Don't bite the newcomers!

Newcomers' ears can be particularly sensitive.

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

your comments

Please leave comments at bottom of page. It's easier for me to find them. thanks Maggiethewolfstar

Messages to Jimbo Wales

Maggie, please address concerns of the nature that you've posted to Jimbo's page recently to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Jimbo's role in day-to-day issues such as blocks is very, very minimal, and it's once in a blue moon that it's necessary for him to intervene in a case like this. While I understand your concern, Kaspersky Trust has had ample instruction on the procedure to follow in appealing the block - Jimbo will have no more desire to circumvent the process that any other admin. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 08:58, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But of course I remember... I'm still looking forward to hearing more about humanistic anarchism. If he's concerned about openness, may I suggest that he carbon copies his email to the blocking admin to other addresses (perhaps yours?), so proof exists? I haven't checked to see who blocked him, but I should mention that 99% of the admins here are great people that have good reasons behind what they do. Let me know if you try that out, and keep me up to date on how you've been. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 09:19, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Tijuanna, It's good to talk to you again. I'm gonna be honest because it's the only way I know how to be anymore. It hasn't been my experience that 99% of the admins are good people never mind great people. I have seen some great ones like Lord Valdemort and Pongo and Asbestos seems cool. I'm not always sure who is and itsn't an admin because I don't check that very often. This is mostly on account of I don't care if they are admins or not. People are people to me and if they cannot take an insult without weilding they're power..well then it shows a lot and is on them. Now, I expect I will get blocked for saying this and it will be called a personal attack. What I see here is a huge power game for controlling articles. What I see is admins secretly listening to spies or responding to requests to those who brown nose them. Double talk and double think are everywhere, not to mention double standards. People get hung up in rfc's to have rocks thrown at them. The policies are misused and abused. Wiki rules, written to protect the victims of witch hunts and to protect newcomers, are not followed. People are banished forever, never to be seen again. Sort of like Dubya does to his terror suspects which are guess who? You and I. The enemy combatant..The U.S. citizen. But I suppose what I just said will be considered a rant. I will go the way of so many others. Here it goes. Maggiethewolfstar 09:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... well, I'm sorry that your experience hasn't been the most pleasant. There's a lot of policies to get to know at Wikipedia, and I've often mused over ways that can make it more accesible to newcomers. I get the feeling that there isn't a single active user here that didn't start off confused, what with all the guidelines on NPOV, notability, verifiability, fair use, reversions, consensus, etc etc etc. Sometimes, the policies can seem overwhelming... but then, if they weren't in place, you can imagine how fast the content here would go down the tubes. You don't need to hear any preaching from me, of course, but I've found that in the end, WP:AGF is the most important guideline of all here. After all, if there's no trust, even among parties with totally different points of view, nobody gets anywhere. At any rate, I'll get off my soapbox for now. Best wishes -- see you around. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 05:51, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about posting anything that may be mistaken as offensive on my talk page. It's not much good for me to talk about how important I think assuming good faith is if I don't do the same. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 07:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks! Never got one of those before. I really appreciate it. You're giving me that warm tingly feeling over here. ...um, but not that warm tingly feeling. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 05:35, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kaspersky Trust

Hi, Thewolfstar! I removed the help notice you put on this user's userpage—I'll be personally dealing with the situation. The user is now unblocked (lest I screwed up and missed yet another autoblock), and his talk page is unprotected. Please contact me if you have questions. Thanks!—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 12:21, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Police State

I didn't make the "police state" userbox. I lifted it from someone else (and modified it). Feel free to use it. Jerry G. Sweeton Jr. 13:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

see my talk page

wassup? Merecat 04:00, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hey, Merecat

Are you around? I need to talk to you bad. please? thewolfstar 03:56, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm here. Wassup? Merecat 03:59, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hey!... are you still my mentor? thewolfstar 04:13, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

yes Merecat 04:20, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merecat are ya around? thewolfstar 04:16, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

yes Merecat 04:20, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hey. big sigh. I thought you were never gonna really talk to me again. thewolfstar 04:31, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't leap to conclusions. Merecat 04:32, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But were you..pissed at me? thewolfstar

No. Merecat 04:36, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merecat, can you please answer in more than monosyllables? thewolfstar

Possibly, yes. Merecat 04:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have an idea. I believe between the 2 of us, we can start a grassroots movement against the oligarchy. thewolfstar 04:41, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I mean a quiet calm nice one. One that could not hurt anyone, only help Wikipedia and lots of people thewolfstar 04:45, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... there already is a grassroots movement. It's called patient NPOV editing, polite reparte and WP:AGF. Stay focused on editing, not "fighting the system". The system is not a Borg it will not subsume you. Merecat 04:45, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's not grassroots movement. I tried to edit today and yesterday. I'm asked for reasons and references. I supply them. They are dismissed and confused with double think. The edits are so hard to make because of the abused system. You of all people should know this. People get blocked and banned for flimsy reasons all the time. It's exhausting. thewolfstar 04:51, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

you still there? thewolfstar

You will only get exhausted if you go about things the wrong way. Expecting too much of other editors is enervating [1]. If you do that too often, you'll get exhausted. It's your own mindset which makes you tired, because you get frustrated. You wouldn't get frustrated with ELIZA if you knew your were talking to a computer program, right? POV warriors focus only on their understanding of things and for that reason, it's very slow and difficult to pursuade them. Your job is to make a cogent talk page record of your arguments. If your views are pursausive to enough people, you will eventually advance the issues. Patience, grasshopper. Merecat 05:01, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ok. yeah you're right. I know I made a lot of changes happen to the dumb dem party article. True, too, though is that it took reams of work and repeating the same thing over and over. Then again, you are right in the end. People are walking around spiritually dead. They can't seem to think. They don't see what's directly in front of them. It's scary, Merecat. This IS 1984. thewolfstar 05:14, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm gonna get a peanut butter and marshmallow sauce sandwhich, a thing you could get lynched in some circles for. thewolfstar 05:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good night for today. Merecat 05:24, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Night Merecat. sleep tight. thewolfstar 05:27, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

warning: don't spam me again

80.57.35.153 you left this here and then deleted it. I don't care who you are. Don't do it again. thewolfstar 16:20, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 14:37, 2 May 2006 80.57.35.153 (Talk) (atention)

thewolfstar 16:20, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I signed in the wrong spot then put the signature where it belongs. thewolfstar 22:41, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

atention

dear wikipedian i urge you to vote on jimbo he was named

Congrats on TIME 100

Congratulations Jimbo on being named one of TIME's 100 Most Influential People.Felisberto2 may2006(UTC)

attention

dear wikipedian i urge you to vote on jimbo he was named on TIME 100

one of TIME's 100 Most Influential People.Felisberto2 may2006(UTC)

hey from the grasshopper

Hey, Merecat. just saying hey. I am learning a lot here at the Wiki. I mean a lot. For that I am grateful..to you, to wikipedia, to the many and myriad mindless androids that walk the planet and the streets of wiki-land, and for all that I am learning. both here and in my life and projects.. Thank You, and with humble apologies to everyone who I did not thank personally for this.

And a special thanks to you, Merecat, the only one that I completely trust here at Wikimania, and to whose indomitable spirit I owe a renewal of faith in Wikipedia as a whole, sort of. Maggiethewolfstar 22:12, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

time magazine article re: Jimmy wales

examples of how dumb this Time magazine article is [100: The People Who Shape Our World] and how dumb Time magazine is and how meaningless this survey is concerning who the most influential person is.

example of magnitude of article dumbness
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1187350,00.html

specifcally please see full list of nominees
http://www.time.com/time/2006/time100/

like this holy cow need air

Heroes & Pioneers

Meet some global iconsactors, politicians, athletes, entertainers and otherswho are using their influence to do the right thing

Bono
Michelle Wie
Wynton Marsalis
Angelina Jolie
Bill Clinton & George H.W. Bush
Steve Nash
Orhan Pamuk
Elie Wiesel
Jan Egeland

I for one am not voting for any of these assholes. If anyone feels like banning me for this bold comment, feel free, and make another statement about your own lack of intelligence, judgement and ablity to think. thewolfstar 23:40, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We're actually quite a bit less interested in banning you than you seem to think. You might also check out the difference between a block and a ban, if the topic interests you. Take it easy. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:33, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I came to thank you for the comment you just left on my talk page, which seemed to be friendly. I'll assume it was said as a friendly gesture. Thanks for that. Then I saw what you said to me (above) concerning my block day, and got irritated again. (I never read that comment before.):
You really made good use of those links, I see. I predict a short career at Wikipedia for you, I'm afraid. -Bunchofgrapes (talk) 19:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

What did you mean by made good use of those links? and
I predict a short career at Wikipedia for you, I'm afraid.?

You, along with Swatjester are the ones who actually propelled my getting blocked to begin with. What I said to Merecat on his page was nobody's business but Merecat's and mine. And yet, it was known in an instance by all these people. You provoked me by saying this:
The above rant is offensive in the extreme. Bishonen is one of our most-trusted users, and the amount of goodwill you burn up by comparing her to a Nazi Stormtrooper is... amazing. Then later you said: I suspect people have shown you these links before: Wikipedia:Civility. Wikipedia:No personal attacks. meta:Don't be a dick. You really need to read them. -Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC) My response was a natural one under the circumstances. I got blocked. You walked free as a bird. If you don't know the circumstances of something then don't make igonorant comments about it.

There has been a lot of deleting done on my page recently not done by me. I'm not saying you did the deleting. But it was done by someone who is trying to tear me down by tearing my comments down, and make you and others look good.

I'm not sure what your game is Bunchofgrapes, because I don't you personally very well, and I'm just beginning to learn about wikiland.

I stll find you hostile and mostly distasteful. Please feel free to comment on this comment and to answer my questions. thewolfstar 03:32, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First let me ask what deletions on your page are you talking about? I have your talk page on my watch-list (don't take offence -- that's considered normal around here, to keep an eye on the pages of people you've interacted with) and I haven't noticed anything like that. Do you know how to use the history tab, to see who has done what to any page?

Second, I apologize for saying "You really made good use of those links, I see. I predict a short career at Wikipedia for you, I'm afraid." The first sentence was sarcasm, and the second was uncalled for. I was a bit riled up by your visual metaphor of diarhhea coming out of my mouth.

What else? I don't have a game. Regarding "If you don't know the circumstances of something then don't make igonorant comments about it", Wikipedia is a public environment where people can look over what you are doing and say something about it if they want. And, really, ask 100 users who know of Bishonen and 90 of them will say she's a pretty good egg, while probably not one will stick up for your right to characterize her as a "patrolling Nazi storm trooper". Even the ones who may not like her. Why? Because we have a culture of no personal attacks. You may criticize what someone writes, but levelling insults at the person themselves is out of bounds. Is referring someone to WP:DICK a personal attack, then? Well, yes, it's questionable. I suppose long-time editors have become somewhat inured to references to that page, and don't tend to think upon it carefully enough. So, I apologize for that too.

OK? Again, take it easy, I meant that sincerely. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:13, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow from thewolfstar

Bunchofgrapes, thank you for the apologies. That shows honor. And thank you for making me laugh, you have a sense of humor, and that is always commendable in a person. And thanks also for reading what I wrote, and answering it honestly. That in itself shows courage and integrity.

I apologize to you also. Not so much for what I said, but for the opinion I had formed of you. This opinion was obviously unfair because you have shown yourself to be a worthy person, and a good hearted and funny one.

I feel friendly to you now and wouldn't mind if we remained on a friendly basis, if that's alright with you. Thanks and peace Maggiethewolfstar 04:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Friendly is good. I'm glad we could resolve some of that. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:41, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's no way to just undo all deletions made to a page, unless if the deletions are the most recent edits, in which case you could simply revert the page normally. (Go to the history, click on the date link that shows the version you want to revert to, click "edit this page", and, ignoring the warning that you are editing an older version of the page, hit "Save page". —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 14:41, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

your voted needed

Please go here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rationales to impeach George W. Bush (2nd nomination). I voted for delete. You may also want to, but please don't leave any harsh comments. A simple delete vote (if that's your preference) will suffice. Merecat 08:22, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Lock on "Democratic Party" Page

Hello. You wrote to me, "Hey, Bjsiders, they put a page protection on the Dem Party article page. What happened? Do you know who did this? If you know can you leave me a message on my page?"

No, I don't know anything about it. That particular page has had a number of very insistant editors who had changes they wished to make that rankled the existing pool of editors for that page, so I'm not surprised if it has been locked temporarily. A number of articles have been lately. The Rush Limbaugh article was recently locked after all the "arrest" activity last week and early this week, for example. Most a number of very impassioned people are making edits to get what they feel is the "real truth" out there, and there's much head-butting and little discussion. I haven't seen much activity on the talk page, anyway, so I presume it's either being vandalized excessively or there's a revert war going on. Most likely, it'll sort out in a day or two.

Bjsiders 18:26, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Legal threats are not permitted

Please don't make legal threats against other editors, or Wikipedia. Leveling such threats is a bannable offense. Thanks, and sorry for the interruption. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 21:31, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, legal threats aren't in the spirit of Esperanza. --E lkman - ^(talk) 21:43, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't realize that Wikipedia "crimes" were hanging offenses. Were you really threatened by this? Please explain the threat to me. --Tbeatty 04:21, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 24 hours

I have blocked you for 24 hours for making what appear to be threats of off wiki legal action against other editors. I need to you to explain to me that you are just kidding, which you can do here and I will monitor you page. If you can't convince me that you are kidding, I will extend the block to a longer period. See: WP:NLT--MONGO 01:14, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The actual text was "I have enough dirt on them now to hang them in a court of law." I didn't read that as a legal threat but rather as a guage of the quantity of evidence that Thewolfstar appears to have amassed for an RfC. Amassing strong evidence for an RfC is not a legal threat. No legal threat was actually made and it fails to live up to what a threat is. A threat has two components: 1) a target of the threat and 2) consequences if the requested action is not followed. Since wikipeida "crimes" are not hanging offenses in any court and since "Them" was never identified or actually the recipient of the message, this fails even the most rudimentary test for a threat, let alone a legal threat. If she would have said "hang them from the nearest tree" or "hang them from the yardarm" there would be no question. Her colloguial use of "court of law" does not rise to the level of WP:NLT and she shouldn't be blcoked for it. Please WP:AGF, apply common sense and unblock. --Tbeatty 04:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the reasons for this block are justified...the full comment is rather threatening:[2] "They're not going to get away with any of this. I have enough dirt on them now to hang them in a court of law." "Them" certainly means some Wikipedian. I have a zero pain threshold for harassment. Had the comment been of the nature of: "I am taking you to court", then the block would have been indefinite. I only blocked for 24 hours and this editor can explain themself here on this page.--MONGO 05:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sure thewolfstar 11:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mongo

"Enough evidence to hang you in a court of law" was a way of saying I had enough cited evidence, to show clearly that terrible things go on in here in Wikipedia. It was not aimed at any particular editor, but rather at a large number of editors who sometimes work together in a collaberative effort and sometimes work alone to drive unwanted individual editors out of Wikipedia.

Like Tbeatty said "hang" is not a serious threat as:

hangings don't happen legally in America. and
death would not be the consequence of a court action., as no Wikipedian does something that warrants death (in or out of legal court.)

It was a generic threat to bring a number of editors to justice through the dispute system. I personally loathe rfc's and would not use them myself no matter how heinous the offense.

Okay? thewolfstar 11:04, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stay away from these types of comments. I suspect that if this keeps up..and I mean no insult...that there is the likelihood of either more blocks or even a banning from editing here. Do all you can (and I know it isn't easy) to argue about the message and not the messengers. I'll remove your block, but a lot of eyes are on you, so be nice.--MONGO 11:34, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at your block log, I am now the fourth Wikipedian to block you. Again, it is going to take some work on your part to restore good faith...you can do it. I recommend figuring out what it is that you can work on that won't bring you in contact with editors you may have been having arguments with...when I am not in the mood to deal with some issues, I head off to articles related to land management. They are benign and there is little or no friction...so perhaps you can find a target area of articles that you have personal knowledge of that you can contribute.--MONGO 11:39, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mongo

I said "sure" a few minutes ago. My comment was removed
sure thewolfstar 11:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then you added more comment (above)

Am I unblocked or not? thewolfstar

You should be...I must have overridden your comment...sorry.--MONGO 11:44, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's okay. Thanks for unblocking me. thewolfstar 11:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay...play nice. Happy editing.--MONGO 11:54, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The link

Sorry, I couldn't find the vote you referred to -- can you send me the article title or a link? Thanks. Morton devonshire 00:18, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You've been warned and blocked for personal attacks before. And yet you call other editors "nazis" and invite a block. Keep it up and you'll find yourself facing blocks of increasing length. This encyclopedia isn't the place for your playground namecalling. Dmcdevit·t 02:29, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The link you just pointed to (in full) reads.."Man, there's some nastiness going on this place. You nazis (up above) never give up til you hurt everyone possible. Is that right? Go ahead block me again, and get your rocks off."
What is your problem with this? thewolfstar 02:42, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let me explain - to some people, being called a Nazi is a personal attack and an insult. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 02:51, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are many editors (myself included) who have become increasingly bitter about the way Wikipedia (and Wikipedians) handle things. I feel this editor was "blowing off" a little steam and should not be punished. Relax guys. Thanks! Jerry G. Sweeton Jr. 03:01, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Jerry G. Sweeton Jr., thanks! I appreciate your comment and your support. I really do. peace. Maggiethewolfstar 03:08, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your explanation Ryan, it is ever so elucidating..as swamp muck.

Who invited you into this conversation?
I was asking my blocking admin who hasn't had the courtesy of identifying himself yet. Who is my blocking admin? I asked you a question. Can you kindly answer the question? thewolfstar 03:08, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maggie, you should be able to go here and see all you need to know about your blocking. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:10, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bunchofgrapes, Thanks. I do know this. I still think it is at least civil if not more under policy guidelines for a blocking admin to indentify him or herself at the very least. And then to answer questions about why he or she has blocked someone. thewolfstar 03:16, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At least Killer Chihuahua had the decency to announce the block in a formal manner and answer my questions...like this

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

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

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

???

The link you just pointed to (in full) reads.."Man, there's some nastiness going on this place. You nazis (up above) never give up til you hurt everyone possible. Is that right? Go ahead block me again, and get your rocks off." What is your problem with this? thewolfstar 03:20, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, you've managed to pinpoint the personal attack. Don't call people Nazis. That's a personal attack. Dmcdevit·t 04:06, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

is anyone out there?

This is really just unfair. I am sitting here in the pokey, all alone and I can't even get an answer to a simple question. Is this legal? I don't think so, sir or madam.
---
This is a great page. Caution to sensitive editors especially those engaged by the reigning Queens that be. (And kings also in all fairness.) This page lifted up my mood 180 degrees. Thank you for that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rictonilpog/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Political_fallout_from_seperation_issues thewolfstar 03:37, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

---

Don't Quit

When things go wrong, As they sometimes will, When the road you're trudging seems all uphill, When the funds are low and the debts are high, And you want to smile, But you have to sigh, When care is pressing you down a bit Rest if you must, But Don't You Quit!

Life is strange with its twists and turns, As every one of us sometimes learns, And many a fellow turns about When he might have won had he stuck it out. Don't give up through the pace seems slow You may succeed with another blow.

Often the goal is nearer than It seems to a faint and faltering man Often the struggler has given up When he might have captured the victor's cup And he learned too late when the night came down How close he was to the golden crown.

Success is failure turned inside out The silver tint of the clouds of doubt, And you never can tell how close you are, It may be near when it seems afar So stick to the fight when you're hardest hit It's when things seem the worst That You Mustn't Quit!

~unknown~

Brought to you by Jerry G. Sweeton Jr. 03:45, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jerry. I was going to say, you don't know how good it is to get your support right now. But I believe you do know how important it is. Am I right? It can get lonely here in my jail cell when the guards just don't bother to reply. But hearing you calling down through the window, is a big comfort. Did you vote on the off-wiki control editors speech thing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:No_personal_attacks#Poll:_Off-wiki_Personal_Attacks Can you make sure no one moved my comments. Someone moved them to a small ==== discussion place and I had it in a big = category of it's own where I believe it belongs. Thanks. Can you tell Tbeatty I am in here again and Morton Devonshire? I think Merecat is too busy at home to deal with this now.
Maggiethewolfstar 03:59, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

to Dmcdevit·t

In what way is this a personal attack? Personal to who? thewolfstar 04:08, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you answer me please? Who was I personally attacking? Thanks for answering this question, Dmcdevit·t. thewolfstar 04:13, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You called a group of editors, "up above" on the talk page, nazis, and knew it was wrong when you did it (saying "Go ahead block me again"). There's no way calling someone a nazi the way you did can be construed other than as a personal attack. Dmcdevit·t 04:15, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. Actually I didn't refer to anyone in particular. Up above could be up in the heavans, up in a pig's brain, or up on Wall Street. Is this the thought police, like Tijuanna Brass mentioned earlier? Maggiethewolfstar 04:20, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you respond please? thewolfstar 04:23, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cute, but more incivilities like "is this the thought police" and I'll just protect this page. You have no right to abuse it. Funnily enough, this is actually an encyclopedia, where we expect people to collaborate and interact cooperatively and maturely. Dmcdevit·t 04:25, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly don't know how to respond to that. Obviously, you can do that if you like, but I believe it would sort of be a bad idea, if you know what I mean. You know what I mean? I mean, I don't believe it would increase your popularity or anything. Also, tactically for the cabal it would kind of not be a good move. But you having the power right now and the upper hand..well...I don't know.
---
Can somebody get Tbeatty and Jerry Sweeney or Morton Devonshire or Sam Spade or Hogeye or Mercat, if he's around or the ungovernable force or Tijuanna Brass who undestands about mind police and thought police. see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:No_personal_attacks#Poll:_Off-wiki_Personal_Attacks thewolfstar 04:35, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

___

Tijuanna Brass commented this on the off-wiki attack talk page
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:No_personal_attacks#Poll:_Off-wiki_Personal_Attacks

Keep it, but temper it with common sense. People are going to disagree at times (and should be free to); admins aren't the thought police. Perhaps the guideline should be whether an off-site affect is judged by a number of admins to be of significant magnitude to cause on-site disruption. Wikiwatch would fall into this category, of course, but somebody venting on their blog really isn't that big of a deal. Tijuana Brass¡Épa!-E@ 00:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

--Is Tijuanna bad, too for mentioning thought police? Should he be blocked for saying this? NO, he shouldn't. Block Tijuanna a well loved editor on Wikipidia and I really believe you're popularity will plummet.

Thanks RJII and Tbeatty for your comments. Here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:No_personal_attacks#Poll:_Off-wiki_Personal_Attacks
They made a lot of sense and told the truth. mggiethewolfstar 04:51, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And thanks again, Jerry. And everyone who gave me encouragement and support. The battle is far from over for me, whether they can me or not. but if they do, please keep fighting the corruption. You're all the greatest. And huge thanks to Merecat, my best friend on Wikipedia and Tijuanna Brass a great friend, too. Maggiethewolfstar 04:59, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

npa Wiki Policy Amendment by Ed Poor

~^~

Wow! This is great! From the official Wikipedia poloicy page..Please read this
Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks
[personal attacks amendment]

Specifically, please go here (to 24): [personal attacks discussion]

24 - not only is such a rule exteremly unlikely to be fairly administered by a clique, but frankly, someone committed to a particular approach to editing or collaborating or not is not going to give a damn about "shaming" or even "outing" (much more serious). Handing over banning-power to be used again people who simply offend others as part of a two-way semi-abusive discourse is a sure route to groupthink - and the end of any serious pretense of the project to "neutrality". That said, ad hominem attack generally contributes little to discourse as people defend their positions reactively, and anonymous parties with little at stake except a disposable identity should be relatively more conservative about such tactics than those who are using the same names that are attached to their bodies. However, those gloves should come off the instant someone is "outing" or "framing" anybody, i.e. if someone tells me I'm Mikhail Gorbachev and should "know better", then they deserve intense ad hominem attack in return from infinite anonymous parties until they learn not to "out". Those who wish to put their own real-body names up in a one on one mud wrestling competition with disposable anons (IP numbers, pseudonyms) who might as well be programs or many people posing as the same character, are not going to survive this millennium anyway, so let's not bother pretending that their opinion can matter. Also, there are many who consider this process, or the role of the "troll", to be constructive and necessary, like the "devil's advocate" or "shaitan" or "defense attorney" or "opposition leader" or "Supreme Court minority opinion author", to reduce [[3]] and identify values divisions across which people cannot cooperate constructively anyway, and can only ever agree to just disagree. I'm confident that the record shows that I never attacked or insulted anyone who didn't attack or insult me first - if they object to getting the diseased end of the stick thereafter, well, tough. Finally, let's not pretend that those ideological or ethnic conflicts in the "real world" that people are dying and killing for, are going to lead to anything less than verbal or emotional simulacra of violence here. Blunt brutal argument between Arabs and Israelis, Communists and Capitalists, Globalists and Localists, Greens and Golfers, Gollums and Gandalfs, is the only way we're going to get to this "NPOV" God that some here want to worship - or, for that matter, talking people out so they come at least to an exhausted truce.

I, User:Ed Poor, generally believe that personal attacks aren't going to improve the Wikipedia. In the few debates I've followed in which participants spill a substantial amount of ink questioning each other's integrity, intelligence, and (probably) taste in clothes, I've noticed that no fruitful plans tend to develop for the improvement of the article under consideration.

Occasionally, I myself have been such a participant, and I judge the exercise to be a waste of time for all concerned. Now, I might try to lighten the gloom with a wisecrack (as in "my dear lab rat"), but since other parties have informed me regally that "We are not amused", this leaves me no other recourse: I'm going to have to start writing politely!

Ed Poor, Wednesday, April 17, 2002

Thanks for reading this wonderful policy amendment by Ed Poor." What they are doing is illegal even by their own policy. Don't let them make new even more abusive policy. He's a power of example to us all. Long live freedom from the mob. Down with Big Brother! Maggiethewolfstar 05:40, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~^~
-----

please leave all comments here

Take your medication you raving paranoid nutjob. 65.11.139.66

---

Revision as of 06:14, 6 May 2006 Sifaka (Talk | contribs) (Reverted vandalism by 65.11.139.66 to last version by Thewolfstar. Please do not compromise the integrity of pages.) ← Older edit

Sifaka, Please leave comments made on my page...on my page. This is my page and I am old enough to know whether I want them here or not. You're intentions may be good, I honestly don't know, whether they are or not on account of..I don't know you.

That sure looks like a personal attack to me. Sifaka, can you please block this boy or girl? That would be a whole lot more helpful. Thanks. thewolfstar 06:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, oh well looks like Sifaka is a fake editor.

If no admin does something now to rout out 65.11.139.66 you are really showing yourselves to be exactly what I and many other editors are saying you are. I believe nazi is the term many of us has used. Or was it socialist pig, Stalinist, totalitarian dicatator, Mao Tse Tung? Indira Ghandi? Attilah the Hun? Gerorge W. Bush? How about Franklin Delano Roosevelt? Oh my Gosh. I just committed left-wing blasphemy. Now I'm dead, for sure. thewolfstar 06:43, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

please don't forget

to read this.
thewolfstar 06:52, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Earth Open Network

Hey, I really enjoyed looking at your website. I was especially interested in the article you found about the telephone charges to New York prisons; I follow prison ministries and related issues, and that's something that I'll look into further, so thanks. Some of the other stuff, such as aerial wolf hunting, would be laughable if it wasn't true... I mean, really, airborne hunting? Hey, I'm from Texas and spent the last year in North Carolina - so I'm around plenty of hunters - but... dang. Even my most pro-NRA, pro-hunting, pro-shooteverythingthatmoves friends would think that's crazy. Thanks for an informative site. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 07:08, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Tijuanna, thanks for visiting my site. I'm glad you like it. The issue about the prisoner family telephone abuse was a request from the organization for me to help them out. My site is an environment and social justice action and news network. I have gotten requsets from everything from the Bill Moyers now show to Greenpeace and many others. I have even talked to Mick Hume of the London Times. And yes, it does feel good to be part of such a great network. Not that I'm a big fan of Mick Humes but he seems like a nice guy. (Humes is not par of my network.)

Are you still here? thewolfstar 07:24, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't always check my watchlist very frequently (and am about to turn in for the night). Bill Moyers, eh? That's great. I happened to have met him about a month ago when he gave a lecture in Winston-Salem. Nice guy. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 07:29, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Tijuanna, thanks for visiting my website. It's Earthhope Action Network http://earthhopenetwork.net/. I'm glad you like it. The issue about the prisoner family telephone abuse was a request from the organization Campaign for Telephone Justice for me to help them out. My site is an environment and social justice action and news network. I have gotten requests from everything from the Bill Moyers now show to Greenpeace and many others. I have even talked to Mick Hume of the London Times. And yes, it does feel good to be part of such a great network. Not that I'm a big fan of Mick Humes but he seems like a nice guy. (Humes is not part of my network.) Long live the intarweb and long live freedom of speech and freedom of everything on the intarweb. Just think what the alternative would be!

Are you still here? thewolfstar 07:24, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well, thanks for what you said on the off-wiki policy page about the thought police. That was awesome and so true, Tijuanna. peace I need to go to bed and get some sleep, which is probably what you just did. Night Merecat, if your out there on the Wiki~insania Maggiethewolfstar 07:44, 6 May 2006 (UTC) I just wrote this above and then you edited at the same time. Can you stop the cabal queens from killing forever? Thanks thewolfstar 07:44, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JS ? Do you read me? Please come in. over and out. and roger dodger. I am on edge to know what you are going to tell me thewolfstar 20:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Is there any way I could help you out some? I think your misunderstanding the applications of some of the rules here. Purpose I can help prevent you getting banned again? You keep calling wikipedia a nazi organisation, but I think that's highly unfair. Lets talk some. ---J.S (t|c) 19:19, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hey

Thanks for offering to help. I would be glad to talk to you. Maggiethewolfstar 19:36, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you still here J.S (t|c) ? thewolfstar 19:37, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can somebody get JS back here. I missed his comment because I was off the Wiki doing seomthing else. Thanks! Maggiethewolfstar 19:40, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm around. I left the message and took a shower. (Today's my day off)

Would you be willing to listen to constructive criticism? I spent about an hour and read though most of you talk page and some of the diffs/links posted by people. I'm not an admin, but I have experience here and I know how policy usually applies in different situations. ---J.S (t|c) 19:48, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I think it would be a good idea if you read my edit contributions on main articles and their respective talk pages. At least the Dem party U.S. article has a lot of talk and article changes due to my debate. Thanks thewolfstar 19:51, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

but that's ok. What did want to tell me? thewolfstar 19:52, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JS are you still around? thewolfstar 19:59, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please forgive me for formatting this conversation a little bit. It makes it easier for me to read. As for reviewing your contributions... I can scan the recent ones a bit. I've looked over the last 100 edits you've made and I have only seen 2 article edits. Why even bother being here if you dont' want to help build the encyclopedia? Anyway... do you want to hear my constructive criticism? If not I'll go away and you won't need to be bothered by me any further. ---J.S (t|c) 20:17, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah sure thewolfstar 20:19, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please tell me what you were going to tell me? Thanks thewolfstar 20:24, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JS are you there? I'd like to hear what you were going to say? Please tell me. thewolfstar 20:25, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course... please give me a few min to write it out so it doesnt look like gibberish! :) ---J.S (t|c) 20:26, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, ok. thanks thewolfstar 20:29, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thewolfstar, may I leave you some helpful advice? I've noticed from your talk page, that you seem to get impatient with waiting for other users to respond to you. I know how that feels: I'm very fast with typing, but other people are not always as fast, or have slow connections, or maybe their attention is being distracted away from wikipedia due to offline issues. It sucks, but you'll just have to wait for a response. Adding multiple messages asking if someone is there won't help: If they're not there, they won't see it anyway, and if they are there, then they've obviously seen your first message and are taking the time to formulate a response. Hope that helps. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 20:34, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input, Swat, I believe you are correct. thewolfstar 20:35, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still here. Is anyone out there? Roger Dodger. Over and Out yes impatient yes still here yes still frustrated. Maggiethewolfstar 20:42, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JS ? Do you read me? Please come in. over and out. and roger dodger. I am on edge to know what you are going to tell me thewolfstar 20:50, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm here. I sometimes take a few moments to compose my response to make sure my meaning is clear . No worries, I haven't forgotten you. But sometimes if you keep posting "are you there"? messages a bunch it can lead to edit conflicts and make things a little slower :-) ---J.S (t|c) 20:53, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My long-winded constructive criticism

Ok… Like I said, I reviewed most of you talk page and scanned though your recent contributions. Also, like I said, I’m not an administrator…

That having been said, I’d help you become more of a constructive editor here on wikipedia by bring up the problems I see with the way your doing things. Possibly even the root of the issue.

What I have been seeing from you in your interactions is high amounts of aggression. I’ve read a number of highly insulting comments you’ve made. That’s a problem. Are you surprised that it got you banned? You’ve been making a ton of personal attacks all over the place. That’s totally against the rules here. There is no defense. The argument that you used of “you attacked me so I attacked back” doesn’t hold water. That is not a valid defense for making a personal attack.

One of my observations from screwing around with the Internet over the past 10 years is that when the face-to-face aspect is removed it lets our baser instincts take over. It becomes very easy to forget that there is a living, breathing person on the other end who, in the end, is likely to be just as sincere in their intentions as you are.

In addition, you’ve made a number of comparisons of Wikipedia to Nazism. I think that comparison is totally unfair and a little bit insulting to myself. I don’t want to send Jewish people to death camps. Nor do I think Jimbo or the Wikimedia foundation would like to see it happen either.

So here’s how I see thinks happening if you don’t change what your doing:

1. You’ll continue to act the way you are.

2. You’ll get banned one or two more times for WP:NPA or WP:POINT

3. An ArbCom case will be started.

4. You’ll lose, resulting in a long-term ban.

I’d rather you stuck around. The more diverse the background the better the project will be… but disruption can’t be tolerated if we are to get anywhere. That isn’t fascism, that is simply management.

If you wish to contact me off-site I have activated my wiki-mail thing. If you want to exchange phone numbers to talk about this further or whatever, send me an email. ---J.S (t|c) 20:50, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JS Call me anytime, 845-626-2815 thewolfstar 20:58, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll call you back if it's too expensive. The most it'll cost me is a dollar or two. thewolfstar 21:01, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

please read this and your threats of banning me don't scare me

see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Thewolfstar#joshing_comment

Where my obvious joke was referred to a "fascist thing to say"

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

I found this remark irritating in the extreme.

because of it's show of complete igmorance of gun use.
because of it's complete ignorance of fascists.
because of it's implication that I would even remotely say something that could be construed as fascist.
Mongo himself funnily enough can be shown to be fascististic in his attitude toward American domination, his treatment of this young Iraqi boy, and his general demeannor at times. (in other ways and other times he also shows that he is deep down a decent person. thewolfstar 21:13, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Abu_Ghraib_torture_and_prisoner_abuse&diff=prev&oldid=39968216 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:202.177.246.3

This is a horrible way to treat a young boy who has obviously been shown terror and extreme violence by the U.S. government.

Please this. It is highly intelligent dsicussion concerning NPA and whether it is wrong to implement it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:No_personal_attacks#Ammendment%7Cno

Plus links above to Ed's article about the NPA thing and how he is against it. Maggiethewolfstar 21:05, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also this concerning NPA by Ed Poor: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Thewolfstar#npa_Wiki_Policy_Amendment_by_Ed_Poor

thewolfstar 21:08, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Js said one thing that almost made sense

I’d rather you stuck around. The more diverse the background the better the project will be… but disruption can’t be tolerated if we are to get anywhere. That isn’t fascism, that is simply management.

This is true. It is how the Wiki is being managed that I and many others object to. thewolfstar 21:16, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what the problem with banning personal attack is. How can a project survive if everyone acts in-civil? I'm talking about your behavior. Just because someone is in-civil to you don't make it ok to be in-civil back. You seem to think that it does. Your response to my critisim was a whole section about what someone else was doing. That's not part of this conversation. If we are to get anywhere, we need to stay on-topic. ---J.S (t|c) 21:29, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

haven't gotten any phone calls yet

845-626-2815

You asked to talk to me JS. Where are you now? thewolfstar 21:27, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

please help Sam Spade

There is a rfa on him now and he needs support. Please go here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sam_Spade thewolfstar 21:27, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

js

Democratic Party (of the United States)

see version before I started editing and contributing to article http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Democratic_Party_%28United_States%29&diff=prev&oldid=48316245 the huge change since I joined the editing and debate process http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_%28United_States%29

the change can be found in

opening paragraph
date party was founded from 1792 to (1820ish 1824-1828 to someone's giving up on exact date and entering 1820's)
Jacksonian Democracy and Manifest Destiny: 1828-1854 (party's beginning with Jackson)
Democratic Party stances Patriot Act
This article needs a lot of work. Although it has improved greatly, and no longer reads entirely like an ad for the U.S. Democratic Party it still is loaded with unverified statements and original content.

I can use help with this if anyone interested in bringing back neutrality into articles will join in this effort, I would greatly appreciate it.

(after much debate and as much editing as I could do) the version became much different (since my strong involvement it has been altered a number of times causing a lock to be put on it. The lock has since been taken off.
my debate with main editors of article began:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Democratic_Party_%28United_States%29 and especially http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Democratic_Party_%28United_States%29/Archive_4

A sample debate between Griot and myself (who strangely deleted later apologies we made to each other)
Whether Jefferson's ideas are "represented well" in either party is a POV question. Jefferson's siding with the poor against the mighty, his belief in the separaton of church and state, and his belief in equal rights all jibe with the ideals of the present-day Democratic Party; his believe in states' rights and an independent judiciary are more in line with modern Republican Party thought. Whatever Jefferson would think of the modern political parties, his Democratic-Republican party is a precursor of the modern-day Democratic Party in that the party's heritage can be traced throught Andrew Jackson directly to Jefferson. Griot 20:41, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Then, do so. thewolfstar

WP:PAIN - Personal attack intervention noticeboard. ---J.S (t|c) 22:25, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hey to everyone

I am actually pretty calm now. Maggiethewolfstar 01:18, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

can someone get my jailor

Dmcdevit·t, are you around? Maggiethewolfstar 03:18, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You should be unbocked now; are you getting autoblocks? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:22, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Bunchofgrapes, just a sec! thewolfstar 03:23, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey I am unblocked! Thanks dude. thewolfstar 03:26, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't do anything; the 24-hour block expired after 24 hours, like it was supposed to. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:27, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Well, thanks for telling me about it. Sometimes I am dumber than dirt and don't think to just check things. thewolfstar 03:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving

While browsing WP, I came upon your talk page. Congratz, this is the absolute largest talk page I've ever seen :D. 192KB is an absolute whopper. Please archive :D. GofG _|^|_| Contribs 19:11, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Esperanza Newsletter, Issue #3

Administrator Coaching
The Administrator Coaching program is a program aimed at preparing Wikipedians for Adminship or helping them understand the intricacies of Wikipedia better. Recently, changes have been made to the requirements of coachees. Please review them before requesting this service. This would be something like the Welcoming Committee, but for people who have figured out the basics of editing articles; they're not newcomers any more, but they might want some help in learning new roles. Some might like suggestions about how to learn vandal patrol, or mentoring on taking an article to featured status, or guidance with a proposal they plan to make at the Village Pump, for example. In this way, Esperanza would help keep hope alive for Wikipedia because we would always be grooming the next generation of admins.
Stressbusters
The Stressbusters are a subset of Esperanza aiming to investigate the causes of stress. New eyes on the situation are always welcome!
Note from the editor
As always, MiszaBot handled this delivery. Thank you! Also, congratulations go to Pschemp, Titoxd and Freakofnurture for being elected in the last elections! An Esperanzial May to all of the readership!

The last AC meeting (full log)
Posting logs of the Esperanza IRC channel are explicitly banned anywhere. Violation of this rule results in deletion and a ban from the channel. A disclaimer is going to be added to the Esperanza main page. We are humans and, as such, are imperfect. Various revisions have been made to the Code of Conduct. Please see them, as the proposal is ready to be ratified by the community and enacted. All members will members to have to re-confirm their membership after accepting the Code of Conduct. Referendums are to be held on whether terms of AC members should be lengthened and whether we should abolish votes full stop. Admin Coaching reform is agreed upon.
Signed...
Celestianpower, JoanneB, Titoxd, Pschemp and Freakofnurture 20:29, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits

Wolfstar, I'm seeing a lot of aggresssive talk-page posts from you, but very few edits to the encyclopedia. Interiot's tool shows only 53 edits to articles, but 434 to user and article talk (338 to user talk). This is up to the beginning of May and the ratio since then looks even worse. If you don't start to reverse it soon, this account may be blocked. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:23, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am sending this to SlimVirgin in a second.

SlimVirgin, I got your comment yesterday. The only problem is I looked at my contributions from the beginning and:

What you say is not true.
What are you calling aggessive?
If this a rule (with obvious subjective interpretation to it), why is it that I have never been informed of it?
What happened to the entire dispute resolution process?

Funny enough I left you one or two comments a while ago, both of them friendly in nature, because my friend Merecat recommended you to me, and I liked your page, and you never returned the favor to me.

Can you please verify your accusations, show me where this rule is, and explain to me why I cannot have the normal dispute resolution that Wiki policy clearly states? thewolfstar 07:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is any rule against "not contributing enough." I don't know what the edits in question are though, but as long as you havn't been flagrantly making any Personal attacks, you'll probably be able to get the help of a third-party admin to resolve this.--DCAnderson 16:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey from thewolfstar, I don't know how to thank you enough for responding to my predicament. I have left several comments with various editors and gotten no response, up until yours, now. Your reaching out to help me is deeply appreciated. Although I am a fast learner and managed to catch on to certain things early on here, I still need help and support in doing certain things. I have made some personal attacks in the past, always in direct response of the harassment of others, right or wrong, and have already been blocked four times as a result of them (the PAs). SlimVirgin's comment was out of nowhere when I was doing nothing wrong and a quick look at my logs will show that her accusations are false. Can you help me with a request for mediation? (The mediation request is not just for SlimVirgin who I don't even really know) I need all the help and support I can get at this point. Thanks, in freedom from the cabal. Maggie

Howdy. A couple things. First off, there is no policy that says you must contribute a certain amount to any namespace. It might affect any RfA you make, but not your membership status. So, don't sweat it. Be civil, and others will be civil to you. Secondly, I noticed you have a decently large talk page. Would you like help archiving it? Thirdly, on behalf of decent Wikipedians (and believe me, there aren't a lot of them left) and Esperanza, have a *hug*. Wikipedia can be a cruel and mean place sometimes. Talk to me if you ever need help. Corbin ∫ 1 ɱ p s ɔ ♫ ^{Rock on, dude!}

Grow up

Your [4] on Merecat's talk page is a personal attack. Moreover, it's not even that clever. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 23:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trouble

Trouble tends to come to those who attract it. I counsel you to follow SlimVirgin's excellent advice. Make constructive edits, ignore things you don't like but don't affect your ability to make constructive edits, do not approach Wikipedia as a venue for politicking or conflict. I see all the signs that you are doing the latter and you'll get burned if you keep it up. Contributors who just put content in articles hardly ever get the wrong end of disputes here. Bear that in mind. Grace Note 23:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Block

You've been temporarily blocked for this post. Please heed the various warnings you've been given. If you're not here to contribute to the encyclopedia, you're misusing your editing privileges, and when you post on talk pages, you must avoid personal attacks. Please review WP:NPA and WP:CIV. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:47, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I could have sworn that Ryan Freisling was personally attacking Merecat by hanging around and taunting him like that. I don't believe what I said to Ryan was a personal attack. I was telling to back off of my friend. thewolfstar 01:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You called him a "vigilante boy" and added that he should wipe the snot off his nose and the front of his shirt. If you believe that's not a personal attack, your time as a Wikipedian is going to be short indeed. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you have the decency to answer my responses to your accusations? thewolfstar 01:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. I gave you a breakdown of your contributions. The numbers are accurate until the beginning of May, and show that you make very little contribution to the encyclopedia, but that you post a great deal to talk pages, and make lots of personal attacks. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was told early on by jersyko that I should talk about it on the talk page of the article and then make changes. So I did was I told. thewolfstar 02:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then I debated with them and no matter how I debated they could not understand what I said, which was pretty simple/ The Dem Party article is a giant ad for the Dems. This is an encyclopedia not a campaign for the Democrats or for socialism. thewolfstar 02:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He WAS acting like a SNOT. I was defending my friend. YOU are BREAKING YOU'RE OWN RULES, WIELDING POWER UNFAIRLY AND ACTING LIKE A FIRST CLASS TYRANT.

THERE IS NO RULE THAT SAYS I HAVE TO HAVE A CERTAIN NUMBER OF ARTICLE CONTRIBUTIONS. MY USER PAGE EDITS ARE MY BUSINESS. IF YOU DON'T LIKE WHAT THEY SAY. TOUGH.

BECAUSE THEY DON'T AGREE WITH YOU DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY MAKE THEM AGGRESSIVE.

YOU ARE SHOWING YOUR TRUE COLORS NOW AND WILL ONLY MAKE YOURSELF UNPOPULAR TO A LARGE NUMBER OF EDITORS.

PEOPLE ARE NOT GOING TO PUT UP WITH IT.

Is this a socialist publication? Just wondering? thewolfstar 02:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SlimVirgin

Can you respond? I told why there's a lot of talk on the Dem Party talk page, and you never answered this;

  2. What are you calling aggessive?
  3. If this a rule (with obvious subjective interpretation to it), why is it that I have never been informed of it?
  4. What happened to the entire dispute resolution process?

Funny enough I left you one or two comments a while ago, both of them friendly in nature, because my friend Merecat recommended you to me, and I liked your page, and you never returned the favor to me.

Can you please verify your accusations, show me where this rule is, and explain to me why I cannot have the normal dispute resolution that Wiki policy clearly states? thewolfstar 02:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite block

After reviewing your contributions and the block log, and after getting no objections on WP:ANI, I have blocked you indefinitely under the blocking criterion "users who exhaust the community's patience". The link to WP:ANI will expire in a few days when the thread is archived, but here is a permanent link to the first post in it. Feel free to use your talkpage to protest the block, for instance by posting the {{unblock}} template. Please click on the links in this message, they contain information you may wish to consult. Bishonen | talk 16:18, 9 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]

FYI

The quote above which you attribute to Ed Poor came from FreeNode[5]. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey KillerChihuahua, I am unblocked. Didn't know that. Thanks for your comments, etc thewolfstar 16:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you are still blocked. Blocked users can edit their own page. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:11, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. They just unprotected the page? thewolfstar 17:36, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User block has nothing to do with Page protection. Users who are blocked can edit their own pages. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SlimVirgin had in fact protected this talk page yesterday; it's been unprotected since then, perhaps to make sure Thewolfstar had a chance to respond to the new indefinite block. (See section above). —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I protected it for a few hours because of the nature of the comments posted here during the block, then I unprotected it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks. thewolfstar 17:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey thewolfstar 18:22, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

before you permablock me

I know what I said to RyanFriesling was a personal attack.

Can I have an advocate? But first, before the advocate, can I talk to one of the following editors?

Can somebody please contact one or all of these editors, and ask them to come here so I can talk to them?

Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@

Tbeatty

Merecat

Corbin ∫ 1 ɱ p s ɔ ♫ ^{Rock on, dude!}

DCAnderson

Jerry G. Sweeton Jr.

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

Thewolfstar (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Please provide a reason as to why you should be unblocked.
Change {{unblock}} to {{unblock | reason=your reason here ~~~~}}

Notes:

In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=original unblock reason |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=original unblock reason |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=original unblock reason |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

given below

I've looked at what the posts that you have been blocked for are. I believe it is silly to block people for "not contributing enough" and that SlimVirgin should not have used that as an argument for blocking.

You have however made posts that come across as pretty much snarling and vitriolic, and have chosen to attack the user instead of his ideas. Whether "they started it" or not is not the issue. When they unblock you, I highly reccomend that you respond civilly to other users posts (no matter what kind of tone they used in the first place) or just not respond at all. If they are making personal attacks themselves, you should inform an admin, rather than sinking to their level.

Frankly, there are a lot of people on Wikipedia who are "dicks," much like there are a lot of people in real life who are also "dicks." If you don't like that there are dicks in the world, there is one obvious way to reduce their numbers by at least one: don't be one yourself.--DCAnderson 19:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hey

Thanks, DCAnderson. Your points are well made and well taken. I came to that conclusion later last night my self, as well. However,
SlimVirgin said I only have 43 article contributions. It looks like I made thousands of article contributions.

Bishonen, SlimVirgin and others have attacked my contributions - please my Dem Party artcle debates here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Democratic_Party_%28United_States%29/Archive_4#Comments_from_thewolfstar A nasty attack by Jersyko and John k and more of my debates here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Democratic_Party_%28United_States%29

my article edits are not POV. They strive to end POV and bring fact and neutrality into an article

I got the Dem Party start date changed from 1792 to 1820's (no one could agree on exact start date)
I got better clarification the first president to be jackson
One can only make 3 changes a day. Article editing is slow
I was told by Jersyko that the correct way to make an article change was debate it on it's talk page.

I made article edits to the following:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_state#Arguments_against
anarchist

Common Dreams was changed back

Alex Jones

My edit was removed. I exposed his anti-sematism, his selective envitonmentalism, his hatred of homosexuals and his other personal agenda which is anti-abortion. Maggiethewolfstar 20:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is anyone there reading this? thewolfstar 20:14, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 20:14, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what do you think of what I just wrote? thewolfstar 20:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've made nowhere near 'thousands' of edits. You've made hundreds of talk page edits, and only a handful of actual article edits. Your contributions on article pages are ultimately what matters. Check the edit count tool for more info (but bear in mind if you can the risks of editcountitis). And as you've been advised dozens of times, lay off the personal attacks. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 20:18, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You've made about 95 article edits. That means "main" namespace edits, not talk: user talk: or wikipedia:. You can see them here. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 20:22, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The en.wikipedia.org data is no longer updated. To get an updated edit count, you'll need to use an external tool. This is not a reliable tool. My article contributions can be found by going to contributions and then selecting (main). There are many article contributions.

Another thing I would like to say to Mongo (in response to his comment on my ani) is to Mongo

I was listening to your advise and getting ready to contribute to the Bluegrass article. I am a bluegrass musician. I also am slowly learning how to do correct editing would like to write some of my own articles. Maybe one on Bill Keith who started melodic banjo picking.

Another contribution was http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Community_Justice#Civil_tags

Another was the strong opposition to the off-wiki comments (my main arguments were moved by Wikimol to discussion)
I believe it is a bad idea to monitor off the Wiki because it is potentially dangerous for all involved. Both the persuer and the persued are open to all sorts of privacy and harassment charges. This is not said out of threat or meanness to anyone. I am merely saying it is a bad idea for all involved. thewolfstar 20:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

to anyone who may be reading this

Thanks to DCAnderson who I don't know but seems like an all around nice guy.

Can someone please get one of these other editors?

Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@

Tbeatty

Merecat

Corbin ∫ 1 ɱ p s ɔ ♫ ^{Rock on, dude!}

Jerry G. Sweeton Jr. Thanks. Maggiethewolfstar 21:00, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I really appreciate the help I am getting here in contacting one of my friends. Can somebody, anybody please get one of these people? thewolfstar 21:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bishonen already notified TB, your 'SOS' messages are already on JS and TB's pages, Merecat is away from Wikipedia. They'll be here when they have a chance. MilesVorkosigan 21:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where did Bishonen notify TBeatty, can you show me> thewolfstar 21:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think through an edit conflict a comment may have gotten blocked out. Did someone leave a question about Jimbo's page? thewolfstar 21:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Those are old SOS comments. I need to talk to someone now who knows I am being threatend with indefinite banning. Where did Bishonen notify TBeatty, can you show me? thewolfstar 22:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MilesVorkosigan will you help me? thewolfstar 22:04, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my fault, too many initials. Bishonen left a message on TijuanaBrass' talk page (not TBeatty) requesting comment at AN/I. Remember that anyone who has posted here probably will have your page on their watch-list as well and will see that there is activity.

I'm not sure how I can help you, but I'd be willing to try if you have any ideas. MilesVorkosigan 22:19, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MilesVorkosigan make comments defending me on my ani page thewolfstar 22:58, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

indefinite ban?

Tell you what, I'll give you the same advice back when I gave Ed Poor, back when he first got in trouble for the so called "abuse" of his administrative powers, in blocking known troll Joshuaschroeder (talk · contribs) and his sockpuppet ScienceApologist (talk · contribs), a blatent apologist for all things mainstream media, and mainstream "science". Long story short, other people got invloved, over turned Ed's block, and let a known troll back into the editing business.. Ed Poor did the only thing he could and resigned his adminship, and left to deal with his disgust towards wikipedia.. and I'll give you, the same advice I gave him oh so many months ago.. If they ever try to get in your way create armies of sockpuppets who you can use to enforce your will against your enemies, edit anonymously if you have to, just don't let these idiots get you down, and if you keep at it long enough you can have an army of friends, all sockpuppets if need be, supporting your unblocking, maybe even adminship, just don't give up hope--Freind0fEd 22:29, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also if you wouldn't mind, could you anonymously vandalize the "esteemed" Mr. Schroeder's Talk Page, show him what we think of the current wikipedia rulership, I'd do it myself, but they seem to have banned my IP from editing his page--Freind0fEd 22:29, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Needless to say, this advice is the exact opposite of WP:DICK. Following this advice will do little except immerse you in unhappiness, and bury you in petty little troll battles that will ultimately leave you unsatisfied. Trolling on Wikipedia is pretty much hands-down the most pathetic thing one can do online. I offer you sincere advice WP:DICK not to be a dick, as this person suggests.-- User:RyanFreisling @ 22:53, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Mr. Schroeder's Talk Page thanks for the great advice and for giving me a good laugh. I thought Ed Poor was a bureaucrat in the old days..no? thewolfstar 22:36, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not schroeder, schroeder was the name of the troll that attacked ed, my fault a little too wordy a post--Freind0fEd 22:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

this is an example of incivility

(Not trying to get help for me by finding one of my friends and not answering me more often than every other half hour.) To SlimVirgin, This is the third time I am saying this. Yes, you are right calling RyanFreisling a snot was a personal attack.

No, I shouldn't attack visciously, even when I or one of my friends is provoked.

You all said I only had a very short time to defend myself. I am trying to no avail. If you don't hear what I am saying or respond to my pleas or even answer my questions or my responses, I guess this is all pretty futile isn't it? Is that what you are trying to relay to me here..the furility of all of this? ---

All this reminds me of a story my man came home and told me one day. He went out with a few of his friends who had just caught a coyote in a steel-jaw leghold trap . You know one of those traps that digs deep into the animal's paws and will often incite him to chew his paw off in order to stop the pain and get free? He told me about how the coyote snarled at them when they approached and about how viscious it was. I said to him, "Well, I guess if you were that coyote, caught in that trap, you might snarl a little bit and show some visciousness, too, now wouldn't you?

Now we can blame the coyote for bearing his teeth and reacting visciously, we can blame the hunters for their part, which is in all fairness considerable, or we can all get back to editing Wikipedia in a constructive manner. I am ready to settle down now and continue editing constructively. Does anyone have any objection to this?

Please answer me. Making me wait is only wasting the prescious little time you have given me.

Okay? Maggiethewolfstar 22:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Freind0fEd, why is your page deleted are you banned now? thewolfstar 22:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Miles V

You can make comments defending me on the ani page. please? thewolfstar 22:56, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]