User talk:Aarandir/Archive1

Where are all you new admins coming from? Is it being advertised somewhere to come to my page and start an argument with me? Becuase i think soon i will have one topic from every admin telling me im wrong or this or that and blah blah blah. This is working, its dampening my spirits, and soon i will give in, just put me more... push me as much as you want. You will destoy my willingness to defend my self and by doing so you will also inadvertently prove my initial point that started all this. I would like to salute you Ezeu, thankyou for this...

Hello and welcome to my talk page.

I like this; I like how people can be blocked on baseless premises, and how sections of ones own userpage can be deleted without proper explanation. Apparently, I am using wikipedia as my personal battleground, using it to pedal hatred, making a huge amount personal attacks, holding a personal vandetta against some, being uncivil, using it as a soapbox and just generally being a a bit of a nuisance. You are entitled to that opinion but you are not entitled to act on it unless you have proved to me I am in fact being all of the above.

BEWARE: LONG ESSAY AHEAD....

Introduction: It has been a year since i joined Wikipedia, and i have encountered admins on here who argue for the sake of arguing, uphold laws stringently, dont make sense, lack empathy at times and are sometimes just rude and show no signs of a rational mind (or a mind for that matter). This is NOT an attack on admins, i am NOT stereotyping admins, if i was i would have said "ALL ADMINS ARE STUPID BRAINDEAD BASTARDS" but as a matter of fact i have not. there are good admins out there also. Here the reasons for my block

"Making personal battles out of Wikipedia discussions goes directly against our policies and goals. Do not insult, harass, or intimidate those with whom you have a disagreement. "

• Reasons why im not uncivil: I've accused me being uncivil many a time now when i have just been perhaps a little bit cheeky and laboured my point a bit to much (which there is nothing wrong with), i have only once said something that could be considered a personal attack and that was calling Ezeu a moron and implied he's an insecure idiot, but thats becuase he is i will hold that view becuase someone who doesnt contribute to a well constructed argument and just does as he pleases is not a mature man in my eyes. But i am NOT however going to attack him, that is my view about him which i am entitled to but im not going to act on it and attack him. In addition to this moron isnt the worst swearword in the world, its a personal attack, yes, but its no where near saying "you fucking knobend why did you fucking bugger up my page you stupid twat arsed pig". People have different views on beliefs but shouldnt have different views on facts. I am civil isotope, im more civil than many, thats why i didnt let um bongo turn into a revert war or whatever its called which it very well could have turned into. I will try to eliminate personal attacks, but i have only commited two. I will tone down the arrogance as it can be intimidating. I am not uncivil. I challenge anyone to give me one instane of my incivility apart from calling one person an insecure idiot and a moron. Give me ONE instance this is a challenge. "Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges, import personal conflicts, or nurture hatred or fear. Making personal battles out of Wikipedia discussions goes directly against our policies and goals." I do hold a grudge against someone, but why should that matter if I am not attacking him personally (which i've stopped doing).

• Reasons im not using this as a battleground: I am not nurturing hatred or fear, I am not telling anyone to hate someone, I am not pedaling hatred (other's are and i can give you proof, if you require). I have not inported conflicts, i have made it very clear that I am not looking for a fight. And I have not. Basically I am not using this as a battleground. I have done no such thing. Please... please be a man and give me PROOF; give me instances of me using this as a battleground please back up your argument, becuase right now I have a feeling, a slight but still considerable feeling that what I am seeing an angry admin telling another more improtant admin to block me. This block is unjustified, but i am not bothered much becuase its the least i could have expected. I seriously foresaw this.

• Why i havent been insulting, harrassing and intimidating: Have i been harrasing, insulting and intimidating anyone? Please tell me if i have? Ive only called one person a moron and implied he's an insecure idiot. Which i done so after sheer aggravation at being ridiculed.

• Why im not soapboxing: I'm thinking why im being accused of using Wikipedia as a soapbox. Why can I not hold the view that "some admins are useless", how is that me soapboxing. All i am saying is that some admins are useless. Why is that a wrong belief to hold? Please tell me why. If i said something like "ALL ADMINS ARE STUPID, LEAVE WIKIPEDIA, IT IS EVIL AND IMMORAL" now that would be soapboxing but what im saying "some admins are useless, some admins are twats" isnt, its vague it doesnt apply to everyone, and to be honest we all know thats true, dont deny it.

• I have no respect for people who are being childish or taking action without a good reason.

A point i'd like to make

Read introduction above.

Re: Nikki Grahame

This Argument was between me and an admin. Both of us were stubborn but as you go down the argument you will see the admins logic and reasoning skills deteriorate somewhat, he starts interpreting things I say as something that they are not supposed to mean for example; he though me calling him "immature" meant I was being ageist (i wasnt, infact i didnt even know his age). Anyway see for yourselves. He is no doubt embarrased of this argument and doesn't want anyone to see it therefore he comes up to MY page and tries to change the structure to try and keep it under wraps.

Heh, no I'm not, I actually find it quite amusing. — FireFox 17:44, 19 July '06

Argument begins below, Regardez

I agree she was a brilliant housemate, but she doesn't deserve her own page until she does something notable outside of Big Brother. Thanks, — FireFox 19:38, 16 July '06

would it kill you to just unblock the page? the thing is i can promiss to you she will be an amazing personality... its very obvious

Well when she does, then she can have her own article. — FireFox 13:29, 17 July '06

okay, why are u not willing to work by the fact that she will MOST CERTAINLY have a very succesfull career out of BB?

Because she hasn't had one yet. — FireFox 13:36, 17 July '06

yes... but she will; if she is likely to have one then she probably will have one, in addition to that NO HARM or offense whatsoever can come of you un-protecting her page, infact by refusing to unprotect her page you are slightly upsetting/annoying me therefore, u should un-protect her page.

She is not notable. Therefore she should not have an article. Therefore the 'article' is protected. If the page gets unprotected, someone (you) will create an article on her. Therefore it stays protected. — FireFox 13:51, 17 July '06

1) your argument is flawed/poorly structured;

2) but the fact that she does not have an article makes me annoyed slightly, only a demented person would dream of anoying an innocent human being and anyway she already has reached a level of fame entitling her to an article on wikipedia. can you give me an account of how famous one has to be to be entitled to an article on wiki? Aarandir 14:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

She needs to actually do something notable outside of Big Brother (not "probably will in the future"). — FireFox 14:15, 17 July '06

okay, you are willing to continue annoying me by not unprotecting her page so thats bad in it self. but despite that working with probablity is not going to harm anyone? can you not take the risk? if you cant WHY are you not willing to take the risk?

She is non notable. Non-notability = no article. — FireFox 14:28, 17 July '06

you are now just being stubborn and irrational not engaging in the argument but going in circle. can you please reply something sensible to my argument? i put it to u that working my probabily in this certain incident wont harm anybody but infact do the opposite (make my upset cos you are being soo stubborn) will you say something coherent or are you going to be immature and reiterate your claim that i belive is not entirely justified. Aarandir 14:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. — FireFox 14:42, 17 July '06

i am "cool" as you put it just getting progressively angry (but i can control my anger and not resort to being immature and stubborn). anyway AGAIN you somehow manage to avoid answering my question. if ANYTHING i think you are insulting me by not listening to my argument and continually denying my rational requests and getting me worked up.

It seems to me that you are acting in an uncivil manner. Please remain civil and don't resort to making personal attacks or instigate edit wars. — FireFox 14:49, 17 July '06

can you tell me what this "personal attack" is? maybe if you show me it ill consider whether i meant it as such and consequently apolgise. please firefox do not get angry, you have said something completely irrelavant "edit war" i have not instigated an edit war... i have not edited anything so please dont make that claim. your claim that i am making personal attacks on you or instigating an edit war i find highly offensive.

It said or edit wars. As you wish, I'll point out some things you've said which can be seen as a personal attack and/or incivil:

“ you are now just being stubborn and irrational...

cos you are being soo stubborn...

are you going to be immature...

but i can control my anger and not resort to being immature and stubborn.

”

— FireFox 14:58, 17 July '06

look those are not meant to offend you, most people wouldnt even consider then insults or get annoyed by them, but rather they would confront you and say why you think you were justified in making them. i will give my justification:

you are being stubborn becuase you keep reiterating this

“ She needs to actually do something notable outside of Big Brother ”

you are being irrational becuase the following argument was poorly constructed, egro it was flawed.

“ She is not notable. Therefore she should not have an article. Therefore the 'article' is protected. If the page gets unprotected, someone (you) will create an article on her. Therefore it stays protected. ”

you are being immature becuase it is generally accepted that children are stubborn and immature.

challegene these claims if you want, and i will apologise if i see that it was wrong for me to make those claims, but untill then i will stand by them.

will you PLEASE reply to my argument now? Aarandir 15:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I think you've gone too far now by saying "you are being immature becuase it is generally accepted that children are stubborn and immature." If you think that because I am 16 years old (a "child"), you can call me stubborn and immature, you are very wrong. I've given you answers, and you want more. From what you've just said I'm not going to think any more up. — FireFox 15:12, 17 July '06

listen mate im 17... i am not being ageist, you are constantly interpreting things wrong, i never SAID you were a child not was i trying to imply you were (i didnt even know you age). and im glad you have given up becuase i can now talk to a more mature and responsible admin (not nesseceraly older). while were on the topic of interpretations let me just say (THIS IS NOT DIRECTED AT YOU AND DONT TAKE IT AS SUCH) silly/wrong interpreations of the Bible and Quraan have led to religeous wars and DREADFULL acts of terror therefore we should ALL (as the Human race) be carefull how we interpret things and not jump to conclusions.

nice arguing with you, even though the argument was flawed and not carried on propely or coherently on your part. Aarandir 15:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

What? I wouldn't call it giving up, it's just you're not listening to a word I say. Sure, find a more 'mature' admin, you'll get the same response in the end. — FireFox 15:21, 17 July '06

only wish i had a means of finding one now... Aarandir 15:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:LA. — FireFox 15:25, 17 July '06

Final Comments: I ended up winning this argument as Nikki Grahame does have a page (rather large one i may add)

adding comments

Please add comments to appropriate sections; or if you are starting a new section, at the end of the page. Also, sign your messages by adding ~~~~ at the end of your comment. Thanks. --Ragib 23:50, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

What exactly is the problem? I moved your comment to the end, because the comments need to be in Choronological order to make sense. You are adding at arbitrary places. That way, it is difficult to keep track of the discussion. Also, please look into Wikipedia's Guideline on Civility and don't use profanity in edit summaries. Thanks. --Ragib 22:02, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

i dont have a bloody problem, my posting is the latest and it should be on top like it is on every discussion board. anyway i decide where it goes not you, i can take this to higher autority, and i feel i more justified to put it where i want (on the top) rather than have it in "chrnological order" where no one will probably see it. PS. bloody is not a "profanity" it isnt offending you now is it? its there to show im rather unhappy, not there to make you feel bad about yourself or insult anyone. Aarandir 22:07, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Please take it to any "higher authority". Also, please take a look at Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Layout the layout guidelines, which state Proceed descendingly: Within each topic, the further down the contribution to talk, the chronologically later it was made.. I have to clean up your whimsically left top posting, which is becoming quite irritating. When going to a talk page, you might notice a "+" button at the top. When you click that, the message goes at the end of the current page, not the top. Top posting is not a wikipedia convention. The latest postings need to go at the bottom. This is not a blog or "discussion board". If you need any more help, let me know. Thanks. --Ragib 22:15, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

well thats a policy that frankly needs reviewing. its silly. the newest being at the bottom and not at the top. you take that policy to a secret service office and see what they think about it. i cant imagine someone at the CIA saying "hmmm, news from iran: iran launches missle at israel, you know what ill leave this at the bottom incase ragib gets angry" (bad example i know) but you must admit newest should be at the top. ill make a poll to prove to you that more than 90& of people think the newest think should be at the top. when i said higher autority i meant someone bigger than you on wikipedia. so for the moment leave me comment at the top please. dont be annoying, ive never been insuled more on any other discussion board where people have moved my comment down to the bottom for "chronological ordering"

Well, *when* the policy changes to put the newer messages at the top, you are free to do so. Unless that happens, I'd definitely move newer messages at the end of older messages. If you don't agree, feel free to voice your grievances at the talk page of the related policy/guideline. As for any question or any other grievances, you are free to voice that at the Administrator's noticeboard. Let me know if you need help with any other issues. Thanks. --Ragib 23:08, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Islamabadsnow.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Islamabadsnow.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Thank you. CLW 14:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

other image

I am sorry but Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. makes it clear that pasting four pictures together does not enable you to claim copyright. Please give four separate sources for Image:Punjabi.JPG and add a proper licence tag. You may get away with fair-use for this one. -- RHaworth 10:28, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Re:Historical regions of Pakistan

Hi, thanks for the comment, much appreciated. Green Giant 00:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Re:Districts of Punjab

Hi there. I'd be happy to help you with the series. The infobox is basically a simpler way of showing common information like the population and area figures. I have been awake for about 24 hours now so I am going to sleep for a bit but if you want I'll try to create a template for you in the morning. Green Giant 22:22, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay! lol get your much needed sleep. i live in the Uk aswell by the way, i am asian(pakistani-punjabi-mirpuri) if you care! you?

Not slept well (damned local cats are in heat :P ) but I made a start on the infobox, you can find it at Template:Pakistan districts. I won't add it to any district until we're happy with the layout, so make any changes you feel are necessary and we'll take it from there. Plus added a bit to Attock district.

Cos you asked, I'm a Yorkshire-man (and protestingly labelled as English), living in Chapeltown, Leeds (love the mixture of people from different backgrounds). You're Mirpuri, as in Mirpur, Azad Kashmir? Green Giant 01:53, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeap, i dunno, but i consider myself punjabi becuase i speak it as opposed to kashmiri. anyway yes very nice infobox, great job! im not exactly sure capital would be appropriate. i dont think so... im more or less gettin all my information from this site [1] lol. and i cant find anything there about nazim or niam nazim or district council seats. or time zone or co-ordinates and capital. anyway capital and its coordinates are the only ones i think shouldnt be there. ill go ahead and delete them. and ill i hope you dont mind me applying it to Attock District right? i dont have a map with pictures of the punjab districts highlighed, can you make that? can i help? forget it if its too much trouble. Aarandir 22:12, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Give me a couple of days or so and I'll have a map ready Green Giant 22:37, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

ah top bloke, thanks alot thatll be great! anything i can do to help!? i feel quite useless. ive also changed Template:Pakistan districts to Template:Punjab, Pakistan districts becuase im gonna try and start on districts for sindh, nwfp, balochistan and the rest. Aarandir 19:20, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I've made district templates for quite alot of the provinces. Give me feedback!

• Template:NWFP_districts in an article: Chitral_District
• Template:Balochistan, Pakistan_districts in an article: Gwadar_District
• Template:Punjab, Pakistan districts in an article: Attock_District
• Template:Sindh districts in an article: Khairpur_District
• Template:Azad_Kashmir_districts in an article: Bagh_District

Aarandir 20:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Redundant templates

Hi, long time no see. I've been busy working on getting the Pakistan article up to Featured Article status but now I think I'll have time for our project on the districts of the Punjab. I think we should expand it to include all districts in Pakistan as well as districts of Azad Kashmir and the Northern Areas (although the latter might be difficult to obtain information on). I disagree with the several provincial templates you created because there is nothing specifically which distinguishes a district in Punjab from a district in Sindh or any other province. The only distinction we need to make is between the two types of districts - ordinary districts and city-districts. This is because in ordinary districts the subdivisions are called tehsils and in city-districts the subdivisions are towns. Accordingly I have requested these templates be speedily deleted to avoid any confusions:

• ‎Template:Azad Kashmir districts
• ‎Template:Balochistan, Pakistan districts
• ‎Template:NWFP distrcts
• ‎Template:NWFP districts
• ‎Template:Punjab, Pakistan districts
• ‎Template:Sindh districts

I think it makes sense to create an article series using only three templates for this project:

• Let's move Template:Pakistan districts to a new Template:Pakistan District Infobox for ordinary districts
• Use the Template:Pakistani Cities for the city-districts
• Create a new Template:Districts of Pakistan to become a navigation tool at the bottom of each district page.

• The existing Districts of Pakistan page can become the main article for the series
• I will try to extend the existing City District Government page as an extra article
• I will continue working on a decent map for the districts, which was sitting around doing nothing because someone uploaded images of four maps from a government or NGO website which showed the four provinces separately and gave a rough idea of how many districts and tehsils each had. However, these maps have copyright problems, so I will try to create four provincial maps to replace them.

Look forward to hearing from you soon. Green Giant 04:48, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Deleting Pages

Why are you deleting these pages without discussion ? Margalla Hills National Park and Ayubia National Park. Siddiqui 23:06, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Sindhi.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Sindhi.JPG. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. 82.83.109.169 11:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Picture on your user page

Fair use images are not to be used anywhere other than articles. Therefore, I have removed the picture of Nikki off your userpage, for the third time. — FireFox 15:32, 21 July '06

you cant keep your grimey paws of my page or talk page can you... youve been continuesly editing and scrutinising any changes ive been making since our argument finished. that to me is a sign of insecurity and vunerability. Aarandir 15:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

It is up to me whose talk pages and user pages I keep on my watchlist. There was a fair use image on your userpage, so I removed it. — FireFox 15:39, 21 July '06

tut tut tut... ive never met someone soo immature in a relatively high position of responsibily. i wish there was a way your adminship could be revised. Aarandir 15:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't really see what your problem is now, and I don't see how I am being "soo immature" either. Would you care to enlighten me? I would really like to find out what it is I am doing so wrong, and as you asked about adminship, reading WP:DR might help you if you want to make some kind of complaint or something... I'd like to hear about how I am being immature like you say. Cheers, — FireFox 16:26, 21 July '06

leave me alone please, its very obvious that picture was made by me. and i dont care about a copyright, its free for whoever to use. Aarandir 15:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

You should care about copyright. In a way, the whole of Wikipedia revolves around it. The image will be deleted unless the copyright status can be provided. — FireFox 16:02, 21 July '06

you have demonstrated to me the extent of your immaturity. leave me alone and never talk to me again please. thankyou. from now on, as far as i care you dont exist. Aarandir 16:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Nikkicar.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Nikkicar.JPG. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. — FireFox 15:52, 21 July '06

License tagging for Image:Tristanchopin.PNG

Thanks for uploading Image:Tristanchopin.PNG. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 11:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

A Truce?

Right, so I know we've had our difficulties with each other in the past, and I was hoping that we could just put the past behind us and try to get along with each other? I'm sure it would make both our lives and work on Wikipedia much easier and enjoyable. I apologise for anything I did in the past that may have annoyed/irritated/upset/angered you, and I just want to know if we can both put this behind us now and carry on as 'friends', if you like. Thanks, — FireFox ^(talk) _{10:15, 31 July '06}

thanks for apologising, i accept you apology, and i apologise aswell if i said anything that was hurtful. yes i would like to be friends. its just that at the time it seemed to me you were stringently upholding rather pointless rules, but nevermind i am over it and im not bothered if nikki grahame doesnt get her own page. Aarandir 11:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Image source?

Hi - do you have a source where this image came from? Image:Kalashg.jpg - I'd like to use it in an article, but without a source I'm afraid it will just be deleted. Did you get it from the web somewhere? -- Stbalbach 17:17, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Kalashg.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Kalashg.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Angr 09:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Pic10.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Pic10.gif. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Angr 10:41, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

No original research

Read the policy on no original research before you put back the claim that "Further to this there is significant and conclusive evidence to say that Um Bongo has ever been drunk in or around the Congo" in the article Um Bongo. I will consider reinsertion of that statement to be mere deliberate disruption. Thank you. --Ezeu 11:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Private matter

Yes, sure. If you don't want to discuss it on-wiki you can email me. Mangojuice^talk 15:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

No im fine here, Thankyou! Someone finally replied! hooray, Now firstly i have 2 questions, what is wikipedia's stance on the following two:

• Yahoo Answers whats your stance on them and obvious factually correct comments but downright not silly ones like "George Bush has never been to the mooo" but still the comments have been verefied by Yahoo Answers.
• Humourous comments... Again not stupid ones like a knock knock joke in the middle of an article discussing particle physics again something more subtle?Aarandir 15:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Yahoo Answers - I'm not sure what you mean, exactly. Do you mean, can Yahoo Answers be used as a reliable source? If that's your question, I think the answer is no - since the answers on Yahoo Answers are just given by ordinary people with no form of editorial oversight, I wouldn't consider them very reliable.

Humorous comments - again, not sure of the question? But generally speaking, encyclopedia articles should have a serious tone, or at best approach humor in a dry wit sort of way, e.g., let the humorous facts speak for themselves. There are counterexamples, though. See, for instance, Cow tipping.

Oh, BTW, you should really lose that copyrighted image from your userpage. May I suggest image:Samael.png instead? Copyrighted images are only allowed in articles, see WP:RFUI. Mangojuice^talk 15:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Lol ok, ill change it. Umm... Ok basically Ive allowed the comment "Further to this there is no conclusive evidence to say that Um Bongo has ever been drunk in or around the Congo." on page Um Bongo to be allowed becuase i think its amusing becuase of its 'dry wit' as it were. but also becuase its factually correct, one particular peorson doesnt like this and is constantly deleting it, firstly go on page User_talk:Ezeu and at the bottom-ish is my argument "No original research" i think it is a very well constructed argument justifying the appearence of that comment, Mr Ezeu is ignoring my argument and just being a child and he (like me, fair enough) has got an admin on his side who has deleted the comment. Firstly tell me what you personally think? I mean its an encyclopedia with a "serious tone". but my comment is afterall a humourous fact, there is nothing to say its not true. is there? anyway read my argument and tell me what you tihnk please. Aarandir 16:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Mango, youve been extremly kind to me, you've made me happy and youve made me reassess my view of all admins being (...), but forget it i dont want to draw you into this it might do harm to you and your adminship. But i am going to stand for my views, I believe and know that comment is justified and i shant rest untill my "enemies" also understand that. You've been extremly kind and generous for the time you've dedicated to be but i dont want to use your good will and draw you in as a lieutenant if you see what i mean. I will fight this war on my own.Aarandir 16:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Although humorous comments are not categorically inappropriate, they are certainly not worth getting into a conflict over, because how funny a page is has got to be one of the least important concerns here. (As opposed to on, say, http://www.uncyclopedia.com , which you might enjoy). While I appreciate that line about Um Bongo, it's really not appropriate because (1) I'm sure you don't have a source backing up your claim that it isn't drunk in or around the Congo, so that shouldn't be included just because it might be true, (2) that's not a humorous fact speaking for itself, that's a joke, and (3) in any case, keep in mind that that is sort of mocking the subject of the article. It is not the place of a Wikipedia article to ridicule a company's product or their slogan, even if it's only meant in jest: see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. (If the slogan had been widely criticized in reliable press, it might be a real controversy worth reporting on but I'm sure that's not the case here). Mangojuice^talk 17:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

No dont worry mate, the only reason i am getting into and usually do get into conflict with people is when i believe they are doing something wrong, and this is one case, i get passionate defending what i believe and sometimes what i 'know' to be right. I wont let injustice happen here, i have argued many times and won and never let injustice prevail and i wont let it this time. I am in the middle of an argument with a very decent person. And i hope i can resolve it with him. Im afraid you dont understand the gist of that statement, its not mocking and also there is no controversy surronding the name or the fact that its drunk around the congo. Im not doing it 'simply' becuase the statement is funny, but because it is factually correct (as we have resolved) and is amusing. But thanks anyway Mr. Mango, You're beautiful! Aarandir 23:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

User talk: Fredrick day and Um Bongo edit

You failed to read my argument, youve just glossed over it with wikipedia laws and something or other about a kettle. Hmm... Moron isnt the strongest insult ive ever heard, i remember the days back then when moron used to draw protests from people for being too violent, dont you? Anyway its not needless, its factually correct, Um Bongo is NOT marketted in or around the congo therefore i am justified in putting that comment down. Anyway if you had read my argument you would have seen that i have givin reasons for wikipedia being a joke site afterall i mean does Cow tipping belong in a serious encyclopedia? no it doesnt, but it belongs here becuase it amuses some admins and keeps them content, well putting one comment on which is not only factually correct but also has a british- humourous tone to it wouldnt do wikipedia any harm, if you can prove to me it will do some harm then i will accept i am wrong but untill you dont prove that i will stand with my views defiantly (not to say i will run amock and vandalise or make changes rashly, i will still be civilised dont worry). Aarandir 16:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Again the fact of the matter is he was being immature, if you would have read the argument you would have seen all hes doing is replying back like a child (no offence) not actaulyl contributing to a thoughfull discussion, i hope you can and i hope mr frederick day could have after deleting it without saying anything. I cant belive one comment has caused this, honestly. Just goes to show you.... grrr... makes me angry it does. Please read my argument, you will see it is well constructed and that comment is justified. Aarandir 16:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I came accross your ANI request, looked at some of the surrounding edits and here is my opinion. Telling another editor that his good faith edit "wasn't nice" after leaving this edit summary for another editor embodies what WP:KETTLE is all about. Furthermore, Fredrick was correct; the statement he removed is in no way verified by a [[WP:|reliable source]]. You may find it amusing and indeed other individuals who came across it may have found it funny, but this is an encyclopedia, not a joke site. Sorry, but that is simply an unnecessary statement even if you could find a reliable source.--Isotope23 16:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I read your argument... I am completely unswayed by it. In my opinion, it simply is not necessary to have that statement in the article. The bigger issue though is that the statement was not reliably sourced. This in no way constitutes a reliable source that would make the statement verifiable and not original research. That is the sticking point. Find a reliable source.--Isotope23 16:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Some constructive criticism will be nice, what is wrong with it (my argument)?Aarandir 16:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

As I said above, find a reliable source that verifies the statement and it will probably stand in the article regardless of my or anyone else's opinion on the necessity of it. I do note however that given your statement to Mangojuice above it would appear to me that you are looking for a fight with other editors. Calling those you have a good faith disagreement with your "enemies" isn't exactly the best way to engage in a civil discourse here at Wikipedia.--Isotope23 16:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

...and you can do whatever you want with my replies here; archive them, delete them... it's your talkpage.--Isotope23 16:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I like you, you're arguing with me! i like this rather than those meaningless comments i got from the other guy Ezeu. No im not looking for a fight, i just belive admins to be really stringent and pedantic. and those are two qualities i hate. i despise them more than anything, i get into arugments with people alot about them and they say "well its more the principle that counts" but belive me (not that the following example is going to apply to me) i would rather go to jail or pay a fine for helping an old lady rather than not help her, usually the arguments are with bus drivers, sometimes i dont have any loose change with me and have a 20 pound note or something and i get on a bus and show the bus driver the note, nice ones let me on, but mean ones my "enemies" dont, if i was a bus driver and and old lady didnt have any money, i would let her on and prepare to face the consequences from my bossess rather than leave her outside in the constantly cold and overcast london. and i feel people are being really stringent in upholding the law with this(the um bongo comment). By the way i dont hate you, i admire you for arguing with me and my enemies are just a word im using at the moment for the lack of a better one... dogs? no too offesnive... cows? no ambiguous and possibly offensive, ill make up a new word for it if you want if enemy is too heated.

anyway back to the argument. Right you say it has no reliable source? is common sense a reliable source? Um Bongo is not marketed anywhere else other than Britian so therefore it is NOT drunk in or even around the congo for thousaunds of miles. The fact that its there is to add ONE mildly amusing, non-offensive sentence that just takes comedic advantage of that fact. what is wrong with that? Aarandir 17:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I guess it is comforting to know you don't hate someone you've never met, know nothing about, and have spent all of about 15 minutes conversing with.

While it might be amusing to spend a day debating the logical merits of your argument (just because Um Bongo is only saleable in the UK does not preclude someone from purchasing it, transporting it, and making your argument a logical fallacy by drinking it on the Congo... I've done the same thing with Absinthe), it's not so important that I want to spend all day arguing about it. Perhaps a better statement would be something more encyclopedic and solidly stated along the lines of "Um Bongo is only marketed in the United Kingdom making it highly unlikely that it is drank in the Congo as suggested by the slogan." Yes, I know I'm no fun.--Isotope23 17:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Good point how about i change it to "Um Bongo is only marketed in the United Kingdom and there is no conclusive evidence to support that Um Bongo is drunk in the Congo as suggested by the slogan." Good? Aarandir 17:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The only problem with that is there is no conclusive evidence to support that Um Bongo is not drunk in the Congo either... but toss it up there; see what happens. On a side note, I believe it would be "drank", not "drunk". drunk is only used with an auxillary verb like "have". I'm no fun and grammar anal. --Isotope23 17:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

You really are a pedant arent you!? Anyway Yes i will change it to that. No wait... on second though i shall put the fact that it is only marketed in the UK near the top so as to make it more prominent. i like it "There is no conclusive evidence to support that Um Bongo is drunk in the Congo as suggested by the slogan." i think we can rid the the latter part becuase it is self-evident and so now its "There is no conclusive evidence to support that Um Bongo is drunk in the Congo" hmm better, free of unnecessary bits, just tweak it a bit more, make it sound more professional and witty... "Further to this there is no conclusive evidence to say that Um Bongo has ever been drunk in or around the Congo". How about that? I think thats good. Its rid of unnecessay bits like its sold in the UK (which will now be more prominent) and its "as the adverts suggest" becuase its needless. There we go... perfect! :) Aarandir 17:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, it should be all in the same section such that the fact that it is only marketed in the UK is what makes the slogan unlikely to be accurate.--Isotope23 18:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

compormise... something like this "Um Bongo is only marketed in the United Kingdom and the lyrics are only a marketing ploy

{new paragraph} Further to this there is no conclusive evidence to say that Um Bongo has ever been drunk in or around the Congo". Aarandir 18:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion it should all be together. When you separate it the statement that it is a marketing ploy is not quanitified... why is it a marketing ploy? It would be better to say:

"Um Bongo is only marketed in the United Kingdom and the lyrics are a marketing ploy; there is no conclusive evidence Um Bongo has ever been drank in the Congo" (and I leave out "around" because the slogan says nothing about it being consumed around the Congo... the point is that it is highly unlikely the statement "They Drink It In The Congo" is actually true).--Isotope23 18:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

You take the wit out of it :( that is what is upsetting me, ive been at it for almost a week i think highlighting the point that the wit and humour of it is why its special, i think the compromise is a good one between something funny and something serious.

Um Bongo is only marketed in the United Kingdom and the lyrics are only a marketing ploy {new paragraph} Further to this there is no conclusive evidence to say that Um Bongo has ever been drunk in or around the Congo".

another point i raised is that wikipedia has many other silly and pointless articles such as Cow tipping and other ones i cant be bothered to find again but were in the talk page of Ezeu, so those articles are silly and allowed thier own page then im sure my small sentence will do no harm. Aarandir 18:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

While I'm ceartain I'm coming off as a humorless bastard, as far as the article space is concerned, I favor encyclopedia creation over humor creation. The mainspace just isn't the right place for humor edits. Of course there are ample places for humor in the project space WP:SPIDER, m:The Wrong Version, etc. As to your other argument about Cow tipping, I think WP:FISHING applies here. There are all kinds of article out there that are probably not the epitome of what an article should be; they just have not been taken care of yet.--Isotope23 18:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I think its the cultural differences, here in Britian we tend to mix humour with seriousness we're always used to it even though this can lead to poor attempts at puns by teachers and other people who hold 'serious' positions (the joke on my front page about the scarecrow is courtesy of my history teacher... amongst many others lol). And i just liked the comment and made sure it stayed up there. You have made the point that articles such as Cow tipping dont belong here and havent been taken care of yet, sorry to sound brash here but if you feel you can tell me to take away my comment for not belonging than you should assume stop being in bad faith (Sartrean term, never mind) and rather than wait for someone else to "take care of it" take care of it yourself, since if you are big enough to take care of my comment, you should also do so with the article. I know you wont, and again thats exactly my point. One comment, something amusing which most people havent deleted (some have actually contributed, but that made it less funny by doing so so i removed that extention). I know you're not an unfunny bastard and i know you are a good, moral person and i admire that greatly (unlike Ezeu, who feels that becuase he is being serious it means hes right and has the option of disregarding peoples views and not contributing to an argument or even a small discussion) but i think again you are being overly cynical about the comment, i think it is an encylopedia-worthy comment and the bonus is the fact that its entertaining. The page it self is not something you'd find in an 'serious' encyclopedia, so the article can afford to have one funny comment, dont you think? I mean the Encyclopedia Brittanica wont have articles on Um Bongo or Cow tipping or any other unencyclopedic subject. but wikipedia isnt really a proper encyclopedia, its more of a meta-encyclopedia (i invented a new word hooray) which combines encyclopedia and dictionary ( with biographies, articles on websites, , articles on words, articles on trivial subjects and basically articles on everything, i think one day it will get to a point where we will have articles for everything even things such as... oh my god i cant think of anything that isnt allready here! lol see my point again highlighted. Aarandir 19:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The Cow tipping article has been subject to a ongoing battle between those who want "humor" in the article and those who don't... you can see the edit war in the article edit history. The current version isn't especially humorous; there is apparently an attempt at humor on one of the image text lines, but it is weak at best. The point is that you have your opinion on this and I have mine; I don't think we are going to agree on this and that is fine, we don't have to agree. Maybe it's just that fact that I personally don't find the split out text all that terribly funny... The fact is that this is not so important an issue to me that I'm going to spend the next several days arguing about this with you back and forth; I've got other things I should be doing around here, so edit away. I would still suggest that spliting the text we discussed into 2 sections will lose the context and not be clear.--Isotope23 19:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

... and don't assume I'm a good, moral person. You know nothing about me. For all you know, when I log off Wikipedia I go sacrifice babies to the dark lord of the Wikipedia Cabal and shut bus doors on old ladies.--Isotope23 19:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

By the way i've read that thing about Spiderman on the reichstag, when it says "dont climb the reichstag dressed as spiderman" i assume it means dont go over the top and go mental trying to prove your point? i will try not to do that, and this may sound arrogant but i only join an argument or start one if i feel, believe and maybe even know my side is right, and i've always won the argument becuase ive been on the right side. previously that nikki grahame page, my argument was that should have a page since she will without doubt become notable enough to deserve one, but Firefox didnt let me and lo and behold after the end of Big Brother 2007 in the UK she got her own page... i was right he was wrong he was only arguing not to lose and perhaps even just for the sake of arguing. I hope you dont do the same becuase after your discussion with me i have respect for, and high expectations of you.Aarandir 19:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting you are anywhere near climbing the Reichstag... I was just pointing out one of the forums for humor here at Wikipedia.--Isotope23 19:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Can i discuss this with you later? i am going to go now and revel in 90 minutes of Dr Who. i will leave a message on your page sometime tomrrow and we can continue this discussion. Please sleep on this and you might realise (and hopefulyl will) that i am justified in putting it there. anyway So long, farewell auf weidersehen, good bye. (i went to the sing-along sound of music the other day, bloody brilliant stuff!!) Aarandir 19:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

There really is nothing more to discuss here Aarandir... you and I have a very fundamental difference in opinion in regards to what this project is about. I don't see a place for unsourced humor in an article and you are not going to change my mind about that any more than I will change yours about this. I've done the "months and months of arguing back and forth over the merits of an edit thing" and realistically this particular article and edit is not important enough to me personally that I want to spend any more time arguing about it. Like I said above... edit away. Maybe your edit will stand or maybe someone else will come along and want to argue over it with you. Sorry, but I've got other stuff I am more interested in working on here at Wikipedia right now.--Isotope23 11:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate that you are busy and may have bigger fish to fry (or babies to kill), but this argument still remains inconclusive. Aarandir 08:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Huh

I'm sorry you read sarcasm into my response. That wasn't my intention; I honestly didn't understand. But since you are uninterested in building a dialogue with me, and in fact would rather go around telling me I'm a "twat," I will not pursue it any further. --Masamage ♫ 00:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Aarandir, in regards to your message at Masamage's talkpage, there is a fine line between being cheeky and trolling. You are very close to that line.--Isotope23 00:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The only reason i was labouring the point was becuase my i felt that masamage's reply on the "admin help page" was sarcastic, sarcasm is brilliant, honestly it is, but one place NOT to use it is when someone needs help especially when its intentionally mocking. I hope you can understand by reading her reply why i though it was rude, unnecessary sarcasm:

Aarandir: Hello can an admin talk to me on my page please, i need a little assistance with dealing with some insecure idiot strutting about thinking hes right when infact he is not... I dont want to explain here becuase its too long. (trust me)Aarandir 15:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Aarandir(undignifying himself and begging): Please... can i have some help... can anyone spare me minute or two??Aarandir 15:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Masamage (being sardonic): You're going to have to be more specific, because I can't find any "insecure idiots" on your talk page. --Masamage ♫ 15:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)"

and i was being cheeky becuase shes a girl and this is honestly the first time ive seen a girl at wikipedia... no.. rather the first time a wikipedia user has admitted to being a girl (not like its something to be ashamed of) Aarandir 07:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

You posted an extremely vague WP:ANI request with something that could be seen as a personal attack against an unnamed editor. Masamage's response didn't look particularly sardonic or sarcastic to me... it merely pointed out that your request didn't state what the problem was and when she looked at your talkpage she didn't see what you were referring to with your "insecure idiots" comment. Admins are not mind readers. It's a good idea if you put in a request at WP:ANI that you clearly state the issue with diffs included. Responding to this with an incivil reply on the other editor's talkpage isn't the best idea whether said editor is an admin or not. Beyond that... admins are not here to "uphold law and order". We are not the police; a better analogy would be janitors. Being a sysop is essentially volunteering to do additional cleanup and housekeeping. As it stands, your issue probably shouldn't have even been brought up at WP:ANI in the first place as it was a content issue (as the ANI header says "If your problem concerns a content issue and does not need the attention of admins, please follow the steps in dispute resolution. These include mediation and requests for comment.")--Isotope23 14:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

...and on an unrelated note, I'd suggest getting rid of the "arguments I have won" section at the top of this page.--Isotope23 15:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh come on Isotope... you've accused me being uncivil many a time now when i have just been perhaps a little bit cheeky and laboured my point, i have only once said something that could be considered a personal attack and that was calling Ezeu a moron, but thats becuase he is i will hold that view becuase someone who doesnt contribute to a well constructed argument and just does as he pleases is not a mature man in my eyes. In addition to this moron isnt the worst swearword in the world, its a personal attack, yes, but its no where near saying "you fucking knobend why did you fucking bugger up my page you stupid twat arsed pig". Again, Masamage was indeed being sarcastic there is no doubt about it isotope, please dont lie now, people have different views on beliefs but shouldnt have different views on facts, and as a matter of fact she was being sarcastic. Her response could (and should) simply have been "Please be more specific if you need help" to which i would have replied "Ok, i shall" but she chose to embelish her responsive with sarcasm which i dont appreciate "Please be more specific, i cant see any "insecure idiots" on you talk page" 1) who is to say they are on my talk page, i could very well have been arguing with them on a different talk page 2) Everyone knew i used insecure idiots becuase i was aggravated, i could have gone for the milder "insecure people" or what not but i chose to use a slightly stronger (not very strong) way of putting it and the way she replied qouting me did seem sarcastic... and isotope trust me... i know sarcasm, 90% of people cant tell if my friends dad is being sarcastic or not including, sometimes his son, but i always know! So dont doubt my ability to recognise sarcasm. Even, if my some, accidental chance i AM wrong and it wasnt sarcasm it stil remians that that was an unecesary embelishment that could and should have been done without. And finally Masamage is an admin, an admin may not be a police officer by definition, but most, no many admins sure as hell strut around acting like them. An admin in a hierarchy of wikipedia users is above a registered editor and this is a more eminent position of power, and as we know from Spiderman "More power means more responsibility" and im afraid Masamage wasnt being responsible enough.

I like you isotope, whether or not you sacrifice babies to drink thier blood or stab old grannies to get on the bus or killed your parents for thier credit cards, i dont care. But now it seems to be slightly that you are just arguing for the sake of it. Im afraid those arguments were hollow arguments obscured with links to wikipedia policies and other articles. I appreciate you have argued many times on wikipedia, this will sound arrogant but you havent seen someone like me, not only do i argue for things i only belive, and sometimes know to be right (hence the arguments i have won section, to higlight the ignorance of admins - which im afraid i will have to keep) but i also argue like a ruthless politician. Aarandir 08:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

My point above stands... I'd suggest you try and be a bit more civil and avoid personal attacks (and that includes removing the section I mentioned). This isn't a threat, but merely a warning from someone who has been around here for a while now. If you continue to engage your fellow editors in this manner, you will most likely eventually find yourself on the wrong side of a block. I've seen it happen more times than I can count. Listen to me or don't; it is your call. The advice is free and you can do whatever you want with it.--Isotope23 14:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't being sarcastic. End of story. I told you that already. You said you needed help on your talk page dealing with an insecure idiot; I assumed that the person in question was on your talk page. I used quotation marks because I was quoting you. There's nothing bizarre or villainous about it. You had no right to lay into the rude, demeaning, sexist rant you left on my talk page, and you know it. --Masamage ♫ 16:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

(TO MASAMAGE) 1) I never said it was villainous nor bizzarre , I said it was sarcastic or sardonic. 2) An "insecure idiot" isnt something instantly recogniseable, one doesnt walk about on the road pointing at people and saying "hey! you're one insecure idiot, did you know that?" and i hope you're joking when you said you actually looked for an "insecure idiot" on my talk page. I used that term merely becuase i was aggravated and in a hightened state of angst and felt that id vent it in the mild form of calling someone an insecure idiot rather than punching the wall as such. 3) I'm wasnt being sexist in my "rant" (notice how i quote you because i feel it wasnt a rant and am being sarcastic) if anything i was saying females are better than males because i said " I cerainly do not except it from a wikipedia admin either, especially a female" which implies females are better well behaved then males.

(TO ISOTOPE) I am civil isotope, im more civil than many, thats why i didnt let um bongo turn into a revert war or whatever its called which it very well could have turned into. And ok, i will try to eliminate personal attacks. But i dont understand how by removing my arguments i have won section would make things better. I will tone down the arrogance and have an explanatory paragraph at the begging stating and justifying its purpose. Aarandir 17:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

1) You were wrong. 2) I looked for anybody at all arguing with you near the bottom of your talk page, and there was nobody. Not even any secure intelligent people. 3) Asking for an apology kiss isn't sexist? --Masamage ♫ 17:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

1) please feel free to tell me why im wrong and what for... 2) they could be anywhere, you commited a logical fallacy, someone arguing with me isnt necessarily going to be on my talk page, you could have said "where is this person who is arguing with you" but u didnt. 3) i did at the end say i was joking, but maybe you missed that and perhaps you still did find it offensive, in that case sorry my intention was not be sexist or offend. I could very well have asked a man for a thankyou kiss but that wouldnt be considered sexist, but anyway... lets not delve into that. Aarandir 17:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

You're wrong that I was being sarcastic. Obviously you don't believe me, but that's your problem, not mine. I was trying to help, and it is not my fault that you would rather to your collection of admins-I-hate than politely correct my wording and allow me to be of assistance. And take a class about discrimination, that's all I can say. Thank you for the apology. --Masamage ♫ 21:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Remove Image

May I kindly suggest that you remove the Image:Samael.png on your user page. I believe this image to innapropriatly stereotype administrators on this project and personally find it offensive. That image adds no value to this project and is being used to soapbox your opinion of administrators. I find it to be an attack on hard working editors here who volunteer large amounts of time to this project. Thanks. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Below is proof that it needs to be there. Your fellow "admin" thinks its amusing to apply what you said to my other picture. It just shows how immature many can be (in my experience its been many rather than some)

Um, i dont see any proof below? I see some ststements but I see nothing that proves you have the right to disparage a group of hard working editors. Can you please clarify? I wont argue that sure there are a few bad apples here and there but that by no means gives you the right to disparage the group as a whole. I am again kindly asking that you remove the disparaging image, and or any content to that extent on your userpage. Its tone is not helpful to this project at all and is only there to soapbox your opinion on a minority of this community. Thanks! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The proof is the comment Tariqabjotu has made, its a complete opposite of yours. Anyway i have toned down everything on my user page and will make it perfectly clear once that it doesnt apply to every admin (which it didnt in the first place). Its merely something ive noticed and i have proof for if you care to read the first section in this page (formerly known as "argument i have won") Im not here to argue or pick fights, im not a lier and i am NOT lying. I only defend my point of view of if 1) beleive it needs defending and 2) if it is valid and something i think is important. Aarandir 18:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, your any me defintion of proof must differ greatly. However, that argument will be a mutpoint because there is no correct answer. Calling other people twats is not toning it down. Having a small blurb is ok and I respect your right ot have that. Having the images is what I find innapropriate. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Curious use of the english language, like making a pie but using the ingredients of a pancake. Im not too fussed about spelling or grammer that much; im not a pedant but i would like some clarity and something thats intelligible at least. "Well, your any me defintion of proof must differ greatly." im afraid i dont understand what you mean. "mutpoint" perhaps my street language isnt up to scratch, but i do come from east london and i should know what it means if its relatively new, but i have never heard that word in a slang or official context. Ive said "some admins" at the beginning so when i later mention "twats" it still applies to those particular admins not to every admin since its on the same paragraph let alone the same sentence. Aarandir 23:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Remove Image

May I kindly suggest that you remove the Image:HY002563.jpg on your user page. I believe this image inappropriately stereotypes some administrators on this project and personally find it offensive. That image adds no value to this project and is being used to soapbox your opinion of certain administrators. I find it to be unnecessary praise of those admins who don't always properly use their admin powers. Thanks. -- tariqabjotu 17:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

This is some sort of wind up? This just goes to prove my point on how immature admins are... I find that amusing but it also just goes to show how silly some admins can be. Aarandir 17:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

So you're saying that because administrators may have a sense a humor, they are immature? No, I'm saying that you should not be allowed to be polemic either way; if your image of Samuel must go so should your other, equally polemic (albeit more tasteful) image. That I commented at Chris's expense is irrelevant. I was merely trying to make the comments as equal as possible to emphasize both are as inappropriate as the other in this context (I'm sure Chris disagrees with my sentiment, but that's his opinion). Sure, I had a bit of fun when matching the statements, but that's not a capital offense. -- tariqabjotu 17:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Tariqabjotu, you're saying that you were "merely trying to make the comments as equal as possible to emphasize both are as inappropriate as the other in this context" while also asserting that you were being amusing. you werent "merely" trying to do the former you were doing it via the latter which is unnecessary, it wasnt even clever, it was childish like a child saying "infinity plus one" or something, it wasnt witty or clever and just amused me becuase it was something thats quite immature. You also say that you find it offensive that im calling some admins saints. If this is the case than I think there might be something wrong with you, no where has being good been considered offensive except incidently in the mind of psychos and sufferers of other mental diseases. Aarandir 18:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked for a period of 1 week because of your persistent incivility and violations of WP:NOT especifically the WP:BATTLE part of it. Please try to change that behaviour once you are back. If you don't agree about the block please add {{unblock}} template below so other admins can review it. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 11:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I am not uncivil. I challenge you to give me one instane of my incivility apart from calling one person an insecure idiot and a moron. Give me ONE instance this is a challenge. "Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges, import personal conflicts, or nurture hatred or fear. Making personal battles out of Wikipedia discussions goes directly against our policies and goals." I do hold a grudge against someone, but why should that matter if I am not attacking him personally (which i've stopped doing). I am not nurturing hatred or fear, I am not telling anyone to hate someone, I am not pedaling hatred (other's are and i can give you proof, if you require). I have not inported conflicts, i have made it very clear that I am not looking for a fight. And I have not. Basically I am not using this as a battleground. I have done no such thing. Please... please be a man and give me PROOF; give me instances of me using this as a battleground please back up your argument, becuase right now I have a feeling, a slight but still considerable feeling that what I am seeing an angry admin telling another more improtant admin to block me. This block is unjustified, but i am not bothered much becuase its the least i could have expected. I seriously foresaw this. Aarandir 15:03, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

So now you are kidding me, huh? You talk too much. It is you that you have to provide PROOFS that you've not been using wikipedia as a battleground, not ME. Who was posting harassing image and text about admins? Me? Wasn't the first time ive seen a girl at wikipedia... your comment? Wasn't psycho and sufferers of other mental diseases. If you persist, next time it will be considered trolling. What would you lose if you behave better. Seriously. If you are not looking for a fight then follow my advice and behave. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 17:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I dont talk to much, im just more eloquent and articulate them many. I am not kidding you.

• Harrasing images and text about admins? Didnt i make it clear that it only applies to some... it was more a joke then anything else. The explanation was offered in the text which you probably didnt read, like many you were distracted by the pictures. I said "I know some admins on wikipedia are extremely stingent, stubborn and pedantic in upholding some rather pointless rules" and had in HUGE writing this "THIS DOESNT APPLY TO EVERY ADMIN, THIS IS NOT PROPOGANDA OR THE LIKE"

• The girl comment... how the hell... how in any possible sense can it be considered wrong... it was merely fact. It was the first time ive "seen" a girl on wikipedia, and i said "ooo look.... a girl" was it sexist in anyway? are girls not allowed to use wikipedia?

• I said this "If this is the case than I think there might be something wrong with you, no where has being good been considered offensive except incidently in the mind of psychos and sufferers of other mental diseases" Now Fayssal, read the latter part of the comment dont i clearly state that "good is seen as something offensive in the minds of psychos and sufferers of other mental diseases" I never implied tariqabjotu was a psycho, perhaps you inferred it, which is your loss. All i said was that there might be "something wrong with him" which is vague and unoffensive. He hasnt even replied to that comment, and it was immature of him to copy the preceding comment. Aarandir 18:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, let's try this:

1. Yes, harassing text about some admins. If you were very careful and dainty about never referring to which admins you meant, then it might be vague and harmless. If, on the other hand, you went around and told people that they were living proof of the text on your userpage, then it becomes an attack with a target, and you are calling the person you said that to a twat, a pedant, and all the various other insults. Since you did exactly that, the text was neither vague nor a joke.
2. You informed me that "girls" are usually better behaved than "men", and that I should apologize for not conforming to the appropriate behavior expected of me because of my gender. That's textbook sexism.
3. Just because you say something is "unoffensive" (sic) doesn't mean it is. I don't know of any country where shouting "Just kidding, everyone!" immediately after "I'll kill you all!" gets you off the hook for making threatening comments. Likewise, you just don't get to be rude and then claim the rules don't apply to you because you were smiling when you typed it. --Masamage ♫ 18:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello masamage,

• i havent "went around and told people that they were living proof of the text on your userpage,". I have written it there and had in blod written "THIS DOESNT APPLY TO EVERY ADMIN, THIS IS NOT PROPOGANDA OR THE LIKE" The only person i have attack personally is Ezeu.

• Dont play the sex card. I am not sexist. I am sorry out of everything here i find that the most offensive. being called sexist when i said women are better than men. Stop playing the sex card. Please. I also never said you should apoligise for not conforming to "womanly" behavior.

• Yea well if you havent noticed i didnt say i was going to kill you i said i wanted a kiss, theres a big difference. I apologised for it before and you thanked me. so stop harking back to that. Aarandir 20:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

1. "It goes to prove to you how what i wrote on my page about admins is true, admit it, you proved it yourself lol."
2. "I cerainly do not except it from a wikipedia admin either, especially a female! "
3. Don't change the subject. We were talking about your treatment of Tariqabjotu. --Masamage ♫ 20:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• Put it in context please... i forgot where it came from.
• Im saying women are better than men. if thats sexism than my mum liberated the reichstag in 1945, and i am rather confident in believing she didnt.
• Again, you've infered i called Tariqabjotu a psycho, which is your loss. Aarandir 20:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

1. [2]
2. Yes, and you're saying I didn't act enough like a woman.
3. Yeah, okay. If you really didn't mean it then I'd like to see an apology to them. --Masamage ♫ 20:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• Im sorry i still cant find that sentence, please paste the relavent bits here and make your points again.
• I implied it was a bad trait, and my not acting like a woman you've shown a bad trait which is... bad. Ok perhaps i was wrong because even though its positive discrimination, its discrimination nonetheless. But if someone said to me, hey... i didnt expect a man to do such good knitting, i wouldnt mind. I know it would make me look "gay" in front of male peers but i still wouldnt mind, it'd make me feel im good at stuff generally.
• I am sorry, i didnt mean it. It was a joke ok.

Can you find it somewhere inside your heart to forgive me? Can you please forgive me for being a man? Can you please forgive for expressing my views? Can you please forgive me for allowing someone to infer ive made a personal attack? Can you please forgive me for joining wikipedia and being dragged into this after that stupid Um Bongo edit? Can you please forgive me for calling a man whose only reply to an essay long point and justification by me was riducule a moron? Somewhere, in the deep deep crevasses of your soul you may find some forgiveness for me. That sound soo cheesy! Something from a really cheesy cliche-ridden film.

Oh and sorry for replacing inoffensive with unoffensive, silly me. I feel a right pillock. Aarandir 21:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

If you're sorry and can just go on to be an editor and not make jokes about people being stupid, then yes, by all means do it, and I'll have no problem with you. I was never out to get you; I came here to help you with a problem, and then got run over by a truck of what looked like completely tasteless and mean-spirited statements. If they were really all jokes, then fine, just stick to positive humor and you won't get into so much trouble. A lot of people took you seriously; that suggests that your joking tone isn't clear enough to let other people share in the humor. --Masamage ♫ 21:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Section on your user page

Hi Aarandir. I've removed the entire section where you go on about how "some admins are useless" etc. Please don't restore it. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and user space is included in this. Neil ╦ 12:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

PS Yes, Dr Who is awesome. That is all. Neil ╦ 12:13, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello, yes Doctor Who is brilliant. I'm thinking why that section is me using this as a soapbox. Please care to explain, thats the thing no one explain WHY its a soapbox or WHY its a battleground, they just go ahead and block me/delete stuff as they please. Please give me evidence that my userpage is a soapbox. Why can I not hold the view that "some admins are useless", how is that me soapboxing. All i am saying is that some admins are useless. Why is that a wrong belief to hold? Please tell me why. If i said something like "ALL ADMINS ARE STUPID, LEAVE WIKIPEDIA, IT IS EVIL AND IMMORAL" now that would be soapboxing but what im saying "some admins are useless, some admins are twats" isnt, its vague it doesnt apply to everyone, and to be honest we all know thats true, dont deny it. Aarandir 15:03, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:OWN

remeber that you do not OWN your userpage and it is allowed to be edited by anybody. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou for stating the obvious. I have never said i own it i said its funny "how sections of ones own userpage can be deleted without proper explanation" i never said i own it and it must never be touched by anyone other than myself. I said its wrong to delete sections without consulting me first... which it is. Aarandir 19:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

You were consulted several times. You said no. It was deemed inappropriate enough to be removed anyway. --Masamage ♫ 19:13, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

(ec) If you will notice, several people did contact you about deleting sections which you chose to respong with a pointless argument other than complying. You were given the option which you chose to scorn. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:14, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, i know they did approach me to which i boldy said no. I have never in my life come out with a pointless argument. Why is it pointless? it has several valid points... read it again "But i dont understand how by removing my arguments i have won section would make things better. I will tone down the arrogance and have an explanatory paragraph at the begging stating and justifying its purpose." I done the latter, toned it down by renaming it. Its there to show how one admin didnt listen to me, and basically deleted a page i created on a premise that later turned turned out to be true due to its inevitability. Which is silly dont you tihnk? its there to show the arrogance of one admin. And after my block is over and this whole testing "episode" is over more will join it, only to highlight arrogance and inability to join a discussion. I am not picking fights, i am not looking to be a centre of controversy and ridicule and criticism (which i slowly am) but i will stand firm, i have done nothing that has seriously upset anyone, more and more admins are coming in and joining this debate and just criticising me without knowing anything ive done... This all stems from the un bongo article. I had, and still have a valid point. Aarandir 19:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

The fact is, it was just plain disruptive. When you are unblocked, please feel free to write articles instead of essays how bad people are here. This is an encylopedia, not a place to make a point, Make personal attacks or cause overall disruption. You may find that creating articles is much better then being argumentative, calling names and or writing essays about vendettas you may have against certain people here. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

What was disruptive? My long arse essays on the talk page of an obscure editor? Yea... that caused a riot didnt it, most disruptive thing ever. I think what was more disruptive was admin involement. Without which there would have been shorter essay by me. Im not some child who would take revenge out by vandalising articles. I have been disruptive. I havent disturbed the "flow" of this site. This isnt a place to make a point? I can make a point if i want to or not as long as i am not disrupting wikipedia. which im not... more to the point whats may be disrupting wikipedia which, admittedly can be traced back to me is how my talk page is atracting so much attention. Its not advertised somewhere "MADMAN ANGRY AT ADMINS, COME JOIN IN IN HIS RIDICULE"? Aarandir 20:13, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

BABOON MAN has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

I love you too! Love is what we need. I am not a hate filled man, just bold, but boldness necessitates criticsm and controversy unfortunatly :( sad isnt it. Aarandir 19:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you, it is my assessment that you are being treated unfairly.--BABOON MAN 19:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou. :) Aww that awfully nice of you, you've put a smile on my face. :) Aarandir 20:13, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Who are Irishguy, Netsnipe, Ryulong, and why are thye bad? if you could give me reasons perhaps i can back up the premise that "bad admins exist". That would be useful to have. Aarandir 20:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Try joining Wikipedia Review. It's all about picking who are the good and bad admins and talking about them. I'm sure they'd love to have you, and there you could write all the essays you wanted. Meanwhile, this an encyclopedia, and when your block transpires maybe you can do some encyclopedia-writing. --Masamage ♫ 20:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

No, but thankyou, as i said im not a hate filled soul. I have done some encyclopedia writing, check my contributions ive created a few articles all on my own, made templates and enriched many topics. Aarandir 20:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not a hate-filled website. But, great, glad to hear you've done some work here. In that case I would like to see you stay. Just put your energy toward the project instead of aainst it. --Masamage ♫ 20:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Aarandir (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

The only things i have done that could be considered wrong are 1) calling someone a moron and implying someone was an insecure idiot, both of which are mild insults, but admittedly insults nonetheless 2) arguing with people for a just cause (later being forced to argue like a cornered rabbit) to defend myself. 3) expressing my views about SOME admins (the key word is some) and clearly stating "this doesnt appy to every admin and isnt propoganda". The last two arent really reasons to block me, it happens alot here. I also caused no disruption becuase i didnt vandalise or make lots of personal attacks against people. Also, i would appreciate it if you could look from the top of my talk page to the start of the first topic for detailed reasons.

Decline reason:

These are reasons you should be blocked, not reasons to unblock you. We do not tolerate behaviour like this. — Yamla 12:40, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Yes you do, i've seen it all to often before, and people get away free. Ive cause Aarandir 19:11, 9 June 2007 (UTC)