User talk:Shenme/Archive4

Thanks for the edit; I had just noticed it myself, went to login and you had already rolled back one of the edits. Keen eyes for the win.

Cheers! BrianRaker (talk) 09:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

No prob; you're right, redirecting it to a real biz is inappropriate even if there's a parody about it, so the character RD was more appropriate. Nate • (chatter) 03:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your spelling corrections, don't know how they'd escaped detection (by me or anyone else) so long! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Bubonic deletion justification on my talk page. --IanOsgood (talk) 05:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Pehkay seems to be a member of a church organization and said "what the" while not using foul language in the text, he/she implied that all of his/her postings have been about promoting the local church. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anyuse200 (talk • contribs) 20:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Re your comment to Jajhill, please RTFMOS

• Ordinal numbers are given as words using the same rules as for cardinal numbers. The exception is ordinals for centuries, which are always expressed in figures (the 5th century CE; 19th-century painting). The ordinal suffix (e.g., th) is not superscripted (23rd and 496th, not 23rd and 496th).

-- Zsero (talk) 23:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

The rule for cardinal numbers is given earlier:

• In the body of an article, single-digit whole numbers (from zero to nine) are given as words; numbers of more than one digit are generally rendered as figures, and alternatively as words if they are expressed in one or two words (sixteen, eighty-four, two hundred, but 3.75, 544, 21 million).

But

• In tables and infoboxes, all numbers are expressed as numerals.

So in the body of the article, GHWB could be given either as the 41st or as the forty-first president, but in an infobox he's always the 41st.

Hope this helps -- Zsero (talk) 06:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

I think everyone has their userpage and talk page on watch. In fact, I think it becomes watched automatically when you create your account. Anyway, I didn't see the edits since I'm not very active on this wiki (I do make a few major edits every now and then though), though thanks for the reverts and warning. --AAA! (AAAA) 14:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi and thank you for writing. The correct litteral translation is "For him not in the presence of a Jurisprudent", not Jurisprudence, because the latter is "Fiqh" while the former is "Faqih". I just just add an a between presence and jurisprudent. Thank you anyway. Hamid-Masri (talk) 11:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, Shenme, for doing the research legwork to confirm the (likely) validity of my edits. The "Trout" name is clearly a bad joke that was just allowed to persist too long. For the other - and one more I haven't yet touched, "Frank Stanton, packer" - I've studied that battle for 45 years both in primary source material and in the many books written about it, and I never once came across the name "Lindsay" among the KIA. Doesn't necessarily mean that there wasn't a Lindsay killed or a Stanton wounded - but if there is a source for either or both, someone needs to bring forward. Looks to me like that old Wiki sport of putting one's own name into an article about history or pop culture. Thanks again!Sensei48 (talk) 04:46, 4 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Some entries listed in 2008 seem to be inappopriate for the tone of the article. Some could be used in other articles. Birdienest81 (talk) 06:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

In addition, there are too many entries for one month. The February section in 2007 lists 25 entries while the February section in 2008 lists 45 entries. I think that is too many entries. Shouldn't some entries be located. This is not an article about all current events.Birdienest81 (talk) 06:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the information --Alexandra lb (talk) 10:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

i am new to the wiki and not only do i not know propper etiquette in its practice but i do not know how to track a specific post, like that.--i am a fan of any and all contributers to wikipedia, espically the ones devoting time to categories!!--Dieselweasel (talk) 08:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

...For the reversion, but I see on your user page: "This user clicks on Wikidrama way too often." Amen! I laughed, literally, out loud. Wish I could quit the bad habit myself ... it's why I wrote WP:IAD, as a reminder ... Have a nice weekend, Antandrus (talk) 03:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Check again: I restored that link after someone else removed it. Groupthink (talk) 19:10, 9 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

KnightLago (talk) 04:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

I might have overreacted, but I'm still skeptical whether the guy was naive or conniving. In any case, there's a bit of discussion on User talk:Wknight94 if you're interested. Horsch has been told what he needs to do, and we'll see if he does it or not. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

I don't have any problem with putting one's own name in the picture's file name. The problem was the guy posting links to his site and using an advertising tone. He's been told how to do it right, so we'll see. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Oh thanks...for some reason, my broswer constantly is lagging out (500 Server Error, or like that) and I think this was one of the times...I had to go all the way back to the mainpage until I could finally get on wikipedia. I should've checked to make sure it went right. Thanks for fixing this. I'll be sure to do that in the future. Spencer^T♦C 14:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Sorry? What were you looking for here relating to Williams syndrome? I didn't quite understand your comment. Fainites ^barley 22:51, 16 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Do not post slanderous accusations on my page again and do not rant on my page either. If you are going to point out problems point out evidence as to why you think they are problems. Hypocritically telling me that strong opinions is a "bad thing" is childish as well as hypocritical. You let your strong opinion be known by carelessly posting a rant and not backing up what you said with anything but emotionalism and not bothering to research.

Take heed:

"Like one who seizes a dog by the ears is a passer-by who meddles in a quarrel not his own." - Proverbs 26:17

Go wander and pull on some other dog's ears, like Novangelis'. One more thing: learn what evidence means, and learn what bias means.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Starfire777 (talk • contribs) 19:32, 22 March 2008

Starfire777's comment above is clearly a breach of WP:CIVIL, and is probably best deleted. You have every right to delete such comments from your user talk page. The guidance you posted on Starfire777's talk page was reasonable and helpful, but unsurprisingly was deleted by the editor who was on a rampage of disruptive editing, and was subsequently given a temporary block for edit warring. While it's laudable to try to help new users to understand how to contribute, your time is valuable and sometimes a brief reference to policies or use of a suitable template can work better. Template:Welcomenpov is one possibility, and that page includes instructions for use as well as links to related templates. Thanks for your efforts, which are much appreciated. .. dave souza, talk 09:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

No I don't have them all in my watchlist, but i do have most.  Sunderland06  15:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

I really appreciate your help with the Anthony Nalli entry. Notimpressed / unimpressed has been on an completed unwarranted smear campaign through Aviation.ca and the General Aviation Ontario Yahoo list. He has made several false and defamatory statements in these places that have since been removed by administrators. He has also been asked to publicly retract his statements and apologize. Not only has this not taken place but he has embarked on other troubling actions including Wikipedia and also a public organization in which both he and Anthony are members. He is well known within this organization as being problematic.

It has been suggested that the Anthony Nalli article be protected as it is not generally updated legitimately very often and has only been the target of vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Avsafety (talk • contribs) 05:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

This guy sounds paranoid. Also, his footnotes do not verify the claims. They are self-referential and do not point to a source.

I think that last comment might have been from user:noconflict, another sockpuppet of user:notimpressed and user:unimpressed. He continues to find ways to continue his attack despite it being groundless and pointless. Avsafety (talk) 23:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

In answer to the question if www.pcas.ca "Close Calls Articles" is self-published and therefore unusable, the answer is yes. The author of the Anthony Nalli piece is Anthony Nalli. the link is to his business website where he has self-published his articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.128.142 (talk) 11:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

That makes sense and is reasonable. There are several other websites where the articles are posted by independent webmasters in addition to the magazines the column is carried in monthly. The www.pcas.ca postings can be disregarded without adversely affecting the article. Avsafety (talk) 12:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

No Substantiation. Seemed the editor here did not test these links supplied as footnotes. One is dead. Two does not substantiate the claim.

Heh, never would have guessed. It sounded like some sort of weird nonsense edit. Apparently it was a refdesk question instead. Nice of you to take the trouble to look it up. --erachima talk 08:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

As I recall it was just the edit, though certainly I know the film. WilyD 11:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for responding so quickly! I'm a frequent user of Wikipedia, but I don't often involve myself in major edits, ordinarily only fixing vandalism or minor issues as I come across them. Thanks for reffering Dave souza to it. I had another question regarding the phrasing of the sentence, but his knowlege and sources helped clear up the issue. Thanks again! -Richbank (talk) 00:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I responded on my talk page -- Boracay Bill (talk) 23:16, 20 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your comment. I put a comment on their page. Please discuss [1] instead of reverting my edition[2].--Seyyed(t-c) 06:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

[3] Hmm? What did you mean by deleted by IP editor receiving warnings? 86.44.30.169 (talk) 09:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

No problem, thanks for the message. While I doubt an IP would have a problem with having his old warnings archived, nevertheless the problem with the content you reverted is that it strongly implies a contradiction of WP:BLANKING, the present wording of which reflects the result of numerous discussions, not to mention pointless revert wars on IP talk pages. 86.44.30.169 (talk) 00:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Opps. I apologize. I really do not remember doing that. I must have accidentally hit "rollback". Probably happened while doing a mouse gesture with my watchlist open. That never happened when I used Opera, but Firefox's mouse gesture extension just isn't as good. Again, I apologize and I want you to know that I did not purposely revert you. I agree that anon's edit was vandalism and contradicted the cited sourced.-Andrew c ^[talk] 04:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Feel free to do so. When I get a chance, I prune the list, but it's a time-consuming task. I should see if someone'll give me a bot-generated list of all the spamlist users who haven't edited recently. Ral315 (talk) 06:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

I might take the slightest notice if I saw that you'd said something on the other talk page. Take your POV off mine. TONY (talk) 12:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

(1) I can count to three. (2) You posted a blunt order on my talk page: is that likely to get a good response? TONY (talk) 12:59, 26 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

No prob. Thx for caring. TONY (talk) 14:11, 26 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

This is the International situation International_reaction_to_the_2008_Kosovo_declaration_of_independence, which is largely about politics not what Wikipedia does. The constitution of Kosovo has yet to be ratified by its own government and until it does it is still part of FRY. I think the schedule for ratification is 14/15 June 2008, but check WP:Kosovo for policy confirmation. Recognition or the lack of it doesn't play on Wikipedia (and boy is there fun on disputed territories), verifiability demands a ratified sovereign constitution. Until then the Autonomous Republic of Kosovo would be the likeliest candidate for the flag - I think it is still flying on WP:Kosovo. -- EhsanQ (talk) 11:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Well, the name is actually "The Clawed One", lol. I was originally registered here as "Drake Clawfang", which is the name I use all over the net, but then I got that notice about password strength, changed it and forgot it and thus had to re-register. So I used my self-appointed title as "The Clawed One". The Clawed One (talk) 16:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

[from User talk:DAGwyn] … Would you be opposed to me restoring that edit? Shenme (talk) 03:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Well, I prefer not to put "see main text" in there, but you make a reasonable case for doing so, so I won't oppose putting it back in. Thanks for the note. — DAGwyn (talk) 21:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Wow, I would have never thought of that, and you are right, people around here will always find something controversial. It has been changed :) « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 07:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

You might be interested in Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Jack_Merridew - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 02:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Sorry I didn't contact you about this, I was hoping to catch you on IRC. I'll be interested to hear your thoughts and I'm more than happy to discuss your concerns either here or privately. Ryan Postlethwaite 03:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Discuss what exactly? My opinion had been most consistent on this matter for the past three years. You did not even bother notifying me of this. What am I supposed to make out of this?

Will I be accused of disruption if I file an RFAR against him? Although the conclusion of the last one was rather solid: [4]. Will I be accused of disruption for getting stalked by him? He has developed many very cunning ways over the years...

In no way will I make any effort whatsoever to avoid him. In no way will I agree on anything concerning Davenbelle. I will not be inconvenienced the slightest bit for Davenbelle anymore. If there is anyone that will be inconvenienced will be Davenbelle. In addition the entire community will need to baby sit his current account (Jack Merridew) and all possible sockpuppets. Community seeking to unblock him should do so knowing this. Enough is enough.

-- Cat ^chi? 23:30, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Not avoiding. Know the old wive's tale about cats and babies? (sigh) Shenme (talk) 03:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

I am not the one accused of stalking someone for three years. Stop treating me like a criminal. I am required to notify all non-indef blocked parties in any arbitration case or clarification. -- Cat ^chi? 13:03, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, if a user blanks their article, you can csd it, Huggle will usually comment that the creator of the page is the one who blanked, but for some reason it didn't. So to me it just looked like someone was blanking the page. Either way, when blanking the page, the csd template should have been left up --  Darth Mike  _{(Talk • Contribs)} 05:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, that should be 13, not 11; thanks for seeing the error! I should really have spotted that :S. Ironholds 01:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks Shenme. Love the pun. I chose to hunt for that misspelling because it might affect a greater number of users (by definition.) Sort of a Zen/PERL approach. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr. Science (talk • contribs) 12:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

hey, thanks for fixing the Rachel Bilson pic, i was in the middle of fixing it, when you did! thanks! 194.221.133.211 (talk) 08:51, 18 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi Shenme. I believe there was agreement that there should be a degree of discussion regarding predictions of Muhammad in Hindu sources on the basis that the content could be reliably sourced. Looking at the section now, it's likely that it can be reduced a bit in weight, but there does seem to be some depth of discussion in the sources provided such as Sikand so the topic probably shouldn't be thrown out the window completely IMO. Regards, ITAQALLAH 13:56, 20 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Da Vinci himself had never been to the Middle East, but I included him in the "Middle Eastern writers" category because the article states that he may have had Middle Eastern descent through his slave/peasant mother. I don't usually include edit summaries for minor categorization edits, but I'll try to make sure I do from now on to avoid any possible confusion next time. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 06:37, 21 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

You're welcome. Interestingly enough, the History section was already deleted in the same circumstances^[5] then restored months later.^[6] I agree regarding the deterioration of articles. Maybe flagged revisions will be a step in the right direction to remedy it... Korg (talk) 22:21, 24 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hello. I respectfully object to your reversion of my edit in the Cal Poly article, and stand by my position on the naming of the school. As I do not want the incorrect information that you have re-inserted into the article to remain, how do I go about changing the situation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.57.143.208 (talk) 05:50, 30 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Answering over at talk. It'll take me a bit... Shenme (talk) 06:07, 30 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi Shenme, you're welcome. Perhaps, if you are in the northern hemisphere, you don't want to say goodbye to summer? See you around. Accurizer (talk) 10:49, 3 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Wow. That is incredibly strange.... I sometimes do dabs using the "Popups" tool; I guess it went crazy. Good looking out! -Seidenstud (talk) 03:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Shenme, I'd like to thank you for voting in my RFA. Thanks also for expressing your trust in me, and I hope that I live up to your expectations. Don't forget, if you have any questions (or bits of advice), please leave a message on my talk page. Thanks again, Spencer^T♦C 02:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

One of the advantages of not having many supporters at your RFA is that there are fewer people to thank at the end. Thanks for your support and your willingness to look at my complete record. I'm going to try to interpret this resounding defeat as a statement that I should choose my words more carefully in the future, and remember that every statement I make gets recorded forever, just waiting to get carefully transcribed onto my next RFA. I would go insane if I believed that it was repudiation of what I truly meant: that no editor should consciously and willfully ignore guidelines and policies, and editors that repeatedly do so should not be rewarded for or supported in doing so.

I'm sure I'll get back to full speed editing soon, because, after all, , every day, and in every way, I am getting better and better.—Kww(talk) 05:32, 9 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Ah, that was my bad with the Islam template. I think I was reviewing the page and it didn't seem to have one... I think I thought it had been removed. It's definitely better where it was, it was totally an accident and I'm glad you noticed and fixed it. Sorry about that.

Recently all I've been doing is rvv - I kind of hate it when school goes back into session because all the eejits are rarin' up to screw up Wikipedia and I don't have time to actually edit much, just spend all my time "delousing" existing articles. ناهد/(Nåhed) _speak! 05:53, 12 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

You'll notice that Gagarin's date of death is still there. Having "status: deceased" is tautologous and thus superfluous when "date of death" is just below.Catiline63 (talk) 15:25, 12 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Regarding your queries at Portal talk:Sufism I have posted my opinions there. Have a nice day. --Shahab (talk) 15:48, 21 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

I keep that list so I can show an administrator that this editor is clearly a repeat offender by keeping tabs on the specific webpages that show the differences so I can place them on the noticeboard or an admin's talk page. In otherwords, it's a form of link-storage sandbox. I only use it for incidences of vandalism that have been noted or warned by other editors, or occasionally ClueBot after a review of their edit. I only use this on blatent vandalism and it will be occasionally placed on the Administrator's Noticeboard. As a matter of fact I intend to create a template that transcludes the page to the noticeboard inside a box. The userbox is ment to be a statement of my dedication to fighting and no-tolerance approach to vandalism.--Ipatrol (talk) 01:11, 25 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi. On the few occasions where someone's noticed and informed me of a systematic error produced by my use of AWB across a number of pages, I've happily worked through them to correct it. If it's any consolation, the number of pages affected in this way are a tiny fraction of those edited without problem. To paraphrase a saying, "anti-toolism" might result in useful babies such as AWB being thrown out with the proverbial bathwater.

The AWB edits of non-encyclopedic pages involve updating links rather than altering content, so shouldn't pose a problem. The number of times a systematic error in an AWB task has unintentionally caused changes to content on these pages is so small that I can't recall the last time it occurred. I do try to apologize and learn from any inconvenience caused.

Sardanaphalus (talk) 03:20, 25 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Please come give us your opinion by voting here [7], Thanks!   NancyHeise ^talk 17:31, 29 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hello again, if I can try your patience a bit more- I am conducting now a new vote here [8] but this is on whether or not you think the sources support the article text in note 1 which follows Catholic Church in the lead sentence. Soidi has challenged that my sources do not support the text. Please come give me your opinion so I can have consensus either one way or the other so we can move forward. NancyHeise ^talk 03:36, 30 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/John McCain presidential campaign, 2008, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Wikipedia, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation. Thanks, Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 06:42, 7 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Nothing wrong with being anti-toolist; they do not make misteaks impossible to make. "To err is human, but to really screw things up requires a computer." You're right, I didn't fix much at all! On the rare occasions that I do use Huggle I take great care not to revert anything unless it's obvious, and this one fooled me. However, I have done the same without Huggle, so I know the fallibility is my own. Thanks for pointing it out.--otherlleft (talk) 12:04, 7 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Yah, I pressed the "vandal" button in this revert. I like Twinkle 'cause it makes reverting malicious vandalism easier, although I see your point about it seeming harsh. Sorry about that. My contributions list show, I think, that I'm not about reverting vandalism, though--I'm into improving articles. Maya Angelou is one of my pet projects; her book I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings will become a FA. Dr. Angelou's article is heavily vandalized, in some pretty horrendous ways, so I tend to be a little protective towards it. I use Twinkle because I'm basically a lazy person, so I apologize if my use of the vandal button ruffled your feathers (pun intended). Although please understand that if you had made the edit while logged in, I wouldn't have been so quick at pressing that particular button, since it's typically anonymous IPs that have done the most malicious vandalizing. I also changed the one instance of inconsistency in regards to Die vs Diiie. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 15:23, 7 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

I suppose it could go either way, but I meant the expansion kind ;)--Crossmr (talk) 08:49, 8 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

For your comments at Roman Catholic Church. I am sorry to inform you that we failed FAC but will again be at peer review in a few weeks to sort things out. Hopefully we will make it through next time. We will be contacting all supporters and opposers of the article when we open the next peer review to hopefully get all issues addressed and hashed out before the next FAC try. Thanks again for your time and attention to this important article. NancyHeise ^talk 01:16, 9 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

I renamed them to match the article titles, because Obama's doesn't have it in the infobox. The MOS should be consistent. Tim010987 (talk) 01:01, 10 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for supporting my successful Rfa! Hope to work with you more in the future!--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 19:36, 15 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thanks for your reply here. In case you hadn't noticed, I replied to your comment on my talk page. Cheers, --Rebroad (talk) 15:47, 20 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for dropping by and leaving your comments. It is too bad that there isn't a better way to cooperate on the same pattern. Unfortunately, I'd still have to check them all even if you had done some. I guess if I knew you were doing it and you worked forward from the last items that came up in the search that would work. Not sure what my best find is yet. Was pretty amazed at the number who use "formely". Keep up the good work. LilHelpa (talk) 11:57, 24 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Wow, that's good stuff. I generally don't think to check those, but will look for them now. Thanks. LilHelpa (talk) 01:52, 25 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for you recent note re: picture file misspellings. Yeah, I know about them, and usually catch myself, but I sure missed one there. LilHelpa (talk) 19:41, 12 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thankyou for your comments. Actually I was prevented from completing my edits by a computer crash.andycjp (talk) 04:37, 13 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

How much time is it neede to debate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gumuhua (talk • contribs) 21:48, 13 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

I see from your post User talk:Andycjp#Fourth (or fifth?) questioning of your linking/delinking that you are aware of this user's history of transgression. User:Hordaland very well summarized past efforts to reign him in, including mine, here. I see that he has told you an excuse for the activity you questioned, which seems to be the first step in a pattern of pretending innocence, flippantly dismissing the charge, and then arguing with Wikipedia policy. He has been temporarily blocked in the past, but he has always been allowed to continue his prolific renegade editing. I do not understand why; his edits range from biased to inaccurate to absurd, and administrators have acknowledged this. Do you think it would be worth going to the noticeboard once more? (At the risk of contradicting myself, I will warn you against embroiling yourself to the point of frustration. Following my initial correspondence and complaints, I found myself burnt out and drawn away from editing articles.) MagnesianPhoenix (talk) 17:29, 17 December 2008 (UTC)Reply