For continually applying your exceptional logic and rational skills in editing the Millwall brick article to the betterment of that article in the face of flames and heated scrutiny and challenges to just about every fact posted and every reference cited, I hereby award you the Wiki Wiffle Bat award.-- Jreferee 16:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Hey, good job cleaning up the Racialism article. I was kinda scared when you took out some stuff, but i eventually saw the reasoning behind them all and I agree. For the Advocates of Racialism, I was thinking to make the countries a list because im sure others will find more countries and policies of racialism. I was thinking of even adding The Peoples Republic of China, but Im still looking for the proof that they only allow Han ethnics into political positions, or something like that. I just wanted your input, and to say "double plus good" job with the cleanup. Xlegiofalco 21:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi - hope this finds you well! Would appreciate your considered opinion of the Vespa page, regards external links. An anon editor 80.116.17.206 placed a link on the page this afternoon, so I reverted it. The editor came back this evening, and removed three of the links left after your additional cut down of my harvest from Saturday (I like what you cut it down to). I have again reverted back to your list. Can you have a look and see what he thinks are "spam" links, and give us your thoughts? May be these guys are competitors (at least VespaKing registered - although I removed his link as well), or maybe we will get into a reverese edit war - when all we want to do is write a great article! Best Regards, - Trident13 00:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.
Hi. I agreed to advocate your case on behalf of the AMA. Your request for assistance can be referenced here. I see that the page in question has been protected. I'm wondering where you want to go from here. Please contact me in whatever way you feel most comftorable. If you would like to correspond via email, please ask me for my work address on my talk page. I'm sure we'll get this wrapped up to your satisfaction in no time! →Bobby← 19:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I've looked into the situation, and would like to talk to you about how to procede. My main concern is the attitude of Mitsos in this situation. I expect that he will continue to prove disruptive unless we act quickly. Please contact me so that we may discuss your case. →Bobby← 16:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Excuse me, why did you go and revert the article called ABC DJ?? I have already updated it and I think that mine is better than yours. Please reply my answers. Thank you.
Hi - until a compromise is sought, I'm not willing to unprotect the article - I'll need to see a clear consensus on the talk page first. Also, I can't block Mitsos, as he hasn't broken policy in such a way that would merit another block (but he has been warned). If you'd like to get other opinions on Mitsos' behaviour, can I suggest that you consider, in conjunction with your advocate, making a post at WP:ANI? Thanks Martinp23 15:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
As it fits into mutliple categories, I'd suggest that you post it on the main WP:ANI page. Be sure to include diffs to show abuse of editing priveleges, and I urge you to consult your advocate first, as he will have a deeper understanding of the situation than me! Martinp23 15:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Different definition b/w the word "Caucasian" and "white people".[edit]
Excuse me, why is it that in your opinion, Caucasians are not white people. To me, Caucasian are white people but its just only that Caucasian are more polite to use rather than to use white people as this words are describing as racism. Btw, can you tell me the differences between the word Caucasian and white people, bcoz u said that Caucasian are not white people and I'm totally confused with that. Please reply. Thanks.
Ok. I think our best couse of action is to post a note on an admin messageboard so that others can comment on the infractions. I'm also posting a notice on Mitsos' talk page warning that further abuse may be grounds for a block or ban. If it's ok with you, I'll post a comment as soon as I've gathered some evidence (feel free to send me examples). You may contact me here or on my talk page. →Bobby← 17:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Update - I've crafted a post for the noticeboard (or possibly RfC now that I see other users have confronted him). Please review it here. If you think anything should be changed or edited, feel free to do so. I'm heading out of town for Thanksgiving soon, and I'd recommend we hold off on posting until all editor's get through the (U.S.) holiday. Also, if you have better examples of the disruptive an biased behavior, please add them. →Bobby← 18:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure you did the right thing with your edits; I'm the one who added the fact tags etc, and I did so because right now the intro to his article sez he's from NZ, but his infobox (and the talkpage) sez he's from Wisconsin. So now, with your edit, it says in the infobox that a) he's from Wisconsin (his talk page sez he was born there), and b) he's a New Zealander. Anchoress 11:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Please block the following anonymous IP again, this time permanently. The anonymous user with the IP 74.106.128.229 continues a campaign of vandalism and nonsense. I noticed you blocked this IP for 31 hours on Nov. 16, and the vandalism continued after the block was lifted. Spylab 16:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi Spylab: if this was a registered user, I would definitely dish out an indefinite block. However, IPs (except open proxies) are never blocked permanently, because they could change hands automatically. I have, however, extended the block for another week. —Mets501 (talk) 18:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
It seems that some users want me blocked because they don't agree with my ideology. Your arguments are that I have commited personal attacks and other things against WP policy. You forgot to say about the significant contributions I have made to many articles, and you only reffer to very few cases where I have commited personal attacks. I was blocked because of that, and I have learned my lesson. About the dispute in Hrisi Avgi, Spylab, please see Talk:Hrisi Avgi. I know much more than you about that party, plus I can read Greek and you can't. Cheers & Oi! Mitsos 19:32, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Dude thanks for your help on cleaning up Boston hardcore. It's nice to have a anouther hand in there. I am also working on Slapshot if you have anything to add. Rock on -- Markco1 13:24, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Re: Your unjustified reverts to Neo-Nazism article[edit]
Spylab wrote:
"The following 3RR and Personal Attack messages are related to your unjustified edits and comments in the neo-Nazism article. The reason that the reverts don't all show up here is that the editor associated with this talk page doesn't have a Wikipedia account, and has used an anonymous IP to make the destructive changes and comments in the article in question.
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.
Please stop. If you continue to make personal attacks on other people, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Thank you." Spylab 17:00, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
I have declined for the moment and warned the IP user, if the problem continues please re-list. Gnangarra 13:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I have restored the warning to the IP, please dont remove. Gnangarra 14:05, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I removed it because you left it on the wrong person's page. I have a message on your talk page with more explanation.Spylab 14:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I left there cause that was the only recent edits, anyhow I have left that user a welcome note. Other user hasnt vandalise for a number of hours so for now I'll leave the page unprotected, but its on my watchlist. Gnangarra 14:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi again. I'm back from break. Mitsos has contacted me via my talk page and via the desk where we are crafting our letter. Please drop by my desk at some point today in order to refine the current statement and figure out where we are going to post it. Thanks! →Bobby← 14:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
After giving it some more thought, I think our best option at this point is to open a Request for Comment. This will allow many other users from the community to comment on Mitsos' actions. It is a gerneral precursor to requesting arbitration (which may be where this ends up). In order to open an RfC, we need at least two editors who have had conflicts with Mitsos in the past. You and SandyDancer would be well qualified to act in this capacity. If you both agree to this, we can finalize our comments and submit the request. This shouldn't take very long since the draft version is already in pretty good shape. We'll just need to add the extra links you turned up (and any more that might help). Let me know if you are willing to go ahead with this. If you interact with Sandy often, please feel free to contact him(?) as well. If not, I will. →Bobby← 14:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
It's a little long-winded. Would you consider moving some parts back to their original places? I've never read a band intro that mentioned "quirky covers" in the intro. Also, I'm putting in the part about how "7 Shot Screamers In Wonderland" is the best sounding record, because it is. That's not a POV, it's fact.
For your recent work integrating the Christian fascism article into Neo-fascism and religion[edit]
The Editor's Barnstar
The Editor's Barnstar is awarded to Spylab for work above and beyond the call of duty in the difficult task of integrating the Christian fascism article into the Neo-fascism and religion article. May your pen...um, keyboard & mouse* never tire! --weirdoactort|c-- 16:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I have warned the IP and directed him to various policies about editing, and WP:3RR, I have also added the article to my watch list, but if you see an edits that are a problem drop me a note and i'll fix. Gnangarra 15:05, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
I have tried leaving a message pointing out some specific policies that need to be followed, but if this editor chooses to ignore I think we may need to consider WP:DP based on Blog and WP:NOR. I'm available if you need any further help. Gnangarra 01:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I believe the main text (and diffs) for the planned RfC against Mitsos are in good order. Due to a username change, the location of my desk has changed. You can now find it here. Please take some time to go over the process at WP:RFC. A request for comment is a serious issue, and if other users feel as if you acted out of line in dealing with Mitsos, the discussion could take a nasty turn. If you wish to go forward with the request, the following sequence of events will occur:
I will post it next Monday (since I won't be able to follow it well over the weekend). *After posting, I will need you to go to the page (which I will send to you) and certify that you support the RfC.
It would also be good if you could provide examples of times when you tried to resolve the dispute with Mitsos. This shows that we are not merely trying to get the user in trouble over his political views.
I will also ask Sandy to notarize his support for the RfC.
You will write a statement (I'll go over this with you when it comes time) describing your concerns. Since the complaint we have drafted on my desk shows diffs, you will not need to provide these.
I will inform other users who have had issues with Mitsos in the past about the RfC so we can get more community input.
Again, if this sounds like something you wish to pursue, let me know. If you are interested in other possible courses of action, we can put the RfC on the back burner and talk more. As your advocate, I will do whatever I possibly can regardless of which course you choose, but I would be negligent if I didn't emphasize the seriousness of an RfC. If you have any doubts about moving forward after reading the policy page, please let me know. Regards, →Bobby← 16:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
I wont revert but I trimmed the categories a bit because I felt that several really did not fit. I think categories should be best representative rather than all possible.Peter Rehse 06:02, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
The Greek source in AFA article is the same source that is used in Hrisi Avgi article, regarding the attack. Ask any Greek Wikipedian, and he will tell you that in the bottom of the link there is an article from a Greek mainstream newspaper, Vradini, that supports my claims. Mitsos 18:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
We must not start an edit-war in Hrisi Avgi again. Discuss about the disputed tags on talkpage and we can settle about everything else. Mitsos 19:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
It was brought to my attention that you removed comments of another editor from the talk page of Neo-Nazism, this is considered vandalism please dont remove the comments of others, you can moved them to fix minor layout but only if really necessary. If its offensive material then your better notifing WP:AN/I and let an admin deal with it. Gnangarra 03:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi can you please stop reverting the article I'm trying to get this guy to follow policies but while your reverting everything he does its only creating hosilities, rememeber dont bite the newbie Gnangarra 13:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
please have a look at User_talk:The cardinal of the blood I've suggest this guy also talks to you about changes and requests your input, for that to happen you'll give him some breathing space for a little while. thanks Gnangarra 13:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I notice that in the history but since he's made the step and created an account I thought treating as newbie would be good starting place to get the heat out the discussions and try to resolve this, as I said before you can opt to AfD the article under WP:not. Lets give it a week and then see what happens. Gnangarra 13:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I see you and Mitsos had a bit of a dispute lately. If there is anything else you would like to add to the RfC draft before I post it, please do so. We can edit it once it's posted as well, but it looks better when the first post is pretty sizable without a bunch of additions. →Bobby← 14:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I began the RfC posting here. When you get a chance, please head over and add your perspective on the dispute in the Statements section. Also, once you have read it over, please certify the basis for the dispute so we can get it opened. Have a good one! →Bobby← 15:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Just to clarify, when I said you should leave a statement, I meant in the Deszcription Section. If my points cover it accurately, there's no need to do this. →Bobby← 15:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I've begun inviting users who have interacted with mitsos in the past to participate in the RfC. I encourage you to do the same. If you know anybody who might have someone to say on the matter, please send them the link and a brief explanation informing them what is going in. Please add the RfC to your watchlist (if you haven't already) and let me know if you need anything. →Bobby← 16:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
First of all, that is not a "last warning." There have to be previous warnings for that to be last. Second of all, I have made no "baseless accusations." Here is exactly what I wrote: "The editing behaviour in this article (specifically in the Croatia section) — as well as the language style in edit notes and talk pages — by User:NovaNova, User:Purger-related sock puppets and various anonymous IP accounts is very distinct." If anyone cares to wade through the editing history of the neo-Nazism article and the editing and talk page histories of the accounts I mentioned, they will see that the editing behaviours and unique language style are, in fact, very similar. You got very defensive another time when I implied that you may be using sock puppets, saying there's no way I could prove it because your IP is protected by an American Internet provider. That seems like a strange response from someone who is supposedly innocent. Spylab 12:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi Spylab. Just out of curiosity, is Nova a suspected sockpuppet of Mitsos? If so, we might want to request a checkuser in order to ensure the RfC is not tainted. →Bobby← 14:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
No, they have nothing to do with each other. The issue I have had with NovaNova was not about point of view. The problem is that NovaNova constantly reverted one section of the neo-Nazism article to a version that did not focus on the actual topic of the article. Instead of being about neo-Nazism, the old version concentrated on World War Two-era Nazism. Instead of improving the weaknesses in the section, NovaNova kept on reverting the whole section. Some of the last few reverts were made with anonymous IP accounts, and it was very obvious that it was actually NovaNova. While investigating the edit history of that article, I found great similarities between NovaNova's behaviour and the behaviour of other editors who had "suspected sock puppet" messages on their talk pages. That article has now been locked because of the revert war.Spylab 14:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
"is Nova a suspected sockpuppet of Mitsos" Of course it is!!! I have millions of sockpuppets!!!! Mitsos 09:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Sorry I haven't been around the RfC much. I've been busy in real life and only get to glance in for a few minutes a day. As such, I haven't had a chance to post reponses to the talk page discussion. If you feel as if you need immediate advocacy attention, please check in at the AMA and explain the situation to one of the senior members. Otherwise, I'll be back in full swing next week. →Bobby← 19:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Mediation -- Swedish Anarcho-syndicalist Youth Federation[edit]
Oh you are correct. I do not like the word "white" because it is a bit politically incorrect. I might prefer a link to Caucasian race since that was the meaning that the scientific study wanted to convey, since it was about Americans and in the US the word Caucasian is a more politically correct term than "white", which is why I think they used it. I have to think about this a bit.--Filll 16:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Well if you lived in the US, you would soon find out why "white people" is politically incorrect. It is like asking for someone to "bust a cap in yo ass". Get it?--Filll 17:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I do live in the US and the standard term is White people. Caucasian, rightly refers to people from the Caucasus region. I haven't heard Caucasian used to describe White folks for many, many years. Cheers. L0b0t 17:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
"Well if you lived in the US, you would soon find out why "white people" is politically incorrect. It is like asking for someone to "bust a cap in yo ass". Get it?" I didn't get it? Anyway, I think White is better. Mitsos 10:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Please, stop baseless accusations. If you have a proof what you are claiming here
[1] - make it public!!!
--NovaNova 23:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
