User talk:Theresa knott/archive15

archive 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Welcome to my talk page. If you've come to complain, whine, moan, question my judgment, my intelligence, my sanity, or tell me off in any way, that's fine. I'm a big girl who can take it. If you've come to chat, compliment me, have a laugh, or discuss articles that's even better.

User talk:JaysCyYoung

He removed warnings which is vandalizm. Ardenn 00:18, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't talk bollocks! And stop playing games. look at your own behaviour here. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 00:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This talk page is becoming very long. Please consider archiving. Ardenn 00:18, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK 00:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I left a message on his talk page about meat puppetry, and he attacks me. I did nothing wrong but point out the policy on Meat Puppetry. Ardenn 01:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He also vandalized the Queen's U talk page. Ardenn 01:50, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And you need to stop being so lenient. Ardenn 05:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been pretty lenient with you so far. You are the agressor here, you would be the one who would get blocked for disruption. I prefer a lenient approach because i hope you will calm down and simply stop trying to bully him. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 05:41, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We'll have to agree to disagree then. I don't think I'm being agressive at all. He's the one who insults me, and violates policy by removing warning tags from his talk page, and insulting me. His pal was warned today by a sysop against personal attacks. However, I'll try to mellow down on the tags and "agressiveness" if you'll start condoning the attacks. Ardenn 05:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad to hear you are going to mellow down. Thank you. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 05:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad to hear you are going to enforce no personal attacks. Thank you. Ardenn 05:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Accusing people of meatpuppeting when they have clearly not done so is a personal attack itself. That is why i said that you were the agressor here. If i were to block anyone for personal attacks it would have to be you :-( I'd rather just draw a line under this though and let the matter rest there. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 05:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Except I have evidence. I won't regurgitate it because it won't accomplish anything. However, pointing out that policy, is not a personal attack. Would you rather I simply report it on WP:AN/I and not say anything? Ardenn 05:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've already seen your "evidence". It's nothing. I need to go to work now IRL I'll speak to you later. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 05:59, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At least one of the alleged meatpuppets, as you likely know, is a longtime contributor; indeed, his editing predates that of Ardenn by nearly nine months. Joe 06:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

This is just a quick notice to thank you for freezing edit of my page. This is said with no trace of sarcasm and I am genuinely thankful that you prevented further vandalism of it. The thing that upsets me, and I'm not trying to be disruptive (as I am a long-time contributor on Wikipedia), is that the user Ardenn is merely removing information from the Queen's University page without group discussion or consensus. He also ignored three sources or citations that I had provided to validate the veracity and notability of the information that myself and others had written on the page. It seems that he/she may be an administrator and, seeing as you appear to be one Theresa, I would like to express my disappointment at the behaviour of an individual in charge acting in such a manner.

Is there anything that I can do in order to reach an agreement? I have tried to be civil and, while I am upset at the changes Ardenn has made, his one-liners and refusal to co-operate (or even ENGAGE in any meaningful and productive discussion) have merely further incensed myself. Please help if you can. It feels like I have tried everything but I'm not sure why he/she is acting in this manner. Thank you very much once again!

Warmest regards, Jameson.

JaysCyYoung 00:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Citations and plenty of them. I'd be very surprised if he were an admin let me look into that. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 00:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No he is not an admin. my advice to you is 1) take a break. The article will still be there tomorrow or next week or next month even, Edit it then. 2) Never edit when upset and 3) go through our formal disput resolution methods if all else fails. A Wikipedia:request for comments will generate a wider community view on the matter. BTW I have to unprotect you talk page in the morning so that people can talk to you. If i forget please remind me.Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 00:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sexual harassment article

Thanks for your help. Aine63 and his/her sockpuppets have reverted three times in the past couple of hours, prior to your intervention. You might want to take some action about this if you haven't already. I'll also put a note on the notice board in case you don't want to get involved with blocks. I am unwilling to block this user myself, as I feel I have too much of a conflict of interest. Metamagician3000 02:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking that there was already a breach of 3RR, but technically it will take another revert by Aine63 before that happens. Metamagician3000 02:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lot more to this than Meta is telling you. I myself have put in a notice to the admins about the deletions in the article today. I'll be surprised if this situation is viewed as a simple 3rr considering Meta's history at Wikipedia. He has been vandalising the Sexual harassment article for months, continually deleting and rewriting useful information--all of it factual and backed up with references--and trying to rewrite the article to fit his own personal point of view. When called on his behavior and informed of the rules regarding vandalism, he scoffed, and resorted to personal attacks. I've reported him several times. Contributions to the page are welcome (I've been an active contributor to this and other articles for over a year now) but not at the expense of the contributions of others if they contain factual information or are backed up with references.

BTW: I've never intentionally tried to use a "sockpuppet" revert. I don't always log in when I edit, but there has never been any hidden motive in doing that. Frankly, I didn't even know about a 3rr and that this was a way to get around it. Aine63 03:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm prepared to believe that this person is naive rather than malicious, but you can see the difficulty. There has been a fourth revert, btw. Metamagician3000 04:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting Meta since you seem to always have been only malicious from the beginning.

Teresa, the references have not been removed, they remain. Aine63 05:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No they don't look further down the page, you removed two. Also you failed to provide references for your text. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 05:08, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply, Theresa. Meta added some different citations so that matter is now closed. I feel I must let you know that the deleted information, the one that is still in need of citations, is NOT my information. This was added by someone else many, many weeks ago. (I reverted it because of Meta's habit of deleting info he simply doesn't like, even if it is factual and/or backed up with references--this has been the main problem from the beginning.) Controversial articles like the Sexual harassment article are always going to contain information that not everyone is happy with, this will be the same with topics such as abortion, religion, race, etc. We can't simply delete what we don't like just because we don't like it.

Regarding the uncited sentences, if the contributor who added this does not provide their references by tomorrow, I'll try to find them myself and add them to the article. Aine63 20:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK thank you. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 20:45, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ageism

Maybe you could get some of your pupils to be admins. I'm sure they would be more polite than some around at the mo. You are probably included in the "ageism" group I was referring to. Anyone over the age of 28 and under the age of 17 definitely qualifies. Include anyone who has a job, goes to school or is in a pram too. wallie 20:49, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No I can't do that to them. They like me! Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 20:53, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My daughter was a teacher in her gap year at a prep school called Handcross. Do you know it? wallie 21:18, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No I'm afraid not :-( Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 21:32, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Handcross is just north of Brighton. [1] wallie 22:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CALM DISCUSSION IN A HEATED ENVIRONMENT

Feel free not to visit it then. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 20:59, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kaspersky Trust

Hello and thank you for looking into my case. I left you a message but Jayjg deleted it and locked the page. It is here [2]. I was so confused about why people would think I am this banned user until I saw the last thing JW1805 said in this section [3]. Now I see that someone is playing a joke on me. It is not a funny joke. If this is why you think I am a sockpuppet, please reconsider. Why would I make an account with my name and this banned user's information? This is a joke on me because I changed the pictures of the wrong person, but I did not mean any offense in it. Please tell how I can prove my innocence. --Kaspersky Trust 18:37, 18 May 2006 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.230.150.106 (talk • contribs) [reply]

Sorry but I haved at your contributions myself and am convinced that you are a sockpuppet account.Please go away. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 19:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

U of Alberta

Theresa, I think you're an admin, so maybe you can help. I take issue with this kind of comment - I don't think it's appropriate for Wikipedia. I don't want to get into a fight, but I don't know what avenues there are for a third party to ask for help. So, "Help!" Thanks! --Ckatz 01:14, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the comment was extremely rude. However i am reluctant to get involved just yet. You did the right thing in pointing out that the comment was unacceptable. Hopefully he will take heed. I will watch the situation. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 18:32, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I find it to be a difficult matter to deal with. On the one hand, I don't have a lot of interaction with the editor in question. We tend to work on different articles, so there's not a personal feud or anything. On the other hand, I find his aggressive behaviour (of which there are many, many other examples throughout the project) to be very frustrating. It reminds me of some very unpleasant individuals I used to work with a long time ago, who would do as they please, but quote chapter-and-verse against anyone who displeased them. Couple that with the fact that these actions have already driven away several editors that I'm aware of, and it's hard to just sit back and ignore the damage that I feel is being done. After noticing the coment in question, I actually sat back and thought for a day or so before responding, so as not to react too rashly. It did seem necessary to bring it to the attention of the admins, though. I've no intention of dragging you into the middle of a battle, or even of asking you to agree with anything I've said above. It's enough to know that someone in authority is aware of what's going on, so that things don't get out of hand. Thanks again. --Ckatz 22:22, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

moo

OMG teh stalking

Your codebreaking quiz

Wow, that was awesome. Although I have to say that #11 was extremely "devilish". Well done, I had a lot of fun figuring it all out, and I think the other commenters on Wikipedia:Reference desk/Mathematics thread have found all the typos I did. :) -- Deville (Talk) 13:43, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I'm glad you enjoyed it.Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 17:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'books adminship

Do let me know here, or on my talk page (I don't have emailuser), if you want adminship on 'books for Theresa Knott, as confirmation. Thanks, Dysprosia 01:40, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Simple vandalism?

Hi Theresa, I saw that you removed an ip vandal I'd added to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism with the comment "not simple vandalism". Could you clarify what that means? I'm not challenging the decision, but I don't understand what the phrase is supposed to mean. Thanks! f(x)=ax²+bx+c 06:27, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Simple vandalism means adding obvious vandalism that no one else will argue is vandalism. Blanking an article, adding "Mikey likes to take it up the arse" deliberately falsifying information (if it's obvious) that kind of thing.In the case you mentioned the person was removing a capital letter and replacing it with a lowercase one. He was being disruptive in that he was getting into revert wars and not discussing his chznges on the talk page, however he was not vandalising the article. HTH Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 11:50, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again, that's exactly what I was looking for. There was actually more to this case than simply changing letter capitalization. If you look at [4] you'll see the edit s/he has been making. In fact, s/he made the same edit after I reported them. [5] f(x)=ax²+bx+c 18:10, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That appears to be a different editor. But anyway the jordan edits aren't vandalism either. The anon ( in his own mind) is simply trying to improve our article. This kind of editor is best delt with by talking to rather than blocking. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 19:32, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Sandifer. Trolls?

No, this is somewhat nastier. A group of people are systematically trying to drive off key en.wikipedia contributors, by real life blackmail (or close enough to it while coming within a hair breaking the law). They are having varying success with this. Why are we helping them? This might become a job for WP:OFFICE if we can't deal with this internally. I'd prefer to deal with things internally. Kim Bruning 12:29, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What on earth can they do to him worse than they have already done IRL? If phil is happy to have the page, and since the page in not an attack page, then why not let it go through vfd where i suspect it will be deleted anyway. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 12:33, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hehehehe. Well, I think it'd all be helping the people attacking him. *sigh* Especially an Articles For Deletion, which always ends up on google with a lot of "not notable"s. Something about the self-destructive behaviour of communities. I recall seeing a paper on that someplace. :-/ Kim Bruning 12:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you trying to help him milk the publicity over the WR incident? if it ends up on google with lots of nns why would that matter? Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 12:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... Well, tell you what, if you think it's not going to be a problem, would you care to keep an eye on things and make sure things don't go crazy? Thanks! Kim Bruning 12:50, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem .I'd be happy to watch the deletion debate, and would not heistate to take unilateral action should the need arise. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 12:53, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of Wikipedia May I ask why you reversed my writing in Criticism of Wikipedia.

User:Jacknstock

Thanks for unblocking this user, I personally didn't want to do it unilaterally, but you have my support. NSL E _(T+C) at 06:59 UTC (2006-05-27)

Thank you for taking an interest in my case and unblocking me. I assure you that I have nothing to do with GNAA. --Jacknstock 13:11, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's good to hear. Welcome to wikipedia! Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 19:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

removing warnings

Hi. I see you removed the alert about User:EurowikiJ who removes warnings from his talk page as "not vandalism". But official wikipedia policy about vandalism says

Removing warnings Removing warnings for vandalism or other issues from one's talk page may also be considered vandalism

EurowikiJ is a disruptive user, who does not discuss his reverts and removes sourced material, often with misleading summaries. In particular article, croatian editors such as Zmaj work more constuctively and do not remove sourced material. However, this user refuses to talk, deletes with no discussion etc. Now he even removes warnings from his talk page. Could you please help? Mostssa 11:25, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed him form the vandalism page because he is clearly not vandalising wikipedia. If he is being disruptive then you need to follow wikipedia:dispute resolution. i hope this helps. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 11:32, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But removal of warnings from talk pages is not allowed, according to official policy on vandalism Mostssa 11:37, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is just playing games. If the warning was for vandalism and he wasn't vandalising then of course he can remove the warning. Use common sense usurps everything. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 11:39, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the warning is for removal of sourced material. there is a template for that 3n-a; he already had 2n-a. Check his talk page. Removal of sourced material, especially with no discussion, is bad and not according to policies, and thats why the warnings are there. He does not discuss, and now removes the warning, which is specifically designed for his behaviour. Mostssa 11:44, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK then you need to go through dispute resolution. Start an rfc on him. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 11:55, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removal by error?

Hello Theresa, I suppose you had deleted my concerns voiced on the Admin Alerts page, in response to a trolling individual's assertions, by mistake? If not, maybe you could apply yourself to reslving the issue in dispute? Pantherarosa 12:04, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm wierdness. Your edit did this. Yes it was a mistake/software glitch. I take it you have reinserted your comment? Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 19:06, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK I'm looking into the dispute and i certainly see numerous personal attacks by you. So perhaps you yourself could apply yourself to resolve this dispute by undertaking to remail civil? Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 19:41, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Bonnie and Clyde

Is it just me or am I being personally attacked on the Talk:Bonnie and Clyde page? Could you keep an eye on this page to keep it civil. I would like to delete everything that doesn't pertain directly to the article content, but that would set off a firestorm of protest. Somehow, this has become about me personally and not what's in the article. Mytwocents 06:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Theresa Knott Hi Theresa, welcome to the Bonnie and Clyde struggle! I have left you a detailed explanation of what occurred on that article, but I will sum it here, you seem quite bright, and thus:

on at least five occasions 4 or more editors achieved cooperative consensus on the article, opposed only by Mytwocents;
he overrode the cooperative effort, and deleted up to 1/2 the article without posting any facts in dispute, or discussing his deletions - he merely stated he would "edit as I want" and deleted willy nilly in opposition to up to 7 other people, always a minimum of 4 against his opinion alone - and at no point did he dispute facts.
he requested a peer review, and when that review wanted quotes instead of subjective langauge, and then approved the quotes presently in the article, he changed his mind, and wanted the quotes out, and when that was opposed by the majority, again at least 4-1, with he alone opposing, he merely deleted again up to 1/2 the article.
when we objected to this, he began citing rules, saying his right to unilaterally decide POV and NPOV overrode our collective judgement, so, in response, we began citing the rules of engagement.
Mytwocents has cursed me, literally, on another admin's page - Woohookitty - and filed a false (dismissed as ridiculous, they would not even check the ip addresses, which I and the other editor sought) sock puppet charge on me. His behavior, frankly, is the second worst I have encountered on wikipedia, and I base that on personal attacks, which are unrelenting, and refusal to work cooperatively. Essjay will tell you, as will Katefan0, and Cyclepat, all adminis, that our (many of us) trouble with Mytwocents goes back at least six months, for the above reasons.

Please believe the rest of us - Ewulp will tell you, for instance, that he and I have worked for months on this article without a harsh word - are cooperative editors. Mytwocents made this an edit war by wholesale deletions in open defiance of consensus, without discussion. To close, welcome to the most disputed article on wikipedia! old windy bear 10:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If this is how old windy bear perceives it, so be it. My take is different. I'd be happy if he just learned to indent and use the preview button..... But I would ask that any mentioning of me on the B&C talkpage be deleted, or that the talk page would be archived again, so we can truly start with a clean slate. I request that wikicivility be strictly enforced on the Bonnie and Clyde and Frank Hamer pages. That, to me, means deleting any off-topic or uncivil statements (anything about me). Thanks! Mytwocents 16:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS, We all miss Katefan0, she was one of the best.

Theresa Knott, I just wanted to thank you for your for effort on the Talk:Bonnie and Clyde page. Your statement served as the trigger, to put Old windy bear and I on the right track regarding civility. Also, what happened to Katefan0, an admin we both admired greatly, has cast any squabbles we had, in a harsh light, and we have turned our backs on uncivil behavior, with gusto. I assume you have already seen this on the talk page. Regarding why I posted the initial message above, some time back you made this brief note on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents page. It prompted me to look at your contribs, and I liked your style. Woohookitty had recused himself from the conflict, so.... the rest is history. When it comes to civility, I think you will find that myself and Windybear will have the zeal of converts.

I hope you like the Firm but Fair award. I thought of it as a way to reward admins who keep things civil, in a no nonsense, 'no big production nummber' way. Basicly with common sense and by setting a good example. The picture of the cop, handing out a ticket is meant to be very slightly 'tongue in cheek'. I want it to be a cool award. I hope it comes across that way. Since the wikicommunity has grown so large, I think we need more admins to lay down the law early in conflicts. This would serve to check rude behavour, and keep it from escalating into fullblown flaming, edit warring, and personal attacks. Things that seem to be happening at an exponential rate, as we grow larger. Well, thanks again. Mytwocents 03:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RD/Maths codebreaker game

I happened today upon your post apropos of the code breaker game, and, inasmuch as level 11 has proven to be supremely vexing, I thought I ought to come here and ~~curse you for having written the game~~ thank you for having created an interesting challenge. I have always thought myself to have a rather dexterous mind, but I am eminently perplexed (I hope, at the very least, that my difficulties stem from my being overly familiar with ASCII, à la Larry, rather than from my being a dolt, although I suspect the latter infirmity is the cause), and so I must ask, in contravention of my general disfavoring of seeking help on such things, if you would be so kind as to proffer some hint, either on my talk page or, in the case that you shouldn't like to publicize the hint, via e-mail. Should you help me, in order that I might sleep/not throw my monitor across the room, I will fry these for you... Thanks kindly in advance! Joe 04:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now I feel even worse: the hint that you gave was something on which I'd already thought some, and yet I almost instantly got the answer (of all the different things I'd tried, the proper system wasn't one). Well, I finished level 13, so I can now go back to eating, sleeping, and otherwise leading a normal life. Thanks much for a fun time! I hope you won't inflict such trauma on your students (although, of course, mind-stretching is always good), or at least only for extra credit (which calls to mind a sixth grade math teacher whom I had who assigned ten optional "extra credit" problems each week...with the caveat that, irrespective of one's performance, he/she could earn an "A" for the course only if he/she successfully completed the "extra credit" problems). :) Joe 17:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My pupils are a little too young for this particlular one. However I have created a version for younger children with the help of my computer club kids. At the moment we only have it on the school intranet because of copyright concerns on some of the levels, however I intend to sort that out soonish so that the little ones can have fun too. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 20:22, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your code game at level 5

The URL http://pages.google.com/edit/theresaknott/v you gave throws up a Login Screen for a Google Account, which I don't have, but anyways what I saw was on page http://theresaknott.googlepages.com/v, where there is a word Ceaser (in "Ceaser cypher" -- at my default browser settings split over two lines). It is also in the page title. I thought this should be Caesar, as in Caesar cipher. (I consider "cypher" an acceptable variant of "cipher" -- although on http://theresaknott.googlepages.com/dog you do spell "cipher"). --Lambiam ^Talk 10:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per your message, please change my user name

Please change my name to neutral advocate ASAP. Thank you. Neutral arbiter 06:17, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Theresa knott/archive15, thank you for participating in my RfA. Unfortunately, a great number of oppose voters felt that I lacked experience, and a consensus was not reached (the final tally was 30/28/10). Perhaps I will try again in another few months when I have a few more edits under my belt. If I do, I hope I can count on your support. Thanks again! Cool3 talk 20:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moldovans

Your help on Transnistria was good. Now, this kid named User:Node ue has started to make revert wars on Moldovans. Do something. It takes 2 to make war revert I know. But he supports a stalinist view. --141.14.139.166 19:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly who are you? Secondly there seems to be a lot more people involved than just Node ue thirdly I don't care what his view is as long as his edits are neutral, which edits do you dispute? Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 20:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter. They call me in different ways. Actually I'm a romanian. But I'm not the one who all expect. I guess we're more than dozen. The edits that are disputed are: Moldovans are Russians supported by User:Node ue, meanwhile Moldovans are Romanians and by no means Russians. --141.14.139.166 20:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's Bonaparte, and he disputes anything that disagrees with his Pan-Romanian ideology. —Khoikhoi 20:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You lie. What relation has Pan-Romanian with node's statement that Moldovans are Russians ? --141.14.139.166 20:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He didn't say they are Russian, he said they declared themselves as russian. Now this is either true or false. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 20:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

The problem is the node's edits are not neutral. Please see Node ue (talk · contribs). --141.14.139.166 20:12, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please give me an example edit, and explain why it is not neutral. I know nothing about this topic. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 20:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look, blatant anti-romanian remark: anti-romanian remark --141.14.139.166 20:18, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's very obvious that romanians are not russians! Why would romanians be russians? As Node's statement is? Yes, is true romanians don't love russians due to the fact that Russia took a part of Romania and then created a soviet republic. --141.14.139.166 20:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So argument that "Note: many Moldovans declared themselves as Romanians or Russians." is wrong because NO Moldovians declared themselves as russian? Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 20:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! When you say Moldovan you say romanian. Because there is also a region in Romania called Moldova and all the moldovans from Romania are romanians. Remember Moldova was split into 2 parts: one become Republic of Moldova after 1945. One is further on part of Romania.

Except for the russian minority from Republic of Moldova which are Moldovan citizens they don't declare themselves as Russians. Why should a romanian declare as russian? Never ever! There were millions romanians deported in Siberia by russians. A russification process was done in Republic of Moldova. Remember that even now in Transnistria (part of R. of Moldova) there are russian troups. European Union, USA, UK wants that russians to go out of there, and they don't allow russian troups to have army there. --83.175.144.14 20:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So some did declare themdselves as russian then! Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 20:53, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ONLY russian minority which by no means are not moldovans=romanians. 83.175.144.14 21:08, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The statement was that many moldovans declared themselves as romanian or russian. You are saying that only those who were russian would declare themselves as russian? This is not a contractiction with what node ue said. Note he did not state that romanian moldovians declared themselves as russian. This looks like a simple misunderstanding to me. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 22:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personal info

I noticed you removed some personal info that was posted about a user here. Could you please delete the diffs where it was posted? I still haven't learned how to do that myself. Thanks in advance! --InShaneee 20:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You need special privaledges to do it (which fortunately i have but haven't used yet). I've deleted the revision in question. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 21:04, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Really? I was told any admin could do that through some complex proceedure. Also, it looks like the link above to the diff still works. --InShaneee 21:08, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict):You can delete the entire page and then recreate it ticking only the revisions that you want. For a user talk page this would generally be difficult as they tend to be busy. But the revision is still in the history as a deleted revision so an innapropriate edit summary would still be visible (although that was not the case here). Recently - about a week ago a new feature was added whereby people with the hideuser privaledge could delete the diff entirely so that noone could ever see it again. So far only a very few admins are able to do this. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 21:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(after edit conflict) Hmm it seems like I need a little practise getting it right! Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 21:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again! :) --InShaneee 21:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't thank me yet. it's still not done properly

Really? The diff's gone now... --InShaneee 21:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've done them all now. i had to remove all the diffs from when it was added to when it was finally removed by me. In this case it was a lot because several people edited the page and left the personal info up. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 21:59, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whew. Well, thanks again for all the help, I appreciate it! --InShaneee 03:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jayjg new revert war at Ahmadinejad and Israel

I would like you to take a look at the removal by Jayjg of a section in the article. [6] This section was first inserted in mid April, when the speech was widely reported internationally. Jayjg removed it not only without suggesting an alternative, but did not make any mention of the fact that he had removed it in the discussion section. That major change was first discussed after two reversions by other people when I brought it up in the discussion section. I restored it to the state it had existed for six weeks pending a compromise being reached in discussion but it was reverted by a different user. I removed all quotations except one so that the section fit better with the others. Jayjg reverted that also.[7] I find this behavior offensive from anyone, especially an arbcom member. TopRank 16:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The section in question was just a near verbatim reproduction of an uninteresting speech by Ahmadinejad; as part of a cleanup of the article I removed it and explained clearly why in my edit summary. It was subsequently moved to Wikiquote. The removal has also been discussed at length on the Talk: page. None of that constitutes "Jayjg new revert war", and your spamming of this duplicate message on the Talk: page of every single ArbCom member is highly disruptive. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry proclamation

Greeting Arbitrator, what do you think of people proclaiming/declaring a sockpuppet war? See my post at WP:AN/I. REgards, Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 07:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Batman2005's user page

I'm just wondering your views on Moe putting a blatant vandal warning on my talk page for removing the personal attacks from Batman's user page. Note that I was explaining my views and did not begin edit warring - when they continued to object I brought it to WP:AN. Do you think that my actions were that of blatant vandalism? Paul Cyr 19:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No I don't. You did edit someone else's user page three times, so it looks agressive to me. However I'm sure that you were editing in good faith so it can't be vandalism. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 22:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In that case would it be appropriate for me or someone else to remove the warning as it was placed without just cause? Paul Cyr 05:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 07:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Atkins Diet - BrianZ

Theresa,

This is user Tommac2. You have reverted my edits of a very signifigant issue that I found with user BrianZ. And I was just curious as to why you did that.

Basically I found something out that was quite disturbing. Have you had a chance to read what you reverted?

I found out that the following was true and I posted the evidence trail for it. Please read all of it as the sequence is important. I will try to keep it short and factual.

1) Brianzs first post was spam of his site "atkins all the way" 2) removed and handslapped by GraemeL 3) Spam cleanup by MonkeyMan ... all forums still in tact after spam cleanup 4) Brian went in and under the pretents of removing peta links from the Atkins Site removed all of the external links. ( All forum links gone )

Then this is where Brians crusade started about cleaning up the sites. I am appauled that this has been allowed and feel this should be punished.

Regards, Tom Tommac2

I reveted for one reason and one reason only. Anon editors were adding the link back in. It was their only activity on wikipedia. Now what I assume is happening is that you, or someone else mentioned the link being removed on the bullatin board and people are coming here from your board with the intention of forcing it back. This cannot be permitted. Whether the link stays or goes must be decided by wikipedians not meatpuppets. That's why I reverted and that's why I semiprotected.

I think perhaps a WP:RFC will settle the matter. That way the wider wikipedia community can comment and the matter will be finally settled. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 22:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

-- I didnt do that. I have no idea who added the site back.

Also the mediation is definitely not going well.

I found some history about the issue at hand. It appears that BrianZ was the first to remove the external links and hid it as a removal of Peta related links.

This is really crazy that BrianZ can just do what he pleases on that site.

What are the next steps I can take?

Regards, Tom Tommac2

Please Advise

[8] Haizum 02:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration Committee

Hi Theresa. It looks like it's been more than a month since the last time you participated in an arbitration case (in fact, -Ril- 2 on March 22). I have moved you to "Inactive" on WP:AC. Feel free to move yourself back to active if you are planning on participating in the near future. Dmcdevit·t 04:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hryun

Hello. I am Hryun, who re-created the Certainty principle article. (1) FYI, Slicky, who created the first version some time ago, is completely independent side. In the discussion (before re-creation of the article) I recognized that the initial article was not good at all. (2) I repeated many times that I do not want to make unnecessary disturbance here. But Inquisition here fights with me by all means, breaking WP policy (for example, they remove my posts even from discussion pages). (3) Believe me, I am smart enough to make substantial disturbance here. I do apologize that many good Wikipedians, who do not fight with me, will suffer. But I have no choice. With best wishes, Lksfkj 22:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bring it on. I am smart too and I have a delete button, which you do not. Your threats are stupid, we have substantial experience of trolls here. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 04:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Link spam

--Thresa you have posted that I am logging in at multiple ips and adding atkinsdietbulletinboard.com . I am at two IPs and two IPS only and I sign my name on all my posts. I never added any linkspam. All I did was revert BrianZs External Link edits.

This is the entire deal and I will be 100% truthful here. I use wikipedia quite a bit. But mostly to gather information. I really dont have time for contribution. I am involved in a number of projects regarding the Atkins Diet and have been for the past 10+ years. I run Atkins Diet Bulletin Board. If you do a search on google for the keywords Atkins Diet. I am at #5 and 7 or 6 and 8 with my site cuy.net/atkins and atkins diet bulletin board on Yahoo I used to be #1 for a while then #3. I claim ( without proof ) to have had the first Atkins Diet related website. I think this was before the Atkins Diet site started up. In fact it was before IE was around and before even netscape browser was mainstream. I mostly used lynx to view the simple site.

For I guess the past 10+ years I have been involved in some aspect or another as a key member of the Atkins Diet community. Mailing lists ( again I think I had the first one ) The bulleting board ( which stemmed off of another one that was subcontracted out by me ... I think that was the first bulletin board )

In any case I have been around the block.

I use wiki to gather information and as a first source to do information lookups etc. Well I saw Atkins Diet Bulletin Board listed there and thought that was cool. Then one time I went and saw it wasnt there. Then I looked a little and saw that it was BrianZ that removed it. I know that BrianZ was a member at ADBB and without going into it all again knew that he wasnt a big fan of ADBB so I readded the site. I then noticed that he posted very negatively about me ( all lies ) on Graemels site. I kind of took it personally at that point. And after doing a bit more research I was able to see what exactly was going on.

To be 100% honest my site being listed in Wiki does very little for my over all traffic on my page. At any time of the day there are over 40+ registered users there plus about 100 guests. The board is popular and anyone interested in the Atkins Diet can find it if they are looking or they will eventually get there.

That being said. I dont enjoy the implications that I am a spammer. I am not and I take offence to it. I battle spam all the time on my pages and have been a respected member of the atkins community for quite a while.

I do also think that the site has a place on wiki as I posted. I believe that the site: http://www.atkinsdietbulletinboard.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=79 should be listed. Please take a peak there and give me your opinion.

I dont believe that wikipedia would be a good place / way to house all of that info but I do believe that a link there would be a helpful external link for someone that is looking for help.

I am not sure why the site has been singled out and removed as linkspam. It is not a commercial site. And it is Free and abides by all of the rules. Most importantly there is exceptional information there that compliments wiki.

This all being said. I give you my word that I will not re-add the site. I just didnt like BrianZ removing it and that was the reason I was insitent in adding it back.

However I would like you to consider reading through the topics at least ... and maybe the content there and consider if for linking on the Atkins Diet site.

That is all. So you can end this and open the site back up. I am happy where things stand and although I would like to see http://www.atkinsdietbulletinboard.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=79 listed if it is not deemed appropriate then so be it. (Although I was still never given a reason why it was deemed linkspam and it would be cool to get an explination )

OK,

Thanks Tom Tommac2

:)

Just in case your Wikistress has gone up a little lately, have some of these. :) — Nathan ^(talk) 02:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Than you! Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 07:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anytime. I quickly became addicted to those last summer, when I was in the UK. (Now they don't sell them in Canada! :( ) — Nathan ^(talk) 19:22, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection of my talk page

Thanks for the s-protect on my talk page, its much appreciated. Must be slow day out there today, the trolls and vandals seem to be having a field day :-). Thanks, Gwernol 17:43, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. If I forget to turn it off please do remind me ( or take it to WP:AN if I'm not about) Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn

Re:Minun Rules the world

He keeps tagging it, can you stop him? H ig hway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 20:00, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tony has delt with him Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 20:07, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Raleigh, NC

I've been fighting to include some information on prostitution in Raleigh to the Raleigh, NC article. This has met with some resistance from two editors that watch the page. It is my feeling that their objection stems from their desire to promote the city and thereby defend it from facts that might reflect poorly upon the fair city. But they have put their objections in their own words. Can you skim the discussion and add your own opinion? I know you're busy, but we've been reverting for a number of months.

LegCircus 21:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A graphic request

Hi Theresa - I've seen your name so many times on good edits, I'm starting to become a fan. I hope you won't mind if I make a graphic request :) ... The "Holland Codes" article could benefit from the inclusion of the "Holland Hexagon". The OrphanBot gobbled a nice one that I was unable to secure a license for (was at Image:Holland_codes.gif). A basic example is shown here [9], (might look better with different text alignment). Here is a more elegant example. [10]. A couple nicely colored examples [11] and [12]. Some also show aditional axes [13]. There seems to be a lot of room for artistic license. I prefer designs that align the categories with the edges of the hexagon, rather than at the corners, but I have seen examples of both styles. If this inspires you, great, and if not, I can live with that. My main interest in the Holland Hexagon, was to follow the life-story of unlicensed image on Wikipedia. In some sense, that experiment is concluded, but in another sense, it led me here. Where will it end?

Thanks for all of your good work. --Michaelfavor 10:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What a nice surprise to see your colorful graphic on my talk page this morning! I didn't expect such sudden success and satisfaction. It's delightful. I love the way the colors are balanced, and the rounded edges. Its slight irregularity makes me smile. Or perhaps being gently twisted is only in the eye of the beholder. It's wonderful and charming just as it is, and it will make a very nice addition to the article.

I wonder why you're not 100% satisfied. The Holland Hexagon only deserves so much of your talent and attention. You could make it even more fabulous, I'm sure, but there must a lot of other articles without graphics, low-hanging fruit that deserves your attention a lot more.

If you really wanted to get fancy, I'm sure you could make it bigger, include descriptions under the headings in each section, and open up the middle to show axes with lines and arrows. You could, but I think like it better just the way it is. It would be hard for average wikipedians to edit the descriptions if they are embedded in the graphic. I say, enjoy your success and go on to taste something new. I thank you warmly for your time and artistry, and I hope you won't mind if I come back sometime with another graphic request. --Michaelfavor 18:43, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the colours might look a bit wishywashy. They looked OK on one screen at work but looked pale on another. Getting colours right is really difficult. The skewing was a happy accident. I ment to rotate in inkscape but skewed instead. Instead of hitting undo, for some reason I simply skewd it back by hand. The result was that ever so slightly off look, and I quite liked it as it's a little disconserting so catches the attention and also loses a little of the mechanical look that vwctor graphics can have. Anyway i'm going to leave it as it is for now at least. Feel free to come back with more requests if you like. I'm happiest when drawing. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 18:58, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

user:socafan

I originally thought he was another sockpuppet of Johnny Dangerously, based on this: [14] However, this seems less likely, but Essjay seems to think he's a sockpuppet of Dabljuh. I'm not sure what to think any more, but I'm surprised that he didn't e-mail me. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for unblocking me. It works now, the IP is unblocked as well. I will go and have a picknick before I decide whether I file a complaint because of Jayjg's block. Socafan 12:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Theresa, for your attention. [15]. Thatcher131 16:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suggested some changes to the policies and asked to enforce those we already have: [16] [17] Socafan 17:17, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re: Userpage

Ooh, I enjoyed the whole page! It's just brilliant, lovely too. It reminds me of so many things that are good in life, and I couldn't help but comment :) Snoutwood (talk) 16:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It does seem as if you'd written:

(cur) (last) 05:51, 19 June 2006 Theresa knott (/removed vandalism warning. Let's not engage in newbie biting)

That's the closest that I've gotten to an actual fiendly comment.

It does seem as though no one can comprehend my original complaint.

I've gone to further detail here; although, I am not yet certain that wiki can truly be improved:

< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism >.

In the [possibly false-] hope that wiki might actually be as good as I want it to be,...

Thank You, D. F. T. P.

I removed the photograph in question. It's not really appropriate to illustrate a page about a vandal with people who are not vandals. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 06:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow, you've removed it. Thank You, D. F. T. P.

I removed the photograph in question. It's not really appropriate to illustrate a page about a vandal with people who are not vandals. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 06:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Long_term_abuse/The_Doppleganger"

Thank You.

A short Esperanzial update

As you may have gathered, discussions have been raging for about a week on the Esperanza talk page as to the future direction of Esperanza. Some of these are still ongoing and warrant more input (such as the idea to scrap the members list altogether). However, some decisions have been made and the charter has hence been amended. See what happened. Basically, the whole leadership has had a reshuffle, so please review the new, improved charter.

As a result, we are electing 4 people this month. They will replace JoanneB and Pschemp and form a new tranche A, serving until December. Elections will begin on 2006-07-02 and last until 2006-07-09. If you wish to run for a Council position, add your name to the list before 2006-07-02. For more details, see Wikipedia:Esperanza/June 2006 elections.

Thanks and kind, Esperanzial regards, —Cel es tianpower ^háblame 16:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Geraldine123

I see that you have begun reverting the addition by Geraldine123. I just posted a message on talk page of another administrator Gwernol alerting him to the matter, enquiring about policy as to these sort of "blanket" external link additions, and asking him how best to proceed on the matter. I am glad to see I am not the only one who was concerned about this. It was a signal to me that these external link additions seem to be the only additions she has made. Let me know if I can be of assistance. ---Charles 20:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I only ever operate on one policy- use common sense. I block link spammers on sight, I don't give warnings, and I revert everything they add immediately. I've seen a lot of spam like this, actually i've seen a lot worse come to think of it. These are not innocent newbies who can be reformed with a little coaching. These are abusers of our open editing policies trying to use wikipedia's high google rank to increase their own page ranking. Fuck 'em. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 20:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! Damn, that is exactly the response for which I was hoping. Thank you and I agree wholeheartedly! ---Charles 21:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After noticing this on AN/I; I'm not sure why it was considered spam. Since the links were all interviews with the subject of our articles, they seemed fairly relevant to article content, and not much different from the links to Baseball-reference.com on baseball players' pages. I had seen a series of similar edits from another editor about a week ago, but only took note because the interview link he added to Amber Benson was potentially helpful in resolving a content dispute (the other party is currently blocked, so we'll have to wait and see whether it worked). I agree that it'd be better if the interviews were integrated into page content (as a citation) rather than plastered at the end, but still... -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 13:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good faith editors, when reading one of our articles, may think "This article could do with a link to an interview" they will then select the best inteview they can find and link to it. They will do this because their aim is to improve our articles by adding links to the most relavent content they can find. Spammers, do not have the article quality in mind when linking. They are not linking the best or most appropriate interview that can be found, they are linking to their own website or the website of thier client. It is the spammers aim that I take issue with. If thier links are really relavent, someone else, not associated with the site, will add them. They are not here to improve wikipedia, they are here to benefit themselves. My hatred of spammers is probably more extreme than many here because I also edit smaller wikis like wikibooks where spamming is a bigger problem, so maybe i am a little harsher than I should be. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 15:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A matter of personal attack

Hi! I am rather new here and it's a big place. I am hoping you can point me in the right direction. This matter is about a particular editor that insists on referring to women as "men", even after being advised to stop. The wording on the "arbitration" page makes me doubt this is worth their concern, but it is my opinion that someone should advise this editor of the matter in a manner which is appropriate. Thanks. Ste4k 07:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm it's rather incivil to do that. Does he have expanation? You could start a WP:RFC but I'll have a word if you like. What this the username? Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 13:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ebaums Protection

Just wondering why you semi-protected ebaums when it was only one IP vandalising and didn't just block the IP instead.--Andeh 14:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IP taunted another user with "try me" after a warning that he would be blocked. I figured he thought that he was a clever sod who had access to more than one IP. I always try to outsmart troublemakers. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 14:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention the NAMBLA attacks have been going on for a while now and they don't seem to stop. --Machchunk

OK, understood. But you gave into the vandals threats...!? A block of their IP too would've been understandable.--Andeh 18:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In what way did I give in? They wanted to add POV stuff into the article, I prevented them from doing so. They lost, we won. What would blocking the IP actually achieve? nothing, they've stopped editing anyway because i foiled their little plan with the semiprotect. Don't fall into the trap of thinking that being blocked is some terrible punishment. Most vandals do not care about getting blocked, why would they, they are not like us (or they wouldn't be vandals). Blocking is a tool for preventing vandalism, it is not a punishment for vandalism. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 19:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But you semi-protected a page which was only being vandalised by one user, so we didn't completely win.--Andeh 19:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only way to completely win is to perseude them to stop vandalising. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 19:14, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, fair enough.--Andeh 19:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't look like one person to me. --Machchunk

Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy protection

Hello Theresa knott, I see you've full protected the article. Was this because User:Dangling pointer was a bit of an "older" account? In observing that article over time I've noticed that {{sprotect}} has been adequate to deal with similarly natured cartoon removal vandalism. Thanks. Netscott 23:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, a bit puzzling to not get a response from you. Netscott 06:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I don't know how I missed the above post. Anyway the reason that I fully rather than partially protected was because the account was older I didn't think a semiprotect would do the trick. However since the account has been blocked I'll unprotect, and if he returns a semi would work just fine. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 17:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed I was right in my estimation of your reasoning. Thanks for the unprotecting. :-) Netscott 17:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind permanently blocking Beingtoofree (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? From the pattern of vandalism surrounding this article and WP:AIV, I'm pretty sure it's just the same individual back under another name. Thanks. Netscott 20:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:PatCheng

I'm posting this same message to both User talk:PatCheng and User talk:Theresa knott.

"PatCheng" was blocked for a number of reasons, but as far as I am concerned, he can apologize and be forgiven for his contemptible racist attacks and other insults. My interest in this matter is the fact that he has been shadowing me ever since late summer (August) of last year, reverting my edits. He has given no indication, and still does not, that he will discontinue following me. Wikipedia harassment policy says that it is not legitimate to simply follow someone's contributions with the intent to disrupt them or cause them stress. That was clearly his intention, based on his perception of some sleight that I committed against him off of this site. His identity there, "Fenriswolf", claimed a few days ago that he was leaving (Australia) to China, and wouldn't likely be posting anymore. When I found a topic of his at that site mentioning racism on a board, I posted some messages mentioning how hypocritical he was to complain about racism in light of his racist insults here. In response, "Fenriswolf" denied connection to "PatCheng" (the opposite of what he claimed just days before), at the same time that "PatCheng" denied being "Fenriswolf". Incredibly, "PatCheng" has claimed, on the mailing list, that he was cooperating with "Fenriswolf" and that he "agrees" with him that I am a "threat" to Wikipedia.

As well, this person has reappeared on numerous occasions, while still blocked, to do more of the same. This not only accounts for the illegitimate appeals of PatChan and PatriciaC but to five separate Optus and Telstra IPs that have been doing straight reverts of my material to "PatCheng"'s reversions. [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] The connection to some of these is revealed by his comments on the mailing list which I document here. The last of them was unblocked by another administrator who thought an indefinite IP block was inappropriate. Once that was done, he posted a message to a User subpage of mine asking me to take his name off - this being the same IP (along with another) that did a straight revert to Chen Yonglin just yesterday. This, quite evidently, is not good faith behavior.

Now that he has been unblocked, if that is to remain so, I should not be expected to be treated as a co-equal with coincidentally massive content disputes. I have not been incivil. I have not been posting attacks on other users. I have not been making racist remarks. I have not been single-handedly disrupting dozens of articles at once. I have not been basing a good deal of my contributions on simply stalking another editor. I am not being sanctioned for any misbehavior. I do not have anything to answer for to PatCheng. Rather, it would be most appropriate should PatCheng be considered to have been sent a restraining order and leave me alone. I do not care one whit about his contributions to non-political and historical articles; even in those he has demonstrated extreme incivility, but when he steps into other arenas, China-related topics in particular, he is set into a rage and barely controls himself. I want nothing to do with him. I am not interested in waging a campaign against his own contributions. But I also want him to understand that he is to stop following me. --TJive 01:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious attempt to delete Shefa article in bad faith

I have repeatedly offered to set up interviews between Wikipedia editors and people at the Shefa Network. Tellingly, not a single person trying to delete the article has accepted this offer. They also refuse to read the sources that were given. This total refusal speaks volumes. It is especialy bizarre that while people who know nothing about this group are trying to delete its article, members of all of Conservative Judaism's organizations are now working with Shefa. At this point it is no longer a matter of personal opinion. It is a now a fact that:

Members of the Committee on Jewish Law and Standards are contributors to Shefa
Members of the faculty at the movement's rabbinic seminary (Jewish Theological Seminary of America) are contributors.
A growing number of rabbis from the Rabbinical Assembly are contributors
Faculty from Conservative Judaism's Solomon Schechter schools are working with Shefa.
Shefa Newtork has already held two conferences, and two more events are already being planned, as well as yet another journal.
At this very moment people from the Rabbinical Assembly are preparing for a tele-conference with multiple people from Shefa about the new Shefa websites, and coordinating with the new Conservative Judaism websites.

This group is far more influential than dozens, perhaps hundreds, of other groups that currently have articles on Wikipedia. Note that the history of the delete attempt is even more telling: A handful of people started an attempt to delete this article within minutes of its creation, based upon their personal dislike of me. They started a campaign to delete it without even looking at the issue; they even have refused all attempts to give them interviews, and they clearly refuse to research the issue themselves.

We must not allow a few people to delete Wikipedia articles in this fashion. They are not applying that normal Wikipedia standards that we apply to all of our other articles. And they are egging on others to do the same, when those other people know literally nothing about the issue. Voting on whether or not to keep this article is of no use if some people voting are violating traditional Wikipedia standards. This is now a matter that Wikipedia administrators need to look into. RK 14:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comments on User talk:Dangling pointer

I know it gets frustrating, and believe me I know I've been following the cartoons controversy since it was first created, but please be careful with comments like

A constant minor irration is still just a minir irriatation. I have blocking powers, deletion powers and protection powers, none of which you have. I could handle you on my own, actually i could easily handle 10 more like you on my own. But I don't have to, there are thousands of admins here. Each and every one of us a wiki addict, each and every one of us dedicated to making the best encylopedia the world has ever seen. Even if you spent every waking moment on the wiki you could never succeed in getting the pictures removed. It aint going to happen. Anyway I'm off to bed. I'm going to protect this talk page as your need to stop trolling and start thinking. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 22:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

As they are unecessarily confrontational and even though this person was being provactive and unresponsive to requests and advice that he/she/they stop and overall just trolling we shouldn't stoop to their level. Thanks. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 21:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't trying to be confrontational, and i wasn't in any way frustrated or upset. I was trying to lay it out on the line, to let him see that his efforts are futile because he is trying to win a fight where the odds are greatly stacked against him.Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 14:47, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hear you

It sucks... Guettarda 18:05, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's always the bloody same! I hate penalty shootouts. Oh well, next time eh? Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 18:07, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I see you support trinidad and tobago? For such a small country to qualify for the world cup must make you very proud. Although you didn't win, there is no shame in losing. We on the other hand, may well have won but for the red card. It's gutting to see a player sent off because he was agressive. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 18:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rooney might have deserved the red card, but I will never be comfortable with an Argentine ref, especially given that he red-carded Beckham before. Between the War and the Hand of God, you shouldn't have Argentine refs for England games, or English refs for Argentine games.

It was nice to be out of the first round, since I was finally able to cheer for England unequivocally. TT made a good showing, but they could have done better, especially against England. Given the talent England had and their performance, I'd be inclined to blame the coach. Guettarda 18:20, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No we can't get into blaming the ref. It's not sporting. As for blaming coaches, the thing to remember is that 32 teams enter, all are good (or they wouldn't qualify), 31 will be dissapointed. This will always be the case, no matter how well everyone does their job. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 18:28, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NicAgent

Theresa, could you please leave the block in place for the moment? Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 22:16, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 22:17, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your sig and Text-only browsers

Hello. Just wanted to say that, although your signature looks great in graphical browsers, it sort of breaks in text-only browsers like Lynx and Links. Consider using an alt? Thanks! : ) Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 23:23, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Village pump

Please have a look at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Resolving_content_disputes. Please help me to find the answer to my questions. Thanks.--AndriyK 14:04, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sunholm

He isnt a vandal. hes a good friend of mine. btw blueyonder ips are dynamic see http://www.by-users.co.uk/forums/?board=networkhelp&action=display&num=1101910618 for more info. --KarlaJoanne 14:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly (Warning, Strong Language Examples)

Honestly, words like "fuck", "shit", "ass", "asshole", should not be used (excuse me, but I'm using examples here) because 99% of the time, words like what I've mentioned are used during personal attacks, flame wars, and uncivilized edits. Anyway, if you don't believe why I feel that who posted the latest comment at the Sennheiser Talk Page deserved to be either edited and/or deleted, please read the latest comment. — Mark Kim (Reply/Start Talk) 22:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But that is what i mean by saying that you can't see the wood for the trees. It's the personal attacks,flame wars, and uncivilised edits that are wrong not the words themselves. If I said " go fornicate with your own gradma" that'd be pretty offensive wouldn't it? But it doesn't use any curse words at all. You have to look at the meaning, the intention behind what someone says. The Anon, in the first instance was not trying to offend. Also you need to remember that wikipedia is cross culterial. Words can have differnt meanings in different places. In England, tosser is a mild swear word in America it's what you dry a salad with. In most of Enland calling someone a cunt is just about the worst insult ever but in some circles in london mates sometimes call each other cunts in a playful way. To reiterate my point. the words themselves cannot be ruled out based on your opinion alone. it is the meaning behind those words that count. If there is no intention to offend then there is no way you'll ever get an admin to ban, or the wider wikipedia community to aprove censoring. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 22:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Case Closed

Ok, ok, ok...

While there are diffrent ways to be offensive, people need to be very sensitive about what they are saying. Universally, though, people shouldn't be using words like (Oh please, not again!!!) "fuck", "shit", and "asshole" shouldn't be used by any user.

Also, be very aware that I really do take reprimands and insults from users and admins alike, as if it really happens to hurt my persona, I hate them for the rest of my life, and the rest of their life. Because of what I have went through, I now hate and condemn Kiand, RadioKirk, and Cyde, plus that Anon that you've mentioned. There are a couple of people that I hate and condemn as well (I also totally despise TyoMitch and Madchester), but be aware that if anyone here in Wikipedia tries to harm my persona, then I hate, despise, and condemn them for the rest of my life. Especially the Anon that we're talking about. — The Evil in Everyone (U * T/R * CTD) 23:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't honestly know if wikipedia is the right place for you. Kiand, RadioKirk, and Cyde have done absolutely nothing wrong. But fell free to hate anyone you like, just keep it to yourself and don't be ruse to them or about them. We work on consensus here. Hating people for the rest of your life does nothing to foster consensus building. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 23:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kiand was the one who notified me to the Admins by falsely accusing me of vandalism WP:VAND. I never vandalize WHATSOEVER here in Wikipedia. The fact that Kiand reported me to the Admins was unwarranted for. In fact, Kiand did something wrong—blaming me for something that I would never do. — The Evil in Everyone (U * T/R * CTD) 00:10, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no you certianly needed reporting, as you were deleting other's comments which is against policy, and warning them innapropriately, which is also against policy (newbie biting). He shouldn't have described you arctions as vandalism, but theycertainly were of concern. You do know that i am an admin, as is radiokirk, and well everyone that has been advising you on how to diffuse the situation? Admins are not ogres to be feared, they are long term users who know how things work around here. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 00:17, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

However...

Instances like this are grounds for me not accepting anyone's apologies, as I take them really personally, and I felt that Kiand was the one starting all this. Some of the "things" I do take very personally, and once they try to ruin my persona, I hate them for the rest of theirs AND my life. Period. I'm not kidding. — The Evil in Everyone (U * T/R * CTD) 23:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I think that is very uncharitable of you. The anon removed his comments from the talk page of the article and apologised for vandalising your user page after you had upset him by lecturing him, and threatening him with sanctions that you do not have the power to carry out, and would not have community support even if you did have the power. You started this, not him, and not Kiand so you should accept his apology. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 23:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Once they insulted me, they strike out. I hate them for the rest of my life, and I will never under any circumstance accept any of their apologies whatsoever. — The Evil in Everyone (U * T/R * CTD) 23:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You sound like a kid stamping his foot, but I see from your user page you are a fully grow adult. Oh well! Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 00:44, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking that I sound like a kid stamping his foot, is actually an insultive statement and personal attack, and in that case, it's called "User-Crapping" (Making a user feel bad either by trying his/her patience through use of personal attacks, belief oppositions, etc.). First of all, that sounds like what I call a "Let Down" (statements that you are supposed not to use to describe other people's loved ones), but after careful review of that quote here in your talk page (not to mention about the log at the Administrator noticeboard), I'm gonna have to take it as an offense. I don't like it when people "user crap" me—I don't user-crap anyone, so why should the rest of you do it? — The Evil in Everyone (U * T/R * CTD) 20:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. You, RadioKirk, Kiand, Cyde, "That Anon", and Fuddlemark should ALL feel ashamed, and you shouldn't feel good about what you all guys did to me yesterday on July 7. You all user-crapped me.

If you don't like me saying that you are childish, then stop acting like a child. You are what 31 years old? How many 31 year olds say that they will hate people for the rest of thier lives? Oh and I thought you hated the word crap? you told an anon that he should watch his language, and that he would be blocked just yesterday. Clearly you don't give a fuck about swearing and are just looking for a fight with someone. Wikipedia is not a playground. Start acting your age. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 20:54, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Email for you

Email headed your way. Can you let me know whether in fact it is important, or what you think? Many thanks :)

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 18:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Thersea Knott

Your problem with Vesther or whatever his name it should be solved. If he uncivil to you add {{Civil1}} to his talk page. If he removes anything insulting (he can archive it, but if he doesn't do that) add {{Wr0}} and then {{Wr2}}. Thanks. ForestH2 | + | √+ | √ | √- | - 21:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a problem with Vesther. He has a problem with just about everyone who ever speaks to him. I never user templates in conflict situations they are far too impersonal and can inflame rather than diffuse the situation. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 21:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eh...I've noticed. I think it is more useful to give the user warning templates. But do as you say. You might wish to post to WP:AIV if he gets out of control. That's where admins block him. I just looked at his contributions. ForestH2 | + | √+ | √ | √- | -

I am an admin. If he get's out of control i will block him myself but I'm disinclined to as he does make userful article space edits. He just doesn't know how to deal with people. Now that will be a problem in the future, but at the moment the only people who he is dealing with are bemused admins like myself.Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 21:41, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chat in private

Can you get on IRC or message me through AIM (it's on my user page). There is something I wish to discuss with you in private. --mboverload @ 22:35, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Message fix

Just fixed a message you left on a users talk page recently. Hope you don't mind.--Andeh 10:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removed edits by User:Švitrigaila on my talk page

Hi. User:Švitrigaila left a message on my talk page, which you removed. I can not understand the reason. Please explain! Regards. CeeGee 12:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He spammed over a 100 talk pages with the same message. He only spammed native turkish speakers. This is not allowed on wikipedia. He continued when asked not to so i reverted all his spam messages. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 12:15, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reason is given by Theresa on my own talk page: "You are spamming native turkish speakers, that introduces bias. This is an english speaking encylopedia. Please don't do it anymore." I have no right to speak to you because you're Turkish. Švitrigaila 13:21, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is not true! Don't put words into my mouth. You have no right to spam. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 15:24, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As one of the spam victims (/sarcasm) and a native Turkish speaker, I have to agree with Taste the Korn. If you only message people from Azerbaijan or other Turkic countries, the voting could easily be ruined by biased opinions. And as for as I am concerned, it is not good for neither Wikipedia nor the article. If people need to discuss things in a civilized manner, they shouldn't go recruit some horde of people on their side. Anyway, thanks Taste the Korn for trying to protect Wikipedia --Emre D. 16:29, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I’m one of those who received the message by User:Švitrigaila and it did inform me of a going-on issue certainly of interest to me. I’m glad that I’ve received the message. I think the user talk page mechanism is meant to be a means of information to pass between users, and I also think it might be used as a notice board for events. The reason for Wikipedia:Babel categories to exist is that “they aid communication by making it easier to contact someone who speaks a certain language” [23], and this was precisely the way it was used by User:Švitrigaila to inform me of some discussion (on the way extended Latin scripts are used in Wikipedia) I might have a word or two to say about (given I am a native speaker of a language that uses an extended Latin alphabet itself), or just would be glad to know what is discussed. I won’t simply join a “horde” of supporters on the side of the sender of such a message, it might well be that I choose to join the other side, IF I feel like I’m going to take a side. Please respect people’s ability to honestly think and talk about an issue and don’t see them as thoughtless crowds waiting to be “recruited” for discussions. Dear Theresa Knott, please do not make decisions on my account; I want the message to stay right there. Peace, Atilim Gunes Baydin 17:30, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is a very borderline case for spamming and my initial reaction was thinking that reverting my talk page is very rude. Now I am against both mass commenting and mass deleting. Please don't do it again, wrongs should not be corrected with wrongs. --þħɥʂıɕıʄʈ^ʝɘɖı 18:06, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't have reverted except that he continued to spam even when told seperately by two different people not to do it. I don't think it's a borderline case at all. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 21:15, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was told by two different people who had nothing to do with it and who don't have lessons to give me. I didn't sent "spam" to this two people. But one of them has a clear opinion of what you can receive and what you can't. Švitrigaila 23:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wholeheartedly agree with Atilim Gunes Baydin on the issue, and I find it improper at the least (if not outright offensive) that you censored my personal talk page before I even had a chance to read the message for myself. --Xasf 09:05, 10 July 2006 (GMT+3)

Actually you will still get the new messages note and everything is in the history. So nothing is censored. Talk page spamming is not on, even if you personally think it's ok to be spammed by this user it does not mean that talk page spamming is ok. Think about the bigger picture. What will happen if spamming is allowed? How will you feel when you get 100 spam message every day? How will you feel when every debate that you are interested in has people spamming select demographics in order to try and win? I don't for one minute think that the people who were spammed were likely to vote all in favor of Švitrigaila views. Actually it would probably backfire on him and people would vote against him. But by only spamming native turkish speakers Švitrigaila is trying to skew the result. And please note that he did it after he saw the vote was not going his way. I stand by what i did. I'm sorry that some people felt it was heavy handed. If you feel that I could have handled it a better way then i am open to suggestions for future reference. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 11:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see you realize I still get the new messages note and I can read the message by Švitrigaila in the page history, then you also should realize that you’ve achieved nothing more (at least for my case) than disturbing me by reverting my user page. There are people already getting many messages every day, and they archive their talk pages. If you believe in Wikipedia users’ ability to make civilized and independent judgments on discussions, then what is it that disturbs you? My suggestion is that you let everyone receive every kind of message to their talk pages (regardless the way the message is sent), because both the sender and the receiver are Wikipedia users, the messages are about issues related to Wikipedia, and I see nothing wrong with a Wikipedia user being informed about an event (talk, discussion, creation of a new WikiProject, etc.) going on on Wikipedia.

And please don’t say I think “it’s ok to be spammed”, because I don’t, the thing here is that I do not consider this as spam and I believe I have the right to judge what is spam for my talk page and what is not. I hope I could clearly explain my point of view on this issue. Peace, Atilim Gunes Baydin 17:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I realise it! What you fail to realise is that as a very old time user who has been on wikipedia from the first year, and a member of the arbitration comittee which has sanctioned talk page spammers i have seen the harm that talk page spamming can do. Talk page spamming is not allowed on wikipedia. Of course it's spam, he was trying to influence a vote which wasn't going the way he wanted. I wasn't trying to annoy you. I was trying to stop him engaging in a behaviour that has caused massive disruption of wikipedia in the past with huge userbox wars over exactly this kind of behaviour. I already explained to him various ways that he could have got people's attention without spamming people's talk pages, such as posting at the village pump, or starting a rfc on the topic, but he chose to continue what he was doing. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 20:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't want to sound rude, but my talk page is of my own, Theresa, and the very purpose of its existence is to serve as a means to reach and discuss issues that might concern me. You shouldn't, without my prior knowledge, have reverted what Švitrigaila wrote on my page; that's for me to decide. Also, you must have mistakenly classified it as a minor edit, because the entire message seems to be censored in a haste. This is a free encyclopedia, please let people speak accordingly. After all, he wasn't trying to sell Viagra. I think you owe me another revert now. Koray 17:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear CeeGee, þħɥʂıɕıʄʈ^ʝɘɖı, Emre D., Xasf, Atilim Gunes Baydin, may I ask you just one question. Do you really think if I had posted the Əliyev controversy on any place proposed by Theresa (RFC, village pump, and so on), would have you read it and would have you been awere of the issue? Švitrigaila 23:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Had you stopped spamming after being told that it wasn't allowed I would have have been happy to help. Hell I'm still happy to help now. have you actually tried the VP yet? It's a high profile page that way more that 100 people have on thier watchlist. Also try WikiProject Azeri, Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions seems particlualy relavent to the discussion at hand Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 07:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have found nothing intersting on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (nor in its archive pages). I didn't know about WikiProject Azeri. It may be a good idea, I'll try that. Thank you for the link. Švitrigaila 08:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, what I meant was, since the argument is about how to name a page, a message on the talk page of naming conventions should attract people to the debate who are interested in how pages should be named. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 16:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zzzzz unblocking

It was a checkuser confirmed highjacking of Zzzzz account by that Johnny the Vandal guy, as Zzzzz is back to doing good edits, I'm pretty sure it's the real Zzzzz. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 19:06, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quick favor

Hey, you're an admin, right? Could you do me a favor? I warned User:Wakefencer for vandalism, and he changed my heading to a personal attack. Then I warned him for that, and he did it again. I think I'm just pissing him off, and I don't want to provoke him into getting himself banned. Could you just tell him that it's a bad idea to make personal attacks? Here's his talk page. Thanks! Psycho Master (Karwynn) 16:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fine I won't change the heading back, I didn't mean to offend him I just thought the whole thing was stupid. I don't want him to whine anymore, though I didn't know I was being stalked so closely. I'll have to tell Karwynn I'm flattered. This started because I added something to a page which was perfectly legitimate but because gets his news from Bill O'Reilly he interpreted it as vandalism. Its water under the bridge as far as I'm concerned, Karwynn needn't worry about me hurting his feelings.--Wakefencer 21:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, after careful examination of your contributions and your talk page, I've decided you're not a very good admin, nor a nice person. You lord over the fact that you have experience over new users, but who cares how long you've been here if you make stupid contributions. As far as I can tell not only do your contributions add any illumination or insight, your spelling and grammar is horrible. Furthermore, you get in stupid arguments and stick your nose where it doesn't belong. Also, to be honest, you just generally make me uncomfortable. Please leave me alone from now on, Theresa.--Wakefencer 17:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At least my spelling errors are on purpose. I hope you don't teach English, otherwise I cry for the next generation. --Wakefencer 23:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And that's the second personal attack you've made against me. And for what? Because i asked you not to change a header? Well I'm certainly going to dismiss you that's for sure. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 23:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oversight

Hello, looks like you are online. Could you check on something for me. Based largely on this edit [24] and the IP range, I think banned user Andrew Morrow is re-writing Jimmy Wales article. The IP address is consistent with the one the new ranges he is using. It is 4:00 am and I haven't been to sleep yet so it is possible I'm not thinking clearly about the user. Even if it is not him the edit summarry with the bithday needs go, right? Whoever is using this IP added content to a number of other "high profile" articles. Please look into it. FloNight ^talk 08:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am 90% sure it's him but 100% sure it's one of our banned users. I will remove the edit with the birthday summary. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 10:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Most Destructive One ; - ) Damn mess he made. Added content in a dozen places. We cannot ignore them becasue he mixes "inappropriate edits" in with the good stuff. If we are checking them then I think we need to remove them. That means arguing with bunch of editors that think the edits are fine and should stay. I need more coffee before I look closer at what needs undoing. thanks again, Less Destructive One. 14:42, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how tere is anything to argue. He is the worst banned editor we have. He needs to be reverted, simple as that. 16:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

It is a pain to deal with because some editors/users disagree with the idea that a banned users good edits should be reverted on sight. They fuss when we do it making the job harder to do. Other editors are curious about the sudden activity and ask questions about it. When it is a big mess to clean up then there is usually at least one editor that will revert some of the stuff. Then Morrow/or other banned user goes to there page and praises them and starts in telling their version of the conflict. Often editors will buy into it and end up arguing about it on there user talk page or AN/I. Maybe today is our lucky day and it will be different. FloNight ^talk 18:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Send anyone who does that to me. Andrew Morrow isn't even an ordinary banned user. His is as unwelcome is anyone is possible to be. I think most people will see sense when it's explained to them. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 18:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

user talk page

Dear Theresa please do not erase the messages on my page but feel free to write your own messages about any issue. Thanks --Hattusili 16:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See the conversation further up the page. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 18:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

Sorry about the penis thing, my bad, i thought you people would get a nice chuckle out of it.

User talk page

I assumed that it should be a mistake, you erasing messages from my very own user talk page but after I dropped by to ak for its reason I saw that you have also been warned by another user on the subject matter. Please refrain from erasing messages from other people's talk pages for it is considered vandalism, you have been warned. Feel free to leave a message. Kertenkelebek^Ⓣ 18:03, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the thread above. Please don't tell what is "considered vandalism". I know what is vandalism and what isn't. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 20:31, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently despite your years-old experience here in Wikipedia you still don't know anything about vandalism, neither understand the key rules of this community. Not only on this subject but from the comments on your talk page it can be seen you've violated Wikipedia policy many times in many ways. However they're not of my concern. As the Wikipedia official policy about vandalism states clearly:

Talk page vandalism Deleting the comments of other users from Talk pages, or deleting entire sections thereof, is generally considered vandalism.

and furthermore

Changing people's comments Editing signed comments by another user to substantially change their meaning (NOTE: which you'll agree that deleting a comment significantly changes its meaning) is considered vandalism

Therefore there's no discussion on the subject that your move was an act of vandalism thus should be avoided. Besides all these, I can deal with what I consider spam myself thanks for your concern, but please don't repeat your action ever against anyone; you have been warned. Kertenkelebek^Ⓣ 10:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly do understand the rules of the communuity, you fail to understand the key rule WP:AGF. Why do you think the above rule has the word "genrally" in it? I see that you didn't really read my explanation on your talk page and instead want to simply rules lawyer me. Why else would you talk about changing the meaning of signed comments, which has nothing whatsoever to do with what i did? Please kindly stop with the "you have been warned" bullshit also, If you feel you want to do something then just go ahead and do it. I certainly will act in the same way if I see somome soliciting votes like this again because as I already explained on your talk page, i felt that my actions were the lesser of two evils. Again if you want to discuss practical ways that i could have done things differently, I am open to discussion, but if all you want to do is rules lawyer, make inflammatory accusations or threaten with some sort af vague warnings then I'm not interested.Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 12:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't delete discussion

I believe that's considered bad form here on Wikipedia. Especially when it's appropriate discussion like discussion of criticism of Wikipedia on the Talk:Criticism of Wikipedia page. Thanks in advance. -Advocron 16:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks and trolling are not discussion. As I alread explained to you that page is for discussion of the article not for you tp personoally rant and rave. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 19:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]