User talk:UninvitedCompany/Archives/2006 October

block of 69.198.107.176 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Hmm, might not be the same person, as I look over the contribs. They did some other things which were a bit annoying but now that I look the contribs over again I'm not 100% sure it's the same person. I'll unblock. --Fastfission 20:35, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Stop your vandalism

Please stop vandalising my user page. I have no beef with you. I'm not the only one with this code on my user page in support of SPUI. Knock it off. --Analogdemon (talk) 01:58, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

SPUI

I removed your quote of SPUI from your userpage. It's inappropriate for reasons that have been made clear elsewhere. As should be clear by now, many of us have no sense of humor about this at all. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 01:55, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Please ask before editing my user page. I also find it offensive, but I find SPUI's treatment over what should be something sacrosanct: the right for a user to express themselves without the fear of retribution, is infinitely more offensive. Please ask SPUI to ask me to remove it and I will gladly do so. Just to warn you, if blocked, I will make sockpuppets -- I have done nothing wrong. Karmafist 01:59, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

My sentiments exactly. --Analogdemon (talk) 01:59, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

User pages are not and never have been sacrosanct on this project, and it is a very old principle that our goal of writing an encyclopedia is more important than any perceived goals of providing a soapbox upon which to test the limits of free speech. Yours is not the first user page that has been edited back by others and I doubt that it will be the last. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 02:03, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Your attitude is the entire reason why SPUI put that on his user page in the first place. And by the way, he's contributed more to the encyclopedia than both of us could ever hope to. Please maintain your civility, thank you. Karmafist 02:08, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Adding Jimbo to the Cult of personality article

I'm trying real hard to see your side in this, but I'm quite rapidly coming to the conclusion that you just have an axe to grind. Bratsche can speak for himself but for my part, I'm not doing this to be Jimbo's toady. Rather, I'm sticking up for the project as I see it. And I remember precedents from before you joined, most notably with User:JesusIsLord! (that may not be the exact spelling), where there was lengthy and protracted debate about freedom of speech vis a vis building an encyclopedia. That was almost three years ago and we decided back then that Wikipedia is not a soapbox. We haven't changed our mind. I realize you've contributed a great deal, but I believe that you misunderstand the nature of the project. And while your contributions can and do lead the community to overlook certain indiscretions, you've gone well past that point. If you want to turn into another "Wikipedia doesn't love me as much as I deserve to be loved" flameout, you're already on the path that will lead you there.

I also note that in an edit summary you threatened to create a bunch of socks. Like your edit to cult of personality, this is hardly an effort at the sort of reasoned debate that you claim you wish to be known for.

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:10, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Copyvio claim on Episodes of Lost (Season 2)

Actually, it would be rather difficult for it to be a copyvio, as I (re)wrote a majority of it, based on the badly written/inaccurate previous version (which you reverted it to). I was watching the episode as I wrote it, and had never seen the version you claim it was copied from. By the time I had saved it, my login had timed out, and my IP (70.189.79.1) was listed next to the rewrite.

If you'd bothered to compare the two, you'd see that the previous version and my re-write match each other... but do not match the one from which you claim it is copied. In particular, the "LostInReview" summary is missing the Verocchio painting reference entirely, and confuses who the dream-versions of Claire, Charlie's mother and Hurley are supposed to be.

Next time, take a moment to actually investigate before strutting off to make claims of copyright violation. I expect that you'll return the version I wrote, and apologise for your erroneous accusation.—Leflyman^Talk 02:59, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I compared the two and there appeared to be large segments of copied material in the first paragraph. I did not investigate further. If some material is identical, there is still a problem. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 03:42, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

• Then you apparently didn't read them at all, because this paragraph has nothing copied from the second-- and the only resemblance is because they are both descriptions of exactly the same thing:

my rewritten summary:

In flashback, a print of Verocchio's The Baptism of Christ hangs on the wall, as a pair of slippered feet whisk young Charlie down a flight of stairs on Christmas morning. His brother Liam is already hard at work ripping open his presents. But while Liam opens a Voltron toy, Charlie finds nothing for him. That is until his mother leads him to a brand new piano, calling Charlie "special" and declaring that someday he will "get us out of here." The flashback mutates into a surreal dream, as Charlie sees both Liam and then himself change into their adult selves. His family members admonish him to play, but before he can begin, an image of his father as a butcher appears, announcing, "He ain't savin' no one, he is." After cleaving pieces of meat, his partially unseen father cuts off the head of a doll. Charlie is again told to "save us" by his brother and mother. After striking a few notes, the scene changes to him playing the piano on the island's beach.

Lost in Review summary:

A young Charlie wakes up on Christmas morning to find Liam is already excitedly tearing open his gifts. Picking up box after box for Liam, Charlie asks where his presents are, and his mother turns his attention to a brand new piano. She asks him to play - assuring him that he’s special, and some day, he’ll get them out of there. A grown Liam in a diaper remarks that Charlie can’t save his family if he doesn’t play. Charlie’s father, a butcher, scorns over chopping a bloody piece of meat - which soon becomes the head of a toy baby - that music will never get him anywhere - he needs a trade. Confused, Charlie begins to play the piano.

I'm still waiting on your mea culpa. —Leflyman^Talk 03:54, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll try to get this sorted out tomorrow. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:17, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Cult of Personality

File:StalinGerman.jpg

No offense was meant, ultimately the idea originally started from Jimbo's talk page and truly hit home with me after hearing Bratsche just spouting propaganda, and I was going to write a NPOV "criticisms" section on Jimbo Wales until a friend of mine told me that it'd probably look capricious at this point. My edit there probably looked capricous there as well, but in both cases, the case for a cult of personality springing up around Jimbo is growing. People are worshiping him, people who disagree with him are being forced off the project, people constantly use his name to intimidate others, and so on. If you don't believe me, just ask Daniel Brandt.

It's not a big deal to me right now, but it's a problem that needs to be dealt with eventually unless we'd like to have a Bias blind spot similiar to Encarta with Bill Gates. Karmafist 05:08, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Just a bit more

I'm not even doing this as something personal against Jimbo and the arbcom. I'm just doing this as what you said you were doing before: i'm sticking up for the project as I see it, as an ideal that Jimbo put forth rather than how he and some others are acting nowadays. If i'm uncivil during any of this, I apologize, but apparently this is my path, the same path of civil disobedience followed by Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., and(not to sound arrogant) Jesus Christ. Gah, I wish I didn't feel compelled to go down that route, since all of them, and many others who worked that way, met horrible ends and have met a whole lot of suffering before that.

And if you think i'm just talking about the past few weeks at Wikipedia, please understand that this is just a hobby. This kind of thinking has been the core of my life's purpose for the past year now. And if you don't believe me, just check Hillsborough 19 at 2004 New Hampshire General Court Election and look for the blue link. I've taken several part time jobs, a new career in Real Estate(I graduated with a Bachelorate in Journalism, which is not particularly conducive to a career in politics), and a whole lot of pain likely due to the fact that I have Asperger's Syndrome and sometimes miscommunicate with others, all for real life fights like this one. Hopefully i'll become notable after the 2006 New Hampshire General Court Election.

Have a pleasant evening,

Karmafist 06:11, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the welcome as an admin. I hope to do the job proud. Essexmutant 23:25, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Cult of Personality

Yes, this whole de-sysopping thing is getting a bit out of hand. However, with respect I think your reversion of the Cult Of Personality edit made by Karmafist is unjustified. There is a cult of personality growing around Jimbo Wales - just have a look on his talk page. Regardless of how wound up Karmafist may be about this ArbCom thing, it's a fair call. This is not a criticism of Wales; it's a commentary about how people see (and revere) him. I don't think you have any grounds to revert the edit. ElectricRay 23:44, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

The encyclopedia articles are not a suitable place to carry out advocacy for or against Wikipedians or Wikipedia policies. Further, the guideline for any such controversial claim is that it must be referenced with a credible source. Unless there are other non-Wikipedia source claiming that there is a "cult of personality" surrounding Jimbo, it is inappropriate for us to list him there. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:53, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

It's safe to say that Wikipedia has frequently been referred to (often by "opponents") as being like "a cult." Now whether this is the same thing as claiming a "cult of personality" surrounding Jimbo is debateable. See:

• Boston Globe (published yesterday) "Bias, sabotage haunt Wikipedia's free world": "It's a movement, a social circle, a proof of the power of free Internet content, even a kind of optimistic cult."
• Developer Blog: "The Wikipedia Cult (?)" "indeed, to make him definitive of what NPOV is is to form a Mao cult around the thoughts of Jimbo."
• OneClick Group: "What seems more important is the way in which Wikipedia, a cult-like project employing its own acronymic language..."
• Wikipedia: A Techno-Cult of Ignorance (attack article from pseudo-science advocate)

—Leflyman^Talk 02:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Leflyman here. I don't think Karmafist's edit was advocating for or against Wikipedians or Wikipedia Policies. I think it was a statement of fact, which is fairly backed up by sources, including those mentioned above, but also a cursory examination of Jimbo's userpage. Therefore, I think by your reversion it is you who is advocating for or against Wikipedians or Wikipedia Policies, and you'd be better advised to undo it.

In other words, you're editorialising. Don't. ElectricRay 23:12, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Welcome Template

Thanks for the constructive olive branch, UC. I would love to if you know of another way to get signatures for it, ultimately to me who signs it isn't as important as how many people have signed it, for a reason you're hopefully going to see in a few weeks(that's a secret for now).

As for the newbies in wiki-politics, that argument just isn't cogent to me -- Joeyramoney was a newbie with no knowledge of or desire to get involved in Wikipolitics(he was a kid who saw a userbox that he thought was funny -- that's it under AGF), but he had it thrusted upon him anyway by a bloodthirsty mob. I'm sure if I looked there are probably more instances like that, and at this rate, there are going to be more like it. Newbies are still intelligent people, and I don't pester them if they don't sign it-- right now the ratio of people i've welcomed with that template to people who have signed is around 3%. Karmafist 04:33, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Commons

"I think this is all unfortunate and that it didn't have to be this way but at this point I am largely of the opinion that images hosted on commons probably ought to be migrated to en if they are used here." You have a point. Go to it. Be proactive. Get together a posse, hunt down fair use images on commons, and upload them here. My point? It's not just up to the commons admin, we have to be involved too. --Golbez 02:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Shigemi Matsumoto

You left a note at WP:CP about this page, saying that a representative of Matsumoto had e-mailed claiming to release the material. However, the material was actually taken from her university bio, the copyright of which is owned by the university, not the subject. So, in short, I deleted it. Feel free to undelete it if that was incorrect. Thanks. Chick Bowen 04:15, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

block of User:Get-back-world-respect

In this case, I think there's something to what you say. His behavior was less egregious than the other guy's. I'm prepared to unblock him if he will agree to not edit the disputed material until concensus is reached on the talkpage. Alternatively, if you want to unblock him yourself and watch Current events to see that there's no more disruption, I will not reimpose the block. As far as larger questions of policy, I'll think about what you said. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:45, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

user talk

It is standard policy to delete userpages on request but talk pages are normally left in place especially if viewing them would be helpful to people in the future and in this case I think there's no good reason to delete and the talk page could very easily prove useful to future users because it serves as a history record. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 21:44, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

There is good reason to delete my talk page as it now seems as if I was a vandal who had to be shooed away. As Swatjester who is constantly harrassing me refused mediation I requested arbitration now. Users should not be allowed to displace others and distort the memory others have about longlasting productive members of the community. 84.59.79.243 00:07, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Just letting you know that I've blanked the talk page. it's protected so no one can post to it. Also there is no request for arbitration at the moment.Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 00:09, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

There is a request for arbitration, just took me some time to show the whole extent of harrassment. I am not planning to leave until my page gets deleted and the harrassment stops. 84.59.79.243 00:45, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Takedown notices

If my understanding is correct, "takedown notice" is a legal term referring to a DMCA takedown notice. Since the term "takedown" was used in the summary, I assume this is what is meant. If instead the argument is that we oughtn't to have an article at all on the person due to privacy concerns, then this should be dealt with in the normal method (e.g. AfD, where there was nowhere near consensus to delete). In particular, an article simply summarizing already-public and verifiable information is not a privacy violation. --Delirium 21:10, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean by "privacy law"? I am not aware of any such law in the United States. In particular, republishing information that appears in the public record is very strongly protected, especially where it has already been republished by other sources. You wouldn't argue that Star Wars kid should be deleted, would you, even though he has sued people over the leaked video and objects to his internet celebrity? In any case, if this is a legal dictum from the Wikimedia Foundation, there should be an official confirmation of some sort that the Foundation has indeed ordered the deletion. --Delirium 21:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I am aware of invasion of privacy in the sense of digging up private information and publishing it, or even republishing private information that has only been published previously a few times. Republishing explicitly *public* information, though, such as information from a government sex-offenders registry, is quite different. In any case, it is possible I'm wrong, and I would accept an opinion from the Wikimedia Foundation's lawyers that the article should be deleted. I am not aware of any such legal opinion having been offered, though. --Delirium 21:34, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I do think it's worth it, yes. I think Wikipedia ought to be a compendium of human knowledge, and ought therefore to include anything verifiable. Internet culture is an active area of academic research, and as with all areas I would like Wikipedia to have as much coverage as possible. If it turns out to be illegal to publish this verifiable information, then we have no choice but to take it down, but in the meantime, we should avoid letting legal paranoia decrease the coverage of the encyclopedia. There are, in any case, many other people more likely to sue us than Mr. Pepper---the Church of Scientology, for example. --Delirium 22:05, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Your statement

Your statement here is false, and I ask you to retract it. Firstly I never made any statement that I "neither cares about the encyclopedia nor the community here, instead seeing Wikipedia as a sort of nihilistic playground where he can do whatever he finds fun." Secondly I restored that image only once, hardly an edit war. In the past I thought you were a nice guy, and I'm sorry that I pissed you off when we disagreed about the skybridge photo (which did include the skybridge btw). I assume that you were not intentionally lying when you made these statements, and that you probably remember things that way due to your anger.

I am not here to "play", nor am I any sort of a nihilist. I happen to love encyclopedias and other reference sources, even if I don't love the way the community here works.

In sum I apologise for our misunderstandings, and ask you to revise the inaccuracies in your statement. Sam Spade 15:53, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I have updated my statement per your request. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:08, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Time Travel

Please do not remove people's comments on the talk page. Thanks. JoshuaZ 21:36, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

The comments were removed due to legal concerns. Please do not re-add them. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:40, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

What legal concerns? Has there suddenly been a legal issue that we're not privy to know about and hasn't been mentioned on the talk page? What's with the secrecy all of the sudden? --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 22:06, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

The comments, as far as I can tell, contain no information that could be construed as illegal. The allegations of illegal content in Talk:Brian Peppers were regarding the use of a photograph, which was not duplicated on the talk page. The reason given for deletion by Jimbo on Talk:Brian Peppers was that he didn't want to deal with debate over the article for a while. If he had specific legal concerns, he didn't mention them in the threads on that page.

As a result, I am restoring the talk page threads. If you feel they contain information that poses legal concerns, please specify exactly what statements you feel are objectionable, and they can be replaced with a "sentence elided" box. As far as I can tell, your deletion of the thread is not being performed under the aegis of any higher authority, and contravenes policy on talk page threads. If you feel differently, by all means explain to me why this is so. --Christopher Thomas 21:59, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

The issue is that Brian Peppers is a private person and that distribution of derogatory information, or information that could be perceived to be derogatory, about him may pose legal problems. That decision is closed. I am working to enact it by removing derogatory references from the myriad pages where they appear. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

The criminal allegations regarding Brian Peppers are already public information, being listed on the Ohio sex offender registry. This is mentioned in passing in precisely one sentence on Talk:Time travel, yet you chose to delete the entire comment containing that sentence, and the entire thread containing that comment. Please provide a link to the administrative page thread directing you to remove talk page threads associated with the Brian Peppers article, and directing you to make such sweeping changes when lesser changes would remove any material that could possibly be objectionable. You have so far failed to demonstrate that you are acting on anything other than your own initiative, per concerns stated in my initial comment above. Show me a thread where Jimbo or any other suitable authority said to remove any and all references to the page, and I'll happily delete the Talk:Time travel thread myself. --Christopher Thomas 22:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Just an FYI, but Jimbo has posted on the Brian Peppers talk page that the only reason he deleted it was because it was recreation of previously deleted content - not because of privacy concerns. You can undo all your AfD blanking and deletion of any mention of his name from Wikipedia now. (Or at least the latter, as there isn't consensus about the privacy concerns yet). VegaDark 03:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

WP:LA

Just a heads up: I noticed you missed the WP:LA step the last two times. Also, thanks for taking the point on the Peppers matter, I don't know why some want to fight over every Jimbo decision these days :p. Cheers, NoSeptember ^talk 06:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Brian Peppers

Hey, just letting you know I responded to your question. Thanks, Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 04:37, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Brian Peppers Part 2

I have unredirected the article. Jimbo asked that it be deleted and that it stay that way. Redirection is inappropriate because we do not wish to include information on the subject anywhere in Wikipedia due to privacy concerns. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Fine by me: as I said on the talk page, after putting the redirect in, I quickly regretted having done so without more discussion on the matter and went back to change it, but the page had become locked again. For the record, Jimbo said the article should not be re-written; a redirect is not a rewrite of the article. It seemed a reasonable compromise to list him as a notable internet meme rather than a notable individual. I do wonder whether and how the internet phenomenon page will be protected against the addition of Mr. Peppers' information. But again, I would have undone my actions on my own had I been able to do so. More than anything, this was probably a lesson not to edit at 1:30 in the morning. Thank you for letting me know you pulled the Redir out. Truly, JDoorjam Talk 21:19, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

WP:OFFICE vs. WP:NPOV

NPOV is old as the hills, of course, and it does have wide community consensus. In principle I'd support having a different template for a policy that's based on m:Foundation issues (as NPOV is) rather than community consensus, and perhaps it is a weakness of our policy template that it doesn't aknowledged that certain policies cannot be overturned by on-wiki consensus. But, to answer your real question, the situation with WP:OFFICE is unique; it most definitely does not have broad consensus, and it's quite new so it's not clear how it'll change over time. Some people thought that Jimbo was hypocritically claiming top-down authority and consensus support at the same time, and I thought it would be a Bad Thing to have Jimbo appear to be a hypocrite because of the wording on the template. So I changed it. Does that make sense? -- SCZenz 19:23, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

IRC and Meta

Those are good ideas, although I have little faith in the mailing list and the Pump. Let's talk more later, I disagree on the newbie issue, but that's just a means to an end, if the end came i'd be glad to forego the means. I'm sorry, but I have to go to work, so I can't elaborate more right now. Karmafist 21:55, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Usertag|Messiah

Might I inqure why the deletion? I can't navigate to the whole usertag discussion thing, so I'll ask you ^^;. Luca 8:43, 3 March 2006 (EST)

• Thanks for the thing about my userpage link, I always get it backwards..heh ^^;. And thanks for the link also. Luca 11:23, 3 March 2006 (EST)

Divisive and imflammatory? You had no right to speedy whatsoever. I ask you restore the template and list if at TFD with your reasoning of how it is divisive and inflammatory, it is a well known joke from monty pythons flying circus. Discordance 22:34, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Looking at Wikipedia:Userbox policy poll and Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Userbox debates#All of Wikipedia:Userboxes/Religion I insist you restore the template, wait for the policy results to list at TFD, and have the courtesy to subst. Discordance 23:42, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Discordance, I am a MP fan and am aware of the joke. However, that does not change the fact that I personally find the template offensive in its context at Wikipedia. It is (or was) MP's role to make edgy jokes that push the bounds of good taste. In fact, I think it is safe to say that in MP's style of humor there is a little something to offend everyone, and that's part of the charm. Wikipedia does not have the degree of comic license that MP enjoys. For someone in real life to disclaim that they are the Messiah, as though there were any doubt, is an affront to the glory of Our Lord Jesus Christ, who died on the cross, who rose from the dead, and who will come again. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 02:12, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

As a Christian myself, I can't believe a Deity who both created *and* put(s) up with humans, of all the absurd things, can be as humorless as all that. You deleted a non-divisive and non-inflammatory template out of process based on your own pov; please put it up for debate. Sophy's Duckling 17:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not even that bothered if the template ends up getting deleted, I just rather you didn't do it out of process, theres no need to fan the flames on all this. If you TFD it i will probably abstain and let it sink queitly into oblivion but the current consensus on deletion review is for all the religion userboxs to be undeleted and the ones actually considered offensive sent to TFD. and please don't make comments like your last sentence any number of people would be grossly offended theres nothing wrong with saying its an affront to christians and leaving it at that. Which to be fair probably prooves your point it should go, but please send it to TFD anyway. Discordance 13:55, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I support Discordance's suggestion that you TFD the template. Sophy's Duckling 23:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Someone has restored the template and tidyied it up its much clearer its a joke now. Discordance 16:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

You appear to have a strong POV about religion, I'd ask you to keep it away from your admin tools in future, when in 'admin mode' please try to be NPOV. Discordance 18:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

My POV regarding userboxes is far stronger than any POV I might have on articles related to religion, which I rarely edit. I believe that userboxes in general detract from the work of the project, and consider it unfortunate that Jimbo's leadership in discouraging their use has not been more widely heeded. Wikipedia is not a suitable forum for humor of the type suitable for expression on a T-shirt. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Template:User Immortal

I've restored this page that you speedily deleted as T1. This restoration was the result of a Deletion Review. I noted in closing this DR, that it's closure is not an endorsement of the pages content, nor invalidates it from a future TFD. I know that userboxes are controversial, but the flames seem to be dying down. If you want to pursure this templates deletion, would you mind putting it through TFD next time? Thanks, xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 04:15, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Foundation issues at meta

User:Kernigh placed a personal opinion template on meta:Foundation issues that you created. I supposed that the document is more binding or official in some way than just a personal opinion since you hold an authoritative position. Could you clarify on the nature of meta:Foundation issues on the accompanying disc page? Hermeneus (user/talk) 09:03, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Unblocked Dan121377

I'm just dropping a note that I've lifted your block of Dan121377 (talk · contribs). (He's one of the fellows who was posting a bunch of spam messages promoting their new sports wiki.) He emailed me a request for the unblock.

I think that they meant well but failed to think through their actions, and that they're unlikely to reoffend now that they've had things explained to them. From a practical standpoint, it's not possible for them to fall of the wagon because their site is still on the spam blacklist.

Cheers, TenOfAllTrades(talk) 06:20, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Dirrigible

I note that you have blocked this user indefinitely with the note "vandalism, was warned". There are some problems with this block:

1. Dirrigible's edits, though unhelpful, are not vandalism.
2. This appears to me to be a content dispute on a page where you are involved.
3. An indefinite block seems rather heavy-handed given that a 24 hour block is customary

Again, I do realize that this editor's contributions are not especially helpful and I understand the frustration in dealing with such individuals. I myself am only becoming involved because the user wrote to [email protected] and asked for help. I would like to ask that you remove the block, since it has now been over a month which seems like plenty of time. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 00:15, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi UC. I don't know whether to unblock user:Dirrigible. His attacks on his talk page really make it discouraging and his edits were very much close to vandalism. He did them first using an IP and was warned by editors, and then logged in using this name to do them and was warned. I know I was involved on the page (reverted him) but his edits are almost vandalism or trolling. I think we are too lenient on people who are just here to make things worse for the project. If you want to unblock him please go ahead but I am sure that he is only here to make trouble. Also reply here if you need to so that we can have our conversation on one page. Thank you for telling me too. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 03:39, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I generally try to avoid undoing other people's blocks, and agree in principle that we are far too tolerant of purported contributors who lack the ability to do anything useful, so I guess we can consider the matter closed. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 19:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Declined CheckUser request

You declined my CheckUser request with the text:

Declined. Please don't list obvious cases; if the IanDavies block is a settled matter then the "friend" accounts and "HECTOR" can be blocked as well.

Forgive me, but I don't understand what you're trying to tell me here. These users don't state that they are sockpuppets of this banned account; are you saying that they can nevertheless be blocked without doing a CheckUser request (and if so, could you do so please)? Or that they cannot be blocked even if CheckUser shows that they are sockpuppets of a banned account? Or that CheckUser should not be used for some other reason? For the avoidance of doubt, that's a genuine "I don't understand", not a passive-aggressive one - most likely you have good reason that I haven't figured out. Thanks! — ciphergoth 16:22, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

The pattern of new users editing for the first time is usually pretty clear. People don't just show up in the middle of an edit war and start reverting. When someone who is obviously not new to the project, and has a user name that strongly suggests that they are a sock puppet, and continues a recognizable editing pattern of a recently and legitimately blocked account, you can block them: "When it becomes clear that a user account is a 'reincarnation' of an existing banned user, the reincarnating account can likewise be blocked" (--WP:BP). Checkuser is more appropriate in those cases where there really is some doubt as to what's going on. I have blocked the accounts as you requested. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:22, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Many thanks! Not being an admin myself, what should I do if I see other users who seem to me to be obvious sockpuppets of the above in future? — ciphergoth 19:02, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

1. WP:RFA
2. WP:AN/I

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

The second seems an appropriate route. Do you think I should be pursuing the first also? Thanks! — ciphergoth 19:49, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

That is up to you, and I haven't reviewed your edit history to see whether or not I think you'd succeed. It is, however, my standard suggestion when people bring up their inability to perform some admin-only task. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:19, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

re: User:Chan_Han_Xiang

Strange. He wrote on WP:AN a while back saying he'd lost his password and was worried about the account being hijacked, so I blocked it to prevent that. If he's found the password I guess you can unblock him. Very strange. Garrett^Talk 23:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Terry Tales AfD

Your vote in the Terry Tales AfD included the statement "Shaw's books, despite being of local interest, have nonetheless sold in the thousands". Where have you found evidence of this? --Spondoolicks 13:34, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Institutional memory

I see in your essay you believe that institutional memory will be a key factor if Wikipedia is to cope with its incredible rate of expansion - I quite agree, and wondered if there would be interest in setting up Wikipedia:WikiProject Institutional Memory to document some of the turning points, landmarks and decisions that have marked Wikipedia's rise so far.

I think there would be a fair amount of interest in Wikipedia's first articles, the first featured articles, the evolution of the policies and guidelines as well as the featuring, categorizing and stub-sorting systems, and a significant amount of the debate that has gone on there in the past is relevant now. Trawling around the history of featured articles, I discovered that the orignial system exactly mirrored the system originally implememented for Wikipedia:Good articles fairly recently, with some freakish similarities (many of the same articles were involved, and both had a ding-dong over whether capitalism should be included), including a transition to having a nominations system with a time limit. Basically one is following almost exactly in the footsteps of the other! I am sure there is a lot of replaying of old battles and old debates going on elsewhere. I think it would be well worthwhile to have an institutional memory project dedicated to cataloguing the "history of Wikipedia" and producing it in a form that is readily browsable, citable and referable so that it is as useful as possible in debates and when considering new proposals... any thoughts? TheGrappler 20:31, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Crossing The Rubicon

Yep, I was afraid of crossing that river(the figurative one, not the actual one in Italy, which I hear is quite nice), but unfortunately when you feel like your back is against the wall, like i've been made to feel during the past few months, usually that's the way people go.

You might be right, only time will tell. However, in any case, I will be me, regardless of what that is, and if Wikipedia can't accept that, it's Wikipedia's loss. I'd love to stick around, and i'd love to find a middle way, but I probably can't do that right now(thus the psuedowiki-break), and I wonder if it'll ever happen with the way things are here at Wikipedia.

In any case, thank you for your message. Karmafist ^{Save Wikipedia} 20:35, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppet Investigation

Regarding This

Partly due to curiosity and partly because some users are talking as though it is inconclusive that I am a sockpuppet of Licinius, can you please explain either what 'inconclusive' evidence you have or at least the nature of the inconclusive evidence you have that would suggest I am a sockpuppet of Jimididit or vice versa?

Thank you. NSWelshman 15:12, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Just wanted to add that I have no intention of arguing with you over your findings. I just want to know what they are based on. NSWelshman 15:13, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah forget it. Jimididit is my sockpuppet. But my sockpuppet didn't vote. NSWelshman

Commons Message

Please have a look at your talk page on commons, I have an urgent question about a file you uploaded. Thank you! -- 84.185.213.34 13:59, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

PoolGuy (talk · contribs)

Can you explain why you declined the request on PoolGuy (talk · contribs)'s suspected sockpuppets? --Nlu (talk) 07:34, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

The request, as written, didn't meet any of the criteria listed at the top of the WP:RFCU page. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 10:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Help at RfA and RfB

Given User:Cecropia's resignation as a bureaucrat, some huge shoes have been left behind to fill. He's been responsible for 50% (234 of 467) of the admin promotions over the last year. You are the fourth most active bureaucrat in that time frame with 7%. I hope you can step up your activity level at RfA to help cover his departure. All the best, --Durin 19:45, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I shall do my best to help. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 10:54, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: Your Edit On My Birthday

Please stop adding nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Karmafist ^{Save Wikipedia} 20:01, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Welcome, Karmafist, to a special club where you now share the company of User:Daniel C. Boyer, User:EntmootsOfTrolls, User:Reithy, User:-Ril-, and many other equally fine, upstanding Wikipedians. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 10:54, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Böhm

I hope your partita went well! I have not played much Böhm myself, but it's certainly enjoyable to listen to - many people here at Oberlin have played "Ach wie nichtig". I have seen the pipe organ wiki, but it hasn't seemed very active, or organized, so I decided to try to work on lacking aspects of the organ-related articles here. I'd be willing to work on it some, though.

As for recordings- I did one session for the Johann Pachelbel article, but it wasn't set up properly. I'm a little hesitant to record full-scale works specifically for Wikipedia, as I'd prefer that they be note-perfect, but that could be quite time-consuming, and I need an assistant for many of the pieces. But, hopefully this summer will yield many recordings, as both my own free time and that of the concert hall will be much greater. At any rate, thanks for noticing the Böhm edits! —Sesquialtera II (talk) 03:09, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Your block of Karmafist

Hey there,

I noticed your block of Karmafist [1]. However, you may have been mislead by his provocative edit summaries, but it is not the case that "substantially all" of his edits have been disruptive. If you check their content, you will find most are normal edits (admittedly with the customary level of sarcasm here and there).

I certainly feel a block is warranted by his last "f*ck it" edit summary, and a few others in a lesser degree, but a year is much too heavy for this.

Please review the edits under question so that you can see for yourself the were not disruptive, but rather that only his edit summaries were uncivil. I'd appreciate it if you would adjust the block time accordingly.

Greets, The Minister of War ^(Peace) 17:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

You're right insofar as some of the diffs themselves show relatively normal editing with curious edit summaries. The way I see it, though, he isn't contributing anything of value at this point, but is instead doing three things: (a) updating his user page and pages related to it, (b) making various edits motivated by wikipolitics, and (c) baiting other people by deliberately ignoring the AC remedies. I took the bait -- knowingly -- because the AC remedies were crafted based in giving lots of second chances to an established contributor. But he's not contributing -- he's made a decision to leave and is trying to leave as much damage as possible in his wake. He knows exactly what he's doing and is flouting the community on purpose. While I appreciate your concern and look forward to further discussion, and am willing to remove the block if it's clear there's a good deal of reasoned opposition to it, I'm going to leave it in place for now.

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:30, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree he's not very contructive lately. And no doubt his edit summaries are only to be regarded as purposely inflammatory. Thats why I formulated so carefully - in no way to I condone this behaviour. But to my mind, your points (a) and (b) are no reason for blocking at all. Point (c) certainly is, but for one year? While I often disagree with Karmafist, he has seen good times as well and I think this counts for something. He's not a troll or a vandal, he's a contributor gone awry. And I think "there is still good in him" ;-).

I'm a bit pressed for time right now, but as soon as I have the opportunity I will post something on WP:AN/I. I'll inform you once I do. I'm glad with your open and honest reaction.

Cheers, The Minister of War ^(Peace) 19:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I have posted on WP:AN/I here.

Cheers, The Minister of War ^(Peace) 22:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. We'll see what everyone thinks. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I've reduced the block to one week (the maximum possible for now). I'd like a chance to talk to Karmafist first, before we decide on any further/harsher action. NSLE _(T+C) at 00:31 UTC (2006-04-19)

Re:Congratulations

Thanks for promoting me. I've added myself to the list, and will do my best to follow your advice (responsibly and with enjoyment!). Cheers, Petros471 20:33, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

User:ZoeCroydon CheckUser request

Hi Uninvited. As the Clive Bull dispute has dragged on I've been digging into the history of the old sockpuppets that were proven by CheckUser, and I've come to the conclusion that the socks I submitted to RFCU are sufficiently obvious in their behaviour that if I'd come across them now, I wouldn't bother submitting them for CheckUser, I'd just block them, and I doubt anyone would object.

Talk:Clive Bull is quiet at the moment (after I blocked a previously dormant sock for legal threats), so I'd really like to wrap this up, throw all the socks in the drawer, make it clear that further roadblocking should not be tolerated and, most importantly, unprotect the article. Is it possible for you to cancel the CheckUser? Sorry to have wasted your time, I hope you haven't spent too much of it on this troll's account. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 23:15, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm going to have to strike that if it's not too late. The aggressiveness of an IP on Talk:Clive Bull means I'd prefer to have CheckUser evidence behind me if at all possible when I finally resolve this. (Last time I change my mind, I promise). --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

protection of northside college prep

Allow me to open with a standard disclaimer concerning ignorance of wikipedia's established policies; I'm fairly new to the whole thing and, while I have an account, there are a couple of edits I made from this computer[a differing IP] as I am housesitting for a friend. That said, I've regularly commented and edited NS's page[you'll find comments marked as "--russ" on the talk page, and those may have the same IP as the username russ a boykin; however recent computer-related nonsense may have changed the IP], and so I'm not sure I understand the whole process with requesting protection and unprotection. I read the wikipedia page on the policy regarding it, but it also advised taking up the issue with the admin who had enacted the protection; since I figured the page was small, I'd come directly to you. I won't take up any more space just to crosspost comments, so I'll link to the talk page of the article here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Northside_College_Preparatory_High_School

If my reasoning as far as where it meshes with standard thinking regarding wikipedia policy is faulty, please, respond on the talk oage of the article, the talk page of this IP[for the next few days, anyway] or e-mail me at [email protected]. I know it would be more convenient, probably, to ask you to respond on my userpage, but again, I'm new, so I haven't really set that jazz up yet. 68.20.22.206 16:36, 26 April 2006 (UTC)russ

In regards to your remark on the help page, how does one go about proving they're a responsible editor who knows enough about the subject? Again, I went to the school; I'm not interested enough to go to them and say something along the lines of, "hey, you know your wikipedia problem? Yeah. Well, if you just tell these guys that I'm an alum, they'll let me tend to it," if such a ridiculous proposal were feasible. Between my actual IP at my comp and what I've been futzing around with here I don't have a vast body of edits whatsoever; I merely edit out grammatical errors and typos where I see them and contribute on the very few things I know. One of them is this school, and I'm wondering what's to be done; besides, I didn't think articles were supposed to be on sprotect for terribly long, hence my request for at least confirmation it wouldn't be protected indefinitely, or, if not with indefinite status, then with a de facto version thereof. 68.20.22.206 13:32, 28 April 2006 (UTC) russ.

Your intervention at HRE RFA

Your decision to step into HRE's RFA and undo the "voting" requirements is much appreciated. I'm sure that Linuxbeak's intentions were good, but sorting out what would "count" and what would not would have been a nightmare. Bucketsofg 21:35, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. It will still be a nightmare, of course, but at least it won't be constrained by legalistic prescriptions for what constitutes a proper vote. I'm prepared to close it if no one else volunteers, and if I do I'll have to go through and evaluate the level of involvement of every voter. The views of those who vote frequently at RFA, and those who have made broad contributions to the project, would then weigh most heavily on my decision. There are drive-by sock puppet voters whose views I would summarily disregard. And there will be some tough calls for whoever wades through the mess. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 15:17, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Abbe Land

The guy is back again at Abbe Land, apparently using a whole diversity of IP addresses. Any suggestions? Avogel 04:57, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians in order of importance

Argh no, we agreed at the last MFD that that was especially NOT what the page should be used for. Rather it would be nice to find out who is doing what so at least you know who to contact.

Nevermind then, the page is totally useless as is. Kim Bruning 14:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

However, we are then still stuck with the problem. How do (new) people quickly find out who to contact over what? This is one of the acculturation problems we have. No one knows who to ask what questions. As you have taken the initiative, I'd very much like to hear from you how you would like to continue :-) Kim Bruning 15:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I see, we are operating on the "you touch it, you own it" principle.... Heh... should have seen that coming. In short, I think that the answer is to put a master directory page together that has links to all the fragmented directories that already exist. We have lists of arbiters, crats, otrs, irc/freenode contacts, technical folk, and so on. We just need to standardize their format and link to them. I foresee a category tag. It would also be helpful to have a list of interwiki contacts so that people know who to go to for problems on commons or questions about a vandal on wikibooks. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I added something to Wikipedia:Wikipedians, which still contains inappropriate humor and needs cleanup. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:45, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Iasson again

Hi there, Uninvited! User:Whitehopeman a.k.a. User:Iasson deleted half of the Portal:Russia page, even though he had been banned for a year or so. I don't know if you're the right person to contact, but I saw your name on his userpage. Thanks! KNewman 11:39, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Kaptain Briton

Hey there, I'm sorry if I made a mistake in looking over Kaptain Briton, I recently got rid of the hundreds of pages at WP:CP, so if I made a mistake on one or two, I'm sorry. It appears you are a sysop though, so you can just go ahead and delete it :-) It's been listed at WP:CP for quite some time, so the usual 7 days has past. If you have any questions, let me know. Thanks. --lightdarkness ^(talk) 00:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

b'crat problem

Hi, Uninvited. I've left a message at the B'crat's noticeboard about a small problem I've had with a user who's tried to release my personal info in an edit summary. I'm not sure who can delete the message in question. Can you tell me what to do? Bucketsofg✐ 22:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. I've been an admin for only two or three days and am slowly getting used to the tools. Would it be too great an imposition of me to ask you to do it? Bucketsofg✐ 22:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

THANKS!! Bucketsofg✐ 22:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging

I appreciate you posted {{no source|month=May|day=24|year=2006}} on the Image:Chernobyl Disaster.jpg ([2]), but next time please follow the tag's instructions and post a message at the uploader's (in this case, me) talk page ({{subst:image source|Image:Chernobyl Disaster.jpg}} ~~~~). Not all uploader put their uploaded images on the watchlist. Hunter 20:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Farina

Replied by email, so as not to be discussing OTRS issues on-wiki. Rebecca 00:21, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

sootoday.com

I did not know i added bad material i was just getting rid of other content i felt was bad--Natasha rocks 00:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Association for Laboratory Automation

Thanks for taking care of that copyright problem. I put the copyvio on that, since it was just a cut and paste from the organization's "about" page. I was puzzled at what seemed to be your comment "What types of formal documentation are neccessary?";, until I figured out that the article's creator hadn't signed their message, making it look like you made their remark.

You added NPOV and Wikify tags, so I did some basic cleanup. Now it looks like a Wikipedia article, and the PR content has been dialed back to an acceptable level. I've pulled the NPOV and Wikify tags accordingly. I have no association with the organization; I'm just doing cleanup today. Thanks. --John Nagle 18:41, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Islam page

Hi. Can you please check and tell why I am not able to edit Islam page. Thanks. Siddiqui 17:17, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Non Bureaucrat closing

You commented at WT:RFA that non bureaucrats can close noms, but as I responded there, I beleive there are many people in the community who disagree with this and insist that only bureaucrats close. So much so that non-bureaucrats trying to close creates substantial conflict. Dragons flight 22:34, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

My Book

Thanks for your wish of good luck on my book, it's work however, I hope to get it published, so fun is not the main focus. Don't worry, i'll include a bit about you in there.

Sincerely,

Karmafist ^{Save Wikipedia} 17:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. So if you're not doing it for fun, are you instead hoping to become rich through royalties? Or is there some other goal at work? The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks.

Regarding your (now deleted) comment on User_talk:Karmafist: One sentence in your comment could be seen as a personal attack. As you know, Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. Please refrain from making these in the future. Thank you. — Nathan ^(talk) 00:37, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm confused. There were no personal attacks in my statements to Karmafist. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 03:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Help with censorship of Gorgeous George (TV personality) Talk Page

The talk page keeps being vandalised and reverted to the following statement "To the clown that keeps messing with this page, Stop! TO MY REQUEST WITH WIKIPEDIA AND THE ADMINISTRATION, THIS PAGE NEEDS TO REMAIN BLANK. Don't need anymore comments from poindexter" I want to know if this is true, I noticed that he says he requested he never says they approved of this. He also makes a personal attack with "Don't need anymore comments from poindexter". I think it would be best if the talk page was placed in semi-protection to deal with this vandalism.Sonic Hog 17:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

George just vandalised the Deletion voting page [[3]] either an accident (he does have absolutely no idea of how this site works) or did it to try to get attention.Sonic Hog 14:23, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

User:KymeSnake

Ident as a pupet of User:Iasson who was blocked some time ago (I beleive based on their page you were involved in this), and according to his userpage also blocked as a sockpuppet; currently doing some strange edits & rvs without discussion on Slavery in Antiquity and Slavery in Ancient Greece - not sure how one can edit while blocked, but in any case, could you please advise as to what needs to be done next to sort this? Bridesmill 18:39, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Norm Coleman

Hi, I am sending this message to serious contributors who may be interested in articles related to U.S. politics. I believe I am receiving an unreasonable response-- and at times insulting and rude-- from the editors of Norm Coleman article, who refuse to remove a section that may offer some interesting trivia for Wikipeidia users, but is irrelevant to people interested in reading an encyclopedia article on a member of U.S. Senate. If you have time, please take a look at the article. Regards. 172 | Talk 03:21, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nathan Fake

Apparently there's evidence that shows notability and article has been edited to remove possibly false content. Could you please revisit and consider retracting this nomination. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kelly Roberti (2nd_nomination)

It looks like you did not complete the closing on this AFD properly, and it has has messed up the later AFD discussions included on this page. I think it needs a {{subst:Afd bottom}} adding, but I've never closed an AFD so I'll leave it to you. - Motor (talk) 10:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Never mind. Someone else has fixed it. - Motor (talk) 18:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Renaming an account

Hi,

I'm an admin on :fr and there's been some talking out there lately about the interwikis-single-login-name soon coming up. I don't think it's going to appear anytime soon, but could you anyway please rename my account on :en from Popo le Dog to Popo le Chien?

Thanks, Popo le Dog 14:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

In need of a history item removed

Some chump posted private info on my talk page to be spiteful. I'd really like this not being indexed by search engines. Can I get the entry removed? (July 7, 2006 @ 20:58 edit) -Markusbradley 22:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

History pages are not indexed by search engines. I am happy to remove personal info from history but there does not appear to be any in the revision that concerns you, and I am reticent to initiate any policy creep in this area. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 14:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

If that's the case, then everything is perfectly cool. Thanks. -Markusbradley 17:40, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Homey again (I hate to bug you but...)

I'm sure you would have seen this anyway, but Homey is rather stubbornly insisting on clarification of whether your review of Jayjg's check includes the additional socks he has nominated himself plus some added by Zeq. I would hate to taint the objectivity Essjay wants the checkuser clerks to demonstrate by offering my own opinion about whether an anon IP from California signing a comment "Sonofzion" 3 weeks after he was first caught somehow equates with exoneration, but I do invite you to follow up on the page if you are so inclined. (Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Sonofzion) Thatcher131 02:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Sonofzion

I misspoke, User:216.249.5.164 was the account Sonofzion was using as an unlogged in user back in June thus the results would be identical to the check on User:Sonofzion. The edits from this week were made from User:130.94.134.250 - has that account been checkusered and what is the result?Homey 16:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Craig B. Hulet

I noticed you deleted this artice. I started it after the first deletion (I now realize that I did not go through the proper channels though) and it went through a second afd with a "keep." I do not see how this was an attack page. If it appeared that way it could easily be fixed. The article only had one section that identified those critical of him and their accusations. If you question his notability I can accept that but it would have been better to mention something in the article's talk page warning that this might happen. I did not see any changes to the article so myself or anyone else could not talk about it. MrMurph101 03:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The new content was substantially the same as the old so you would have to take it to Deletion Review if you want to repost it. The other problem is that the content included substantial criticism of Hulet, both in the "Criticism" section (something we don't do, see WP:LIVING) and elsewhere, all of it sourced to "publiceye.com" which is an advocacy site and not a valid source. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 14:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I now know I can go to Deletion Review if I want to see the text of a deleted article or undelete it. My motivation for recreating the article was to see what the article originally said. I think the person is notable but I am not going to bother trying to repost it for now. I noticed in the deletion log you said the "subject" complained about it being an attack page. That was not at all the intention. Fans of the subject or subject himself would try to make it a promotional page and when that got reverted they would blank most of the page. By the way, there a lot of public figure articles with criticism sections that cite advocacy sites so this appears to be a common mistake that influences many well-meaning editors. Maybe it would be good to start a wikiproject for public figures, especially controversial ones. MrMurph101 17:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Ombudsman OTRS

Hi, Unfortunately I have been on Wikibreak and have missed a fair amount of stuff. I have been advised to contact you regarding the Ombudsman OTRS and its progress - Cartman02au 22:54, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gallery North Carmel

Hi. I just wanted to let you know that I closed an AfD, of an article you deleted via WP:OTRS. Have a nice day. SynergeticMaggot 00:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

National Organization of Short Statured Adults deletion

Hello. I had been keeping an eye on the NOSSA article that you recently deleted due to copyright infringement with the About page at NOSSA's website. I'd like some information about this deletion, if I could. Was this a process that was started as an immediate deletion due to a complaint filed with Wikipedia on behalf of NOSSA? If so, I'd like to obtain a copy of the article to remove the problem text and replace it with non-violating text for continued inclusion of the article within Wikipedia. I am concerned that NOSSA parties are using this claim (legitimate as it may be) to wipe away the "Controversy" section of the article that was added fairly and neutrally. A small list of IPs would frequently blank that section and also add very biased text which I would further clean-up for inclusion. My guess is that NOSSA themselves originally added the copyvio material when starting the page...and are now using it as a deadman switch to blow up the entire article since they were not getting their way and the article was no longer a glowing addition to their online presence that they had envisioned. Imagine the precedent for any group that doesn't like it's wiki presence to add copy violation material and then cry foul to the administration.

I would simply restart the article (sans copyvio) but am not familiar enough with the past text to be sure to capture it all fairly. Is there any way it can be moved to my User space to work on producing an article that does not infringe on copyright but provides the information that is now lost? Thanks for any information you can provide on this matter. ju66l3r 19:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your time. I have established a new version of the page without any of the copyvio that had the first version deleted. If you have time to vette it, it would be greatly appreciated. ju66l3r 04:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

YourCousin RFCU decline

I was going to set up an RFCU for the user, however I had found out that you declined a check user on this account. This user has been harassing me for the past few days because of a content dispute, and has recently begun reverting legitimate edits of my own because of this single page's dispute. There is a full list of IPs and user names that he has used to harass me, and he claims that he has other accounts and "it is [his] goal to ruin [my admin nomination]". The whole list of IPs is on WP:ANI#YourCousin sockpuppeteering and I do not want to be targetted by this guy, just because I reverted him. Could you please reconsider? Ryūlóng 01:03, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Joplin pieces

I noticed the mention of Joplin on your page. I'm a fairly competent ragtime pianist; I could do a good rendition of a few Joplin pieces (Maple Leaf Rag, The Entertainer, Peacherine Rag, maybe Cascades) if I had a means to record them. Any suggestions on how this could be done within a reasonable budget? Isomorphic 07:13, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

WPOA

I think the purpose of an administrator has evolved, the technical bits and pieces that admins do are reasonably well appreciated, but I'd suggest that Admins do, or at least should do, more than that. There is an emerging perception that Admins have a level of authority, rather than just functional ability to exploit more editorial tools, there is also a small, but growing, number of admins who appear to actively police interpersonal activities, rather than just respond to the procedural requests. It's that softer area which is not well understood, and probably needs reviewed. I'm still thinking on it, and will contribute something on it. By preofession I'm an Organisational Development/ Business Change consluttant, so I tend to look at the behavioural/ motivational and perceptual issues rather than just the technicalities and number crunching that is the RFA beauty contest.ALR 19:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The Working Man's Barnstar For helping at WP:RFCU. --Kevin_b_er 22:22, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

OTRS

Hi UninvitedCompany: I'd love to help out with the Info-en OTRS queue, and m:OTRS says to contact you about it. Can I have access to the ticket system? Thanks a bunch —Mets501 (talk) 03:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Proposed merge between WP:CIV and WP:EQ

Hello, I was hoping you could go to the WP:CIV talk page and explain your reasoning behing the merge you proposed. Without some sort of arguement the tag will most likely be removed. HighInBC 06:13, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

OTRS

If they could use it, I'd love to be able to help out with permissions-en for the OTRS. Let me know, thanks. Kevin_b_er 03:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Carnildo's RfA

You mentioned you've concluded that he has learned from his mistake. I trust you so I wanted to ask what led you to that conclusion. I think a lot of other people on the RfA would too. I've never seen anything that showed the least bit of remorse or understanding that what he did was wrong. I do appreciate that if he doesn't think he did anything wrong that he doesn't just say he does to win people over. Anyway, my opinion is that that is what sunk his last RfA and may just sink this one. He does great work that (most :) everyone appreciates, but not admitting he was wrong is a problem. Thanks for your time. - Taxman ^Talk 13:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

M. R. James

I noticed that you moved the M. R. James page a while back to Montague Rhodes James. It seems like by WP:NAME, the original name would be the correct one, no? Why is agreement with Wikisource so important that it should override WP policy?

I have to confess that I'm quite fond of the sentiment behind WP:NAME. Nareek 18:25, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Dummy heading

Please do not blank others' userpages. If you want to censor someone's page, I'm sure the ArbCom could help you. Just going ahead and doing it (even if you leave a "I didn't like it lol" justification), though, could be misconstrued as vandalism. // paroxysm (n) 23:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

-Ril-

You may be interested in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/-Ril- 2

foo 00:00, 1 July 2006

Further copyright violations by Originalsinner

Hi. A short while ago you dealt with three copyright violations I reported to you, Kaptain Briton, Sir James Braddock and Captain Granbretan, all of which had been copied from the Marvel Appendix site. It's just been brought to my attention that the following pages, all posted by Originalsinner, the same person who committed the above listed copyright violations, have also been copied without permission from the Appendix's Master list site http://www.marvunapp.com/master/mastguid.htm: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Originalsinner_Additions_F copies http://www.marvunapp.com/master/faafam.htm plus http://www.marvunapp.com/master/fan.htm plus http://www.marvunapp.com/master/faofd.htm etc

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Originalsinner_Additions_4 copies http://www.marvunapp.com/master/uauls.htm etc and so on with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Originalsinner_Additions_3 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Originalsinner_Additions_C http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Originalsinner_Additions_D http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Originalsinner_Additions_E http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Originalsinner_Additions_7

Please can you remove all the copyrighted material (which is basically all these pages) and consider some sort of disciplinary procedures for Originalsinner, who seems to consider plagiarising other sites on a grand scale a good way to grow Wikipedia. Thanks.

foo 00:00, 1 July 2006

request to a buraucrat

Hi! I just choosed your name on the bureaucrat list, I'm an Italian User, my nickname on en.wikipedia was token by someone (even probably myself but I should have forgot pw and e-mail request doesn't work). Since this user has no edits should be possible, or exist some way to request, delete that account in order to allow me to create it (or to recreeate it). Please answer me on it:User:The Doc bye

foo 00:00, 1 July 2006

Xasthur

I'm not very familiar with Wikipedia requests for undeleting an entry, so please bear with me. I note that "UninvitedCompany" is associated with the deletion of the page named "Xasthur" (July 5, 2006 @22:37 edit). Can I request that this be undeleted? Stonnman 09:20 11 July 2006

There seems to be a question of "who is famous enough to merit a page in Wikipeia" regarding Xasthur. Also, more input from the Wikipedia community is needed regarding what is "nonpublic" and what is "public". Stonnman 03:04 16 July 2006

I did not see your deletion of the Xasthur article as necessary/warranted. Notability is a useless term and measuring worth by simply mainstream exposure or record sales is not an accurate yardstick. Xasthur as a band has noted contributions in music and has a large amount of notoriety, I was actually looking forward to updating the page, to only see that someone had deleted it needlessly. As far as notability is concerned, unless we are talking about an innovator over the course of human history in music, "notability" is left open to personal opinion. Please don't "seek and destroy" articles in the future.

foo 00:00, 1 July 2006

Brett Chidester

Deleting the article on Brett Chidester was probably for the best. I didn't write the claims about his supposed use of cocaine though, someone else did. I mostly added a lot of tags.

foo 00:00, 1 July 2006

CenturyTel

Hi. I'm Blu/Jew Aardvark, account creation vandal. Just FYI, any sockpuppets that resolve to CenturyTel really are mine, and those IP's are *not* open proxies, but rather assigned by my ISP. Also also, they are dynamic, so think before banning them for a month or indefinately. --OMGLOLWTCBBQ

foo 00:00, 1 July 2006

Contact pages

I think indeed that we still get too many mails about things that we won't answer. You were right about tightening my prose, but I think that we need to convey a very clear idea that not only are we not interested in receiving articles by email, but we're also not interested in receiving changes or documentation for proposed changes. David.Monniaux 20:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I see your point, and while I am not entirely convinced that we get a sufficient volume of such mail as a percentage of the total for it to matter much, I'll go along with it. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

You're right. However, these are often the kind of people who expect us to make the changes they request, as opposed to, say, people who wish to point vandalism to us and who will have forgotten about it tomorrow. David.Monniaux 21:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I also changed all (I hope) mentions of info-en by requesting the exact URL of the page. Many times, we have to look for the articles (needle in a haystack sometimes) or ask for precisions. Copy'n'paste from the URL bar is easy and saves trouble. It's also more precise than "article title", because sometimes people don't copy'n'paste the title, but retype it and they often get something slightly different - while URLs are sufficiently annoying to type to motivate people to copy'n'paste. David.Monniaux 21:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Good. I appreciate the involvement. It's lonely editing the "Contact us" pages. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

OTRS

Yes, I think I'd be willing to give it a try. Providing I can retain my on-line anonymity.--Doc 22:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

• Okay, sign me up for a one-month stint (not three), under the same conditions as Doc. DS 23:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Permissions

Is it correct that the people involved with OTRS are responsible for permissions@wikimedia and have access to the messages logged there? Dragons flight 02:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Wondering if you could...

Use your oversight powers to delete my user page history? There is sensitive personal information on there that I would like removed. Everything up to the most recent edit? Magic Window 14:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Lyme disease

Hiya. I've reverted your edit on the Lyme disease talk page, and removed the comment about doctors being murderers. (see dif). I think the discussion that emerged from the initial rant was very informative and useful, and I think it's important to keep these well written arguments on the talk page, because people, mostly anons, visit the article and the talk page quite often to voice their opinion over the "chronic lyme disease controversy". Having these arguments and counter-arguments on the talk page will hopefully reduce redundant discussions. --Conti|✉ 01:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I certainly do not mind if you delete the content that might cause legal problems for the foundation, but you cannot say that the whole thread does? Apart from the initial rant, I see a good discussion with lots of sources cited, and that's basically what I'd like to keep. Surely it could be possible to only delete those sentences that contradict with WP:BLP. --Conti|✉ 01:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I know that the initial post could be seen as libellous, that's why I haven't completely restored it, sorry if I missed something there. It would be a shame if the whole discussion would be lost because of a few remarks, tho. --Conti|✉ 01:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello, I also reverted your reversion - not to be rude, but because I think it would be preferable at this time to discuss excision of the entire discussion rather than simply doing so. I am not involved in the debate and appreciate your attempts to maintain civility. However, I'm not sure that deleting the entire conversation is best! InvictaHOG 01:33, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Please be aware that this is an OTRS matter and that we have a legal complaint from one of the individuals mentioned in the discussion. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 01:38, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

OTRS barnstar

Thanks! Do you always add stars secretly? I wouldn't have noticed if I wasn't checking my userpage history for vandalism yesterday. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

re:Copyvio

Actually, the pic on the site cannot be pasted directly. i had to edit the two pieces, join them together, paint over certain portions. if it is still copyvio, plz feel free to delete the image.

WoodElf 07:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

It's still what is called a derivative work and therefore a copyvio. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

re: Zara Wallace

• If you would be so kind as to re-instate the article, I will take your talk page commentary to heart. Thank you for your time. Smeelgova 20:45, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • My intention of the communication had been for you to reinstate the article, not to copy it to my talk page. Do you wish me to instead edit it myself and recreate the article? Smeelgova 20:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes, after you've fixed the text. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Could you provide me with some references as to how you know these are two separate individuals?Smeelgova 21:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

One of them wrote to us. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:45, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• I have edited and re-created the article. Thank you for your time and understanding in this matter.Smeelgova 22:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

A template you made a while ago

Template:Lieuofblock mentions "another administrator" this seems to be unecessarily cabalish. There is no need such courtesy should occur only between admins. I would therefore suggest that "another" be changed to "an." Your input would be appreciated. JoshuaZ 21:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Image verification

Could you take a look at Wikipedia:Verifying unusual image licenses and comment on any issues you may see? Dragons flight 19:30, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Poison sf RfCU

Hello, I noticed that you checked this and decided that they were unrelated. This was a combination sock and meat puppet arrangement so I can't say for sure which accounts were sock puppets of which other users. When you say 'representative sample', which accounts do you mean? If you only looked at a couple or a few you could have missed the sock puppet matchups. Poison sf, UberCyrxic, Alecmconroy, and Brimba are almost certainly not sock puppets and if you compared them you wouldn't find any connection. However, if you tried UberCyrxic against ExplicitImplicity, or Poison sf against Conserve or Magnetics, I think you would find one.

Also - how do I go about asking for meat puppets to be investigated? It is possible - but I think unlikely - that all of them are actually meat puppets. I'm not sure how much evidence you looked through but there is a call on the stormfront forum for people to join in the edit war - this is clearly meat puppeteering. There is also the talk pages of UberCyrxic and Alecmconroy discussing switching off people to revert and avoid the 3RR. Thank you :) Stick to the Facts 01:11, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

See here: http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?p=3433246 Stick to the Facts 01:18, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello, I am a little bit concerned that this RCFU was carried out (not that it was nominated, but that you actually checked the users). Actually very concerned. RCFU is a very serious matter and requires significant amounts of reasonable suspicion and evidence. The above user demonstrated no reliable evidence that these were sockpuppets, and on top of that he lied blatantly. I do not wish to be offensive, but it's pretty damn obvious if you just click on my userpage that I am not a sockpuppet of anyone (I've been here since January for goodness sake). That alone should have been enough to dismiss this silly case outright. The user also never assumed good faith. He seems to have fabricated this reality that the majority of the people editing the Stormfront article are working together and are arrayed against him. It's difficult to extricate yourself from a theory that engrosses you so much, and that's what's happening with this user. This RFCU was just an extension of that insecurity and frustration on his part.UberCryxic 03:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

If that would cure him of his conspiratorial mania, i would happily agree on just another checkuser, and another after that, but the fact is, he is using resources that could be used to find real sockpuppets. I have given up hope on Stick_to. He will believe what he wants to, no matter what the outcome of any future checkuser will be. If you indeed tried UberCyrix against me, you would find that we are totally UNRELATED. But good luck on telling that to Stick_to. -- ExpImp^{talk con} 16:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I direct all of you to the talk page of the RFCU case where you are welcome to discuss this further. I do not wish to reply here. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:43, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Per your request, I've posted a new message on the talk page. Stick to the Facts 02:18, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

OTRS queue

Hello UninvitedCompany, you are listed as an admin for OTRS and as a contact for setting up new queues. I would like to start a queue for the Low Saxon Wikipedia under [email protected]. I already asked de:User:Elian for help with the setup and she agreed on setting it up, but finds no time for doing it. So, could you help me creating it? --::Slomox:: >< 14:16, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

In general, we are setting up queues by language, not by project. Unless you anticipate receiving considerable email traffic in Low Saxon I don't believe that a queue is necessary. I suggest that you use [email protected] for your inbound address. Do you already have an OTRS account yourself? The Uninvited Co., Inc. 15:36, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, although I wrote Wikipedia, I meant all Low Saxon Wikimedia projects. But there are only two and the Wiktionary isn't that active (I am Sysop on both, so don't worry I would disesteem the other projects ;-)). We have no considerable email traffic for now, and perhaps also wouldn't have it in the future, but I think it really would help, if we at least provide the possibility. Low Saxon is a language of rural areas, older and non-techie people. Editing in a wiki is is easy, but if you are unaware of how a wiki works it can be a hindrance to communication, so we should provide a more "conventional" way of communication. We could use [email protected], but wherefore? Messages in Low Saxon have to be answered by Low Saxon speakers, so an own queue is a more much straightforward way to direct the messages to the right people. There are no running costs for a queue, are there? So there is no hindrance to establish an own queue.

And no, I have no account until now. --::Slomox:: >< 16:26, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I see. I had not realized that the language was still widely used.

I've discussed with some other OTRS authorities and we have concluded that this is outside the remit of the OTRS system. We suggest that you use a personal email address for such matters unless the volume becomes unmanagable. You could also have a mailing list set up if you want. You can include either on the contact page if you wish, as long as it's clear that it's not an official Foundation contact point. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:38, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Could you elaborate on the ratio behind outside the remit of the OTRS system? --::Slomox:: >< 16:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

It was set up originally to deal with the Foundation's mail: press inquiries, reports of copyright violations, permissions requests that have to be archived indefinitely, and reports of libellous articles. In general, only mail that has to be kept confidential is handled through OTRS. See m:Info-en mission for an example. General editorial discussions have not, thus far, taken place using OTRS. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I see, you mistook what I phrased mistakable. I didn't mean editorial discussion but questions and requests from outsiders not familiar with wikis and the Wikipedia. Our regular users shall use the wiki, but people from outside shall have the possibility of easier communication. Sorry for the confusion --::Slomox:: >< 19:32, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Hm? --::Slomox:: >< 11:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Could you please answer? --::Slomox:: >< 22:04, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm confused. What's left to answer? Our policy is that we use the "info" queue for all languages that don't generate large amounts of traffic; that is, in excess of several emails a week. We suggest that you encourage people to send mail regarding matters that must be kept confidential to that address. If we need translation assistance, we will contact you. Such mail would include: reports of copyright violations, reports of potentially libellous articles, and other legal problems. If you wish to have a means to answer mail that is not confidential but rather is related to editorial or usage matters, we suggest you have that mail directed to a mailbox of your own, or to a mailing list; you may also wish to create an on-wiki location for such discussion. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 15:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:OTRS

Hi. Thanks for thinking of me. I think this is something I can reasonably commit to spending some time helping out with. Jkelly 22:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Nutshell removal from WP:BLP

I think what you are doing (removal of nutshells from policies) is probably a good thing in general, but I have to take issue with WP:BLP in particular. It is a newer policy that is intended to be aggressively enforced, and the nutshell very succinctly sums up the core issue of the policy. Many editors are only vaguely aware, if aware at all, of the policy, and the nutshell gets the message across very quickly and strongly. As a member of the Living People Patrol, I find the nutshell very effectively gets the message across when wading into a libel-filled and contentious article. I may be mistaken, but I believe that Jimbo wrote most of the policy, including the nutshell, himself. So I hope you understand why I am restoring it, and are not too terribly irked. Strike that last part, someone else restored it while I was writing here. Crockspot 22:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that they are a pox. If the nutshellism actually adds something, it should be rewritten as the first sentence or two of the introductory paragraph. I would like to encourage you to do this with the BLP policy in particular. Graphically, they are horrible and they clutter up pages already overbusy with navboxes and the policy banner. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I was about to follow your suggestion, but the nut appears to have been absconded by a squirrel. It is no longer in the history. Crockspot 00:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Caution, may contain nuts

Excellent idea, I'll join you in that. >Radiant< 22:48, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Nutshells

Make sure to incorporate the information from the nutshell into the introduction. They are often used as a substitute for a proper introduction and simply removing the nutshell makes the introduction incomplete. —Centrx→talk • 23:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Uninvited, I am sure you mean well, and I am sure you believe that WP will be better without the nuts. But please recognize that this is a site-wide issue, and impacts virtually all policies/guidelines and their presentation. Please recognize also that you are not alone, and that there are other viewpoints. I for one think they are very useful and helpful. To go and make wholesale changes in multiple pages before the issue is resolved by consensus is counterproductive and wasteful. Please try to make your case, reach a consensus, and then act. Thanks for understanding, Crum375 23:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The change crept in and never had consensus in the first place, see Template talk:Guideline one liner where the only real support, essentially, was from the person who went around and added them in the first place. They have expanded so that most are no longer the brief oneliners that were originally tolerated. There was neither consensus for their initial use nor for their expansion from oneliners to "nutshellisms," and the discussion which has been ongoing at Template talk:Policy in a nutshell for over a month has been in favor of their removal. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

A gradual 'creep' is fairly common. Still, once you have a status quo, regardless of how we got there, it should be respected, especially when it applies to a class of pages, not just one. If the Template talk:Policy in a nutshell was stalling, maybe it needed wider exposure. In any case, there was no consensus there, nor anywhere else, that I could find. Uninvited, let's do it right - I am sure we both want what's good for WP; the way to get there (wherever 'there' may be) is by consensus with wide participation, not by constant reversions. Crum375 00:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

This is being done right, and you are the only one constantly reverting. If you disagree with removing nutshells, you must explain why they ought to be on these pages; there does not need to be and should not be a site-wide discussion for every one of the hundreds of minor Wikipedia-related issues every day. Anyone who disagrees with these removals will notice them and is quite able to come to the template talk page well-advertised in the edit to explain their reasoning. —Centrx→talk • 05:50, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Please gain consensus for removal of the nutshells before removing any more. — Omegatron 01:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

What is the reason these nutshells should remain? —Centrx→talk • 05:50, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

As I noted elsewhere, in my opinion they help newcomers get a quick grasp of the essential points of each policy. They are a useful and powerful graphical tool to quickly appreciate and retain the essence of each policy. I myself found this extremely useful as I was new (not that long ago) and I think losing this valuable benefit would harm WP. Thanks, Crum375 12:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

• As has been pointed out before, they help newcomers get an incorrect grasp of incomplete parts of policy, without them actually realizing that. >Radiant< 13:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

If they do misdlead, and I can't say that for myself as to me they seemed in the past, and still do today, helpful and congruent with the detailed versions, they need to be fixed, not eliminated. Crum375 13:10, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

James Loney

Hi UninvitedCompany. I have a question about this edit to the James Loney article, in which removed the following text:

On June 19 2006 it was announced that the camp at which Loney had formerly worked would cease operations, after the chairman of the Knights of Columbus Ontario State Council (the organization funding the camp) expressed concerns that the camp was "promoting a homosexual lifestyle", mentioning Loney's name directly [4].

Your summary line was paragraph not factual as written and the facts are elusive. The camp in the reference is different than the one mentioned above in the article.).

Based on my reading of the linked Toronto Star article, the removed text seems to be accurate. I'm wondering if I misread the Toronto Star article, or if you're asserting that Star article itself was wrong. Regards, --Saforrest 17:53, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

The star doesn't state the name of the camp, and it's apparently a different one than the one mentioned earlier in the article. If you can find a way to make this clear, I'm OK with the text going back in. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:33, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Block of WikiXan

I'm not sure exactly why you indef blocked WikiXan (talk · contribs), as I can't see any vandalism in the history. There's this, where he failed to clean up some vandalism, but given the track record and his other edits, I think it was an oversight. I've unblocked, in the meantime. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:32, 1 October 2006 (UTC)