User talk:Tigermoon

Notice
Hi, all. Im not new to Wikipedia though I havent worked on it for about 16 months. And I probably won't do much on it even now, as Im quite busy at work, but if you want me to look at some articles for you, leave me a note, and ill let you know what I think. Tigermoon 17:50, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Note
It appears Slrubenstein disagrees with you. Cultural and historical background of Jesus - Amgine

Hi Tigermoon. I see that you reverted my chnges to the summary. Please do not do that. Most of my changes added information, and you shouldn't delete information. The summary distorted or misrepresented what I said; I am sure we all agree the summary should represent what people say. Slrubenstein

In your previous edit to the article, Slrubenstein reverted it. This is what I meant by the above. - Amgine 18:44, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If Amgine is refering to my changes to the summary, all I reverted was your reversion of my changes. Why did you revert my changes? As I said, they mostly added content and clarification? You shouldn't revert work like that without providing any explanation. Slrubenstein

I do not understand that explanation. I looked at the discussion on the discussion page, and acted out votes. I cant understand what reason you could possibly have to revert implementing the votes unless you are a point-of-view-warrior, which is not justifiable. To me it looked as if you had vandalised FTs changes, you were not editing it properly. It seemed as if you were just implementing your opinion and not taking the discussion page into account. Tigermoon 14:38, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

These votes -- polls really -- are non-binding. In any event, almost all of my changes were consistent with the votes -- and I added much more new information besides. Slrubenstein

Polls are votes; that is why the location people vote in is called a "polling station"! From the appearance of it at the moment, it seems to me as if not one of the votes have been taken account of. If you made changes consistent with the voting, then someone has definitely undone such things. I think this must be corrected. Tigermoon 11:09, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You didn't get it quite right Ben, there is some stuff you forgot about Mandaeans, for example. I will show you on Wednesday. By the way, from the comment below, I think you must have logged out when you made the edit. Its quite important to fix this. If your phone is working again can you text me? CheeseDreams 23:33, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. Tigermoon 12:08, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

CheeseDreams
Hi from comments you made at User talk:CheeseDreams - I think you may need to see this. Please let me know if you need any more information. Regards -- sannse (talk) 21:30, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thank-you. Tigermoon 12:08, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

warning
If you make any more edits on behalf of Cheese Dreams, I will block you from using Wikipedia. Slrubenstein 15:56, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That is an outrageous threat. If your friends make edits for you, or engage in edit wars for you, why are they not banned? Tigermoon 18:06, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Silly, because I have not been banned. Had I been blocked from editing an article and had a friend edit on my behalf of course she too would be blocked. Slrubenstein 19:15, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What if someone you know had? I am sure there must be someone here you know who has been banned racing to edit on the behalf of someone else. Tigermoon 12:21, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Replied on my talk page. &#8212;Charles P. (Mirv) 15:59, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

requested reply
Since you asked, here's your original e-mail and my reply:

On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 10:04:57 -0800 (PST), Tigermoon  wrote: > Why am I blocked again? > You said I can edit an article if I do it the way I myself wish to. > I myself wish to edit that article like that. > So why was I banned? > And why did no one explain why on my talk page?

You were blocked again because you made the exact same edit you made before on CheeseDreams's instructions, so the sysop who blocked you this time probably didn't believe you were making it of your own volition, out of your own knowledge and opinions---and I don't believe it either. Sorry.

Yes, Jayjg ought to have explained why he was blocking you; have you e-mailed him to ask about it?

This was your original edit, made as 217.150.114.18: ; this was your last edit to the same article: ; this is the diff between them:. &#8212;Charles P. (Mirv) 20:32, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I came here to explain why I reverted your changes, namely, because that sort of change in general ought to be accompanied by an explanation on the Talk page. From the above it now looks like you're just trying to put up that same old version, without any intention of engaging in a discussion with the rest of the editors. Are you just hoping everyone else will get tired of reverting you? Wesley 18:12, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The only person who reverted me appears to be Rubenstein. Tigermoon 18:16, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That would be similar to the way in which Rubenstein was required to explain the change rather than just fail to engage in proper discussion, when he wholly replaced the article back in November? I.e. that no one felt that he was required too. This seems like double standards to me. Tigermoon 18:39, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I've blocked you again, because your first action in the article upon returning from the block was to re-instate the CheeseDreams edit yet again:. The ArbCom ruling is quite clear, so please stop acting as CheeseDream's sockpuppet, and use the Talk: page to propose changes to the article. Jayjg (talk) 18:50, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

CheeseDreams' edits are banned as well as the user herself? Jeez, she's got you guys running scared!Grace Note 07:34, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

How do you know she is a she? You do not seem to have many edits. Anyway, I made the edit, not claire. 217.150.114.18 17:38, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What are you talking about? CheeseDreams represents herself as a she. I take her at her word. I don't know who Claire is and I don't know who you are. Grace Note 03:09, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Housekeeping
You need to fix your Request for Arbitration - you need to explain why in detail, and maybe give some links to evidence - try looking at Block log, for example. CheeseDreams 20:45, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

P.s. I'm sorry about sending this in an e-mail as well, but I accidentally put it in the wrong window to start with.

It seems to be someone else now. Can I make a complaint about this person at the same time as the other? 217.150.114.18 17:38, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration
This is to inform you that the arbitration case Requests for arbitration/CheeseDreams 2 will involve the committee considering your actions in the events leading to this case. If you wish to add evidence relating to this case, please do at Requests for arbitration/CheeseDreams 2/Evidence. I'm sorry for the delay in notifying you of this -- sannse (talk) 17:46, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration case - final decision
A decision has been reached in the arbitration case relating to you. You are reminded that it is not acceptable to "proxy" for a banned or restricted user. While editors can of course make judgements as to whether edits suggested by a restricted user are valid, simply editing for such a user is regarded as the equivalent of the user making the edits herself. For further details and the full decision please see Requests for arbitration/CheeseDreams 2 -- sannse (talk) 15:56, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)