User talk:Timotheus Canens/Archives/2012/9

Sudarshan Kriya
It seems that Sudarshan Kriya page is removed. Further it is misunderstood with Kriya Yoga(redirected page). Just wanted to clarify that Sudarshan Kriya is very popular breathing technique practiced by nearly 30 million people worldwide like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kapalabhati_%28Hatha_Yoga%29. Request to recover it and please remove the redirection instantly. Further, Gone through the discussion there is no point in stating that it is Just another Yoga type or exercise. Pages are available for all Yoga practices - KapalBhati, Raja Yoga(specific to Bramha Kumari), Bhastrika and many more. Yes, it is copyright of Art of Living same as Raja Yoga. So we can not talk about way of doing it ONLY but we can provide all other information to be considered as part of encyclopedia. As its practitioner are from 150+ countries and it is completely unique process so it should be considered as different article. Obvious enough it is having great effects in almost all circumstances so thinking it as advertisement is wrong (even in other yogic postures - things are very different)! Please temporary undelete it and please update my talk page I would like to contribute and wikify the content. If you search in Google trend then you will understand that it is having equal search volumes as kapalbhati(basic yoga technique used by almost all spiritual organization). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deepeshdeomurari (talk • contribs)
 * Userfied to User:Deepeshdeomurari/Sudarshan Kriya. T. Canens (talk) 15:07, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Geoff Smart Edit
Timotheus, I recently edit Geoff Smart and wanted to notify you of the changes that have been made. I was made aware of the problems that led to its deletion (puffery, PR language, nonessential information and misappropriate use of proper nouns) and fixed it to reflect what admins would consider appropriate. Any feedback you can provide me would be greatly appreciated. I many need to move some information herein to GhSMART & Company, Inc., but I haven't decided if this is necessary yet. I just wanted to make you aware of this thought. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RMRicondo (talk • contribs) 16:42, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Someone else has already deleted the recreated version, and from a look I can't say I disagree with the decision. I strongly suggest that you leave it to someone else to create an article on this subject. T. Canens (talk) 14:49, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Review of Move
Hi Tim. Could you please review this move (Mother's Rights → Mothers' rights movement) by User:Pudeo. He moved based on a closure of this discussion on Talk:Fathers' rights movement. This looks pointy. I'll also note this area (men's rights/father's rights etc is under probation). His comments at the Men's rights requested move are worth examining in this context--Cailil  talk 15:17, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I also note that there was no discussion on Talk:Mothers%27_rights about this at all. And as can be seen from the article it is substantially different in scope and content from the Fathers' rights movement page. If I'm wrong here just let me know--Cailil  talk 15:22, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Sudarshan Kriya
It seems that Sudarshan Kriya page is removed. Further it is misunderstood with Kriya Yoga(redirected page). Just wanted to clarify that Sudarshan Kriya is very popular breathing technique practiced by nearly 30 million people worldwide like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kapalabhati_%28Hatha_Yoga%29. Request to recover it and please remove the redirection instantly. Further, Gone through the discussion there is no point in stating that it is Just another Yoga type or exercise. Pages are available for all Yoga practices - KapalBhati, Raja Yoga(specific to Bramha Kumari), Bhastrika and many more. Yes, it is copyright of Art of Living same as Raja Yoga. So we can not talk about way of doing it ONLY but we can provide all other information to be considered as part of encyclopedia. As its practitioner are from 150+ countries and it is completely unique process so it should be considered as different article. Obvious enough it is having great effects in almost all circumstances so thinking it as advertisement is wrong (even in other yogic postures - things are very different)! Please temporary undelete it and please update my talk page I would like to contribute and wikify the content. If you search in Google trend then you will understand that it is having equal search volumes as kapalbhati(basic yoga technique used by almost all spiritual organization). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deepeshdeomurari (talk • contribs)
 * Userfied to User:Deepeshdeomurari/Sudarshan Kriya. T. Canens (talk) 15:07, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Geoff Smart Edit
Timotheus, I recently edit Geoff Smart and wanted to notify you of the changes that have been made. I was made aware of the problems that led to its deletion (puffery, PR language, nonessential information and misappropriate use of proper nouns) and fixed it to reflect what admins would consider appropriate. Any feedback you can provide me would be greatly appreciated. I many need to move some information herein to GhSMART & Company, Inc., but I haven't decided if this is necessary yet. I just wanted to make you aware of this thought. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RMRicondo (talk • contribs) 16:42, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Someone else has already deleted the recreated version, and from a look I can't say I disagree with the decision. I strongly suggest that you leave it to someone else to create an article on this subject. T. Canens (talk) 14:49, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 September 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 12:30, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)
Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page. In this issue: Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->
 * Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
 * Research: The most recent DR data
 * Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
 * Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
 * DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
 * Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
 * Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

--The Olive Branch 19:35, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Review of Move
Hi Tim. Could you please review this move (Mother's Rights → Mothers' rights movement) by User:Pudeo. He moved based on a closure of this discussion on Talk:Fathers' rights movement. This looks pointy. I'll also note this area (men's rights/father's rights etc is under probation). His comments at the Men's rights requested move are worth examining in this context--Cailil  talk 15:17, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I also note that there was no discussion on Talk:Mothers%27_rights about this at all. And as can be seen from the article it is substantially different in scope and content from the Fathers' rights movement page. If I'm wrong here just let me know--Cailil  talk 15:22, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I'm not familiar with this subject, though you may well be right. Maybe the simplest way is to start a new RM for the mother's rights page? T. Canens (talk) 13:49, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Deletion review/Log/2012 August 22
Many people leaving an opinion in this review asked that all prior participants in the AfD be notified if the discussion is to be relisted. I would read the general consensus as asking the closer to perform that rather tedious but necessary task. May I ask if you agree with my interpretation? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 17:49, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * No. If you want to do the notifications feel free. T. Canens (talk) 13:46, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedian category DRV closures
Hi, thanks for closing the two DRVs. I was wondering what your take on the issue of recreating some of the related categories would be. For instance, the DRV for each of these was for Female Wikipedians and Gay Wikipedians, but the underlying discussions were "Wikipedians by gender" and "Wikipedians by sexuality". In other words, I'm asking if your DRV closure applies only to those two categories listed (as I would suspect and support), or does it apply to all the categories in the underlying discussions? I'm asking this pre-emptively because I guarantee it's only a matter of time that Category:Male Wikipedians or Category:Lesbian Wikipedians is recreated, which from my understanding would still be G4-able based on the past consensus and the seemingly limited scope of the two DRVs, and the fact that the re-listings only listed the two named categories. As the closer of the DRV, I think you would be the proper person to ask. I'm sure there would be a big to-do should I speedy something like lesbian Wikipedians, so I'd probably bring that to CfD instead, but just asking nonetheless. VegaDark (talk) 02:16, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * No, technically it does not cover those other categories, but I would be greatly surprised if DRV would uphold any such G4 deletions judging from the DRVs we had, so I really don't see what a G4 would accomplish other than delaying the inevitable CfD by a week. T. Canens (talk) 04:42, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

List of unreleased Lana Del Rey songs
Hi, what was your reason for deleting List of unreleased Lana Del Rey songs? Since it follows policy, I'd really like to know why. WP:LISTN and WP:RS --MrIndustry (talk) 21:35, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I deleted it because it was only temporarily undeleted for the discussion at Deletion review/Log/2012 August 27, which yielded a consensus that the page was correctly deleted at the previous AfD discussion. T. Canens (talk) 14:30, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Since when are you supposed to make a decision based on how many votes? If so, it needs to be restored and the previous AFD needs to be a no consensus instead of delete. It was not correctly deleted at all. If you look at my comments, I made the only valid point in regards to Wikipedia's policies. Everything else were people's opinions - which are invalid in this sense. --MrIndustry (talk) 20:57, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Timeshift9 (2nd nomination)
Hi Tim. Because you closed Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Timeshift9, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Timeshift9 (2nd nomination). Cunard (talk) 06:01, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

AE (talknic)
Message. I'd appreciate a response if you will. Thx ...talknic (talk) 21:18, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 September 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 06:14, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thank you for closing Articles for deletion/Jeff Duran. Much appreciated.

Cheers, Stalwart 111  (talk) 23:26, 12 September 2012 (UTC).

User:Timotheus Canens/displaymessage.js
Hi TC. This is just to let you know that I tweaked User:Timotheus Canens/displaymessage.js as a result of this VPT thread. It looks like the update to jQuery was causing a bug making the AfD and AfC helper scripts unusable, so I went ahead and fixed it before asking you. I'm no JavaScript coder though, so if there's a better way to do what I did then obviously feel free to implement it. Thanks! — Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 11:04, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

NAC
The editor here seems to be performing a large number of inappropriate closes, see their edit history. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:20, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Andrew Cohen revert and protection status
Hi Timothy, I can understand your entering protected status for the Andrew Cohen spiritual teacher entry, but I object to your revert deleting my revisions to the criticisms section, and undoing lgal01's deletion of my revisions. My additions to the criticisms section were well and reliably sourced to a 3rd party published work. They constitute a very small proportion of an article that is mainly a puff piece written by contributors with clear COI issues. Both lgal01 and Kosmocentric are, I believe, current compensated employees of Cohen's organization. I request that they be investigated for COI and banned; and that the criticisms section be reinstated as it was before your deletion. Thanks. Hamsa001 (talk) 23:56, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Elliott Miles Mckinley
Would it be possible to have the previous version of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elliott_Miles_Mckinley restored? I would recreate it myself instead if I knew what I was doing. Opaqueambiguity (talk) 20:26, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Userfied to User:Opaqueambiguity/Elliott Miles McKinley. T. Canens (talk) 01:48, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Appealing a block?
Hello Tim. I'm unsure of how to go about doing this, but I would like to appeal a block that you placed on my account (ArkRe), which prevents me from posting anywhere at all to appeal the block.

It appears that my account was blocked following a sockpuppet investigation (see ) for a user who posted in a few AfDs that I have commented on, though I am not in any way connected to this user. I have read the investigation topic and I have no choice but to assume that I am a victim of collateral damage, as my ISP (Telstra Bigpond) utilises dynamic shared IPs - I understand that I don't have my own IP address and that rather I am given a new one each time I connect to the network. I have been blocked from editing Wikipedia as an IP in the past because of this, as well, which was my reason for creating an account. Given that the investigated user appears to be from a similar geographical area as me (I live in Bendigo, Australia, which is a few hours from Melbourne), I would like to appeal my block on the basis that my ISP (which gives me a new IP every time I connect to the network) has at some point given me the same IP as the sockpuppet user. I believe it is clear enough that I am not connected to the sockpuppeteer, as, aside from editing articles in the same general area of interest, I have not agreed with any arguments proposed by the user and do not have the same linguistic peculiarities as the user. I have merely been caught in the crossfire in an admittedly rampant case of sockpuppetry, when I was just trying to improve the content of several articles related to my area of interest.

From the very start, my contributions had me tagged as a Single Purpose Account, which I later had removed through an appeal to an admin, and I have in no way posted anything that agrees with or validates the sockpuppet user (in fact, in the AfD for the article Eternal Eden, for which the nominator is supposedly one of the sock accounts, I did NOT agree with the nomination and I actually edited the article to incorporate sources mentioned by other participants in the AfD with the intention of improving the sourcing of the article). I have provided constructive edits to Wikipedia and I have edited for a long time as an IP, and given the readiness of the admins to block me, I can only assume that bad faith is being harboured towards me due to a geographical match with the other user. In terms of being a sockpuppet account, I do not even know who the user 03SadOnions is or what their connection to the articles is, and I'm not connected to him in any way - the only thing that brought me to the AfDs in question is that the articles concern one of my areas of interest (which, I presume, is something I share with the puppeteer, as he created them). Given the severity of the sockpuppetry in this instance, I understand the reasons for the hasty block, but I would like to affirm that I believe that blocking me was wrong, and I would like to see what can be done about it.

Any help that you can provide will be appreciated. 60.230.38.105 (talk) 06:38, 18 September 2012 (UTC) (ArkRe)

Later Edit: I have figured out the formal process for appealing a block and have done so, but it is also suggested that negotiations be entered into with the blocking admin, so hopefully we can work something out? Also, please forgive the fact that this edit is from another IP as, like I said above, I get a different IP every time I log onto my ISP's network. 101.160.174.240 (talk) 12:35, 18 September 2012 (UTC) (ArkRe)

Jagged 85
I just wanted to say "thanks" for the block William M. Connolley (talk) 07:16, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't like piling on when an editor is removed from the project, but in this case I think it is important to record that an enormous amount of time has been wasted on this issue, and I am another who is grateful for the quick and decisive action. There is nothing more damaging to the encyclopedia than having incorrect or misleading information retained in articles, and removing the source of the problem is long overdue. Johnuniq (talk) 12:34, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 September 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 17:36, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

AFCH Bug
Not sure where to report this so I'll put it here. When accepting a non-article submission (ex: template) the link to the talk page in the message left to the creator is broken. See this edit. Thanks, LegoKontribsTalkM 20:44, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a problem with the template, not the script. Fixed. T. Canens (talk) 01:22, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that then. Thanks! LegoKontribsTalkM 03:14, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Heh, I fixed the script in Mai (?) that it creates the talk pages of the templates, but as it seems I missed that part. mabdul 06:51, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Elliott Miles McKinley
Hello. There is currently a discussion at regarding. Please review. Thank you. Jrcrin001 (talk) 19:04, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Notice
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Talk:Elliott Miles McKinley. Thank you. GB fan 22:20, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Articles for Creation urgently needs your help!
Sent on behalf of WikiProject Articles for creation. If you do not wish to receive anymore messages from this WikiProject, please remove your username from this page. Happy reviewing!  TheSpecialUser TSU
 * Delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 09:05, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Your restricitions
Please explain why editors may freely remove existing material from the article, but yet additions to it require prior talk page discussion and an established consensus. This contrasting approach is a cause for concern. 'Ankh '.Morpork  18:31, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Because the ultimate goal of the restriction is to make original research and synthesis hard to add and easy to remove, while limiting collateral damage by making it also hard to remove content that is reasonably likely (by virtue of having been previously vetted under the restriction) to be good.T. Canens (talk) 18:37, 23 September 2012 (UTC)


 * "by making it also hard to remove content that is reasonably likely... to be good." - But the scope of this restriction only applies to "content added in compliance with this restriction". This means that long-standing material in the article can be removed sans any restriction while the addition of any new material will be onerously circumscribed. Was this your intention?
 * Secondly, can you clarify wherein lies your authority to unilaterally impose restrictions on articles. I was under the impression that this was the purview of ARBCOM, and that discretionary sanctions were applied to editors after consultation with other admins.
 * Indeed, the discretionary sanctions that you reference explicitly state: Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in this topic area. Since I am reluctant to conclude that you have inexplicably arrogated an ARBCOM right for yourself, I request you explain why you have extended the ambit of user sanctions to include article restrictions. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'<font color="#990000">Ankh '.<font color="#000099">Morpork  18:47, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no guarantee that the content currently in the article is not OR, unlike content that has been actually vetted through a discussion.
 * Incorrect and incorrect. Discretionary sanctions are imposed by "any uninvolved administrator", "on his or her own discretion". While we may choose to discuss at AE, we always have the ability, and the discretion to act alone. Article-level discretionary sanctions have a long history (maybe not in P/I, but in WP:ARBEE and WP:ARBAA2 cases), and they are explicitly approved by arbcom in this request for clarification. T. Canens (talk) 19:05, 23 September 2012 (UTC)


 * And likewise, there is no guarantee that every editor that wishes to add any new material to this article will be adding original research to the article. Yet you chose to stymie this with your personal stringent restrictions, imposed without any other admin consultation, but chose to allow removal of material to remain unchecked. In essence, you have single-handedly precluded any expansion of this article by any editor.
 * I will add that your comments regarding the prevention of original research suggest that you have taken a position in this content dispute upon which your decision to impose these partisan restrictions is predicated. Can you explain whether this is indeed the case?
 * Article-level restrictions are by definition blunt instruments. I am of the view that its benefits in this case outweighed the risks. You may, of course, disagree.
 * No. If you want to appeal these restrictions, WP:A/R/A and WP:AE are that way. I'm not going to change them. T. Canens (talk) 19:47, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

So to be clear, are you attempting to draw a parallel with this this request for clarification? In that instance, no 1rr applied to the Armenia-Azerbaijan related articles and ARBCOM clarified that 1rr could be applied. Have you considered that in our case, all I-P related articles are already under 1rr restrictions, and there is absolutely no precedent for the bizarre type of slanted restrictions that you have concocted and now seek to impose? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'<font color="#990000">Ankh '.<font color="#000099">Morpork  19:36, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm going to take a crack at rephrasing what T. Canens's explanation, Ankh, in the hopes that it will make more sense to you: there has been a lot of disruptive edit churn on Zoological conspiracy theories (Arab-Israeli conflict). That's not to say that anyone was intending their editing to be disruptive; it's just saying that the result of the editing that was going on there was that the article was being disrupted. Now, since that article is covered under the Discretionary Sanctions, that means that any uninvolved administrator has the ability to step in and impose sanctions to stop the article from being disrupted further. Since the disruption here stemmed from content that was being perceived as OR, a remedy has been put in place that makes it harder for people to add content that other people would dispute, while also making it harder for people to remove content that has prior consensus. It will also stop people from churning up the article content fighting with each other. This is a good thing, though it may not feel like it to you. It means that the article will settle into a more stable state, due to the editors there being made to edit on the basis of consensus rather than impulse. T. Canens is quite within his rights, as granted by Arbcom and the community, to impose a sanction like this in an edit area covered by DS. You're not obligated to like it or agree with his taste in remedies, but it has been duly imposed, so you are required to abide by it unless/until it's revoked by either the imposing admin, Arbcom, or a consensus at WP:AE. WP:AE is your route to appeal if you wish to appeal the imposition of this sanction; complaining elsewhere isn't really going to do the job. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:55, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * If that was the cause for these restrictions, why have they been applied to all subsequent additions; why aren't they limited to adding content previously contested. That would suffice and mitigate the encumbrances placed on all editors wishing to expand the article.
 * Please demonstrate where his "rights" authorise him to levy those particular restrictions. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'<font color="#990000">Ankh '.<font color="#000099">Morpork  20:11, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

As requested. Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'<font color="#990000">Ankh '.<font color="#000099">Morpork  21:10, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Tim, while you certainly were allowed to enact such a restriction, I think it would be better to limit it to the more salient point of whether the sources clearly note the accusations as conspiracy theories and not create some time limit for discussion on all additions regardless of validity or any removal that clearly removes what the restriction is intended to prevent editors from adding. A restriction stating that if new claims do not have sources provided in the article describing the accusations as conspiracy theories, removing the claims would be 1RR-exempt, while reinstating it without providing such sources would not be exempt would probably be all we need. All you would really be doing with that sort of restriction is creating a 1RR exemption on that article for removing original research. Miles simpler to understand and a lot less likely to unnecessarily restrict valid good-faith additions by bold editors should an incident come up that blatantly falls under the scope of the article.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 02:49, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Ximhua
You recently blocked Ximhua, but an IP has come quacking. CMD (talk) 15:50, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I was suspicious of that one too, but then it seems Ximhua's known IP ranges (earlier IPs in the 69* range, active on the page shortly before Ximhua was created and several times in between, easily identifiable) were from a different country. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:22, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:EASYBLOCK
Hi Tim, was wondering if you maybe know enough Java to know if adding a "2 years" option for anonblock/schoolblock/vandalism block for EASYBLOCK is possible? Thanks! – Connormah (talk) 04:48, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is possible. Done. And BTW it's Javascript, not Java. They are pretty different, despite the name. T. Canens (talk) 04:57, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, much appreciated. Given that I don't even know the difference, it's a good thing I didn't attempt this myself.... thanks again. – Connormah (talk) 05:12, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Appeal
Hi TC, I've attempted to make an appeal to my topic ban, but the page is locked so I'm not able to format the appeal template correctly. Can you swing by? thanks, Factocop (talk) 23:01, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 September 2012
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 18:38, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

== Mr. Canens - I am trying to reach Richard Norton. Re: I am the grandson of Frank E. Boland, an early aviator who was killed in 1913 while in South America. Many missing facts I would like to piece together in order to have a comprehensive picture of him. ==

Seeking facts, pictures, articles about Frank Boland Thank you for your help — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.66.186.8 (talk) 13:59, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Then you should leave a message on User talk:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ). T. Canens (talk) 06:21, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

My ISP blocked partially by you
I'm now blocked from editing about 1/4 of the time due to you blocking 66.81.00.00/18. I use Los Angeles Freenet as my ISP and they seem to use IP's in the range 66.81.00.00/16 which is 4 times as many IP's as you've blocked. But I'm not sure if all these IP's are used exclusively by LA-Freenet. LA-Freenet itself may use a super ISP which uses its IP's for other ISP's and organization. But if these 65k IP's are exclusively for LA-Freenet, then you may want to block them :all and/or contact LA-Freenet to track down whoever is misusing Wikipedia. LA-Freenet is likely to be very cooperative in this and you realize that /16 implies about 65,000 IP addresses blocked. Of course this would block me too, and force me to get an account if I want to continue to contribute to wikipedia but I suppose that I'm willing to do this.

David Lawyer, dave@lafn.org 66.81.123.82 (talk) 08:12, 28 September 2012 (UTC) Revised the next day by David Lawyer 66.81.198.73 (talk) 20:18, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

You are mentioned
here-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 14:20, 28 September 2012 (UTC)