User talk:-Ril-: Difference between revisions

Comments about my signature go here

I have split my talk page into 3 sections. Please respect the sections as I will ignore and delete anything not respecting them. Thanks, ~~~~

This page, nor any of the subsections, is not to be used for the preservation of articles, or talk pages, about to be deleted in accordance with a vote on VfD.

User:-Ril-/BadBoy User:-Ril-/Newgate User:-Ril-/Nissa

I'm not sure you are reading this as you seem to have suggested you have put the subsection (which a blocked user cannot edit) on your watch page. In a way, I suppose that is entirely my fault for having the subsections on different pages and templating them onto the talk page.

Basically, SimonP made 4 reverts as well, indeed before me. Simon's edits involve removing sections that contain comments and votes by people other than him, as well as adjusting what it was that people had already voted for (a bit like having a VFD over King Kong's 512th Greatest Hits Album and then, after 50 people have voted delete, and 2 to keep, changing the VFD to be over Jesus, and claiming that there was an overwealming majority to delete it as fancruft).

I do not regard this as appropriate behaviour, and was merely restoring the comments, votes, and what it was that these people had signed their votes to. His edits removing their votes, comments, and changing what it was that other people signed up to, effectively constitute vandalism, albeit rather refined, and reversion of vandalism is not covered by 3RR.

He is the author of the articles that started all this, and is simply trying to sabotage any attempt to obtain consensus, simply because it will go against him.

It should be noted that since he also violated 3RR he shouldn't be able to edit Wikipedia at the moment either. ~~~~ 01:52, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I watchlisted User:-Ril-/Nissa (I'm not sure what it means) for some inexplicable reason, sorry about that. In answer to your question, I cannot take action against Simon P for edits which "effectively constitute vandalism, albeit rather refined," because it's too loose. If, however, you can demonstrate that there is some consensus that these edits did, in fact, consititute vandalism, then I will reconsider. As for his self-correction, and him not undergoing a block, this is in accordance to policy. I view the 3RR as a "cool down" period, and as such, I view your block as arbitrary; meaning, had he not self-corrected, he would also be blocked right now, had you self-corrected, you would not be blocked right now. It sounds procedural (that's the arbitrary apsect), but the aim is to reduce conflict from being intensified. I suggest that you gain the consensus toward your position in this case, this way you will not risk violating the 3RR. El_C 02:07, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nissa is the italian name for Nice, a place in France. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 13:44, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, nice. El_C 13:58, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, he has just claimed the poll is closed on the poll page because it isn't going his way. ~~~~ 01:58, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Following edit conflict: You are, of course, more than free to contest that claim, but in fairness, it states that the poll is temporarily closed. El_C 02:07, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also it should be noted that when the poll closed the option I supported was leading by 19 to 4. - SimonP 02:16, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

I have divided up the page to stop a repeat of the last vote. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:48, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please see: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#When_delete_votes_means_to_keep. --Ttyre 17:32, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add my opinion tommorrow, I'm marking some extensive coursework at the moment, and I need to finish by wednesday. ~~~~ 17:50, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your criteria in dividing this page up, so I'm posting this at the bottom of your Talk page, where it is the custom to put comments on other Talk pages.

Basically, the options are

• You want to say something nice
• You want to say something nasty
• You want to say something else

These have a section each

~~~~ 19:28, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was responding to a comment you left on my Talk page. My intent in writing did not concern whether you felt it was nice or nasty; further, you may disagree about whether my intent was to be nice or nasty. Frankly, I find it much easier to get my point across without worrying which one of these categories it should belong to; you are welcome to move this section accrodingly. -- llywrch 02:30, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would put it in the "something else" category then. That's where most of the comments go (I've had to archive the old page). ~~~~ 07:50, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This article reports a POV, which was held by Jerome, not the Wikipedian who wrote the article. Whether the POV is "correct" or "incorrect" is irrelevant; as long as it limits itself to reporting the substance of the claim, & who claims it, then I feel it is acceptible content for Wikipedia. And while it's been several months since I looked at the literature, I believe a number of scholars have also reported that this was Jerome's opinion -- so it is not a case of original research.

But the point is that Jerome's position is almost universally regarded, by academics, and non-academics (including those of extreme religious and non-religious bias, as well as the more neutral), to be wrong. Not only that, but they believe that Jerome held it only because he didn't have enough information, and that he didn't hold it as an alternative to any other theory. I.e. Jerome didn't hold it as a rival theory to what we now regard as accurate, he just held it as true because he didn't know of anything else.

It would be like having an article about "scorpions commit suicide when threatened too seriously, e.g. by fire". They don't. Ever. It's a myth (caused by scorpion's cold bloodedness going haywire under high heat, causing them to have random spasms - their poison is NOT toxic to themselves, and even if they deliberately stung themselves, it would do nothing). Note, this is not the same as an article about "it is a myth that ....".

We also have an article about Phlogiston. Applying the your criteria to that article means that it should be also listed on VfD. -- llywrch 02:30, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

But Phlogiston was a theory supported by a large number of reputable scholars. There are none supporting the content of the article. Jerome is notable, but not everything he says is notable or deserving its own article as a result, otherwise we would have an article on "Salissa is an attractive lady, but her boyfriend is a fat traitor, and that new fashion for red sandals is vile". ~~~~ 07:59, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Authentic Matthew is presenting someone's unintended error due to lack of info as a genuine, and rival, theory, presenting it as fact, presenting it as if it is the same as the modern theory (it is completely different, and opposed to many of the points), by deliberately misusing terms from modern theory (see the articles themselves) - terms and theories Jerome did not use because they didn't exist until after 1800. ~~~~ 19:28, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The flaw in your arguments is that it presumes intention on behalf of its original author to present Original Research, which hereafter taints this article. I believe that bad articles can be rescued, improved, & fixed; that is one of the ideals behind Wikipedia, that all articles improve. From the changes that were made this last weekend, this one looks as if it is headed in that direction; I am willing to give it some time to see if I'm right. The worst case is that it will simply require more time to build a consensus for the article's deletion.

The fact that there is no-one else involved in creating the article, that it is defended with an army of (obvious) sockpuppets, and that no-one can anywhere else find the content, illustrates that it is original research. ~~~~ 07:59, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lastly, I am not at all invested in the fate of this article: if the vote goes against my opinion, & it fails its VfD & is deleted, I'll likely keep on contributing to Wikipedia; the loss of one brick will not bring down this entire edifice. I wonder if you can make the same claim. -- llywrch 02:30, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to reiterate that I am uncomfortable with the current article name, & beleive that it should be changed. But I mentioned that in my VfD vote. And whether this article duplicates material from other articles is another matter; a number of pages begin with duplicated material, & grow into articles with independent content. But if making a merge would be the best thing to do, then this option should be argued -- not complete deletion.

FWIW, this is the first time I've ever been contacted about changing my vote concerning VfD. I find it unusual. -- llywrch 17:33, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen it on lots of people's pages. I have many contacts from people about my own votes above (most of which are now archived b.t.w.). I had assumed it was standard practice. ~~~~ 19:28, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

-Ril- please (and this is not an attempt to gag - but a plea) stop making sockpuppet allegations on Authentic Matthew. I thought you had agreed to leave that to User:Ta bu shi da yu. Personaly, I think your allegations are probably justified, but if this becomes a debate between you and opposing forces of darkness, I fear that the article will survive. I think they are probably trolling for your reaction anyway. --Doc (?) 22:57, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

They have 3 edits between them, all to the VFD, all as if they have met me, the dispute, and the article, before. I'd have thought they were obviously sockpuppets. I want them blocked so that the accounts that own them are revealed as well. ~~~~ 23:00, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - but I suggest you point it out to User:Ta bu shi da yu - if named as socks by a neutral person, it will carry more weight - and your prior comments will be vindicated. --Doc (?) 23:08, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I did that before I even responded to you. ~~~~ 23:19, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your opinion. After further consideration, I have decided to stand by my original vote. Thanks! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 15:49, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please be aware that, in light of the RfC against Germen, I have raised an request for arbitration for him. Axon (talk|contribs) 10:12, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ril, I find your signature confusing, as do at least some others. Would you be willing to consider changing it? The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:47, 28 July 2005 (UTC) No. Thanks anyway. ~~~~ 21:52, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I find your sig to be difficult too. The problem is when refering to you. if someone types ~~~~ then what appears is their sig and datestamp, Which is annoying to say the least.

Suggestions for possible alternatives:

• ~~-~
• ~Ril~
• ~~^ril~~
• ~~^tilde~
• ~~_´`´ ~

I'm sure you could think of others too. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 22:23, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You shouldn't rely on who people claim to be and who they actually are. Signatures are easy to forge. I never copy someone's signature, but actually go to their userpage and check to see who they genuinely are. -- Theresa knott (a tenth stroke) 22:36, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to refer to me, you can always click edit, and copy + paste my signature. Or you can use <nowiki>~~</nowiki><nowiki>~~</nowiki> ~~~~ 22:32, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(that looks like <nowiki><</nowiki>nowiki<nowiki>></nowiki>~~<nowiki><</nowiki>/nowiki<nowiki>></nowiki><nowiki><</nowiki>nowiki<nowiki>></nowiki>~~<nowiki><</nowiki>/nowiki<nowiki>></nowiki> in the edit window, which obviously looks even worse) ~~~~ 22:33, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'm a bit annoyed that [[User:~~~~]] already exists, otherwise I'd have had that. Linking to it, and to its diffs, is amusing.

Maybe I should sign <nowiki> instead ? ~~~~ 22:42, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That would be even worse. If someone copied your sig rasther than copied and pasted it it would nowiki all further edits. The point I am trying to make is you should choose a sig that people can simply write when they want to refer to you. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 22:45, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So tell me, why does no-one complain about User:Eequor? ~~~~ 22:48, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps because Eequor's signature doesn't fuck things up if you type it rather than copy and paste it. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 23:09, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You can no-more type Eequor's signature than mine. ~~~~ 23:24, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I can easily type your signature. But if I do it fucks up. Eequor's signsture is difficult (but not impossible) to type, and if I do, it doesn't fuck up. So there is a big difference. I'm not saying Eequor's sig is good or clever. In fact I think it's rubbish, but it is less annoying or problematic than yours. A while back I used a graphic as a sig that morphed my name into an anagram. People complained about it and came up with a number of reasons why it wasn't a good idea. So I changed it. No big deal. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 23:53, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, this is simply signature fascism, a subtle form of racism. I'm keeping it. ~~~~ 07:35, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Racism? You are talking bollocks. How can asking someone to change their sig to something a little less difficult possibly be a form of racism, subtle or otherwise? I have no idea what race you are. If you insist on keeping your crappy sig then so be it, but people will think badly of you for it. You are obviosly fine with people thinking badly of you over something so trivial. So be it. I'm outta here. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 21:18, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Racism because you are judging that it does not resemble the form you have, and is therefore somehow wrong. Note I said subtle. ~~~~ 08:06, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

then i would sugest that pople not take ril seriously till he stops not aking everyone else seriously. Gabrielsimon 07:53, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Suggesting that people violate Wikipedia:Assume good faith is inappropriate behaviour. So is trolling someone else's talk page when you don't have anything direct to say. ~~~~ 08:07, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

its obvious your not taking any of this seriously, and if you dont take this place seriouisly, what would give you the inkling to expect anyone to tak tyou seriously in that case? ( not trying to be rude, trying to illustrate my point) Gabrielsimon 08:10, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly suggest you cease trolling. You are 1 vote away from an arbitration case against you. ~~~~ 08:15, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

calm down for a monment and think about what i said from a perspective not your own, youll seee what im trying to say, im not attempting to " trol" Gabrielsimon 08:17, 29 July 2005 (UTC) Trolling is what you are doing on this talk page. You have no reason to have come here, but have chosen to do so merely to carry out an attack. That is trolling. You are now banned from this talk page for the next week. If you edit it, your edits will be reverted by me on sight. ~~~~ 09:01, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Test {{subst:Special:Watchlist}} 12:17, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

I like your signature! Can you help me with my article?Ghpbermuda

Hello, Melissadolbeer. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 20:22, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the sentiment above that it is an annoying and complicating situation to have see literal Wiki markup appearing in the text of user signature's like -~~~~, which is wiki substitution for signing: at a bare minimum, an addressable name should be in the signature with the proper link: custom signatures should not provide less-useful information than the default, and Ril, yours does, because it can't even be typed literally without much extra work. --Mysidia 16:55, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You could always just use User:-Ril-. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 16:58, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi -Ril-, Noitall is getting the impression that you're following his edits and reverting them inappropriately, perhaps because of bad feeling between you. I've checked out a few of the edits, and it does look as though there's a problem. Is there anything I can do to help out? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:06, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Maybe you can persuade him that his edits on Islam-related issues are not NPOV, and that images such as Image:G-string-micro.gif are not speedy deletable, despite their pornographic nature (otherwise the erection picture at Penis wouldn't exist), and should be IFD'd instead. ~~~~ 07:31, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What do you see as the problem with his Islam-related edits, and can you give some examples? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:57, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

• [1] - note the top, and the edit summary
• [2]
• [3] more of the same, this time posting to an article, thus constituting a personal attack
• [4] - note also the edit summary
• [5]
• [6] - totally POV edit
• [7] and [8] unfactual POV
• [9] - note edit summary
• [10] POV - whole point of NOT mentioning that in the article was because many christian sects disagree, and it is discussed at christology
• [11] POV - note edit summary
• [12] seriously offensive personal attack on a well respected editor
• [13] edits to assert a POV without actually checking validity - later partially reverts her/himself

Further, his edit history is filled almost 100% with edit wars, including edits actually encouraging (explicitely) people to engage in edit wars. This is not constructive behaviour. ~~~~ 20:12, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Of course, he did not address the issue of his behavior on this page or on my talk page. Apparently, he thinks that revenge and personal attacks are appropriate for him to take if he dislikes things an editor has done or said with someone else (which I would dispute in any event). Despite his personal attacks, which have no justification even though he attempts to justify them above, and although I have refrained (as much as I possibly can) from taking any actions against him, I continue to try to resolve this issue (if it can be resolved). That is the entire reason that I requested SlimVirgin to see what can be done to resolve the issue.

-Ril- still failed to address the issues I before asked of him (this was about the 5th or 6th attempt), , which are:

1. your reactionary reverts are done for revenge

   No, they are done because your edits are not NPOV.

2. your attacks against me in the past where you attempted to certify an RfC and tried to revert a deleted RfC without any justification, followed by your continuing reactionary reverts on this article without any justification.

   I certified the RFC because

   • the majority of your entire edit history is edit warring
   • you insert POV into articles, then revert any changes to it on sight
   • you insult well respected editors, such as Mustafaa, even calling them terrorists and vandals, merely for contesting your edits
   • you actively encourage other editors explicitely to edit war
   • you claim you have support from other editors for your edits, and when questioned provide no evidence of the claimed support whatsoever
   • etc..

3. after being provided a source concerning the making of a non-controvercial edit, much of which was not written by me, you refuse to consider the source

   POV IS a controversial edit. If it wasn't controversial, you wouldn't keep insisting on making it - if it was non-controversial you wouldn't care.

4. continuing to make POV charges without once stating what is POV

   POV is defined as a violation of WP:NPOV

5. continuing to make POV charges despite the fact that many other editors contributed to drafting this passage

   The only editor changing the passage in the edit history is Noitall. When asked to provide evidence that other editors support you changing the passage, you provided none. ~~~~ 08:15, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

6. each and every edit has been a reactionary revert without a single attempt to state the supposedly POV issue or suggest a way of changing my edit such that it would be supposedly less POV

Try to address the issues to be resolved, not how you can justify your continuing personal attacks. --Noitall 00:25, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

-Ril-, perhaps you could try to avoid the appearance of revenge reverts of Noitall's edits. While content disputes are valid, reverting an editor's work because you don't like him is disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point. No purpose is served by creating more bad feeling. It will only end up causing more RfCs and possibly an arbcom case, and it's definitely not worth it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:47, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

I have not reverted Noitall's work because of any opinion of Noitall's character. The things I have reverted are because they are either POV, or inappropriate. ~~~~ 08:15, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• In all his writing here, on the article talk page, on my page, he continues to respond with lots of writing, but refuses to address a single issue. If simply stating "POV" is enough to justify all his personal attacks and edit warring, then no one on Wiki is safe. --Noitall 14:17, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

• Actually, on controversial issues, when challenged, you are required, by wikipedia policy, to justify your edits, not the reversion of non-justified edits. You did not justify your edits even remotely satisfactorially, I was well within standard policy in reverting them until you provide an explanation - the only one you came up with was that "it had support from other editors" when I asked for evidence, none was provided. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 14:22, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ril, are you putting the other ones up for VfD again as well? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:18, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't put them up in the first place, someone beat me to it. So I don't feel it would be right for me to open those up again when whoever it was that did it should have the (somewhat dubious) honour. ~~~~ 19:32, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ril you are being attacked - there is a User:--Ril-- spaming 'authentic matthew with porn. --Doc (?) 21:55, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked indefinitely. Thanks for the heads-up, Doc! FreplySpang (talk) 22:02, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I can guess exactly who that is. ~~~~ 07:04, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to see it gone. However, if you add the merges with the deletes, that's still about 62% delete, and really we need at least 70% delete (as a rule of thumb). Take out the merges, and you get even less. Sorry, it's staying. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:00, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Total votes - 36

• 21 delete - 58%
• 11 keep - 31%
• 4 merge - 11%

Taking delete and merge together

• 25 delete or merge - 69%
• 11 keep - 31%

Adding in your own opinion

• 37 total
• 26 delete or merge - 70.3%
• 11 keep - 29.7%

Hmmm, its very close isn't it. ~~~~ 09:14, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe so, but closing admin's decision is final. I concur with the final admin's decision. My advise: the best tonic for stupidity is correcting it with good sources. Please feel free to correct the record. I would, but there's just too much POV pushing for me to keep abreast of it all! - Ta bu shi da yu 12:29, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Authentic Matthew (consensus)

I'll check it out, but I'm not inclined to vote again on something that just survived a VfD, and if I do, I'm inclined to let my vote be swayed by the previous result. -Harmil 12:33, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Ril, I responded to your request regarding another VfD for this article over on my talk page. Fernando Rizo T/C 17:35, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What part of "closing admins decision is final" didn't you understand? I have:

1. Deleted the new VfD,
2. Removed the VfD tag from Authentic Matthew and,
3. Blocked you from editing for 24 hours.

You have been blocked from editing because your action was disruptive of Wikipedia. Please take the time to review WP:POINT while you are unable to edit this site. I hope you learn from this experience that disruptive behaviour is not acceptable on Wikipedia. I will be reporting this to WP:AN and WP:AN/I. If you have a problem with the block, please locate the mailing list and make your comments there.

Ta bu shi da yu 13:41, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What part of the deletion policy don't you understand? It explicitely states that an article may be relisted for VFD if there is no consensus. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 13:43, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You have just violated the blocking policy - Wikipedia:Blocking policy.

Your alleged reason for blocking is "disruption" the blocking policy clearly states

Sysops may, at their judgement, block IP addresses that disrupt the normal functioning of Wikipedia. Such disruption is to be objectively defined by specific policies, and may include changing other users' signed comments or making deliberately misleading edits. Users should be warned that they are violating policy before they are blocked.

You did not do this ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 13:58, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You have just violated WP:CSD. There is not a single thing on CSD which allows you to speedy delete the new VFD. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 13:58, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You have just violated Wikipedia:Deletion policy. It says

In general, if an article has been discussed at Votes for Deletion and the discussion did not result in a "delete" decision, the article should not be immediately renominated for deletion, because unless there is a good reason for people to change their minds, the second vote would be identical to the first one. An exception can be made if a vote has no consensus and a severe lack of votes. There is no policy or consensus for a hard time limit before an article can be renominated, but some people are likely to vote 'keep' for the reason that it was already discussed last week.

There was no consensus, so there is nothing wrong with re-listing. It is certainly not a blockable offense. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 13:58, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And the blocking policy explicitly states that disruptive actions may see you blocked. Your actions were disruptive. You are rightly blocked. Stop ranting at Ta bu shi da yu. Admins are allowed to stop bad-faith and disruptive editing. TBSDY did so. [[smoddy]] 14:01, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It also explicitely states Users should be warned that they are violating policy before they are blocked Ta bu shi da yu did not do this. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 14:02, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You have been warned previously that such an action would result in your being blocked. TBSDY was perfectly within his rights. [[smoddy]] 14:09, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Where exactly? Because as far as I can see this is certainly not the case. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 14:15, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

this should have given you some idea. [[smoddy]] 14:19, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that is about the 2nd VFD not the 3rd. The one that Ta bu shi da yu administered, not the one that Ta bu shi da yu broke deletion policy over. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 20:46, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ril, you incorrectly highlighted the excerpt from the deletion policy. It says "An exception can be made if a vote has no consensus and a severe lack of votes". The previous VfD did not have a severe lack of votes. Thus, an exception can't be made. Carbonite | Talk 14:24, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

11 votes to keep is a severe lack of votes as far as most people I know would be concerned. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 14:26, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The lack of votes means about five votes in total, not too few votes for your opinion. [[smoddy]] 14:28, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the 11 votes were for the opposing opinion to mine. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 14:30, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake. So there were what? twenty votes in all? That seems completely adequate to me. You were certainly being disruptive. [[smoddy]] 14:32, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree very strongly, and find your motivation suspect. Particularly due to this edit (i.e. you have an issue with me), this edit (i.e. you wish to condemn even when opponents leap to my defence), and this one (i.e. you are an extreme fan of Ta bu shi da yu, and therefore unwilling to judge his/her actions neutrally). ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 14:46, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I agree. I am biased against you, and you know that as well as I do. Therefore, I would never consider blocking you myself. That is not to say that I cannot talk to you. And it is completely ridiculous to suggest that I would support every one of TBSDY's actions. I happen to agree with this one. If I were an arbitrator, I would recuse myself. If I were asked to act in a way pertinent to being an admin, I would recuse myself. I am acting in my position as an editor, the same as you. My motivation is what I think is right. [[smoddy]] 14:52, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm glad that at least you are honest enough to admit that you are biased against me, even if you are wrong. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 14:56, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Ril. I would like to assist in resolving this matter. I believe that there are three salient points:

• It is considered, at best, poor form to relist articles at VfD immediately after they are kept. Such relistings rarely, if ever, result in the article being deleted, therefore they serve no purpose. In general, when relisting an article on VfD, one waits until either the salient facts that might lead to a deletion decision become more clear, or waits a sufficient length of time that perhaps the criteria for keeping articles may have shifted. In either case, ordinarily some months must go by.
• It is very poor form to second-guess an admin who has closed a VfD discussion.
• Ta bu shi da yu's block is inappropriate, for reasons I will address with Ta bu.. shortly.

Based on this, I am going to unblock you, and I am going to ask you to refrain from relisting Authentic Matthew at VfD. If you make such a listing I will remove it. I also suggest that you drop any further discussion and ruleslawyering wrt to this matter, though I will not try to stop you if you insist upon continuing. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 14:50, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 14:50, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What is ruleslawyering? ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 14:54, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arguing the letter of the law rather than the spirit. [[smoddy]] 14:58, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In my defence, I was really high on Codeine at the time. Strike that, I *am* really high on Codeine at this time! El_C 14:57, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that a headache cure? ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 14:58, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I had oral surgery (can I say oral on this Television channel?) two days ago (or was it three?). I gotta rest now. El_C 15:09, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is that the same as dentistry, or actual surgery involving an operating theatre? ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 20:42, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Codeine is used to treat pain. For example, I just came off of a round of it to treat pain related to a moderately severe knife wound (stupidly self-inflicted as a result of failing to correctly de-pit an avocado). It's not terribly good at treating existing pain, but it has the effect of sort of blurring pain which is experienced while on the drug, making it difficult to recall later. -Harmil 15:05, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That sucks, sorry to hear that. But you didn't need a knife for that, not if it's ripe — and if it isn't ripe, you don't wanna open it anyway. Key, though, is to have lemon. Very, very important for all your avocadoing needs. Trust me: I used to pick avocados right off of trees in my youth. El_C 15:23, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I managed to stab myself with an umbrella, in the leg, when I was ten. Pouring lemon on the wound wouldn't have helped, I'm sure it would have stung. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 20:42, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your memos regarding the VfD results. I'm watching those pages to see just where the discussion is going concerning those articles. My own editting contributions could only be directed to prose and grammatical corrections. Certainly, I feel that articles concerning the historical conflicts of various civilizations are worthy of notation in any complete sense of an encyclopedia. If you are planning to contribute any future editting of the articles you mentioned, I wish you good luck! Bon appetite! Hamster Sandwich 21:00, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi -Ril-. With all due respect for you and your contributions history to Wikipedia, I think your signature is inappropriate. Here's why:

• Wikipedia:username says "No deliberately confusing usernames: usernames designed to cause confusion with other contributors, or features of the software." (emphasis added by me) Your signature has the same graphical effect as a username, and is easily confused with a software feature of Wikipedia.

My username is not "deliberately confusing", "designed to cause confusion", or "[designed to highlight or exploit erroneous] features of the software". It is "-Ril-". My signature is a signature not a username. See signature and compare it to username. I put my signature on cheques, and my username into a computer when I log in, I don't put my username on cheques or use my signature to log in. These are two distinct and very different things. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 21:45, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Truth be told, it is also graphically identical to an existing username, [[User:~~~~]] (which by the way has been used to vandalize pages, was recently permanently banned as a result and is itself a username in clear violation of Wikipedia policy). So not only is it confusing, it's a misprepresentation of who you are, since to my knowledge you're not [[User:~~~~]], and by simple extension both ways, a violation of WP policy.

It's not a misrepresentation - [[User:~~~~]] is a sockpuppet vandalising articles in order to tarnish my name - i.e. a user impersonating me, not the other way around. They appeared on the 20th July, and made all their edits on that day. I have over 6000 edits prior to that date. The sockpuppet is probably identical with either User:Melissadolbeer or the user that vandalised my user page a while ago (before I had it deleted, and replaced it with a new one), or both. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 21:45, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• It is also identical in appearance to the "nowiki" html tag trick used now and then by anons to mask their IP address.

Never heard of or seen it. But then you say it is only used "now and then". ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 21:45, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• It is taken as disruptive by many Wikipedia users (I cite the discussions here on your talkpage and elsewhere).

Yes. And many users edit war to insert pro-Jewish, anti-Muslim, or anti-homosexual, POV into controversial articles. That doesn't make them right. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 21:45, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please change your signature to something more helpful? Thanks. Wyss 01:45, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No. And classifying signatures that are not mine as "more helpful" is POV. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 21:45, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ril, please be reminded that WP:NPOV only applies to articles. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:01, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course. But POV is a concept that exists in reality not just Wikipedia. Classifying something as "more helpful" than something else is an opinion, and therefore a POV. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 22:44, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop tagging articles for CSD for bogus reasons like "advertising" and "not notable." Remember vanity only applies if there is no assertion of notability, not if you deem them to be not notable regardless of their assertion. I've just had to remove six or seven of your tags, and it gets very tiresome. Sure, some of those could be taken to VfD and deleted, but they need to be at VfD, because "advertising" is really something that needs cleanup and "not notable" is subjective and needs consensus. Please read over WP:CSD and think about the articles more before tagging. --Dmcdevit·t 10:31, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Okay, now really stop. This is exactly what I told you not to do, and tagging that after I warned you smacks of bad faith. --Dmcdevit·t 20:17, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Smint is a non-notable sweet. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 20:19, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand Dmcdevit's point. "Non-notable" is not a criterion for speedy deletion, however much you believe deletion is correct. [[smoddy]] 21:29, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen the replacement deletion policy. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 21:34, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Which replacement deletion policy? [[smoddy]] 21:42, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal. Recently concluded and various notability sections (e.g. "unremarkable people") passed. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 21:57, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Where notability is not established. As an active RC patrol admin, I kept up to date with the changes (although the voting system was far too complicated for me to work out so I could vote). None of the criteria allows the speedy deletion of something for non-notability, only the failure of notability to be established. The message is: "if in doubt, VfD". [[smoddy]] 22:08, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And Smints is not a person. Neither is enclosed mall, Halifax Commons, Miss Rumphius, or The Fuzz, and those are just off the top of my head from yesterday. Again, advertising and not notable are not criteria. --Dmcdevit·t 22:22, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

As many other editors will be happy to remind you, Wikipedia operates on the spirit, not the letter, of policy. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 22:45, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, exactly. The spirit of Wikipedia is not to try to sneak things past CSD. The CSD proposal which you know about was an attempt to codify existing community consensus. Many did not pass, most notably the band criterion. Based on the views raised there, I am quite comfortable in informing you that your tagging is in violation of both the letter and spirit of Wikipedia. The "Spirit of Wikipedia" is not a code word for "I can do whatever I want." --Dmcdevit·t 22:56, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

-Ril-, if you have not figured out by now, does things to annoy and harass. -Ril- knows the policy very well and will argue the other side if he wants to cause trouble. When I tried to CSD about 20 porno images (some were really gross), here is what he stated:

Porn is not a violation of the rules, and does not satisfy CSD. What is or is not suitable is heavily debated. Wikipedia is not censored, e.g. Image:Flaccid_and_erect_human_penis.jpg, and Image:Masturbation.jpg. If an article is pornographic, and considered inappropriate for any article whatsoever, it should be IFD'd. It does not meet CSD. See User:Evil Monkey/Nudity. -Ril-, 29 July 2005 (UTC) --Noitall 23:01, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

As you will clearly note, Image:Masturbation.jpg and Image:Flaccid_and_erect_human_penis.jpg are both in use, and at least one survived a vote. Nethertheless many people would describe them as "porn" and "really gross" - if "really gross" or "porn" satisfied CSD then these images would have been deleted ages ago. They have not, and clearly still exist. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 23:09, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As usual, you misconstrue the point. You might be entirely accurate on your assessment, and I will grant that you may be the expert in the subject of the flaccid penis. But your purpose was not to improve Wiki, but to cause trouble, trolling and harrassing. The other point is, related to the other editors on this page, is you know the rules, and are willing to bend them in opposition to others. --Noitall 23:19, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

I can't really say that I have seen many flaccid penises. My purpose was to prevent images being destroyed, which other users may find appropriate for articles, without due process. As much as I or you may feel that they are "porn" or "really gross", other users may consider that there are legitimate uses for these articles, as was found with the above images. CSD is not the appropriate avenue to remove potentially pornographic images. Wikipedia has an image deletion process, and "porn" does not qualify for CSD. 13:58, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Ril, while I appreciate your attempts to make articles more readable, I saw you removed several references. References are crucial to support the authenticity of Wikipedia articles. I have added them again. Please don't wipe them out again.--Germen (Talk | Contribs File:Nl small.gif) 12:32, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

References should go in the bibliography section. Including certain references in the body of the text acts as POV. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 18:28, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, just wanted to say I didn't mean to blank that VfD, just an unintentional mistake. Not that you warned me or anything, just wanted to clarify. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 21:25, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't regard it as a major error (in the case of that VFD). ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 21:36, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, and I consider the assertion offensive. Witkacy has made the assertion on more than one occasion (he has another version of his nasty little "black book" at User talk:Witkacy/notesik), and so I consider him offensive as well. Tomer ^TALK 22:40, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

He's not an admin. Check the [list]. And, I doubt very much whether we are about to change that. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:25, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

He was voted to be an admin, so the bureaucrats are mandated by the electorate to raise him to that status, even if they haven't yet done so. To remove this technical issue (as obviously it is unlikely that a bureaucrat would in practice make Norm an admin, unless Ed Poor was in one of his experimental moods), he must be voted to be de-sysopped. This is a technical but important point, because by not raising someone (anyone) that has been elected to adminship (even if it is Norm) is stating that the bureaucrats can completely ignore the will of the community if it doesnt suit their opinion to carry out the community vote. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 23:42, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're either intentionally trolling or untintentionally acting like a fool. Either way, it's unacceptable behavior. →Raul654 00:02, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Based on my discussion (and I use that word broadly) with him today, (above) I say trolling. This would be laughable if I wasn't already seriously annoyed with him and convinced of bad faith. --Dmcdevit·t 00:19, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

In the UK, homosexual intercourse was made legal in the 1970s. However, two gay (or french) men kissing in the street was a crime until 1997. The UK abolished slavery in 1830ish, the US kept it until the late 1980s, in Mississippi. Technicalities are important to remove no matter how minor. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 08:16, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is no technicality. 1. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, (and you're the one that said I was following the "letter of Wikipedia" too closely). 2. This was never an RFA, it was an April Fools joke and is in BJAODN. 3. No bureaucrat ever did nor would make him an admin. 4. RFAs work by consensus, not votes, anyway, so no bureaucrat is "mandated" to promote a vandal. 5. There's no such thing as a "request for de-adminship" anyway, you made it up. Now stop this madness. --Dmcdevit·t 08:28, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

1. No-one ever got prosecuted for kissing in the UK in the 20th century, nor was anyone sold into slavery in the US between 1900 and 1980, but that didn't mean it was acceptable to keep the possibility there. 2. This was an RFA, it was moved (several times), and now resides in BJAODN. 3. Given Ed Poor's somewhat occasionally unpredictable behaviour with bureaucrat rights, I really wouldn't bet on it. 4. The votes indicate a clear consensus to raise WoW to admin (whether or not that is suitable) - it should be noted that User:Norm was a good candidate for adminship. 5 I did not make Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship up - it clearly exists. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 19:57, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, please don't use speedy delete tags on articles like Crackington Haven which don't meet the criteria. Kappa 11:52, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for restoring the headers. I can't tell why tell why that user chooses to keep vandalizing the page like that (he's been doing it to a lot of articles) OmegaWikipedia 12:44, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You shouldn't class user's reverting your work as "vandalism", to do so is considered a personal attack - WP:NPA. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 13:10, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I'm not going to apologize to a strawman sockpuppet who has already made many personal attacks and changes other people's comments around.Heraclius 15:11, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I must ask you again not to put speedy tags on articles like Mega Man X Collection and Crackington Haven which clearly do not meet the criteria. Kappa 15:25, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I must ask you to stop trying to push an opinion multiple times ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 15:31, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ril, I came here to warn you again about your continued bad-faith speedy tagging, only to find this. Others are bringing it up as well. CHERUB Forums, King Danny Wallace I, Dying To Live, and Ultimate Gaming Machine (UGM) are what I've seen just from yesterday. I'm going to tell you one more time. You cannot tag anything for speedy delete because you think it is "not notable" or because you say it is "advertising." Neither of these are criteria and you know it. I'm using the bolding liberally because you seem to have ignored my warning a few days ago. This is a clear violation of Wikipedia's policy and an disruption to try to make a Wikipedia of your own liking. Now, if it happens again, I'll have no choice but to consider it vandalism. Dmcdevit·t 06:34, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Fine, Keep CHERUB Forums, King Danny Wallace I, Dying To Live, and Ultimate Gaming Machine (UGM). If you want Wikipedia filled with adverts that's your decision. I was under the impression it was supposed to be an encyclopedia. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 08:41, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is. But there's a process for it and there's a reason. Notability is subjective and shouldn't be up to one person. And advertising language can be cleaned up and made into a good article (again, if notable), not deleted. You are deliberately misrepresenting the situation. Of course I don't want Wikipedia filled with advertising, but I'd rather have that then lose everything you've been tagging without regard to the possibility of cleanup or due process. Dmcdevit·t 09:00, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

He does know it because he has argued about csd before when he wanted to remove a csd, thus taking the opposite position when it suits him (when he wants to cause trouble). In any event, he won't be tagging anything for 72 hours. --Noitall 06:46, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Noitall, I realize you seem to have some kind of a beef with Ril,but with all do respect this doesn't really concern you unless you have something to say about this case. At this point you appear to just be gloating and trolling Ril's talk page. I don't mean to sound unnecessarily harsh, but whateverit is, you seem to be furthering the ill-will with commentslike these. Dmcdevit·t 09:00, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

I am blocking you for 72 hours due to your 3RR violation on The Bible and history.

Your fourth edit was 24 hours and nineteentwenty-one minutes after your first. That's close enough for me, and here's why:

• You are making sterile reverts with no discussion on the talk page and no attempt at compromise in wording.
• You do not appear to be discussing your reverts with the other users on their talk pages or at any other location at Wikipedia.
• Both the edit summaries and the timing of your reverts make it clear that you feel that 3 reverts a day is an entitlement, when it's not.
• You appear to be engaging in sterile reverts on several other pages as well.
• I note that you have already been blocked twice in the past month for 3RR violations and therefore I have blocked you for 72 hours rather than the customary 24 hours.

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 01:14, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1. My "fourth edit" is actually my third, if you payed even the slightest attention to the listing the edits marked 11 and the edits marked 12 are the same edit at the same time at the same day, i.e. one edit is listed twice.

-->Still gaming the system: You know that No. 11 and 12 were actually six minutes apart and real differences. But when you are trying to record 14 of your attack reverts, it is possible to make an error in the cut and paste. As usual, you ignore the argument that your motivation and Wiki behavior is as bad as it gets. --Noitall 14:50, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

--->No. 11 is [14] No.12 is [15] Not only are both of these at 23:00 5 August 2005 (UTC) but they have THE SAME DIFF NUMBER - 20370912 - , I.E. ITS THE SAME EDIT ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 14:57, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

---->You want accuracy, here is the correct No. 11, at 06:51, August 6, 2005 [16]. As usual, you focus on 1 of your 14 bad faith actions, rather than correcting your bad behavior. --Noitall 15:05, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

----->Firstly, you will need to change that at WP:AN/3RR, secondly, 11, 12, 13, 14 span over 24 hours, indeed, 12, 13, 14 spans over 24 hours, only 13, 14 were in a 24 hour period, as were 12, 13, and 11, 12, 13, there is no 3RR violation here. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * )

1. 3RR clearly says 24 hours, you have violated blocking policy because I didn't revert 4 times within the 24 hours, I didn't even revert 3 times as per (1). There are 2 reverts in 24 hours and 3 in 25 hours. Since when was it 1RR or 2RR ?
2. The previous blocks were lifted pretty quickly as they were judged to have been inappropriate blocks by other admins, so shouldn't count. Indeed, you yourself unblocked me previously.
3. You clearly have some sort of vendetta against me, quite probably due to my voting, blocking me without even paying the slightest attention to whether or not 3RR was violated. Your behaviour is entirely inappropriate for an admin. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 08:33, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1. I reviewed the history of The Bible and history and the 3RR violation seemed clear to me. Your pattern of editing and your use of edit summaries does make it difficult to determine exactly what happened, due to your use of complex reverts and the fact that you do not label your reverts as such in the edit summary.
2. I have indeed violated the letter of the blocking policy, for the reaons I have pointed out above.
3. You were blocked on July 9 by Mel Ettis for a 3RR violation, and the block was lifted not because it was inappropriate but in an effort to defuse the situation. You were blocked by El C on July 24th and the block continued for its original duration. The only block that was inappropriate was that by TBSDY on July 30, which I removed myself for reasons I have given elsewhere.
4. I don't do vendettas, though there are certain users I do watch more closely than others by virtue of the quality of their contributions. I will leave it up to you to decide whether you belong in this group or not.

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 13:26, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1. The history of The Bible and history-

• 23:27, 6 August 2005 Mel Etitis m (Reverted edits by -Ril- to last version by Pfalstad)
• 23:12, 6 August 2005 -Ril- (re-remove POV by Noitall)
• 18:25, 6 August 2005 Pfalstad (→Later kings)
• 18:17, 6 August 2005 Pfalstad (→United Monarchy)
• 17:59, 6 August 2005 Pfalstad (→The Patriarchs - add some info from Finkelstein)
• 17:40, 6 August 2005 Pfalstad (→References)
• 12:01, 6 August 2005 Mel Etitis (rv to better-balanced (and written) version)
• 10:13, 6 August 2005 160.5.251.230 (→Joshua - Phrase meant the exact opposite of author's intent.)
• 08:58, 6 August 2005 -Ril- (re-re-remove POV re-re-reinserted by Noitall. Noitall I only have 2 prior reverts in the last 24 hours - check the history - you have 3)
• 00:20, 6 August 2005 Noitall (rv -Ril-, that was 3 reverts Ril, not that I expect you will stop your personal attacks and vandalism)
• 23:00, 5 August 2005 -Ril- (re-remove POV re-re-inserted by Noitall)
• 22:53, 5 August 2005 Noitall (rv -Ril-, continued personal attacks and vandalism, will start RfC next time)
• 22:51, 5 August 2005 -Ril- (→New Testament/Greek Bible - remove POV reinserted by Noitall)
• 18:44, 5 August 2005 Koavf m (→Schools of archaeologcal and historical thought - Formatting)
• 18:25, 5 August 2005 Kdbuffalo m (→Conservative religious/scholarship views - got rid of scholarship in title. not needed)
• 18:23, 5 August 2005 Kdbuffalo (→Secular/liberal/moderate religious and scholarship views - better title)
• 18:20, 5 August 2005 Kdbuffalo m (→Secular, liberal, moderate religious/scholarship views - made title look nicer)
• 18:18, 5 August 2005 Kdbuffalo m (→Liberal
• ...

The edits by me are

• 23:12, 6 August 2005 -Ril- (re-remove POV by Noitall)
• 08:58, 6 August 2005 -Ril- (re-re-remove POV re-re-reinserted by Noitall. Noitall I only have 2 prior reverts in the last 24 hours - check the history - you have 3)
• 23:00, 5 August 2005 -Ril- (re-remove POV re-re-inserted by Noitall)
• 22:51, 5 August 2005 -Ril- (→New Testament/Greek Bible - remove POV reinserted by Noitall)

In the period 22:51 5 August 2005 to 22:51 6 August 2005, the edits are

• 08:58, 6 August 2005 -Ril- (re-re-remove POV re-re-reinserted by Noitall. Noitall I only have 2 prior reverts in the last 24 hours - check the history - you have 3)
• 23:00, 5 August 2005 -Ril- (re-remove POV re-re-inserted by Noitall)
• 22:51, 5 August 2005 -Ril- (→New Testament/Greek Bible - remove POV reinserted by Noitall)

In the period 23:00 5 August 2005 to 23:00 6 August 2005, the edits are

• 08:58, 6 August 2005 -Ril- (re-re-remove POV re-re-reinserted by Noitall. Noitall I only have 2 prior reverts in the last 24 hours - check the history - you have 3)
• 23:00, 5 August 2005 -Ril- (re-remove POV re-re-inserted by Noitall)

In the period 23:12 5 August 2005 to 23:12 6 August 2005, the edits are

• 23:12, 6 August 2005 -Ril- (re-remove POV by Noitall)
• 08:58, 6 August 2005 -Ril- (re-re-remove POV re-re-reinserted by Noitall. Noitall I only have 2 prior reverts in the last 24 hours - check the history - you have 3)

Since when was 2 reverts in 24 hours a blockable offence? ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 13:55, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What makes it even worse is that you admit you have violated the blocking policy. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 14:04, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In the period from 5 Aug 22:51 to 6 Aug 23:12, you made four reverts to reinstate an edit that you had made about a day earlier. This period is 24 hours and 21 minutes long, and I have departed from the blocking policy by 21 minutes for the reasons I stated before. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:54, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Since when was the blocking policy negotiable? It says nowhere that you can block users you don't like for 3 days for non-violations of 3RR. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 20:11, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

All policy at Wikipedia is somewhat elastic. The written statements about policy mimic actual policy, not the other way around. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:22, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking policy is one of the non negotiable ones. You can't change it to block people when they haven't broken any rules, and you just don't like them because they don't accept that extremely anti-Islamic POV should be put into articles. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 09:45, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. You seem to think yourself quite an expert on policy. I myself hold an extremely anti-Islamic POV, so you'll have to look elsewhere if you wish to ascribe motives and cast aspersions. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 11:48, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Think of it as a blessing. You have the whole weekend to yourself. Get some sun. Take a breather. See you next week. --Noitall 04:14, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

I can quite easily unblock myself now, Noitall, but I would rather have it done for me. Rules must be applied correctly. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 08:45, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

On a related note, I have received your email. I would prefer not to get involved in this matter at all due to the complexity of the case. There is a message about this block from Noitall at WP:AN/I - RedWordSmith 03:38, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 13:42, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "I can quit easily unblock myself now"? -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 18:52, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I mean that removing the block from myself is something that I can do (a) now and (b) easily. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 13:42, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you really want me to I'll co-sign. Admin with explicitly stated bias using Admin powers because of said bias to enforce the breaking of the Rules. He blocked you for more than 24 for hours for a 3RR that did not occour. --Irishpunktom\^talk 15:50, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

lol :)

When i wrote that, there was only one category, thanks for your hint :)

--Striver 01:19, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not interested in being a part of this either. I'm on vacation, anyway. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 01:53, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have filed a request for arbitration against you, and am letting you know. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 21:01, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is about my signature I take it. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 16:38, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a source for this?

• • • Ariel Sharon (during an interview with General Ouze Merham in 1956) "I vow that I’ll burn every Palestinian child (that) will be born in this area. The Palestinian women and child is more dangerous than the man, because the Palestinian child’s existence infers that generations will go on, but the man causes limited danger. I vow that if I was just an Israeli civilian and I met a Palestinian I would burn him and I would make him suffer before killing him. With one hit I've killed 750 Palestinians (in Rafah in 1956). I wanted to encourage my soldiers by raping Arabic girls as the Palestinian woman is a slave for Jews, and we do whatever we want to her and nobody tells us what we shall do but we tell others what they shall do"

--Irishpunktom\^talk 14:30, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

1. [17]
2. [18]
3. [19] (very POV website)
4. [20] (guardian newspaper)
5. [21]
6. [22]
7. [23]
8. [24]
9. [25] (Daily Mirror (not the UK newspaper, but one from elsewhere))
10. [26] (Annual Islamophobia awards (UK)) - this is where I first got it from
11. [27]
12. [28] (Palestine chronicle)

~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 14:49, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why are these all using Google cache? And why are you quoting reader comments (ala a comment in the Guardian blog) as verifiable?! Absurd. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:13, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

They are all from the cache because that way, if the websites change you can still find them at the same link (e.g. pages from TFL (transport for london) frequently get moved about, and are a nightmare to find via links - so I always use the cache to find them - they've just moved the entire oystercard site, for example, without providing redirects at the old links, which is extremely irritating)

The comment I am quoting actually originally came from the [UK] "Annual Islamophobia Awards" - I did mark it as such, if you look, which isn't from a blog etc. The reason there are so many links is because I initially couldn't remember where I had read it, and was searching for every mention.

The quote is actually taken from a fictional work In the Land of Israel by Amos Oz, and has been attributed on propaganda sites to Sharon. It's a well-known hoax. See [29] [30] Jayjg ^(talk) 01:21, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can you prove that it comes from the fictional work? ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 13:38, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is a fabricated quote:

• From CAMERA: "Investigation: This quote was found on hundreds of Arab Web sites, and indeed, seems to be a a staple of anti-Israel propaganda. It cannot be found, however, in any text book, news article, or published record, nor is there any mention or record of a General Ouze Merham anywhere else. (Another giveaway is that the term “Palestinian” was not in use in 1956. It only came into vogue in the 1960's.)"[31]
• "The comment that you quoted is indeed an invention, and a rather lame one. To begin with, any public expression of such sentiments would be grounds for dismissing a soldier from the army. Hatred is considered to render the soldier incapable of clear judgement and unreliable in carrying out the will of the state. Indeed many young hotheads have been dismissed from active combat duty because of their expression of racist sentiments--sentiments that could have serious consequences in an army in which Jews serve alongside Druze and Bedouin Arab soldiers. One clue to the fact that the comment is a pure fabrication is the use of the word "Palestinian." In 1956, the term had still not taken hold in reference to Palestinian Arabs, but was at times used to refer to Jews born in Mandatory Palestine prior to the establishment of Israel." [32]

It is a pretty lame invention, seriously, has there ever been such an evil statement given in an interview, ever, by any military officer? --Goodoldpolonius2 01:27, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm seriously considering filing an RFC due to this issue. I suggest you alter your behaviour on this site forthwith. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:39, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is obviously a widely referenced quote, whether or not it is genuine, and so it is certainly noteworthy. On the balance of probability I suspect it genuine, given Sharon's history, certainly when left in the Guardian without an editorial note to mark it as dubious, and when quoted by the UK "Islamophobia Awards". What exactly is the RFC on this issue going to be? "X used a quote that might be dubious, but is nethertheless widely referred to"? That isn't a crime, and it isn't against policy. You clearly have a strong POV on the issue, so I have to question your judgement. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 13:38, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving aside the RFC, this quote is obviously fake, for all the reasons and sources above. In any case the Guardian defense makes no sense, since it was in the anonymous comments section, and the Guardian does not read or approve comments. For example, among other things in the comments section: "6963 the famous little blue pill http://www.genericpoint.com, reccomed to generic viagra Posted by generic viagra on May 11, 2005 07:51 AM."[33] I don't think the Guardian supports the free Viagra site, do you? As for the "Islamophobia awards," the "IHRC’s annual comedy event," they actually note that "Whilst this quotation can be found on several reputable sites, we could not independently verify its authenticity. If you know the source please do let us know." Fake quotes are not encyclopedic, unless its on an article on the subject of fake quotes used to stir up hatred -- the burden of proof would be on you to show that is genuine. --Goodoldpolonius2 14:17, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for the confusion. I thought you said that you have an extremely anti-Islamic POV. I was trying to agree with you. Now I see, upon rereading your triple-negative prose, that that is not the case. In any event, this is all but a footnote to the matter at hand, since I acted solely based on the reverts and did not consider the content or POV of the edits. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:44, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I know you misread it. It was deliberate - the only way to get you to admit it. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 18:49, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is now a (co-signed) RFC against UninvitedCompany as a result of his/her actions - Wikipedia:Requests for comment/UninvitedCompany ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 20:46, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Ril, I know what both Zoroastrianism and Indo-Iranian are. Indo-Iranian there, however, is utterly inappropriate according to every sense in which it has ever been used outside that article, as a possibility for the word which caused the conflict in question. If you actually did the research to find out what was going on there instead of just prattling away about something else about which you seem to know a little bit, but isn't even remotely germane to the discussion, you'd know that already. You seem to have a knack for doing this. It's annoying and completely unhelpful. Perhaps a little more reading to figure out what's going on would assist you in making more useful and insightful comments, and keep you from getting egg on your face practically everywhere you go. WP is not a contest to see who can have the most edits or to see who can insert themself into the most discussions. If you've got something germane to say, then by all means do so, but your propensity for butting into discussions with inappropriate or irrelevant comments is what has brought you into so much conflict with other editors. Maybe if you make your comments more thoughtful, and make sure they're relevant to the discussion first, people will take you more seriously. Best wishes, and I hope you'll take this to heart, instead of getting mad at me too. Tomer ^TALK 21:24, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

I have no reason to "get mad at" you, you are operating in a considered manner, and inside all of wikipedia's policies and standards as far as I can see. Although I may be wrong on this matter. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 21:47, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I do my best.  :-) Tomer ^TALK 07:00, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

What's the deal with this category? In any case, it's now on CFD here. Carbonite | Talk 00:03, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I created the page because 7 people had already put themselves in the category (e.g. User:SPUI). I have no idea as to their motives for adding themselves to the category in the first place. It would be best to ask them. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 14:09, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove templates from pages like that. --SPUI (talk) 17:34, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I'd rather keep the category, but someone speedied it at CFD. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 17:46, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aloha. I saw your comments on User talk:Coqsportif and was wondering if you could answer a question. Have you seen the sign as depicted in Image:Gropecunt-Lane.gif? For that matter, can anyone confirm that this sign still exists? While it's certainly possible that the sign existed or still exists, the photo looks like it was processed and manipulated. Usually, this wouldn't concern me, but a previous image uploaded by the same user was found to be altered as well. Any help you could offer is appreciated. --Viriditas | Talk 00:47, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I took a detour on my route to the British Museum to visit it recently and the building the sign appears to be on is extremely derelict now (its in the bad half of WC2), and its also missing, so it's probably been nicked/smashed into pieces like the windows. A map of its location is here if you are thinking of visiting - but the area around St Giles' High Street isn't really terribly pleasant. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 13:58, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that you felt insulted perhaps, by TUC's interpretation of his powers as an admin to block you for 72 hours, but I think you'll find that 99.3% of admins would agree that his call was not only "not improper", but "justified". By bringing an RFC regarding him for having done so, you have opened yourself up to scrutiny by the Wikicommunity as a whole, and I have to say, doing so was not in your best interests, especially considering the on-going conflicts in which you are involved. I have tried a bit in the past several days to give you recommendations toward more constructive editing and less confrontational interaction styles with fellow editors, and if you're willing to accept and act upon constructive feedback, I will continue to do so, hence my recommendations at the RFC re:TUC. If you're unwilling to, I can't help that. You have, in all frankness, dug yourself into quite a pit. I'm happy to help build you a ladder to get out, but it's one you're going to have to decide to climb yourself. Overall, I have, as I expressed on the RFC, found you to be a good editor, when you can avoid getting into squabbles with other editors. When you do get into such squabbles, however, you seem to let your emotions override your intellect, and that's where things go haywire. I've offered, there, to mentor you for 3 months following the (hopefully quiet) closure of the improperly certified RFC, and hope you'll demonstrate as much commitment to improving your editing and interaction style as I've demonstrated in committing my time and energies into helping you do so. With sincerest and most hopeful regards, Tomer ^TALK 11:56, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

As Irishpunk tom wrote Admin with explicitly stated bias using Admin powers because of said bias to enforce the breaking of the Rules. He blocked [-Ril-] for more than 24 for hours for a 3RR that did not occour. Admins with extremely strong bias that they admit - "extremely anti-Islamic" (UninvitedCompany's own words), shouldn't break the blocking policy - "[UninvitedCompany] admit [UninvitedCompany] have broken the letter of blocking policy" (UninvitedCompany's own words), to target an editor who demonstrably opposes POV pushing by those with similar bias to said admin. Such behaviour is simply not remotely acceptable. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 14:05, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That IPT agrees with your gripe is not sufficient grounds for certifying the basis of the dispute, just as your disapproval of Noitall's edits at Lincoln was insufficient grounds for you to certify the basis of the dispute between him and User:Agriculture. Like I said, I recommend you re-read the "rules" of RFC, especially the part where it stipulates who qualifies to certify the basis of any given dispute. Such a person has to be involved in attempting to resolve the dispute. RFC is not the first step in dispute resolution. Now, onto the other two things. First, I left a fairly thorough description of what happened with my having moved stuff around wrt the Bible verses thing, at User_talk:Christopherparham#moving_crap_around. I was prematurely bold. It has been undone. It's not worth worrying about. Second, Noitall's proposal. The RFC you opened regarding TUC can be directly traced to your interaction with Noitall. Would you consider, if Noitall agrees to do so as well, to limit yourself to one revert of his edits per day for a period of 3 months? Would you agree to let me help mediate disputes between you guys for that term? It's fairly obvious at this point that Noitall is feeling persecuted by you, and in such an atmosphere, without some kind of pledge from you to try to repair your relationship, it's not going to improve. Tomer ^TALK 19:56, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

I recognize you are attempting to neutralize the passage regarding Blair as winning winning reelection even though he supported Bush with a counterargument about antiBush victories by other British politicians. Blair is included only because he is the Prime Minister...the politicians you cite are not pertinent to an article about an American President.--MONGO 19:43, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Blair had a swing of 7% against him. Everyone standing on an explicitely anti-war platform did well. George galloway even managed to turn a 90,000 majority for a pro-War blair favourite into a 90,000 loss (this is an extremely large swing given the numbers participating in a single constituency in the UK). How "actually the UK re-elected Blair so really they were pro-War" can be said to be an npov description of the facts is beyond me. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 19:55, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]