Don't bite the newcomers!

Newcomers' ears can be particularly sensitive.

Catalysts try to resolve problems, not through the use of authority and special privilege, but by fostering consensus, gently nudging participants in the direction of more appropriate behavior and by generally reducing the level of confrontation rather than confronting users with problems. ~ Ed Poor

please leave comments at bottom of page. It's easier for me to find them. thanks thewolfstar 03:30, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Democratic Party (United States)

Please refrain from adding nonsense to Wikipedia, as you did to Democratic Party (United States) ((this edit, for instance). It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. - Jersyko·talk 02:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why is that edit "nonesense"? Merecat 05:37, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From thewolfstar

Please refrain from calling my additions 'nonsense', when they are based on fact. Additionally, the article Democratic Party (United States) is not factual. It is biased and therefore nonsense.

On your page you say: Though it's sometimes easy to forget, please remember to interact civilly with other users and to assume good faith.

Calling another user's edits 'nonsense' just ain't civil. And now I'm gonna be uncivil. You are apparantly, either a Democrat, or you are a person that likes to continue the battery of lies that both the Democrats and the Republicans like to use to tranquilize and confuse the minds of the people.

You deleted the infobox from the article with this edit [1]. You added a random hyphen with this one [2]. I apologize for the wording of my message, it is merely a boilerplate message that a lot of people use, you can read it here: Template:test2. I did not mean to offend. I hope you understand, however, that seeing the infobox deleted in an article without explanation might cause me to react as I did. - Jersyko·talk 05:08, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies accepted. And you are right. I didn't realize I did that, and I should learn how to do this thing right before I mess with it. I apologize, also.

This argument is pointless

I read the differences from the two of you and will be looking over the article. I saw one of thewolfstar's edits and frankly agree with the message behind it (because it's true), but disagree with the wording of things, as it does not comply with encyclopedia format.

I don't like this other person referred to said edits as 'nonsense' either. They might have been written a bit odd, but they are not 'nonsense' either.

--Macai

Democratic party NPOV dispute

Thewolfstar, I moved your comments regarding the NPOV of the Democratic Party article to the article's talk page. You can see the talk page here, your comments are at the bottom. When you believe an article to be in violation of neutral point of view, just post a message on the article's talk page and discuss it there. I understand you're a new user, so don't worry about not adhering to standard proceedure around here at first, it can be difficult to learn. - Jersyko·talk 19:38, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

from the wolfstar to Jersyko

Thank you for moving my comments to the BOTTOM of this page, which is apparantly the correct place for them as they are added from that place. However you had NO right to remove them from the featured article dsicussion page. You are acting like a tyrant.

You said this: The Democratic party is one of the oldest political parties in the world

This is NOT a fact. End of discussion. Can you prove it? Can you show it's legitimacy in any way? Until you can, don't assert it.

Here is where I got my information regarding who made the following statement:

You wanted this specifically the following to be included in the article.

3. The Democratic party is one of the oldest political parties in the world

I hope we can reach consensus on this issue. Per my comments below, I like number 3. - Jersyko·talk 23:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC) - -The preceding unsigned comment was added by thewolfstar (talk • contribs) .

Thewolfstar - before accusing me of being a tyrant, please note that the featured article discussion page discussion was CLOSED in October of 2005. That's the reason that the notice on the Democratic Party talk page says "Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed". The discussion there is over and the article failed to achieve featured status. A comment on that page isn't going to be seen by most editors, I stumbled across it by chance. I'll refer to my comments above to point out the proper way to handle an NPOV dispute by posting on the talk page of the article in question.
Regarding my comments about the Dems being the oldest party, well, that was only the third of three possibile edits to the article that I was trying to get editors to "vote" on, essentially. I was actually trying to tone down the language in the article, as the first option (and what one editor was pushing to include) was "the democratic party is the oldest party in the world" instead of "one of the oldest." Regardless, I would appreciate it if would you not accuse me of being a tyrant simply because of my posting on a talk page. Thanks. - Jersyko·talk 20:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Jersyko,

I appreciate your edits and corrections to my additions when they are legitimate: i.e. when I made the bone-headed and careless mistake of removing an infobox.

How can article be closed to further discussion on Wikipedia? If this were true, then an 'edit' link would not be provided, as it always is. Just leave my comments where they are and if you think they would best be seen somewhere else than tell me that.

However what you are doing, for example removing my comments on why an article was not given Featured Article status (on that particular talk page) falls under Wiki's official harassment policy. It was and still is a legitimate observation on why The Dem. Party article did not receive the status of Featured Article.

Additionally my dispute is rational.

If you would like to leave My Dispute on the talk page for now, that is, I understand, the correct way to do things. However, if no one can come up with an argument that sensibly disputes my dispute, I have the right to dispute the Dem Party article, on the article page itself.

I called you a tyrant for the following reasons and for no other, and I was not questioning why you phrased: "the democratic party is one of the oldest parties in the world". I was simply pointing out that you were involved in this writing and this was one of your edits. I agree that out of the three, this is the best choice. However I still dispute the Dem. Party article and what is being suggested here, and hold it to be biased, and object to the way you are harassing me.

If you continue your particular brand of harassment I will report you to the Wiki estblishment.

from the official Wikipedia page on Harassment:

Harassment is defined as a pattern of disruptive behavior that appears to a reasonable and objective observer to have the purpose of causing negative emotions in a targeted person or persons, usually (but not always) for the purpose of intimidating the primary target. The purpose could be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target, to undermine them, to frighten them, or to encourage them to stop editing entirely.

I believe this to be the case, even though some of your edits of my edits are correct.

thewolfstar

nasty threats from thewolfstar

If thewolfstar doesn't stop making vulgar threats to editors he will get banned from Wiki. Rjensen 02:17, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What threats? And isn't your comments above a threat? Merecat 05:38, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

no, actually general nastiness and abuse from all of you

If Rjensen, Griot and Jersyko don't stop harassing me there will be trouble. I am not threatening you. I am assuring you. I am preseving Wiki's integrity. You three are working on wrecking Wikipedia in the ways I have already mentioned. End of this pointless discussion. Thewolfstar 02:50, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's comments like the above, as well as your statement that FDR was anti-Christian, that led me to believe you had an agenda. If I was wrong, I apologize. Griot 00:47, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Griot, I never said "that FDR was anti-Christian". I said "Jefferson did not care a bit for Christianity." read it again. why did you delete our kind and pleasant conversations with each other? thewolfstar 22:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

===I got the welcome to Wikipedia thing 3 times now.=== Once was enough. Please stop sending me this. Thank you Thewolfstar 21:06, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 04:09, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also...

Just relax a little bit on the whole name thing. If people call you Wolfman, don't take such offense. If you lash out over something as innocuous as your username, people will be less likely to believe you can compromise on other issues as well. See you around. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 04:09, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear LV, Thanks for the tip, but nobody called me wolfman. One of the Democrats called me wolfstar, rather than thewolfstar probably by mistake and I was already irritated and tired of being harassed and by their lame attmepts at intimidation. I am not actually interested in compromise. I just want the right to edit their misinformed giant ad of a page and base it on fact. I am following Wiki procedure way more than they are. Thewolfstar 05:03, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, wolfman, wolfstar... it doesn't really matter. The point is to encourage you to take a deep breath and not take such offense to something as minor as a mistaken name. And to say you are not interested in compromise may not bode well for you. The way WP works is through compromise. If there was no compromise, WP would fall apart. We would all just be revert warring and nothing would ever get done. I know it can be irritating trying to work with those we disagree with (especially on political issues). But try we must.

As to your other point, is the only real issue you have with the page the whole "does it trace from Jefferson" thing? Are there other specific problems you have with it? Thanks, Thewolfstar. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 19:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am interested in compromise only as long as fact is not compromised. That includes any fact: history, mathematics, etc. I will not tolerate lies on a Wikipedia page. Nor is propaganda or original content allowed on Wikipedia.

I have issues with the insertion of the 'Jefferson roots' thing being quoted twice. Especially when it is inserted into the History section. The birth of the Dem Party is said on the right column of the page to be 1792, an outright falsity.

I have a problem with the entire president section as it lists 'accomplishments' which are debatable to begin with, and does not tell the whole story. I.E., many of these men did outrageous, traitorous things. Yes, I can back certain things with fact.

I have a problem with many parts of the page that make subtle implications that are based on a Democratic Party POV rather than a neutral one.
http://earthhopenetwork.net/ Thewolfstar 21:07, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Be patient, comment only on the article, not other editors. Merecat 05:40, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, Merecat. I generally don't comment on the editors. It is the other way around most of the time, as evidenced here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Democratic_Party_%28United_States%29 I am too tired right now to worry about the correct way of entering that page url
But thanks for what you said in your last comment "Why was that edit nonsense?" Could you send your comment to Jersyko or comment here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Democratic_Party_%28United_States%29

That is the first thing said that backed my arguments and edits yet. No, I'm wrong it was the 2nd backup, I have had. Thanks again thewolfstar http://earthhopenetwork.net/

Request...

Would you mind not linking your website everytime you sign your name. It is considered spam to do so. Why not make a user page and detail the information there? Thanks. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 03:55, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No harm done. Just thought I'd mention it early, before people take real offense and try to start something about it. See you around, my friend. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 04:04, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute of Democratic Party article

What are you disputing about the accuracy? I need to know to try to help you out here, if you have legitimate concerns. --Northmeister 17:57, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

from the Socialism talk page

neutrality under dispute

This article is not written with neutrality. Editors, please read what you have written here: A primary concern of socialism (and, according to some, its defining feature) is social equality and an equitable distribution of wealth that would serve the interests of society as a whole.[1][2]

       This may be written, with a more neutral perspective like this:

~ According to Socialists, a primary concern of socialism (and, according to some, its defining feature) is social equality and an equitable distribution of wealth that would serve the interests of society as a whole.[1][2] ~ Thewolfstar 20:21, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

~ this has been copied from an (above) conversation and inserted below.~ [edit]

Sam Spade's consistent reversions

Sam, could you please state your problem? No other editor has raised an objection to the version which is currently on the page. -- infinity0 21:58, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

You say that alot, please scroll up. Sam Spade 18:38, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I scroll up and I see that your objections have been answered to, not only by me. If, as Cberlet says, you have been inserting this sort of thing for months, then you have problems. Please stop it. Furthermore, whatever POV you think my version is biased towards, I think your version is much more biased. -- infinity0 20:48, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Because someone named Cherlot says something, does not automatically make it true or increase it's relevance, true or not. This tactic, obviously meant to intimidate, reminds one of those used by modern public schools, Gossip Groups, Puritans, states, states and federal government of the United States, Nazis, Communists and Socialists, the GW Bush boys, and last but not least the obviously Democrat Party editors of the Democrat Party article. Peoople who are interested in freedoms do not use tactics. Thewolfstar 20:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

___ this stuff was just added by Thewolfstar 21:12, 16 April 2006 (UTC) ____[reply]

the entire conversation with Dem party editors

can be found here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Democratic_Party_%28United_States%29/Archive_4#.22Neoliberal.22

The Democratic Party (of the United States) article if read carefully, is nothing more than a giant ad for the Democratic Party of the United States. Their lawyer is Jersyko. After kicking Jersyko's butt in a lawyeristic debate, the entire talk page suddenly dissapeared. This comment was left on the talk page. Interestingly, there hasn't been any talk since I was banned by the democrats. here is what you see now on the talk page:

Archived

I've archived again. Any more incomprehensible rants by wolfstar will be immediately archived. john k 21:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While sympathetic to what you're saying, I disagree that thewolfstar's rants should be immediately archived. Let's not discourage discussion, but rather encourage everyone to post more coherently and less acerbicly. - Jersyko·talk 21:42, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I won't immediately archive. But I am convinced that thewolfstar will not make any substantive additions to this conversation. It'd be best to ignore him, and prompt archiving is usually the best way to achieve this. john k 01:33, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks

Hi, Thewolfstar. I noted (and reverted) your edits to John Kenney's and Jersyko's usertalk pages. There is no excuse for nasty personal attacks and harassment. Just don't make them. Thank you. Bishonen | talk 10:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by admins or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you. - Jersyko·talk 12:31, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sos reply

See my comments at Talk:Democratic Party (United States). And please try to speak nicely. "Bullcrap" is not the best way to speak. Merecat 14:05, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

from 8bitJake's user talk page and referring to Dem Party talk

I would agree with you about some of the earlier quarrels belonging in the lame editwars article. And thanks for pointing me to the lame editwars page. It is hilarious.

My question is this:

Why was this edit removed from your talk page? --

Jake, thanks for holding the fort against that Wolf character in the Democratic Party article. Guys like him, who want to use Wikipedia to pontificate their opinions, are a real danger to the whole enterprise. I'm glad you're standing up to him. Griot 00:36, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--

Please don't remove this again or remove my comments here now. Or, if you do, it really makes you look bad. I don't have the feeling that you are a bad guy. I think you are a good guy, truly. Be careful who you listen to 8bitJake. There are a lot of sneaky characters around. I mean this only in the kindest regards towards you. Maybe the Democratic Party can change and fight all the corruption, and I believe it really needs some serious change, if young people like you work hard on making changes.

Howard Dean, from what I understand, is a very decent guy. Barabara Boxer also is a fighter and has shown real bravery in the face of strong opposition.

in peace, thewolfstar 21:33, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Esperanza!

Welcome, Thewolfstar, to Esperanza, the Wikipedia member association! As you might know, all the Esperanzians share one important goal: the success of this encyclopedia. Within that, we then attempt to strengthen the community bonds, and be the "approachable" side of the project. All of our ideals are held in the Charter, the governing document of the association.

Now that you are a member you should read the guide to what to do now or you may be interested in some of our programs. A quite important program is the StressUnit, which seeks to support editors who have encountered any stress from their Wikipedia events, and are seeking to leave the project. So far, Esperanza can be credited with the support and retention of several users. We will send you newsletters to keep you up to date. Also, we have a calendar of special events, member birthdays, and other holidays that you can add to and follow.

In addition to these projects, several more missions of Esperanza are in development, and are currently being created at Esperanza/Possibles.

I encourage you to take an active voice in the running of Esperanza. We have a small government system, headed by our Administrator general, Celestianpower, and guided by the Advisory Committee comprised of JoanneB, FireFox and Titoxd. The next set of elections will be in April, we will keep you updated about the results. Because you are a new member, you are not able to vote in these elections, but you will be more than welcome to take part in the elections in June.

If you have any other questions, concerns, comments, or general ideas, Esperanzian or otherwise, know that you can always contact Celestianpower by email or talk page or the Esperanza talk page. Alternatively, you could communicate with fellow users via our IRC channel, #wikipedia-esperanza (which is also good for a fun chat or two :). If you're new to IRC, you may find help at an IRC Tutorial written by one of our members. I thank you for joining Esperanza, and look forward to working with you in making Wikipedia a better place to work!

I Lov E Plankton 21:55, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to welcome you. - nath a nrdotcom ^{(T • C • W)} 23:29, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! thewolfstar 23:34, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, but please remember to start a new heading (or click the + at the top of the page) when commenting :) -

nath a nrdotcom ^{(T • C • W)} 00:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

not a problem, after that is what being an Esperanzain is all about. I Lov E Plankton 15:51, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

to 8bitJake

Hey Dude, Normally I would have to say 'Yeah, Dude you are right.'

The strange occurences that have occured in the last couple of weeks, since I joined the editing and debating about thing make it different. Some people are trying to manipulate you to do their deeds. I don't want to say anything more specific than that as I would like to continue the peace rather than the war.

Thanks and I'll check out the Bush talk page.

in peace and justice for the wildthings

Whatever you do stay as you are. Maggie thewolfstar 23:04, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

to nathandotcom

Hey, this is pretty cool I didn't notice it before. Why didn't you do that when you left me you're message? Maggie thewolfstar 00:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks II

Hi again, thewolfstar, thanks for your message. I'm sorry, but no, it turns out I don't have time to research this edit war of yours; it's too coomplicated, and I have too much Real Life going on. But no matter what the background, it seems to me that it would be a good idea for you to apologize to the users involved. (There's not so much point in apologizing to me!) Best wishes, Bishonen | talk 07:21, 20 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Be advised that Bishonen is an administrator; she is not "interfering" in something that is "none of her business" she is advising you that you are in clear violation of policy. I strongly suggest you stop trolling her talk page and heed her advice. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:29, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I really think it would have been more fair if Bishonen had told me that. I still won't apologize to these guys until I think I should apologize. This is somthing that I can only make a decision on. Too, I am not a person that has a hard time with apologies or amends when I believe they should be made. Another thing, I am new on Wikipedia. My first editing experience has been terrible. Is this the way Wikipedia wants it to be for newcomers or any editors? I find that hard to believe going from what I've read from Wikipedia itself. thewolfstar 21:37, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has high standards for it's articles, though is articles don't always meet those standards. Wikipdia also has high standards for its community. I think it would have been less fair if Bishonen had told you that she was an administrator. Wikipedians should treat other wikipedians with the same decency and respect, regardless of whether they've been elected to a special role or not. If you wouldn't do or say something to an administrator, you shouldn't do or say that to another wikipedian. So it should be no difference to you whether she's an administrator or not. However, it would be a difference to her, or any administrator for that matter, if you acted/spoke differently because you knew you were interacting with an administrator. The difference would be that the administrator would not get an accurate first-person perspective of how you interact with other wikipedians. Without such a perspective, the administrator's ability to make informed decisions is diminished, which is unfair to the community. In any case, who's an administrator and who's not is public knowledge. Kevin Baas^talk 21:53, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin, I disagree with you. Maggie has been treated rudely and has also treated others rudely - this much we know, But what also is true is that few are actually trying to help her be at peace with others. If information being conveyed was noted as being from an Admin, it would help a distressed editor more readily accept that information as valid. Merecat 13:30, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll concede that point. But "fairness" is the wrong word for it. And certain things about how one should act in a civilized society, one shouldn't have to be told. I don't pretend to have a comprehensive knowledge of maggie's experience on wikipedia, but i venture that it's greatly overstated. perhaps she's very sensitive. I haven't seen anyone treat her "rudely", though she was quite rude to me on her first word to me, before i even spoke, before she even knew who she was being rude too. So, from my experience w/maggie, there's no excuse for her behavior. Kevin Baas^talk 14:06, 21 April 2006 (UTC) i got you mixed up with a different user. Kevin Baas^talk 23:37, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The "excuse" we are to grant her is one of unilateral compassion. If we treat her right for a while, she will begin to trust and start getting along. If you don't understand this, then I dear say, you don't understand people. Merecat 14:12, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One can grant her compassion, while acknowledging that her behavior is inexcusable. One can be simultaneously firm and compassionate. Not telling things like they are only benefits delusion. Kevin Baas^talk 14:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC) i got you mixed up w/a different user.[reply]

Maggie, I got you mixed up with User:Kmweber, who did attack the wikipedia community in general in an edit summary, and persisted in attacking me on her first comment to me ever, after i informed her of the NPA policy. I sincerely apologize for my undue remarks, and rescind what I crossed off above. Sorry.

That being said, please refrain from spamming my talk page with cathartic vitriol. Thank you. Kevin Baas^talk 23:37, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

response

I only meant more fair concerning my comment that it was none of her business. I still stand on what I have said. I don't feel that I said anything 'obscene' to anyone. I have only responded to the crudeness, lies and harassment of others (Griot, John K, Jersyko and Rjensen). I don't feel, in the light of the entire situation, I have done anything wrong.

I respond with kindness myself when I am shown kindness.

I don't feel that I was trolling Bishonen. I feel that I was as civil or uncivil, to her, as she was to me. Please don't accuse me of stuff if you don't know what you're talking about. I believe that I didn't say anything to Bishonen that she didn't deserve.

Why is it that no one will look at the actions of these others and at this situation for what it is?

Why is it that Jersyko, Griot, Rjensen, and John K have gotten no admonishment?

Additionally, I was feeling a lot less hostile toward all of these (above) people until Bishonen stepped in and made those remarks on my talk page. She only stirred my emotions up. Things had started to calm down, work was getting done, and peace was starting to settle in.

When someone, anyone makes a remark on my talk page, they can expect me to make remarks on their talk page. This seems reasonable to me.

When I believe my actions toward others are just and reasonable, I don't back down to anyone. The only one that can ultimately tell me I am wrong and back me up against a wall, against my will is God. If I get banned from Wikipedia for defending myself, when I believe I am right, then it's on Wikipedia.

Before accusing me of all this stuff, and if you have any sense of justice or have any human compassion,.I think that you ought to look at the facts of this situation.

What is the matter with you people? thewolfstar 22:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Esperanza

Hi. I saw your name tagged onto the alert page and wanted to check in. Looks like you didn't waste any time getting to work on Democratic Party (United States); it's always good to have a new voice in controversial articles. Of course, that same controversy and differing opinion can also cause a lot of stress, and it sounds like that's the reason you posted up on the Alert page. Having an undergrad degree in Political Science, I know how hot a political conflict can get... and is the same reason that I don't do anything remotely related to my degree now.

At any rate, I notice that the bulk of your recent contributions have been on the article's talk page or talk pages of various users. When the editing gets hot, people can get irritated in those places. If I can make an unsolicited suggestion, I've found that when I'm in the same circumstance, it helps me to step away from the issue for a couple of days to take on a less-controversial article that's still related to my interest. That way, I can stay in touch with the topic I'm focused upon, but in a manner that will let me do some edits without having run every little word change through consensus. With the benefit of the history tab, it's not like anything really will be missed after a break.

Let me or any other Esperanzan know if we can help in any way. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 23:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--- Hey Tijuana Brass, Thanks. You just have. Just having a person talk to me with kindness and respect is all I need sometimes. I'll see if I can follow your suggestions. I might just get away from Wikipedia altogether for a while. thewolfstar 23:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind note. I know exactly how you feel about taking a break from Wikipedia. Drop me a line any time. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 00:02, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, my political disputes were all in person - it seems that, back in college, being a member of both the Democrat and Republican groups just irritated people in both. That's what I get for being a moderate, I suppose. To answer your question about time, I signed up here at Wikipedia near the end of last summer, so I'm around ten months or so, I think. Still learning a lot. What brought you here? On a totally unrelated note, have you tried out the Community Portal yet? It's something that took me forever to find (for no good reason), and has a ton of resources linked to it... things to do, guides, places to get help, news... enough to keep a person busy for months. I try to make sure everyone knows where to find it.

Concerning the RfC on Merecat, any user that is concerned can jump in, so long as they're familiar with the situation and understand what they're talking about (obviously). If it's the first RfC you've ever looked into, you may want to limit yourself to endorsing the summaries of others; it'll help give an idea of what goes on in the process. They can be pretty long, depending on how many people are involved, so you'll probably want to watch the page if you're not already.

Let me know if there's anything else I can help you with! Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 08:23, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to hear that you're stressed out over things - I hope that everything calms down soon. In the meantime, sit back with some nice Esperanza coffee and relax. -- Nataly a 14:55, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Politics

Thought I should break this off from the Esperanza header.

I wish I could suggest a resource about humanitarian anarchism, but I barely know anything about it myself. It's disappointing that third parties are looked over so often in schools; I don't recall studying any while in college and had to pick up my natural law obsession during an independent study. I noticed, though, that there's no mention of humanitarian anarchism whatsoever on Wikipedia... maybe you could take that on by adding it into the anarchism article or even starting its own. Let me know if you do, I'd be interested in learning more about it.

As for the RfC, take a look over the material posted near the top. There's a part which summarizes the objections against parties involved, and should include links that reference the situation. It can be tedious to go through, so fair warning. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 17:14, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

in reply to Kevin Baas and his comments on my talk page

kevin baas,
You said I made a comment on your page without knowing you.

I noticed this on your page:
---
RFC started on Merecat In light of recent events (not discussing disputed edits, edit warring and making personal attacks) this Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Merecat has been started. Maybe you want to make an observation there, if not OK. Sincerely Nomen Nescio 18:06, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As you are someone who appears to have at least somewhat followed this situation, I too would be interested in your opinion on this matter. But like Nescio, "if not OK". Would you be the second certifying party, or are you not involved to that extent? Thanks. See you around, my friend. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 21:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

---

at which time I posted this comment
Can a person gain an historical perspective on a gang of dominating bullies from this page?

No, I 'm not familiar with the whole case, as you are not familiar with mine. I find you unfriendly. If you find me unfriendly, that's fine. To be honest, at least right now. I don't feel much inclination to be friendly with you.

I find this whole rfc thing to be distasteful and downright ugly. I find the atmosphere in Wikipedia to be both nasty, intimidating to an unprotected population, and remarkably like the police state one can find in a typical 2nd grade classroom... After Susie goads Danny.. Mrs. Schnopheiseeeeer Danny said a bad word. Mrs Schnopheiseeeeer
Mrs. Schnopheiserrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr. Danny peed in his pants. Mrs. Schnopheiseeeeeeeeerrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!
(Sort of reminds one also of the mass mind controlled robots in Orwell's 1984 and especially the children trained for spying on their parents for the purpose of routing them out, and reporting them to Big Brother.)

There are also some good, kind people on Wikipedia. It took me a while to find them..or maybe they found me.

The best all around person I know on Wikipedia so far is Merecat and you people have an rfc on him.

Merecat is kind. He is helpful and fair to all. He has defended me in the face of strong opposition against a bullying gang of editors who shamelessly harass newcomers, who lie, use ruthless control, scare tactics and gather others to help them in their harassment campaign. He is a person, from all I can see, who is not afraid to stand up to a group of nasty, mean, controlling people. He is an intelligent and able contributor to Wikipedia. He is patient.

I am also such a person, just not as friendy when attacked. You, Kevin Baas, don't fool me, nor apparantly, do you fool Merecat.

I will defend Merecat because he is a friend, he is a person worthy of defense, and because I detest bullies like you and all the petty nitpicking [3]ic [crap] that goes on in this place. For anyone that finds offense at the word crap, or finds it obscene, or anything I have said thus far, oh well..
1.) Get out more, this is not an obscenity.
2) I don't speak newspeak.
3.) I don't like my words or my thoughts to be controlled by anyone but myself.
4.)I believe in the Bill of Rights,
freedom is a good thing, kindness another good thing.

I noticed this on the rfc on merecat page:

---
Users certifying the basis for this dispute {Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

---

I see that there's talk of 2 rfc's on your talk page.

Why don't you grow up? And learn to act with kindness and fairness to all. Didn't your parents teach you any manners or values when you were a child?

Maggiethewolfstar 23:02, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded in the appropriate section above. Kevin Baas^talk

Your Message

Hi, well thanks for the words of support. I will say, that you should choose your battles carefully though here on wikipedia. Don't do something to get yourself kicked off, especially if it isn't really worth it. And although it may be hard, you really should try not to piss too many people off too much (unless it's really worth it). Nothing productive comes from making personal attacks on wikipedia--I tried it once [4]. Stay safe out there. If you need any help just ask. The Ungovernable Force 05:00, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFC comments

Thanks for your kind words. I expect the Nescio, Ryan, Kevin howling mob might come after you with complaints sometime. If they do or anyone else does, please keep me posted so I can help defend you. Remember to focus on cited edits to reliable sources - "the pen is mightier than the sword". Merecat 05:40, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

yeah

And ya know what? I don't give a rat's ass if they do come after me. You and I together, Merecat can kick some serious Governmental butt. Even on our own we come up against a lot. I don't know how you can take this rfc thing or the obvious campaign they have going against you now, though.

There's a lot of them in Wikipedia. They're kind of like a mob or something. The Wiki Mafia? Or is the CIA? Oh yeah, I forgot they're kinda related. Or is that the holy Roman Catholic Church? Or the young Socialists of the world? The old right-wing Christian voters Or, wait a minute the Nazis..the the Republicraps. The Republicrats. Foul language. The Republicans. The Communists...?

I know who it is. Could it be? Oh my gosh.

BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU. in solidarity against the mob Maggiethewolfstar 06:15, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Caution! Only a few are zealots that harrass with RFC, etc. Most others do not. And those that do harrass, for the most part are low-level snipers. Real wiki leaders such as SlimVirgin (a she), may not always agree on edits, but are much better wikizens (IMHO). Don't let your interactions with an aggressive few color your mindset. Focus on your mission (my current mission is to reduce POV in poltically related articles), ignore distracts and be nice (as you possibly can). Merecat 06:22, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Merecat, as always your comments to me are helpful. I guess I chose a topic that was bound to bring on the warlords. I also am on a mission to lower POV in political articles. It's hard work. Holy cow. It's hard work. Maggiethewolfstar 06:44, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Hey" back!

Hi...thanks for leaving the note on my talk page. Nice to see other music lovers around here. Hope you enjoy wikipedia...if you ever need help, just give me a holler...although I'm not on that much anymore...Ciao!--ViolinGirl^♪ 18:44, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome. :) Have a good weekend.--ViolinGirl^♪ 20:32, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

??? to Bishonen

Very well. I've italicised my replies to your questions below, so that we can hopefully see who says what. Bishonen | talk 22:13, 23 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]

to Bishonen never answered questions

Dear Bishonon
questions:

Is there any excuse for how they treated me and other newcomers, or anyone that questions them?

I can't answer questions without any information in them, sorry. You'll have to link me to some of the posts from these users that you're complaining about. I'd appreciate diff links, but I realize you're new and may have trouble making them. But at least tell me the page, the date, and the time.

Please be advised, though, that I can't undertake to comment in any depth at all on the content of the articles about American politics that I see you editing. I don't know much about the subject, and few of the names in the articles mean anything to me. That said, I expect I can recognize what you call "how they treated you", "ganging up", etc, if I see it.

Is there any excuse for their ganging up on, and even gathering people for the express purpose of ganging up on one person, particularly a newcomer to Wikipedia?

Same.

Is there any excuse for their deliberately lying to a newcomer or others in order to keep her from editing?

Same.

Is there any excuse for their insulting a newcomer, calling her names like 'loon' and 'ignorant' in order to discourage her from even discussing their article?

Same.

Is there any excuse for their constant barage of scare tactics done, I believe to discourage a newcomer from editing, and possibly even driving her away altogether? And yes. I am prepared to back that claim up.
Please see Wiki's Harrassment Policy Wikipedia:Harassment [[5]]

Seriously, please don't talk like that. Don't assume bad faith. Don't discuss what you believe goes on inside other editors' heads. Comment on content, not on the contributor. This is a very important principle for keeping the temperature down around here, and is the basis of wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. On a more personal note: you'll find it easier to get taken seriously if you don't offer conspiracy theories.

You said, my dear Bishonon, "that there was no excuse for your attacks (or, incidentally, your foul language)"

What foul language?

This. This isn't Usenet. The culture is different.

You also said "I think I have Jersyko's page watchlisted for some reason."

And what reason would that be?

Sigh. Since you repeat this question after I've told you it's none of your business, I suppose you don't understand just how rude it is. And yet you're a native speaker, so I expect you do know that phrases like "I think" and "for some reason" mean that I'm not sure; I don't know exactly; I can't remember; etc. And yet you ask, twice, insinuating I don't know what, with your foolishly sarcastic phrasing - am I supposed to be part of some conspiracy? Tell me up front what it is you're suggesting or just be quiet. Incidentally, I have about 1,300 pages on my watchlist.

I do take responsibility for my actions. That's not what's questioned here, at least that's not what I am questioning.

Obviously. And yet in my opinion it's what you should be questioning. You have power over your actions, your posts, your speech, and they affect the kind of interaction you have. Clicking somewhat randomly at some of your contributions (because your habit of using several edits to post a few lines makes it very hard to do it systematically; do please use the Show Preview button!), I see some very problematic editing, that could use the attention that you focus on other people and on what you see as their crimes against you. I found trolling, lots of POV in articles, rude edit summaries with bad language [6], and above all, lots of personal attacks, suspiciousness, assumptions of bad faith, and plain rudeness, guaranteed to put people's backs up. I would really like to see you become a productive member of the community, which can happen if you reconsider your interaction style. Please make a conscious effort not to be quarrelsome.

Can you please answer these questions?

Thanks again, thewolfstar 20:33, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Old Skool Esperanzial note

Since this isn't the result of an AC meeting, I have decided to go Old Skool. This note is to remind you that the elections are taking place now and will end at 23:50 UTC on 2006-04-29. Please vote here. Thanks. --Cel es tianpower ^háblame 20:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maggie?

I'm very confused. That's not my name. Is that slang for something? Kasreyn 03:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ohh! Now I get it. *blush* Well, you're welcome. :) Kasreyn 03:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

joshing comment

You recently left a comment here Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/User:Mr j galt which was clearly joshing around. I have struck out some text so that others will know you were only joshing. Please be careful to avoid the appearance of harsh comments. You'll get in problems if your comments are misudnerstood. Also, I did vote at that RfC. Thanks for the heads up. Merecat 16:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not have anymore references to personal violence...seems a bit fascist to tell someone they "ought to be shot".--MONGO 19:30, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

to Mongo

Fascist..an interesting choice of words.
Please go here and check this out. I can't say this admin is a fascist. Fascist Smascist Socialist..all the same thing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Geogre

I don't object to the gun. Please educate yourself and look at this article Daniel Shays as far as guns and shooting people is concerned.

We have a 2nd amendment of the Constitution... Remember The one that all you liberals worked so hard at undermining since the turn of the 20th century.

Check out the policies of Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin. They both had a blast with unarming the populace.

Get a grip. thewolfstar 19:52, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Addition:
Get a sense of humor. thewolfstar 19:59, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay...I'm not a liberal, unless you are a fascist, then I am a liberal. Don't again mention that anyone "ought to be shot". Understand? Hope so.--MONGO 20:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I made it clear that I detest fascists and socialists. (Same thing). If you block me after I just pointed you to the above admin page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Geogre then it's on you and says something about you.

You said "Don't again mention that anyone "ought to be shot". Understand? Hope so.--"

What threat is this exactly? I still am pretty new on Wiki, my start date is March 22, 2006 thewolfstar 20:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I's not a threat...don't tell anyone they ought to be taken out and shot...how hard is that to understand? Don't repost my same comment on my talk page...I already know what I wrote. I hope you understand...read no personal attacks. I had no intention of blocking you unless you continue to make spurious comments such as the one you made again. This concludes our need for further comment on this matter.--MONGO 01:33, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yassah, Massah
thewolfstar 02:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there is no doubt now your motivations here are disruption. Once again, read WP:NPA.--MONGO 08:53, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mongo, please be patient with Maggie, she's still getting her feet wet. Merecat 09:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gee, that's funny because I could swear it was you who first personally attacked me by calling me a fascist. It looks as though you are disruptive doesn't it now? thewolfstar 09:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now look, I didn't call you a fascist. I said that your comment about folks ought to be shot sounded fascist. I was requested to look over some coments and I did...I saw that you had made the comment you made. I addressed the comment you made for what it is, and not everyone around here may find it funny. Hence, the no personal attacks link.--MONGO 09:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, Mongo. If that was an apology, then apology accepted. Somehow I get the feeling you're a nice guy now. peace Maggiethewolfstar 09:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am a nice guy...sometimes...unless saloon doors are involved.--MONGO 09:41, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Mongo

I can most definitely id with that one. I drank like a pig fo 20 years. I've been sober for 21 1/2 years now. When I drank...you think I'm obnoxious now? thewolfstar 09:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring in pun to my username, based on the character Mongo, in the movie Blazing Saddles, portrayed by Alex Karras...Mongo is a deputy who rips saloon doors off and knocks a horse over with one punch. As staated in the movie between two of the cast members before Mongo makes his appearance...Q:"Who's Mongo?" A:"Mongo's more of a what than a who." well, if you need a laugh, rent the movie.--MONGO 09:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did see the movie many years ago and it was hilarious. I don't remember the caharacter 'Mongo' or even much of the movie now, though. Thanks for the tip thewolfstar 15:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

response to Bishonen

to Bishonen

to Bishonen never answered questions

my responses to Bishonen are indented with a *
I had to fight hard for it, but I don't believe I am being ganged up now. I am being taken seriously now and not insulted.
It was your attitude towards me that did and still bothers me.
I am NOT asking you to go to these editors and intervene at this point. It will only stir up antagonism, where now we have peace. Obviously, this is your decision. I'm just stating that it's not my wish.
Will you please sign your comments, at least somewhere?
You accused me of trolling, too, a word whose meaning I had to ask my 18 year old son. All I can say is, I believe you got what you deserved when you interfered in this whole thing. I know you're an adminstrator now, and it doesn't impress me.
I can and do accuse you of patrolling. like a Nazi storm trooper.

Dear Bishonon

questions:

Is there any excuse for how they treated me and other newcomers, or anyone that questions them?

I can't answer questions without any information in them, sorry. You'll have to link me to some of the posts from these users that you're complaining about. I'd appreciate diff links, but I realize you're new and may have trouble making them. But at least tell me the page, the date, and the time.

I find this statement fascinating in light of your assertions (below).
- You have obviously looked around on some of the article edits in question. Why didn't you look at anything else? If you knew where to look at edits on the Dem Party article, I would assume you would know where to look for our dialogues.
- You keep making accusations at me and then state that you know nothing about the situation. This is hilarious.

just some page dates and times:

- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Thewolfstar&redirect=no 1.1 - 1.7

- concerning the Democratic Party (United States) article:

Please be advised, though, that I can't undertake to comment in any depth at all on the content of the articles about American politics that I see you editing. I don't know much about the subject, and few of the names in the articles mean anything to me. That said, I expect I can recognize what you call "how they treated you", "ganging up", etc, if I see it.

A sincere thank you for that (recognize ganging up).

I wasn't asking for that exactly. But now that you mention it, if you don't know much about American politics I don't think you should be getting involved in my edits concerning American politics. The article reads, for the most part like a giant advertisement for the Democratic Party. It's improving now because I stood up to these...yes.. bullies.

- The editors have been making this article less biased due to my edits and my arguments
  - See the differences in the article since I joined in this debate and edit war. Though, I guess you wouldn't understand any of the dsicussion.

Is there any excuse for their ganging up on, and even gathering people for the express purpose of ganging up on one person, particularly a newcomer to Wikipedia?

Same.

these are only a few things that I remember or even was aware of:

Democratic Party (United States) talk page:

- a comment from Griot to 8bitJake

Jake, thanks for holding the fort against that Wolf character in the Democratic Party article. Guys like him, who want to use Wikipedia to pontificate their opinions, are a real danger to the whole enterprise. I'm glad you're standing up to him. Griot 00:36, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

- (cur) (last) 18:30, 19 April 2006 8bitJake m (Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars)

(this following what I said on the page, I'm not saying it now.)

and then going to 8bitJake's talk page, if it remains there and is not deleted:

- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Democratic_Party_%28United_States%29#Archived 1.1, 2, 3-5.13

- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Griot 5 and 6
  - please see some deleted converstions between Griot and me. I don't pretend to know why these have been deleted. These were civil and pleasant comments from both Griot and myself. (this is a little off my point here, too.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Democratic_Party_%28United_States%29/Archive_4
- this entire page got suddenly archived when I beat Jersyko with his XY debate. (Please see bottom of page). If you read it and then note how the talk page was suddenly archived, I think you will see what I am driving at. Also note real clear insults, personal attacks, condescention etc.

an admission, and one I am thankful for from John K. (though there's no apology):
- on this archive 4 page ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Democratic_Party_%28United_States%29/Archive_4 ) 5

Is there any excuse for their deliberately lying to a newcomer or others in order to keep her from editing?

Same.

made to deliberately confuse a newcomer and which was as easy to see through as a glass of water:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Democratic_Party_%28United_States%29/Archive_4

11.1
- I copied the following from the discussion archive 4 page:
  - 'said to the editors what are you talking about? I removed an edit on the talk page, which comments I made, 3/4 of an hour AFTER the edits I made on the article and which have nothing to do with edits I made on the article, (all made in succession)

Is there any excuse for their insulting a newcomer, calling her names like 'loon' and 'ignorant' in order to discourage her from even discussing their article?

You could have found this real easily (Ctrl F)

Same.

Just to reiterate a point I find you, Bishonen insulting, controlling, unfriendly and completely unhelpful in bringing peace. You bring anger from me, (see all my points).

loon:
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ADemocratic_Party_%28United_States%29%2FArchive_4#an_edit_I_made_tonight 13

ignorance
- same page as above bottom of 4

Is there any excuse for their constant barage of scare tactics done, I believe to discourage a newcomer from editing, and possibly even driving her away altogether? And yes. I am prepared to back that claim up.
Please see Wiki's Harrassment Policy Wikipedia:Harassment [[7]]

Seriously, please don't talk like that. Don't assume bad faith. Don't discuss what you believe goes on inside other editors' heads. Comment on content, not on the contributor. This is a very important principle for keeping the temperature down around here, and is the basis of wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. On a more personal note: you'll find it easier to get taken seriously if you don't offer conspiracy theories.

Please stop talking to me like I'm a cretin. Trust me I'm not.
This has nothing to do with people's heads. This is real.

This may be so. But I don't doubt that there is a cabal and it's being run by left-wing Democrat so-called modern day progessives.

You said, my dear Bishonon, "that there was no excuse for your attacks (or, incidentally, your foul language)"

What foul language?

This. This isn't Usenet. The culture is different.

See, I find that comment insulting.
- Wikipedia is the first internet community dialogue" type place I've been involoved with. (Except for about 2 days on Truthout, where I got bored quickly.) So I wouldn't know what culture usenets have.
- You consider this to be "foul language" and "obscenity". I don't. If you take offense to this then I say, "Oh, well". This is clearly you're problem. Not mine. I say get out more and find out what obscenity really is. To be honest with you, I don't care what you find obscene.

~~You also said "I think I have Jersyko's page watchlisted for some reason." And what reason would that be?~~
-

Sigh. Since you repeat this question after I've told you it's none of your business, I suppose you don't understand just how rude it is. And yet you're a native speaker, so I expect you do know that phrases like "I think" and "for some reason" mean that I'm not sure; I don't know exactly; I can't remember; etc. And yet you ask, twice, insinuating I don't know what, with your foolishly sarcastic phrasing - am I supposed to be part of some conspiracy? Tell me up front what it is you're suggesting or just be quiet. Incidentally, I have about 1,300 pages on my watchlist.

I agree with you on that question I forgot to remove it before. Apologies.
However I still say to you, if you can't follow an obviously aggressive attack on a newcomer, and still continue to point the finger at me, all of this is none of your business.
You said "am I supposed to be part of some conspiracy? "
- I don't know. Are you? I don't have an opinion on that one way or another. Only you know that. You may be, judging from your attitude and your actions and inactions.

I just changed my mind on that. Either you are part of this cabal..
Or you aren't very bright and are very controlling and authoritarian and ought to lose your admin status.

I do take responsibility for my actions. That's not what's questioned here, at least that's not what I am questioning.

Obviously. And yet in my opinion it's what you should be questioning. You have power over your actions, your posts, your speech, and they affect the kind of interaction you have. Clicking somewhat randomly at some of your contributions (because your habit of using several edits to post a few lines makes it very hard to do it systematically; do please use the Show Preview button!), I see some very problematic editing, that could use the attention that you focus on other people and on what you see as their crimes against you. I found trolling, lots of POV in articles, rude edit summaries with bad language [8], and above all, lots of personal attacks, suspiciousness, assumptions of bad faith, and plain rudeness, guaranteed to put people's backs up. I would really like to see you become a productive member of the community, which can happen if you reconsider your interaction style. Please make a conscious effort not to be quarrelsome.

You might check this out yourself
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Merecat&diff=prev&oldid=49565423%20personal%20attacks

Please make a conscious effort to be human.(considerate and kind)
Another insult you just made "use the Show Preview button"
- I do use the show preview button. I didn't use it maybe once out of tiredness.
You said Obviously, etc... And yet in my opinion it's what you should be questioning. You have power over your actions, your posts, your speech, and they affect the kind of interaction you have."
- I can say the same thing to you.
Again, I don't care what you consider to be bad language. I don't do newspeak.
You've already admitted that you don't know anything about American politics but then you accuse me of POV? Give me a break, lady. If you are really a lady.
Or then again. judging from what I gather from your words and your actions. Maybe you are familiar with American politics and are not Japanese at all. This is the most likely conclusion.

I still find it amazing that you can find all this stuff on me (edits you indicated above), but I need to sit here and spend all this time pointing you to all the insults that were made to me and the ganging up on me. My experience on Wikipedia has been, for the most part, horrendous. I don't believe Jimbo Wales wants it to be that way from what I've read of Wikipedia etiquette and culture, etc. All the same people that jump on me, jump on certain others. They jump on Merecat, as well. Merecat is the most decent, intelligent and brave person I've met. The only other person that has spent time talking to me (and has shown real kindness) is Tijuana Brass. Others like certain Esperanzans have shown kindness, as well, as I have tried to do in turn and I show kindness in general when it's shown to me. If you had bothered to look at my talk page for signs of this, rather than looking for reasons to point the finger at me, you would have seen this. You can actually still do this, though I doubt that you will.

On this page, [User_talk:Thewolfstar] 1.22 you can find my attitude toward the unfriendly police state that exists in Wikipedia. At least this is my experience of it, for the most part.

Can you please answer these questions?

Okay. We now have both stated our points of view, you have answered my questions, and I have done the work of pointing you to sources. Feel free to comment if you wish or to write me up for rudeness if you would like to do that.
Give me a break, lady.

Maggiethewolfstar 17:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again, thewolfstar 20:33, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Watch it

The above rant is offensive in the extreme. Bishonen is one of our most-trusted users, and the amount of goodwill you burn up by comparing her to a Nazi Stormtrooper is... amazing. I suspect people have shown you these links before: Wikipedia:Civility. Wikipedia:No personal attacks. meta:Don't be a dick. You really need to read them. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually no. However,

I suspect people have shown you these links before: Wikipedia:Civility. Wikipedia:No personal attacks. meta:Don't be a dick. You really need to read them. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Particularly meta:Don't be a dick This particular bit was, if I'm not mistaken, written particularly for dickhead admins such as yourself. There is an advice to blocking admins page where 'Don't be a dick' is suggested to the blocking admins. Funny thing.

Which you have so clearly shown yourself to be. (A dick) Just a suggestion, Bunchofgrapes..a little introspection might be in order here. thewolfstar 21:39, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating policy against no personal attacks. To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock}} along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list.

Note to sysops: Unblocking yourself should almost never be done. If you disagree with the block, contact another administrator.

KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

block contest

You called my hard work of explanation a "rant" KillerChihuahua
- That was a personal attack on me, especially since I was only answering Bishonen's accusations which apparantly you never read, and neither did you read my responses.
  - If you did read them, and still did what you did this reflects badly on you.
I haven't been told precisely why I have been blocked. i.e. personal attacks to who?
- Bishonen or KillerChihuahua?
Please clarify the personal attacks. I've already put plenty of time and research into my defense. Can you show me the same courtesy? Thanks for that.
I explained reasons for hostility above. Reading should clarify my position and my actions.
A small amount of looking on my talk page, and following my conversations to others talk pages, will show that I am kind and considerate when spoken to with a minimum of kindness and consideration.
A small amount of looking here, for instance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Democratic_Party_%28United_States%29#Archived will show how I have been attacked by a jealous band of article guards.
- Please see above as to history
I believe in honesty and when unfairly attacked by a group, I tend to respond with my side of the story see my statement of response to bishonen. Please follow the references that I have listed.
I believe in being helpful and have reached out to several stressed Esperanzans (found on the Esperanzan stress list here

[[9]])

I will not be told what to say or how to say it unless it makes sense somehow
- I refuse to speak NewSpeak
  - I am old enough to control my own words. I make no excuse for them as they need no excuse. Same goes for my actions.

Thanks for telling me how to do this the correct way KillerChihuahua^?!? I honestly don't know if I'll get it right, but I'm trying. Maggiethewolfstar 19:41, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be confusing User:KillerChihuahua and User:Bunchofgrapes a little, there; I'm the one who called the prior post a rant; KillerChihuahua is the one who blocked you. Anybody interested in the circumstances of the block should see this gem, a response to my earlier post, as well. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 19:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was confusing bunchofgrapes with KillerChihuahua.
Will KillerChihuahua please tell me why I have been blocked. This is the second time I asked this question. Why is there a place to contest my block if no one reads the contest?

I would appreciate it one of you would read what I wrote (above) as a response to Bishonen who really insulted me many times.

Please don't call my hard research rants

Will someone please read what I write before accusing me of all sorts of things?

Thanks.

ps Please check this out (an admin friend of Bishonen) [[10]]
The gun and the delete page it points to..Is this a Wiki nicenessthing? I sorta don't think so. But what would I know. I'm a user that's been blocked.

Thanks again. Maggiethewolfstar 20:39, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ps Bishonen. Thank you for proving me right.

You were blocked for this, a clear violation (and not the first you have made) of Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy, as was noted in your block notification. You have given no reason I should unblock; the block stands. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the opening insult made to me

"The above rant" was an insult that was made to me. Before I made insults back. Why isn't this user blocked? Please answer this question. thewolfstar 21:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

can you answer my question + I wrote you a song

I still haven't received an anwser to my question. I won't ask it again, you nasty socialist-nazi admins and editors are making a real mistake. This is not a threat. This a statement of fact.

FACT. A funny word on Wikipedia. What happened to the facts on Wikipedia?

One could write a song perhumnps.

Song to the Wikipedian Socialist Democrats

"What happened to the facts on Wikipedia?"
I can't wait until the goons are caught by the media

It's really such a shame.
What was great is now so lame.

"What happened to the facts on Wikipediabr>

I miss it now it's gone
Destroyed by the Socialist throng.

What happened to the facts on Wikipedia?
author Maggiethewolfstar 22:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

note to the Cabal and it's goons.. start to watch for changes on this site http://earthhopenetwork.net/ thewolfstar 22:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Civility

Please read WP:CIVIL for our policy regarding civility. You might also want to read WP:NPA for our policy on personal attacks. Regarding your accusations of socialism: this website is the private property of the Wikipedia Foundation; please abide by its rules if you wish to continue editing here. -- Karada 00:36, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

to karada

I think you might do the same. You are hardly civil. You drop onto my talk page univited when I can only comment here and am blocked. You accuse me of attacking the socialists which under the circumstances is not so outlandish. And then you threaten me as if you were spesking for the Wikipedia foundation. Wow.

Ya' got me shakin' in my boots.

Jimbo is going to love all of this.

Killer Mutt

You are not following Wiki's guide to blocking.

Bunchofgrapes attacked me personally
I attacked him back.
You blocked me
You did not block Bunchofgrapes
You blocked me for a reason not stated in the 'Blocking Rules'
You never warned me before blocking me

You just broke 6 rules my dear administrator. Keep it up. I would check my administration status frequently from now on. thewolfstar 01:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Calm down, Thewolfstar. You're on the verge of being blocked a lot longer than 24 hours. Just take some time to relax and come back to edit constructively. Thanks. See you around, my friend. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 02:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Lord Voldemort. I do edit constructively on article pages. I do appreciate your concern, though. It's refreshing and soothing to hear kindness from an admin, especially right now. Can you do me a favor? Can you tell TiJuana Brass about what is happening here? Thanks a lot Lv

Maggiethewolfstar 02:44, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:BP#Disruption: "excessive personal attacks" are specifically mentioned. You have engaged in a pattern of abuse of Bishonen, Geogre, Bunchofgrapes, and others. I see nowhere that Bunchofgrapes violated the NPA policy. Please provide a diff to support your assertion: if you don't know how to make a diff link let me know. KillerChihuahua^?!? 04:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thewolfstar has referred to this warning of mine as a Personal Attack, particularly taking umbrage at my characterization of this blatant personal attack on Bishonen as a "rant". Obviously I disagree with her as to whether my edit constitutes a PA. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

from thewolfstar

Hi Killerchihuahua,
Thanks for offering to help me. You're right I don't know how to make a diff link.
peace, Maggiethewolfstar 04:41, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A diff link is the full url (starting with http://) of an edit on Wikipedia. Bunchofgrapes has added the diff link to the section above. Describing your diatribe against Bishonen as a "rant" is desriptive terminology, not a personal attack. A personal attack would be, for instance, "nasty socialist-nazi admins". One is describing your post, one is describing a person or persons in insulting terminology. Do you see the difference? KillerChihuahua^?!? 04:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thewolfstar's response

Whether my comments made to Bishonen, at her request, were a "diatribe against Bishonen"

and whether a "rant" is descriptive terminology"..

is a matter of opinion. Obviously not mine. If one were to read what I wrote to Bishonen, rather than form an opinion of it beforehand, and also bother to follow the links I provided, a product of much work at her request, one would see that I made some very valid points, indeed. Please read it.

When I read what Bunchofgrapes had to say I was angered by his dismissal of what I had to say (to Bishonen). Because after all what I had to say was and still is valid.

I don't know how to put this any more simply and to the point.

Additionally, if you look back at this archived article talk page
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Democratic_Party_%28United_States%29/Archive_4#Comments_from_thewolfstar you will see a history of attacks made on me by others.

Especially please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Democratic_Party_%28United_States%29#Archived this.

Please see above http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Thewolfstar&redirect=no#response_to_Bishonen

I like most people, don't react well to hostility. Should I have reamained calm anyway? Possibly. But at times I did so and I was either igonored, lied to, harassed, ganged up on, etc. Please bother to read this page. Now I am sitting in jail. And my questions are still not answered, at least not with anything that approaches honesty or openmindedness.

Look here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Thewolfstar&redirect=no#to_Bishonen
Where I have already made links to rudeness and PA by others, and also pointed out the gathering of other editors to further harass me, etc. (I didn't make the proper diff link, because bone-headedly I didn't realize how simple that was.)

I am growing exhausted by all this. I am asked to show something. I show it and then it is ignored.

I have done enough work to state my case. Please follow my links this time.

Thank you in advance for looking at this in an unbiased way.
Maggiethewolfstar 05:55, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

to KillerChihuahua

Hi KillerChihuahua. I see that you posted a comment on Tijuana Brass's talk page and told him that I was requesting his knowledge of my block. That was actually really kind of you.

I thank you sincerely for that, it was a very kind and thoughtful gesture Maggiethewolfstar 08:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome. KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:45, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

peace Maggiethewolfstar 11:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Last reply from Bishonen

I won't respond to your taunts and misunderstandings about myself, but only tell you that you're mistaken in thinking yourself ever "ganged up on", since, in summary, that was what you asked me to investigate. Example: where you say editors have been "deliberately lying to a newcomer ... in order to keep her from editing", it's you who've made a mistake. This diff link shows you, yourself, removing (no doubt by mistake) the edit you just made. Scroll down a little to see. Nobody reverted you, nobody lied to you, nobody tried to confuse you. People tried to explain to you how things work here. With amazing mildness, considering the way you speak to them. Please stop posting on my page now. Bishonen | talk 17:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]

message to Maggie

Maggie, please post a sincere apology on this page to those editors whom have taken offense at some of your comments. Some of your comments have been excessively harsh. A little kindness goes along way. Your friend, Merecat 17:28, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merecat, I will make sincere apologies to a few people. These will be the people that I believe I owe apologies to. I will not make arbitrary apologies to people just because they have taken offense to comments I have made. Guaranteed they have said or done something to me or to someone else that was exceedingly harsh and hateful and to which I have taken real offense to.

An example of this is a quite nasty comment I made to Nescio and others on the RFC of Mr. J Galt.

Try to listen carefully to what I say so I don't confuse anyone.
I believe down deep in my heart, that there is no excuse for an rfc. ANY RFC. rfc's should not exist.

People are hung there to rot while others say horrible things to them. They probably got there the same way I got here.

I will apologize to some when they apologize to you and to all the people they have harassed and hung up to be publicly scrutinized and bashed in an rfc.

A little kindness goes along way.

How about that?

I will be back in a little while. I will make some apologies.
If anyone thinks I owe them an apology then let me know and I'll consider it. thewolfstar 18:55, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

my birthday

It's my birthday today. Feel free to wish me a 'happy birthday' anytime. And thanks for setting me free.. I guess.

WOW Thanks! Flawiki and RyanFreisling Maggiethewolfstar 23:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

my comments

I left a message for you on your talk page and also an unblock request on User talk:KillerChihuahua. Those were the comments I mentioned. Merecat 01:01, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

check this out aticle for deletion

Please everyone check this out. an article for deletion ??? This is scary, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Unlawful_enemy_combatant forgot to sign thewolfstar 22:36, 26 April 2006 (UTC) thewolfstar 03:21, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

in response to the many self centered assholes on Wikipedia

Bishonen please don't tell me what I write is obscenity when your conversations with Geogre are so much ickkier. For example this deleted one.
+:Oh, and for comparison, see the history tab on Attalus I. It has been vandalized even more than yours was. I think, when it's an interesting story, the turds vandalize it less. The 11 year olds clearly don't like Attalus I. ("You must be this tall to ride the Wikipedia.") Geogre 21:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

really Geogre. Gross.

Jersey Devil said this to me Please see this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Democratic_Party_%28United_States%29/Archive_4#an_edit_I_made_tonight

Also, it was you who removed your own edit not a "neutral Democrat buddy" as you say in your above statement. And after this, you added an NPOV tag. Since it seems that you removed your own edit and then claimed "NPOV" I am taking off the tag. [12] P.S. I am still waiting for other comments with regards to the "Ideological Base" section.--Jersey Devil 09:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Are you perhaps insane, lady?

not a "neutral Democrat buddy" it is an edit I made on the talk page of the Dem Party article because I thought it might be too provoking to others.

Then Jersey Devil said
And after this, you added an NPOV tag. Since it seems that you removed your own edit and then claimed "NPOV" I am taking off the tag.

The edits I made to the Dem Party article page are one thing.

The edits I made to the Dem Party article talk page are another.

Maybe somone will explain to me to me how this makes some sense. I am new and possibly I am missing something here.

I just said my prayers, which have helped me to put things in perspective. (if this is something I am allowed to say in public these days). My son said this to me the other day and I believe it to be the fairest statement made thus far.

He said "Ma, You're all wrong. You have all broken Wiki policy, and therefore are all wrong. You should all be punished for this" He showed more wisdom with this statement then I or any of us, (except Merecat and Tijuana Brass.)

I do apologize to Nescio. I still don't like what he's doing here with this rfc, but I said something unusually viscious to him on Mr J Galt's rfc talk page. Nescio, please except my apologies for that second comment I made back to you, it was harsh and cruel.

I would like to congratulate Pongo for being an all around good guy with a sense of humor.

Jersyko and I have already aplogized to each other once, here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Thewolfstar#From_thewolfstar
Lots went on after that. I say that we can handle our own affairs, both of us. We are not children. We can and should take care of ourselves and take responsibility for own actions. If we need to apologize to each other again some day, I suspect that we will do so. If we don't, it's on us. I think that we will as we are both basically civilized people

The Block you have on me and the ban that is being intimated are illegal. The legal Wiki process has not been gone through:

Please see this: (found here)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Effects_of_being_blocked
Blocks are most frequently used to deal with vandalism and to enforce bans, most often by the Arbitration Committee. There are other less common situations where blocks are appropriate, which are listed below. In all cases, blocks are preventative rather than punitive, and serve only to avoid damage to Wikipedia. Blocks normally last 24 hours unless specified otherwise below, and in most instances will be lifted if the editor agrees to stop the damaging behavior.

This has never gone to arbitration. Arbitration is the first process in a block or proposed ban. Please see below:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee

The Arbitration Committee exists to impose binding solutions to Wikipedia disputes. This solution may be anything up to and including a ban from editing Wikipedia for a period of time.

The Arbitration Committee is the last step in the dispute resolution process - it is a last resort to be turned to when all else has failed. Other steps, including discussion between users and, where appropriate, mediation, should be tried first. The Arbitration Committee exists to deal with only the most serious disputes and cases of rule-breaking.

You who have blocked me and would like to ban me have not followed legal procedure. You have not even done one step in the process that comes before arbitration, never mind the last resort to blocking or banning.

This will not go down well in the annals of Wiki history, I would guess.

If you do decide to ban me. Goodbye to Merecat, Tijuana Brass, John Kenney, Killer Chihuahua, Violin Girl, all the Esperanzans, someone named Matt Yeager, Hogeye who I don't really know.. I just like his Chutzpah, Mr J Galt..don't know personally either, Jersyko, 8bitJake, Pongo, and many others I will miss you.

But I fear for my sanity, which has gone steadily down hill since I joined this thing.

I'm not sure if I'm dealing with a cabal or this is just a giant insane asylum

Maggiethewolfstar 03:27, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Attacks

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 04:43, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Incivility

Some people believe you are being uncivil, so I'd like to remind you to be civil and not to create personal attacks or take part in edit wars. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 04:50, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd advise you to review WP:NPA about making personal attacks, and WP:RPA which states that I'm allowed to remove the personal attacks you make. In this case that would be almost the entire page, but for contextual reasons I'll leave it here. On merecats page, do NOT do it again. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 05:03, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that the funniest thing. Some people think you are being uncivil. thewolfstar 05:05, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NO ACTUALLY YOU DON'T DO IT AGAIN DON'T DELETE MY COMMENTS AGAIN thewolfstar 05:15, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What am I being blocked for now?

? thewolfstar

Yoy really don't know? Review your past few edits. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 05:20, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't know. And how did you come to hear of them, Theresa Knott
thewolfstar 05:26, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Theresa Knott It's rude to make bossy statement on someone's page when they are blocked and not answer when asked a question. Please ansewr my questions.

Aside from that who invited you into this conversaton? Not me that's for sure. thewolfstar 05:44, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't my intention to be rude. I made the comment then left work for home. I didn't see your reply until now. You were blocked for repeating personal attacks on return from your previous block. That's why i asked you to review your edits. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 23:08, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please be nice

Maggie, I am talking up for you with admin hopeful Swatjester on my talk page. I will stand up for you as best as I can where can. Please help me in that by talking more nicely as soon as possible. Thanks. Merecat 05:31, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for commenting Merecat. I am ready to quit Wikipdia anyway. I know that is what they want. Please keep an eye on deletions. Check Tijaunna Brass talk page and yours for deletions. The one to Tijuanna was just a friendly note. thewolfstar 05:35, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maggie (if I may call you that?), I really hope you won't quit Wikipedia. Just... stop taking it so seriously. I've seen other users come in, and when the changes they wanted to make were reverted over a procedural requirement, jumped to the conclusion that there was a malevolent cabal scheming against them.

All it does is make you sound paranoid, even if you're right. So don't waste your breath. Focus on being a positive, helpful Wikipedia contributor, and let the people you don't like just roll off your back. Getting this angry is self-destructive, I've seen it happen to many users here. Once you get pegged as having a chip on your shoulder, which fairly or not is how some are beginning to see you, it's really hard to overcome that impression.

I'm not saying you should back down from beliefs which I can tell you are passionate about. That's a good thing - we need people who care, here. But you have to be willing to work within the system, and part of that system is being courteous to other editors. I'd really hate to see you get blocked or quit over this. Best wishes, Kasreyn 09:46, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you quit, they win. Just stop talking to them. And don't say anything harsh to anyone. Merecat 05:44, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no winner or loser. Nobody is "beating" anyone, and nobody wants anyone to quit. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire!

Merecat, they don't care what you say or how you say it. When they don't like someone around here, that person becomes history. Don't you see that yet? They have nice gentle friendly people blocked all over the place. People that haven't broken any rules at all. This place is across between Nazi Germany and Russia in Stalin's time. Sort of reminds you of something else, doeesn't it? thewolfstar 06:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of those two regimes lasted. One lasted about 20 years, the other 60. Merecat 06:03, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh great so between the 2 that's 80 state years. A long time to wait for a reasonable place to write article's for an encyclopedia isn't it? thewolfstar 06:06, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We do care what you say. We don't like you saying "XXX is a nazi fuck". It's against the policy here. You were blocked for breaking that policy repeatedly, many many times. If you break the law many times in the US, or in Finland, or Iceland, or any of the worlds greatest and most free democracies guess what: You go to jail. We don't have jail, we just make you cool off for a bit. Why are you comparing this to Nazi Germany and Stalin's Russia? Nobody is ethnically cleansing anyone here, that's ludicrous. I lost family in both those events. There is no comparison. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 06:09, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. First of all we have laws here in America.

Freedom of speech is our first amemdment to the constitution
The Constitution is the highest form of government in the U.S.
When it is broken like in the current regime and the federal government puts itself unrestrained as the highest authority, there is no law

see definition of dictatorship. http://earthhopenetwork.net/the_solution.htm#dic thewolfstar 06:20, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The wiki is not a dictatorship. Rather, it's a clubby oligarchy. And frankly, there's nothing particularly wrong with the structure. Please focus on proving yourself with non-controversial edits. If you do that, you won't have as much distress. Merecat 06:28, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Swat is right. It's not a fair comparison. Merecat 06:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. We have freedom of speech. But read the actual 1st amendment: It says "Congress shall make no law..." The 1st Amendment only applies to the government, and Wikipedia is not the government. Indeed, the only thing you are protected from with the 1st amendment is interference from congress.⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 06:27, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

to the admins

Maybe a xanax would help, or perhaps some prozac. thewolfstar 05:47, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maggie, you are not helping with comments about Xanax. Please, please, please be nice. Merecat 05:55, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

to merecat and schwatzjester

Look Scwatz, you asked some dumbish questions about ethnic cleansing. Give me a break. I answered you.

Wiki has rules. It has procedure that is supposed to be followed by everyone, both the regular editors and the admins. This is the second time the admins have put me in here illiegally by Wiki's own rules.

Wiki Policy

The Blocks you have on me are illegal. The legal Wiki process has not been gone through either time:

Please see this: (found here)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Effects_of_being_blocked
Blocks are most frequently used to deal with vandalism and to enforce bans, most often by the Arbitration Committee. There are other less common situations where blocks are appropriate, which are listed below. In all cases, blocks are preventative rather than punitive, and serve only to avoid damage to Wikipedia. Blocks normally last 24 hours unless specified otherwise below, and in most instances will be lifted if the editor agrees to stop the damaging behavior.

This has never gone to arbitration. Arbitration is the first process in a block or proposed ban. Please see below:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee

The Arbitration Committee exists to impose binding solutions to Wikipedia disputes. This solution may be anything up to and including a ban from editing Wikipedia for a period of time.

The Arbitration Committee is the last step in the dispute resolution process - it is a last resort to be turned to when all else has failed. Other steps, including discussion between users and, where appropriate, mediation, should be tried first. The Arbitration Committee exists to deal with only the most serious disputes and cases of rule-breaking.

You who have blocked me and would like to ban me have not followed legal procedure. You have not even done one step in the process that comes before arbitration, never mind the last resort to blocking or banning.

How about that? thewolfstar

Thewolfstar: Please review WP:NPA, which is policy. It states:

"Many Wikipedians remove personal attacks on third parties on sight, and although this isn't policy it's often seen as an appropriate reaction to extreme personal abuse. Users have been banned for repeatedly engaging in personal attacks. Abusive edit summaries are particularly ill-regarded."

and "There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors. Do not make them."

and In extreme cases, an attacker may be blocked under the "disruption" clause of the blocking policy

Finally, please spell my name right. It's SWATJester, as you can obviously see. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 06:44, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

legal procedure ?

dispute resolution? mediation? arbitration?

hello? thewolfstar 06:47, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just let it go for a few days. Tempers will cool and your block will be over. Merecat 06:53, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm waiting

? thewolfstar 06:52, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

?

You who have blocked me and would like to ban me have not followed legal procedure. You have not even done one step in the process that comes before arbitration, never mind the last resort to blocking or banning.

How about that? thewolfstar 06:53, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In extreme cases, a block can be immediatly given without arbitration, as shown to you above by me. This is something like the third time I have asked you to review the policy at WP:NPA Your block was perfectly legal. Please stop insinuating that it wasn't. It doesn't help your case. If yuo dispute it, once you're unblocked, take it up at arbcom, or ask Merecat to do it for you. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 06:55, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your ban is not permanent? It's a temp block for civility issues? Please wait and cool off for a few days. This is my best recommendation. Merecat 06:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the first amendment

I know that the first amendment doesn't apply here. Let's just get past that for a moment.

One thing that pisses me off more than anyhting is when someone tells me I don't have any constitutional rights.

As far as our government is concerned.. here is first amendment

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

This is clear and simple. Do you understand that? thewolfstar 08:49, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone say something please? thewolfstar 08:54, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing how quiet you all are now while you all watch my every move like a hawk.

Don't have much to say to that do you?

Congress does not have the right to remove my freedom of speech. And no son of a bitch is going to take it away from me. Remember Shays Rebellion? thewolfstar

That's why we have a bill of rights.
There should be a national holiday for Daniel Shays. thewolfstar 09:14, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

to Kasreyn

Hi Kasreyn, thanks for what you said above. I am growing exhausted in this place and I know that's what they want. I may sound paranoid, but if you look over the two pages of edit wars I had with the original contributors you'll see what I mean. I felt like I was walking around in a looney bin with a bunch of high brow philosophers who were pointing to various aspects and attributes of the angels who dance on the head of a pin. It took me ages to introduce what are normally considered simple ideas and concepts. If you could check out some of the links I provided to Bishonen and that she ignored, you'll see what I mean about gathering people to harass a newcomer or anyone who has a difference of opinion.

In a week I managed to get three paragraphs changed in the article. I've said many times that I don't care about the old wars anymore. The point is it shouldn't take all this work just to get fact into an article. Any article. I'm starting to see that the guard dogs have their fists on all kinds of articles, not just controversial ones.

Please see my song above "What happened to the facts on Wikipedia?" It is not I that I am concerned about here. It is the survival of Wikipedia.

Maybe not that many people care. I do.

Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tijuana_Brass
talk page. A comment I made to him, a freindly one was deleted twice. Can you go and ask him for help, please?

I really need his help now and I found a couple of days ago that he's an admin.

Thanks Kasreyn and much peace, Maggiethewolfstar 10:23, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say that I've never seen anything remotely approaching this brouhaha on Wikipedia before. I've always encountered nothing but civility and respect here (discounting the obvious trolls and vandals). I hate to say it, but I think you've unfortunately made yourself a reputation for harshness, and people are being harsh in kind. Maggie, all I can do is reiterate that taking Merecat's advice is a good idea. Take some time to cool off, and don't let these things get under your skin.

Looking over things, I think Bishonen could have been a bit more civil to you at the start, but you really seemed to fly off the handle over it. I doubt it was meant personally. Just repeat to yourself that this will pass by, and in time it will blow over. I think you've got a lot of potential to be a great contributor here. And it's true that older and more established editors have an unfair advantage; we can sometimes get away with saying things that a newbie would be crucified for. But that's just how groups always work. Trust and respect go to the veterans no matter how hard you try to make it egalitarian, it's just human nature.

If you made a mistake, it was in not realizing that tangling with an admin right off the bat was a hopeless fight to get into, and in not being civil enough. But this is correctable. All you have to do is calm down and let the others get tired of hounding you. You seem to have at least convinced Drini of that, since he seems to have at least attempted to unblock you. It's possible that he just didn't do it right. According to his talk page, he has tried yet again to unblock you with no success. Something seems to be wrong. I suggest, rather than fuming and spitting insults here, which just provides more ammo to get you blocked again, that you wait and see. The worst that can happen is that you'd have to wait out the rest of the week-long block. It's not that bad. It'll give you time to cool down, and time for those who were mad at you to forget about it. I'm hopeful that after it expires you'll be able to get back to contributing. :) Kasreyn 02:12, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

G'day

Hi Maggie. Er, Wolfstar. Wolfmaggie. I tend to mix real names and wikinames... that's probably a sign that I need to get off of the encyclopedia more.

Sorry for the delay in writing you, been very off and on here the past couple of days. Sorry also that you've had the frustration of edit conflicts; it happens to everyone here sooner or later, you just had the misfortune of having it sooner, it seems. I'm glad that there's been some good people like Merecat and Swatjester around giving advice; I haven't really read over your talk page or looked over the links too much, but I recognize a lot of names involved and know that they're mostly real good people... so perhaps it's just an instance of good people butting heads, not sure. In any case, glad to see the block is over and that you didn't take it as a personal offense, storming off and leaving Wikipedia... that'd be a real shame. How's the progress coming along on creating a Humanistic anarchism article, or an addition to Anarchism of that nature? I'm really looking forward to seeing it.

By the way, it's late, but happy birthday! Sorry to have missed it on the day of. I was three days late in wishing happy birthday to my best friend this month; I should probably brush up on that. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 11:39, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Illegal Blocking.

You are not alone. Out there, many others have been blocking with out Arbitration Committee. We filing class action lawsuit against Wikipedia, join would you? Cannot violate our rights, Wikipedia can. we must stop them, before they continue to censor vital info plz???? thx. --_{Avillia (RfC vs CVU) 21:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC)}[reply]

Those who talk about "class action lawsuit", will not have my support. Merecat 21:28, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What right has been violated? What damages are you seeking? What statue of law has Wikipedia violated? I'm rather curious. Bjsiders 18:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Merecat!

What a thing. Class Action lawsuits. Wow.
Need you now thanks for stepping in. lots of peace Maggiethewolfstar 22:15, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

merecat

are ya' still there? Can you contact that very cool guy I think his name is TJBeatty and ask for his help? Thanks. Maggiethewolfstar 22:26, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding what? Merecat 22:28, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merecat can you contact Tbeatty thewolfstar 22:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tbeatty is blocked! thewolfstar 22:31, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Duh, Tbeatty is not blocked. twas me that were blocked.
Merecat are you still around? thewolfstar 22:44, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tbeatty is not blocked, and has never been blocked. Do you have a message for him/her? KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:50, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks KillerChihuahua
Can you ask him or her to come here, please and talk to me? ThanksMaggiethewolfstar 22:53, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

what's up? --Tbeatty 23:03, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you still here Tbeatty? thewolfstar 23:14, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for coming here and talking to me. And thanks for what you said on Merecat's page about the delete done on my comments to Merecat. Can you help me with this whole thing? Maggiethewolfstar 23:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TBeatty are you there?thewolfstar 23:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC) thewolfstar 23:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm here. I'm not sure what you want help with. I can't unblock you.--Tbeatty 03:44, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

to -Avillia

I don't have any intention of making any lawsuit against the Wikipedia Foundation. I will protest in other ways within the Wiki community, though. thanks Maggiethewolfstar 22:39, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comments at bottom of page please

Can you please leave comments at the bottom of this page and start a new edit with them. I am having a hard time finding comments. Thanks, thewolfstar 22:59, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Tbeatty

Hey, thanks for coming here and talking to me. And thanks for what you said on Merecat's page about the delete done on my comments to Merecat. Can you help me with this whole thing? Maggiethewolfstar 23:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TBeatty are you there?thewolfstar 23:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To the general throng at the Wiki

I can honestly say, after calming down and laying back a little, that this is the nastiest atmosphere I have ever encountered in my life anywhere. What do you have to say to that? thewolfstar 23:29, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I say that you are contributing to it much more than anybody else is, and despite your claims to the contrary, often without provocation. The hostility of your response to people is vastly disproportionate to the severity of their statements. Bjsiders 18:09, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's definately no more clique oriented than High School or nastier than a school committee meeting. Merecat 23:34, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Those are brutal nasty cliques those high school cliques. So saying its no nastier compared to that, ain't saying much.

I am finding it worse than high school, where I was ridiculed for being different. I held my own, though. thewolfstar 23:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

School committee meeting are and can be horrendous, too, true. thewolfstar 23:46, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This place isn't for everyone that's true. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 23:49, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It never hurts to be nice. Merecat 00:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

_____

Hi Theresa, In all due respect, who it is for exactly? thewolfstar 00:25, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's easy to get upset when people disagree with you. This is why WP:CIVIL is so important. If you don't want to listen to the anonymous crowd about this, listen to Merecat. He or she just came through an RFC relatively unscathed by being all reasonable at people and still seems to agree with WP:Civil. Good luck with your editing. MilesVorkosigan 23:59, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Might I chime in to sign on to MilesVorkosigan note? It's important to just hang in here if you feel it worthwhile. And I, for one, believe your contributions are valuable. While I feel as if I'm in a minority when it comes to believing the best articles result from conflicts, I truly feel the best ones do come from well reasoned, cordial, and soundly resolved, conflict. Theresa Knott's comment is also most appropriate; the place isn't for everyone, but I'm not sure how to resolve that impression with the problem it raises, given my prediliction for finding the best results through adversarial sorts of proceedings :(. This may be an issue to resolve in WP 2.0 (whenever it arises). Keep on keeping on! --Flawiki 00:40, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

civility

Okay. I've heard about much as I am going to hear about civlity.

Why is it that I sit here in jail and other uncivil people walk free?
Particularly ones who have insulted me, for instance? thewolfstar 00:30, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because you made yourself an easy target by fighting with too many people at once. Merecat 00:37, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

an answer?

I'm not buying it Merecat. That only partly answers the question.

Having a hard time answering that one are you? thewolfstar 00:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hint

Look back at first comment I received from anyone at the top of this page. thewolfstar 00:44, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maggie, success in life rests mostly on recognizing and adapting to power relationships. You are new here and you do not have any power. If you act accordingly, you will have less trouble. You can only control two things: #1) your attitude and #2) your activity. Don't look to others for solutions. Create your own solutions by adapting your behavior the the conditions you face. Merecat 00:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merecat, I can't even believe you just said that. Of all the people I have seen in this place ot intereacted with personally, I am the most original one at creating solutions. thewolfstar 00:51, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what I am saying. What I am saying is, when one harshly argues with others, they are in fact seeking a solution from those others. Don't harshly argue towards solutions - find your solutions in good edits with solid citations. Of course, this is no guarantee of sucess, but it's better than only fighting. Merecat 06:07, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the block

I've been blocked for more than 24 hours now. When did my block start and when do I get unblocked? thewolfstar 00:49, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I need to know when this block started and when I am getting off.
I am not the enemy. thewolfstar 00:56, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Based on this I think you should be unblocked by now (unless Drini's block stayed KillerChihuahua's 24 hour block, I'm not exactly certain how the block times work when they're stacked). --Flawiki 01:03, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you find out please? I'd really appreciate it. thewolfstar 01:07, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done --Flawiki 01:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the log you pointed me to. It says Drini unblocked me as his last action.

View (previous 50) (next 50) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500).

   * 16:13, 27 April 2006 Drini unblocked Thewolfstar (contribs) (should have calmed by now)
   * 04:57, 27 April 2006 Drini blocked "Thewolfstar (contribs)" with an expiry time of 1 week (aggresive attacks, namecalling other wikipedians)
   * 18:53, 25 April 2006 KillerChihuahua blocked "Thewolfstar (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (personal attacks)

why am I still blocked?

'??????????????????????' thewolfstar 01:14, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

can I have an answer

This is getting so boring. If I leave, guaranteed you just lost one of the best editors you ever had. thewolfstar 01:18, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an admin (like anyone would give me that responsibility if I had the temerity to request it?) but I have posted notes on both of the admins' pages. --Flawiki 01:25, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

blockers and all others involved

You only continue to convince me of your deep incivilty and lack of basic human understnding and respect. I am not an idiot and I am not a child. Please treat me and others with the respect with which you would like to be treated yourselves. thewolfstar 01:29, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

still blocked

I closed all my browsers and rebooted my machine. I am still blocked. thewolfstar 02:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you so much for your helpfulness and honesty. thewolfstar 03:22, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am stll blocked.

Merecat are you around? thewolfstar 03:23, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Autoblock

You were caught in an autoblock:

10:21, 27 April 2006, Drini (Talk) blocked #150207 (expires 10:21, 28 April 2006) (Unblock) (Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "Thewolfstar".

I have unblocked that autoblock as well. If you are still blocked, post here and I will look further. KillerChihuahua^?!? 03:32, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and reblocked you for 15 minutes and then immediately unblocked it to see if that resets things. --Woohookitty^(meow) 04:07, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good. Now behave! :-D --Woohookitty^(meow) 04:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. A 3 year old flamepoint Siamese. Actually, if you go to that article, the cat on the right looks alot like my Sassy. --Woohookitty^(meow) 04:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cool! Yeah my Sass is a bit beefier than the cat in that picture and she's redder on the back. --Woohookitty^(meow) 05:02, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hi

Just wanted to thank the many people who went out of their way to get me unblocked. This was a kind act and I appreciate it.

Just as I only know any of you by the brief encounters so far which have been for the most part unpleasant, but at times like this, actually quite the opposite, so do any of you know me.

A suggestion that Merecat has been making all along to many editors, is to take a different approach to a newcomer on Wiki. If I may be so bold, this may not be a bad idea.

Being polite is okay in itself, but it doesn't constitute being friendly or helpful. A friendlier more helpful approach may prove to be a better way to talking to newcomers. Especially your first comments to them.

I read your comments about me on killerchihuahua's page. They were hilarious, I can assure you.

If you have a question about me just ask. If you don't believe Earthhope is my site send an email to contact@earthhopenetwork.net or maggie@earthhopenetwork.net and I'll email you back. Please don't delete the email address out of here. I don't care if anyone has it, and I can figure these things out for myself.

Anyway thanks for helping me get unblocked. And thanks, Bishonen for what you said at the bottom of killer's page.
peace Maggiethewolfstar 04:45, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict with the previous two comments)

My comment

My comment was intended for you of course. This place can be very difficult for certain types of personalities. It can also be very addictive, and this is a big problem for people who find that it makes them unhappy, because they want to leave but find they cannot.

To be happy hear you need to be calm. Calm when people disagree with you, calm when people do not appreaciate you, calm even when people are rude.

You also need to be able to look at things from other people's point of view. This is an essential skill for reaching consensus and writing neutrally, but is also needed to prevent arguments from decending into slanging matches.

Not everyone can fit into the rough and tumble that Wikipedia can sometimes be. The is no shame is saying "This is not for me".

On the other hand, if you do decide to stay then you are most welcome.You do need to make sure that you behave in a way that doesn't lead to more blocks. Look at you edits just before your last block. Learn from them (Doing this gets me blocked, I wont do it again.) Staying calm is they key here. If you find youself getting upset then walk away for a bit to cool off. Never edit when agitated. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 05:14, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Theresa Knott,
I appreciate your comments. But give me a break. The rough and tumble? Obviously I can't say this for sure, but I bet I have been through more the rough and tumble in my first few years of life than many here at Wiki have been through in their whole lives.

Also please don't condescend to me. I find this offensive as who wouldn't. Talk to me and treat me as if I were an adult, which I most certainly am.

Look at Merecats page. You'll see that I told him I'm about to commit Wikipedian suicide. Do you really propose that I am so imbecilec that I didn't know that I was going to get blocked?

You said, "You also need to be able to look at things from other people's point of view. This is an essential skill for reaching consensus and writing neutrally."

I disagree because that simply doesn't make sense. It's not about my or anyone else's point of view. Neutrality and fact are pointedly not anyone's point of view. I'll buy the part about staying calm, though.

Most of the time I have been calm. Only I know whether I am calm or not. There was a time I did get upset at Merecat, but oh well, I got over it.

Oh well, thanks for spending time writing to me. Just please don't assume I'm an idiot because I'm new.

peace, Maggiethewolfstar 05:33, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look at Merecats page. You'll see that I told him I'm about to commit Wikipedian suicide. Do you really propose that I am so imbecilec that I didn't know that I was going to get blocked?

The reason that i explained in such detail was because you asked on this user page why you were blocked.Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 08:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maggie, pay attention when Theresa talks. She's giving you the best advice you can get. Treasure her help like a $10,000 bill. Don't look for ways to disagree or disbelieve her. Instead, say to yourself "I want to get the benefit from Theresa's help. Let me re-read and think about her comments". Merecat 15:53, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and censorship

Since you aim to save Wikipedia, you should check out m:Talk:Spam Blacklist, where a number of sites have been added to the spam blacklist in order to censor out Criticism of Wikipedia. This is a big problem with Wikipedia, as it gets rid of the fundamental need for transparency in the project. Wikipedia's rogue admins are a major problem, and they have now got together and formed Wikitruth as a way of destroying Wikipedia once and for all. And unless Jimbo, and those people who love this project fight to sue Wikitruth and get rid of it, then Wikipedia will be destroyed. Sadly, however, List of banned users includes a lot of people who were here to help Wikipedia, and Jimbo has spurned them, leading to this problem. There are so many people sitting on the side lines, who want so much to save this project, who get called "critics" and are then censored out of Wikipedia, because they wanted to help, and actually went out of their way to help the project.

If you want to do something, there are places where your voice will be heard. I am sure that you can follow the links and find such a place. Sadly, on Wikipedia, that voice cannot be heard. See what links have been brushed off as spam and you will see where it is that you can talk freely. Come and you will be welcome. 203.122.231.195 09:31, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~If Jimbo has spurned them, how do you know he doesn't want it that way?~~ thewolfstar uh, duh, that was a dumbass question

Jimbo isn't the only person that bans people. Indeed, he rarely bans people. And even when he does, its usually because of someone whispering in his ear. Its the people doing the whispering that are the ones controlling the project, not Jimbo. We call these people "the cabal". You can call them something else if you prefer. Jimbo is a weak-willed and kind-hearted person who has difficulty seeing the evil in anyone. This is nice when there is a structure that prohibits the possibility of abuse, but sadly there are too many faults in the fundamental structure of Wikipedia and abusive people get in to positions of power where they can be manipulative. One key problem with Wikipedia is WP:NPOV, because quite frankly it is unattainable, and hence results in POV pushing done in secret, which in turn means a lack of transparency that spreads everywhere, which means that some abusive people can get away with murder. NPOV might have been okay had its creator, Larry Sanger stayed along to see it out, but the problem is that Wikipedia fired him, and yet refused to either wipe that policy or else update it to be something which they could manage. This is when the cabal really started. Wikitruth is a representation of the cabal trying to take over Wikipedia, to usurp Jimbo and put in their own people in its place. And its sad really that all Jimbo needs to do to put an end once and for all to this and so many problems that are inherent in Wikipedia is to sue Wikitruth, but he won't do it. I fear that he worries that when he sues Wikitruth, he will be suing a lot of high profile administrators, and lay Wikipedia bare. Its true. There will be developers, beaurocrats, and highly thought of administrators behind that site. People who Jimbo trusted. And when they go, Wikipedia will be laid bare, and it will be a scandal. Jimbo I think is afraid of the scandal. Yet the reality is that if Wikipedia is to be saved, we need to go through this scandal. And then in the wash up, we can have a more transparent system, and one without so much secret power. 203.122.231.195 17:03, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. This is the exact conclusion I came to myself, but being new here, and not hearing anything back from Jimbo, I was starting to wonder. Send me an email, please, before they find some lame reason to boot me out of here. Thanks.. emails to contact@earthhopenetwork.net Maggiethewolfstar 08:10, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I should tell you what I've seen in four years at Wikipedia (admittedly, the first few years as an anon editor). What I've seen is one of the best community-driven projects I've ever seen, anywhere. What I've seen is, on the whole, a lot of smart and polite people working together amazingly well, all things considered. To be more specific, maybe I'm just blind, but I've never seen any evidence of this POV cabal that Wikitruthers like to go on about. I've never seen evidence of a "they" or a "them" operating at Wikipedia. I've never seen anything to indicate that Wikitruth is anything more than a hang-out for people who were too uncivil or POV to get along well here. It's nice that they admit that they disagree with the attainability of NPOV. But what it also means is that their representation of themself is just another POV push. I'd do some more research, if I were you. Best wishes, Kasreyn 07:11, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Spade

Sam is at times, more adversarial than he needs to be with people, but I have posted a defense on his behalf. Thanks for the heads up. Merecat 15:18, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]