User:Fvw/TalkArchive/13

This page has been archived, please do not edit it. New talk and comments on this talk go on my talk page.

Great to see you back!

Good to see you back. If you can, take a peek over Wikipedia talk:Bots every so often. The occasional bot request requires someone's else input than my own. --AllyUnion (talk) 19:04, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Yeah, I'd noticed you'd become pretty much the lord and master (and sole inhabitant) of Wikipedia:Bots. I've been trying to leave a note there when I have something worthwhile to say on a proposal, but I'll redouble my efforts. --fvw* 19:27, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't have much time to contribute to the Wikipedia as I use to, but I figured I'd make the most of watching a page which has been neglected by a great deal of the community. --AllyUnion (talk) 21:27, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

why'd you unblock 212.50.183.100?

he's blanking articles, and has been warned repeatedly.. what's the point? Pfalstad 19:16, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Yup, that one seems to deserve a block, I've reblocked him. See WP:AN#Brian0918.27s_instant_blocks for why he was unblocked in the first place. --fvw* 19:22, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Hey, thanks for the timely block. Much obliged, --Dvyost 20:23, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for restoring my user page. It seems that since I started being active in RC patrol, vandals don't like me... :) ≈ jossi fresco ≈ 22:40, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

See it as the badge of honour it is, nothing beats that warm fuzzy feeling of getting mailbombed and seeing it all filter neatly into your spam folder :-) --fvw* 22:41, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Your vandalism

I do not appreciate your activities as a common vandal at Open Season (2006 movie). Eclecticology 23:29, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Please don't make baseless accusations. --fvw* 23:33, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

There's nothing baseless about it. It's a fact that he deleted the article without good reason. Eclecticology 23:39, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

It was deleted as a recreation of a previously AfDed article, which is perfectly legitimate. --fvw* 23:41, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Not at all. It was posted to Wiktionary where it does not belong since it is encyclopedic. A few things were added, it was restructured from what was put on Wiktionary, and an IMDB link was added. It's a whole new article which should be discussed before being deleted. Eclecticology 23:51, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

You're right that it doesn't belong at wiktionary, however it isn't wanted here either. If you think things have changed enough for an article to be appropriate, try WP:VfU. --fvw* 23:54, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Toolserver

I invite you to join the m:Toolserver. May we be able to collaborate a bot project or two. --AllyUnion (talk) 23:43, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Cool, thanks, and though some collaboration on bots sounds both fun and useful, and I can certainly think of some interesting things to do with live replication of the database, I don't think I have any need for access right now. I didn't know this existed though, so I'm bound to think up some mad ideas and want access soon. 23:50, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Whiskey Flavored Condoms

See my talk page. Redwolf24 (talk) 00:27, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Ababyseal

You marked User:Ababyseal with test markers twice, but I only see one edit. I'm not sure why you started with test2, either. I'm at least removing test4 from his talk page.--Prosfilaes 01:41, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Deleted pages don't show up in a user's contributions list. It's a known bug. --fvw* 01:42, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

BigDaddy777

Fvw,

User BigDaddy777 has informed me that he is blocked for 24 hours, for violating 3RR.

I have some questions about this:

1. Since he does not appear to be named in the complaint, why was he blocked?
2. Was he blocked for other behavior besides 3RR or sock puppetry? If not:
3. If it was for sock puppetry, what is the evidence of that, if any?
4. Which, if any, of the edits listed on the complaint have been attributed to him, and on what evidence?
5. I noticed one of the IPs was alleged to be from Halliburton. As BigDaddy777 seems to be a truck driver (I am double checking this), how would it be he has access to HB's corporate servers?

Thanks for taking the time to answer these questions. I will leave them on the 3RR page as well, in case someone else has the answers.

paul klenk ^talk 02:03, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

It seemed likely to me he was the sockpuppeteer behind those IPs, given his past editing behaviour and the fact that these anonymous users suddenly popped up when he needed reversions. --fvw* 02:07, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

"Likely..." What actual evidence in this case, based on the edits themselves? Others on that page have also violated 3RR in the past. What past behavior bears on these specific edits? Are you familiar enough with his writing style to see any correlations in style, etc.? I am, and I do not believe it is him. Further (of course) he is denying this. Are you also aware that guettarda and elee... have been egregiously and maliciously throwing around accusations and behaving extraordinarily uncivil towards him; if not, does that give you cause to rethink this? What reversions did he "need"? It seems to me you are going on an unreasonably arbitrary basis, especially since he was not listed on the complaint, and it does not appear

I would like to cordially ask you to consider unblocking him while this so-called evidence is being compiled. If, after he is unblocked, it can be proven he sock-puppeted or broke 3RR, I will allow you to block me for 24 hours (in addition to re-blocking BigDaddy777, if you so desire).

I will wait for your response. Please address my specific questions. Your last answer was extremely vague and general.

Thank you in advance for your time. paul klenk ^talk 02:20, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

They were reversions, so there was no specific edit style. If I'm handling 3RR reports of others on that page I'll process them just as I have this one. --fvw* 02:26, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification; it makes sense. Reversions are reversions.

So, getting back to my questions, which did you attribute to BigDaddy and on what evidence? Why was he blocked when he was not named? I noticed guettarda (I think) accused him of making anonymous edits. This is only partially true; he used an anonymous IP but always signed his edits "Big Daddy on the road," and no evidence has ever been provided that he has ever sock puppeted. Of course there are lots of reckless allegations, but no evidence of any kind?

Please explain what policy Big Daddy violated to get him blocked. I apologize if I sound indignant; this is not personal -- but you are not explaining this block, nor are you specifically addressing these questions. paul klenk ^talk 02:40, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification; it makes sense. Reversions are reversions.

So, getting back to my questions, which did you attribute to BigDaddy and on what evidence? Why was he blocked when he was not named? I noticed guettarda (I think) accused him of making anonymous edits. This is only partially true; he used an anonymous IP but always signed his edits "Big Daddy on the road," and no evidence has ever been provided that he has ever sock puppeted. Of course there are lots of reckless allegations, but no evidence of any kind?

Please explain what policy Big Daddy violated to get him blocked. I apologize if I sound indignant; this is not personal -- but you are not explaining this block, nor are you specifically addressing these questions. paul klenk ^talk 02:40, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Based on timing and bigdaddy's behaviour I suspect that they were sockpuppets of Bigdaddy's. I'm can't give a twelve page powerpoint presentation of statistical correlations, it's a judgement call. --fvw* 02:48, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Based on your evasions and terseness, your complete lack of actual evidence or refusal to provide it, your refusal to answer direct questions, and the utter lack of evidence in the noticeboard report, and your last smart-aleck remark, I would have to say that your judgement call seems, in my humble opinion, a highly questionable one. If you do not have time to address this now, please say so. But I will be asking for something more substantive in the future. If BigDaddy is to be held accountable for... whatever, I am sure you will agree it is reasonable to expect that you, too, should be held accountable.

Please unblock him immediately based this utter lack of evidence, and I will let my previous offer stand. Thanks for listening. Respectfully, paul klenk ^talk 02:56, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Sigh. 2 separate 3RR violations in his first month on Wikipedia definitely doesn't speak well for BD777... though Paul Klenk has apparently appointed yourself as his guardian, I fail to understand why he'd accuse an admin of bias and evasion each time in which BD has clearly violated 3RR (and garnered a block), instead of simply abiding by the decision and improving the behavior. Accusing Kate and Fvw each time BD777 is blocked strikes me as very uncivil on his part. -- RyanFreisling @ 03:25, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, if there's evasion, there's evasion; it's not uncivil to firmly but politely point it out. You seem to to rely on past allegations to support current allegations, even when there is no evidence. We all have our little patterns. If you care to be Fvw's guardian, be my guest. I think in this case, Ryan, if you just look at the actual evidence in the last 3RR report (if, indeed you're interested in it, and not just following me around), and provide your own individual opinion on it, I can give your "weighing in" here some credence. If the facts are of no interest to you, just say so -- but in that case, please do not object when others are trying to establish the facts. If the evidence is there, it is there; I am willing to be blocked for 24 hours if it can be proven. I think that's the least I can do. I am only asking Fvw to stop evading my actual and specific questions are let me know what the evidence is, if any, besides his/her "hunch." And if users can be blocked based on hunches, I can live with that -- if that practice can be supported by stated policy. If not, everyone in this matter must be held equally accountable, not just the people we don't like. I will not return in kind your allegations of my so-called bad behavior. paul klenk ^talk 03:37, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

"please do not object when others are trying to establish the facts." You misdescribe my actions again, to no avail. You see evasion and you 'firmly but politely point it out'. However, you're wrong. It's not evasion. You are incorrect and you refuse to see it. It's common that you seem to want a special response, according to your own 'frame', from everyone you speak with who differs from your POV. Your 'welcome' posts on anon talk pages (those anons that oppose your POV) are often rife with such excessive demands - a bullying technique. The rules are the rules, your suggestions are outside the rules and your ascription of motive and bias to others is erroneous. And bullying sysops is just out of line. Put simply, it's not bad faith for others to refuse to accomodate, or even ignore, your requests/demands when they are beyond the traditional methods of this community. -- RyanFreisling @ 03:45, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I post welcome messages to almost every anon I see on pages where I edit; it is you who choose to focus on certain ones. I also encourage most of them to become logged in, and try to describe the benefits of that. I can think of only one (correct me if I'm wrong) who objected to my comments. It is amusing to see you come here to this page, and attempt to smear me with some sort of innuendo about the past, to discredit my simple and direct attempts to estabish some facts in his latest 3RR and the blocking which followed. And now, Fvw is silent. Also, Ryan, you do not define the rules on this site. What suggestions am I making that are outside the rules? And how is my asking a sysop direct questions "bullying"? Are sysops accountable to no one? Is it not possible that a mistake has been made? One of the halmarks of good wikiquette is admitting when you're wrong -- it's nothing to be ashamed of. If you think I'm out of line, you are entitled to that, but saying it is so does not make it so. I am not the focus of this discussion, as you are attempting to divert it. The focus of my requests and questions to Fvw is to provide the evidence behind the block. Surely you do not wnat users blocked because of smears, past allegations, innuendo, and guilt by association, when the actual evidence in the current case does not exist. Show me, Ryan, the evidence that BD made any of those reverts, or is a sock puppet, or has ever anonymously edited without signing his name to his edits. Just provide the evidence. Also, I freely admit that I am capable of erroneously acribing motive. I can only go on the evidence I see; if there is evidence which refutes it, I will see it. I do not see how asking someone direct questions, in an attempt to resolve a dispute, is "beyond the traditional methods of this community." I do hope that following people around, smearing them, in order to deflect attention from their concerns, is not traditional here. But in your case, it seems to be a favorite practice. You are not doing Fvw any good by encouraging him/her to base user blocks on smears. His/her credibility as a sysop would suffer if your example is followed. By the way, Fvw, if you do not care to have me or us use your page for this discussion, I can make my user page available. But, Fvw, I would like answers to my questions, and if I have said anything that has given you offense, I would ask you address me directly about them, without a surrogate. This is an attempt to resolve a dispute. paul klenk ^talk 04:23, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Again, you misdirect. This, followed by this was the kind of welcome message I was talking about (not a standard 'welcome' template), and is exactly the kind of 'outside the requirements' bullying I refer to. One of the hallmarks of Wikipedia is indeed admitting when you're wrong. As evidenced in your post here, you find it difficult at first to admit you are wrong.

I'm not smearing you. The rest of your post, in so much as it avoids responsibility for your own actions and continues a familiar cycle designed to leave you blameless, but destined instead to leave you misunderstood and unresponded to, is patently circular. There is no smear here. Please be more accurate in your descriptions. And last, I'm not following anyone - Fvw's page was already on my watchlist, as is my right. -- RyanFreisling @ 04:30, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Paul, I happen to agree that a mistake was likely made in the case of Anon-67... but only after extensive review of his(?) history and commentary. If Fvw drew an incorrect conclusion here it was certainly not an unreasonable or biased one. He hasn't been involved in the discussion and it would be an easy mistake to make. Especially as Anon-64 in that discussion seems equally likely to actually BE a sock-puppet (recent appearance, knowledge of Wiki policies & procedures, correlating interests/times, et cetera) and BD777 HAS stated that 'attempts to block him will be futile because of the 100s of IP addresses he has access to'. [1] Yes, they could be three different people innocent of this charge, but it was not wholly unreasonable to assume otherwise under the circumstances.

To return the 'friendly advice' you put on my talk page, I think you need to take a step back and consider your own impartiality here. You describe BigDaddy777's actions as 'defending himself' while saying those he is arguing with are 'acting in bad faith'. You angrily react to suggestions of sockpuppetry by BD777 while simultaneously insinuating that his critics are engaged in the same. Is this equitable? Does this 'aggressive defense' serve to rehabilitate BD777's image or merely perpetuate the downward spiral?

If one or more of the individuals blocked was innocent then this would clearly be unfair... but not malicious. Mistakes happen. A 24 hour hold is not unduly burdensome, and those of us in that discussion who were NOT blocked have attempted to reduce the impact by cutting back on changes and waiting for the others to return so perhaps we can DISCUSS how to proceed rather than switching back and forth madly. May I suggest that it might be more effective to note your disagreement with Fvw's conclusion here and work to improve the situation rather than making it a cause for yet another fight? --CBDunkerson 11:36, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Soft talk does not change the fact that a very unpopular user (with some people) has been blocked based on insufficient evidence at a time when he needs to present an onslaught of evidence at an arbit (so I would argue that it IS burdensome as it prohibits him from defending himself and just adds more evidence against him). Paul is permitted to politely request the admin to present his evidence and argue that it just wasn't there. There is NO problem with what Paul has done. Admins are not a protected class here and if a mistake HAS been made, the proper reponse it to undo it ASAP instead of just ignoring it because it was ONLY 24 hours. This is not the way to run things IMHO. I thought that getting locked for sockpuppetry would require more evidence that the anon users were actually the same eprson other than that the anon user seemed to have a similar politcal idealogy. Is that all that's required now? I hope not.Gator1 12:54, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Fvw: I sent you an email. Did you get it? 67124etc 03:11, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Nope, don't think so. Via E-mail this user? --fvw* 03:22, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

sorry I didn't know how to do that, but now I see it. I sent it to the email on your main page. Well anyway it was about resolving this rather maddening situation via telephone, but now I see you arent in the US so I will try someone more local. 67124etc 03:52, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Proxies

No prob; I vprotected Jimbo's page, so maybe that whackjob will just get a clue and find something better to do. ;-) -- Essjay · Talk 02:46, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

thanks

for your assistance with reverting the Wik psycopath and his ever-growing army of puppets. Is there a practical way of permanently blocking his IP range/s ? --Gene_poole 04:28, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid not, but he's easy enough to rollback. Let me know if he moves to other articles so I can watch those.

Could we lay off the personal attacks by the way? I know nobody's very fond of wik right now, but making personal attacks doesn't help. --fvw* 04:32, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice - I'll be sure to let you know of any other vandalism that I become aware of. Re name-calling, I think I've been pretty restrained in dealing with Wik over the past 3 years, despite taking a barrage of abuse from him, so I can't really say I feel any remorse for pointing out that aspects of his behaviour have a lot in common with the symptoms of various psychiatric disorders. I'll try to restrain my observations on that front in future. --Gene_poole 04:43, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Deletion

I wish I'd thought of that... :-\ -- Essjay · Talk 04:55, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

BartCop

Nephron 03:53, 3 October 2005 (UTC) Is this a reliable source? Do we have a reliable source stating Terry is Bartcop? If not... it is not verifiable and should stay out of the article.... -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 06:38, 4 October 2005 (UTC) Not necessarily, as long as it's a notable source (and given the controversy it's apparantly caused I'd guess it is), we can simply state that perkel.com makes those claims. --fvw* 06:41, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

   I would agree to such an entry, but I am afraid that those anon users and the others that seem to want to 
   assign unproven and unfounded info to BartCop would have a collective hissyfit.  

   Arbitration, anyone?  :) 

   Lone Odessan 06:51, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Would you also agree that this: [[2]] is vandalism? Can nothing be done to prevent this anon user OR sockpuppet, whichever, from popping in and vandalizing legitimate edits? Isn't the user guilty of the "3RR" rule? Curious..... Lone Odessan 07:26, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

More vandalism!

I see that you have also vandalized the talk page for Open Season (2006 movie). I guess it makes it easier to push your POV when you suppress all discussion. Eclecticology 07:04, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Not sure why you moved my user talk page

Not that I mind, I'm sure you had something in mind, but what was the purpose?--Jimbo Wales 11:11, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Oops, the martial arts vandals were putting personal information in your user page again, so I deleted it, undeleted the revisions with personal information in them and moved them off and deleted them elsewhere, then undeleted the other revisions. It's a trick to save from having to click thousands of checkboxes on the undelete page to remove a few revisions from page history. I must have forgotten to untick the "Move talk page" checkbox when moving off the vandalism though, sorry about that. --fvw* 14:16, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Something for you to know

I have decided to return to Wikipedia to sporadically edit articles, in spite of that fact that you and other arrogant users blindly decided to not support me on my RfA due to a incident with a vandal, and a known provoker of edit wars (i.e. I am talking about Gadugi and DreamGuy respectively). You, therefore,are perhaps one of my worst enemies on this site; your complete lack of judgement cost me an RfA, and apparently you don't realize that I have done better work here than errors. You can ignore my message, my comments whatever, but I really consider your action an error. Calling someone an idiot should not have cost me what it did. Generally, I think you are - well maybe you don't want to know. Consider me an enemy. How is that for NPA?Molotov (talk) 18:31, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

And you need to get in your thick skull that bad words are very common in the real world. You can cry over spilled milk. I hope you realize this, because you have throughly pissed me off. Molotov (talk) 18:50, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

But will it stay red?

[3]. I bet it doesn't. Loser has to write "I'm a wikinerd" fifty times on their talk page. - brenneman^(t)(c) 00:06, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I'll bet on people being sensible and basicly sane yet again, you're on. Make it the user page though, talk page is for wusses. --fvw* 00:07, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Have you seen how tidy my userpage is? That's really upping the ante. But I have faith in To... um, WP:IAR!
(Goes away to plan how to fit 350 words into nice box across bottom.) - brenneman^(t)(c) 00:15, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Say, you don't happen to have formatted that box already do you? I need it :-(. --fvw* 00:35, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi

Have you actually looked at the article that you and geogre have repeatedly deleted?

00:34, 5 October 2005 Fvw deleted "Systemwars.com" (deleteagain)

00:29, 5 October 2005 Tony Sidaway restored "Systemwars.com" (9 revisions restored)

00:29, 5 October 2005 Tony Sidaway restored "Systemwars.com" (9 revisions restored)

23:40, 4 October 2005 Fvw deleted "Systemwars.com" (recreation of an AfDed article. VfU if you want to recreate.)

21:02, 4 October 2005 Tony Sidaway restored "Systemwars.com"

20:10, 4 October 2005 Geogre deleted "Systemwars.com" (VfU has not agreed to undeletion. Previously properly deleted. Recreations are speedy deletes. Go to VfU)

16:27, 4 October 2005 Tony Sidaway restored "Systemwars.com" (5 revisions restored)

15:56, 4 October 2005 Geogre deleted "Systemwars.com" (Recreation of a previously VfD'd article, therefore speedy delete.)

15:24, 4 October 2005 Tony Sidaway restored "Systemwars.com" (3 revisions restored)

04:14, 4 October 2005 Fvw deleted "Systemwars.com" (deleteagain)

03:57, 4 October 2005 Tony Sidaway restored "Systemwars.com"

I myself wrote that article. I am telling you that the article is the product of my own mind, that it is in no way a copy, reproduction or recreation of the article deleted in June.

Why do you persist in falsely claiming that you are deleting an article that has been recreated? Why do you cling so mindlessly to this blatant falsehood?

I listed it on AfD, yet you closed the debate with that falsehood. What on earth do you think you are doing? I refuse to believe that you intentionally lie, but how can I possibly reconcile you repeated blatantly false statements with an assumption of good faith? --Tony Sidaway^Talk 00:43, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

The page is substantially identical in that it describes the same topic which was shot down both on AfD and VfU. --fvw* 00:47, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

It's not identical at all--as the author I can assure you of that. Indeed the most significant events it describes had not transpired when the old article was deleted. I still find this out of process deletion--indeed this blatant denial of process, in falsely purporting to close a AfD--very puzzling. Why are these falsehoods so important to you that you cling to them so closely? --Tony Sidaway^Talk 00:53, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I haven't stopped beating my wife yet either! --fvw* 00:54, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Systemwars.com

Could you undelete the history for this page so that I may make a copy of it on User:Gateman1997/Systemwars.com.Gateman1997 00:48, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Please ask at WP:VfU. --fvw* 00:51, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Here's a quote from VfU, "History only undeletions can be performed without needing a vote on this page".Gateman1997 00:55, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

It's okay, I'll do it. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 00:54, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

all i have to say

is thank you :-DGimmiet 01:39, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

List of Australians in foreign prisons

Hi Fvw, please review the history of the cited page and the Stephen Sutton material in particular. A link to Sutton's own page is appropriate for an encyclopaedic entry about Sutton, but links to unrelated sites, specifically http://foreignprisoners.com is not.

Removing valid and pertinent information from a Wikipedia entry is indeed vandalism. Please leave the link to Sutton's own site, set up by his sister Ann Cluse (http://stephensutton.com) intact. I will agree to removal of the information regarding the Page Protection request, but the link to the site set up by Stephen's sister is appropriate.

thanks, Diana Elgar

Wikipedia is not a web directory, nor is it a soapbox to promote your views from. The web link is inappropriate in the list of prisoners article. --fvw* 01:53, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry about the misplacement of my comment. I am not soapboxing. The link to the site set up by Sutton's family is appropriate, unless extrnal links to pertinent material are not permitted on Wikipedia- which they clearly are. thanks, Diana Elgar

No - that's not vandalism (sheesh - what's with people calling good-faith edits vandalism these days?). Also, links in there like that in lists are generally not appropriate - if it was a article about her it would be. At the very least it should just be an external link (in the external link section). Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 02:12, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

3RR Violation

I have blocked Diana Elgar and you for 24 hours for your 3RR violation here. Please in the future do not edit war. Thanks, Redwolf24 (talk) 02:11, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Also see my talk page. Sorry! :( Redwolf24 (talk) 02:11, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough, as I mentioned it was a mistake. My apologies to the entire wikipedia community. --fvw* 02:13, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Don't forget you've got fans :). Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 02:17, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Ah, so it's you lot who have been stealing my tea mugs ;-). --fvw* 03:21, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for helping out Diana by the way; You might want to point out that Stephen John Sutton had been AfDed and deleted as being non-notable though, so I'm not sure recreation is the best idea. --fvw* 03:34, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, we have been stealing your tea mugs and you'll never catch us... NEVER!!!! Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 03:29, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh, in that case do you want the cookie bowl too? --fvw* 03:34, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

No, you can keep the cookie bowl but I'll take all the cookies from it. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 03:52, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Unblocking early

As a first offense, and as one of you is a respected admin and the other is a newbie, I have unblocked you early. Please do not edit war and discuss things on article and user talk pages instead. Thanks you two and enjoy. Redwolf24 (talk) 03:31, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan. --fvw* 03:35, 5 October 2005 (UTC)