salvation Army article needs someone reponsible looking at it from time to time. If you look at its history and talk you'll see that in the past it has been subject to what may be interpreted as attacks or unwarranted modifications from pro- and anti- SA people.

I would love to think that I could keep an eye on this article, in which I at one time had an incidental interest, but as I am an ex-Wikipedia person - someone whom I think you did not know - trying to break my habit of editing, it's not likely to be me.

Please don't worry if it's not something you want to get into; I am sure that a balance will continue to re-establish itself sooner or later.

Regards, Gonegonegone 19:41, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I've added it to my watchlist. I'll try and keep an eye on things but I am very busy so I'll not promise anything. I'm sure you right though. The wiki way leads to balance in the long run. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 19:57, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * That's great, thank you so much. Gonegonegone 19:59, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Nevada-Tan
There's currently a debate on ifd here on whether or not to delete Image:Nevada-Tan.jpg. I was curious what your opinion would be. – Quadell (talk) (help)  01:17, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks
Many thanks for your very kind words. I appreciate them more than you know. - Keeper of Records 06:52, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Blocked Bush vandal
Just wanted to let you know I went ahead and blocked the Bush vandal 142.22.16.59 after several warnings. I feel that it was at the point where blocking was necessary. Pakaran (ark a pan) 21:26, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I support that. I was about to do it myself. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 21:27, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

ExplorerCDT
Hi, are you able to find time to look at this chap? Some other users are prematurely hassling him with a RfA on the same subject, which may explain some of his dismissive behavior to his talk page at present. But I do think his initial behavior in redirecting some pages that were (and still are) subject to an ongoing VfD discussion was rather provocative.
 * Summary of my complaints against ExplorerCDT

Am I overreacting? His initial action and his apparent refusal to discuss it seem a little unfriendly. I won't take it further unless I see him repeating his initial actions; it may be that he feels that anybody who questions his actions is part of some kind of posse out to get him (which they obviously won't be able to by this silly RfA).

Thanks --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 02:47, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * To be honest Tony. I think you are overreacting a bit.It's probably best to leave things alone. I'll keep an eye on things, but although deleting comments from talk pages is a bit rude - it's not against policy and he's not the only person to do it. If the argument continues I'll try talking to him - as I'm not involved he may take more kindly to comments from me. But hopefully things will simply calm down by themselves. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 09:53, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. It's on the list of faux pas, and I can testify that when done like this it is rather frustrating. What he's doing is refusing to defend his actions or explain them. I'm not involved in writing the pages in question (I think it's flogging a dead horse, frankly) but I am involved in the VfD discussion. The same was true of ExplorerCDT, I think, until he intervened.

I went ahead and made an entry on RfC. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 11:16, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * It was successful. In my complaint I said that ExplorerCDT "should either give an acceptable defence of his pre-emptive actions, or undertake not to pre-empt ongoing VfD discussions again."  I was even willing to be convinced that a redirect during an ongoing VfD might be justified if handled sensitively.  While ExplorerCDT seems to think that we're making "a crazily unnecessary crisis intervention as if I were addicted to Heroin and hurting people", he has in fact backed down without any fuss.  He's written three times more on this in the past five hours than he did in the previous thirty. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 22:37, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * That's good news. I'm glad the situation has been resolved. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 22:40, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

urgent request
Would you please look at Postmodernity? I thought the first paragraph was awful and rewrote it; Stirling Newberry had objections (valid ones) to what I wrote and reverted. But he kept the awful paragraph. I had a nother go at it, rewrote it to accomodate his earlier objections. He has since called me a vandal and I believe he has broken the three revert rule. He refuses to engage my comments on the talk page, and simply reverts the paragraph I worked on -- one that is accurate and NPOV. Slrubenstein

I'm happy to take a look tomorrow. It's 11pm here now and i'm off to bed. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 23:00, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing
Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:
 * Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
 * Multi-Licensing Guide
 * Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the " " template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:


 * Option 1
 * I agree to multi-license all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

OR
 * Option 2
 * I agree to multi-license all my contributions to any U.S. state, county, or city article as described below:

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace " " with "  ". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)


 * You can do whatever you want with images. If you'd like to multi-license your images, feel free to add an inclusion right before the template banner on your page, for example:


 * I agree to multi-license all my text and image contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:


 * The text you add before the template will take priority over the template banner itself because it says "...unless otherwise stated..."   – Ram-Man (comment) (talk)   15:28, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

Congratulations!
On being balanced, wise and polite. A rare combination! Intrigue 22:18, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Thank you - I like to think funny as well, but tastes vary. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 22:26, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * And humble...! Intrigue 05:40, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Well I used to suffer from a lack of humbleness but I've cured that and so am practically perfect now ;-) Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 14:12, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Your names
Hi Theresa, I've been a Wikipedia editor for about five weeks now, and I just want to say how much I enjoy seeing your name pop up, so I can see what your latest name-in-brackets is. They're hilarious. I've been trying to think of a new one for you, but the best I could come up with was hotter-snake-T, which isn't very good. I think I'll leave it to the expert. :-) Slim


 * The way you say that seems to imply that I am an expert on anagrams. I am not. If you check the archives of this talk page you will see that the various anagrams I currently used have all (with the exception of "taste the korn") been thought up by other people. I am eternaly grateful to everyone who makes me look good in this way, and I don't think hotter snake T is bad at all. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 14:10, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Might i suggest The wordsmith anagram generator? Sadly, the only viable thing I can find for myself is "A SORDID DOG PAGER".  Best, DropDeadGorgias (talk) 22:34, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)

Arminius
Neutrality would like to drop his complaint against Arminius, Requests for arbitration/Arminius. What do you think? Fred Bauder 12:55, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)


 * Hmm I don't know. I'd feel a lot happier about dropping the matter if Armenius had apologogised to Chameleon. I no longer believe that he needs stripping of admin powers though, and i do think he had learned a lesson from this RfAr. What will happen to the evidence page if the matter is dropped? Will it be deleted or archived?


 * I'd like to hear what Chameleon thinks about this. After all, he did file an RFAfb on Arminius the day before.  Then this case superseded that, as it contains essentially the same complaint.  This is not simply a private dispute between Arminius & Neutrality; it's about alleged misuse of powers granted by the community.  It seems to me that under the circumstances, the entire community &mdash; not just Neutrality &mdash; should affirm Arminius's privileges with a vote of confidence.  If he is re-elected, then the matter really would be over.  If he cannot win re-election, should he really be a sysop anyway?  Wolfman 15:08, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I too would like to hear what Chameleon thinks - but he's left the project hasn't he? So there's nothing that can be done there. I'm not sure about a vote of confidence though - how would such a thing work? Would it be majority or consensus? Thinking about it, it would probably be a mess. I'd rather just the the AC members vote actually. I'm thinking out loud here but it seems to me that this is really a very straightfoward case. I can't really understand why the AC hasn't decided on it already. The facts look pretty clear to me - he abused his powers.(there is no doubt about that surely?) He is apologetic and asks for forgiveness and to have his good history taken into account. He falls sahort of apologising to chameleon though. Possible remedies in order of severity are -


 * 1) Ban him from wikipedia
 * 2) remove his admin powers and make him go through RFA if he wants them back
 * 3) direct him not to use his admin powers for say 3 months (on pain of having them removed as above)
 * 4) Put him on some kind of temp parole where other admins are asked to keep an eye on him, revert him and report back to the AC if he errs again.
 * 5) tell him off and warn him not to do it ever again.
 * 6) Offer no punishment at all because he's learned his lesson.

Because of his behaviour after the RFAr is better than i expected, I personally would like to remove my request for desysopping. But i think the Arb Com probably should at least look at the case. Abuses of admin power should, at the very least be investigated by the AC. Justice needs to be seen to be done. There have been a lot of complaints that it's impossible to desysop an admin who abuses his or her power. If this case is dropped then it will look like there is a sort of old boy network, where the admins stick together to protect their own. I am an admin after all, and so it neutrality I think. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 15:31, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * There is precedent for a vote, as Guanaco was just put up for a re-vote last week, Requests_for_adminship/Guanaco. He apparently failed, and ironically enough Arminius voted against him.  Ideally, the outcome would be that Arminius has community support re-affirmed.  I myself would vote for him, if he acknowledged his error and apologized to Chameleon.


 * In principle a vote should be fine, the community gave the powers, surely they can revoke them. On the other hand, you don't want to drive away Arminius from Wikipedia if he views it as an embarrassing and unfair punishment.  Of course, that's pretty much happened with Chameleon.  Whether he's truly left the project is unclear, often times people leave in a huff but come back a few months later.  At any rate, he could be emailed.


 * So, I don't know what the right outcome is. But, I do think the right process is for arbcom to make a decision.  While Neutrality and Arminius may have worked it out, the offense was not against Neutrality.  And though I personally have a high regard for Neutrality, I completely agree with your point about how it will appear if the case is dropped based on his private negotiations. Wolfman 15:57, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * #2, #4, and #5 sound good to me . [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/talk]] 02:21, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)

No admin should fear a vote if they have done the right thing. The community will always support good admins. There are far too many incidents, though, of the abuse of power, and it's good to show that admins are not above the law, rather than close ranks. Dr Zen 03:02, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * The only reason he is before the AC is because he did the wrong thing! The trouble with voting is - anyone is allowed to vote. What I mean by that is that the voters don't even have to actually read the evidence page, they can vote no for trivial reasons - their vote will still be counted. This has actually happened on RFA before. They could vote no because they are a troll or a trouble maker and Armenius has blocked them. They could be the sockpuppets of troublemakers. They could gang together and try to round up oppostion - I've seen this happen. RFA can be pretty unplesent sometimes people vote no becasue they dont like something on a candidates user page, people vote no because they don't like someones name, or the number of edits they have made recently, or for any other reason. They could vote no because he voted no to Guanaco (I think it was perhaps a little unwise of Armenius to vote  on Guanaco at all btw) We have an abitration committee. They were set up to abitrate. They should do so in this case. If we are going to let the community vote on matters of arbitration we should scrap the AC and go back to quickpolls - which would be stupid IMO but there you go. Theresa Knott  (The snott rake) 11:44, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * On reflection, I think you're right. We're a representative, not direct, democracy on judicial matters for a reason.  Arbcom should have made the decision on Guanaco; we elect them to make the tough decisions.  If they had de-admined him, then Guanaco could always have appealed to the broader community by re-applying for adminship.  Wolfman 18:16, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * That is effectively what happened. Guanaco was desysopped and had to ask the community whether he retained its trust. And whether justice is administered one way or the other, it ought to be seen to be done. In Guanaco's case, it has been. And Theresa, yes, people can vote for trivial or mean reasons. That's the problem with a democracy. You can't force everyone to consider their votes wisely. Dr Zen 01:47, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Which is exactly why matters of justice are never sorted out by a popular vote. Wikipedia isn't a democracy. It's an encylopedia. If the AC think Armenius need to be desysooped they can do that. He can always reapply for adminship from the community later. But so far those that have indicated thier views state that they dont want that. We have an AC to sort these things out. Theresa Knott  (The snott rake) 07:06, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If I had a dispute with you, would I get justice from the Arbcom? I suspect our answers to that would differ.Dr Zen 23:04, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I hate to say this, becuase my experience with AC had up to this point been pretty good. Their decisions seemed OK if somewhat slow. But in this case, I am dissapointed. In my view, this is about as simple a case as can be. The evidence of what happened is clear, and not really in dispute. Yet i get the distinct impression that the arbitrators didn't look at the evidence. Armenius has had this hanging over his head for weeks, when it could have been delt with in a metter of days. Now it looks as if they intend to close the case without making any kind of a statement whatsoever. And what will happen to the evidence page? Will it be kept or deleted? Does closing the case mean that Armenius is cleared of charges of wrongdoing? Clearly not - becasue if that was the case they AC would say so wouldn't they?


 * On another matter look at this If what is claimed on that page is true then the AC do not seem to be acting fairly. Ta bu shi da yu certainly feels that justice is not being done.


 * The AC hasn't always been like this. I get the distinct impression that, becasue of the current election, many of the members just can't be bothered at the moment. So to answer your question - I think that if we had a dispute, that needed arbitration right now then there is a real possibility that neither of us will get justice. (I bet you weren't expecting that were you?) Hopefully that will change in the new year, with the injection of some new members. I am up for election, and if i win a place I will push hard for reorganisation so that AC members workload is reduced, so they don't tire out, that checks are made that punishments are fair, and that decisions are made quickly.(electioneering bit over) I have nothing against the individual AC members. They are all upstanding guys, and i have the greatest respect for each of them. It's they way the AC is set up that causes these problems.


 * Having said all that though. I don't think that the cure for the AC problems is to allow the community to vote on the issues. We had a similar system of quickpolls a while back which was abandoned because it wasn't seen as fair. No what needs to be done is - fix the AC. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 21:15, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Write in C
Why is my article incorrect? What's wrong with it? --Cheung1303 02:09, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

What are you on about? I've never even looked that article let alone said it was incorrect. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 07:07, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Your RFC page
Hi Theresa- Long time no see. Anyway, there's a lot of buzz around the policy about deleting RFC pages if they are not certified within 48 hours. Due to a compromise on Wikipedia:Administrator's noticeboard#Deleting RFCs, I deleted jguk's, and I wanted to know if you wanted me to delete yours as well (a delete tag was placed on the page, but not by you). The only reason I could think that you might want to keep it is that I believe that it is part of the RFC and RFA evidence against User:CheeseDreams. It shouldn't be a big deal in either case. Obviously, even if the RFC stays around, it's quite clear from the context that no one agreed with the premise of the RFC. Cheers, DropDeadGorgias (talk) 22:23, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)
 * I don't have a problem with keeping the rfc. I do think there should be some sort of notice on it saying that the rfc failed to be certified and so people shouldn't comment on it though. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 08:55, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Good point... We should bring this up in one of the ongoing discussion; there should be a set of templates for ongoing and closed RFCs. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 14:50, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

Response
I've seen your reply. Why can't I copy the full text of the original? --Cheung1303 00:55, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you are talking about. Please assume that i cannot read minds and give me some more to go on ;-) Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 21:35, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Emilia
I've found some information about Swedish singer Emilia. Can you find more information to complete this article? --Cheung1303 00:55, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * That great - but i don't know anything about this singer, so i wont be expanding this article. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 21:40, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sockpuppeter
I know - tried it, didn't work - page too big for my proxy to allow upload, it seemed. Failed 4 times, worked when I fixed the accidental edit though. Damn Websense. Kiand 21:31, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Removing comments
That's fine. Thanks for letting me know. I am trying to be sympathetic to CheeseDreams while leading him/her away from the disastrous course he/she is on.Dr Zen 22:52, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The Link REIT
Can you find more information about this article? Help complete it! --Cheung1303 02:46, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Only if you say please. Masterhomer 20:32, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Even then No. Cheung our sphere of interests do not overlap. It is highly unlikely that I will be interested in working on the same articles as you. You will find that if you just wait - someone eventually will come and work on the article. Or you could add it to cleanup- that might speed things along. HTH. Theresa Knott  (The snott rake) 20:37, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Can I help?
Hi Theresa. I notice that you're trying to resolve a dispute with Robert the Bruce, and I wondered whether I might be able to help? I understand that Robert is concerned about possible bias on your part. While I don't share his conviction in that respect, I'm fairly confident that he will have no problem with me. I don't think that normal Wiki procedures allow for 'job-sharing' mediation, and obviously I'm just a 'rookie' editor, but if it'll help with resolving the situation, I say we should be flexible. What do you think? - Jakew 13:05, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Anything you can do to help will be greatly appreciated. If we can resolve the situation without involving the arbitration committee it would benefit everyone. I am very grateful to you for your offer. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 18:58, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Ok, so what's the next step? Would you like to propose this to Robert, or shall I? - Jakew 19:11, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I think it would be better coming from you. Perhaps you could ask him to withdraw his claims that I abused admin powers? He has said this several times, but I've never actually used admin powers against him. He has accused others of abusing admin powers when, when they haven't even been admins - he seems to feel that throwing accusations around is perfectly acceptable. I've repetedly told him to takes his evidence the the arbitration committee. But he wont (well he cant, becasue i didn't do it). This is very important to me. I'll put up with a lot, but telling lies about me is not on. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 19:22, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Ok, I've suggested this to Robert on his user talk page. I don't know the details about Robert's allegations, so I won't comment. We need some space to discuss matters, and obviously your talk page isn't the right place. What should we do? Create a sub-page on Robert's? - Jakew 20:15, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Create a subpage on yours would be better IMO. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 20:17, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Ok. User talk:Jakew/resolve. See you there. - Jakew 13:34, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Double block
Heya, please note you and Ahoerstemeir both blocked 144.92.184.25, giving him double block time (I think). Not that that's necessarily a bad thing. &0xfeff;--fvw *  23:13, 2004 Dec 16 (UTC) I don't think it causes any problems. The shorter block wins in cases like this (I think) Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 23:15, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ma On Shan (KCRC)
This article is listed on WP:FAC. Do you agree with my way to do it? --218.103.188.199 13:03, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Hellow Cheung. No I don't agree. The article is nowhere near up to the satandard required. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 08:44, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Congrats
Congratulations on being the winner in the arbitration committee election. I'm sure you'll make a fine arbitrator. →Raul654 00:28, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)
 * Congratulations! You'll be a great Arbitrator. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/talk]] 00:30, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)
 * Congratulations, Theresa. How does one find out about these things?  I'm too new to vote but I took an interest.  What I cannot find anywhere is a page showing results of the election. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 00:46, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Just chiming in, Congratulations Theresa! &0xfeff;--fvw *  01:05, 2004 Dec 19 (UTC)

Congratulation on your well-deserved victory. &mdash;Charles P. (Mirv) 01:46, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Very impressive. Very Verily 01:52, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well done and good luck. Mackensen (talk) 05:37, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The community has its wits about itself after all. I echo Mirv's comment; well-deserved indeed. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 08:19, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

BTW, have you selected which length of term you want - you get first pick, as first-placed. There's 1 1-year, 2 2-years, and 3 4-years. Thanks. James F. (talk) 16:21, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I believe this is inaccurate. There is one one-year, two two-year, and four three-year slots.  Either that or I majorly misunderstood the instructions.  (You might want to reconsider your decision based on this.) Very Verily  23:58, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"To you from failing hands we throw / the torch, be yours to hold it high" -- :-) Theresa, enjoy your term as an arbitrator -- while it is a stressful and consuming position, it is a vital one, and I am glad to see a friend and an excellent contributor stepping onto the AC as I step off of it.  If you ever find yourself losing perspective or sanity due to your duties, drop by my talk page for some sympathy and an anagram or two. :-)  Don't let the trolls get you down. Merry Christmas, and good luck in your work as a teacher -- Jwrosenzweig 22:27, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thank you everyone, I'm shocked that I won, but very pleased. I think I'll take one of the two year terms if that's OK. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 23:06, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Of course it's OK - it's your decision. I've put you down for that on the Arbitration Committee page, since we need to let other people pick their terms too (so if you change your mind, please do it quickly). Congratulations, by the way, and in honor of the occasion I leave you with the best anagram I could manage for this particular subject. --Calm whine so 00:46, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes indeed, congratulations! I know you'll do well. I have filed a Friend-of-the-ArbCom briefing for you to read at your leisure. – Quadell (talk) (help)  18:00, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)


 * Excellent! Finally we have an arbitrator with a beautiful pair of tits. It was about time! Cogratulations. --Zappaz 19:52, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I would also like to extend my congratulations to you. And Merry Christmas! - Xgkkp 01:03, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Please take a look at...
Theresa, I recently requested a change to the Wikipedia_talk:Three_revert_rule article. It's being ignored altogether so far. Could you have a look please? I may be being too pedantic, but it seems to me that confusion still arises, all too often. From understanding of the rule, to put it as unambiguously as possible, I think the bold text should go on to say: "That is to say, after reverting an article, do not do so again more than two times within 24 hours of the initial revert." - Jakew 00:00, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * It looks fine by me. Since you are only clarifying a point and not trying to change the policy, I'd just be bold if I were you and put it in. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 00:06, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

question
I have been away for several days. Am I to understand that CheeseDreams has been banned from editing Jesus related articles, or is this only a proposal? I ask only because I want to know when you think the Cultural and historical background of Jesus article will be unblocked. If you think that is premature, at least it is, perhaps, the time to start considering when/under what circumstances it should be unblocked. Slrubenstein 02:04, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I don't know. I don't actually become an arbitrator until the 1st of January. I haven't looked into this case yet I'm afraid. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 17:00, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Christmas
How do you spend your Christmas. For over 140 years, this festival has been the greatest means for the shops and merchants to make promotions, such as Red Hot Deal, bargains, etc., to let people from the states and provinces come to large cities for shopping. Do you agree with this point? What else do you think that the true meaning of Christmas has long been violated by commercial means? --Cheung1303 05:57, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Theresa knott blocked 69.194.194.27
Thank you, my revert-finger was getting decidedly sore. &0xfeff; --fvw *  00:21, 2004 Dec 21 (UTC)

Sorry.
Sorry about reverting you. Pressed the wrong button.

James F. (talk) 03:11, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Tsim Sha Tsui East (KCRC)
I have moved a part of East Rail to Tsim Sha Tsui East (KCRC). Do you find anything wrong? --202.75.80.3 06:05, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

A vandal needs blocking
Hi Theresa: Please see Vandalism in progress for (62.255.64.6 | talk | contributions) This anonymous user is vandalising page after page. See:  (Even Jimbo's User page vanadlized!)   requiring reverts by many editors. Block requested. Thank you. IZAK 08:45, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * This vandal hasn't edited in 15 hours or so, a block might be unnecessary. BLANKFAZE  |  (что??)  08:50, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict with Blankfaze) Well he's stopped now so either he's been blocked by someone already or he's got bored and gone away. I'll keep an eye on things, but you don't need to worry too much. Anyone who repeatedly vandalises Wikipedia will get noticed pretty quickly and blocked. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 08:52, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I hope he really has got bored and run off. That IP number and one or two others that have been intermittently blocked over the past couple of weeks are NTL web proxies, at least for broadband customers. When he is blocked it means I have trouble editing too. If it goes on much longer I suppose I'll have to have a word with NTL and ask if they can identify the customer and tell him to knock it off. Are there any Wiki resources to help if I have to do this? Form letter complaints, contact numbers for Wikipedia, etc? --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 11:10, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm on NTL too. Cache proxies are a pain for us,though they do make sense for the ISP and will probably become wever more popular. I intend to start reducing the duration of my blocks and hope that other admins follow. Ithink that a short block will deter most vandals just as well as a 24 hour one with less disruption to innocent users. I don't think there are any form letter complaints, but wikipedia is too big for me to know every page now. Certainly some people did write to AOL but I believe the response was that they couldn't care less. Theresa Knott  (The snott rake) 11:37, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Well I can see AOL's point. Seen from the outside this is a strange site, one that deliberately, as a matter of policy, makes every single page editable by any person who visits.  If as a web administrator I got an email from someone representing a site like that, complaining that my users had vandalized his site, I'd advise him to tighten up his own security policy.  I wish some of the dyed-in-the-wool wiki people would agree to block non-logged-in edits.  Would we really drive that many people away by asking them to type in a username and password the first time they edited? --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 13:18, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid i'm one of those dyed in the wool types. At the moment (and things might change in the future) vandalism isn't enough of a problem to warrent making anons log in to edit. Most vandalism can be dealt with by reverting. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 20:11, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Foundation issues is still the final say on that one, tony. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam]] Spade wishes you a merry Christmas! 20:52, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * However if multiple ISPs go the way of AOL and not only use proxies, but spread the work over multiple proxies such that a user will get a different proxy every time they look at a new page, and if we get a large number of determined vandals like Mr Treason, then it's possible that we will have no choice but to require log ins. Having said that, we are nowhere near that point at the moment. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 21:02, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * From a user point of view, it's a pain to be a logged in user and still be IP-blocked. I just realised that if the software skipped the IP block for logged-in users, this would be enough for me. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 23:29, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Clarification
Hi. I wanted to clarify that I was not at all posing the argument that user:Lir's aforementioned response to me was a personal attack – he was only legitimizing a personal attack. In response to 198's you know boy I fought in 'Nam against commies like you, Lir responded with: I believe what User:198 is saying is that even after the tragedy of Vietnam, he is willing to sit down and negotiate with you. Charming, no? ;) Also, interesting how user:198 automatically assumes throughout that I'm male. He is fond of calling me "boy" (several instances) and now also "young lady," but consistently falls short of spelling my oh-so complex username (all four characters) correctly! When he returns, I predict with some certainty that this note will be used as further 'evidence' of personal attacks on my part. At any rate, back to the actual clarification: I was making a general point(about a general tendency), one directed towards the conduct of both user:Lir (esp. the attack you cited), user:198, and others. I believe it is a valid point.

As for your plans to eventually take over the whole world (probably!) with your knotted algorythms, I'm wondering if you have seen the following flash thingy http://www.broom.org/epic/ &mdash; it isn't that funny, but is notable in that you and your robot minions (and WP, in general) are in the clear! For now, at least!

Your humble human opponent, El_C

When 198 comes back I'll try to help. I think i have a reasonable relationship with him, so i may be able to calm things down between the two of you. I hope so anyway. Thanks for the link. I have no speakers at home so I'll have to wait until I go back to work in the new hear before I can understand it. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 22:44, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Wrong
I unblocked Wiesenthaler (whatever the spelling is) because UtherSRG blocked him indefinitely. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:07, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * OK, I'll not unblock. However, we have copyrighted material on the main user page. I'm concerned about this and am considering deleting that page. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:27, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Its fine to delete it as far as I am concerned, but you might want to consider putting it through VFD first. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 23:32, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

3RR Violation by Irishpunktom
Hello, this is over at Yasser Arafat

Irishpunktom reverted 4x in 23 minutes as follows:

Reverted Jayjg 23:44 Dec 22 to his previous version

Reverted Mperel 23:35 Dec 22 to his previous version

Reverted Jayjg 23:27 Dec 22 to his previous version

Reverted Jayjg 23:21, Dec 22  to his previous version

Actually reverted a fifth time under his ip 195.7.55.146 12:23 Dec 22 to his previous version

--MPerel 00:32, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)

p.s. - I've posted this at User talk:Blankfaze, User talk: Mirv, User talk: Ta bu shi da yu, and User talk:Theresa knott to get admin assistance. Thank you.


 * Err.. Why didn't you just talk to me?

"The snot rake?" "The snot rake?"
I think you should ban yourself for making a personal attack on yourself.

(And don't you dare try to find any anagrams for "Dan Smith.")

Dpbsmith (talk) 00:13, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I would ban myself but I know I'd circumvent my ban by creating a sockpuppet. For that's the kind of person I am. I try to be good but i just can't help myself. Since you dared me to create an anagram of your name I've come up with "Damn Shit" apt? you be the judge. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 00:39, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Autobiography (album)
Hi, I know you probably have a lot more interesting things to do today, but if some time you could take a look at Talk:Autobiography_(album), in particular Everyking's current campaign of reverting every single change made by other editors, I'd appreciate it. I think that he is acting unreasonably and he thinks everybody else is by making what he called "radical" edits. I'd just like to be able to work with other editors to bring this article to a standard that would make it worthy of Featured Article status before the subject matter becomes stale. Maybe a word with the user will persuade him to cooperate rather than simply using the revert as a weapon to keep the article as it is. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:29, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I do not revert every single change made by other editors. I revert massive removals of content when that is done without discussion and consensus. Please do not misrepresent my position and try to drag my name through the mud. Everyking 15:48, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Okay, fine. I've asked you to demonstrate that someone has engaged in "massive removals of content." I hereby repeat the request. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:54, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hi I'm sure this can be sorted. Unlike some disputes, where a bunch of POV pushers get involved this is a dispute amoung reasonable people. Reasonable people should be able to work together shouldn't they? It is christmas after all. Can I make a suggestion? Try Slooooooooooooooowwiiiiiiiiing the editing down to a snails pace. Make you changes tiny. That way no one will be tempted to revert. It might be a good idea to stop editing altogether for a while and give everyone a change to cool down a bit. I will come to the page but not for a couple of days, may family make totally unreasonable demands on my time at this time of year ("get off that bloody computer and come and eat dinner with the rest of us you unsociable cow") totally out of order, but resistance is futile. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 22:39, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Very sensible. You, I mean. Have a good Christmas. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:26, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * You too! (I'm off to bed now - when i get up it's presents!) Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 23:28, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm not trying to be an ass by saying this, but I think I should make a point in my defense that I have been saying all along exactly what you are saying, Theresa: that edits should be done gradually, with the focus on discussion rather than potentially controversial edits until things are worked out. Tony says it's sensible coming from you, and it is, but apparently he doesn't think so when I say it. This is the sort of thing that has led me to believe that Tony has formed an opinion against me that is interfering with simple content discussion. Everyking 03:08, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Wishing you the best
Just dropping you a note wishing you a very Happy Holiday and that this New Year may bring you and your loved ones happiness and lots of joy. I would also like to congatulate you on your AC Nom. I'm glad I vote for you. Your friend in Wikipedia Tony the Marine

Arbitration list
I apologize for the delay in adding you to the list. I have sent you an e-mail about it. Let me know if you don't get it. Nohat 19:39, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

RfC
If you don't mind me asking, I'd appriciate your support at Requests for comment/Mbecker. Thanks. &mdash; マイケル   ₪  04:44, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)

Iridology
Theresa, I would like to commend you for you balanced, sensible & (most of all) fair approach to the aggressive, biased comments on the discussion page. If I could award you a barnstar, I would. Axl 20:42, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Fvw showed me how to add a barnstar. So I did. :-) Axl 21:19, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thank you

Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 22:56, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Science Fiction article
surprisingly lightweight? almost zerogee? Hi Theresa... Like your diagrams etc on Wikibooks, A thankless task? -- I am guessing you like SF... So do you think the SF article is pretty crap? I am considering a full refurbishment ... But is there a limit on article size? (64 kb or something?) Oh and by the way... how do i leave time stamps utc etc ?? Thanks groover max rspct p.s like your blue snott rake
 * Thanks for the tildes HotKnees; i wasn't aware of Hard science fiction article, the categories list ... i never know where to start ;) max rspct 14:56, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Unverified images
Hi. You uploaded Image:Face with objects combined.png but did not list any source and/or copyright information on the image description page. Please mark it either as GFDL or public domain. See Image copyright tags for more info. If the image was uploaded in error or cannot be licensed for use on Wikipedia, please add it to images for deletion. Please note that images without copyright information may be deleted in the future. Thanks. RedWolf 23:05, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)
 * Image:Elliptical trajectory on ripples.png 119 07:58, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

New Year, Old Problem
Happy New Year, and congrats on the AC post! I wish I could leave the comment at that, but unfortunately I must petition for your assistance. Several months ago you interceded in a revert war over two articles: Winter Soldier Investigation and Vietnam Veterans Against the War. In an excellent effort toward productive compromise you contacted the most active editors of the articles, set up temporary article sandboxes for discussion and modification, and pushed for a set-by-step resolution of any outstanding issues. You, Ed Poor, JamesMLane and several unregistered editors all pitched in. Of note was the absence of user TDC, the instigator of the unexplained reverts, in the proceedings you had set up. While he continued to make edits elsewhere on Wikipedia, he refused to participate in your discussions. See your archives here:. Now, months later, user TDC is reverting the same articles without discussion once again. Worse still, he has reverted away any changes that resulted from the discussions you promoted, as well as spelling and grammar edits, formatting edits, etc., made over the past few months -- and through repeated reverts has managed to get the articles locked into their corrupted state with Page Protections. May I impose upon you to have a go once again at putting a stop to this mayhem? The articles should be unprotected and the content developed through collaboration over the past several months restored, at the very least. Changes should then be proposed and discussed reasonably on the Discussion pages, and implemented in an orderly fashion. Any help would be appreciated. -Rob

RfC Cheung
Congratulations on ArbCom, Theresa, I was very glad to see those results. But I'm a bit upset. If the suspicions against Cheung and Jeffery have turned out to be erroneous, why is the RfC on Cheung still live, with a link from the main RfC page, and with no retraction of the harsh words about sockpuppetry and transparent deception? I don't at all blame you guys for harboring these suspicions, it was obviously a very difficult call, and people have put in a lot of work and had a lot of patience with Cheung, but why is it still there? It fooled me into spreading the obsolete information further afield and I don't see what's to stop it fooling others. :-( On a different note, did you get my e-mail about David R a few days ago?--Bishonen | Talk 00:10, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The rfc on Cheung is still live because it still needs to be. He still needs keeping an eye on for the time being. His copyvios get deleted so they don't appear in his contributions list. I will go and clarify it though so that the Jeffery issue is cleared up. (I'll do it in the morning though)

No I did not get your email. I thought it a bit strange that I didn't get any emails at all for a couple of days - bloody Gmail - that's the second time they have lost emails for me in the space of a month. Could you send it again please. 22:59, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Alberuni
Your votes there have me a little bit confused - you've voted against a 3 month ban for personal attacks, and then voted to support both a one month and a full-year ban. Was this intentional? Ambi 04:35, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Requesting Arbitration
Hey Theresa, I was wondering if there was any way you could take a look over here and here and look at the situation with Gzornenplatz. It's been this huge and major edit war that's errupted these past few days. Thanks!! Páll 18:30, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Joey Yung
cheung1303 has posted a web link (not included in the external link) to an article discussing the future concert across 2005/06. You may view it and reply to cheung1303. --202.40.210.164 06:40, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sheesh; tag your images, pet
mutter mutter Image:Streak plates.png mutter mutter. --Tagishsimon (talk)

Ditto --Tagishsimon (talk)
 * Image:RoundTuit.png
 * Image:Round bottom flask.png

Arminius VFU
Hi. Would you mind having a look at Votes_for_undeletion? I thought his speedy of his page history was in bad form given the recent controversy over his admin activities, which is why I suspect he would have deleted it. Regardless of that, I also think it's bad for a sysop to have their talk history deleted. But given your involvement in the case, current position on arbcom, and sound judgement, I would defer to your opinion on whether such a talk history deletion is appropriate. Wolfman 05:31, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Template:blacklist
Will the administrators of Wikipedia accept this template? I have created it.Cheung1303 06:34, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Leave Robert the Bruce alone!
You should leave Robert the Bruce alone. Live and let live.

Image:Covalent.png
you claim to have reduced this to 8 colors

png DOES NOT SUPPORT 8 color images.

the image you uploaded claiming to be 8 color clearly states 4 bits per sample palletted in the IHDR chunk.

for your reference png supports

greyscale 1 bpp (black and white) 2 bpp (4 greys) 4 bpp (16 greys) 8 bpp (256 greys) 16 bpp (65536 greys)

indexed 1 bpp (2 color) 2 bpp (4 color) 4 bpp (16 color) 8 bpp (256 color)

truecolor 8 bps/24bpp (16777216 color) 16 bps/48bpp (281474976710656 color)

it also supports transparency both through an extra alpha channel and through defining certain pixel values as transparent.

Image recreation requests
Greetings. I just started the Image recreation requests project, and I thought you might be interested. Your help would be greatly appreciated. (I got your name from the list at Wikipedians/Graphic Artists.) Best regards, – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 03:13, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

Welcome back
Welcome back, Theresa. Jayjg (talk) 21:30, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Mega ditt... oh, wrong room. I'm glad to see you back! :) --mav 23:27, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! Things were just getting to me a bit. I needed a break. Plus IRL I just started a new job, which is a lot more demanding than my last one. That's still true, so I'll be on Wikipedia a little less for a while - until I get settled better. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 23:40, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

All the best with your new job, Theresa Knott. El_C 00:07, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

RFA: Axon
Please see Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration, if you have not yet. (Should I have posted them here? I am unclear on which --- if any -- of the many available Talk pages on which I should be posting this sort of thing.) -- Bblackmoor 01:15, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Housecleaning
To all those on the ArbCom: Man, you guys cleaned house! Great work. My number one hope for the 2005 ArbCom was that the backlog would shrink due to prompt decisions, and you all surpassed my hopes. My hat's off to you. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 20:46, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Winter Soldier Investigation
I have a WikiHeadache. I am uncertain if you wish to involve yourself in this matter, but two articles, Winter Soldier Investigation and Vietnam Veterans Against the War, have been protected and unprotected at least 5 or 6 times this month. Two particular users, one registered, and another who prefers to remain unregistered, have been fighting over whether the content added by the unregistered user is a copyright violation. I'm being careful as to what I write, as I feel that the unregistered user is attempting aggravate me. This unregistered user claims he's being cooperative, but I'm not completely certain of the fact. The unregistered user is asking me to respond, but I don't feel like it because at the risk of saying something that may either increase my WikiStress level, or violate general Wikipedia guidelines such as Wikiquette. This unregistered user claims that I have threaten arbitration, and to an extent, this is true. I have only tried my best to resolve the dispute to the best of my abilities, but I seem to be failing at it now. The articles have been protected at least 6 times... which I think is completely unreasonable and should never happen. The issue seems to be unresolved for a very long time. I previously suggested to the unregistered user to file a requests for arbitration, but apparently it was either not done or rejected. Would you please give me some advice as to what to do? I'm very frustrated at the unregistered user at the moment, and I am hestiate to take any further action due several personal risk. The only idea I could come up with is to ask for help from experienced, wise, and councilled administrators, such as yourself. I came here, after seeing that you had made a few comments, based on the history of one of the discussion pages. I thank you for your time in reading this. Please help. -- AllyUnion (talk) 16:11, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

User NSM88
Did you look at User:NSM88? I blocked this pretty boy for 48. --Zero 10:31, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I just protected Jew. I might as well lift it now. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 10:32, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * FYI, Silsor unblocked NSM88 already. Jordi·✆ 10:36, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Oh well and I've already lifted the protection. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 10:41, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I put back the protection. I guess this will get discussed in the mailing list.  --Zero 10:48, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * You can now safely remove the protection. For the sake of the other wikipedians I will not make anymore edits to that page without discussing it on the discussion page. NSM88 10:58, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 11:26, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Removal of my rally picture
I fail to see what wikipedia policy I am breaking by using my photo here. Just because you think it shouldn't be allowed doesn't mean it isn't allowed. I understand you may not agree with my views but that does not mean I don't have the right to have those views. NSM88 12:24, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * You can have whatever views you like. If I truly believed that you held those views I would be much more ameniable to your arguments. But you are trolling. Your edits and actions are those of a sockpuppet account. Well you've hads your fun, and you did manage to wind up a few people. But I am not one of them. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 12:33, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

OK, I'll leave him alone now.
But I'm still watching him very carefully. I'll not touch his user page again, but only because you asked and I have a great deal of respect for you. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:29, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * As I do you. I love your little jokey boxes BTW. It's a shame that people are deleting them, some people have no sense of humour. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 12:35, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Cervical cancer
Yeah, I'm being flamed from both sides. Don't you love 'em, the POV-warriors? I found Robert the Bruce's message amusing in itself, considering his present Arbcom case which will have him banned for... probably a year. I don't think any of those silly frustrated circumcision men will have the remotest credibity to Arbcomm me :-) JFW | T@lk  21:14, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Unilateral block
I blocked user:Xed for insulting User:Slrubenstein. Here is the diff. I hope I don't get RFC'd and de-sysopped for this... -- Uncle Ed (talk) 21:32, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)


 * You'll get no complaints from me! Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 21:40, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Shame on you both. Please stick to official blocking policy next time.  --Zero 21:57, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree... it looks bad. There is some serious Nazi trolling going on at the moment (besides all the other edit wars)... this kind of bleary-eyedness amongst sysops is the last thing we need. are administrators subject to proper democratic contol/discussion or what? max rspct 04:33, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * You are both right.I am sorry. In answer to your question, there was discussion on the WP:AN/I the result of which another admin unblocked Xed and Ed himself unblocked Xed's IP, and emailed him informing he was unblocked. Theresa Knott  (The snott rake) 08:54, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Edit wars in the Caucuses
Wow, you're fast. It would seem to me that there's serious POV-based agenda for both sides. I just wanted to clean-up the infobox and read the article. I may have triggered some of this by using 'Repuplic of' over the infobox... &mdash; Davenbelle 22:15, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

Well, they are going to learn pretty quickly that talking is the only way. Anyone who comes in willy nilly and starts changing redirects, deleting lists and replacing them with stub notices, and generally creating a mess will have their edits reverted. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 22:28, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I have cleaned-up some of the mess. I expect you saw my edits. I also found some other links to fix, and read this article: Ramil Safarov. It give a hint at the passions people are feeling. This mess goes back centuries. &mdash; Davenbelle 23:10, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

User:64.136.2.254 is back at the article itself; his last edit removed the tag... &mdash; Davenbelle 23:40, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

User:Clarkefreak is brand-new and doing moves of the misspelled versions of pages NK pages. sigh. &mdash; Davenbelle 01:30, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

I'm keeping an eye on him. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 08:50, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I would ask that you keep an eye on me, too! I'm taking a shot at serving as a mediator on the Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh page. I do know that none of the participants have clean hands, but they are playing-nice lately. &mdash; Davenbelle 21:09, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

I'd appreciate your vote here. Thanks. &mdash; Davenbelle 14:18, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

welcoming committee
no, that wasn't very friendly of me. your point is well taken. i'm not sure if you saw where he put the picture. it clearly was in bad faith, which annoyed me quite a bit. but, i'll aspire to earn one of your cucumber awards in the future. Wolfman 00:26, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * No worries, it may very well have been in bad faith, but it's always best to assume good faith in the beginning just in case. I shall be watching out for you acting cool! Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 08:00, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

From RK (copied from my user-page)
Robert you state above that "The supposed problems are in articles in which the articles HAVE ALREADY BEEN RESOLVED, long ago!". Can you provide any evidence to back that claim up? Maybe a talk page where you have come to an amicable compromise with other editors who you disagree with?


 * Of course: Please see the list of diffs I added on the RFA page, and the articles they point to. On a related note, I call your attention to the six points I made on the Request for Arbitration page.  I made these points four months ago, and I now make them again - and so far not a single person has disagreed with them.  No one has been unable to come up with a single example of anyone getting a significant ban in this situation.  Not a single person. That alone speaks volumes! RK

In the original RFAr there is evidence of you having called people antisemites or other nasty names, called for people to be banned, accused people of being liars and vandals. Have you apologised to any of these people?


 * Are you under the impression that I alone made remarks about this? Some of the people that I worried about being anti-Semites were identified as making anti-Semitic edits by others as well. Yet none of the others who had similar complaints were banned. Some of the people I criticised openly wrote Nazi propaganda, and I had presented significant amounts of proof for this. In fact, one of these people eventually claimed that we was a Nazi (John Goode, Mr. Natural Health), and one eventually made a public death threat against me (EntmootsOfTrolls.)  Contrary to what you may have heard, many of those people were recognized as a problem by many people, not just me, and some were banned. Obviously, I take it, you are not referring to these cases. You would not allow open Nazi statements, actual vandalism, or death threats.


 * Therefore, you are saying that there is someone not in this above group that I was not getting along with (four months ago) and made ad homenim attacks, calling them an anti-Semite or vandals, etc.? If so, I am happy to apologize.  RK 20:43, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)


 * What about all these people? Care to make an individual statement on every one of them? -- Dissident (Talk) 20:40, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What I'm looking for is evidence that you have learned your lesson and are a reformed character. If you can provide any please sdtick it on the evidence page. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 18:46, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I think you conflating two differentclaims. One claim is that I am a bad person who must not be allowed on Wikipedia. I obviously disagree, and I cannot say "Yes, I was hateful, but now I am good".  We should not make someone grovel in order to be allowed to edit.  The (first) claim that was the reason I was given a four month ban, which is now officially over.  However, there was a second claim and a second ban: This second claim was that I refused to work with others on the Judaism articles, and that I engaged in non-stop edit warson Judaism articles.  The result was that the old Admin Committee barred me for a year from any editing on Judaism-related articles.  The problem, of course, is that the claims were not true.  Someone took old arguments that had long since been resolved, and falsely presented them as current arguments that could not be resolved.  I was shocked to see such tactics.


 * You do not need to take my word for it; please see for yourself. Long before the four-month ban occured, I had already had a history of working with many others on all of the Judaism articles, via the WikiProject on Judaism.  This effort was (and is) very successful. In fact, every time I created an article I invite others to work on it, which is the opposite of what some people claim. And as you can see, JayJG, JFWolff, Josiah and many others all worked together with me to make some high quality articles. The people doing the editing on these articles don't understand the incredibly severe year-long ban. We ended up working well together for many months...and I was nevertheless banned after doing everything that was asked of me, and producing a high-level of Wiki-cooperation.  Please see the diffs I noted on the RFA page for specific examples. RK 20:43, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

User:NSM88 picture
It occurred to me that when this guy uploaded his picture (or, possibly, the picture of somebody else), he by default stated that this picture was usable under the terms of the Wikipedia license. Couldn't we have used it for the neo-nazi article?

Of course, it is possible that the guy is entirely a troll. David.Monniaux 08:21, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No I deleted it :-( Pictures can't be undeleted. Anyway he can't release a picture under the GFDL unless he owned the copyright. If the picture was of himself (as he claimed) then the owener of the copyright would be whoever took the photo. Without their express permission we would be unable to use it. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 08:48, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

RK
Theresa, thanks for asking my opinion about RK's ban. To put it bluntly, it was too long in coming and should have been permanent. As for evidence that he has reformed, how could any evidence of that exist? He has been either under investigation or banned ever since the charges were laid against him. To see his normal behavior (for years!), look at the evidence presented for the last hearing. You can see from his behaviour now that even despite his precarious situation he can barely control himself. What's he going to be like when he feels safe? I wrote all this in more detail on the RK_2/Evidence page. --Zero 13:47, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Xed
He has once again reverted, to place his comments in my evidence section. He has also violated the three revert rule. I'll inform Fred too but I hope one of you will take appropriate action (please note that I explained the rule against editing someone else's space . If I revert one more time I will have violated the 3RR -- thought I wonder if that is okay in protecting my space. Slrubenstein   |  Talk  19:10, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No don't do that I'll sort it. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 19:12, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Slrubenstein  |  Talk  19:13, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Willy
Can I move it back straight away, or do I need to delete the redirect first? Mgm|(talk) 14:20, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

Apology
Dear Theresa: Hi! I was looking through AOL to see how did my user page raked in popularity at the AOL as compared with other pages that mentioned me.

I was amused and laughed when I read something that you mentioned about the Barnstar I gave you, I think you mentioned it at Indipedia.org or something, where it said AntonioMartin gave me this Barnstar for my great friendship and for my "big tits".

Well, I stopped laughing when someone told me that he had come across a conversation that you said that I offended you with the tits comment.

As you know Im a transgendered bisexual man. I feel like Im a girl inside. I had a friend come to me and confide she had been raped recently, and we hugged and I actually cried with her.

What I just want you to know is that, if I offended you, that wasnt my intention. I just wanted to make you laugh, I dont know,...feel good about yourself.

But I know that women also like being appreciated for everything else they mean to the world, and your friendship always meant a lot to me.

So I wanted to say that Im so sorry if I offended you! Please forgive me?

Sincerely yours, Antonio Wild but Good Hearted Martin"

Antonio you really don't know me very well do you? Rest assured if you had offended me I would have told you in no uncertain terms ;-) Your barnstar and comment made me smile, and i was glad that you liked my tits joke on my user page. Whoever it was who said I was offended by your remarks was mistaken. Theresa Knott  (The snott rake) 10:49, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

London Meetup
Theresa,

I've been bold and suggested Easter Saturday (26th of March) for the next London Meetup; your input would be great.

Love to see you there,

James F. (talk) 22:52, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Dresden revisited
Please have a look at Talk:Bombing of Dresden in World War II SlimVirgin seems to respect you judgement. Philip Baird Shearer 19:37, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Diffuse reflection
So, what, you made an image Diffuse reflection.PNG, and didn't even put it on the diffuse reflection page? How much more obvious does it need to be?? ;) P.S. Nice titmice! (Or is that titmouses?) --John Owens (talk) 09:48, 2005 Feb 26 (UTC) LOL. Clearly it need to be slapped over my head for me to notice it. In my own defense there was no link in the reflection article. (Which I have now rectified) Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 18:54, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Stick this here for now

 * Note that it is possible to look up all of your contributions in a certain namespace. Image is namespace 6, so this link will give your (Anthere's) last 50 contributions (minor contribs hided) in the image namespace. 500 per page would be a good start, but the server doesn't want to cooperate today ('MySQL server has gone away').  &mdash; mark ✎ 20:30, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Clitoris pic
I don't want to go over and over it again, Theresa, but do you not recall that you supported the idea of a imageless fork that could be switched to with a link. You weren't alone. All of those discussing it were willing to consider it. We disagreed over the wording of the link but we were making progress.

There are some who absolutely will not compromise: you know who I mean, I won't name names. But there are some who will. Let those who will try to find one, and then present that to the others. Doesn't that make the others the ones who will not abide by what Wikipedia is all about? Please, at least look at the long message I've written for Timbo, who is trying to find a way with me to resolve the issue. I wouldn't be bothering if I didn't believe that compromise is possible and we can achieve a wonderful thing: resolve one of Wikipedia's irresolvable issues without its being a question of the minority's being forced to live with it. Dr Zen 01:18, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

RT
Hi Theresa, Re your message on RC's userpage asking him/her not to 'provoke' Rick, could you please define your terms? Are you saying that a user that systematically checks another user's edits is provoking them?


 * Yes if they go on to edit every single page so as to let the victim know they are stalking them.

If so, what percentage of their edits need to be checked to count as provokation?


 * Don't know, putting a number on it would encorage trolls to game it.

If subsequently editing them is the criteria, could you explain how this relates to the cleanup tags, that seem to request further editing?


 * What are you asking me here. Was RT cleaning up the articles? I saw no substantial edits.

I think that some consensus on this would help avoid future scenarios like this one - perhaps you could craft some policy on it? Right now I think that current policy is completely silent on the matter, so asking another user not to edit pages that a particular user has recently edited is pretty odd. Yours, Mark Richards 02:23, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Trolls love policy. The disruption part of the blocking policy covers it. That's what it's for - trolls. This user even called himself a troll. I think it pretty strange that you are asking me not to make a comment on a users page. Are you arguing that advising someone not to stalk another user is a bad thing? Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 20:45, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Theresa

RT wasn't disrupting anything. What a fragile place this is if what he did disrupts it. That isn't what the policy is for and you know it, but by god, you and your friends are going to rewrite it so it is. Anyone you don't like, anyone who annoys the group that some know as the cabal, anyone who doesn't agree with you, will be accused of "disruption" and banned. Advising someone not to stalk another user is a good thing, Theresa. I'd advise someone not to do it myself, if I saw it. I don't think RickK should be stalked! But banning the guy for doing it? It was harmless. RickK could have laughed it off. If he had, RT would have stopped. You don't feed them, they wither and die. Get over yourselves! None of this bollocks is aimed at improving the encyclopaedia. Dr Zen 23:49, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I didn't ban him. Jimbo did. Go take it up with Jimbo, who agreed it was stalking. Oh yeah and check his full history while you are at it. Theresa Knott  (ask the rotten) 06:16, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I didn't say you did ban him. I predicted the ban, correctly of course. My view, Theresa, is "revert vandals, ignore trolls and be civil". I really don't think all this nonsense serves anything. RickK fed the troll and you guys proceeded to make a picnic out of it. If he, and you, had ignored RT, no harm would have been done. RT will just be back in a different skin, looking for another round. It's easy enough to switch IPs if you want to.

As for the following from the same page, my edit was moved (not by me). I was commenting on Raul's comment, which I simply could not understand:


 * Would you mind explaining exactly what you mean by that? BM is an editor of Wikipedia, isn't he? He's not banned or anything? Dr Zen 03:24, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Dr Zen you really should assume good faith and read what snowspinner is saying before comment. What he is saying is blatently obvious, but I'll spell it out for you none the less. Snowspinner is saying that BM is perfectly entitled to make the complaint, and it shouldn't make any difference who does the complaining, it's the facts of the case that matter. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 16:30, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * My edit was moved! I commented on Raul's claim that BM had no standing, not on Snowspinner's comment. Dr Zen 04:42, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Making an example out of me
I was reading the Administrators' noticeboard, and I noticed that you used me (specifically my former name: ClockworkTroll) as an example of a member with a "trollish" name that is not a troll. Although there are few members that fit that particular niche category, it was still very kind of you, thank you. :) – ClockworkSoul 14:31, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

your interests
I haven't seen you for a long time. What are your interests? I like public transport. --Cheung1303 01:46, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Since I joined the arbitration committee I seem to have little time for much else. But my interests are science, trivia, and drawing diagrams. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 05:50, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

shame...
The worse part is, someone pointed that out to be before in another case of misunderstanding. I just get so into the editing that I tend to do things on auto. I keep forgetting to see what source the page used... *sigh*

Thanks for bringing that to my attention. Coolgamer 19:39, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

Feroze Gandhi


I smell POV on this artcle Feroze_Gandhi. Have chosen to be anonymous... But just have a look... 202.149.60.102

Hi

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3AVillage_pump_%28miscellaneous%29#Retrospective

Anthere 06:04, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Anthony
I think AN/I and VP are in the same vein as the RFC, RFAr, and RFM exceptions already in the proposal - I'd just add them to the proposal. Snowspinner 22:40, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

User:Neutrality
Thank you, Theresa. If I were to behave like that, I would expect prompt rebuke and de-sysopment, at least temporarily. Adminship may not "be a big deal", but 100% trust is implicit. Tom Haws 03:00, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

Block log
I've noticed this block in the log just now:
 * 01:51, Mar 25, 2005 Theresa knott blocked "User:62.252.224.17" with an expiry time of 1 hours (I'm sorry but someone from this internet address is vandalising Wikipedia at the moment and we have been forced to put in place a short block. Please try again later)

And I'd like to praise you for it. All too often people forget innocent people could be reading a message meant for a vandal. Have a flower for your excellent conduct. :) Mgm|(talk) 23:52, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)