User talk:Theresa knott/archive11

The Advanced Wikipedian

Humpf,

Now you've a teaching job, I guess you will always be on holiday now ;-)

I'm guessing you are the sort of gal who know's her Iambic pentameter from her limerick (I don't really), and if so, you might be able to improve, correct and extend meta:The Advanced Wikipedian. -- Solipsist 22:55, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

a near accusation

Theresa, hi,

Please see Talk:Kang bed-stove. A new user has virtually accused me of plagiarism, apparently on the theory that people normally sign articles that they write. (?) Would it be appropriate for you to explain to Mihoshi that reasonably well written articles are not necessarily copied from somewhere else? Thanks. P0M 06:16, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Bad maps

Your help and common sense is needed. User:Kelisi, has been producing some maps and trying to replace the CIA maps for several Caribbean and South American countries. In my opinion these new maps (which have more detail than the CIA maps) are vastly inferior. They use garish colours, terrible decorative fonts, use a horribly large pixel size and are generally ugly and crowded, and look terribly amateurish and like they were produced on a Commodore 64 or something. Here is a list of maps he has produced . http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AContributions&target=Kelisi&hideminor=0&namespace=6. Perhaps the worst example is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Brazilmap.gif . Bizarrly these maps seems to have support from a few people who have been trying to push through their inclusion on several pages. Please see talk:Panama and talk:Honduras. Jooler 09:08, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

ah... you're on holiday... oh well hopefully this will be sorted by the time you are back. I thought you might be concerned about this issue, because of some of the fantastic illustations you have provided for Wikipedia. Jooler 09:09, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Hararssment by a banned user

Although EntmootsOfTrolls has been hard banned, he repeatedly resurfaces on Wikipedia in various guises, usually with anonymous IPs beginning with 142.xxx. (And he repeatedly is blocked, over and over.) Well, he has just made a new attack on on my User discussion page, for the "crime" of following standard Wikipedia policy for the deletion of a duplicate article.

(1) EntmootsOfTrolls (EoT) originally broke Wikipedia policy by creating his own article on Ethics, parallel to our real article. His parallel article existed solely to promote his own point of view. All I did was follow standard polict for redirection or deletion, by asking others for their input. Yet see EoT's diatribe against me on my home page!

(2) He is publicly accusing me of "censorship" on the Ethics article. (This is despite the fact that the edits I made are part of the consensus version that has been accepted by the vast majority of all editors of this article.)

(3) He explicitly violated Wikipedia policy by anonymously deleting the link which had the article say "This article is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy. Please see this article's entry on the Votes for Deletion page for voting and discussion on the matter." When an article is up for discussion on such issues, a single user may not unilaterally just delete this. So do you have any suggestions? I'd hate for this banned user to start an edit war. Its only a matter of time before he goes after other of his self-perceived adversaries. RK 20:02, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

issues about school articles

In November 2003, there was a VfD debate over Sunset High School (Portland). The debate was archived under Talk:Sunset High School (Portland). What to do with the article is still being contested and has been recently re-nominated for VfD at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Sunset High School (Portland).

I am writing to you because you have participated in such debates before. There still does not exist a wikipedia policy (as far as i can tell) over what to do in regards to articles about specific U.S. public school. My hope is that a real consensus can come out of the debate, and a real policy can take shape. Take part if you are so willing. Kingturtle 02:38, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

BriteHumer

You're far too lenient. This guy is willfully destroying pages. Why are you blocking for just 24 hours? Mgm|(talk) 10:52, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

It's quicker! I just use the defalt settings and can block him faster and inconvenience him more.The IP blocker only blocks for 24 hours, so an indefinite block is useless anyway. Remember blocks are to limit the vandalsim not to punish the kid doing it. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 10:56, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
IP blocks only last 24 hours? And here I was, thinking that IP-blocks last all summer long... Also, if you're having problems with vandalism of your user page, you may want to consider protecting it. I've been getting some vandalism on my user page too and I had to resort to protecting it as well. Cheers. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 15:35, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
If you block the IP then the block lasts as long as you say. If you block the username, the IP used by that username will be automatically blocked for 24 hours. After that they can come back from the same IP. I did protect my user page for a short time, while the vandal was about, but as I welcome people editing it, I try to have it unprotected most of the time. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 20:15, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Hmm. It seems I still have much to learn. Thanks for the info. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 20:47, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

Please read Elagabalus

I'd appreciate it if you would read this article and tell me what you think of it. It may or may not be nominated when you return but I'd like you opinion anyway. Also- enjoy your holiday at the unknown location I envy you being at. :) -JCarriker 02:35, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

Using your diagrams

Hello Theresa,
I'd like to use your nice diagram Image:Pencil_in_a_bowl_of_water.png. Might it be possible to upload it to Commons? It would complete my photos you may find here or here.

Thanks a lot!

Anton

In difference to your habbit according to your history you did not show up for nearly two month. I hope you are fine!
Hopefully you don't mind me copying your diagram to Wikicommons. Best regards, Anton

The "pippete" image

I removed it from the page for the reasons listed on it's talk page (The image, not the page) if you want to know what happened. Thanx 68.39.174.150 01:46, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Help

User Pacian continues on his personal vendetta to release private unfounded information about our business and our figurehead. On the talk page, information about our figurehead is downright defamatory and unfounded. Discussing someones sexual preference is not a notworthy fact nor one of public interest and can cause personal harm. He states information that is false and entirely dreamed up because of an apparently obsession. We really need one of your operators to look at these posts and remove them, we request your assistance as we are currently banned for removing information that was defamatory.

Help with wiki set-up

Hello Theresa (or is that Snot Rake?),

I have been impressed by all the activity around and attention your Wikintensity, and I am wondering if I can ask some questions on here regarding the best way to set up a Wikipedia on a specific theme (a theme of environmental policy and science). Some advice from an ace pro like you would really help get the thing going.

Is that appropriate, that I put dumb questions on here, in the hope of a guide; or is that breaking some kind of wikirules? If you write to say, yes okay, and you have a scintilla of extra time, you could email me too (since I don't know the clever means to autolink to changes on this page).

Thanks a lot, and thanks also for your excellent work,

JM

Embryonic wiki here jm à sei.se

Fried Mars Bar

Hello Theresa,

I'm only recently starting to contribute to the English Wikipedia site. Since I'm Dutch, please correct my spelling when I'm wrong!! Hmm.. you're a teacher, I find my self at a Polytechnic College in 's-Hertogenbosch studying Food technology.

You asked to answer some questions, here are the answers:

  1. As fa as I know they're sold in chip shops. For the posh ones, see 8.
  2. Paper wrap with your hands. For the fork/knife see 8.
  3. Nope (at leat to my knowledge). At least in Holland, when the bar is dipped in egg yolk, the next step is to dip it in breadcrummbs.
  4. Really no idea.
  5. As far as my knowledge goes, beginning 1990s in Glasgow.
  6. £1.50 (fried); £0.99 (normal)
  7. Only breadcrumbs, sometimes the chocolate they use on ice.
  8. YES!!!!!!!!! You can also buy them in one (posh) restaurant in 's-Hertogenbosch. The cook got the idea after an holiday in .... Glasgow.

ps: I've copied the answers also to the discussion page on the subject.

An aquaintance of me works with Mars, and his co-workers think you should eat a plain Mars bar, because otherwise it could get a taste from the fat in which fish & chips are baked (this is in Dutch called smaakoverdracht). Not to mention the 'calorybomb' that a fried Mars bar is!

Greetz,

BramvR 08:16, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Wikijunior name vote

m:Wikijunior project name Voting will end June 6, 2005 at 11:30 am EST. -- user:Zanimum

On Holiday?

Hi, Theresa. I see you haven't edited since round about 13 Apr. Just wondering how my wiki-friend is doing. Cheers. :) func(talk) 04:34, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Func: Great minds … I was just wondering the same thing —I guess cause I just reread the funniest page on Wikipedia, after your recent change.
Nate the Stork: where the heck are you? I need to Taste the Korn and Stroke the Ant! Paul August ☎ 04:23, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)


OK I'm back

I've been away because I injured my hand. But I'm back at work now, back on the internet and back at Wikipedia!!! My typing was always bad but now I have an excuse. I have a lot of catching up to do and a lot of arbitrating to do, but still time to let paul and func stroke my ant (any time boys ;-) BTW does anyone know why unninervated skin doesn't wrinkle in the bath? Come to think of it why does skin wrinkle in the bath in the first place? Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 15:07, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Theresa! Great to know you back. :) Sounds like we need a stub: Wrinkled skin. ;-) func(talk) 19:42, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Welcome back!. Sorry to hear about the hand. Glad of the offer to stroke the ant (but I case tasting the korn will just have to wait). Paul August ☎ 15:52, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
Welcome back, hope the hand's not too serious, unninervated sounds like a pretty bad thing for skin to be (and not just because google suggests spelling it "uninvited"). Skin wrinkles in water because the upper layer of skin absorbs water, causing it to expand. As it's attached to the lower layers of skin, it starts bulging however, like a badly laid floor. --W(t) 19:02, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)
Sounds plausible, but why do you need to have nerve endings for this to happen? See http://www.eatonhand.com/complic/figures/1491801s.htm Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 19:13, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Beats me. A quick google suggests the mechanism is unknown, but I'd assume somehow the finger becomes less permeable to water. Perhaps the secretion of fat is regulated somehow by the nerve endings and in their absence the skin gets oilier? --W(t) 19:22, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)

Reward payed in full

A silver wikibuck may be redeemed for anything from air to dirt. Caution: Not recognized as currency except by: Elbonia, Franistan, Sealand, and people obssesed with Angela Beesley.

I offered an award of one silver wiki buck for your safe return to wikipedia. As such I award you one silver wiki buck for finding your self and returing to wikipedia. Revel in your new found wealth! Oh yeah, hope your hand gets better soon. (Now where is BCorr hiding?) -JCarriker 19:24, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

block/puppet

When they log on, will they still get a "you have new messages" page? 70.177.90.39 00:11, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes I think they would Eyeon. But a blocked sockpuppet is very unlikely to ever bother logging in to that account again Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 00:15, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Creativity and your user name

I've noticed that you regularly change your signature on Wikipedia so that the letters in your name can be rearranged into other phrases. May I ask how you do this? What approach do you use? I wonder if you can come up with something similar for my name too. Nice talking to you! --HappyCamper 00:21, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A good approach I find, to help with mental concentration, is to put a peppy march on the stereo. Paul August ☎ 01:33, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
My approach is kinda lame. When I first started using an anagram of my name it amused many people. Lot's of them came to my talk page and suggested loads more suitable anagrams. So every now and then I go back over my archives and pick out another one. I'm lucky that my name has a nice set of letters, and I'm lucky that such a lot of clever people fund it fun to suggest new anagrams to me every now and then. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 14:43, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

From Rex

If you review the recent behavior of Squeakbox, you will see he has stalked Rexjudicata on Wikipedia, and made changes to any page edited by Rexjudicata. He has claimed that Agwiii and Rexjudicata are the same person. They are not.

Squeakbox has written on the Parents Without Rights page that Grayson Walker has had his parental rights taken away by the court. This is not true. Beyond that, it would be impossible for Squeakbox -- in Honduras -- to have access to private records of a Florida family law case. The fact that he would write such a libel shows his intent is to harass and not contribute.

It is important to note that Squeakbox knows nothing of these topics, and the sole purpose of his changes have been to harass Rexjudicata. As Squeakbox is an "old" member of your clique (aka Wikipedia community), he rallied his friends for support and they joined him.

Your code of conduct notwithstanding, the fact remains that the behavior of Squeakbox is a violation of the Cyberstalking Laws of Florida, many other states, and a growing number of other countries. Your Wikipedia S.O.P. is in conflict with these laws, and that should give you pause. Why are your members allowed or even encouraged to break the laws in a growing area of International regulation?

If you can get past the fact that Squeakbox is "allowed" to make edits -- as are all Wikipedians -- and examine why and what he has been editing in his attack on Rexjudicata, you see that he has used your rules as a vehicle to harass Rexjudicata. The choice is yours -- ignore the stalking and harassing by claiming the rules permit Squeakbox's behavior -- or look at the unethical behavior of his stalking.

Consider what we call the ethics transparency test. Ask, "Could I give a clear explanation for the action, including an honest and transparent account of my motives, that would satisfy a fair and dispassionate moral judge?" Squeakbox's behavior fails this test.

Consider what we call the ethics Golden Rule test. Ask, "Would I like to be on the receiving end of this action and its potential consequences? Am I treating others the way I’d want to be treated?" Again, Squeakbox's behavior fails this test. If Rexjudicata had behaved as Squeakbox did, he would have gone to all of the substantive pages that Squeakbox edited, and made changes to them -- this did not happen. Instead, he posted his complaint about being cyberstalked and erased harassing comments made by Squeakbox on his page.

The choice is very clear. You may intervene and stop the unethical, stalking behavior of Squeakbox, or you can stand behind a technical interpretation of your rules, ignoring the fact that they permit unethical and illegal behavior. This is not about suggesting that Squeakbox or any other Wikipedian stalker be prosecuted, but about the fact that your rules are increasingly out of step with both ethics and laws. Philanthropists and investors are very careful about such issues.

Rex

Rex I replied to the first of your emails yesterday. Did you receive my email? You've sent me four emails with exactly the same text and have now cut and pasted it on my talk page. Where would you rather I reply here or by email? Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 12:12, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)


To Theresa

If you replied to me, it was never received. I post my email very clearly as RexJudicata@gmail.com and there are no emails in my in-box. I don't hide behind hidden emails as seems to be the norm here on Wikipedia, because I have nothing to hide.

Rexjudicata REX --- RexJudicata@gmail.com

Sigh...why do they always go after you, Theresa? If his emails are in any way inappropriate, please let us know. func(talk) 15:49, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
SIGH! This seems to be another of the Wikipedia norms: people who love to interject into things in which they have no knowledge. If you had read what Theresa posted, you would see that I posted the email to her talk page when she ignored the email. Of course, there was nothing "inappropriate" about my email. The only thing inappropriate is the culture of Wikipedia that encourages unethical and unlawful behavior. In the future, please read carefully before you post something inappropriate. Thanks!

Rexjudicata REX --- RexJudicata@gmail.com

I didn't ignore you email I replied to it. However, after checking my own email just now I see that it bounced


Mail Delivery Subsystem 	
<mailer-daemon@gmail.com> to me

More options 3:59 pm (9 hours ago) 

This is an automatically generated Delivery Status Notification

THIS IS A WARNING MESSAGE ONLY.

YOU DO NOT NEED TO RESEND YOUR MESSAGE.

Delivery to the following recipient has been delayed:

   rexjudicata@gmail.net

Message will be retried for 1 more day(s)

Technical details of temporary failure:
TEMP_FAILURE: DNS Error: Timeout while contacting DNS servers

So that explains why you never received my reply. And also explains why you have no emails in your inbox. A whois search reveals that gmail.net is not the same company as gmail.com who I can highly recommend btw. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 00:13, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The only clearly illegal edits in this case are this and this. If you pump the IP address into Google you get this cached version [1], note the reference to Spam & Kook Killers are Us, the company Rex admits to working for on his user page. Here, in another cached version, we see this is actually Grayson Walker, with a connection to this, which I used in the Grayson Walker article, and which is whois registered to Grayson Walker. So it appears to me clear that it was Rex who was impersonating me. Calling me a paedophile, from a new IP address, is typical of his past behaviour on other sites. I would welcome a police investigation of this case, as I believe the facts speak for themselves. Have a nice day, SqueakBox 16:01, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Do what mate? If you want a police investigation, you'll have to go to them. I can't do anything. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 00:38, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is a legal threat, SqueakBox 16:03, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Not in my books it isn't. Maybe I'm thicked skinned having received quite a few legal threats here on Wikipedia in my time. I treat them all the same way. I ignore them. I'd advise you to do likewise. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 00:38, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've reviewed all of your links that claim to be "legal threats. They're not legal threats. They're not threats of any kind. A threat is a statement that if you do A, I will do B. Pick up a dictionary and look up the word -- it is clear to anyone who reads these messages that there have never been a threat.

On the other hand, I have identified your unethical and illegal behavior in the vain hope that you are capable of learning and correcting your behavior. Unfortunately, it is clear that you cannot help yourself, and I have included your name in my prayer group.

After reading your blog and other things you have written, I sense that you may be a very disturbed person. Claiming to have been hit in the head with a machete is disingenuous. I think you belong here on Wikipedia and that those supporting your behavior get what they deserve.

Rex - having nothing to hide, I post my email as RexJudicata@gmail.com

I don't hide behind Wikipedia or anything else.

"Claiming to have been hit in the head with a machete is disingenuous. I think you belong here on Wikipedia and that those supporting your behavior get what they deserve" Yeah right! So there is no way he could possibly be telling the truth? Did that not occur to you? Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 00:29, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Re Rex's recent comments

Rex is wrong to assume bad faith on my part. I think he is talking to me not you re the blog, though not quite sure which one. Unfortunately I was hit with a machete in October but I am pretty much recovered now; not exactly something to use against me, though. I think Rex is digging himself in deeper and deeper, SqueakBox 17:29, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
BTW he has put a Vfd on Talk:Parents Without Rights, haed to see if he wants to delete the article and can't, or just wants to delete the talk page, SqueakBox 17:29, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)



Please notice that Richard Squeakbox has BLANKED all of the comments I have made on his talk page

Notice that with all his complaining, now Richard Sqeakbox has blanked all the comments I have made concerning his behavior. This is just one more example of the "do what I say, not what I do" and the "Jump on the new guy" rules of Wikipedia.

The response of the old wikipedia's correcting him was deafening in its silence. There is a word for this sort of behavior - hypocracy.

Rex - having nothing to hide, I post my email as RexJudicata@gmail.com

He is allowed to do that. It's his talk page, if he doesn't want to talk to you that's up to him. Likewise you are free to blank your own talk page too. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 00:31, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

KaintheScion et al

Not to intrude, but you guys are operating in ENTIRELY bad faith here.

Enviroknot is not a sockpuppet or connected to KaintheScion or ElKabong. Wikipedia has policy concerning users who are drawn to edit the same pages, and I've checked their edit logs. Apart from the Islamic whitewashing of Wikipedia articles, they have different interests (KaintheScion appears to enjoy Star Wars, Enviroknot is more concerned with Cats and catching occasional bits of vandalism at miscellaneous pages like Korn).

Further, one of your own ArbCom members vandalized (blanked) the discussion page for the case.

ArbCom is refusing to answer these concerns. This does NOT sit well.

You're entering in judgements in a case that was opened concerning ElKabong and KaintheScion. Enviroknot was added to it at a later date with no good evidence apart from an IP match, which Enviroknot has already explained. Yet all the judgements only concern Enviroknot.

This is proving that ArbCom does not operate in good faith.

I am writing this without my username because I can't trust ArbCom or the users harrassing Enviroknot not to target me next. It is YOUR actions as part of ArbCom that are causing this poisonous environment on Wikipedia to continue by rubber-stamping bad-faith harrassment of innocent and good-faith users like Enviroknot.

Hi Enviroknot. Here's how it works. You tell a fib - I don't believe you. You can tell as many porkies as you like, I won't believe any of them, sorry and all but that's the way it is I'm afraid. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 23:52, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Aetherometry

If you look through the talk pages and the edit histories this does appear to be aimed at his fellow editors. Given the context, I believe this is a personal attack (Helicoid has made several others), and it is seen as such by the other editors. Guettarda 01:41, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've just removed it for him. As I made no other changes in that particular edit he will hopefully not revert me. We'll see what happens. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 01:43, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Helicoid's latest talk page message appears to be a legal threat [2]. I have no clue how one proceeds with this. Guettarda 02:03, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Ignore it. He's getting upset that's all. True believers often get hot under the collar when the meet sceptics. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 02:10, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Ok, I'm leaving it in your more than capable hands. Thanks for stepping in. Guettarda 02:11, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why are you doing this to me?

Why are you doing this to me? I do not understand why it is you seem to hate me. I do not even know you. But I come on one day and I've been included in a request for arbitration, my responses have been ignored, and you're responding to someone claiming they are me.

Why are you doing this to me? What makes you in Arbitration Committed so hateful?Enviroknot 03:30, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The AC is not hateful. I don't hate you at all, but it is my responsibility to deal with you. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 09:34, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
But I have done nothing that requires "dealing with." You are engaging in hateful attacks on me and falsely accusing me of usings sockpuppets. I have not done so. The item above in your talk page is not me.
I tell you people this over and over, but you refuse to believe that I am telling the truth. Why are you doing this?Enviroknot 17:56, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for rv-ing my talk page, that guy is really getting on my nerves. I had a few errands to run and was going to let him tire himself out. --Etacar11 22:45, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Your help... (again, many thanks)

Do you know how to dig that information out of the history? I'm still new here. TTLightningRod

Click on the history tab and then click on one of the links to get earlier versions of the page. You can then copy and paste the uinfo you retrieve into the article. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 23:37, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Unique wikiproject

tk, couuld you please review Wikiproject U.S. regions its come quite far since it was founded, although it still has a far to go in achieving its goals. I believe the project may have set precedents in terms of the structure of wikiprojects that make it unique. Reading through the page will make it obvious what they are, so I won't elaborate here. None of the ideas are new to wikipedia, just to wikiprojects. I'm sure you'll have questions for me, but I'd appreciate your feedback as well, and as always I encourage you to join— outside perspectives are often helpful. -JCarriker June 28, 2005 08:34 (UTC)

Hi, can you direct me...

Hi, can you direct me to the current discussions on the wikijunior project? I remember you being one of the active editors on the project... I seem to have misplaced it somehow. Thanks.Pedant 2005 June 29 23:28 (UTC)

I like your anagrams, you have a swell name for making anagrams...THAT REEKS NOT! Theres a lot that fit, if you HANKER TO TEST, THATS OK ENTER -- I don't know if you eat beef...TORN THE STEAK? I think meat is bad for you...STEAK THEN ROT... maybe fowl is more your fancy? EAT STORK THEN... NATE THE STORK -- once it has a name it's hard to eat it, THATS KEEN ROT. Do you TAKE TEN HRS TO finish? If you TAKETH NO REST you might be done sooner.

You work to hard, if you've TAKEN REST THO, even a TOKEN HAT REST, you wouldn't seem to be THE STOKER ANT, such a busy thing.

NTH RESTATE OK: you might think this TEARS THE KNOT, but NTH TEA REST OK !!! Even go on holiday, maybe a TREK TO ATHENS, A TENTH REST OK, bring your tent with you (don't forget your TENT HOST RAKE, after cleaning up around the place, AH! TENT REST OK! Yep that RATES TENTH OK!!! You could write a blog (mention the secret TEN TREK OATHS) and become A NET TREK HOST, or a HOT NET SKATER...NOT THE SKATER? (because of THE TORN SKATE?) A KNOT TETHERS you to your workstation?
Too much? THREAT SENT OK, but those are just TOKEN THREATS, TO THE RANKEST. OK RESENT THAT. THANK ROSETTE for that one.
Thoughts of the mideast? TEHRAN TEST OK, that is, THE TEST KORAN. Not a Muslim? TREATS OK THEN, so TAKE THE SNORT. But do not TAKETH STERNO.
If you are THAT KEEN SORT who HAS TO TREK NET, then HASTEN TO TREK and HARKEN TO TEST, but... HEAREST KNOTT: if a THREE TON TASK has got your TASK TETHER ON, don't have your first second, third or even A TENTH STROKE, relax, save the page (THAT ENTERS OK)...AT THEN REST OK!!!
sincerely, TONETTE SHARK, KAREN HOTTEST, ORTHANT SKEET and Pedant 2005 June 30 03:31 (UTC)

OMG you've been busy! As a reward I'll give you the link you want meta:Wikijunior ( I am ashamed to say that I've not been keeping up with wikijunior. thanks for reminding me that I need to go and do some work on it!) Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 30 June 2005 04:29 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Yes please do contribute to wikijunior. You have made a lot of valuable contributions to the project, as I recall. I had fun with your anagrams... I'll see you around. Pedant 2005 June 30 22:58 (UTC)

Software bug?

I'm not getting the "you have new messages notice any more? Jmabel says he still does? What say you? (Hope you also saw the Unique wikiproject post above) -JCarriker June 30, 2005 04:50 (UTC)

There has been an upgrade in the software. I haven't noticed this particlar bug, although I keep getting logged out (only when I use firefox though). I haven't had a chance to look at your wikiproject yet, but hope to do so soon. (along with contributing to wikibooks more, arbitrating more, and finishing the stern gerlach experiment) I finish work in a couple of weeks so I'll have a lot more time free during the summer holidays. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 30 June 2005 13:13 (UTC)

Category:UK Wikipedians

Hi, just to let you know that the list of UK participants at the UK notice board was getting rather long, so I have replaced it with the above category which I have added to your user page. -- Francs2000 | Talk 30 June 2005 21:08 (UTC)

Response to your comment

"Anthony if you want us to consider your request you need to show us some evidence that you have ceased the behaviour that caused the ban in the first place. Some good edits in the article space and some good discussions in the article talk space may go some way to convincing us."

Which one is it? Do I need to show that I ceased the old behavior, or that I've made good edits in the article space? I don't really see how I can show that I ceased the old behavior, it's just something that is true. As for showing good edits I've made, I didn't think that was something that needed to be done in the request. I thought the way arbitration works is that the bulk of the evidence and arguments are added after the request is accepted. anthony 警告 30 June 2005 21:47 (UTC)

The bulk of the evidence is usually pasted on an evidence page but it's a good idea to post some evidence in the request itself. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 1 July 2005 15:03 (UTC)

Example:

The mainstream says, ad nauseam, that our Sun is a giant thermonuclear ball, held together by gravity. The Non-mainstream, looking at new empirical data, says that the Sun more accurately should be described as a giant ball of predominantly electrical plasma, with just a small portion of thermonuclear by-product.

What new data?
I do not know if these two will mesh perfectly, but plasma cosmology which has a much larger following, makes observations and predictions based on their model, which in my layman's opinion, reads much like aetherometry. That was why I wanted to offer it as first, an example of an "up and comer" challenging the mainstream, as well a field with potential for convergence between models.
(Solar material ejecta speed and acceleration, corona temp inversion, spots and penumbra examinations, and other gravity "defying" behavior totally out of step with a thermonuclear and (pull only) gravity model...... I'm a layman to "science", but as a welder and plasma cutter, this stuff fits like a glove and easy to follow from hands on experience with electricity and high voltage ion equipment.)

big difference.... big controversy.... heated debate. (kind of a pun in there) People who stubbornly hold onto the first model, and have much vested in career and funding.... will not soon embrace the second model, no matter how much better it fits the data and does not require great feats of mathematical gymnastics to accommodate the mountain of data flowing in.

In what way does it fit the data better?
Particularly because it doesn't require Olympian mathematical gymnastics to "explain" anomalous observations. The aetherometry/plasma cosmology anomaly list, is a fraction of that produced by a thermonuclear/gravity model. You know what I mean, right?

Not much of the second model has shown up Mainstream Journals. (I might think this model is only six months or a year ahead of the Correas level of "pop") Thus, could it be that they too may wish to self-publish?

I don't understand the point you are trying to make here. Can you rephrase?
Plasma cosmology has a clear headed following.... they seem to have no need to waist time and energy "fighting" to get column space in the mainstream journals. What's the point? Posting under one or two simple orgs or coms is far cheeper and less hassle. Anyone who want's to read it, can. Pay for the more complete versions, (just like someone would pay for a mag/jurn subscription anyway) the info IS available for peer review even though you can't make peers review it. All of that, is just like Akronos publishing..... I found it. I read it. About 10 or 20% is available for free. I can pay for a hundred pounds more of printed material if I want. Seems to me the prices fit the simple cost of printing and shipping. I certainly can't see how they'd be ripping me off for that. (further, I found much much more for free... on-line. We'll have to talk about that closed-source)

I'm no longer particularly interested, by the level of hostility shown by some users against the subject, to continue needless bickering. Those capable of easy-as-pie delete editing, have no interest in seeing any of the experimentation, dialogue, or reference material being presented under that heading. It is so sad to see people jamb fingers in their ears while they endlessly circle with wiki-rule this, and wiki-rule that. I wish you the best, however I suspect you may be up against a rather formidable opposition to "non-mainstream" concepts. TTLightningRod

You are too pessimistic. From my perspective progress is being made on the article (slowly). I am confident that we can make a good article. I've seen this process before and I know that it works as long as discussion takes place. And that is happening. Yes there is some bickering, but the heated exchanges are cooling, personal attacks have stopped, people are arguing about the content of the article now - which is excellent because the article is far too light on content at the moment! Shit, look at the time! I'm off to work now. Hopefully we can discuss it more this afternoon. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 1 July 2005 05:19 (UTC)
Forgive my two face. I really am quite optimistic about this wiki, but as long as the systemic bias remains, I find the 100k+ words spent in largely waisted discussion and Vfd compared to two or three measly main article paragraphs, to be quite a pathetic imbalance. That article could be 2.5 or 5k good NPOV words by now after all the people who came along. "Collaboration", is still a tall order for people who find deletion to be much easier. TTLightningRod
Oh I agree with you there. I feel that for contraversial topics there is far too little work to talk ratio. There are deletionists on both sides of this debate though. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 1 July 2005 15:10 (UTC)
I'm not about to apologize or rationalize either sides "delete-off-O-rama"..... But here's one interesting point about those with a strong voice against the article's construction. A walk through their contributions reveals strong leanings to interject rather harshly in many topics. Suggesting that some are not so much playing a heathy dose of devil's advocate, but are just plain servile, sophomoric, or out-right provocative toward destruction. (skillful enough beyond simple teenage hakery, to really give me strange thoughts) On the other-hand, very few of the "alternative" proponents are engaged in anything remotely similar. And not for a lack of ammunition. The Sun article, the Big Bang, even Tesla and Einstein have gigantic holes, misquotes, and falsehoods.
That's a rather big difference between the two sides of measly little aetherometry. TTLightningRod

Another bothersome request, sorry

Unfortunatley, I am envolved in my first unresolved article war, most unfortunate as hitherto I have been able to resolve conflicts I've had with users and had only days before stepped forward as a mediator candidate given my success in resolving my own and other conflict here in the past. I need a seasoned opinion about how to proceed. A user changed American West from a redirect to U.S. West in late 2004, into a duplicate article. In 2005 WikiProject U.S. regions, agreed to standardise naming conventions for US regions, something many WikiProjects do for the subjects they cover. This meant that US West was moved to Western United States, however this made it necessary for me to have deal with American West. When I posted the merged notice, I posted on the talk page that I felt the article should have never been created in the first place and was POV (the POV was confirmed by someone I asked to review the article), which in retrospect was a mistake. The creator of the article objected to the merge and claimed that that U.S. West was solely about the census bureau's definition of the region and claims that the very wikiproject maintains that as a policy. In truth that could be an interpration of early recomendations, but those were not the policies inforce on the day he undid the redirect, and which had been in place for quite some time before. When I provided a link to the versions of the project main page and U.S. West that existed on the day he undid the redirect and suggested he review the verison of a similar article U.S. South, he ignored that they contradicted him. Most of American West has been merged with Western United States, including a section initialy disputed, though I did not merge POV sections like "Natural Wonders", I did include some of the information in a Georgraphy section. With the merge complete I see several options: American West can be rewritten to be about a different subject, it can be turned into a disambig page (Western US & Old West), or it can be turned in to a redirect to Western United States, the sucessor article to U.S. West which American West was a redirect to in the first place. The trouble is I feel I can't act on changing the page becuase I'm envolved in the conflict. Users on both sides have given up and moved on. One has recommended that I am wasting my time and should move on as well. However, beyond my own POV, I can't help but feel that policy backs me up, and that makes me exceedingly (not impossibly so) reluctant to back down. Ordinarily, I'd take a wikiholiday but the problem would still be here, I noticed the aticle when it was first created but keep putting it off. I find it hard to believe that wikipedia would allow itself to be undermined encourage user to labour to create NPOV article, only to allow users to create alternate versions of articles on flimsy exuses. The users that left have intimated that they would not be interested in an RFC, and I hate to go that far when I feel very stongly official policy is on my side, all I need is someone not involved in the conflict to enforce it. Other than the cathardic but unethical optinion of wiping the duplicate/alternate article of the face of Wikipedia, what am I suppose to do?-JCarriker July 1, 2005 08:18 (UTC)

Well it's a difficult. Although a rfc seems ott I think that it's probably the best way forwards. If enough people back you up on the rfc then this alone might be enough to get him to back down. If he doesn't ( and assuming the rfc goes your way, and why wouldn't it?) then it would give you some authority to take appropriate action (such as creating the redirect and protecting the page). Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 2 July 2005 22:28 (UTC)
The proponent of the other opinion is missing, which further complicates an RFC. Should I just go ahead with a disambig or precede with the Rfc, which the other side likely won't participate in. I've inquired to another party involved [3], as well. I really want to get this over with, so I can concentrate on other things, like standardising the U.S. regional maps, and working Hatshepsut up to featured status. Speaking of featured articles have you met the "charming" Elagabalus yet?. His nomination (See previous post) was one of the fun things you missed while you were away. :) . -JCarriker July 5, 2005 17:51 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conflict

I've written up a new policy proposal, with assistance from Ed Poor, to set out some guidelines and basic principles for dealing with naming conflicts of the Gdanzig type. Could you take a look at Wikipedia:Naming conflict and let me know what you think? -- ChrisO 1 July 2005 22:14 (UTC)

Ooh er, censorship.

Hi Theresa,

Knowing how much you like image censorship debates, I thought you might like this comment and its associated edit on the Jaguar page. Unfortunately the replaced image in question is untagged and unsourced, so I would have to say its fair enough. -- Solipsist 4 July 2005 20:51 (UTC)

Oooh eerr mrs! If it wasn't for the fact that it was untagged I'd be well in there mate. But as it isn't, what can we do? Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 4 July 2005 20:55 (UTC)

Well the usual process is to ask the original uploader to tag it. But this one is so old we don't even have the uploaders details - I guess it is from the 2002 database restore. This can't be too uncommon, but I don't know what the procedure is. On the other hand the image quantity isn't that great, so I'm not sure it is worth the effort.
On the plus side, I'm pretty sure I've got a good photograph of a couple of wild lions mating. But it is in my back catalogue of print photos and it will take me a while (~months) to get to it. -- Solipsist 4 July 2005 23:42 (UTC)

Theresa, you know I don't want my daughters looking at pictures of Jaguars mating!!! My sons, fine, but not my daughters!!! Besides, one of those two Jaguars is black!!! What kind of message are you trying to send to my daughters??? ;-) Daddy.

-) Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 5 July 2005 03:58 (UTC)

Keep an i

I have to get going now. In less than an hour, 218.101.88.198's block will expire. Please keep your i on his/her edits at that time. Thanks, El_C 5 July 2005 13:18 (UTC)

aetherometrists

Either they are all the same person or they are very close associates. They use similar(ly abusive) language, and when you reply to one of them the other says "I didn't say that" (when you are clearly replying to the text above your post). Which would argue not that they are the same person, but that they are overlapping personas. Maybe Paulo and Alexandra? Guettarda 6 July 2005 05:12 (UTC)

I suspected that too. 216.254.160.187 seems slighly less abusive than the other IPs in that range, this could be one person and all the others a second person. Or possibly it's someone doing a good mad bad me act. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 6 July 2005 05:23 (UTC)
Most of the IPs come from either Toronto or Hamilton - and as Karada pointed out to me Akronos is registered nearby as well. Guettarda 6 July 2005 05:29 (UTC)

I would feel compelled to conclude that all Torontonians and Hamiltonians are aetherometrists... And that the Correas live somewhere nearby. 216.254.157.121 04:58, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Block needed

I noticed you were active, and we are in need of an uninvolved admin at the edit war at Matthew 1 and related articles. This has been listed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR for some time without action, and the revert war shows no sign of stopping. - SimonP 21:07, July 9, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, hopefully an editor with your gravitas will have some effect, though in the interim the same NPOV warning has also been added to every member of Category:New Testament chapters. - SimonP 21:41, July 9, 2005 (UTC)

Please look

I've filed the Rfc, please look at Talk:American West#What to do with American West survey and help me blugeon the bugger back where it belongs. (P.S. glad to see you're O.K. ;) )-JCarriker 22:32, July 9, 2005 (UTC)

Need Administrative Eyes

I hope you're not too Wikibusy at the moment. If not, might I prevail upon you to have a look at the very frustrating behaviour of Lapsed Pacifist at List of Irish-Americans? I've filed an RfC, but it seems as though no one really gives a rip.

I first noticed the issue when LP was reported for vandalism (repeated addition of Eddie Murphy to the page), and have been trying to keep things sane over there ever since, with very little success. I've asked both edit-warring users to cite their sources, which the anonymous user has done, and which LP has not. I'm getting rather tired of having to revert the page; apparently LP thinks everyone in the world is an Irish-American and the burden of proof is on those of us who believe this not to be true.

At any rate, your opinion and eyeballs would be most appreciated.—chris.lawson (talk) 01:17, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please see

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/American West, it'd be funny if it wasn't sad. Poor guy, I kinda feel sorry for him. Oh, well. -JCarriker 15:37, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

You have...

You have been selected to review a proposal at WikiProject U.S. regions/Maps to replace the current grab bag of U.S. maps with a standardized style. The maps also remove the always, sometimes, and rare classification currently in use, in favor of a core area always in a region highlighted in red, while states that may or may not be included in a region are shown in pink. Please comment on the talk page. If approved or revised by participants, I'd like to make the transition within the next two weeks. (Yes you have no strogn feelings on this, but an outside prospectives a good thing). Thanks. -JCarriker 19:15, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

restoring Process calculus

Theresa,

Thanks for restoring my contributions that were removed by User:SockPuppetVandal--Carl Hewitt 19:31, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]


See Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress, section "Possibly Sockpuppets". Somebody reported him. hehe. I wonder who? 213.197.251.25 19:57, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Willi/Wikiwonka

Can you take a look at this for me? On Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Koomaster: Wikiwonka started the nomination, which I completely agree with. Then the vandalized the page in question. I pointed this out on the Vfd. Then Wikiwonka claimed I was mistaken, that he/she was actually Williwonka, although that name wasn't even registered at that time. Wiki had doctored his/her sig to look like Willi. THEN he/she registered as Willi. Now he/she's just sitting there calling ME a troll for pointing all this out. Does this qualify as vandalism? Sockpuppetry? I don't know what to call it. It's certainly dishonest. --Etacar11 20:32, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You know you really shouldn't feed trolls. Just delete them. I've blocked both accounts and removed most of the "conversation" between you and him from the vfd. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 20:45, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

GNAA vote

You seem to be well on your way to sorting that out. When it's sorted, are you able to unlock the page? - Ta bu shi da yu 00:57, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I had every intention. Who readded the votes? They even readded the duplicate vote. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke)
I'm pretty sure I cut the duplicate vote, ... perhaps I made a mistake. Sorry about that one. Gmaxwell 02:17, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Obstruction of GNAA vote

In this [4] edit you have removed the vote of a user who quite clearly met the criteria on the voting page. I don't agree with the criteria on the page, but since you are working so hard to enforce them, you might want to reconsider this edit. Gmaxwell 02:17, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The user made 100 edits today, after the vote began, and most of those edits were silly, such as putting cleanup tags on articles that don't need cleanup. func(talk) 02:22, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) This is calvinball. I'm making it up as I go along to stop trolls from voting. this edit adds a vfd note to a page that doesn't actually have a vfd debate plus it's a clearly bad faith edit. Plus there are loads of other bad faith cleanup tags being added, without adding the pages to Wikipedia:cleanup or any mention on the talk page of why the article needs cleaning up. I have no intention of counting edits that need to be reverted into the total. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 02:26, 11 July 2005 (UTC) Oh and look at this one! Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 02:30, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

eek! Hey now. I made that graphic, but I hope you know that it's use there had nothing to do with me. :) It was good stuff for the april fools day page, and I still get a lot of positive comments on it. Gmaxwell 03:11, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It is a funny graphic! Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 09:29, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You have removed my completely legitimate vote from the GNAA VfD. I am willing to chalk this up to a misunderstanding, however the duplicate vote had already been dealt with and action on your part was unnecessary. I am re-adding this vote (and ensuing discussion). An honest mistake, which I personally took steps to correct, should not disqualify me from casting a legitimate vote, no matter how 'iron-fisted' you are being during this vote.--TexasDex 05:44, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

I think this was most likely an honest mistake. I don't think TK did this out of spite. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:10, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I didn't. TexasDex I am really sorry. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 06:20, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't doubt that it was a misunderstanding, I just wanted to make sure my vote was counted.  :) Thanks--TexasDex 06:26, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

template POTD

Hi - Looking at what else the anon did (in particular this edit), I think it might be a recursive transclude rather than a massive text dump. I'm a little hesitant to try this to see if it causes the same problem (recursive transclude), but if this does cause a problem and if it is the problem with POTD and this user has figured out it causes a problem, I think we need to get a developer to fix this issue (in the source) relatively immediately. -- Rick Block (talk) 20:24, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

I see you didn't leave a message on the user's talk page. Seems like you might want to leave a message, assuming s/he is not messing things up deliberately, letting him/her know what's going on and perhaps asking what change they made to the articles we're trying to fix (and letting him/her know the block doesn't affect entries on his/her own talk page). -- Rick Block (talk) 21:53, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
A very sensible suggestion.Done! Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 22:11, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I see there's no response yet. BTW - suggesting email is a good idea, but I don't know if s/he might have any idea how to find your email address (and s/he is an anon, so can't use wikipedia email). I wouldn't leave a clear email address but something like "whatever at gmail dot com" should be pretty safe. -- Rick Block (talk) 00:13, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

thanks

Thanks for the welcome; no prob on the vote disqualification (I expected it). Steve Summit 04:14, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

I hereby award you this vandal whacking stick to help you in fighting the hordes of vandals.

Thanks for reverting JacksonBrown's vandalism to VfD. I award you a vandal whacking stick for your efforts. Good work! -- Essjay · Talk 10:51, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

LOL ! Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 10:52, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I would just like to say that I really, really dislike how you removed JacksonBrown's vote. He is a real practitioner of dickhole fucking and is very knowledgable on the subject. I also want to say that (this incident aside) I think you and the guy running the GNAA VfD are doing a good job, despite of most people complaining. Discounting our (and other suspicious) votes is needed because otherwise people would endlessly complain that GNAA rigged the vote and the drama would continue. I just have one suggestion, you should be as hard on the "anti-troll" trolls as on original trolls. Wouldn't you agree that adding ludicrous attacks and factually incorrect things simply because of hate is even less in good faith than doing so for fun (I don't want to name names because my comment will be deleted)? Pigger 11:27, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I rarely if ever remove comments on my talk page.So feel free to speak your mind. But I agree that all unhelpful edits need to be looked at carefully, all personal attacks need to be removed. As for JacksonBrown's vote on dickhole fucking - well what can I say? I can see it's trolling, so I removed it. But to me it's no big deal. Admins ignore these votes anyway. So what's the point? Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 12:13, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have no prior experience with VfDs except for GNAA which is obviously run differently, so I admit I don't really know how it works. :) Pigger 16:04, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Since I was the one who made the original removal, I'd just like to state for the record that I don't have an opinion on that particular vote; if it's factual (and can be backed up with evidence) then it should stay. I'm just doing my job and removing vandalism; if his edit summary hadn't been "Keep, faggots" I wouldn't have removed it. As for the GNAA article, I think it should stay. -- Essjay · Talk 11:38, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
I agree that "Keep, faggots" was needlessly insulting, but it was in the edit summary, so reverting the edit doesn't help there, I don't know if you can even edit the summaries at all. Anyway, I think jackson's vote should be counted, so I will put it back one more time and if one of you reverts I'll leave it alone. Pigger 12:01, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(My apologies to Theresa for holding this discussion on her talk page.) If you'll hold up, I'll reinstate the vote, if you'll promise to have a talk with JacksonBrown and ask him to behave himself. -- Essjay · Talk 12:08, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

But note that even if reinstated it will still almost certainly be ignored by the admin who closes the vote. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 12:13, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I realize that, but I still think it's important to let him speak his mind (if his intent was sincere.) More importantly, I think Pigger should be commended for being a calm voice in support of JacksonBrown. -- Essjay · Talk 12:16, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

I actually have found that most (if not all) the GNAA folks are pretty calm. I really don't see what all the fuss about them is. Give me a GNAA troll over an wikipedia troll (and I can think of half a dozen) any day. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 12:21, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite sure that policy on goatse is rather universal: Image:Zscout370_ribbar.png (see past revisions). so .... Seeaxid 14:13, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

|Lame! One thing that is strange is that it does not show up on his contributions list. I don't know why not. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 14:27, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Nor do my reversions of it show up in my own contributions. Seeaxid 08:49, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

GNAA

You mentioned in a message that you've chosen to invalidate a large number of votes in the GNAA VfD so that detractors won't be able to say "yeah but the vote is invalid because sockpuppets skewed the results". Consequently, you yourself, together with Ta bu shi da yo, have skewed the vote considerably by removing a large number of Keep votes and only eight Delete votes, a lot if not most of them being from legitimate users with a clear right to vote. If by removing these Keep votes you manage to change the outcome to Delete, I'd say you've managed to achieve the exact outcome you hoped to avoid. Ninuor 15:24, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

But the chance of that happening is pretty remote. The vote is very clear cut at the moment, there is nothing like consensus to delete. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 16:56, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes... Well, as long as it stays that way. I'd hate for a page to be deleted because of a biased vote. Ninuor 19:15, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That's not to say that I think you guys intentionally skewed the vote, by the way. Perhaps we new users just aren't as tired of the GNAA as the experienced ones, haha. Ninuor 19:20, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure arbitration disputes aren't your favorite thing to deal with, but could you take a look at this request for a temporary injunction against User:Alfrem? There is a request for arbitration against him, and his antics have recently resulted in the page protection of Libertarianism. Temporary blocks for 3RR violation seem insufficient. Fred Bauder recommended asking arbitrators individually for their opinions, so that's what I'm doing.

Thanks for your time, and I hope this mess doesn't keep you from the more interesting parts of Wikipedia for too long.

Dave (talk) 17:07, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

PS your acronyms are excellent. Do you come up with them by hand or with a computer anagram generator?

I rely on other people coming up with them for me. ( I'm both stupid amd lazy) If you look through my talk page archives you'll see that people have suggested loads of them to me. I'll go and take a look at the rfAr page right now. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 17:10, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I've found that computer-generated anagrams are pretty hit-or-miss, and I'm not clever enough to come up with them by hand, either. Dave (talk) 17:14, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Copy/Paste Moves

Hi Theresa, it's me again...I swear, no trolls this time.

I'm trying to sort out a copy/paste move problem at Washing Machine and Washing Machine (album). Washing Machine needs to be moved to Washing Machine (album) to preserve the page history, but an anon has done a cut paste there, so I can't move it. Can you please temp delete Washing Machine (album) and move Washing Machine there? I'll take care of redirecting Washing Machine to the laundry article afterwards. Thanks, -- Essjay · Talk 18:25, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Done! Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 18:34, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much. I waded into it based on another user's request; it now seems there may be a revert war at Washing machine over whether it should be a disambiguation page, or an article about the laundry device. Obvously, it's a case where the main article should be about laundry and there should be a disambig line at the top, as is set out in Wikipedia:Disambiguation, but the anon doesn't see it that way. He's going to get himself blocked for 3RR (I'm not reverting again so I don't) within the next five mins. -- Essjay · Talk 18:41, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Well I've looked at the page and he seems to have acquiesced, so move along folks, there's nothing to see here. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 21:10, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:JacksonBrown

Okay, you are certainly a better judge than me. It suits me fine. Sam Hocevar 17:05, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

<3

Will you be my hearties? JacksonBrown 23:40, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Will you be mine? How about making some constructive edits instead of just trolling? Go on you know you want to. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 23:44, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Geogre Had a Hat (But It Wasn't Where It Wasn't At)

(Reference to a song by Pere Ubu, from Tenement Year.) Well, I have preserved that lovely pile of hats, but one wonders how many little old ladies you had to mug to assemble such a collection. Geogre 00:26, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fixing images

I saw you fixed the GW Bush image, somehow. I tried to do it myself after a vandal had replaced it with the goatse-one (I've deleted it now). I reverted to the previous version within a minute, but somehow the thumb-version still showed the vandal-pic in the article. Not seing anything wrong with my revert I started to think it was just a cache issue that only I saw, but apparantly it wasn't. What did you do in your revert to also fix the pic showing in the article? Would be nice to know. ;-). Shanes 01:00, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why your revert didn't work. But all I did was revert again. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 01:02, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Must have been some strange magic. I'll just try reverting again next time, then. Thanks. Shanes 01:10, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate picture

You (quite correctly) removed a picture that User:MeatyPlant added to the article Penis earlier today. That same picture has ended up on his userpage. I know we have quite a bit of latitude with our own pages, but doesn't that cross the line a bit? Joyous (talk) 22:34, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

I just removed it from the page. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 22:40, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Depressed.

That's alright (Unless I think of something >:). I think just reading that cheered me up. Thanks. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 01:30, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well you have permission for as long as you want.Take your time! Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 01:32, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WIKIPEDIA ABUSE Ril, (81.156.177.21).

Ril has been causing problems at Authentic Matthew. Please help us to resolve.


RIL - M.O.

1) Sock Puppet redirects and hopes nobody notices - Article Gone.

2) SP starts edit war-victim gives up - Article Gone.

3) Later new SP 'merges' and redirects - Article Gone

4) New SP starts edit war - Article Gone

5) If all fails, SP puts up Vfd and makes false statements against his victim often getting THE VICTIM BLOCKED.

PLEASE STUDY THE 'EDIT HISTORY' OF THIS ARTICLE, RIL and 81.156.177.21 for the facts speak for themselves. --Mikefar 05:08, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the above is one of the numerous sockpuppets of the article's creator - User:Melissadolbeer - see the user's edit history, and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Melissadolbeer for details. The article in question is Melissadolbeer's original research based on an account by Jerome which is almost universally considered to be an error confusing 3 different gospels (Gospel of the Nazarenes, Gospel of the Hebrews, and Gospel of the Ebionites). It also contains material presenting Eusebius's views of what was Biblical Canon - better discussed at those two articles, and the entire source text of the alleged Gospel, which is otherwise almost universally split into the 3 seperate texts above. The source text was already on WikiSource, and what was salvagable from the remainder of the article was merged to the above 5 articles, and Gospel of Matthew, at the suggestion of User:Wetman. It exists only to support Melissadolbeer's original research thesis. Melissadolbeer's claims of abuse against me, 81.156.177.21, doc, Slrubenstien, etc. are simply down to the fact that we have at one time or another merged the article elsewhere leaving only a redirect, or have voted to delete it at VFD. The above comment by the sockpuppet has been pasted by it into a vast number of user pages, an act which essentially constitutes excessive disruption to Wikipedia, simply because Melissadolbeer refuses to abide by the process of VFD. ~~~~ 19:14, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I further believe you are an arbitrator. One of Melissadolbeer's sockpuppets has made a request for arbitration. ~~~~ 19:51, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Topless in Vancouver

Hi again Theresa,

Why is that I always turn to you for problems with nudity images? Can you take a look at Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Vancouver_Skybridge. The nominator, User:Broonee is a new account and looks like they are trolling (see also Vancouver Skybridge). I recognised the photos as being the subject of some controversy on the Village Pump or one of the nudity pages a couple of months ago. However, the image pages don't indicate any links to their use anywhere, so either all links have been removed , or they are re-uploaded versions of the previous versions that may have been deleted.

Do you recall where/what the previous controversy was? -- Solipsist 12:59, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No I wasn't about much at that time. I had a bit of a wikibreak. It's obvious the user is trolling though.See reference desk Relatively harmless trolling though. We should'n fret about it. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 13:08, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Was the previous issue when one of the pictures was added to Topfree equality? Joyous (talk) 19:21, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I think that was it - thanks. What an obscure title; no wonder I couldn't find it. At least I can tell that it is the same filename as had been used there, so it probably isn't a recreation of an IfD image, which is all I was trying to work out. -- Solipsist 19:28, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Trey Stone

User:Trey Stone, who is currently in arbitration, has just been blocked for the ninth[5] time since he entered arbitration on May 12th, this time for violation of the 3RR. Three arbitrators have voted for a temporary injunction that he be banned from editing political articles pending the resolution of the arbitration (Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Trey_Stone_and_Davenbelle/Proposed_decision#Temporary_ban), which is just one arbitrator vote shy of what is needed to go into effect.

I have been reading WikiEN-l and there was a discussion of how half of the current arbitrators are away or inactive. Which means that effectively, the four of six arbs needed to do the temporary ban is not really 33.33% but 66.66%. Anyhow, reading that on WikiEN-l prompted me to put this on your talk page as it seemed the wheels of justice were grinding slowly for this very disruptive user. Thanks. -- Ruy Lopez 15:44, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My password

Yes, I did, my anagrammatic friend. Who wouldn't? ;) James Bell 10:44, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Repeat vandalism

Hey Theresa, I don't know if you normally deal with this type of thing, but an anon user with a history of vandalism (I think he's been blocked in the past for it) has been vandalizing a handful of Islam-related articles today. I placed a notice on Vandalism in Progress but it so far hasn't gotten noticed. Just thought I'd bring it to an admin's attention, and you're the first active one I saw with changes on my watchlist. How's Aetherometry going these days? Here's the VIP listing: [6] (listing #2) · Katefan0(scribble) 19:39, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

User advice

Hi, I appologize for bringing this up to you, however, I am not quite sure what other avenue to take. After the initial edit war & 3RR discussions, Lifeisunfair, still continues to "stalk" (I do not mean this demeaningly) me and any discussion that seems to relate to my RFA. I agree and understand that I am "fair game" during the RFA, especially if I were an admin. He continues to argue with me over the 3RR, and was replying to other users on my discussion page, if he saw RFA in the edit summary. I feel I have a right to respond to users who comment on my RFA page, and he continually adds his comments to my responses. I feel he has made his points very clear, to me, and with his original vote on my RFA. I should be able to address other users questions, without him commenting on every single issue. I asked him politely, to no longer respond to other users on my user page, and he used this against me in every possible way. I was only trying to be polite, and it is interfering with my ability to do any other actual work on Wiki, or have legititmate discussions with other users, with out the worry that he will come and add in his comments. I am not quite sure if this is a type of trolling, but it is sure not "constructive criticism" he tries to imply. I have not approached or discussed him with any other user, nor have I brought the arguments in any other discussion arena, as to say I am not going around commenting negatively about him or his actions. If I am being too sensitive on this matter, or something else, I would welcome any suggestions or comments. Otherwise, I am not sure what to do. Thank you. ∞Who?¿? 02:54, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest. I think you're being a bit sensitive here. When your'e up for adminship you have to expect negative comments sometimes, and just roll with the punches. He's stated that he wont reply to others on your talk paga again. I think you should let the matter drop there. Remember in a vfA situation his vote counts for one. Take a deep breath before you engage with him again. I'll keep an eye on things for a few days. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 15:38, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for replying and the advice. I don't mind the attention from the Rfa, just got a bit stressed over his continued comments on it. I'm pretty much staying away from it, unless a user has a particular question, and getting back to what I've been doing all along. Thanks again. ∞Who?¿? 16:33, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Deletion

Hi! I think the article for American Championship Wrestling should be put up for a deletion vote. I feel this way because the person who wrote it is the webmaster of their site and it is a vanity thing. Also, I do not feel the organization is remotely large enough to qualify for inclusion.

TruthCrusader

Well then put it on vfd then. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 13:47, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ark of the Covenant / Reddi

Hi. You wouldn't have any interest in Ark of the Covenant and/or Reddi-watch, would you? William M. Connolley 18:15:45, 2005-07-20 (UTC).

Not tonight. But I may take a look tomorrow. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 21:55, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

you are sick

My brother is dead and you're saying he never existed. What kind of sick freak are you? "Sockpuppet"? Why would I take time out of my life to make up this whole story, just so I can vandalize without being blocked? I have a life you know, and you make me sick. Iamzodyourzodeveryzod 23:57, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I know. Plus I'm evil too. But I'm not stupid. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 23:59, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I sent him off to Uncyclopedia. Check User talk:Redwolf24#eh. Redwolf24 04:20, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Fantastic tits. (Note to any other random user, before you call me a chauvinist go check theresas main page.) Redwolf24 04:22, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I always welcome people commenting on them. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 15:25, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tkorrovi vs Paul Beardsell: Motion to close

Yours is the first vote to close after I made my objection known to closing the case pending unfinished business. That you vote without commenting on my objection I find puzzling. Either, it seems to me, you have deliberately decided not to comment or you are unaware of my objection. And either is, I suggest, unsatisfactory. The ArbCom should not be seen to be sweeping its embarassment under the carpet. And, I think, your silence on the Ambi and Grunt unsubstantiated allegations, does not reflect well on you or on the ArbCom and Wikipedia. If you think my complaints are baseless then you owe Ambi and Grunt your non-silent support. How could you let my complaints stand unchallenged? But if you think they've overstepped the mark, then you as a member of the ArbCom owe it to Wikipedia (and me!) to make your objection known: Wikipedia deserves an ArbCom which is *seen* to be scrupulously fair. Paul Beardsell 11:08, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Paul. You don't get to dictate to me what I should or should not be doing. Arbitration is not negotiable. We don't need to satisfy all parties as to to the outcome. We only need to satisfy ourselves. I voted to close because I feel the case is over, our decisions have been made, we are unlikely to make any new ones. Therefore we can close the case. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 14:38, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I dictate nothing. But you are close to claiming infallibity. Stubborn adherence to a poor decision is not something you would want to be seen to be doing. Well, so I thought. Reconsidering one's position is a sign of strength, not one of weakness. Paul Beardsell 14:52, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • She practices infallibility. It's a popish doctrine - empowerment by Wikiarchy.

And as a matter of real-world fact you do need to satisfy more than yourselves. This is well established. If you stand in judgement on me you must be reasonable. Paul Beardsell 14:57, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

:Our judgrements are reasonable. I don't know what you mean by "real world fact" but yes we have to satisfy the wikipedia community and jimbo and the board. The community can and will pass verdict on us at the AC elections in December. Jimbo can choose to disband the AC at any time. One group of people who we do not have to satisfy are those accused of bullying, making personal attacks, revert warring, etc. I.e. those up before us. We obviously will never please those people. Nor should we try. I do stand in judgement of you. I judge you to be a troublesome editor who needs the remedies set out in the AC decision in order to minimise damage to wikipedia and the wikipedia editing community. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 15:26, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reasonable judgements...that one almost had me in stitches. Has it ever occurred to you that your practice of suppressing interventions, legitimate information, of condoning outright censorship, etc, etc, IS the very cause of so much resistance to what is perceived as naked and dictatorial power? Resistance to power, and to wanton power in particular, is a virtue. 216.254.157.121 05:09, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You have to satisfy a general test of reasonableness. Doubtless your colleagues will assure you I am right, on this point at least. You are not a law unto yourselves, entirely, no matter how you act generally. I note that that you attack *me* not the points I make here. See ad hominem. Some of those "up before" you are not guilty of that of which they are accused - although what you write above seems not to acknowledge this. You judge me if you like. But if you do so as a member of the ArbCom then you *must* be reasonable. For the good of Wikipedia. Out of a sense of common decency. But, if you dispute that, then I assert you are obliged to and this could be demonstrated. Paul Beardsell 15:38, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You assert that I am a "a troublesome editor who needs the remedies set out in the AC decision in order to minimise damage to wikipedia and the wikipedia editing community." But nowhere do you provide any evidence for this. This is not reasonable behaviour from a member of the ArbCom. Paul Beardsell 15:38, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The evidence is in the diffs on the page. True that some of those before us are not guilty of which they are accused. We find however that you are. This is a reasonable judgement. I don't what you mean by "obliged to".Note that the statement "I judge you to be a troublesome editor who needs the remedies set out in the AC decision in order to minimise damage to wikipedia and the wikipedia editing community" was not intended as an attack. I am not attacking you. I am judging you ( this is, after all what I was elected to do. It's not a plesent job but someone has to do it)Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 16:20, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What you wrote and what I quoted is not on the proposed decision page. If it were true then it would be a strange decision proposed to ban me from editing one page. So, the decision is perverse or your judgement is not shared. Or both. Paul Beardsell 17:33, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I know. That's because this is my talk page and I am using rather more casual language. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 17:37, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So, you have just agreed, casually: The decision is perverse or your judgement is not shared with others on the ArbCom. Or both. You are admitting to being unfair or at least unreasonable because you refuse to cite the reasons for your "judgement". Paul Beardsell 18:57, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No. My remarks adressed your first sentence, not the last two. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 19:02, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

But I had constructed a logical argument. If you agree with the premises you must agree with the conclusion or show why the conclusion does not follow.

No I don't

My first sentence: "What you wrote and what I quoted is not on the proposed decision page." You have now agreed with that twice.

Yep I am agreeing with it a third time too.

I continued: "If it [what you wrote] were true then it would be a strange decision proposed to ban me from editing one page.

This doesn't follow logically. I don't agree with what you said there.

So, the decision is perverse or your judgement is not shared. Or both."

Doesn't follow.

So, as I commented: "You are admitting to being unfair or at least unreasonable because you refuse to cite the reasons for your 'judgement'." Paul Beardsell 20:15, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not true. I am perfectly reasonable.I'm just not easy to tie in knotts, intimidate, heckle, or wear down Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 20:22, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I am not doing any of those things. I am simply trying to hold you to account. This is something that any member of the ArbCom should be happy to be subjected to. Paul Beardsell 23:06, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I am perfectly happy to be subjected to your tacticts. I find your attempt to bully me quite funny actually. You don't know me very well. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 00:29, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, if you don't construe Paul as a bully and, instead of behaving as if he were, attempt to 'listen' by following his line of argument simply as a logical argument, then you could not possibly yourself be construed as an "individual who tends to torment others". I have a puzzle, having been watching the Paul and Tkorrovi thing. First it was complaint that there was not movement. Then there was complaint that it had ended too abruptly. Presumably there is an appeal procedure in any event? Matt Stan 17:21, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Matthew, there was no movement. There were a whole lot of unanswered questions outstanding for weeks. Then the ArbCom swept them under the carpet without addressing them. As to the question of appeal, what is the point of that? Several members of the ArbCom have now said the ArbCom doesn't make mistakes. Theresa is just the latest of them. Paul Beardsell 18:53, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I did follow his line of argument. I've comment on each line and pointed out where his logic is in error. Anyway onto your second question. He can appeal to us , he can appeal to Jimbo, He can appeal to members of the board, he can appeal to the community via an rfc. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 17:46, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you did follow the argument. You did scramble it so it is difficult for others to follow but that is all you've done. I cannot see any compelling indication of error from you. Paul Beardsell 18:53, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Theresa never fails and never acknowledges ignorance and never accepts responsibility and never admits to being wrong and never gets knotted. A veritable machin. 216.254.157.121 05:17, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]