User talk:999~enwiki/Archive 3

Freemasonry

WP:CfD#Freemason_Categories

Whats your opinion on this? No ones "voted" yet. SynergeticMaggot 20:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning: should I withdraw it, or let it stay? SynergeticMaggot 20:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're more than welcome to nominate the rest of them then. Other have 3,4 and maybe 5 in them. SynergeticMaggot 20:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The All

This article is kinda confusing. I've already begun to go through and edit it. Most of it looks like nonsense and the citations look like the same string along as the other articles KV wrote. SynergeticMaggot 22:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the majority of it does in fact come from the Kybalion. I was thinking about merging it. SynergeticMaggot 22:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dattatreya

Could you add to your watchlist? We've got a "add a tiny bit of scripture with my personal interpretation thereof and call it cited" kind of guy, User:Green23. —Hanuman Das 02:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kalki has NO citations

Kalki article writers have provided NO CITATIONS throughout the article, so either you put up citation marks all over the article, or none at all. Wiki rules are to be followed by everyone. --Shravak 22:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Civility

Please don't patronise anyone on Wikipedia like that as you did to Shravak even if broke 3RR and used a sockpuppet. Not even an administrator could get away with something like that without some harsh words from their peers. -- Netsnipe ► 03:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are a bully! Stop threatening me!

You can't prove anything because there is not anything to prove. That was my first edit. How was I to know that it would cause an explosion in you? Get a grip! Dattat 18:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dealing with sockpuppetry

I find it a bit hypocritical that you can ask that "If you have something to say to me, use my talk page." one moment and remove their comment the next and slap them with a npa instead of replying. It also didn't escape my notice that you also removed my polite request for more civility on your part without a reply let alone an explanation via edit summary. Anyway, I suggest you refrain from any more contact with User:Dattat and file a Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser instead. Let a neutral administrator do the investigating and handle any disciplinary action required. Remember that you are not the judge, jury or court sherif -- just a witness. -- Netsnipe ► 18:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop threatening me and personally attacking me

Calling me a sockpuppet and threatening me with blocks can be called personal attacks. Please stop personally attacking me and threatening me with blocks and sockpuppet accusations. Dattat 18:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

politeness

This is unacceptable. Please discontinue immediately. — Dan | talk 18:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

999 you erased warnings from Dan and Netsnipe from your talk page

I think you are not supposed to do that. I am not that other person so those other edits have nothing to do with me. Dattat 19:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are a bully and deceptive and nothing I did warrented the way you have treated me

Go ahead and erase this. I don't care. And no, I don't understand how one small edit puts me in the sockpuppet category. That evidence has nothing to do with me. I made one (1) edit on that page. And it appears that you are threatening me if I make another. Do you own that page? Dattat 20:00, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

If you wish to discuss the possible sockpuppetry of Shravak and Dattat, please do so in the appropriate place, which is here. Dattat, if you read this, please note that I have never said that I would report you for doing anything I don't like. I have simply put standard warnings on your talk page for things that you have done that violate WP policies. Those policies are linked from the warnings. Read them, don't break them, and you have nothing to worry about. No need to get hysterical! -999 (Talk) 20:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An administrator previously deleted Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Shravak because Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets is for people who have already been indefinitely banned returning as sockpuppets. Please have this page deleted as soon as possible and instead file a request for checkuser. -- Netsnipe ► 21:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been told in the past by an admin not to use checkuser, but to follow Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets, which is what I did. That page says it is for starting a general discussion of whether the user is a sockpuppet. Nothing on the page says what you say about it. -999 (Talk) 21:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of warnings

Do not escalate the situation by removing our warnings until this dispute has been resolved for a month. You do not own this talk page and cannot establish your own rules to this talk page when they apply to everyone equally. From Wikipedia:Talk_pages#Etiquette: "Actively erasing non-harassing personal messages without replying (if a reply would be appropriate or polite) will probably be interpreted as hostile" and Wikipedia:Removing_warnings#Vandalism: "users generally are permitted to remove and archive comments at their discretion, except in cases of warnings, which they are generally discouraged/prohibited from removing, especially where the intention of the removal is to mislead other editors." By removing our warnings you are attempting to mislead other editors and administrators (who wish to review this situation) to believe that you have not been warned about you conduct and incivility so far towards others. -- Netsnipe ► 21:00, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Status

Are you an admin? If not, please do not act as if you are. I interpret "warnings" with respect to talk pages as official warning explicitly placed by people who are actually admins. Thanks and have a nice day. :-) -999 (Talk) 21:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I probably will be in less than 48 hours time, but that's beside the point. Rdsmith4 is an admin, but that's beside the point. The point is that you constantly refuse to abide by the community-established consensus on removal of warnings that are not definitely not frivolous. Your constant attempts at intimidating newer users and incivility regardless of whatever policies they may have broken in your eyes is simply unacceptable. -- Netsnipe ► 21:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

999, you seem to be laboring under rather an important (though excusable) misconception, which is that administrators have some greater authority, or license to enforce the rules, than regular users. This is not the case. Administrators simply have control of the block and delete buttons (and a few others), and are only seen as more responsible for the enforcement of the rules since they have the technical ability to enact penalties for breaking them. If another user sees you being rude or otherwise misbehaving and asks you to quit, you should treat his complaint with just as much respect as you would treat that of an administrator, and acknowledge it or rebut it accordingly; you should not by any means delete it or ignore it simply because its author is not an administrator. Regards — Dan | talk 21:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I find Dattat's reactions entirely justified. If you believe he is a sock puppet, follow the procedure at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets; do not simply tag his userpage with warnings and leave him rude messages. — Dan | talk 21:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dan, I followed the sockpuppet process exactly, last night. Then User:El C deleted the evidence page without removing the tag! See here. I have taken up a discussion with User:El C about this here. I never intended to do anything but follow the process, but once the evidence was deleted, Dattat and other users began asking why I had tagged him. So I recreated the evidence page that should never have been deleted to leave Dattat wondering what I meant and asking about it. What a f'ing waste of time and all becuase one admin can't follow process and leave the report up as I created it. -999 (Talk) 21:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see; it seems that El C has handled the sockpuppet situation; therefore you should probably direct further complaints about Dattat to El C. Be advised, meanwhile, that checkuser reveals no evidence that Dattat and Shravak are the same person, so I suggest that you drop this particular issue. Regards — Dan | talk 21:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]