User talk:Crzrussian/Archive 12

Marky48

Please see the talk page User_talk:Marky48, both the Personal Attacks section the the legal threats section you started. Mark has not made personal attacks or threats on the Talk:Barbara_Bauer page yet today (which makes for a pleasant change), but he certainly has continued in the same vein on his own Talk page. JulesH restored (and added) template warnings to Mark's page, which Mark keeps removing, construing them as Jules attacking and harrassing Mark. Mark's remarks today even include the words, "I will pursue charges against you for bullying through arbitration." (Obviously, you may need to look at history to get a better idea what's going on.)

I've tried to put up with Mark through a long series of edit wars, personal attacks and general rudeness. Really, I have. I called in a mediator, and did my best to negotiate an NPOV edit of each of the articles at issue (Barbara Bauer and Disemvoweling) that Mark and everyone else could live with. But even since those edits were accepted, Mark has continued to make frequent accusations against other editors, calling us names (e.g. "group troll," "cabal of self-interested partisans") and casting himself as the last honest journalist, fighting for what's right and fair. Yet he continually gets his facts wrong, and never considers that anyone but himself might be even a little bit right or fair or honest. Frankly, I'm reaching the end of my patience. What is the appropriate step from here? Regards and thanks! Karen 00:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Ynetnews

See there and talk page there. Request your vote also. --Daniel575 00:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Chill

It's about time. As you can see from the above links posted accusing me a providing false information and vandalizing an article about a literary agent I'm under assault here over every edit. That's the beef from two related articles involving a blog Making Light and absolutewrite, an amateur writers forum. This gentlemen JulesH is a friend of the blog forum cited in the articles and has edited it with help from said blog member to defame an ISP provider. I objected and this is the result. I don't see how I should be blamed for standing up for my edits. In addition I've made no legal threats no matter who implies I have. "Prosecution" means what you are offering me to the other guy in this. JulesH. This is apartisan vanity forum article issue. They are members and friends of the aggrieved and I am not. It just doesn't pay to be right in a contentious issue with partisans like these. I'm out of patience. Please look into the issue and report back.Marky48 01:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

From Karen: "Yet he continually gets his facts wrong, and never considers that anyone but himself might be even a little bit right or fair or honest."

This is an absolutist statement and I've acknowledged changes made by both karen and others besides JulesH, who is particularly vindictive and partisan from our history at the blog where my same argument got me banned. They wanted to continue this trend and brought it here.

The "incorrect facts" on my part would be of the minor nature similar to what people say about the NY Times when they write a story those involved don't like. The articles are vanity efforts and hagiographies of Teresa Neilsen Hayden the owner of Making Light. One editor, also a forum memeber as these two are, claimed ISP owner James Cordray would be "forever stained with an negative encyclopedia article about him in perpetuity." That's why they wrote it because Barbara Bauer is too small a fish to warrant this status. By the way, I am a journalist, and a damned honest one too. But damned may be the more appropriate term in a world where the truth is relative to the strongest group pushing an agenda. This artic::le is "not neutral" on its face, as we say in the legal world. I trust you'll look into the facts before wielding the broad axe on my neck.Marky48 01:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, that's a valid point: Mark did accept two of my edits, although he pretty much complained about them at the same time, and has continued to attack me since then. He did not say I was in any way right, however, which is what I was talking about above. Still, yes, it's true: he did agree to compromise text on both articles. It's also true that my sentence is a bit absolutist, and does not show my usual antipathy toward "always" and "never" generalizations. Sorry about that. I should have said, "Yet he frequently gets facts wrong, and shows little evidence of seriously considering the possibility that others might be even a little bit right or fair or honest."

As for the Bauer article, my interest has always been to make the article as factually correct and NPOV as possible, to which end I added the PhD and other biographical info, and spent time trying to substantiate Bauer's alleged sales to paying markets. The Cordray link to which Mark refers was there for the purpose of providing a primary source for a key part of Bauer's recent actions that helped to make her notable: her successful attempt to get a web site shut down, although other factors appear to have been involved in that. What another editor said in the heat of the moment on a non-Wiki venue, to someone who was seen as frequently changing his story to justify a foolish decision, is irrelevant to the Bauer article itself, IMO. I personally want only good things for everyone involved, from Bauer to Cordray, from Jules to Mark. In some cases, I hope those "good things" include learning from past mistakes and doing better in the future, for the good of everyone. Regards to all (and I sincerely mean that). Karen 04:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, little Mark has said here is even approximately accurate.

"As you can see from the above links posted accusing me a providing false information and vandalizing an article about a literary agent I'm under assault here over every edit."

I don't see anybody accusing Mark of vandalism, except when he deleted a number of other user's comments on Talk:Barbara Bauer, which I'll grant may have been an accident, but one which looked a lot like vandalism. The "above links" (which are actually on User talk:Marky48) are this and this, edit history items which show Mark adding first unsubstantiated personal opinion and then incorrect information and personal attacks against Teresa Nielsen Hayden to the Disemvoweling article.

"This gentlemen JulesH is a friend of the blog forum cited in the articles and has edited it with help from said blog member to defame an ISP provider"

I am not a friend of Mrs Nielsen Hayden's. I have never even met her. I do regularly read her blog, as do a large number of other aspiring novelists; she is a prominent editor at a well-known publisher who periodically posts information which could be useful to us. I have received no help from her in editing either article at issue here, although she did edit Disemvoweling prior to my involvement with it. I have never, nor did I ever intend, to defame James Cordray or JC Hosting, the ISP Mark is referring to. All I did was post in the Barbara Bauer article a link to his blog in which he explained that he received a legal threat from the subject of the article and suggested this was part of the reason he had cancelled the hosting of the Absolute Write web site. The intent of this link was, and always was, to provide primary evidence for the claim that Bauer has a reputation for sending legal threats in order to silence dissenting opinions of her.

"JulesH, who is particularly vindictive and partisan from our history at the blog where my same argument got me banned."

I challenge Mark to show any evidence of me being vindictive. Please. But he can't, because there isn't any -- other than his own imagined insults. And he wasn't banned from Making Light over any argument; the record clearly shows that he was banned for using a suspected sock puppet.

'The "incorrect facts" on my part would be of the minor nature similar to what people say about the NY Times when they write a story those involved don't like.'

The incorrect facts are incorrect facts, and minor or not they were incorrect. The edit I described as factually incorrect was the insertion of the following text:

Brad Delong [[1]]discusses the reasons for employing this treatment on problem users including leaving the offense for all to see intact, and how disemvoweling leads to banning.

This is incorrect in a number of ways. DeLong (whose name was spelled incorrectly in the text) did not discuss any such thing; he hosted a weblog on which other commenters discussed it. Nobody mentioned disemvowelling leading to banning. The only reference to banning on the entire thread is a user who was banned from the site Crooked Timber, but disemvoweling was not used in this case.

"The articles are vanity efforts and hagiographies of Teresa Neilsen Hayden the owner of Making Light."

If this is how he feels, then clearly he should nominate them for deletion, rather than editing them to include unsubstantiated negative remarks and thinly-veiled attacks against Neilsen Hayden. Based on his previous characterisation of me as being incapable of reading the English language, I can only assume he used the word "hagiographies" because he assumes I don't understand it.

"That's why they wrote it because Barbara Bauer is too small a fish to warrant this status."

Interesting that he believes this. It's worth noting that I created the Bauer article at 17:32 on 25 May, whereas I did not encounter Cordray or his explanation for why he had cut off service to Absolute Write until 26 May (I posted this analysis of his response immediately after I finished reading it). Cordray wasn't mentioned in the article in question until 29 May. That's very peculiar behaviour if I did these things for the sole purpose of making an attack of some kind on Cordray. JulesH 10:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I too will weigh in on this as I've been personally attacked by Mark in regard to the Bauer article as well. And I don't know these people, either. Yet, I've been accused of being part of a "cabal" and being partisan. I've also posted on Making Light along w/ hundreds of other posters. And yes, Mark was banned from there. He has also been banned from Absolute Write, where I'm a member. However, my concern w/ the Bauer article comes from seeing that it remains. I assisted w/ changes of an editing nature, only, even though Mark has insisted I wrote the article.He has continued to attack me and deleted one of my posts, which I reinstated. It's clearly marked for easy identification. It has become increasingly difficult to post w/ the persistent attacks. The article's significance is that it provides living guideposts for the aspiring writer to research--perfect examples of pitfalls, yet Mark doesn't want this information available. I have to wonder why. Is out of spite for us, that we're able to freely post at various sites that he's been banned from and this is his last stand. So to speak. Extreme jealousy, possibly.I've no idea, since I don't know him, either. But, I do know these attacks need to stop. Thank you for your assistance.--JeanMarie 12:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Well no many inaccuracies so little time. Where I've been banned from has as little merit as who is from what messageboard group by the logic I read here. I deleted Ms. Weisen's post and apologized for it as I'd thought mine was removed. I was mistaken. The statement is there for anyone to see. Ms. Wiesen attacked Cordray as her quote proves. The whole group attacked him on all of the blogs and forums mentioned in the article. As far as the article's origin, May 25 is around the beginning of the controversy attached to Bauer and Cordray. The idea was to smear Bauer, not that she needed any help as a number of accounts of her antics exist. Cordray became the target when he tried to defend himself at Making Light, Nielsen Hayden's refuge for Absolutewrite members when their home was shut down. He was attacked mercilessly by these people. What this is is a vendetta.

I never insisted anyone was the "sole" author. It was a group effort but the leader has always been JulesH who was present at Making Light, as was Karen, and Ms. Weisen. They've discussed my editing and continued defense of Cordray which did get me disemvoweled and dispelled from that long discussion. The theme was "get Bauer" and "get Cordray." Their language backs this up and that is why it is a hit piece. Warnings for Barabara bauer exist in writer comunities worldwide already. Moreover, she is nothing but a bit player and not a real agent in the first place and thus doesn't warrant an encyclopedia article. I would suggest to the moderator to disallow psychological speculations of my intentions as she is no valid expert in such matters and does not know me at all. She's called me names from the very start. "Geez Mark you sound like your three years old," was her first statement to me ever. What kind of man allows that kind of taunting without responding? I don't. The trail is clear for anyone to follow who wants to. Dueling quotes and elaborate bifricated arguments can go on forever.

"As far as I'm concerned, little Mark has said here is even approximately accurate." I consider this an attack. It infers I'm a some permutation of a liar.

I have no interest left in the subject or desire to associate with these people in any way.Marky48 15:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I am being deluged by everyone and I have absolutely no idea what to do! I think I am going to ask everyone to chrystallize their positions in three sentences: two sentences explaining precisely what wrong has occurred and one sentence explaining what the user demands I do and/or what they want to happen. Please respond here:

1. Marky48: Gang editeding from a self-interested position supported by the blog and forum in the article involved in a legal case against an ISP provider, JC Hosting, that is ongoing. My position was to not draw conclusions without the facts between the absolutewrite forum and this ISP based on an incidental call from Bauer to cease and desist calling her a scam agent. This too is a legal matter best left alone. These folks don't agree and want a public conviction. I would remove the article for bias. Moreover cease asserting my assertions are baseless and fabrications as this is defamatory. Bullying 3/1.
2. JeanMarie:Name-calling combined w/ false, baseless accusations when in fact all I've done is support an article based on Barbara Bauer, a shill of an agent. Each attempt to illustrate the facts surrounding Ms. Bauer have been torn to shreds by Mark, who even now insists she's not an agent--she is listed as such on her web page and accepts monies for such actions w/o viable results. I respectfully request to be allowed to continue to find/post supportive arguments for the Bauer article w/o any further interference/bullying or deletion(s) from/by Mark.--JeanMarie 17:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
3. JulesH:Repeated removal of good information from and addition of bad information to the articles Barbara Bauer and Disemvoweling, despite consensus of other editors that the changes should not be made. Personal attacks on the talk pages of those articles, refusal to accept warnings for personal attacks on his own user talk page, and repeated claims that others are attacking him personally, often with baseless threats of action to be taken against the other editor. As to what to do, I don't really know -- anything that will make him behave in a more civil fashion would be good.JulesH 18:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

He has initiated another fight using Sock Puppets

Hi ther again, can you please protect the Pierre Bourque (journalist) site for the next little while, I feel it is about to get of hand. The site in question is number 2 on Arthur Ellis's personal hate list. Rachel Marsden was his like list. But he has a grudge against Warren for suing him, and Pierre for takeing a link to bourries blog off of his own webpage. Pierre Bourque webpage has a very high page rank. Pete Peters 30 June 2006 04:07 (UTC}

Thanks for your support in my RfA!

Thanks for voting! Hello Crzrussian/Archive 12, and thanks for your support in my recent RfA. I'm pleased to announce that it passed with a final tally of (96/0/0). I was overwhelmed by all of the nice comments and votes of confidence from everyone. Thanks again, and see you around! OhNoitsJamie Talk 06:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Blocking AOL IP

Hi - Did you really need to block all AOL IP addresses from editing? I'm logged in but have been blocked nonetheless. Thank, James. Vizjim 08:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Apologies: turns out that it's an automatic block and I shouldn't be hassling you about it. If only I'd read the several thousand words of explanation on the block page first :) Cheers, James. Vizjim 13:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Girls At The Cairo National Stadium

Hi. can you try offering more help by addressing other users to vote at the Girls At The Cairo National Stadium case? it's clearly a troll's plot by a user called Haham hanuka. Marina T. 21:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• it's not asking you to vote - but to block Haham hanuka. Marina T. 21:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Dalbergia decipularis

Ugh, long story, my patience is running thin with a particular user. The stuff in that article was copy-pasted from [[Tulipwood]. See talk:Tulipwood for details, and Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Brya for history. (Please note that it's not "my" precious material that was moved... I don't do taxoboxes. SB Johnny 19:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Jahiegel Jr.

I don't mind that, I think Joe might. :P It's much better than being WoW Jr. :) Yanksox 21:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

RfA merci

Sorry -- even though I'm Canadian, I don't speak French. But merci for the support on my recent RfA, which I'm quite happy to announce has passed with a consensus of 67 supporting, 0 opposed and 0 neutral. I'm glad you took the time to consider my candidacy, and I'll be working hard to justify the vote of confidence you've placed in me. Let me know at my talk page if you have any comments on my performance as an admin. Thanks! TheProject 22:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you can try and lift the ban.

I am out of here for a week, so I can't get into a revert war for a while. I think there is a growing number of people who are talking on the discussion, and eager to have their input. I am gone, and I think it is safe lift the ban on Warren Kinsella page. I think others will edit out AE edits. Pete Peters 23:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Sig

Weird, I use Firefox and it looks ok? -- Samir धर्म 05:16, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, have a banner -- Samir धर्म 05:51, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Ending AFDs

Thanks for bringing Cardinal Newman HS to an end. I left a message on the article's talk page. Is that how it is done?--Stroika 08:30, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

2006_FIFA_World_Cup_controversies

Hello. You closed the AfD for 2006 FIFA World Cup controversies with No consensus, but it was, if I counted correctly, 41-18 in favor of keeping it. Should not that be a Keep? -- Mareklug ^talk 10:23, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Deletions/Renamings

Hi Alexander, please see:

• Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 June 29#Category:Orthodox educational institutions to Category:Orthodox Jewish educational institutions and
• Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 June 29#Category:Orthodox Jews to Category:Notable Orthodox Jews

Many thanks, Nesher 13:29, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Your Invite

Thanks so much!

I'm already looking at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Judaism and I've added WP:ORBCW to my watchlist. Not sure if I can help out very much in the latter. I know very little about most rabbis, nothing like the encyclopedic knowledge some folks here have. Best wishes, --Shirahadasha 16:58, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

RfA

Please let me comment your comment on my RfA. I hope You don't mind it! ;)

• 1) I know that I have an unproportionally small number of Wikipedia namespace edits - but the admin duties that I have promised to conduct don't include activities in that area. If you might be refering to the lack of experience - see my edits by now - I have created two Wikiprojects, edited some and am generally active in other fields - I'm not sure if this should be counted against me, as there are always Users who proffessionalize - just like in the real world - in some special areas: All-liners are actually never good, and pretty much impossible to achieve (by a mortal man).

• 2) You might be refering to occasions when I was blocked. I think that you should've read my comments first thoroughly before voting, as I have clearly explained before - first time I (practicly) self-reported a 3RR, and the latter is a self-requested block, out of solidarization with another user that was being blocked for aggressiveness/rudeness.

• 3) It is not true that I am limited to Slavic subjects - it just might comprise the majority of my edits. For a continuation of answer to this issue, please review pint 1) when I was refering to proffessionality

• 4) My answer 3 was supposed to tell how easily/beneficially I deal with other users (just like any administrator has sometimes to deal with, say, Brandt or Willy on Wheels), and not how often I get into conflicts. Most of the time I influence the person (like happened with User:Ilir_pz) and it gradually greatly improves.

I hope that I haven't caused you any problems with this reply and hope that you will be able to read it thoroughly. Farewall, my friend! --HolyRomanEmperor 17:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

---

I hope you won't mind me asking this - but have me met before? --HolyRomanEmperor 18:04, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

---

Correct - it is a 3RR. But it must be understood that back then - I didn't know at all (newbie!) Wikipedia's policy (unlike now, when I am thoroughly introduced to it). How much time percisely does it need to pass from that grave error?

Don't apologize at all - I rarely get offended and value every single (eligable) voter's opinion. Once again, your opinion is most appreciated. All the best! --HolyRomanEmperor 18:51, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

HolyRomanEmperor has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!

Deletion of Raymond "Harpstack" Meyer

Please hang on... I am sorry I am slow at getting all this together but I am new to this process. I will send you all references so that you may see this meets the proper criteria and isn't a vanity writting.

Also, I would appreciate some help with inputing an image (picture)

Thank you

Bama.Brat

Bama.brat 19:51, 2 July 2006 (UTC)bama.bratBama.brat 19:51, 2 July 2006 (UTC) {{helpme, please}}

Getting back to creating an article

This artist is a local Bham, AL artist that has an international following.... persons who have requested to be on his mailing list are from America, South America, Europe, Asia, Australia, etc....

The information I had provided was subjective & included articles written by local media (including a newspaper), local radio stations where his music is played

No he isn't "famous" anywhere but 'round here. Yes, he has a following internationally. He plays regionally (not just in AL.. in other states in the SouthEast)

Would you like me to e-mail you the text (and links) I had in mind.... also I can't re-find how to create a new article.

Thanks, Bama.brat 20:25, 2 July 2006 (UTC)bama.bratBama.brat 20:25, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Raymond Meyer

Thank you for helping me & allowing me another opportunity. I understand & realize it is up to a vote. I also realize there is some grey area & I can see why you have indicated your concerns.

Thanks!!! Bama.brat 22:10, 2 July 2006 (UTC)bama.bratBama.brat 22:10, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Wives and Girlfriends page

Hi, this is my problem, I don't think that Melanie Slade has enough notability to warrant an article. I feel her information should be placed somewhere. Someone suggested that she be merged with the wives and girlfriends WAGs article. The term WAGS is being expanded to include those who are not the wives and girlfriends of footballers so it seemed appropriate to have a seperate article which covered the England Footbal squad.

I do aggree that it is a load of nonsense but it is preferable than having seperate articles for each of them and then arguments over notability because people have read about them in the tabloids.

Can we put the MElanie Slade article up for deletion then as that was my first impression when I came across it.... Thanks Lynnathon 22:15, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

RFA thanks

Jeb Berkeley

Just so you know, I don't think the Jeb Berkeley vandals are just a triple sock (the vandal even said so himself). They probably all stem from blocked user Jeb Berkeley (talk · contribs). Keep an eye out! --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 02:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello

Giving Crzrussian/Archive 12 a Working Man's Barnstar for you extensive work on AfDs. OMEN

Хорошо, I love your userpage ;-) OMEN 05:51, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Sydney Suburbs

I don't think it was speedyable - I looked again at the criteria - The article wasn't created merely to "disparage their subject" and was probably created in good faith. I am glad the prod was uncontested. It was not well researched and no sources were cited, but more than one editor had contributed and it had been around for a while. Some of the facts in it were probably verifiable, however, I had placed an unsourced tag on it over a month ago and no interest was shown. I don't think it added up to an article. Now if it had been about a woman raising sheep, I might have done my own research :-) Glad you are busy with your new tools. Regards--A Y Arktos\^talk 09:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Christian Portland

FYI, list of related hoaxers and hoaxes on User:Tyrenius/Satchel Cohen hoaxer --Tyrenius 10:39, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar.

Wow, thank you very much! I am quite flattered. :) Yanksox 11:27, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

C&Cruft

Only four pages left? Haahaha. You spoke too soon ... Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Command & Conquer Red Alert Infantry. Proto///type 11:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi

Hello, thanks for the formatting: [2]. I was trying to do that - but you won! At least, it gave me an opportunity to come here. Regards. --Bhadani 16:25, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

BTW, are you really crazy? Hahahhha. . --Bhadani 16:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

All is well and And Quiet Flows the Don - Don. --Bhadani 16:33, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi

Haham hanuka also fought Doron Sabag.

Not my average message

Hey Crz, I'm discovering the fun side of wikipedia :). Check this out, its absolutely fascinating (under Mitchell-Hedges heading), and I doubt you've seen these before - some are really food for thought and very compelling, although others I've just read are clear hoaxes. What do you think? Many thanks, Nesher 20:53, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

RfA Thank you

I must be makir tov to you first and foremost, for taking the time to nominate me and support my candidacy. I hope that I will now be able to do my part helping the community and encyclopædia flourish. Y'yasher Kochahchah!! Oh, and while I'm no expert at these automated responses, for a few I feel I have to go above and beyond, so please enjoy this fine example of Russian architecture as a thank you for your help in "constructing" my successful nomination. -- Avi 21:59, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Warren Kinsella - Mark Bourrie - Pierre Bourque wiki pages

It's a sad day when someone uses a sock puppet as is Mark Bourrie as "Arthur Ellis" to hijack wikipedia and smear everyone without restriction.

He's modified and reverted the Kinsella page so many times that it's just not worth counting any longer.

I had come to believe that Wikipedia was a worthwhile endeavor, truly representative of the technical marvel that we have come to know as the Internet.

I was mistaken....

I thought you'd protected this. RfAr time? RadioKirk (u|t|c) 02:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

By that, I mean I don't see a way out other that banning both users from the article and, unless I'm mistaken, that can only happen via ArbCom. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 02:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Jeb Berkeley - the return!

You said to tell you if I saw anymore sockpuppets of Jeb Berkeley, and I'm taking you up on that. Check into My Lager (talk · contribs). --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 00:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

My RFA

I answered the questions and listed it. No matter how it goes, I'm thankful for the confidence you have in me and the praise you gave in your nomination statement. Sorry it took a couple of days to respond, but you picked the one time I was offline. :-) Thanks again! -- JLaTondre 01:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, I'm an American. Unfortunately, nothing so fun as a long weekend. I just ran out of time, but I'm enjoying the day off today. -- JLaTondre 13:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Please Override his reverts.

Hello, Geedubber and I spent a day reformatting the Kinsella page. Although I may disagree with the Inquiry being there, I comprimised. I noticed you reverted one of Arthur Ellis's edits. He has now reverted the whole days worth of work. Mention of his father does not exist anymore. Could you please revert to my most recent version. I would also like to add, that I mentioned the Ripple Rock album, his reaction was to request the deletion of the Ripple Rock Album from Wikipedia. When an Admin guy overides his reverts, he seems to listen. I don't think this page needs to be blocked, it just needs to be reverted back. Pete Peters 01:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

We had a consensus. These guys have broken it. They've re-introduced error and vanity edits. I want time to deal with this. It's a complete blind-side as, when people were working on consensus, Pete Peters did not work on the article. He waited until people left. I believe you are biased, Crzrussian. It is difficult not to come to that conclusion. You have adopted Pete Peters' cause and you are now locked in cognitive disonance.Arthur Ellis 01:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

OK. That's it! I am going to protect the page and then another admin will be sorting this out. You may feel free to leave me out of your squabbles going forward. Bye bye. - CrazyRussian talk/email 01:20, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

You have never communicated with me, yet have left rather jovial comments for the people who oppose my edits. You have never considered the validity of my arguments. It is obvious that you have not looked at the sources and the citations I have placed on the Kinsella article, nor have you taken the time to consider the POV and accuracy of the Pete Peters edits. You have obviously not looked at the edit history of Pete Peters, who registered less than a week ago, whose first post was an unfounded accusation of sock puppetry against me, who has stalked my edits and vandalised both my talk and user page and vandalised the entry on Mark Bourrie because he think's that's me. You are not finished with me. I am complaining about you to the admin com.Arthur Ellis 01:28, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I welcome the opportunity for many admins to see the edit war you've conducted. Perhaps, it'll earn you a block - not from me, of course. That would be gauche. - CrazyRussian talk/email 01:53, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

It takes more than one person to have an edit war. I just wish you had done the work to understand the situation and had not immediately adopted the cause of one side in the dispute. That's why I want to see you disciplined, censured, or at least upervised for a while.Arthur Ellis 03:13, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I won't start justifying myself to you. Censure me. Just stop trolling my talk page. Please make yourself scarce ASAP. - CrazyRussian talk/email 03:15, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 3rd.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 2, Issue 26	26 June 2006	About the Signpost

Angela Beesley resigns as Wikimedia Foundation trustee	Requiring confirmed email suggested for uploads
Wikipedia cited by the England and Wales High Court	Unblock requests directed to new mailing list
News and Notes: Wiktionary milestone, privacy policy update	Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report On Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.

Warren Kinsella

I bet you wish you'd never ever heard that name. Keep on truckin'. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 02:22, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for trying though. I've never seen any behaviour quite like that before. --JGGardiner 03:23, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

HRE

You should be aware that we're facing some serious doubts as to whether anything actually happened to HRE, or whether this is just a nasty trick someone is playing on him.

Something seems wrong; I genuinely hope it is. DS 02:39, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Znamenka

I appreciate your notice. I have removed the prod tag and explained my reasons on the dab's talk page. If you have further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 03:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Gross overextension of privilege

Who gave you the right to close my AfD's??? - CrazyRussian talk/email 06:20, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it was a Wikipedia consensus 8-) -- Avi 06:22, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Redhaired Wide Receivers

"... What's next - list of redhaired wide receivers?"

No... JEWISH Wide-receivers. Are there any? -- Ð’n^talk 11:10, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Re:RfA

That's ok :) I saw you using them and thought that imitation is the best form of flattery! It's all in the quality of the people you find to nominate as though, and you seem to have done a good job with that. Petros471 20:33, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

My RFA

Thank you for your vote in my RFA, which succeeded with a final tally of 66-0-4. If there's anything I can help you with now that I'm an admin, please let me know on my talk page. Again, thanks! It was nice of you to change your vote like that. See you on the other side! :) Mangojuicetalk 21:42, 4 July 2006 (UTC)