User talk:Aaron Schulz/Archive5

Nomination for adminship[edit]

Thank you for nominating me, I accept. RexNL 11:47, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jenny Wales[edit]

I saw that you blocked a user entiteled: Jenny Wales. Will you please shorten the amount of time for that user's block, until Jimbo can confirm?

Thanks! Wiki eZach 19:15, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Anarchism[edit]

Hey. You Blocked this a while ago. The main page itself has been unblocked. I proposed that the template be unblocked on the discussion page and no one respond, for over a week and a half. I'd appreciate if you'd unprotect it. Thanks --FluteyFlakes88 06:40, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rest[edit]

I am sure you had a fine rest. I learnt about you in connection with RexNL's nomination. Your user page is really nice, and I am tempted to "steal" someday some points. --Bhadani 17:25, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NoSeptember's RfA[edit]

Thank you, Voice of All, for your consideration of my RfA. I hope I will prove to be polite enough and effective enough as an admin to gain your future support. Perhaps it was a mistake to use the phrase always polite, you know what they say about using the words always or never ;-). I will do my best in my new role and welcome your feedback. NoSeptember ^talk 17:48, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I appreciate your late-breaking show of support :-). NoSeptember ^talk 19:53, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite alright, no harm done. Keep up the good work.--Alhutch 20:05, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Old Scores...[edit]

Looks like your RfA is filling up with people opposing just to settle old scores...when I saw Outerlimits there I just wanted to puke. I hope for the best though :).Voice of All^T|@|ESP 17:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. And we got three of the "Jewish identitarian list" proponents who were upset about my efforts to improve citational standards (actually, I only worked on one such list in my case, but I got caught in a general cross-fire). It would have been worse if the sock-army associated with RachelBrown had not mostly got banned indefinitely (the one account was left active, though she got a temporary block too... I suppose it probably expired five minutes before here RfA vote :-(). You may not have seen those lists, but just think "What if Outerlimits were Jewish and not gay?" And you pretty much have the exact picture to hold in mind. *wink*. These "identitarian politics" seem to promote grudges even more than do "politics politics" (lucky for me, at least none of the born-again Christians seem to follow RfA; the story around that list is also identical). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise[edit]

I didn't mean to create a user name like that, instead I intended to use a capital I to represent L, which would have looked correct and you would have been fooled. Ha!

Thanks[edit]

Thank you, Aaron Schulz/Archive5
	for voting in my RFA. It failed with a result of 31/11/2. I hope that I can use your comments to be a better user. If you have any comments, please say so here.

Thanks from Lulu[edit]

Storm clouds ...	and silver linings	Thank you for your support on my RfA.
		Unfortunately, it failed to reach consensus. Nonetheless, it proved an opportunity to establish contacts and cooperation with many supportive editors, which will be beneficial to editing Wikipedia in the future. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters (t @)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Boothy443[edit]

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Boothy443. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Boothy443/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Boothy443/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Kelly Martin (talk) 02:53, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An Esperanzial note[edit]

As I remember, the last spam that was handed out was on the 20th of December last year, so I think it's time for another update. First and foremost, the new Advisory Council and Administrator General have been elected. They consist of myself as Admin General and FireFox, Titoxd, Flcelloguy and Karmafist as the Advisory Council. We as a group met formally for the first time on the 31st of Decembe. The minutes of this meeting can be found at WP:ESP/ACM. The next one is planned for tonight (Sunday 29 January) at 20:30 UTC and the agenda can be found at WP:ESP/ACM2.

In other news, Karmafist has set up a discussion about a new personal attack policy, which it can be found here. Other new pages include an introductory page on what to do when you sign up, So you've joined Esperanza... and a welcome template: {{EA-welcome}} (courtesy of Bratsche). Some of our old hands may like to make sure they do everything on the list as well ;) Additionally, the userpage award program proposal has become official is operational: see Wikipedia:Esperanza/User Page Award to nominate a userpage or volunteer as a judge. Also see the proposed programs page for many new proposals and old ones that need more discussion ;)

Other than that, I hope you all had a lovely Christmas and wish you an Esperanzially good new WikiYear :D Thank you! --Cel e stianpower ^háblame 16:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Message delivered by Rune.welsh using AWB. If you wish to recieve no further messages of this ilk, please sign your name here.

Anarchism[edit]

Hey man, just wondering why you protected the page, it hasn't been edit warred for a couple of hours and people seem to be working out their disputes on the talk page. - FrancisTyers 01:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User Conduct complaint: HeadleyDown[edit]

HeadleyDown has engaged in POV editing[1], and personal attacks[2][3][4].

Is it worth reporting this to arbcom? --Comaze 11:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are You A Superwikimediator?[edit]

To VoiceofAll I wonder whether you are still interested in moderating the NLP page or you have given it all up? If you are still into it, I would urge you to take a more proactive stance in maintaining good behaviour in the talk page, such as consistently removing all posting against NLP talk page guideline, ignore attention-seeking postings, upholding 3revert rule, or even considering locking the main page, but allowing users to edit the temporary draft page. I appreciate that you are trying to be nice and fair, but this situation requires a consistent approach. This link might be of some help to you.

[5]

Praise and Rewards Consistency Routine Boundaries Discipline Warnings Explanations Restraint Responsibility Relaxation

--Dejakitty 16:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you[edit]

For your kind support of my Rfa, which passed. If you should ever have any complaints about my admin actions, please let me know. Also, should you ever need my help with anything, please do not hesitate to ask! Thanks again! All the best Banez 17:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Userpage vandalism[edit]

Thanks for reverting the vandalism to my userpage! — Laura Scudder ☎ 16:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pedophilia[edit]

Um, excuse me...But your revert of my work at this article is in question, and I have re-reverted it. It is in process, and in discussion, and to remove it as if it's mere vandalism without any discussion is ...well, vandalism. Don't do it again without solid reasons and time for a response from myself. --DanielCD 16:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also really like a comment regarding this on my talk page. --DanielCD 16:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to be so sharp and quick to judge. It's just that I'm trying to help draw a line between hotheads at a controversial article and got blipped in mid-edit. Hope there's no hard feelings. --DanielCD 16:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thank you. I'm not used to all those bells and whistles, but they may yet come in handy. --DanielCD 16:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

monobook[edit]

Wonderful! Thanks a lot, buddy, I owe you one. :-) --D e ath phoenix 00:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RFA[edit]

Hi Aaron Schulz/Archive5, thanks for participating in my RfA discussion. Unfortunately, my fellow Wikipedians have decided at this time that I am not suitable to take on this additional responsibility, as the RfA failed with a result of 66/27/5 (71.0% support). I hope that if I do choose to reapply in the future, the effort I will make in the meantime to improve and expand my contributions to Wikipedia may persuade you to reconsider your position. All the best, Proto t c 10:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks![edit]

Wishing you well, and enjoying a lovely Saturday. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 00:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Helpful link[edit]

[6] Best wishes. Giano | talk 18:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

:* Your comment here [7] "No one is "equating" them...whatever that means" suggested to me you did not understand the term. Thanks I will go and vote delete. Giano | talk 18:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mr j galt RfC[edit]

I've never been involved in a user RfC before and have some questions/comments. Could you explain who acts on the RfC and how long it takes?

On another note, I get the impression that half of the people coming out against the RfC are users that Mr j galt contacted in his plans to RfC the people supporting this one. [8] [9] [10] [11] It seems in poor taste that he hasn't even responded to the allegations and he is instead using his time to prep a counterstrike. --waffle iron 23:51, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I was wondering if you had read my above message. Thanks! --waffle iron 16:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explaination. I see I was partially mistaken about what a RFC is/can do. Although I had suspected as much. It seems like everyone involved seems to have made my mistake. Hopefully thing can cool down. --waffle iron 18:34, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks![edit]

Hmmm.....interesting! How does one unblock the autoblocker? - Lucky 6.9 06:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Might have. I don't see "Brainhell" popping up on the block list anymore. Cool! - Lucky 6.9 06:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just found out about it. FreplySpang has used the same technique and it seems to work OK. - Lucky 6.9 06:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha. I've left word on Jimbo's talk page. If there's a glitch, he's the guy. :) - Lucky 6.9 06:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo Wales block[edit]

Huh? That was ages ago ;). --Cel e stianpower ^háblame 18:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dschor[edit]

Could you unblock him? Yes, I'm being serious. See the latest developments on WP:AN. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 01:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My Thing[edit]

Me too. The only thing he's guilty of is being a silly 16 year old. What really gets my goat is that when Jimbo "wheel wars", it's ok apparently...Why is that? Karm a fist 03:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joke's RfA[edit]

Hi Voice of All, thanks for voting in my (successful) RfA. All the voters who voted neutral or oppose had the same criticism – lack of involvement in the Wikipedia namespace. This is nice, because it is a weakness that I can endeavor to fix. Although I don't think I have the disposition or diligence to be actively involved with, say, VfD, I've recently started to participate in the Featured Article discussions and will start participating in some policy discussions now that I am starting to grasp the way the project runs. –Joke 16:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking[edit]

Please remember to block my sock, User:GuettardaSock when you do so. And make sure you let me know for how long I will be blocked. In other words, I am so disgusted with Talrias and Jacoplane making a point of kicking my friend when he's down, and I am so disgusted with all the crap going on in this place that I don't really think it would be a tragedy if you carried out your threat. At the same time, yeah, I feel pretty crappy to edit war over El_C's page - it's terribly wrong, but so's what Talrias and Jacoplane are doing, IMO. Guettarda 22:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Protect[edit]

Sometimes a protected page makes people think twice about editing, even if they are admins. — Matt Crypto 22:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

what?[edit]

IP address has been blocked from editing You were blocked by Voice of All Reason given: WP:NPA (see our blocking policy)????--64.12.116.135 23:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In never specifically blocked your IP, see [12]. It may have been some autoblock...I am not sure.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 23:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My monobook[edit]

Thanks, but for some reason, it would break every time I tried it, so I just had to take it out. I'll just stick to my manual reverter and a few tricks I've learned along ;)... Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 05:06, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm using Firefox right now ;) IE is better for AFDs for me, but I use Firefox while on RC Patrol so I can monitor #wikipedia-en-vandalism with ChatZilla. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 05:11, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another Esperanzial note...[edit]

Hi again Esperanzians! Well, since our last frolic in the realms of news, the Advisory Council has met twice more (see WP:ESP/ACM2 and WP:ESP/ACM3). As a result, the charter has been ammended twice (see here for details) and all of the shortcuts have been standardised (see the summary for more details). Also of note is the Valentines ball that will take place in the Esperanza IRC channel on the 14th of February (tomorrow). It will start at 6pm UTC and go on until everyone's had enough! I hope to see you all there! Also, the spamlist has been dissolved - all Esperanzians will now recieve this update "newsletter".

The other major notice I need to tell you about is the upcoming Esperanza Advisory Council Elections. These will take place from 12:00 UTC on February 20th to 11:59 UTC on February 27th. The official handing-over will take place the following day. Candidates are able to volunteer any time before the 20th, so long as they are already listed on the members list. Anyone currently listed on the memberlist can vote. In a change since last time, if you have already been a member of the leadership, you may run again. Due to the neutrality precident, I will not vote for anyone.

Yours, as ever, Esperanzially,
--Cel es tianpower ^háblame 09:00, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(message delivered by FireFox using AWB on Celestianpower's behalf)

Vandalizing Kurdish people article[edit]

Thank you for unprotecting Kurdish people article; but unfortunately due to the political conflict on the Kurdish people which usually has resulted a permanent and continuous vandalism on this article (as well as some other related articles) I suggest to at least semi-protect it. Thank you D iyako Talk + 22:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you working again?[edit]

If you aren't, let me know and I'll blank the page you requested. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 03:45, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, Drini fixed it. But now it seems to be completely disabled...nothing about works (I have the code there). Thanks.Voice_of_All^T|@|ESP 03:46, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. I wouldn't recommend that course of action. ;-) --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 05:40, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Appareciate the alert but I'm one of those weird-ass cologne blue folks. :) Really dislike monobook. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 07:22, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, no. Cologne blue does have it's own file. Mine is User:Woohookitty/cologneblue.js. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 07:27, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No prob[edit]

Hey, no problem. I worked on it again. I am new to Wikipedia, so, i thinked that I do a wrong thing. Bye!—Preceding unsigned comment added by Shinobi Jiraya (talk • contribs)

Monobook.js[edit]

May I ask you why you updated my monobook.js? I was somewhat surprised when my pop-up tool disappeared and was replaced by the anti-vandal tool... Thanks. By the way, I'm sure it was good cause, it's not like I'm accusing you of vandalism or anything. -- WB 02:04, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh thanks alot! Yeah, interesting sets of tools there. It'd be great if you can combine pop-up with the anti-vandal tool. By the way, you might want to fix your signature. T doesn't lead to your talk page. -- WB 02:12, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome! Thanks a lot! -- WB 02:21, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure go ahead, I still have to get used to this thing. I have no idea where that is right now. Perhaps I should look at a guide or something. -- WB 02:31, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead. Thanks for this. -- WB 02:33, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Getting a lot of database errors today) Well, I get

Getting article history (/w/index.php?title=Sydney_FC&action=history&limit=50)...

Error: Last editor is 210.9.188.178, not undefined!"

when I click on that. It's an useful function indeeed. Is there a certain thing that's causing this problem? Perhaps it's an unimportant function in popup nav. that I do not need. -- WB 02:43, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's too bad. I wonder if Lupin can do anything for us. I think I'll go with pop-up right now, but leave the .js script for now. -- WB 03:37, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I think I'll leave it for now. Pop-up works fine, and I can use features other than the revert as vandalism too. So yeah. -- WB 03:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revert[edit]

Many thanks for the user page revert. Pushed someone's happy button, apparently. Kuru ^talk 04:35, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism[edit]

Why is it more logical to have "Passion" on the "Pornographic Actor" page to link to The Passion of the Christ rather than to a new article about Passion the pornographic actress? This is plain stupid, and being accused of vandalism is not very amusing.

I was doing RC patrol and reverted it by accident...the link is fixed now.Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 13:36, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I'm sorry I overreacted.

Sorry...I should be more careful when using the vandalism revert because it is very automatic, so it can create quite a mess.Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 21:32, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Hilbert[edit]

I've put David Hilbert down to semi protect: reasons on the talk page. Just letting you know... William M. Connolley 22:58, 21 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Monobook[edit]

I noticed that your monobook says "NO JAVASCRIPT"...does this mean you don't want any. My monobook is VERY useful...you might want to copy it. It automatics a lot of tedious things. Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 16:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that suggestion, I will certainly look at your monobook when I get a chance. I did try Lupin's popups previously, but it seemed to cause my browser to crash so I gave up with it. Still, I'll definitely have a play at some point! Any add-on's in particular that you'd recommend? _└^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 09:38, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's up?[edit]

I was wondering if the Sysop coaching program was still up. -- Eddie 22:38, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been watching your page and there has been little activity. Here is a task if you are interested: when new WP:RfPP request come up...tell me what you would do for each of them.Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 02:21, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try that as long as You don't beat Me to it. Thanks. -- Eddie 03:32, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes...though an admin already decided to do so. Looking only at the last day...there is not enough to protect. However, if an edit war has been going on for a few days...and is still going on...then it should protect, as it is was. If it was vandalism instead, you would block the vandal, or if he used AOL you would semi-protect. Note that whether an IP is involved or not...any disputed article will not be semi-protected. SPro is only for vandals.Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 03:58, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes...though there are multiple IPs though the main fact is that the vandalism is just a slo, managable, steady stream. It is tempting protect stuff based on %vandalism of last edits over the week...but that is not how SPro works. Constant heavy waves of vandalism is generally the only reason to sprotect.Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 17:41, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill[edit]

Why did you protect this page? What's the criteria for opening it back up? Nothing was put on the talk page. Thanks -Jcbarr 01:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There was an edit war going on. That is just the problem: there is nothing on talk...people where just reverting.Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 01:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"edit war"? There was vandalism going on. sprotected stopped it - why full pro? -Jcbarr 01:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well...the "vandal"(and maybe he is one) said that he was acting in good faith. If you can prove that he wasn't then I'll lower it. Either way, semi will not stop him for much longer, as his account will soon be old enough to pass through it (about 4 day old accounts can edit). So either way you might as well leave it.Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 01:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I see the requests now. The orig request by User:Thunder8 was for vandalism [13]. The 2nd request was by a newbie who was asking that it be un-locked [14]. We need to at least go back to sprotect. Or why not turn it off since the game (Thunder's orig reason) is over. -Jcbarr 06:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill[edit]

There is a request for unprotection on this page up at WP:RFPP, but it is not immediately clear to me why the page was protected in the first place. In your opinion, would it be safe to unprotect at this point, or should we wait a couple more days? (ESkog)^(Talk) 13:15, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I should read the page first. (ESkog)^(Talk) 13:15, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which page? The actions of this admin in this case are completely baffling to me, and I've been an editor on this page (UNC-CH) for months. There was no reason to fully protect this page -- there was never a request to do so. There was never an "edit war" worthy to be called that. Nobody knows what the admins are waiting for as the criteria to unprotect this page, because there never was a reason to protect in the 1st place. -Jcbarr 22:57, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It has been a few days...I will unprotect to see what happens now. That vandals should be gone. The score change dispute will hopefully not lead to a revert war.Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 23:04, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks![edit]

I just wanted to say thank you for voting for my RFA, of course if you ever need a hand, let me know :) - cohesion★talk 23:10, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would you like me to add on to your monobook to automatic some of the more repetitive tasks here? I do not use pop-ups or anything else that lags.Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 23:12, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I use User:Cohesion/myskin.css and myskin.js though. Add whatever you want I will try it out. Yeah, I don't like popups that much it's a little too laggy for me as well. - cohesion★talk 00:00, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you removed the vandal revert...but not the link. If that works...do note that I use both "revert as vandalism" and "rollback". The vandal revert has a different summary, opens the vandals contribs page, and opens his talk page in edit mode simultanuously, for quick warning. I like it. If you are going to get rid of it...remove the "//add revert links to diff page" script to.Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 05:08, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will add that back then, that sounds nice, also where does the md5 checksum generator come in? - cohesion★talk 05:12, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment[edit]

Ok so why did you just delete all my edits that took me hours to research??? -ArchonMeld

A note from the Admin Coaching coordinator[edit]

Hello, coaches. As you can see, there is a significant backlog at the Esperanza Admin Coaching program. Since we do not want users to have to wait forever to get assigned, I'm asking all of you for a status report. If you feel that you are done, that your coachee is not active enough, or that you could handle the extra load from another coachee, please tell me in my talk page as soon as possible. Thanks! Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 06:45, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Old talk page[edit]

Hi there! It seems that you are receiving a few messages from your old talk page...for example, this one [15] - I decided to follow through with it, but you might want to check up on it a bit later. See you! --HappyCamper 16:14, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse article protection[edit]

Hi Voice of All,

Thanks for recently protecting the Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse article. The protection of the article lasted almost a full hour, before it was overturned by another admin. Since then, the article has again been vandalized, albeit minor vandalism.

The one hour protection hardly seems worth the effort of discussing protection, voting, and listing on the Requests for Protection page. It's discouraging for regular users to ask admins for assitance, only to get this sort of response, but I appreciate your effort. I'm writing to let you know that your efforts were genuinely appreciated, and please do keep listening to us 'regular folks'.--Firsfron 19:04, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse article protection[edit]

Hi Voice of All,

Thanks for recently protecting the Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse article. The protection of the article lasted almost a full hour, before it was overturned by another admin. Since then, the article has again been vandalized, albeit minor vandalism.

The one hour protection hardly seems worth the effort of discussing protection, voting, and listing on the Requests for Protection page. It's discouraging for regular users to ask admins for assitance, only to get this sort of response, but I appreciate your effort. I'm writing to let you know that your efforts were genuinely appreciated, and please do keep listening to us 'regular folks'.--Firsfron 19:13, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Licorne show[edit]

Noticed your protect on David Hilbert. For details of the debate this is a part of, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Licorne. There's only one user being POV here; there's no real debate to be resolved. In my opinion.... I'm not sure how much protection helps... --Alvestrand 22:48, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POV dispute at Big Spring, Texas[edit]

An anonymous user using one of several IP addresses has been waging a campaign to add this clearly POV essay to the page: [16]. As you can see on the talk page, numerous (and exhausting) attempts have been made to reason with this individual and explain why that section is unverifiable POV. The user refuses to acknowledge Wikipedia's NPOV policy, and insists that the edit is "the truth" and that the act of omitting it is POV. Though there might be a few salvageable bits from the disputed edit, the user has made no effort to modify the content so that it would be verifiable and NPOV.

I was preparing to request protection for the page, but I'm wondering if you think there might be any other actions worth exploring.

Thanks, OhNo itsJamie ^Talk 18:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Freemasonry[edit]

I suport your action in protecting this page. "New" editors are not the problem. The problem is two power blocks blocks bullying other editors and playing daft games with tags, etc., over serious issues. Thanks for your "Sage"/"Guru" action. Imacomp 12:30, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Full protection on Freemasonry[edit]

Your recently placed a full protection on the Freemasonry article. I would like to request that you change this to a partial protection lock instead. A full protection is not what was requested. To explain, this article has been repeatedly the subject vandalism attacks by a small group of users pushing an extreme POV agenda, vandalism that interferes with legitimate editing attempts. These users have been repeatedly blocked, but keep coming back under various socks. About a week ago, the page was partially blocked to block new users. This allowed the regular contributers to make some very good progress on improving the article. Then, a day or two ago, the partial block was lifted, and the POV editing returned. This is a controvercial subject, and there will always be some disputes between those who aproach the subject different viewpoints ... but the extremes on both sides are making it very difficlult for us to reach NPOV consensus as we constantly battle the POV crap the extremes keep adding. A partial block will let the regular contributers work out our differences and reach concensus. Blueboar 16:05, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you[edit]

Thanks, Voice! Bishonen | ノート 23:15, 26 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Page Protection.[edit]

TalkSPORT has a few reverts today...the last edits were days ago, and there is only one IP, so I would avoid semiprotection. The question is: is this vandalism or a legitimate dispute? Note that just because some one says it is vandalism is not enough, as that is often not the case. What I see is an ongoing, yet slow, edit war over "conservative" vs the use of the word "moderate", the mentioning of the broadcasting make-up(all white), and the addition of a link to a small forum whose parent site is already linked. The IP also seems to have a bit of pro-POV, though the other user is not without flaws, especially in his edit summaries. He says "rvv" when the edit was not clear vandalism. Likely a compromised wording will be the most NPOV here. I would leave it alone, watchlist, and protect if edit wars continue.Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 17:22, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Voice of All,

1) It wasn't me who added the words "unlike most media". 2) I have been trying to come to a compromise with two different sets of IPs who have been adding POV from two sides of the political spectrum. One called me a "pinko", while the other was insistant that I had a right-wing agenda. I feel that both editors were particularly agressive in their unwillingness to cooperate and the name calling which insued. As for the edit summaries, my tounge was firmly in my cheek. I feel that I am being blamed by you for trying to cause some kind of disruption. The simple fact is that I was trying to make sure there was some kind of balance, trying not to infuriate the diametrically opposed IPs. I find your comment on my user page to be quite discourtious seeing as all I was trying to do was find a solution to the rediculous problem. As for the "right wing" and "no non-white" things, it was clear that the IP was trying to discredit the station and impose certain conclusions as to the station owners intentions, which would be apparent from linear analysis of the wording. It is thus unencyclopedic.

Thanks for taking the time to skim through the situation,

Yellowmellow45 18:13, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As to 1), I never said that you made those edits, the diffs where from both of you. I put the IP's name first to adress him on your user page, since he does not use his pages (IP changes a bit). However, you keep adding in this[17], which does not seem very neutral. If a notewoethy critic pointed this out, perhaps it can go it, but that fact on its own has a very questionable POV.Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 18:30, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That edit was to keep the other one happy. If you think it should be removed, go ahead, but the other IP will revert it when they next have a look at the page and so there is no point. Yellowmellow45 18:34, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I know it's confusing but, users 195.195.78.21 and similar IPs and 195.92.67.76 and similar IPs are actually two different people. This complicates things and it does become complicate to negotiate with the two of them in a proper manner. Yellowmellow45 18:43, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't really need protection, because just one user is trying to disrupt it -- Eddie, Thursday March 2 2006 at 06:52

Saint John Bosco[edit]

Re your block: I found it surprising, as the tone of the discussion was more akin to a civilized debate, and there was only one more vehement user, who was not unreasonable. I find the imposed hiatus to be more of an interruption to an ongoing process than a welcome cooling off. The fundamental issues here - the defense of a religious article by religious people - will never go away. Haiduc 04:39, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just discovered[edit]

your quashing of a vandal at the Corrado Parducci article, one near and dear to my heart. So, can't these real obvious types be banned or blocked, or can i show up at his/her doorstep at 3 A.M., or something? Anyway, thanks for you vigilance and follow through. Carptrash 07:40, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hitler[edit]

thanks for the fix. Agathoclea 07:52, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Protected...[edit]

The problem in these two cases is that a protected template was edited into the article or talk page by someone who isn't an administrator, so it has the appearance of being protected, even though it isn't... I think this is a real problem honestly, because we could have people who just see the tag, don't bother to try editing and so don't edit, without any kind of oversight as to how long it's been going on, whether this is chilling discussion, etc. I'm actually about to go through what links on the protected template right now <whew> · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 23:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect example, found in less than 5 minutes on the first page of WLH: [18] added yesterday. If you want to help....... =) · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 23:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And another one at [19], and I'm still on the first page. I have a feeling this is going to take a while... · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 23:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that wasn't so terrible, somehow. It should probably be checked periodically though. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 23:18, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Monobook again[edit]

Hello again, do you think you can add a big "delete" in my pop-up script? I think it will be useful for my speedy deletion run. Thanks a lot! -- WB 02:55, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if you can still view this (being in archives), but thank you very much!. -- WB 20:49, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More protection.[edit]

Well, I would (and did) SP Truthiness. However, I move-protected California State Highway 17. Move protection can be semi-move protection or full, (generally you either have none or full). So I fully move protected it due to the edit war.Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 07:55, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Huh?[edit]

You left a message on my talk page, but it was a form letter. Please explain specifically which pages you're talking about. 13:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Objectivism and homosexuality[edit]

Dear Voice of All,
I am attempting to intervene in the edit war on this (and related) article. I am doing so by talking directly to the participants, and you know what? It's beginning (only beginning) to work. Please give me a little time before doing anything heavy-handed, especially w/r/t User:Alienus, with whom I am directly collaborating, and who is being very properly cooperative. I note that he responds politely to politeness, intelligently to intelligent explanations/requests, and snaps back when snapped at. (Sigh. We were all young once.) And, as I recently said elsewhere, if two people as different as he and I can reach concensus, the resulting article should be pretty darned NPOV!
BTW, the Talk page for the article, where he and I were collaborating and communicating, has suddenly disappeared. Can you be of any help with that (assuming it doesn't spontaneously reappear from the bowels of the servers)?----TJ 22:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It reappeared.--TJ 22:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GML[edit]

I have updated your GML script to remove the "vandal=undefined" incompatibility with popups. Also, my warning tabs make an auto-date title, though I left yours alone, you might want to have a look. I also have quick protection tags in there too.Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 00:43, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing it but I am not good with scripts. Are we talking monobook? The quick protection tabs and auto date would be handy. --Dakota ~ ° 01:00, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't mean to leave the paste in there it was a just reference point for me. The warning scripts are both the same at least in action.( 1 t2, 2a, t3, t4, bv, 5) . Which one of your scripts has the quick protection and auto-date? Please put up the picture, its nice seeing others.--Dakota ~ ° 01:40, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Those scripts don't affect Rollback do they?--Dakota ~ ° 02:46, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

?speedy[edit]

Sorry to bug but this looks like a speedy but I am too new on that button. The title is deceptive. [20]A more experienced opinion might be in order.--Dakota ~ ° 03:10, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like an admin already speedied. Add the tag {{delete}} or just delete yourself. The tag is good because then two admins look at it (the tagger and the deleter), though you can just press "delete" right there. Still, I am not entirely sure what you are asking.Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 03:16, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just being carefull. That another admin deleted it gives me the answer.Thanks.--Dakota ~ ° 03:47, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Skin[edit]

Monobook. I'm boring that way, I suppose :). Really, I never noticed the other skins at all until I was too used to Monobook to change, and I never found any reason to change it. Cheers. Sean Black ^(talk) 03:14, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meh. I'm okay. If I need something I'll let you know. Thanks anyway, Sean Black ^(talk) 03:19, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

more socks adding spam to NASCAR[edit]

add User:205.188.116.66 to the list -- SonicAD (talk) 05:37, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An essay on the locking of the article on Jim Nussle[edit]

We gotta a sock puppetter who appeals to admins. Admins look at my 2500 edits and the 1,500 EB 1911 edits which have disappeared.

I am responsible. He is not. And I will call Jim Nussle an adulterer, in that Jim Nussle really is. His current wife is an authentic home-wrecking slut. This is hard-core political, but also hard-core truth.

Monobook[edit]

Just a note that the new monobook you're offering to people could use a change. At present, the page shows up in CAT:SEMI and probably the main protected page category because you've included the full {{sprotected}} tag in it. Please could you write it as a sum of several string additions to avoid this e.g. "{{" + "sprotected}}"? Thanks. -Splash^talk 15:10, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It works nicely. Thanks again.--Dakota ~ ° 18:02, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me...?[edit]

Excuse me...? What "nonsense" did I add to Wikipedia on March 4, 2006? I haven't even made any edits on this computer today -- I just logged on.

I think you've got the wrong IP.

It says edit made by this IP address, so it is implied that it may not be you. I'll try to make it more clear. Anyway, carry on editing as usual. You may want to create an account.Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 18:25, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fate of the Earth[edit]

Hi Voice of All,

That's a nice picture of the Earth on your userpage, but I don't think it would be crying out for help. More likely it would be thinking, "These kids (humanity) have to learn that if they play with fire, they'll get burned." Really, how likely is it that we could destroy a planet that began with an oxygenless atmosphere and no standing water, went through several ice ages and multiple meteor impacts, and continues to sustain life? The only way I see that we could wipe out most life on earth is with nuclear weapons, and even then the cockroaches would survive. If we do cause a great amount of global warming, we may drive our own species to near extinction, but the Earth will be fine. TheJabberwock 06:05, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was refering to the concept of gaia, the earth as a whole (mainly the biosphere). Looking at it as a huge planetery body, then yes, it would not (and could not) care :).Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 06:17, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Links[edit]

Sent you an email.--Dakota ~ ° 02:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Protection[edit]

Temp SP White House, lots of IP addresses vandailising this page. -- Eddie, Monday March 6 2006 at 03:47

My block of Eddie[edit]

Yes. You did miss something. It's a fairly long story, so to cut it short, I told him how his vanity edits would count against him in an RFA, he went to Karmafist coplaining about me acting in bad faith (personal attack), I blocked. NSL E _(T+C) at 04:50 UTC (2006-03-06)

Maybe my view's different because I'm on the receiving end, but I feel it meets the criteria "Accusatory comments such as "Bob is a troll", or "Jane is a bad editor" can be considered personal attacks if said repeatedly, in bad faith, or with sufficient venom.". NSL E _(T+C) at 04:55 UTC (2006-03-06)

BTW, since he's your admin coachee, and you agree it's out of line, you ought to say something to him about it. NSL E _(T+C) at 04:56 UTC (2006-03-06)

This is overwith and I reverted the offending comment. -- Eddie, Monday March 6 2006 at 05:36

Terry Bogard[edit]

Hi. Could you contribute to the conversation here...? In the meanwhile, I've also inserted the request on pages for protection. This is becoming somewhat of an irritant situation. -Zero^Talk 06:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. After awaiting developments, it was clear that fellow didn't want to follow concensus or adhere to discusion or policy (contaray to Tony's belief); he only wanted to get his way. Hopefully, we can get some peace, I expand most of these articles and construct mantience by myself for the most part; the last thing I need is vandalism and nonsense. -Zero^Talk 06:26, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Nussle[edit]

Thank you for the block of sock puppets. The current article is correct, but can be made far more correcly lurid. --67.1.121.134 10:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you check if Talk:Jim Nussle#Once again, her slutitude could be considered vandalizm? It is a talk page but this (as earlier comments by someone else on that page) are clearly attacks on a person related to the article in question. Agathoclea 10:39, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see that is the whole bone of contention of the article ... still it looks like vandalizm to me. A better wording could bring out the facts without attack though. Agathoclea 10:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind I found the RfC on the matter. Agathoclea 10:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The anon user above edited some of the same articles as FouthAve and takes the same vulgar tone. Possible puppetry? This is a poorly veiled attempt to gain access to the article in question. The RfC is here.- Jaysus Chris 19:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello[edit]

It was a sock I think. It's work got finished by a friend.--Dakota ~ ° 06:40, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the comment as he was being a huge ass (oh...and WP:NPA). Hope you didn't mind :).Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 06:41, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No I don't mind. That sort of "stuff" doesn't bother me. Thanks. I offed the image because it was named with my nick and vandals both on my page and in email have addressed me by it which does bother me. It was also good practice on an image deletion. I am going to upload it and some others of my pets for my gallery in a couple of days. Hopefully I can get to the water and take some pics for an article also.--Dakota ~ ° 06:55, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Drwhostub-02.JPG[edit]

Would You protect this while it's on the main page? -- Eddie, Wednesday March 8 2006 at 12:50

Lindsay Lohan Punk'd reference[edit]

Thank you for your note. Removal of data that is the instant subject of a RfM is vandalism (in the spirit of a request for mediation, the data's inclusion or deletion will be the decision of the Committee—it was included at the time the user filed the RfM and, therefore, deletion by the same user is a violation of his own signed agreement to mediate) and will be reverted as vandalism. Radio Kirk talk to me 13:02, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please link to the page where this rule exists. Also, I doubt that medcom would "make" the article choses, they simply monitor behavoir. At any rate, violation complaints should go to medcom. If someone starts violating NPA then tell me (as mediators don't block themselves). Thanks. Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 16:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say this was a written rule; however, it is common sense to expect the bringer of an RfM to respect the agreement to mediate by all parties involved in the discussion by allowing the mediation process to work, rather than to continue an edit war. This is a clear sign of bad faith. Radio Kirk talk to me 17:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How was that vandalism?[edit]

You reverted "vandalism" on the zoophilia page. Yet as far as I know the idea that humans and chimpanzees can mate successfully is ludicrous. Without credible sources how does that stand as current fact? Every instance of supposed "mating" to date has been refuted by DNA evidence. Biologists agree that speciation between the two organisms is sigificant enought to prohibit creation of viable offspring. Unless I missed something in the edit or have read the history wrong, removing the bad info is not vandalism. Angrynight 18:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops my bad. Sorry apparently I did read the history page wrongly. Never mind :-P Angrynight 18:14, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pop-up help\Thanks[edit]

Thanks for helping get my pop-ups working. I could view the source of the page, but not edit it. I can now. PrometheusX303 20:20, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RFPP[edit]

You did remove my request for page protection of some high-risk template, where not all of the listed had been protected or commented why not to protect. your only edit summary was "empty". Could you explain? _→AzaToth 21:34, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seemed like an older request just taking up space. Spash and I protected the ones that we felt needed it. The others don't seem to have enough traffic or potential harm as the protected ones.Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 22:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you are right :) thank you for the clarification anyways. _→AzaToth 23:13, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Monobook again (yet again)[edit]

"Reverted vandalism by Tawkerbot2 to last version by Dananderson. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you continue to comprimise the integrity of pages you will be [[WP:BLO" appears on edit summary when I do "revert as vandalism". Is this because of the pop-ups? Seems like it was supposed to go to the talk page... -- WB 02:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks! -- WB 05:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Khwarizmi[edit]

Why was the page protected? I was still in the middle of working on the article, and there did not seem to be any continuous revert war going on. SouthernComfort 04:39, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind. I just skimmed the history. But it seems that the dispute was over sources, so I've added quite a few. SouthernComfort 04:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Protecting Olympic Pages[edit]

Someone made a request to protect these pages:

2006 Winter Olympics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Winter Olympic Games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Summer Olympic Games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Yet I didn't find enough vandalism to merit page protection, I suggest we leave these pages alone, watch them for a day and if vandalism escalates, then protect. -- Eddie, Thursday March 9 2006 at 07:59 07:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah.Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 17:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Olympic Games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)[edit]

This page has moderate vandalisim, I'd say temporary protect for a day or two. -- Eddie, Thursday March 9 2006 at 08:02 08:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe...one thing to consider is how well wathlisted it is. If vandalism lasts for 30 minutes per hit, then I am more likely to spro. Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 17:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What you on about?[edit]

Re: your addition to my talk page, what are you speaking of?--Irishpunktom\^talk 09:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Safety[edit]

Hello, thanks for answering my RPP, I just want to point out that since the page was unprotected (6 days ago) there have been about 50 edits, all of them being either vandals or reverts, that's why I thought it would be a good idea to semi-protect. I'll be keeping an eye on the page (and on those darn YTMND vandals!) and if things get nasty i'll drop a note. Thank you. Jesushaces 18:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:SEMI...somewhere in there in mentions that your line of reasoning is against semi-protection policy. Many people tend to think that a high %vandal edit warrants protection, and it is not that unreasonable; it was one of the main discussion point is drafting the semi-protetion policy (with I took part in). SPro is for articles that are getting overwhelmed with vandalism or wasting extrodinary amounts of time just to stop the flood. Thanks for your concern.Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 18:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response, I'm trying to get the hang of thing around here. Jesushaces

JDoorjam's RfA[edit]

Thank you!
Hey Aaron Schulz/Archive5, thank you for your support in my RfA: it passed with a final tally of 55/1/2. If you want a hand with anything, please gimme a shout. Again, thanks! – JDoorj a m Talk 21:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR[edit]

Just to let you know that I replied at WP:AN3. -Splash^talk 21:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Madea's Family Reunion[edit]

Thank you for your additional input. As I had mentioned on the talk page, I'm more than happy to accept a compromise, but it seems that the other person has no desire to compromise. Mhking 00:06, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI - she's still at it, and using at least two accounts to (presumably) try to get around 3RR. I refuse to violate 3RR to deal with her. Mhking 22:17, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Monobook[edit]

I've noticed you sneakily editing my monobook.js... thanks; that gives me some hints as to how I might, rather than just seeing it as a monolitic incomprehensible block :-)

What I'd like, incidentally, is a way to paste in my normal message (I've blocked you [link to their block log] for WP:3RR etc...). Is this possible.

Meanwhile, if you can sort out Dbiv vs Irishpunktom on AN3, I'd be... grateful? No, thats not right. Be interested? Perhaps. Well, see if you feel like having a look William M. Connolley 23:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That certainly is an impressive monobook.js you have there. What does it all do? --J a son ^(talk) 01:56, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

plasma cosmology-- unprotect request[edit]

I am requesting unprotection of this page. I responded fully to Joshua(ScienceAplogist) continued reverts on the talk page. This response has been now moved to the archive since it was before March 9. Protection has simply served to take ScienceApologist's side. He is unsupported in his changes by anyone else's edits. He is getting his way as a minority of one by continually reverting and now getting the page protected with his changes in place.

Here is my extentive reply on the takk page and reasons for reverting ScienceAplogists reverts.

"Cleaning up Joshua's mess

I re-instated again the early history of PC which traces to Aflven's pointing out the limitations of MHD. I put back in "big bang theory" since the theory itself relies on new physics, such as inflation and baryon non conservation to be even vaguely consistent with obervations. I replaced Lieu's interpretation of his own data in his own paper, while eliminating Joshua's unverifiable quote.

I also eliminated Joshua's unfactual description of the open letter on cosmology. A glance at the signers list will show that it can not be described as 'plasma cosmology advocates". Would that there were several hundred of those! But there are not.

I'll return to the GR reference next time I'm at the library. No doubt we will now have a series of reverts by Joshua.Elerner 03:14, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh yes, I also removed the refernce to "largest voids" since the reference given does not refer to them. And I changed "most astronmers" believe WMAP problems are due to foreground to "some astronomers" becauses there is no reference to a peer-reviewed poll of astronomers and the issue is clearly actively debated with lots of papers on both sides.Elerner 03:23, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

  Response to Eric's rationale and why I reinstated everything but one point:

  *
        o
              + I don't mind the early history including Alfven's ideas about the "limitations" of MHD, but the prose did not indicate this and rather seemed to indicate that MHD was somehow part of plasma cosmology. Since it is really separate I removed the prose, and will try to instate sentences that indicate a divergeance from Alfven's much more famous ideas.

The prose is quite clear that the later work came out of Alfven's clear recognition of the limitations of the MHD approach, which he had developed. Anyone who is literate can see that.EL

  Too bad the prose is irrelevant. EL ignores my point again. --ScienceApologist 04:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

  The prose is only irrelevant in your opinion. It seems perfectly relevant to a description of plasma cosmology to me. Please describe here for our benefit why you think it is irrelevant. Jon 14:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

      The point is that we are writing according to Wikipedia:Summary style. There is no reason to include MHD here especially because pc advocates explicitly don't use it. --ScienceApologist 18:51, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

  *
        o
              + It's the Lambda-CDM model that relies on new physics. The Big Bang itself is strictly a GR-based expanding FLRW metric.

Nope, the Big bang includes inflation, which is new physics. Without inflation the Big Bang predicts a grossly anisotropic CBR because of the horizon problem and would be in gross contradiction to observations. Also the Big Bang requires baryon non-conservation, which is new physics. Otherwise nearly everything would have annihilated itself. EL

  Nope, the Big bang need not include inflation. Besides expanded versions of Lambda-CDM include parameters for inflation as well. --ScienceApologist 04:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

  *
        o
              + The quote is totally verifiable as stated in WP:V.

Your quote refers to an entirely different paper by Lieu on a completely different subject. EL

  Ostriker-Vishniak vs. Sunyaev-Zeldovich, touche. However, the gesture is later and the same: Lieu believes the Big Bang. --ScienceApologist 04:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

  *
        o
              + Many of the people on the list aren't even astronomers and some aren't scientists. The ones that we are interested with for this page are the plasma cosmology advocates.

Ridiculous. Read the list. An insignificant fraction have ever commented about plasma cosmology. Here are some of the institutions that signatories are associated with; Armenzano Observatory; Astronomical Institute, St. Petersburg State University; Danish Space Research Institute; Escola Municipal de Astrofísica, Brazil ; European Southern Observatory; Herzberg Institute of Astrophysics; High Altitude Observatory, NCAR ; Istituto Nazionale di Astrofisica ; Max-Planck-Institute Fur Astrophysik; Observatoire de Lyon; Royal Institute of Technology, Sweden; Service d'Astrophysique, CEA; Space Research Institute, Russia; Special Astrophysical Observatory of RAS; Università di Bari ; Cambridge University; College de France; Cornell University; Indian Institute of Technology; Padua University; Los Alamos National Laboratory; Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory; Jet Propulsion Laboratory--EL

  Ridiculous snowballing. Many of the people who signed haven't ever taken an astronomy class in college -- the list is a meaningless charade. --ScienceApologist 04:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

  *
        o
              + The reference given does refer to voids of the order of magnitude of the largest.

Absolutely not true. Provide a quote. I read these references. --EL

  Then you missed the fact that their voids were dozens of megaparsecs in length? --ScienceApologist 04:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

  *
        o
              + The foreground arguments regarding low-ls seem to have the preponderance of papers in the community. There are astonishingly few papers written arguing that this represents a problem for vanilla banana. I often get the impression that Eric is a selective reader of the journals. Not surprising, but this kind of advocacy shouldn't be tolerated as an editorial excuse.

Prove it. Count the papers. There are tons that say the non-Gaussianity is in the real data and can't be MW contamination. Also, for your sentence to be true, it would have to be the opinion of "most astronomers" not most people who have published papers in the field. But it is not true in either case. --EL

              Well, of the last 15 or so I read on astro-ph in the last year, I can recall less than half making a claim that the CMB is a local phenomenon because of this. --ScienceApologist 04:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

  Therefore, I reverted since Eric has made some rather underhanded reverts as per his usual "game-playing". Please address the issues I outlined above rather than reverting from the hip. Talking about these things is always better than edit warring.:--ScienceApologist 14:50, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

For the above reasons, I have reverted all of Joshua's reverts.Elerner 05:54, 5 March 2006 (UTC)"Elerner 03:57, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Protect Persian people[edit]

Persian people[edit]

You might want to check this User:200.118.111.122. He seems very familiar with Wikipedia for an anon who just made his first edit. He also just made two very timely reverts and even knows how to check my last contributions! I'm still sticking to this 1RR. Aucaman^Talk 15:00, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hi there, please help me, i'm tryin to report a mod, are you a modrator too? i posted this on an admin's board but Mr. Aucaman removes it, can you please get it to the adminstrator of this website:

i'm new so i am not sure where or how to report abuse by a mod, i was just taking a look at Aucaman's activites log and came upon this page and this post on that user's guestbook http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:201.252.133.159&diff=43437380&oldid=43432259

i don't know if any of adminstartors here can read or write farsi like mr Aucaman but to roughly translate mr Aucaman is telling that guy in farsi that [B]'your are a backward illitrate iranian, your father is an illitrate killer just like the king of iran cyrus was a an illitrate killer'[/B] this is shocking comment coming from a modrator. does wiki allow the modrators to act this way?!?!/

I moved this to WP:AN/I Prodego ^talk 16:08, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, please warn User_talk:Aucaman, because he broke the 1rr on the Parsi page[21].Zmmz 05:02, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He broke the 1rr again[22][23], and removed a section that came with references.Zmmz 06:02, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User Aucaman removed a section that came with references again.[24]

plasma cosmology[edit]

Why are you giving veto power over the article to ScienceApologist? He is a minority of one. Is he a pal of yours? The only reason for the edit war is his behavior--his errors have been discussed to death.Elerner 01:43, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Muttiah Muralitharan page[edit]

I'm really sorry - I got confused when looking at the code for the table, and it showed the number of deliveries Murali has bowled next to the label "Test (ODI) overs". It's showing some weird thing now, and changing it back to "test balls" (which is what I thought it originally was) didn't seem to work. You're the last person who works here who edited the page, which is why I'm telling you. I was wondering if you could fix it...?

Sorry, I wasn't trying to vandalize it or anything - I just made an honest mistake.

User Aucaman[edit]

I just saw that you had warned User Aucaman to stick to a "1RR" policy. Well, I just wanted to let you know that not only he's not doing that, he's breaking the 3RR rule again on Arabs of Khuzestan. [25] [26] [27] Sorry that I'm reporting this here, I just didn't feel like reporting him on 3RR board because the user always somehow manages get away with whatever he does. --ManiF 14:35, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The 1rr vio report that zmmz listed here does not seems to be a violation. I don't see a 3RR here either. Why not file an RfC if you want opinions on this. The 1RR is for that one article, not other ones.Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 16:21, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they already have filed an RfC against Aucaman (Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Aucaman). Having given the whole matter a quick glance lately (no previous involvement until yesterday), I'd especially appreciate your comments on the "outside view" I added. This affair is symptomatic of something rather serious going on in the way of organized POV warring. Thanks. Lukas ^(T.|@) 11:58, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation user:Voice of All. Now may I ask why do you, as an administrator, chat with user:Aucaman on messenger [28] regarding his actions on Wikipedia. Shouldn't such matters be discussed openly on Wikipedia? Isn't that the Wikipedia policy? --ManiF 19:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Protection for Adana article.[edit]

hello! Can you please protect Adana article,there is an edit war there and people like User: Khoikhoi has been adding offensive and irrelevant information on the page.They are adding a massacre information there,almost accusing all the people of Adana.Also they are adding the historic Greek name in the title despite it is completely irrelevant(none of the Greek cities have turkish translations).

Clive Bull (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)[edit]

From the WP:RFPP page: Someone has completly changed the article without permission from the discussion board. I personally prefert the old version and so do a lot of people. Please Protect until we agree. . JamieHughes 12:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Checking the history, only Anonymous IPs are vandilizing the page, I'd semiprotect. -- Eddie, Tuesday March 14 2006 at 13:13

Admin buttons[edit]

I'm developing a JS tool of mine and was wondering whether admins get extra buttons when visiting pages, and whereabouts they go on the page. Clearly, I don't want to add redundant links for admins if they're already there! (Perhaps you could send me a screenshot? Feel free to e-mail me any pics.) Many thanks. haz _(user talk)^e 15:13, 14 March 2006

All admins get protect and delete tabs. The others come from my JS script. The pics are a bit out of date, but here [29].Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 17:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you e-mail me the source code, from the start to the end of the various toolbars? (from <div id="column-one"> to just before the start of the footer) Many thanks. haz _(user talk)^e 19:03, 14 March 2006

Protection on Maslow's hierarchy of needs[edit]

I think you overreacted by putting full protection on Maslow's hierarchy of needs. This was not an edit war as content was not an user. Another user and I reverted the article several times because an anon user was making edits that messed up links to other language verisions of the article. The user had ignored requests to stop making these edits. The user's edits also included adding in an external link. I did not find anything wrong with this link but I followed other users and reverted when edits destroyed the language links. Maybe straight verision shouldn't have been done and the link should have been allowed to stay. In any case, this is not a content dispute and full protection should be lifted ASAP. (Will also be be posted on protection page).--Bkwillwm 17:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

165.138.232.201[edit]

Heh, I see we're all on the same track with 165.138.232.201. Looking at his previous contribs today, looks like he may be on a spree... any thoughts? -Chris Saribay 19:15, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Monobook[edit]

That looks awesome, thanks for pointing it out to me. I'll give it a whirl. (ESkog)^(Talk) 20:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, let me know when there's a stable version. (ESkog)^(Talk) 21:05, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, I think I'm figuring it out. (ESkog)^(Talk) 21:28, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You (or someone) spelled "malicious" wrong in a couple of places. (ESkog)^(Talk) 21:50, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"mal•ice \"ma-les\ n : desire to cause injury or distress to another — ma•li•cious \me-"li-shes\ adj — ma•li•cious•ly adv (c)2000 Zane Publishing, Inc. and Merriam-Webster, Incorporated. All rights reserved"

The spelling seems to be ok.Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 21:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

203.153.229.47[edit]

Continues to vandalise pages with .'s on numerous lines, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Blockip/203.153.229.47 - theres the link for you -- Tawker 07:33, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Too late [30].Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 07:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

H. James Birx[edit]

Thanks; I hope that it does the trick. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:56, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About Portal:Box-header[edit]

I just saw that WP:RFPP states:

Generally, Full page protection is to stop edit warring or severe vandalism. Semi protection is only for vandalism. Full protection is also used on templates that are frequently used and not in need of frequent edits (this includes most editorial templates; see Wikipedia:High-risk templates).

_→AzaToth 20:08, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to make the message on Portal:Box-header to reflect reality, I created {{psprotected}} _→AzaToth 20:26, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

non-boring signature[edit]

It's me again. Can you show me where I can learn how to make a better signature? I've seen some (like yours) that have colors, different fonts, links and stuff. I'd like to be able to do that with mine. PrometheusX303 23:54, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Use tagging:

[[User:Voice of All|Voice-of-All]]'''[[user_talk:Voice_of_All|T]]|[[Special:Emailuser/Voice of All|@]]|[[WP:EA|ESP]].

Alteratively you could use for colors and for bold. End those with and . and make text as superscript.Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 23:57, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That was a fast reply. I realy don't know much about the special tags and stuff. Is the sig code above manually insereted, or set in user preferences? If there is a page that shows how to do this, I'd be willing go there to learn. I don't want to bother you (too much) PrometheusX303 00:05, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above code has extra spaces just due to text wrapping. When you edit, see the crossed out W, click it, and any highlited text is placed into nowiki tags, which kill the formatting, so the code itself shows. Do not put nowiki tags in your sig preferences (I just put them here so you could see the code, otherwise it would just color things). Go to your preferences (top bar, near "log out") and turn on "raw signature". You could enter something like this:

[[User:PrometheusX303|Prometheus]][[User talk:PrometheusX303|X303]]

Which, without nowiki tags, would look like: Prometheus^X303

Please ignore the huge spacing gaps, copy this from edit mode so they wont be there. Hope that helps!Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 00:14, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That IS cool! I was actually thinking about something like that. I'll experiment. Thanks! PrometheusX303 00:23, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Woo![edit]

New monobook buttons! Thanks! · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 02:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My userpage[edit]

Hey, thanks for reverting vandalism to my user page twice! - Tangotango 07:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IRC[edit]

I can, when you're on IRC ;)--Shanel 03:37, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am, but it gives me an "invite only" error.Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 03:39, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Urgent help needed[edit]

Hi, can I have your quick help in an urgent matter of wikistalking and personal attacks? I recently reverted ([31], [32], [33]) some edits by 80.90.39.45 (talk · contribs) alias Rose-mary (talk · contribs), who has a long history of editing against consensus, 3RR, and subsequent block evasion through daily changing IP addresses (see here for the record: [34]). The last two of these reverts were to enforce his own most recent 3RR block, which he was evading with a fresh IP as usual ([35]). What I got in return was this extended personal attack against my personal and professional integrity: [36], and he's now started to stalk me across talk pages of users I've been in a completely unrelated dispute with ([37]). I'd hate to have my relations with those other editors further burdened by that hate speech spilling over to them, and would very much like him to be stopped before he spreads this even further. Thanks for your attention! --Lukas ^(T.|@) 15:41, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for your quick intervention. I'm not quite sure whether he's going to see your note on User talk:Rose-mary though. Although we sometimes refer to him by that nickname, he hasn't been using that account himself for a while; this was a case where the named account really was the sockpuppet of the anonymous IP, not the other way round. Would you mind placing it also on the IP talkpage? - This guy is really creepy. I know from experience elsewhere on the web that he is perfectly capable of taking his stalking out to the real world, and apparently he has searched out my real-world identity to some degree already. Lukas ^(T.|@) 16:10, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bother you once more, but he's at it again, has reverted Talk:Phaistos Disc to his attack. I'm not going to revert him myself this time, though. If you decide to block, could you please strongly impress it on him that any block you give him is supposed to be valid for him no matter what IP he uses? He simply doesn't seem to be getting that message. Lukas ^(T.|@) 18:20, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why Sir are you helping Dr Lukas Pietsch who since two years has been constantly violating the WP rules and spirit, while posing as a victim ? Don't you think that if Dr Lukas Pietsch has got so many different ennemis, it is just because he is acting in a deeply unethical way ? Please, don't listen no more to this arrogant guy who is a disgrace to Wikipedia. (80.90.39.45 18:41, 18 March 2006 (UTC))[reply]

I agree with Lukas here, VoA, this guy is just a liability now, and with the threat of real-life harassment, I do think, up for a community ban. He doesn't use an account, of course, but if such a ban was pronounced, we could just revert him on sight. Do you think this should be discussed on AN/I? Or do you think we need to plod through arbitration to istall such a ban? I tend to think that blatant trolling and threats are bannable by community consensus alone, but I shouldn't act here since I am definitely involved with the article in question. dab (ᛏ) 19:14, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inconsistencies in the Bible[edit]

I fail to see how respecting the lack of consensus equals laziness. Johnleemk | Talk 17:55, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Monobook[edit]

Hi. I decided I don't like the pop-ups (just like last time...) but the extra tabs are nice. Is it easy to just chop out the pop-ups code and just leave the tabs? William M. Connolley 19:10, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes...I'll kill the code right now.Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 19:11, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Hocevar's Rollback Bug[edit]

If you've fixed the bug on Sam Hocevar's rollback (as you indicated on User talk:Sam Hocevar#IP vandal diffs - "Last editor is ... not Contributions"), then can you please show me what you did to fix it? Please paste the corrected rollback into User:King of Hearts/Sandbox/Main. Thank you! -- King of Hearts ^talk 22:58, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure[edit]

I got your message. But have no clue what you're talking about. I am not technical AT ALL. LOLGator (talk) 00:23, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re: Battle of Little Big Horn[edit]

"Brendenhull" is determined to push you to the limit. Perhaps not only a block is in order, but a no-edit on that article. Thanx and good luck.--Buckboard 01:19, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Benjamin Franklin[edit]

Hi, this message is regarding Benjamin Franklin. When you unprotect a page, please remove the protection notice as well. Thanks. --BorgQueen 17:30, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dean McVeigh[edit]

Hello, Voice of All. You created a double redirect at Dean McVeigh when you moved Melbourne University student organisations to Melbourne University student organizations. It is protected, so I cannot fix it. -- Kjkolb 08:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Melbourne University Student Organisations[edit]

Melbourne University is in Australia not America and as such should use Australian English and Australian English is Organisations. It is practice to spell Australian articles with Australian spelling. This is not an America only encyclopaedia Please put it back. Xtra 08:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My monobook.js file[edit]

Please do not modify this file without asking me first. Best regards, Hall Monitor 17:36, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JS[edit]

If you're not going to go back and seek permission from each user you have edited in this manner, I'm going to seek advice on ANI on whether this was an appropriate use of admin powers. I think it also necessary for you to stop doing it, do you agree? -Splash^talk 20:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've already noted the concerns...I'll just edit upon request.Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 20:29, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And the users you already gave this to without them asking for it? -Splash^talk 20:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Made some reverts...I am tired of messing up, making mistakes while some people just can't wait to point them out (And I can tell this by there tone)...At least if I was like this no one would complain anymore...Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 20:44, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A little bit melodramatic, I think. I asked you about something I thought you shouldn't have been doing, you dismissed the message (twice) without replying and then you complain that I'm eager to point others' mistakes: if I hadn't pointed it out, you'd still be doing it. Also, you reverted only two of your recent list. I haven't checked whether some of these may have asked you (or you may have sought their permission), but I think you should check each of them:

Gator1
Pharos
Georgia guy
~~Raul654~~ done
Alvin-cs
Funnybunny (don't want, already partly reverted)
WoodenTaco
Katefan0
Gflores
Cecropia
~~JDoorjam~~ done

Splash^talk 20:53, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I wouldn't...because of Hall Monitor. And I am only pissed because I have gone through this my whole life. And ask around...I am not the only that things that you have this problem. Also, some of those users did it with permission. Also, I have categorized this users, so I don't need a list.Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 21:02, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But people's monobooks are not on their watchlists automatically. Thus, those users whose monobooks you created from scratch would have no idea you have done this. I don't understand why you are taking this so badly. If me telling other admins when they get things wrong is a problem for them, then they should stop getting things wrong. -Splash^talk 21:05, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In fact...revert all of them except for Kate and BWD. Have fun.

And you do not just "stop getting things wrong"...I've always been rejected for some reason, fixing one is a drop in the bucket, another will popup in a few seconds. I don't like myself either (that poll was pretty high for the topic...).Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 21:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I asked you to do it is because, firstly, it was your idea in the first place and also because the only kind of message I could leave in an edit summary would be "revert VoA's unauthorised edit to your monobook" which doesn't sound great for you. I wouldn't actually edit someone's .js without asking them (you don't seem to have grasped that this is what I'm asking you to stop doing) and so I would need to leave talk page messages to the same effect. Either way, you'll look worse if I have to do it for you because you refused to reverse your own mistakes. -Splash^talk 21:13, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I already said that I will only edit upon request (or permission of course)...what else do you want me to say? Just say "rv; edits other monobooks onlt with permission" or heck even "reverteds edits by Voice of All to last version by X".Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 21:22, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And Alvin does't mind..so I am not reverting his either, a few more to go.Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 21:26, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have done the rest. I'd personally have done it by asking them on talk and saying they should remove it if (and only if) they don't want it. I say this because it was the fact that you were editing others' monobooks that troubles/d me, and I'd have preferred a course of action that did not involve further edits-without-permission, but I guess it's too late now. I'm sorry if you've been having a bad day today, or something, but receiving messages, even critical ones, asking why you are doing something is not something that should upset you unduly. -Splash^talk 21:39, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

People correct me on here and I don't mind. But some people correct others so much, with such patronizing wording, that I get sick of it. Maybe you don't mean to be too critical, but you seem to come of as doing that. All you have to do is say the same thing with different wording. Such as "I am unprotecting since I just don't see enough vndalism imo", instead of "that was a very odd choice" or "I noticed that you edit several people's monobooj files without an indication of having asked them first. I strongly suggest that you only edit other monobooks with permission, since it is an admn action. Thanks." instead of "If you are adding your scripts to people's monobooks without asking them and receiving confirmation first, you are treading a very fine line. I cannot find any authorisation for your addition to User:Pharos/monobook.js for example, and you did so with a completley uninformative set of edit summaries. Please clarify, urgently". Look at "Please do not modify this file without asking me first. Best regards"(Hall Monitor). That is the kind of wording that does not upset people, and as a consequence, gets things done faster. I (and many others here usually) am far more likely to give a good response to a nice request than to an over-critical one, even though that may seem counter-intuitive, though serious wording =/=overcritical, so maybe it does make sense, I don't know.

I would say that I am not the only one with a problem (with you I suppose, though I don't like the way that sounds) MONGO admittedly tries to avoid you for the same reason. I wouldn't as far as the IRC user (on main Wiki) that said"yeah...Splash is a jackass", but I am just saying try to bit a bit more careful in your wording. I think I'll end this rant now since I am just starting getting hungry (its 5:00 pm, and I still have not eaten, though I am not yet hungry).Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 22:07, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a sidenote, just because I seem to have Dysthymia, does not mean that I don't wont you to correct me or anything...just do it kindly, that really all that matters.Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 22:14, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

<reset>MONGO doesn't like me because I opposed his RfA and then, as it was ending, suggested that it was wrong of him and his supporters to try to remove opposition votes that arrived after the 7 days but before the close of the vote by leaving talk page message to that effect (which resulted in one user withdrawing an oppose on those grounds). I can guess which very small collection of users would be gutless enough to call me a jackass behind my back. But being called a jackass doesn't make me one. I'm wondering if perhaps they are the ones that should be careful with their wording. I'd prefer bitching about me be done to my face, and if the person so bitching isn't (wo)man enough to do so, then really I don't have much time for them. If you have a problem with me, I'd like to know, and I'd like to try to fix it. I don't think it was right of you to use my shortcomings as a kind of shield for actions of your own, however. You are right, now I go back and re-read those remarks, that they were heavier than they needed to be. I'm sorry, and I will try to take a lighter touch in future. On the general point, I tend to give admins a harder time when they go wrong in situations where there is well-established convention because they are of the class of user that should be able to avoid such mistakes. That said, if I am being unpleasant to people, I too am breaking well-established conventions and should know better so I'm not entirely innocent. -Splash^talk 00:46, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I pretty much agree with the above, though I don't even know about MONGO's RfA strangeness. You did say: "I don't think it was right of you to use my shortcomings as a kind of shield for actions of your own, however." I don't think that I am doing that, or not know at least. I was thinking that I can add some JS script, since the users retained previous tools. However, since only admins can edit others monobooks, it is like editing a protected page, and on top of the fact that it is one user's personal script; so yes, it becomes obvious that editing others script should be done on request (like that time I reverted a users because he crashed it hard, and could edit anymore). I've made the reverts and will note the above in the future. At any rate, I apologize for the time and inconvenience this mess has caused you.Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 01:09, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, I didn't realise it was possible to self-prevent editing in that way. (You might want to keep an off-Wiki copy of the broken version for reference in case it should ever be seen as an exploit by the less pleasant company the wiki keeps.) It hasn't caused me any inconvenience that I didn't volunteer for, and it's not really a mess, it's just a....thing....and things happen. And I will try to be nicer to you in general (and I don't mean that to sound patronising). -Splash^talk 01:22, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]