User talk:The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick/Archive 5

Re Spanish Empire

Protected for 6 months this time - hope this helps. EyeSerene^talk 19:40, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Commercial/Powerfull Portuguese Empire . . .

Thanks for the corrective regarding the use of embedded commentary in entries. I note that you removed the in-text phrasing that gave rise to my comment, and yet this idea that some disparity exists between a "commercial" empire & a "powerful" one persists elsewhere in the Portuguese Empire entry; particularly in the paragraph directly preceding the aforementioned edited passage. I'm wondering now whether there exists some manner in which Wikipedia editors might encourage the authors of questionable passages to attempt to clarify intended expository implications before drawing conclusions on such information & executing comprehensive redaction. Thanks.

sewot_fred (talk) 02:46, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

When it's questionable, poorly written, improperly spelled and unreferenced, it's a pretty safe bet that you can just delete the wording in question. Just be WP:BOLD. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 08:02, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I see. Thanks again. sewot_fred (talk) 15:05, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Erdős–Bacon number

I know you have better things to do, but could you take a look here and give some input? I'll spare you all the details - IMO, this is obvious original research, but it's not going down well. I could be wrong. --hippo43 (talk) 00:52, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Discussion is ongoing at WP:NORN - if you have a chance, your input would be useful. --hippo43 (talk) 02:16, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

British Isles article

I've been trying to think of a way forward. While I like the (current) protected status simply because there's no running battle with the IP / sockpuppet / "what's verifiability got to do with it?" crowd, I don't think we can rely on admins making changes based on consensus, simply because some people will object to anything they don't like, even when there is no policy-based reason for doing so, and their voice will count. No "consensus"; no change.

So, what do you think of this proposed trial policy? Do you think we could persuade an admin to run a system like this if we could find some reviewers? Offer up the article as a test-bed for the policy? What I can't work out if whether the developers have actually implemented the necessary coding, but even if not then a simulacrum might suffice. Thoughts? Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

If you want to try, I'll certainly provide support for such a move. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 01:35, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

British empire - End of Empire section

Good to hear that you are familiar with the last sentence.

So for the sake of good English, can we please insert the italics?

Ryan, August 09 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.170.21.124 (talk) 17:29, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I fail to see why you are so obsessed about this. That section heading is not a quote, it is a regular sentence. [1] The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 20:16, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not obsessed. But the heading relates to the last sentence, which includes a quote.

94.170.21.124 (talk) 20:53, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not a quote. It's a frequently used phrase by authors to describe the ends of many empires. The people quoted happened to also have used it. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 21:16, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Ireland vote

Mr Hat - if you copy the full template for the vote, from opening '*' to closing curly bracket '}' then the four tildes for your signature and timestamp are already in the template. If you put more in, that might be the problem you encountered? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Aye, looks like you did everything right. I was going to suggest it might be the 'span' html in your sig, but I have that too and mine worked. Odd. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:46, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: Stubs

Not being rude, just stating a fact. If you're unsure what a template is for, check. The template itself says that it's for "short articles", as does WP:STUB. Whoever put that template on an article should have instantly realised it was the wrong one as soon as they saw what it said, and should have corrected it themselves. There is no excuse for using a template that is clearly wrong - it's easy enough to check Wikipedia:Cleanup templates to find the correct one. Grutness...wha? 01:36, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

It's also easy enough to be polite to others. Quiz: which is the more friendly, less sarcastic, way of pointing out that someone has made a mistake? (A) "some editors appear to have no idea whatsoever what a stub is. Clue - this ain't one" or (B) "expandsection is the correct template, this is an incorrect usage of the stub template". The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 01:49, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Neither of them is sarcastic or rude, as far as I can see. As far as I know no-one's got the knowledge to know what all of Wikipedia's templates are for. That's part of the reason why we have pages like Wikipedia:Cleanup templates, so that if you don't know the right template, or if the template you've used is clearly not the right one, you can find out which template should be used. And certainly there's nothing rude in saying that you should check what you're adding to an article. I have no qualms with simple and honest mistakes if the person whose made them - once they realises it - tries to correct them. And anyone adding a stub template to that article would have instantly found out their mistake when they checked what they'd added to the article (something which all editors should always do). I say again - if you put a template on an article and it's instantly apparent that it's wrong, change it. What's "rude" is putting a wrong template on the article and not even bothering to try to correct it even when it's obvious it's wrong, but rather leaving it for some other editor to come and clean up the mistakes later. That's not a "simple, honest mistake" - that's bad wikiquette. You wouldn't add a redlink category to an article without at least trying to find the right name for the category, so why do basically the same sort of thing by adding a template which clearly says that it is for a small article to a 47 kb article? Grutness...wha? 01:59, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

BI & I

Thanks RedHat. Despite my comments at Talk:BI there is quite a bit of work to do here. Unfortunately he's pipe-linked "British Isles and Ireland" to "British Isles" in some cases. I'll deal with the genuine links you noted, if you haven't alrady done so. MidnightBlue (Talk) 12:41, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Cosialscastells

What???--Kurrop (talk) 16:44, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

BI map

What do you suggest? Should I leave it blank then? I was debating whether to use the Ulster banner or the St. Patrick's Cross. Or should I just use the Union Jack? HELP PLEASE! --TheBritishExplorer (talk) 19:21, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

MedCab

Don't want to disturb your self-imposed exile (I completely understand it). This is only to tell you that I have taken the discussion to MedCab [2]. I have included ALL of the editors involved in the discussion (including -sorry, yes, I know- YOU). Also, I have to say that, in order to counter arguments saying that mediation will not get us anywhere (directed to the potential mediator), I have put you and Ecemaml as examples of what we should put a remedy to (experienced and knowledgeable editors with great potential for improving Gibraltar related articles but that get fed up with the environment of those articles). Sorry if this has disturbed you. (And if you want to contribute, you will be welcome). Best regards. --Imalbornoz (talk) 09:59, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

An Apology

I realise you've asked me not to post here. The only reason for doing so is that after reflection, badgering you yesterday was perhaps not the brightest idea. I was kind of ticked off finding you'd posted a WQA about me, which was probably amplified by the lack of a notice. However, two wrongs don't make a right, so I'm apologising for bugging you about it. I would hope that we can be less confrontational in the future, guess that Spanish passion in both of us gets the better of us sometimes. Regards, Justin talk 10:14, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry for not notifying you about the WQA. Communicating via text is bound to exacerbate tensions. I see it all the time at work with people (who really should know better) getting angry about the language used in emails. I'm sure if we all met up for a beer in the pub we'd all be feeling rather sheepish about our Wikipedia language towards each other and would probably have a laugh about it. (I should have let Gibnews I was visiting a couple of years ago). FYI, I don't want to rake up the past, but since I saw you mentioned it again yesterday, you really did read far too much into the Rottweiler joke. My Spanish is terrible. I do not know what that implies if said in Spanish. I mean that, with 100% honesty. I really was just using it in the same way that Richard Dawkins is referred to as "Darwin's rottweiler". The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 22:59, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The best British equivalent I can think of would be thick as pig shit; you understand the offence taken now I presume? Its basically a way of calling someone stupid in Spanish. No offence but even if you didn't understand how it could be construed it was an ill-judged remark. That btw is purely by way of explanation and not to rake anything up. As far as I'm concerned its in the past. Regards, Justin talk 23:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Remember we're speaking in English, and not Spanish, otherwise one could potentially take all sorts of offence (see this!) The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:51, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Uninvolved mentor and thanks

You have been around for a long time in the English WP. Have you seen any experienced editor / admin who looks like s/he has the time and patience for mentoring a(n) (almost) newcomer involved in a very hard and frustrating dispute?

It would have to be someone completely neutral in anything to do with the current dispute, that's a prerequisite (I'm sure I don't need to say it, but just in case I will), but eager to look into the details in order to give an informed opinion (someone related with History or Geography...)

BTW, thank you very much for your support (complete the sentence with emphatic body language of gratitude and emotion). It is being very hard for me to go through this, but I am afraid that I will not be able to disengage (it's my stubborn nature, and there are some opinions in the forums giving a possible solution). I agree that talking it around a beer would make things much easier. Some of my best friends in the MBA were British, and the most hilarious people around a beer. Also, I used to go sailing to Gibraltar and enjoyed the place very much some years ago. I am sure that if I could meet some of the WP Gib people we would all be very positively surprised. About writing, I think the same: my experience in proffessional life is that controversial issues are much better dealt with a phonecall than an e-mail, and a meeting is much better.

Also BTW, I am 100% Spanish and don't know what the rottweiler thing is about either. Maybe it's an expression in some region of Spain. Or maybe I didn't understand it correctly. I will ask Justin so that things are not about discussing all the time (I hope he doesn't think it's an attack ;) -this emoticon is for Justin in case he reads this).

I would appreciate it if you could think up of someone.

Cheers. --Imalbornoz (talk) 08:40, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I don't know about the mentoring thing, but I will say that not getting your way at Wikipedia is something you have to learn to deal with, as annoying as that can be sometimes. I'm not telling you to stop what you are doing, or saying that you should stop, that is up to you, and I'm not saying I disagree with what you are doing. But ask yourself whether it's really worth your time and effort? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 02:56, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks anyway about the mentoring. And thanks for your advice: I simply get very stubborn when I see someone ignoring good reasons just because he/she is stronger, or is in a bigger group, or is in a higher position; in fact, I guess it's worth my time (and also I would be very disappointed if I saw that WP is not able to deal with this kind of thing). Finally, thank you very much indeed for your support: it got lonely for a moment and your support helped a lot (it made me realise that it was not me getting insanely paranoid with some persecution complex...) And thank you very much for your discovering Fry & Laurie to me (I've had some laughs this vacation with them on youtube). --Imalbornoz (talk) 07:47, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

British Isles and related articles

Hiya Red Hat, it seems we've a newbie(s) causing problems. An IP account (86.42.220.151) & SunCluster. -- GoodDay (talk) 18:33, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Indeed! The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 18:34, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I've no patients for newbies, when they're combative. Feel free to reason with the IP account. GoodDay (talk) 18:59, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Maps

Yeah... Nationalism, I guess! Cheers. The Ogre (talk) 12:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Gib

Seeing as you commented and only because of that, this is the edit he is objecting to [3]. I've reverted back to the original text, I think you'll agree mine was an improvement - and I even had Gibnews agree to it. Regards. Justin talk 15:41, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Your comment on my page

I frankly do not care about the content dispute part of the "British Isles" issue. What I do care about is revert-warring, stalking of edits and general disruption. You are right in that I don't have any "authority" over other editors; however what I do have is the ability to lessen disruption of Wikipedia. I have made it very clear to those editors what disruption they (and others) are causing; and I have made it very clear that if they continue that behaviour they will be blocked. And that applies to any other editors that decide to join in with that disruption. I hope this is clear enough. Black Kite 12:39, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

• Replied on my own talkpage. Black Kite 12:56, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Spanish Empire

Hello, I contact with you beacause you reverted my changes in the article. The concept "Spanish Monarchs" is completly wrong, why?, first because There didn´t exist a Kindgom called Spain, you can see it in all documents, the kingdom of Spain was created in 19th century, secondly because for example even the Catholic Monarchs never have the title: "Spanish kings or Kings of Spain", this is the real titulation:

"Don Fernando e doña Ysabel, por la graçia de Dios rey e reyna de Castilla, de Leon, de Kingdom of Aragon, de Seçilia, de Granada, de Toledo, de Valençia, de Galizia, de Mallorcas, de Sevilla, de Çerdeña, de Cordova, de Corçega, de Murçia, de Jahen, de los Algarves, de Algezira, de Gibraltar e de las yslas de Canaria, condes de Barçelona e señores de Vizcaya e de Molina, duques de Atenas e de Neopatria, condes de Ruysellon e de Çerdania, marqueses de Oristan e de Goçiano."

They are a lot of kingdoms, principalities, duchies, etc.., and they have only one link, they were ruled by a same kings, but it´s not Spain as you can see. Even when the Catholic monarchs married, the Iberian Peninsula existed: Kingdom of Portugal, Kingdom of Granada, Kingdom of Navarra, Crown of Castile and Crown of Aragon, they are independent and free kingdoms without link.

We can observe modern maps about 15th century: [4], [5], [6], [7].

--Nuninho Martins (talk) 23:32, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Your edits are, I am afraid, extremely poor English, and furthermore, English historians frequently use the term "Spain" to refer to this period. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 02:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I can´t believe what I´m reading..., you pass me a e-book reference, and don´t you read it?, I don´t understand. I were reading the text and obviously I didn´t find any word about "Spanish kings" (only after Charles V or Philip II, with them we could really speak about "spanish kings" of Spain), but not for Isabella or Ferdinand, however I read all these sentences:

- "The Crown of Castile gained the Indies by conquest" (page 182)

- "First, because Columbus had sailed under the auspices of Queen Isabella, the Indies belonged exclusively to the Crown of Castile" (page78)

- "And, as each island was taken, she incorporated it directly into the patrimony of the Crown of Castile" (page 63)

I think sincerely, we both want a good article but we cannot write about "Spanish Kings" in 15th, in any language it´s wrong, please take information and think about all it.--Nuninho Martins (talk) 22:14, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh I have read this book. It is not an e-book. It is a physical book (which Google has scanned), and it's in my collection.

• A retrospective view of Hispania toward the end of the 15th century reveals that both Spain and Portugal p68
• The salient physical structures affecting Spanish discovery, conquest and colonization were two p76

Like I say, post-1492, it's common for English language historians to refer to overseas endeavours as relating to "Spain" rather than "Castile", even though technically they belonged to the Crown of Castile. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:23, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

As I have indicated in his talk page [8] such changes of deleting Spanish are a fruit of WP:ORIGINAL and WP:SYNTHESIS, and they do not agree with the secondary sources, which use really the word Spanish. Trasamundo (talk) 20:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: Attributing motives to countries

"Surely if a country can be "eager" (your wording) it can also be "envious"?"

That is interesting. Sure I'm aware that "it is a standard way of speaking to ascribe motives, feelings and actions to countries". I signaled it like POV (I'm not a native speaker of English), because "envious" seamed simply a human passion, with no point and no aim -which I felt was not the case - "eager" assuming a motivation, a need to accomplish something (to enrich, to fight, to convert). Can a country feel in love or happy (with an idea, maybe?). I think I don't need to tell you to be free to change and improve it, thank you--Wikitza (talk) 16:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

PE Again

Hi Red Hat, thanks for the effort in PE related articles and for recuperating the Portuguese discoveries one - there's a lot of information that should be moved to it (like the chronology and nautical science from History of Portugal (1415–1542)) which I will help with. And sure I will try to learn and use the reference convention.

I know how much work these general reviewing of articles are, and agree that trimming is vital - and painful- I been procrastinating more collaboration on PE, just pasting chunks of relevant info as I stump in it. About the PE article being too long, maybe this is the time to include some subtitles, don't you think? We have talked about it before, and you stated that it was too short then, remember? It will always be long - for an overview we have the introduction summary.

Agree with most of your cuts and changes, with two objections:

• First, today you removed info about the first Portuguese minting in India, and the king management of government there. Those I see as relevant, as they are crucial to a deeper understanding of how the PE was managed and how it come to be, other than enumerating of battles and conquests - and there is a lot on the trade monopoly (Lisbon-Goa-Macau-Japan) still to be said (the article rushes in at times).
• Second, the title "Age of Discovery (1415–1497)" is not ok, as I have stated that before. Major discoveries were done after 1497. "Atlantic exploration (1415–1497)" or Atlantic discoveries would be better (although African coast were the main interest here, there were islands and off the coast explorations). About the period from 1822 to 1975 relating to Macau, Goa, Angola and Mozambique, that needs research and although that not being my beach, will try to improve it, but first will focus on a balanced view of the trade monopoly of the XVI century. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uxbona (talk • contribs) 19:35, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, to both of those objections. I agree that understanding the Portuguese Empire involves much more than reading about an exhaustive list of dates, places and explorers. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 20:09, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Seasons greetings, Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. Justin talk 23:25, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Ping

Ping//FrankB 16:25, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of longest-lasting empires

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is List of longest-lasting empires. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of longest-lasting empires (2nd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:TPO

Feel foul of this one myself, it is apparently a blockable offence to refactor someone's comments. Apparently you have to ask them to do it. Justin talk 01:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

my recent edit @ self-governance

I just figured self government is actually something different. and the page at self-government is pretty poorly structured, so- idk. ppl should be able to find self determination pretty easily-- that's a decent article. there's almost nothing on "autonomy", so idk. I actually clicked there from gibraltar, which I saw u mentioned on yer userpage. I just wanted to know more about this somewhat curious language that the brits have developed over all these years. possesions, federations, the whole n. ireland thing, mandates, protectorates. it's a little ridic, really.

so- essentially I ask, 'what is self government?' and "is that answered in an accessible, organized way on to that on 'pedia anywhere?" n-dimensional §кakkl€ 16:22, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Gibraltar san roque proposal

I've deleted your comment and voting, as the rule was a vote and one line. Plus its somewhat ambiguous whether you were supporting the proposal or not with:

• Agree - with the original "most": reference - "Most of the civilians who left Gibraltar never returned. Of those who left, most settled in the town of San Roque, overlooking the Bay of Gibraltar." [9] page 9.

I never used the word most and do not intend to, so can I trouble you to vote again either for or against the proposition. Although it was messy changing it, I think the suggestion of using the word many is better than majority as there is no firm data on who went where. However I do not intend to chop and change it any more. --Gibnews (talk) 18:06, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted this. Removing talk page comments based on unilateral rules is not kosher. --Narson ~ Talk • 18:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Thankyou Narson. Gibnews: it was bad enough to change your proposed wording mid-vote, but then removing someone's vote and comment is absolutely not on, for whatever reason. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 21:58, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

OK I take your point and, more importantly, in the spirit it was intended. These days editing wikipeda is a chore rather than a pleasure and I'm getting fed up with it. BTW this might amuse you or not, I'm now eligible for Spanish citizenship since they've extended it to the children of the Spanish refugees who fled Franco's Spain. Justin talk 09:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Let it stand

Let it stand? Why, it isn't about improving the article is it? Just give in to the bullies, let them have their way. What a great day for wikipedia. Justin talk 00:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

This probably won't go down well with you, and I wouldn't want to spoil the new-found peace between us, but please try to reflect on your behaviour on the talk page too. You are constantly insulting the other two guys, Imalbarnoz and Richard (easily enough for some WP:NPA based admin attention, incidentally, but I'm not going to be the one who instigates it). I would say that the bully on the Gib talk page is you, not anyone else. Regarding my reasons: everyone seems OK with that wording apart from you, the sources support it, so it's time to move on, it really is. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:33, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Move on? Quite simply I'm quitting, wikipedia has been a chore rather than a pleasure for some time. The fact that I'm bad tempered and cranky isn't me, I've put up with months of crap from Imalbarnoz. It has never been about improving the article, its a single minded campaign to slant the POV on the Gibraltar article. It isn't so much the edit, it is the fact that the argument against it being ignored to impose a solution. The arguments against have never been considered, its always been accusations of censoring the article.

I don't have a problem with people being straight with me, I never have, which seemingly is what you never understood. So no it won't spoil anything since we made peace. I do have a serious problem with people trying to push me around. Justin talk 00:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why you think this way at all. You know my heritage. You also know I've been to Gibraltar twice - the second time because I liked it so much the first? And that I'm firmly in the Gibraltar-is-British camp? Yet, I see no problem with any of Imalbarnoz's edits and do not see him in the same light as those Spanish idiots you get who come and periodically vandalise the article. Reason being is that the article should be written from a balanced perspective, not from the perspective that 99.7% of Gibraltarians want to remain British. There is a big difference between mentioning that and writing the article from that perspective. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Because it isn't a balanced perspective and I see a lot of problems with his edits. They're always to minimise the legitimacy of the Gibraltar Government, its not about improving the article. He's worse than the idiots who vandalise, because he is so single-minded about it and hes working the system. A balanced perspective I would have no problem with and any problems with Gibnews I'm confident I could smooth over; he does listen to reason if you approach him the right way. Sorry really I am sorry but I don't see it as improving the article and if we're being honest with one another it seems like you're settling an old score with Gibnews. Supporting Imalbornoz in purging any mention of self-government from the lead is not about improving the article. I can see what will be next and it'll involve adding the position on the UN C24. Anyway I'm serious I am quitting, I just wondered how long it would be till someone suggested removing self-governing from the lead and it was less than 8 hrs. Justin talk 14:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I have no scores to settle with Gibnews. He's finally met his match in Imalbarnoz, and I think that is a good thing. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 14:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Look I just want to quit but I'm not going to walk away and allow you to get away with what you're doing at AN/I. You know those sock puppet allegations are false, Gibnews is not Gibraltarian or Gutterbrothers and Gibnews.net is just a repository of documents that would only be in paper form. Frankly you're being a petty little shit, if the wikibreak enforcer worked I wouldn't have even known about it. Justin talk 10:26, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

"Petty little shit"? Who is the one who has returned after "quitting" about twenty times now and tried to get me blocked on ANI? As I have repeatedly said, all Gibnews has to do is retract his legal threats and he can come back. And note, I still have not raised your personal attacks there. It's not me who is being petty here. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 10:29, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I've never ever tried to get anyone blocked before but on this occassion you do deserve it. You know those sock puppet allegations are false but you still made them. Do what you like, see if I care anymore. Justin talk 10:43, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

You obviously do care because you keep on coming back. Which is fine by me, but I have to tell you that there is one guaranteed way of being ignored at WP:ANI and that is to start posting paragraph upon paragraph of "he said she said" childish prattle. Which is exactly what you have done. If there is any chance you actually want to come back again, I advise you not to make a bad situation worse. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 11:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

My intention is to quit, just as soon as Gibnews is unblocked and can defend himself. I note you didn't bother to mention he redacted that legal threat. That could have been very magnanimous of you but then you didn't did you? Thanks for the advice on AN/I but politics never interested me. Justin talk 12:33, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Please read Tan's post on his talk page. And stop spamming WP:ANI. You're doing there what you do at Gib - "I MUST REPLY TO EVERY SINGLE POST". Other people aren't ad obsessed about all this as you, remember. I'd be curious, incidentally, to see the stats from your "posting counter" script on the Gib talk page. I think you'll find you are way ahead! The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 12:49, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

No it isn't because Gibnews can be reasoned with, if you don't butt heads. Imalbarnoz has no intention of improving the article and you are settling old scores. Lets at least be honest with one another. Anyway please do leave my farewell message alone, it wasn't for you. Justin talk 15:05, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

OK

As I told Atama, when Justin said he would be leaving, I thought he would just calm down and come back with a more balanced attitude (that's why I decided not to take any action). It seems he is doing just the opposite. So, OK, let's do something about it.

I don't have much practice with these things. Should it be me who starts something, or can you do it? In which page? -- Imalbornoz (talk) 13:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)