User talk:Pokipsy76

Welcome

Hello, Pokipsy76! Welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

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 (~~~~) will produce your name and the current date. You should always sign talk pages, but not articles. 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! Ann Heneghan (talk) 16:58, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

9/11 conspiracy theory intro

Pokipsy, the consensus was against you on this one. Plus you are getting dangerously close to vioalating the The three revert rule.--DCAnderson 20:36, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The objections were only yours and that of bill. Bill completely misunderstood my edit ("You just wanted to show that some people disagree with the mainstream criticism of the conspiracy" he said) I explained he was wrong and he didn't object my explanation. Moreover your objection was just a sort of "preference" (you liked it best before, you find the addition is not "needed"), it is not a substantial objection. It is very little to say that "the consensus is against me". However thank you for making me notice the The three revert rule.--Pokipsy76 20:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
From looking at the history of people who reverted it, Tom Harrison was against it too. And nobody seemed to have supported it, except you.--DCAnderson 20:57, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tom Harrison didn't give any motivation for his revert, it was pure vandalism.--Pokipsy76 21:00, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see someone has already mentioned the three-revert rule. Please try to build a consensus for your changes on the talk page. Tom Harrison Talk 21:20, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please never write again in my discussion page.--Pokipsy76 21:32, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't be a dick. Also, what language is "a little number of journalists" in? Whether or not it was "a deliberate attempt to reduce the quality of the encyclopedia", it succeeded in doing so. -- Jibal 11:33, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do "a small number" work better?--Pokipsy76 08:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits, such as those you made to 9/11 conspiracy theories, are considered vandalism. If you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the hard work of others. Thanks. --DCAnderson 21:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't write in my tak page again. Thank you.--Pokipsy76 21:40, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind trying to defend the skeptic POV, just defending an NPOV is impossible at this point. Check the talk pages at Collapse of the World Trade Center and also the Sept 11 attacks. Completely innoquous but relevant and verifiable facts will not be tolerated if they might bring into question any aspects of the official version. And as demonstrated above, harrasment and intimidation are not unheard of either. By the way DC is a new editor(provided he's not a sock). This is very interesting too [1]SkeenaR 22:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i'm pretty sure I'm not a sock. But that link is pretty interesting though. It all makes sense now! The Secret Masters of Wikipedia are out to get you! BWAHAHAHAHA!!!--DCAnderson 23:25, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that last comment, it was immature.

Anyway, the edit you made immediately after Tom finnaly removed your edit can be construed as vandalism in retaliation for Tom's edit. (The one where you inserted the word "little.") The Wikipedia policy towards handling vandalism is that I add the above template to your page. I can assure you we are not trying to gang up on you, or unfairly push a POV, but your edit to the page was unpopular, and you failed to accept that.

The section addressed "to Bill" was pretty much a straightforward personal attack. I admit that many of us acted pretty smarmy to you after that point, and I am sorry, but you had pretty much dragged the whole discussion down at that point.--DCAnderson 23:55, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DCAnderson could only wish that he served the will of the Illuminati.

One of the interesting things about the link, DC and Pokipsy, are the news articles that are linked to within. I could care less what kind of opinions DC holds or how much of a joke him or any of the other guys thinks it is. It should get an NPOV article, very much unlike what is happening right now. It so happens that at least Mongo has pointed out that this is not benign subject matter, it involves an act of stupendous violence that cost thousands of lives. I would add that decisions made based on our understanding of these events determines the fate of nations and millions of lives. So laugh it up DC. SkeenaR 00:01, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I'm also going to point out that calling such minor edits as that vandalism is really really stretching it. Putting that warning sign up on this page is way overkill. I'm just going to suggest getting a little more practice at this before acting like a big tough administrator and doing a wholesale POV article rewrite of a controversial subject. SkeenaR 00:09, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How I really feel about Conspiracy Theories

Millions of lives do depend on this. As a result of Conspiracy Theories, a wave of violent Anti-Semitism has risen in the Middle East.
Throughout much of the world, Conspiracy Theories are being used to justify anti-Americanism. (not all of it is undeserved, but it shouldn't be further fueled by mere speculation.)
Conspiracism doesn't help solve any of the world's problems, it's only used to "dumb-down" the issues. Remember, all the world's problems can easily be blamed on who you personally don't like: The Jews, The Right Wingers, The Left Wingers. No sense in actually trying to understand the issue.
You happen to not like the Bush administration? Well rather than address the real things that they have really done wrong, go accuse them of being part of "a conspiracy." Don't attack them for what they have done, attack them for what they "could potentially have done." Yah, that will really help your case.
If you want to see an example of how much damage an unfounded Conspiracy Theory can do, check out the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. It is a well known hoax that was used to justify the Holocaust.
So no, I don't think Conspiracy Theories are that much of a joking matter.--DCAnderson 00:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We agree on some of it anyway. I have said it before though, and I'll say it again, it isn't wise to dismiss out of hand and ridicule. I'm not saying that these theories are true, but they should have an NPOV spot. I'm not saying that this is the case, but here is an example of what I mean Gulf of Tonkin Incident. And now we are seeing things like [2]. Read that. Live up to your claim of skepticism and don't be too credulous. SkeenaR 00:39, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop

From Skeena's talk page, "Aren't your defense of vandals, unmotivated cuts to the article and your total unability do make a democratic discussion (I can't find one in the talk page) a form of incivilty and edit warring?" [3]. If you think that's the case, take it to dispute resolution. Inform yourself about what constitutes vandalism. Your persistent incivility and accusations of vandalism are becoming disruptive, and you've been here long enough to know better. If you ever again in any way suggest that I have vandalized the article, or that I am editing in bad faith, I will ask for a review of your conduct and appropriate action from an uninvolved administrator. Tom Harrison Talk 14:17, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ROTFL!--Pokipsy76 15:52, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Tom Harrison Talk 15:37, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that's pretty slick.--DCAnderson 17:26, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but in the second part of [4] i made no mistakes, I really wanted to speak about you, Tom.--Pokipsy76 08:40, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry about it. 9/11 is a difficult subject. Best regards, Tom Harrison Talk 12:41, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

When you revert my edit[5], [6], you restore the embedded links which I have tried to eliminate in order to use footnotes as I did in the rest of the article. This is vandalism and I asked people to not do this on the talk page. Next time, you'll be blocked for vandalism, plain and simple.--MONGO 20:25, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is Vandalism according to which policy?--Pokipsy76 23:19, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Striver 10:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Take a look at this --Striver 10:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

Your POV pushing days are numbered as far as the 9/11 articles are concerned. You routinely revert for no reason except to push your nonsense. I have blocked you from editing for 48 hours.--MONGO 18:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are the POV pusher here, MONGO. You are clearly biased and it's not fair to block someone that is opposing to your POV pushing just because you have the "power" to do it.--Pokipsy76 18:16, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, right. I support the known evidence and the correct information as presented by the reputable media sources. You revert me everytime I edit and the conspiracy theory cruft in the 9/11 articles is about to come to an end. Your editing days are numbered if you continue to push nonsense in our articles.--MONGO 18:23, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know that[7]:
Use of blocks to gain an advantage in a content dispute is strictly prohibited. That is, sysops must not block editors with whom they are currently engaged in a content dispute.?
That's exactly what hou did. I'll take this violation to the attention of the other admins.--Pokipsy76 18:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I encourage that...You're not alone, as I and others intend to start blocking POV pushers of nonsense in earnest.--MONGO 18:31, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So please tell me how to do it given the edit block.--Pokipsy76 18:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Post {{unblock}} here and explain to the admin coming in why you think you should be unblocked. If unblocked and you revert me one more time, I'm going to block you for a week.--MONGO 18:37, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But why should an admin come in if I can't write in the admins' page?--Pokipsy76 19:02, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

unblock|I think it's quite clear that user MONGO is blocking me to gain an advantage in a content dispute (see below for details) and in fact the reasons he gave for my blocking are inconsistent The content dispute I'm referring to in the template above is [8].

Having failed to gain consensus on the talk page, you are now trying to force the language you prefer by reverting. If Mongo hadn't blocked you first, I or another would have. The block is appropriate. Tom Harrison Talk 19:23, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1) Can you please show me where did I "failed to gain consensus" and where did MONGO gain consensus on the talk page on this matter?
2) Please note that I was defending the old version of the article while MONGO was trying to change it, so he did need the consensus, not me.
3) Aren't you and MONGO "trying to force the language you prefer by reverting"?
4) "Sysops must not block editors with whom they are currently engaged in a content dispute"[9], did you know?--Pokipsy76 07:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since your block has expired, I unprotected your page. You will want to leave all the blocking discussion above intact since you are still actively debating it elsewhere. NoSeptember 09:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much.--Pokipsy76 09:19, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response

Please see me response to your request for info on RfC procedures. --CBD 16:19, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

blocked

I have blocked you for 15 minutes for perpetuating a forest fire on User talk:Gmaxwell. If you must engage in flame wars, have the courtesy not to conduct them on someone else's talk page. Kelly Martin (talk) 19:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1)I was just defending myself from other peoples' false accusations,
2)I didn't personally attack anybody so where is the "flame war"?
--Pokipsy76 20:29, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

greetings

hi there, i was just testing my theory that any random perusal of wikipedia government pages would yield proof that wikipedia has become abusive. Wow. You have a perfectly simple case, and, I'd be interested in helping you to confront the people who are quite apparently abusing you.

Let me know how you feel about this. Prometheuspan 02:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From my talk page

Can you please provide some examples these edits that you consider to be disruptive? I just need to understand.--Pokipsy76 13:35, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think there are more than enough examples on the RFC page. Inserting poorly-sourced material, giving undue weight to minority points of view, and edit warring can constitute disruption. Stifle (talk) 13:41, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for you reply but I must do some objections:
  1. I have almost never "inserted material" of any kind (assuming that this is enought for a block), the fact that you say this make me think that you have not read carefully the RfC and the talk page.
  2. I hope having different opinion about the "due weight" of the subjects is not between the possible reasons for a block.
  3. In what you call "edit war" I did nothing different from what MONGO, tom harrison and other editors did. Are you suggesting that they deserved a block too? It seems to me that here many people have a double standard.
--Pokipsy76 13:53, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply. Please see Wikipedia:Blocking policy for full information on what actions may lead to an editor being blocked from editing Wikipedia. If you feel that other editors should be blocked for disruption, please report it on the administrators' noticeboard. Stifle (talk) 14:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

9/11 Conspiracy Theory article

Hello. I noticed that you recently reverted my edit to that article today. Let me remind you that primarily my revert was to deal with an attributed quote having been changed, something which is not academically acceptable. The other two entries I don't mind, since it is a conspiracy theory page, but please, before you go reverting controversial subjects, please look at the content of the edit that you're reverting. Thank you. --Kuzaar-T-C- 14:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My revert was not related to the attributed quote but to other things removed.--Pokipsy76 16:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Question about how things look

On this change you indicated that the Table of Contents hid the text.

This is interesting to me. I am curious exactly how it looked. (On my machine it looked fine -- but I know sometimes things can go wrong.) Could you describe the problem and how it looked to you? What web-browser do you use? Thanks. --Blue Tie 13:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am using internet explorer 6. I think you could realize how it looked by increasing your font size on the browser. I do not experience the problem if I switch to a very small font size.--Pokipsy76 07:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Unfair behavior of an editor

This may be one of the few times we agree. I just wanted to let you know I think your edits were in good faith, and that some of us may be a bit trigger happy when it comes to deletion of things from the 9/11 article. You should probably have pointed out the section you created to talk about it in your opening complaint, but other than that, I am greatful you took it to the talk page instead of simply starting an edit war. Thank you. --Tarage 02:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

:) --Pokipsy76 08:11, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Reading through our discussion someone could come to the conclusion that your statement "conspiracy theories is what they are -> we can use that name" to imply you mean the same thing in regards to your analogy above. I'm incapable of using the word you used on the page so I can't be more specific. I knew what you meant but I thought you might want to read through the whole discussion again. If it says what you want it to say, fine, I'll remove my comment. Just a friendly heads up. --PTR (talk) 18:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Norman Mineta

Dear Pokipsy76,

I would welcome any improvements you could make to my proposal at Talk:9/11#Norman Mineta testimony issue !  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 06:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration

I have named you as an involved party at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#9/11 conspiracy theories. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 22:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page.

For the Arbitration Committee, AGK § 19:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. Further to this, any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, "impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict (defined as articles which relate to the events of September 11, broadly interpreted) if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process." The full remedy is located here.

For the Arbitration Committee, Anthøny 15:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider taking the AGF Challenge

I would like to invite you to consider taking part in the AGF Challenge which has been proposed for use in the RfA process [10] by User: Kim Bruning. You can answer in multiple choice format, or using essay answers, or anonymously. You can of course skip any parts of the Challenge you find objectionable or inadvisable.--Filll (talk) 14:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thanks


 The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
This barnstar is awarded 18 April 2008 to Pokipsy76 for his brave defense of  
the Wikipedia mission to create an encyclopedia where all legitimate voices are heard. Inclusionist (talk) 03:03, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


thanks for your comments on my user page and in the ANI the past few days. (travb)Inclusionist (talk) 03:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement

See [11]. Jehochman Talk 12:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Topic ban

Following the evidence presented at the Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard,[12] and in particular this edit, you are banned from editing any article related to the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States, broadly construed, for a period of two months. This action has been logged on the case page here. Raymond Arritt (talk) 20:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  1. You are not following the arbcom rules, the arbitration remedy states:
    "...if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process...Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines. Editors wishing to edit in these areas are advised to...amend behaviors that are deemed to be of concern by administrators"
    Where are your warnings?
  2. To speak about a WP:BLP violation is a dishonest way to describe the events: I just asked to discuss a substantial change from an estabilished version of the article (the alleged and still unproven "BLP violation" has been part of the article for months without no discussion). I hardly see how this could be wrong or result in a sanction. Please explain.
  3. Whether the text which allegedly should be the ground for my WP:BLP violation is actually a BLP violation is a matter of discussion here: why do you think you have the authority to decide it yourself?
  4. Actually all the links to my edit you are providing (this and this) to justify your action only show me reverting unilateral attempts to make substantial changes without consensus and without discussion, can you explain what's the problem about this kind of behaviour?
  5. If you sincerely think that the kind of behaviour described above deserve a ban I can show you thousands of diffs showing the same behaviour by all the members of the group of editors who is now asking to ban me and other people not sharing their POV (Jehochman, Okiefromokla, Ice Cold Beer, Rx StrangeLove, Okiefromokla 2, Rx StrangeLove 2, Haemo 1, Haemo 2 ). Will you ban them too?
  6. Can you be really sure you are deciding to sanction without any bias? Actually you seem to have some kind of friendship with the user requesting the ban: you use to call him "Johnatan" and he refers to you as "my esteemed collegue". Even if I'm going to assume good faith I think that a honest admin shouldn't take decision to give sanctions when he has any kind of friendship or reciprocal esteem with the person involved in the disputes, in particular when the sanctions are so strong, the motivations are so weak, unclear and disputable and there have been no prior warnings (in violation of the arbcom rules).--Pokipsy76 (talk) 07:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked: 55 hours for violating your topic ban with this edit to Talk:Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center. In addition, that comment was very combative and assumed bad faith of Jehochman, please don't repeat such behavior. east.718 at 07:37, April 22, 2008

  1. I've never been topic banned before and I honestly though that the ban was something automatic, not something I could decide to violate. You are punishing my ignorance.
  2. Well it seems that people are allowed to assume bad faith on me (defining me as a "long time source of POV pushing") and I must assume good faith on them (while being insulted and punished for having asked to seek consensus before making changes), isn't it pretending a little too much????
  3. People try to make me ban accusing me to be a "POV pusher" and I shouldn't be "combative"???--Pokipsy76 (talk) 07:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:BAN. That should help clear up any questions you have about bans. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 07:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, your interest to my problems makes me feel very protected.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 07:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your work on here. This is what they do, nonsensical bans on people to block the information they don't want out there and to keep the labels attached to people they need to try to discredit. They will hound you if you make a difference and on here, they have free reign to do so. Several of the public bashings we've seen of wikipedia expose what it works to achieve -- control of the information that matters for the most powerful. Your work exposes the absurdities, even if you cannot move forward at times. This is the deepest swamp you can wade into, but some of us have to. 152.131.10.133 (talk) 18:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well actually in the arbcom's remedy says:
    "Edit-warring, whether by reversion or otherwise, is prohibited, this is so even when the disputed content is clearly problematic, with only a few exceptions" (i.e. WP:BLP)
    and I reverted. Yes, I was not alone but I did it.
    Also one of my revert was about an alleged BLP violation, and the arbcom states that BLP violations are an exception when "reverts" are allowed. WP:BLP is important and I did wrong also because I was unfamiliar with this policy. However thank you for your support.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 17:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal rejection

I'm not thrilled with the process, but here's how it ended. [13] --Thomas Basboll (talk) 06:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you will not ask a review on WP:ANI then I will.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 14:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Process

Hi Pokipsy76. As the admin who set your topic ban I think I should comment here. You are well within your rights to appeal administrative actions, but at some point numerous appeals cross the line to forum shopping or abuse of process. I think you are treading dangerously close to that line. Please take some time to consider whether you really are helping your cause by doing so. Thanks - Raymond Arritt (talk) 16:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would hope there are rules about when and how users can appeal and about how and when they can be punished for "forum shopping" or "abuse". So far I have just followed the instruction which were given to me by other administrator. If you know about rules you think I'm about to violate please direct me to these rules.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 17:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are no hard and fast rules on this. See WP:BURO. Just offering my perspective. Again, please consider whether you really are helping your case, because excessive process and rules-mongering often alienates people. Raymond Arritt (talk) 18:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please be more specific about what you think I could be doing wrong? Which edit by me could be though to be an "abuse" and why?--Pokipsy76 (talk) 18:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please count the number of appeals, posts to noticeboards, and posts to admin talk pages that you have made on this topic, whether on your own case or on behalf of others. As said before it's just some advice. If you're absolutely certain that you're doing the right thing then carry on. Raymond Arritt (talk) 18:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Is it my fault if when I first posted to the noticeboard people archieved it claiming that it was not the right place and when Thomas requested appeal to the arbcom the arbcom said that it was to be asked in the noticeboard?
  2. What is special about this "topic" so that people can only have a very limited number of post about it?--Pokipsy76 (talk) 19:01, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

n > 3, n = Number Of Dimensions

I still do not understand. Is it because my brain is to tiny? Why can't I understand?68.148.164.166 (talk) 10:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New message

Hello, Pokipsy76. You have new messages at Landon1980's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

In the above message, I documented the abuse I thought I saw of you for challenging an admin. I reviewed your talk page because I thought you had very good things to say on the Attack on Pearl Harbor site. Please see my response to that in the discussion page there and the dialogue that continued, assuming you still care about that. I think those guys were a bit hard on you...--David Tornheim (talk) 21:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for interesting to my past problems. I think the events you are referring to do not deserve attention in their specificity but as a general problem of wikipedia (one of many problems with this encyclopedia "that anyone (not disagreeing with who has the power) can edit").--Pokipsy76 (talk) 16:14, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're an interesting person.

What part of the world do you live in, and what is your native language? Wowest (talk) 07:14, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uhm, you make me suppose that my english is very bad :|... actually I'm italian (my user page has also a link to my italian user page). By the way thank you for considering me "interesting" :)--pokipsy76 (talk) 11:38, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Silvio Berlusconi

Hi, I see you have already contributed in this page, can you give your opinion about this discussion? Thanks. 79.18.16.7 (talk) 10:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

POV campaign by an anonimous user

Hi, I think the best thing to do is to report it at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents or Wikipedia:Long term abuse. Keep me informed if you do so. I will add my bit. - Mafia Expert (talk) 11:59, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ciao e scusa per l'"intrusione". Sono Nevermindfc, registrato su it.wiki ma non qui. Ho notato anche io le modifiche su Silvio Berlusconi (alcune le ho annullate), e ho visto che tra gli ip ce n'è uno che ha fatto queste modifiche sulla pagina dei Procedimenti giudiziari riguardanti Berlusconi. La stessa identica modifica era il cavallo di battaglia di un utente che ha avuto un blocco infinito e che ha più volte tentato di continuare la sua "crociata", sia da anonimo che registrandosi con nomi utente diversi. Non vorrei che si tratti della stessa persona, che magari sta cercando di fare qui quello che gli è stato impedito di fare in it.wiki. --Nevermindfc 12:59, 14 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.43.153.107 (talk)

covariance

Should we not, in the formula's, write Cov in stead of cov as is done in Covariance ?  — Xiutwel ♥ (msg) 14:18, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes we should :) --pokipsy76 (talk) 21:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FPP

Hi- Thanks for your contributions to Fixed point (mathematics). I've copied some of them over to fixed point property, which you'll probably be interested in. Staecker (talk) 22:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Review needed of Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/September_11_conspiracy theories?

See: Proportion of 9/11 defenders restricted compared to 9/11 conspiracy theorists

Although I do not support the views of 9/11 conspiracy theorists, and will not lead a review of this arbitration, I think that a review maybe warranted, and I am floating the idea, with all parties who may have been unfairly censored. Ikip (talk) 14:12, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Hi, just a line to say that I have added another small hint to your last question about measure preserving diffeo. Hope it may be useful --pma 10:26, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Pokipsy76. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:19, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]