User talk:Vhgk3z5b/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions. Its contents should be preserved in their current form. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Are you serious?

per: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Personal_attack_intervention_noticeboard&diff=next&oldid=62481451

Please refer to WP:NPA. Comments on your actions are not personal attacks. Nscheffey only commented on actions, not your character. Vhgk3z5b 04:32, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

• Accusatory comments such as "George is a troll", or "Laura is a bad editor" can be considered personal attacks if said repeatedly, in bad faith, or with sufficient venom.
• Negative personal comments and "I'm better than you" attacks, such as "You have no life."
• Racial, sexual, homophobic, ageist, religious or ethnic epithets directed against another contributor. (Disagreement over what constitutes a religion, race, sexual preference, or ethnicity is not a legitimate excuse.)
• Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views — regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme.
• Profanity directed against another contributor.

Maybe I don't understand the concept since I'm new, but if anyone called me a "dick" on the street, my husband would rip them a new neck. Ste4k 05:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Saying someone is acting like a dick, or that doing something is a dick thing to do is not a personal attack. Vhgk3z5b 05:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar and offered nomination for adminship

The Working Man's Barnstar is awarded to Vhgk3z5b for his outstanding patience in maintaining an area of Wikipedia that requires a hell of a lot of it.

Paul,

Despite our previous disagrement, I really admire the work you've been doing at WP:PAIN. Frankly, I wouldn't touch that page with a bargepole and respect you for putting in the effort that I couldn't.

Would you consider accepting a nomination for adminship? I can't guarantee that it'll succeed, as many editors like to see higher edit counts than yours - but personally I think the breadth and duration of your experience could compensate for that. I would certainly like to see you have admin priviliges sooner rather than later.

Whether you accept this nomination or not, please accept this barnstar. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 23:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. If I were to be nominated for adminship I would accept it. Having adminship would only not be nice to be trusted, but would definately help me handle WP:PAIN far more than just clerical work. My main goal as a wikipedian is to handle backlogged areas, such as WP:PAIN was. Lastly, thanks for the barnstar. We all have disagreements. What's important is that we haven't let it affect our continuing relations with other wikipedians (i.e. you). In short: I accept. Vhgk3z5b 01:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about the delay - Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Vhgk3z5b is up, please sign on the dotted line and I'll transclude it to the RfA page. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Removing the complaint

Vhgk3z5b, did you investigate the complaint that I posted against User:Doright? I guess that if he is free to do such things that there is a high threshold of what constitutes a personal attack. Maybe this is a good thing. --Drboisclair 20:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes I did investigate it. I did not see any comments made other than those regarding the contributor's actions. Attacking someone themselves is a personal attack, attacking what they've done is not. Vhgk3z5b 20:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I appreciate your prompt action in this matter, and I will remember that if you delete something from this page, you do so officially. Please accept my apologies for reverting you.--Drboisclair 20:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey, we can't learn from mistakes unless we make them in the first place. ;) Keep in mind though that very few things are official on Wikipedia. If you feel that I or someone else removed your complant unjustly. And after discussing it, a consensus still could not be reached, places such as the administrator's noticeboard exist so that you can have a larger group review your case. Vhgk3z5b 20:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

My talk page

I'm not sure what's happening here, but, I'm trying to find out. After contributing to Wikipedia extensively for about 2 years, the other week user John254 seems to have got ticked off with me. He decided that my comments on a Talk Page were too strong and that they amounted to a personal attack (all refs are on my Talk Page). They were not, they were my toungue-in-cheek way to try to make him think about his recent approach on several related pages - the ones with 'rude' pictures on, that it's well-known that WP is not about to censor.

He has repeatedly put all kinds of pompous-sounding stuff on my talk page since then which bears - in my opinion - little relation to the issues that were under discussion. Now, the link "my talk" apparently gave me the wrong impression - that it was "my page", and that therefore I was under no obligations there (quite unlike the rest of WP). So, in a 'don't feed the trolls' kind of spirit I just removed his stuff, imagining that - having apparently lost an argument - he'd eventually calm down.

This doesn't seem to be the case and now he seems to be almost 'stalking' me, checking my edit summaries and probably everything else I do and adding daily official-sounding "warnings" for me and everyone else to read.

Now you seem to have joined in and seem to be backing his behaviour.

So what's going on? Are you some kind of official? Is he? Am I in some kind of disciplinary situation here, or is this just informal bullying on your parts? I really don't have all the time in the world to trawl through every rule, guideline and policy document there is, but I really enjoy and value Wikipedia in general.

If my style is too robust or something, I don't mind being told, but I'm just not sure what's going on here. I will not give all this time for free and then be treated like a naughty child - in public - by self-styled petty offficials, but I will discuss anything with anyone who makes a reasonable approach. --Nigelj 21:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Your comment that a user apparently knows very little about something can be considered a personal attack. Because of that comment, User:John254 placed a warning on your talk page. Per WP:VANDAL, it is generally inappropriate for you to remove such warnings. The fact that you removed it without discussing the matter could be considered vandalism. Because of that I reverted your edit. If you feel that John254 warned you inappropriately, you should take it to the administrator's noticeboard. It's simply a case that you should never negatively comment on another contributor themselves. If you are warned for violating a policy, you should try to discuss the matter before removing the warning. Vhgk3z5b 21:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Is that what's excercising the two of you? Then let's look at a fuller quotation shall we? '... I'm very worried about children and minors coming across his unfounded and unreferenced claims regarding the feelings and sensibilities of a "significant portion of [Wikipedia] readers", about which he apparently knows so little.' (a) That's clearly 'tougue-in-cheek' and (b) I maintain that he did have no statistical evidence, or other well-founded knowledge regarding the feelings or sensibilities of different portions of WP readers, while claiming that a 'significant portion' supported his argument. He had actually used the phrase 'significant portion' no less than six times in formulating his argument up to that point, and others were starting to pick him up on it before I added this slightly humorous, but none-the-less factual contribution.

If that's the basis of your issue, can I respectfully ask the pair of you to stop "vandalising" my talk page with your various templates, please. --Nigelj 22:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

It may have been obvious to you, but to John it wasn't. When I reviewed it at WP:PAIN, I didn't appear to be tounge-in-cheek to me. Because of that, I felt that his warning was justified. In any case, you still should have discussed the matter before removing the template. If I were you, I would explain to John that you meant no offense, and hopefully he will remove the warning himself. Vhgk3z5b 23:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:PAIN? I didn't even know that you guys had a place for that. Why didn't any of you there think to let me know you were discussing me, at the time? And on that score I now see that John254 has been going into print about me in other places too - including to a long-standing colleague who even apparently tried to stand up for me: User talk:John254#Misc comment and User talk:Stephen B Streater#Nigelj. And, yes, as I described above, I was mistaken about "My Talk" - I thought it was mine to do what I wanted with - like my e-mail in-box at home. I'll leave it alone from now on. --Nigelj 07:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

RfA

Hi Paul - although there is genuine appreciation for your work on the part of many, it doesn't appear that your RfA will attain consensus. With best wishes and full support, I recommend that you withdraw your nomination and incorporating reasonable criticism, seek adminship at a later date. This Fire Burns Always 07:40, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Good luck next time. I think you have taken the right decision. Regards, E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 16:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes all the best in your work and life. Please don't be disappointed - the best antidote is to intensify working on the stuff you love. Cheers, This Fire Burns Always 21:47, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

The next time just warn me in my userpage so that I vote. I think you have good potential in being an Admin. Regards. Fad (ix) 22:13, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

There were a number of users I wanted to contact for support. However I didn't want to risk it coming across as vote canvassing. In any case, there was an overwhelming view of lack of experience for a half a dozen support votes to fix. Thanks though. :D Vhgk3z5b 22:27, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Although I wasn't certain the nomination would succeed, I wasn't expecting that many oppose votes either, to be honest - but I think you've got it exactly right, the fact that most votes are on experience, which can be corrected pretty easily and quickly, is very encouraging. I look forward to your successful nomination. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Paul - You hit the nail on the head with your response to Fadix. As I said in the discussion, I feel you need more and broader experience, especially editing in the main namespace, and I also think you need more attention to the details of the 'pedia, such as doing edit summaries all the time instead of part of the time. I read that you've changed your preferences to ask you for edit summaries (I have mine set the same way!) and of course that will help. About the issue of removing talk page warnings: I refactor my talk page also because I get some pretty nasty comments from vandals and POV-pushers, but I would never remove a warning myself. TawkerBot got me last week because I left off a trailing } on a template, so I asked Tawker to remove it rather than take it off myself and he did. I suggest you take a similar course for future warnings - archive discussions that bother you rather than deleting them, and note the archival in your edit summary.

Spend some more time writing, and in a few months I think your RfA will have a much better chance of passing. Let me know if/when that happens so I can come back and see the great work you've done in the interim. Best wishes - Baseball,Baby! ^{balls•strikes} 00:31, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Please use edit summaries much more often and have more experience editing articles and project pages. Failure to use edit summaries too often can cause others to wonder if admin actions will have no reasons left. Do not feel discouraged this time. You may still succeed a few months later.--Jusjih 01:09, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi there - thanks for your response to my "edit summary" question. I would have gladly changed my vote to "support", and I will definitely support your next nomination. Keep up the great work. --Aguerriero (talk) 14:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

re removing warnings

excuse me but karl meier and john smith removed totally justified warnings from their respective talk pages (take this for example) but you dont seem to be bothered by it, could I kindly have an explanation for this? lutherian 06:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Sure: I can't be everywhere at once. Vhgk3z5b 20:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Your note

Hi Paul, sorry I don't follow. Tags go on user pages so far as I know, and I think that's what I did. I'll re-check. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Libertarianism

Regarding User:Saxifrage, User:Irgendwer, and Talk:Libertarianism, thanks for stepping in for a bit; do you have any recommendations on how I should proceed? You seem both experienced and neutral, is why I ask. Also, was I premature in adding npa4? I did get a third opinion on IRC, but all the rest of my warning experience is on RC patrol. Luna Santin 11:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Irgendwer seems to not have the best English skills, so I'm being patient with him, explaining why I feel what I do. I would suggest at this point, to simply continue to talk to him as it seems that he is willing to discuss the issues. As for the {{npa4}} warning, I wouldn't say it was unwarranted, but I would have used {{npa3}} first. I only jump straight to {{npa4}} when the user continues with blatant attacks. As well, when ever someone asks if I'm an admin, or implies that I have no authority, I quote them this bit from WP:ADMIN: In the early days of Wikipedia all users acted as administrators and in principle they still should. Any user can behave as if they are an administrator... even if they have not been given the extra administrative functions. Vhgk3z5b 14:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I actually did include an {{npa3}}, though it was nestled into the end of a paragraph. But, case in point, you didn't see it, so it wasn't obvious enough. I'll bear that all in mind. Thanks. Luna Santin 14:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

It would be case it point if I looked for it well enough. I'm sure it wasn't "hidden". Vhgk3z5b 21:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Irgendwer

I'll take a look at his contribs and such. I'll let you know what I decide to do. --Woohookitty^(meow) 07:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I left him one last warnings. Sometimes, a warning from an outsider will make the person pause and change. It's happened. If he continues to remove warnings, let me know. --Woohookitty^(meow) 08:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Yep. Could you possibly bring it? I do alot of checkuser requests and I don't want to wear out my welcome. :) --Woohookitty^(meow) 06:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Talk pages

Paul, I don't know what the background is, but I've noticed you reverting Guettarda on his talk page to restore some civility thing, and also editing his archive. Editors are allowed to control the contents of their talk pages, except in unusual circumstances, such as an administrator's warning that other admins may need to see; and they are similarly allowed to control their archives. Please try to sort out your differences in some other way. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi SlimVirgin, I restored the converstation because it being archived was in violation of WP:ARCHIVE ("you should leave current, ongoing discussions on the existing talk page"). I understand that that WP:ARCHIVE is not a policy, however it is a guideline which IMO editors should follow as if it were policy. I was still discussing the matter with Guettarda, so rather than create a new section (to which would contain many quotes from the archived section thus defeating the purpose of the archive (which is to maintain organization and a talk page's small size)) I moved the archived section back to the main page and continued the discussion in that section. I would like to note that not only has he reverted the archive (to which I will not continue to restore) he has not archived my comment to him but has deleted it instead and then, which is obviously a misleading attempt to get the last word in. He has now accused me of insulting him, making personal attacks, harrasment and trolling. He's also implied that I have an ulterior motive and that I don't know how to use templates. Quite frankly, this stinks of someone not like being warned and lashing out about it. I would appriciate your outside view on the matter. Vhgk3z5b 01:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

That's all well and fine, but his talk page is in his userspace, and any replies to you or anyone else are the user's discretion. Your actions there come very close to harassment in my opinion too. Please read WP:HAR. FeloniousMonk 03:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

How can it be "all well and fine" if you then say it was wrong? Guettarda violated a guideline to which I reverted. Guidelines are not policies so they are not solid rules that must be enforced. As such my actions you claim violate Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, which is also a guideline. I reverted a guideline violation to which you feel was a guideline violation. It's hardly me harrassing some user. Vhgk3z5b 03:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Irgendwer II

I requested a checkuser. I was going to have you do it but nah. :) I'm 100% certain that username already in use is him. I'm iffier on the other one but the article he edited is similar to Libertarianism and the edits are similar to Irgendwer's. If he is using Bbnsv as well, he can be blocked because that account edited while Irgendwer was blocked. As for the username already in use, I really just want to link the accounts so the penalties can be severe if he continues this behavior. --Woohookitty^(meow) 16:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

User T. Moitie

I was not told anything about this, and this report was about Moitie not Fullstop, so i don't see why you just reverted --Spahbod ☼ 01:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

The report involves Fullstop. Obviously because any discussion will wind up involving all parties actions, WP:PAIN is not the place for it. WP:PAIN is for clear-cut incidences of personal attacks. Issues involving conduct of various users on various levels, should be taken to WP:AN or WP:AN/I Vhgk3z5b 02:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to VandalProof!

Hi, Vhgk3z5b/Archive 3, thank you for applying for VandalProof. I am happy to announce that you are now authorized for use, so if you haven't already, simply download VandalProof from our main page and install it, and you're all set!

Warning to Vandals: This user is armed with VandalProof

Please join the VandalProof user category by adding either: {{User:Vishwin60/Userbox/VandalProof}} (which will add this user box) or [[Category:Wikipedians using VandalProof]] to your user page.

If you have any queries, please feel free to contact me or post a message on VandalProof's talk page. Welcome to our team! - Glen 03:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

VP IRC channel

Click here :) #vandalproof on freenode. Talk soon - Glen 04:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Reneec/66.239.212.x

Hi. I was on my way to add a comment to Jersyko's listing of Reneec on the Personal Attack Noticeboard [1], when I saw that you had removed the listing because the editor had not been warned. The editor no longer uses that account, and all of the comments in question have been made under a handful of IPs. Warnings have been left on the talk pages of a few of those IPs (here and here, although there may have been others) and, as Jersyko said, the matter has also been brought up repeatedly on the article's talk page, the only place where we can be reasonably sure the editor will get the messages.

Should we be leaving warnings on User talk:Reneec, for completeness sake, even though it's even less likely that the editor will find them than if we leave them on the talk pages of the IP the editor used most recently? Can I relist the issue, providing the diffs to the warnings placed on the IP talk pages? I haven't really had this extensive a discussion with an editor who uses a dynamic IP before, so I'm not sure of the procedure. Thanks! -- Vary | Talk 00:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

For issues spanning multiple IPs or usernames, you should post the issue on WP:AN/I. Vhgk3z5b 00:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, thank you! -- Vary | Talk 01:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Your note

I was commenting on the actions of the user. She makes no contributions to the encyclopedia (see her contribs history), but posts whenever she can to talk pages in order to increase conflict. All she does is cause trouble. That's a comment on her actions, not on her person. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

That comment violates WP:CIVIL and the comment All you are is trouble. certainly does violate WP:NPA. Vhgk3z5b 07:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:RFC/Slim

-Ste|vertigo 15:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Your note

Paul, I keep my archives offline now, ever since an attack site started using the on-wiki archives for the purposes of trolling. There is no requirement for people to keep archives on-wiki, or keep certain material on their talk pages. If you feel there is, please link to it. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The anon IP you responded to is User:Gnetwerker, who has been harassing me for blocking several of his sockpuppets. It's probably best not to respond to attacks on admins by anon IPs, as there is often something like that behind it. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Part of WP:VANDAL says that users should not remove warnings and links to WP:ARCHIVE as an alternative. In any case, I'm not going to press the issue. A few users feel the comments were incivil but not personal attacks, and given the circumstances I don't think you were trying to hide the warnings and I don't feel the circumstances justify the warnings being kept. As I said at WP:PAIN even if you asked me to remove the warnings and promised to be more civil I would have done so right away. Vhgk3z5b 03:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Paul, people have the right to remove "warnings" from their own talk pages. I think WP:VANDAL needs to make that clear. Posting "warnings" to people about their own talk pages is provocative. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Can you show me where WP:VANDAL says that? Sorry, I can't find it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:10, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Under the header Talk page vandalism: Deleting the comments of other users from article Talk pages, aside from removal of internal spam, or deleting entire sections of talk pages, is generally considered vandalism. Removing personal attacks is often considered legitimate, and it is considered acceptable to archive an overly long Talk page to a separate file and then remove the text from the main Talk page. The above does not apply to the user's own Talk page, where users generally are permitted to remove and archive comments at their discretion. However, removing legitimate warnings, especially with the intention of misleading other editors, can be disruptive and inappropriate behavior even though it is not specifically a form of vandalism. Removing comments without responding may be considered uncivil or become an issue for arbitration. Vhgk3z5b 04:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Again, my apologies

I was actually thinking of user:69.29.223.226 when I was writing that particular passage at WP:PAIN. You were in the part that followed. ;-) Thanks for all the good work at WP:PAIN, and my apologies. FeloniousMonk 04:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

It's all good. Vhgk3z5b 05:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

== I am totally confused here about what has happened, and it doesn't leave a clean sense that complaints about admins are dealt with fairly and openly. I posted what I thought to be a reasonable comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/SlimJay, commenting that there had been a clear personal attack and also that it was unfounded. That post has disappeared. Could you at least restore this in some form; it would be nice that Kim knows that she is appreciated and that others think that SV has acted wholly improperly.Gleng 15:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Your contributions show no edits to any RfC's. Could you provide a link? Vhgk3z5b 17:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I have see them, the RfC was deleted. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 18:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:PAIN

Paul, this hurts me more than it hurts you. Regarding this, please see WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. Try to keep a cool head and if necessary take a break before responding. Thanks!! SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

VandalSniper

You've been approved to use VandalSniper. Please let me know if you have any problems getting it working. --Chris (talk) 23:13, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Do you know what your doing?

Paul, you left me a message concerning my comments posted for Windows Vista. What I have posted is absolutely not vandalism and I dont apprecate you deleting my contributions ahead of time. Your other comment about search capabilities had nothing to do with my post. You either made a big mistake or obviously have no idea what your doing. 72.248.117.5 13:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with your meddlesome perception

You have not supplied a warrant for your actions on my talk page. ...And as you like to keep your namespace nice/neat, so do I. I put your edits in the same section, because you just came into my affairs separately from the other person, at another time. I really don't need to justify this to you. Please learn to respect my space. Thank you. Éponyme 08:12, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Refactoring is appropriate, misleading factoring is not. In addition, it is not your space, you do not own it. Vhgk3z5b 08:38, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

You never supplied a reason for putting the warning. In addition, I have explained why in innocent terms the page was fixed to serve me best. I am the chief receptionist of your edits, therefore I ought to read it in the best light I can interpret. Call it misleading or not, but your actions are still meddlesome and overaggressive. You have abused me and I request an apology, or steer clear and leave well enough alone. Crying wolf will not endear me to your actions on my talk page, nor the heavy handed paternalism from a young adult acting smart-alec. I contest any "allegation" you hold about me as absolutely without ground. Therefore, cease and desist harrassing warnings. Éponyme 09:04, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Your own comment above about me being a "young adult acting smart-alec" violates WP:NPA. But if you want a full blown violation of WP:NPA, here's one: "You never cease to be prejudiced, careless and without justice in your hate for my country. You want a "revolution" of perceptions, to accomodate those just like yourself and to do it, you hold the minority down. In America, holding minorities down to uphold majorities is against the law. You may see fit to do that back in Germany, where none are legally allowed to complain. Go back home and leave us alone. You obviously do not acclimate to our culture, nor our customs and constantly berate us for it. You don't want to keep talking to me, but all you do is condescend in issues you are ignorant about." [2]. Wikipedia policies are non-negotiable. It doesn't matter if you don't like someone or they say stuff that greatly offends you, if you act inappropriately, you are still at fault. If other people violated policies, then point it out to a third-party and ask for intervention (such as WP:PAIN or WP:AN/I), continuing to violate policies will just result in you getting blocked along with the other editor(s). Vhgk3z5b 09:25, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I call a spade a spade and called the circumstance just how I saw it. Call that wrong or right. It is freedom of speech, just as theirs has been to describe in their own way how they feel I had been doing wrong. Don't jump the gun and then twist the issue to support your actions. Éponyme 09:59, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

It is wrong and you will be blocked if you continue to do it have been blocked because of it. There is no freedom of speech here; the First Ammendment applies to the government, not private organizations. Vhgk3z5b 12:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Éponyme

Yeah you are probably right. I do wonder if I should just block him indefinitely. I don't see someone who will change. --Woohookitty^(meow) 16:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I didn't remove what he put on his talk page. I did give him a final warning though. And btw, I closed the discussion of his "pet article". It was 8-3. Close but I think it's enough to delete the article. --Woohookitty^(meow) 17:03, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Ed Kavalee

Thanks for picking up on the crap on this wiki :) --Mikecraig 06:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Windows Vista

Hi there! You made a change marked as a reversion that substituted 'The Borg' for 'Microsoft' in the Windows Vista article.. based on the edit summary, I'm assuming it wasn't intentional, I just thought you might want to know. :) njan 16:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Oops, I see what caused that. I reverted using popups, but that was at the same time someone else reverted the edit. So it reverted the revert. Vhgk3z5b 18:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:PAIN for 195.82.106.244

Hi Paul, I've been watching this, for a couple of days now and would like to know your thoughts. I tidied up user:Riveros11's complaint as with all the bad linking was almost illegible. The initial complaint about threatening someone with releasing their personal information can be found amongst other places at the top of User talk:Searchin man's page, if it wasn't for this I would have reminded them all about playing nice with the other kids and let it go. And this is where I wouldn't mind your thoughts, as I've seen you on personal attack pages for a while, where does wikipedia stand on personal threats outside of wiki? none of our business? or don't bring squabbles in here? I remember quite a while back an admin was forced to leave because of a similar situation, and that was frowned upon. What is policy. Cheers muchly. Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 10:15, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know of any written policy, but off-Wiki stuff is left off Wiki. IIRC, the admin you are refering to was a rare occassion. In almost all cases, only stuff done on the wiki is actionable. Vhgk3z5b 17:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Cheers, so bringing a dispute from outside wikipedia to here, and outing someone with intention to harm would be..... My initial thought was the .244 deserved a good slap on the wrist for this action. But I wouldn't want to side with the complainant/plaintiff too much as alot of the discussions have been very uncivil, and very entrenched in their respective positions. Cheers Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 22:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Well neither of them seem to want to give any straight-forward points supported by diffs. In cases like this I usually just remove the case as it not having any support. A more diligent reviewer might want to spend time digging through thier edit histories but in this case I think it would be good just to suggest to them to stay away from each other. Vhgk3z5b 03:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Why did you remove my complaint at the PAIN talk page?

I mean it's clear that the case has been badly handled with opposite viewpoints and I need somewhere to express it in the hope that some administrator will take action about it. You can argue WP:POINT but I'm not disrupting Wikipedia functioning by discussing in the talk page. That's precisely what talk pages are for: discussion.

I'm reverting your unopinated edit. --Sugaar 10:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The talk page for PAIN is not for those purposes. It says in the page header that if the situation isn't handled to your satisfaction, to take it up with the administrator or take it to WP:AN. Vhgk3z5b 16:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

My fault then. But I was asking preciely what to do, an just removing it was of no help. I'll bring it to AN then and thanks for the info. --Sugaar 18:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

XvsXP.com is not your pet project

Please stop deleting relevant and accurate criticism. The information you have repeatedly removed is heavy on fact and light on opinion and fits the entry. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ricktempest (talk • contribs).

Information added that does not conform to Wikipedia policies will be removed. Vhgk3z5b 03:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Vista rv

You reverted my edit to Windows Vista. I added the section about gaming to the article. It is not a secret that Flight Simulator X make use of DirectX 10 and that a Premium Ready computer is best for DirectX 10 games. I need to know why you reverted my edit. --ACCOM2222 22:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I was attempting to revert vandalism using popups. However you edited the page while I was reverting, therefore your edit was reverted as well. I apologize for the confusion. You can re-add the information. Vhgk3z5b 22:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment moved from your user page

Somebody posted the below comment on your user page instead of talk page, so I moved it here,below- Bgold4 01:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Vhgk3z5b...for your kind if not obnoxious message for me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jomomm (talk • contribs).

I've left a warning to assume good faith and not be incivil on your talk page. Vhgk3z5b 02:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

This serves as the last of our private conversation. Leave me alone, obviously I do not wish to speak to you or recieve messages from you. One more message and I will report you. Thank you. --Jomomm 17:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)