User talk:Dsegal58

August 2008[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to United States twenty-dollar bill appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe our core policies. Thank you. -MBK₀₀₄ 17:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this is the correct way to respond to the "big brother" like message above. You must be joking: my contribution appered to carrty a non-neutral point of view? The existing page was a radical extreme bit of hate speech: it normalized an Indian Killer. And reporting that there is a concern that Andrew Jackson Was an Indian Killer is "biased." Is this a bad joke? Seriously, as someone who teaches issues of objectivity in the social sciences, the above message shows a profound lack of understanding of the issue of neutrality. How can I appeal such nonsense?

Please do not violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, as you did with this edit to United States twenty-dollar bill. Thanks. Wikieditor06 (talk) 18:46, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK -- clearly wikepedia operates with an extremist pro-establishment bias and the shallowest understanding of the philosophical issues regarding objectivity in the social sciences.

Let's hope there is a social movement against the Wikipedia garbage. This is ridiculous. Dsegal58 (talk) 18:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add unsourced or original content, as you did to United States twenty-dollar bill. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you continue to do so, your edits will be considered vandalism and you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. -MBK₀₀₄ 22:07, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I read tons of Wikipedia articles that, by the standard you have given, ise unsourced materials. Please do not have a double standard for different contributions. That is a violation of any reasonable understanding of "neutrality."

If you can specify what needs a source, I will provide it.

I have found the responses from the wiki-power-elite to be rude, arrogant, biased, and unwilling to assume good intent. I am deeply shocked by the quality and pushiness of this editorial domination. I speak as someone who spent six years editing a journal.

I hope to see a major revolution in the wikiworld in the near future. Let us have dialogue not fake neutrality! Opoenness and civility rather than self-important arrogance. Let us speak truth to the self-appointed wiki-power-elite.

In my opinion, Wikipedia offers ample opportunity to challenge "pro-establishment bias" in the production of knowledge by respecting a minimum of reasonable rules and tolerating some inevitable missteps by amateur and volunteer "editors." Your experience as a journal editor may not serve you well in the context of a collectively produced project. Despite a bit of bluster and marked unwillingness even to imagine, much less assume, good faith by your interlocutors, you got what you wanted added to the United States twenty-dollar bill article in less than twelve hours. What more could you possibly expect?--Dupea (talk) 19:20, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I find very big brotherish that people do this without identifying themselves. That anonymity is to me a violation of the principles of a democratic public sphere. Second of all, generic and wholesale dismissal of a contribution is bad editing. I never in six years treated any author that badly. It is authoritarian and intensely hierarchical. Traditional relations between editors and contributors, among peers, is much more democratic. :)

Does anyone know if there is good scholarship on the inner authoritarianism of wikipedia?

DUPEA writes: "Your experience as a journal editor may not serve you well in the context of a collectively produced project." Wow. What is a collective enterprise of value if not the productuon of journal of a scholarly society?!? In other words, my experience as a journal editor was an experience in a collectively produced project, so that's off-base. In fact, almost nothing else I have done in my professional life was as fully a collective enterprise of value as editing that journal.

And let me clarify an early point: it has become a sad commonplace in under-funded educational institutions to give students comments on papers that come from some standard "rubric." That is what the wiki-power-elite did to earlier edits. But it does not work for students and it does not work when editing. One needs to give feedback that is specific and detailed, not generic. After spending hundreds if not thousands of hours doing that as an editor, I do not feel bad about being indignant when as an author, I am not treated with comparable respect and effectiveness.

"Does anyone know if there is good scholarship on the inner authoritarianism of wikipedia?" Start with Criticism of Wikipedia.--Dupea (talk) 20:25, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant about editing experience is that Wikipedia is a totally difference publishing model from that of an academic journal. It has neither "editors" nor "authors." Rather, individuals with sysop authority volunteer to mediate/moderate discussion among anyone who contributes in good faith to the dynamically "published" version of an article.--Dupea (talk) 18:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Dupea (what's dupea anyway?), it sounds like having sysop authority is a lot like being an editor...and note that the editors of the journals of our scholarly associations are also volunteers...I think the thing is that we have to see that wikipedia is partially like and partially unlike other publishing ventures. One should not assimilate it to others, but neither should one overstate the differences.

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. The next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did to United States twenty-dollar bill, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Bongwarrior (talk) 19:26, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What a bully! Let's have an honest conversation about history and truth telling, instead of such nasty threats to protect white racism. WARNING: You will contribute to one more scholar writing about the bias and anti-intellectualism if you continue this assault on documented truth-telling and the use of wiki-bullying to get your way. Cheers, Dan Segal

As a mixed-blood who is slightly nauseated every time I see that man's picture on my money, and a proud descendant of Crockett Whigs on the other side of my family lineage, I tell you that you are in the wrong here. Wikipedia is not a venue for educating people about topics tangential to the article being edited; and that's what this is. You have refused to accept that fact, and have instead persisted in a policy of vitriol, false accusations of racism and defiance worthy of the sillier sophomore radicals of my youth. The article as written gives due weight to the controversy over why that butcher's picture is still on U.S. money; but only due weight. Why do you refuse to accept that? Heaven knows the articles here on Jackson and his administration do not gloss over his role in the Trail of Tears and other tragedies of the removal. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a human being, let me say I see nothing tangential about the question of the image of Jackson on the twenty-dollar bill to an article about the twenty-dollar bill. As a teacher at the undergraduate level, let me say that the claim that this is tangential is poor logic. But invoking arid and irrelevant wiki-bureacratic rules trumps logic in wiki-land.

And who says who decides about what the rules are in wiki-land? I say wikipedia needs its Guerilla Girls. People who will poster this virtual town, rather than respect its represssive zoning ordinances.

I look forward to the Wiki-Liberation-Movement.

And anyway, can't any of the wiki-thought police take any teasing? :) Come on. Jump into the pool and have some fun. This wiki-place is overly represssive.

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for disruptive editing and persistent violations of NPOV.. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. -MBK₀₀₄ 19:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Dsegal58 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

IS THIS HOW I APPEAL THE BLOCK ON MY EDITING?? My name is Daniel Segal; anyone who wishes to can check my expertise in the relevant areas. My website is at www.pitzer.edu/~dsegal. The person who blocked me appears not to have suitable expertise in the content area to understand what is and is not NPOV on this matter. I would be happy to compare my level of expertise with his/hers. I took time to try to improve this and other Wiki-articles and instead I find that persons with less expertise can over-rule and block me. HOW CAN I APPEAL THE BLOCK ON MY EDITING. I WOULD LIKE TO WORK HARD TO IMPROVE WIKIPEDIA PAGES IN MY AREAS OF EXPERTISE. UNFORTUNATELY, I AM BEING BLOCKED BY THOSE WITH A BIAS AGAINST ACKNOWLEDGING THE ROLE OF WHITE RACISM AND MASS MURDER IN US HISTORY? HOW CAN I APPEAL TO SOMEONE WHO DOES NOT INSIST ON HAVING A BIAS AGAINST NON-DOMINANT PERSPECTIVES.

Decline reason:

We strive to make Wikipedia a serious and reputable intellectual resource; one way we ensure that our articles are accurate is by preventing advocacy and outside ideological struggles from intruding into the encyclopedia and countering attempts to manipulate our content for third parties' purposes. If you wish to promote your fringe social movements online, this is not the place to do it. east718 // talk // email // 03:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I have formatted you request for unblock properly. I prefer to keep all correspondence regarding wikipedia on wikipedia. In response to your e-mail, experience and training has nothing to do with what has happened. You violated policies and my blocking you was not an abuse of power or bullying.
To the admins who review this, please see the ongoing discussion at ANI: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Block_review_requested. -MBK₀₀₄ 02:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You[edit]

As someone who attended Harvey Mudd, I just wanted to thank you for your tireless efforts to keep Pitzoids the blithering, senile grandparents of the Claremont family.128.12.135.245 (talk) 03:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi UTC, If you want to engage in name-calling, would you please have the decency and openness to identify yourself. Thank you, Dan Segal

Just to let you know, UTC isn't his name, rather that is wikipedia letting you know the time he posted in UTC format. Templarion1 (talk) 04:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request declined, Danny Boy. I fail to see how my identity contributes to the quality of my name-calling. Let my work stand on its own merits.128.12.135.245 (talk) 07:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

special request[edit]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Dsegal58 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

please make a special exception and unblock this professor. I wish to examine the matter. I am looking for a first case to test a new method of dispute resolution. As the first case, it will probably not be successful but it's worth a try. Please show kindness and allow me to work with this professor. I will report any progress and you can leave unblock or reblock after a few days. I am 903M (talk) 05:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

No; if an experienced editor had made such a request it might be considered, but four or so days of editing doesn't really qualify you for such. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 05:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Sorry, professor. I tried to help but Mr. Gordon wouldn't let it happen. Does your professional organization share similar beliefs as you? What do they think of Wikipedia as you are banned for life (in wikipedia lingo, you are blocked, not banned, but there is no practical difference)? I came here interested in dispute resolution, not the $20 bill. Good luck. 903M (talk) 06:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Dsegal58 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

UNBLOCK APPEAL - After trying to work with Wikipedia these several weeks, I feel deeply frustrated and disappointed. It seems to me that there are a great many barriers to participation. One of these is the arcane interface and lingo that makes it hard for someone like myself--who is focussed on content--to negotiate the Wikipedia world. I have no clue about and really do not care about "sysop" or "utc" and so on. All of this makes Wikipedia come off as if it were a club set up by adolescents who have read too much science fiction. And of course, this is a major reason why participation in Wikipedia is so gendered. Another barrier is the anonymity of contributors. How can one have candid conversations with folks who use anonymity to engage in name calling and name-mocking? The last time I encountered such juvenile behavior was in middle school, several decades ago. I would be happy to debate anyone about the legitimacy of the content I have added. I can back every claim with footnotes, often to primary documents. One claim that was made against my contribution was that the controversy about Jackson's portrait being on the twenty-dollar bill was tangential to an entry on the twenty-dollar bill. That is simply bad logic. If the controversy is about the design of the bill, then where does a discussion of the controvesy belong, if not in the entry on the bill. A second claim that was made against my contribution was that it violated NPOV (I really cannot believe I am resorting to this kind of "in-group" exclusionary jargon--ugh!). My response is that the very notion of NPOV is much more complex than those who throw it around seem to get. Consider the person referred to as "President Andrew Jackson." That is a respectful point of view on this person and not a neutral point of view. Many Native Americans in the nineteenth century referred to him as "Sharpknife." So we have a respectful and a critical point of view on this one person, in the very choice of name. Which one does Wikipedia regard as "neutral"? The respectful one! So in effect, Wikipedia takes a pro-Jackson stance to be a neutral stance and marginalizes a critical perspective. I would argue that a neutral point of view would require introducing both terms, but not endorsing or using either. They can be quoted or mentioned, by the voice of the entry should not adopt either naming convention as its own. (On the notion of voicing, see the work of the great theorist of language, M. Bakhtin). This leads to my response to a third criticism of my contrubution. My contribution was erased and my capacity to contribute blocked because I included what linguists would speak of as "meta-commentary." Why on earth is that sort of reflection on the practice of representation prohibited in Wikipedia. Why not proceed, as I have in the previous paragraph, to include in articles "commentary about the writing" (or "metacommentary"), so that readers can engage the debate about the neutrality of the choice of terms. Why should the reader only be given a seamless result of a choice of terms? Rather than access to reflection on the choice of terms? Finally, I repeat the core of my appeal of this block. It is based on my cv, as a scholar with subject expertise. If Wikipedia is to be improved, it cannot block the work of those with expertise who want to put time into improving articles, even if they are open-minded about pushing the boundaries and questioning the rigidity of received and cemented wikipedia ways and rules. I urge you to take some risk; allow innovation, rather than shutting it down. Stasis and closed-mindedness and exclusionary practices will not help wikipedia get better. Cheers to all, Dan Segal

Decline reason:

Please see my reasoning below. _Gb^T/c 16:36, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I'm not an administrator, so I can't help you with the block, but I just wanted to say a few things about what you said. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and as such has many policies as to what can and cannot be included, as well as how this should be formatted. Chief among those rules is that anything included should be Notable. I did some searches, and I can't see any documentation or reporting on what you tried to add. Until such time as it can pass the policy WP:NOTE then it cannot be included.

As for the anonymity of Wikipedia, you shouldn't let that bother you. Everyone is on the same level on Wikipedia, with no opinion or contribution being more 'right' or 'correct' than another. You cite being a scholar, but in truth we have little to no way of confirming your identity. This is why WP:NOTE and WP:OR are so inportant. If this bothers you, perhaps Wikipedia is not the correct place for you to be. Templarion1 (talk) 15:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am an administrator, and I have reviewed your unblock request (and formatted it correctly), and have declined it. There are any number of reasons, but key amongst them is however you wish to dress it up, you are only here to push your own agenda. You do so repeatedly, abusively, disruptively, and (as I'll come on to in a minute) in a not-very-subtle underhand manner.

In short, despite your protestations, you haven't actually demonstrated that you're here to contribute constructively to articles, you're here to push your view above all others, and push your movement for the redesign of the $20 bill - a movement that you promote on your website (helpfully linked to above) and whose Facebook group you are the administrator of. Not only do you not have a neutral point of view, but in addition you have a conflict of interest - even if you were unblocked, you wouldn't be permitted to continue editing about areas such as this in which you had a conflict of interest, because you cannot do so with an unbiased standpoint.

I'm sure your position as a professor of anthropology and social history means that you have a great deal to contribute constructively to Wikipedia, but your contributions to date don't show that. Instead of taking the time to understand Wikipedia before editing constructively, you've jumped in with both feet, splashed and shouted your way around, and ended up blocked for your trouble.

By all means, chastise Wikipedia for its arcane interface, mock it for its lingo, rail against the anonymity of it (without bothering to take the trouble to understand why anonymity is a key tenet), and accuse pretty much everyone you come across of wiki-bias, wiki-tyranny and wiki-bullying - but at the end of the day if you behave like a dick don't be surprised if you're treated like one.

And the underhand manner that I mentioned pretty much typifies how you couldn't have gotten off on a more wrong foot. First you add in here information on a campaign to which you are not related, then log out so that here so that you can re-insert the information about your movement whilst claiming to overcome bias - bias of your own creation.

So, I'm sorry, but nothing in your contributions or your request for an unblock makes me inclined to think that you have the least intention of contributing constructively to Wikipedia so your request is declined. _Gb^T/c 16:36, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Dsegal58 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

In my world, when people are not willing to sign their name to something, it indicates that they do not really stand behind it. What anonymity seems to allow in the above is more tasteless name-calling. And as for editing without learning about the ways of wikipedia that seems to me a good thing, in that wikipedia should be more concerned with content experts than with wiki-experts. I do not know how wikipedia works. I do know the history of Andrew Jackson and his role in the mass extermination of Native Americans. I have taken a reasoned approach in responding to these criticisms, and a reasoned approach to responding to personal attacks by others who hide behind anonymity. I again appeal the blocking.

Decline reason:

Since your unblock request puts forward no new grounds for unblocking, I'm again declining it, and will reply in more detail to it below. _Gb^T/c 17:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

On the contrary, it's not tasteless name-calling. My use of the word dick was, as with the other blue words in my response, specifically chosen to link you to the relevant policies, guidelines and / or essays on the subjects of behaviour (in that case), a neutral point of view and conflicts of interest.

If you think that editing an online encyclopaedia without taking the trouble to learn the rules that govern it, without taking the time to understand what information should be included, what shouldn't, and what standards of referencing through reliable sources any such information should adhere to, is a good thing, then it's not particularly surprising that you were blocked - all that's surprising is that it took so long.

Had your information not been WP:OR, had it cited reliable sources, had it not been tainted by your conflict of interest and your inability to write from a neutral point of view then it might have stayed. Had you taken the trouble to read what people were telling you on this very page and not railed against it from the get-go ("apparently Wikipedia operates with an extremist pro-establishment bias") then maybe you wouldn't have been blocked from editing. Anyway, you have been, and given that your continued unblock requests are failing to take on board what you're being told, or show any signs of having read, understood or agreed to abide by the policies that you're being pointed at, they'll continue to be declined. _Gb^T/c 17:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

APPEAL OF DENIAL OF APPEAL

Why is it that none of my specific arguments ever get engaged? Instead, the attacks on me are repeated. Let's start with a key point. I have argued that even the name "President Jackson" is not a neutral point of view--since it is from a respectful point of view--and that it thus follows that all of the existing wikipedia entries about Jackson are in violation of the NPOV rule. I tried to move wikipedia to a NPOV on Jackson by having in wikipedia his identification as "Sharpknife." I did not claim that this was a NPOV; my claim was that having both points of view (the respectful and the critical) was closer to the (unattainable) ideal of NPOV than the current entries on Jackson.

So too, I have found hundreds of Wikipedia articles that "need citations." Why is this allowed in so many cases and used as basis for removing my contribution? Why is this not a double standard? That is, a non-neutral double standard?

Is it too much to ask that someone respond to these specific questions rather than repeat the same old attacks on me.

And is it too much to ask that anyone who criticizes me be as open as I am being in responding and simply identify herself or himself?

I remain respectfully but in criticism, Daniel A. Segal see www.pitzer.edu/~dsegal

To quote one of our sounder editors, Teratornis, "The English Wikipedia is one of the world's top-ten most popular Web sites. Every site in the top ten is incredibly complicated, but sites like Google hide most of this complexity from the user, by greatly limiting what the user can do. Wikipedia takes the opposite approach, by letting the user do just about everything. Therefore, on Wikipedia, you will see lots of complexity. Wikipedia is also a do it yourself project, which means everybody has to be largely self-reliant and pull their own weight as much as possible, by reading and following instructions, some of which certainly are complex, because many types of power can only come from complex systems. (The only known way to make complex systems simple for people who don't want to read instructions is to hire a human expert who did read the instructions. For example, most people don't want to go to medical school, so instead we hire physicians to treat us. Since most people have been dealing with human experts all their lives, it is natural to expect that on Wikipedia there will also be experts to serve us. But this is not quite true. Wikipedia is a collaborative editing system in which users interact as peers. While there are new users and experienced users, every user is really on the same footing with respect to the overall system - we are all just reading instructions and trying to follow them. Do it yourself is not for everyone, so if this makes you uncomfortable, you might try some other hobby.)... To learn the basics of editing on Wikipedia, take the tutorial." Your assaults on the complexities and jargon inherent in contributing to this project are misplaced, and your accusations of pro-Establishment bias, heirarchialism and hierophantism just plain incorrect. (There's also a bit of irony involved in somebody who claims to be seeking to challenge the Establishment, all the while brandishing his CV and position in the academic priesthood as if they constituted a license to pontificate.) --Orange Mike | Talk 17:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC) (I am Michael James Lowrey, son of Jim and Blondell, husband of Cicatrice, daddy of Kelly; if you go to my user page, you'll see that I am about as non-anonymous as they come)[reply]

Hello James Lowrey,

Thank you for your response.

I appreciate that you are not hiding behind anonymity.

I do note that you did not, however, responded to any of the specific points I made in my previous post.

I am afraid I do not have a position in any "priesthood," though I do think that evidence of success in peer reviewing publishing demonstrates that one has suitable content expertise to contribute in specific areas.

You direct me to where I can go "to learn the basics" if editing in Wikipedia. I have read some of that, but why should I take more time learning this, if I am blocked forever?

Thus my two requests:

1. Please respond to my specific points above.

2. Please unblock me or, short of that, leave me blocked on the US Twenty dollar bill entry and permit me to work on other pages in my area of scholarly expertise. Some of those pages are in need of improvement, and I am able and willing.

Cheers, Dan

Note that indefinite does not mean forever, it means an undetermined amount of time. Once you show that you understand what you have done incorrectly and show that you are willing to follow the rules and policies of the encyclopedia, they can reduce your block time and you will be able to edit again. Normally editors are not blocked from specific pages, but rather are expected to behave decently across the entire project.Templarion1 (talk) 19:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mr. Segal,

I'm an administrator, and I'm sticking my neck out and offering to unblock you on a couple of conditions: that you voluntarily refrain from editing the Andrew Jackson and United States twenty-dollar bill entries, that you familiarize yourself with our basic rules, and that you behave in a collegial manner with other editors (specious accusations of "wiki-bullying" and "wiki-harassment" are far outside our norms). I think if you work on improving an article on this talk page following the instructions located here - perhaps in your area of expertise, where we definitely need more volunteers - it would be an excellent first step in regaining the community's trust. How does that sound? east718 // talk // email // 01:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update - I am discussing things with Prof. Segal via email, please do not lock this talkpage. east718 // talk // email // 05:17, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have unblocked this account. Dsegal58 has stated that he shall not edit Andrew Jackson, United States twenty-dollar bill or related articles, and will notify me in advance if he is planning on proposing any edits there. This is amenable to me and makes the block quite purposeless. I'm going to keep an eye on this user, and will offer further assistance if required. east718 // talk // email // 06:38, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]