User talk:Cowman109/Archive 5

Yoshiaki Omura

If and when convenient I'd ask if you might look in on the current state of Yoshiaki Omura/Mediation and determine if you feel Antonrojo's suggestion, with which I for one am in agreement, is appropriate as to the current protected state of the entry. TheStainlessSteelRat 05:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What TheStainlessSteelRat is referring to is the fact that the parties involved in mediation have agreed to have the page unprotected to get a wider audience contributing to the page. The specific suggestion is here (you can then search the page on {{peer}} to find the relevant discussion). Antonrojo

I don't think it's necessary to have the page unprotected for that, as technically that would just allow wide-scale edit warring from a pessimistic perspective ;). Discussion still seems to be flowing on the talk page, and people can be directed there to give their opinions. The rewriting the article from the scratch idea sounds the most interesting so that all information can be sourced and recreated, fixing much of the problems the article may have had in the past. Direct me to it if I'm wrong, but is there clear agreement by all those involved that such a step should be taken? I'd rather not do this too hastily, as of course the world won't explode if it's protected for another few days. Thanks. Cowman109^Talk 02:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From my perspective, for what it's worth, Cowman, it's become a somewhat different situation then when I first posted here. I think hanging back, at least a bit, makes infinite sense. TheStainlessSteelRat 02:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, good! That's why we mustn't do things too hastily :D Cowman109^Talk 02:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOL :) TheStainlessSteelRat 02:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then, given the most recent dustup, a question: Am I in your judgement within acceptable limits if I revert the entry to its state prior to this most recent chapter in the edit war, or am I then stepping over an inappropriate line? TheStainlessSteelRat 06:01, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well it looks like they are the main instigators in this conflict, and I don't particularly care what version the page is left in anyway (I was a tad surprised when they were reverting to 'Cowman109's version', I didn't even know I had a version :) ), but it would probably be inappropriate for me to say whether one version is better than the other. If many people disagree with one editor's edits, though, then the point of the three revert rule would be that other editors would jump in to revert to show consensus (or lack thereof) if talk page discussion isn't working. When you have multiple editors for each side of a conflict, though, protection tends to kick in. So, um. I didn't really answer the question there somewhat intentionally, so, um, sorry :D. I won't be blocking anyone else though unless we have more back and forth reverting, however. Cowman109^Talk 06:08, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, damn, then, you've got a version, now! Does it get any better? (Okay, yes, it probably does, or at least let's hope so.) All righty, so, then, I will now rely upon my own best judgement (Whatever, precisely, that may be is a whole other world of less-than-compelling questions and even less compelling answers and evasions.) Off we go . . . *mumbles* where did I put my Stainless Steel Rat Cape (or is that 'crepe'?), anyway ? TheStainlessSteelRat 06:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:gblock

You recently added an until parameter, and I was trying to figure out how to use it but my efforts turned up fruitless. I think you might have posted an incorrect example of its usage above the template, which was: {{subst:GBlock|not having enough cowbell|8 April 2000}}. How does one use the until parameter? Thanks. Cowman109^Talk 23:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh silly me... I have corrected it. -- tariqabjotu 23:34, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AQu01rius

Please examine the situation at Portal talk:China and offer your advice. Also see User talk:Kylu and User talk:Kirill Lokshin. --Ideogram 18:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks, Cowman109! Although the nefarious purpose of the "Haldane Fisher" account was pretty obvious to me, I didn't quite know what to do about it. You see, until you showed up, I was under the impression that the secret duty of all Wikipedia administrators is to show maximum bias in favor of those who know the secret handshake, and ignore everybody who doesn't. You're a pleasant surprise. Asmodeus 00:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for November 20th.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 2, Issue 47	20 November 2006	About the Signpost

One week later, Wikipedia reblocked in mainland China	Military history dominates writing contest
News and notes: Wikibooks donation, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

China

Firstly, if you try and leave a comment on my page, spell it correctly - offence not offense.

I do not think that putting the words de-facto and de-jure are pro-PRC at all! The United Nations, US, and most countries in the world agree with the 'One China' principle - even those who only recognize the ROC agree that there is only one China.

Therefore, those who recognize the PRC recognize that the whole of China is under the PRC. Those who recognize the ROC think that the whole of China is under the ROC. Therefore, by putting 'two modern states' who not be pro-PRC, in fact it would be rather factual and neutral. It cannot offend both pro-PRC people and pro-ROC people!

I think that only by using de-facto and de-jure terms can one truly understand the current government in China. Ghfj007 14:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cowman is not the person you need to convince. --Ideogram 14:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Paulharveynews

I'm a bit surprised that you're choosing to do nothing about Paulharveynews being a Role Account in violation of WP:SOCK and WP:USERNAME. These are usually banned on sight. wikipediatrix 22:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I feel it's more important for the PR representative to understand that he should not be editing Wikipedia in this matter rather than blocking them immediately and getting them flustered (which would only escalate matters). Thanks for the input, though. Cowman109^Talk 00:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration

You indicated to FloNight that you wanted to help out as an arbitration clerk. The Waldorf education case is ready to open today, after 23:00 UTC (24 hours after 4th accept vote). Leave a note at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Clerks/Administration if you want to open it. The procedure is described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Clerks/Procedures. Drop me a note if you have any questions. Thatcher131 12:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, ahah! I was waiting for some case to get 4 accept votes before leaving a note, but today I'll be off with relatives around that time, and the scienceapologist case I'm a tad involved in now, so it looks like I'll have to wait for the next round of accepts. Thanks, though! :/ Cowman109^Talk 16:42, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, just keep your eye on Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Clerks/Administration and FloNight and I will be listing anything that needs doing. Thatcher131 01:09, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wiarthurhu

Wiarthurhu keeps using his userpage to keep doing what he does best, trolling adn downtalking Wikipedia. I think that maybe you whould protect it, to prevent him from editing it. Karrmann 18:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just leave him alone. Responding to him is only making matters worse. Cowman109^Talk 19:23, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/ScienceApologist

Hello,

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Srikeit 21:23, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

— Deon555^talk has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile at others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!

Thanks for removing that personal information those nasty IP's added :) — Deon555^talk 04:23, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My block

Hi Cowman, I sent you an email while I was blocked and got no response. Would you mind explaining to me why I was blocked, despite the fact that I only had 3 reverts? (the last edit, as I explained in my email, was not a revert, as you can see from its diff). Thanks, Crum375 12:00, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is because the 3rr is not an excuse to revert only 3 times every 24 hours. The matter could have easily been solved had you reverted Richard once and two other editors come in to revert him once, showing there is not yet consensus for his changes. Revert warring in any fashion is disruptive, therefore I blocked both parties who were revert warring on the article. Cowman109^Talk 14:44, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cowman, I made it clear to him that changing the version while it is being mediated is not acceptable. I played by the rules and only reverted 3 times. I warned him in the Talk page that he was about to exceed 3RR before he did so. I am fully aware that even one revert is considered excessive by some, and I myself generally try to limit myself to 1 revert with most reasonable editors. In this case, though perhaps not optimal, doing 3 reverts was not exceeding WP:3RR. OTOH, Richardmalter, as he has done many times in the past, did exceed WP:3RR, despite my clear warning, by reverting from your protected version to his favorite version 6 (six) times within a short time. After I reached my 3RR limit, and he exceeded his, another editor took over and continued to revert him, just like you suggest above, showing him clearly there is no consensus, while Richardmalter continued reverting the other editor until you blocked him.

I fail to see how an equal block for us is justified, and I fail to see how blocking someone who is a productive contributor to WP, civil, plays by the rules (spirit and letter) and has never been warned or blocked, is helping the project. In fact, from Richardmalter's perspective, reverting 6 times, against 2 different editors who do not exceed 3RR, would appear no worse than playing by the rules and reverting only 3 times. Also from his perspective, being a repeat 3RR offender carries apparently no extra penalty. Crum375 19:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it does indeed appear now that Richardmalter is the main instigator in this edit war, so your block probably should have been shortened. Nonetheless, reverting more than once only inflames matters more, and simply finding someone else after the first revert is already more than enough to show that it is one person versus many, so the block was indeed appropriate as at the time it was not obvious whether there were just two parties to the conflict or more. Cowman109^Talk 01:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is academic at this point, since what was done was done, but I think that an editor in good standing, who has contributed a lot of time and effort to the project (13 articles, 3 on GA list, lots of help on other articles, plus a lot of effort invested in policy pages and other spaces, in 6 months), who has never been blocked or even warned, who is always civil, who has never broken any rule, deserves at least a warning prior to being blocked, for any length of time, especially when at the time of the block someone else was actually reverting Richardmalter, for the exact same reasons. I can see summarily blocking a repeat offender, who has repeatedly broken rules and been warned many times (like RM), but IMO the blocking tool should only be used to stop an ongoing edit war (again, I stopped on my 3rd revert, someone else was reverting RM when you blocked), or when there is a clear violation of a rule.

Cowman, I understand your perspective - you saw what seemed to you to be an edit war flaring up again and you figured a block was in order to cool things down. My point is that a block should be used judiciously and more carefully, and a little prior communication can't hurt. It can hurt the project if a block is improperly used. Crum375 01:46, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh boy....

Goodness me, Kylu knows who I am, she and I go way back (along with Gernwol [who is one of the few decent admins] CD RWD ,Fram, ect ect) So just run along cowman (from the midwest?) I am not in the mood to deal with idiots today.

New to wikipedia

Hello I am new to wikipedia. Since you were the first admin I saw on the "recent changes" list I though I would ask you a couple of questions.

What’s the best way to become involved with wikipedia? What is needed the most by wikipedia? What is the best way to deal with problems between people?

Thanks for answering my questions.

THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!334double084 17:58, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Please see the reemergence of SPA Haldane Fisher here. Can he be banned again? I would ask that you also consider reviewing the edits for the day and my final version of the Langan bio, the comments on the article talk page, and revert to the last edit by DrL in the article's history. Thanks for your consideration. --DrL 21:12, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Block

To Cowman109 for exceptional contributions defending the wiki from vandalism. -- Samir धर्म 01:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your block on User:RicoTubbs was a good show. Looks like he crept under the radar for a while. Nice pickup -- Samir धर्म 01:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Mediation Cabal - How do you join?

Hi Cowman109. I understand that you are a co-ordinator of the Mediation Cabal. This is something which has always been of interest to me, and I would like to ask for information on what you have to do to become a member of the Cabal. Is it something which anyone with a good heart and a certain number of edits can do, like adminship, or is it an "invitation only, one-time, never-to-be-repeated" kind of deal, kinda like the Buffaloes? Your assistance would be welcomed. Thanks. Thor Malmjursson 13:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can join just by adding their name to the list of mediators and volunteering to help out a new case (technically you don't really even need to put your name on there). Basically, unless someone is somehow hurting the mediation process consistently, they can be asked to stop mediating cases, but the entire process is informal. Cowman109^Talk 19:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Smart page

They are at it again on the Derek Smart page. This time Kerr whose sole purpose seems to be POV edits, has resorted to making unnecessary edits to the Wiki. Then there is the issue of external links being removed from the article just because someone felt like it. Could you please look in on it? I have thus far done two reverts today and dont want to run afoul of the 3RR which Supremer Cmdr seems to be prone to. Thanks. WarHawkSP 19:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Coordination archives#Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-11-03 Starwood_Festival

Apparently in the last 25 days, the mediator (User:Geo.plrd) has accepted the mediation and asked one question. I've removed him from the mediation and have asked on the Coordination Desk page for input from the other coordinators: Do we request that Geo.plrd discontinue his attempts at mediation? I note, sadly, that this is not the first time people have filed complaints about his lack of activity in mediation and decree-like manner of closing cases. I've spoken with him about the matter before, but I'm tempted to think that perhaps he simply is incapable of handling the position. In any case, he's quite the busy individual, trying to start an "ArbCab" and being Senior Overseer of Wikipedia:Motto of the day.

See: Current view of user talkpage, numerous mediation-related concerns, especially my own concerns regarding this, and those on the MedCab talkpage as well as the topic link.

Sincerely, ~Kylu (u|t) 21:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this has become a common occurence. Asking him to stop mediating would be a good idea. Cowman109^Talk 21:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm removing him from the mediator list. Sadly, I really don't think that he's cut out for this sort of thing. ~Kylu (u|t) 04:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for November 27th.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 2, Issue 48	27 November 2006	About the Signpost

Arbitration Committee elections: Candidate profiles	Steward elections begin
Group apologizes for using Wikipedia name in online arts fundraiser	News and notes: 1.5 million articles, milestones
Wikipedia in the News	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 01:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

For this. Mikker ^(...) 21:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Is it possible to get User:Stone put to sky to not post responses in other peoples evidence sections as he has done here and in this section? Thanks.--MONGO 07:51, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

His responses should be moved into his own evidence section, but I cannot find any left over responses in the other sections. Are there still bits of his responses in other peoples' evidence sections or has that already been remedied? Cowman109^Talk 19:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, Thatcher already fixed it. Cowman109^Talk 19:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell was that? I meant to tell you that the Seabhcan case is still in evidence—only a motion for recusal is in voting—so it should be listed on both places. I have no idea where all that other text came from, especially since I wasn't even reading articles about firearms much less editing them. Very odd. Thatcher131 00:41, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A glitch in the matrix? But thanks for the correction :D. Cowman109^Talk 01:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Or yet another holodeck malfunction episode. It's everywhere; other arb pages, see also WP:VPT. Something is seriously amiss somewhere. Thatcher131 01:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

womensrugby

Cowman, why did you again delete my pic of the black ferns. I've explained that it's MY picture and where and when I shot it. I've put the tags in the summary WHAT EXACTLY IS YOUR PROBLEM? If I did something wrong, which is possible, just say so and don't question me or my tags. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Womensrugby (talk • contribs).

Um *scratches head* I haven't deleted any images recently. Could you please explain what image or what article this is from exactly? Thanks. Cowman109^Talk 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The image I'm talking about is the one with Anna Richards which I took at the 2nd game In Hamilton NZ last year. It was in the right corner of the 'Black Ferns' page. Anna runs with the ball, ready to pass it.

Here,we go. It appears it was Image:Blackferns.jpg that was tagged as not having a source and was tagged for deletion because of it. Looking over it again, the meta data is all there so there shouldn't be a problem, so I undeleted the image and put it back on the article. Thanks for telling me! Cowman109^Talk 20:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:ArbComOpenTasks

Please see if Template:ArbComOpenTasks can be changed so that there is a way to signal that there is a motion to vote on. Fred Bauder 16:44, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, I think there was quite a bit of confusion with that with Dmcdevit removing it from the voting section - I'll see if I can add a bit to make the injunction link to the area where the vote is. Cowman109^Talk 18:44, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for December 4th.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 2, Issue 49	4 December 2006	About the Signpost

Arbitration Committee elections open	The Seigenthaler incident: One year later
Wikimedia celebrates Commons milestone, plans fundraiser	Wikipedia wins award in one country, reported blocked in another
News and notes: Steward elections continue, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arb clerk

Do you want to close the Elvis case? Leave a note at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Clerks/Administration. Thatcher131 20:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Responded there already) and thanks. /me will try to keep an eye on that page more often now. Cowman109^Talk 20:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio

I have replied on the talk page. Please note, that comparing the current version of the article on m-a may not be useful. The copyvio was done quite some time ago. I linked to the appropriate version in the memory-alpha history at the time the article was created. Morwen - Talk 20:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your note

There is precedent from the last election, and but with or without it, admins are elected to use their judgment, and that was mine. Geni had no right to undo it without prior discussion, but has assumed the right, as he often does. What I notice, and I'm not alone in noticing this, is that Cyde and Geni are often involved in juvenile behavior, personal attacks, and, in Geni's case, undoing other admins' actions. It's therefore not surprising that it's that pair involved here. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That may be so, but to be frank, it's unproductive settling things this way. Arbcom may be a good path to take if you have evidence of behavior such as this that stretches for some time. Cowman109^Talk 01:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sprotection

Thanks, Cowman. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your input sought

You must have had some run-in with Pmanderson before his last RfA. He's now up again, and I've also been subjected to his rude attacks and wikilawyering, including his recent 3RR. I don't believe he's ready yet, or if he truly has the temperament. Skyemoor 05:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/ScienceApologist

This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.

Asmodeus is indefinitely banned from editing Christopher Michael Langan and all related articles including but not limited to: Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe, Crank (person), and Academic elitism. He may make suggestions on talk pages if he is not disruptive. Asmodeus is also placed on probation indefinitely and is cautioned to be courteous to other users. He may be banned from any article, talk page, or subject area which he disrupts by aggressive biased editing or incivility. All remedies which apply to Asmodeus also apply to DrL and, after warning accompanied by a link to this matter, to any other user with a similar editing pattern. Haldane Fisher and Hal Fisher are banned indefinitely. FeloniousMonk is counseled to consult with other administrators with respect to disruptive users and to cooperate with them in a collegial way. ScienceApologist is counseled to be more patient and diplomatic with users who may edit their own article or advance original research. Bans imposed by this decision may be enforced by appropriate blocks. All blocks to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/ScienceApologist#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.

For the Arbitration Committee --Srikeit 17:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you can't win them all ...

Thanks for your quick input re: the Yoshiaki Omura mediation. I tried so hard, I really did, and I'm thoroughly frustrated that every attempt I made at taking the article in any reasonable direction was quickly scuttled.

Since it seems that you've at least been following the discussion, I would like to ask you to take a quick look at the last few days' stuff and tell me, honestly, if you think I was within my bounds (keeping in mind all that had happened in the last several months). Both the anonymous IP and Crum have accused me of impropriety, and I would really like your neutral and valuable opinion on what I honestly believe was a good-faith attempt at saving a dying mediation.

Thanks a lot. - Che Nuevara 22:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you did anything wrong. The users simply had the wrong idea about content disputes and felt that they should revert first and discuss later - such behavior inevitably leads to blockings and mishaps and nothing can be done about that but a RFAR to address concerns of tendentious editing and behavior. Some of the accounts are clearly single purpose accounts, so that could be looked at in the RFAR and they would be likely blocked for that. Cowman109^Talk 22:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your vote of confidence. I trust your judgment as a knowledgeable and intelligent contributor.

I'm a little hesitant to present a RFAr by myself, as I'm a little worried it might look like I'm lashing out after an unsuccessful attempt, but I think it is probably (unfortunately) the best course of action at this point. - Che Nuevara 22:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would probably be best to let them be the ones to request arbitration and not yourself at this point in the interest of remaining neutral. Cowman109^Talk 22:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Acknowledged and agreed. - Che Nuevara 22:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For whatever it may or may not be worth, simply to compare notes, I personally became sufficiently discouraged over this preposterous maelstrom long ago that I simply requested deletion of every new entry I had created in Wikipedia, most of which were infinitely removed in topic from this sort of thing. As most were stubs upon which I had hoped to build, I was in most cases able to remove them – as well as most other contributions I had made to other entries. The entry is a reeking, contentious sinkhole, which is why I also nominated it for deletion – and failed. Che, while I will acknowledge that at times tempers grew short, I sincerely thank you for your efforts. The following will sound like advice, and I don't mean it as such, as that would be too presumptuous – so please treat it, for whatever it might be worth, as a simple expression of emotion: Do the Have An Ice Cream thing, or whatever's best, try to get some distance from this bilious mess, and – perhaps – don't look back. It's just a steaming pile of {insert your preferred offensive term here]. It matters, to some degree, but it's hardly the center of any rational being's universe in the larger scheme of things, at least in my judgement. I'm groping here, so please allow for any imprecision or infelicity. All I mean to say is please do whatever you think is best, and right, as you have, in my eyes, with respect to this bloody entry. You demonstrated both extraordinary persistence and extraordinary patience, which are an extraordinary combination. Thank you. GenghizRat 01:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AGF?

Sorry but stating I know DMV is sorry isnt assuming bad faith on any planet, and he is the reason MONGO left. I am not sure if you are just not aware or are assuming super bad faith on my part to think that I am saying something in bad faith, but please do not remove my messages again based on what seems to be paranoia. --NuclearZer0 23:55, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Panairjdde is back

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#The_return_of_User:Panairjdde.2FUser:Kwame_Nkrumah_etc. if you wish to comment. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I already replied, heh. Cowman109^Talk 02:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for December 11th.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 2, Issue 50	11 December 2006	About the Signpost

From the editor: New feature
Board of Trustees expanded as three new members are appointed	Wikimedia Foundation releases financial audit
Arbitration Committee elections continue, extra seat available	Female-only wiki mailing list draws fire
Trolling organization's article deleted	WikiWorld comic: "Redshirt"
News and notes: Fundraiser plans, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 04:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IRC Memo

I left you one.. Can you take a quick squiz for me. Thanks mate :) — Deon555^talk_desk 01:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Looks good :-) — Deon555^talk_desk 04:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Accounts deleted

Dear Pseudonymous Administrator,

You have deleted a whole bunch of accounts created by a group of Purdue students in September without any due process whatsoever. The only basis of your decision was your hunch that the links to the matei dot org URL found on their user pages was the work of a spammer. I am not sure how much time do you spend on researching each individual case but you were woefully wrong in this one. Those were not sock puppet accounts! They were legit pages create by my students who were interested in learning how to become Wikipedia editors. The link to my page was a simple exercise meant to show them how to utilize the medium. Your decision to delete the accounts and to blacklist my URL was clearly abusive and I demand that you revert it immediately. If you do not have time to do a thorough job, please resign from your administrator position. And, for a change, it would be nice if you stopped hidding behind this ridiculous pseudonym.

see

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&limit=50&offset=300&type=&user=Cowman109&page=

Dr. Sorin A. Matei Purdue University —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Damis (talk • contribs) 03:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi. If you would like to discuss the use of Wikimedia resources in your classroom, please feel free to contact us at info AT wikimedia.org -- however, in the future, please don't harnague our local project administrators for doing their job. Thanks for understanding, and I look forward to any further discussion by email. Jkelly 22:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for December 18th.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 2, Issue 51	18 December 2006	About the Signpost

From the editor: Holiday publication
Elections conclude, arbitrators to be chosen	Wikimedia Foundation fundraiser opens
WikiWorld comic: "Dr. Seuss"	News and notes: Fundraiser plans, milestones
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Repeating question again

Hi, Cowman. In all the back-and-forth on Betacommand's page, you must have missed my repeated question about why you consider me "involved" and hence unsuitable to unblock Irpen. I'd really like to know. If you recollect, you said you "would have to suggest you yourself don't do the unblocking, Bishonen, as you are clearly involved from incidents in the past, no offense. It would be better if a neutral administrator saw to this, lest we have a wheel war on our hands." I assume you meant well, but I can't say I'm happy about the way you stopped me in my tracks as I was about to perform an action I thought important. I don't even know Irpen. What "incidents in the past" are those? How am I not neutral? Bishonen | talk 02:04, 22 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Oh, sorry. I meant no offense, of course, merely that from my observations you have been involved in disputes involving Ghirlandajo, Irpen, and Giano, just as I have as well. It seems I was wrong, though, in that you haven not had experiences with Irpen in particular, so I apologise about that. Cowman109^Talk 03:04, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I shouldn't unblock Irpen because I'm in a cabal with Giano and Ghirlandajo and Irpen except not Irpen? It took 3 hours to come up with that? Please remind me to go strictly by my own judgment next time you offer hit-and-run admin action advice. Or, here's another thought, don't bother. Assuming good faith only goes so far. Bishonen | talk 09:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Sorry to but in, could I just say, I am in a cabal with no-one, I treat all editors equally, so long as they are intelligent, and as far as I know, apart from being on Cyde's hit list, I'm not involved with this problem. I am though beginning to have one of my hunches (always correct) coming on, too many names and behaviour patterns seem to be repeating themselves. I shall think on it for a while. Oh Dear I see we have Ideogram down below, wherever there is trouble brewing, there is Ideogram like a miner's canary about to tweet before the explosion Giano 14:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He offers an apology and you lose your temper? Remind me not to apologize to you next time. --Ideogram 10:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We all have subconscious biases which we cannot control, of course, so I merely suggested that you not get involved in a conflict of interest, though I clearly got your past conflicts incorrect. I know personally I'm not touching any block buttons near the people I've had conflicts with in the past as that of course wouldn't end well as I wouldn't be in the right head to deal with the situation :D. And we, yes do all have our cabals, as Giano wisely points out, so he is of course quite right about that there are people who tend to associate with other people - it can't be denied that I'm sure people associate me with some group of rouge admins or whatever. Cowman109^Talk 22:32, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]