User talk:Mark Ironie/Archive 2

Well, in cases where there are established notability criteria like WP:BIO, I definitely think that can be cited in deletion debates and it will be pretty much accepted. If you can refer to a guideline like that and explain how the page fails to meet it, non-notability in itself should be enough to justify deletion. I don't know if perhaps you did that and I just spaced it out because I am very tired right now. Glad I could help with my comments. - AdelaMae ^{(talk - contribs)} 09:14, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good work removing all those Starwood links. It's definitely to the point of deliberate google pagerank boosting. Fact is, it's only one of a very many festivals of its type, as far as I can tell, and while (if it deserves its own article) a list of notable performers/workshop teachers might be good on its own article, I don't think every single one of them needs a link to Starwood on their page. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 06:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, Excellent work! --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 06:25, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I sort of got a recommendation from User:Addhoc that you could possibly give some advice on the Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-11-03 Starwood Festival. Mediation seems rather stalled for the moment and we have no mediator in charge. Related to this is Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mattisse as well. I'm uncertain whether we should move on to WP:RFAR or what. Since things seem to be heading to another edit war, I'd really like some input from a more experienced hand at this. We really need a help with this situation. If nothing else, we could use feedback on this situation if you have the time to do so. Also FYI, I'm also mentioning this to User:Ars Scriptor, another recommendation from Addhoc. Thanks. --Pigman (talk • contribs) 19:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I would be happy to help. I'll take some time to look things over and then I'll comment. Peace - Che Nuevara 20:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, I have been following the Starwood thing for quite some time but I have stayed out of it because I'm not sure I can be neutral. My opinion is that the festival should not be linked, internal or external, to any artist at all. My reason is this: WP:BAND does not list "appeared at a notable festival" as a criteria for notability. Therefore, appearing at Starwood does not create or add to anyone's notability. So if that is an artist's only claim to notability here, their article should be deleted. You don't see other musician's articles listing venues they have played, so I don't see why Starwood should be any different. Major tours, yes, individual festivals and venues, no.

Of course, the trick is how to go about removing the links without edit-warring. As long as it can be illustrated that the majority of editors believe the links should not be there (and that seems to be the case), they should be removed without further delay. --Ars Scriptor 21:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that WP:SPAM is a guideline, not a policy. Therefore, I wouldn't block Rosencomet unless there was a clear consensus against what he's doing, which there really isn't, yet. I guess what I would do right now is open an RfC on Talk:Starwood Festival asking the simple question, "Is it appropriate to add internal links to this article and external links to Starwood-related sites, to dozens of articles on people who have appeared at this festival?" If the consensus is no, then we can remove the links and block people who try to re-add them. As a courtesy to Salix Alba, who opened the mediation case, you should let him know what you're doing and ask if he'd consider withdrawing the case until the RfC is complete. --Ars Scriptor 01:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct on the RfC. Whereas generally only a handful of affected people visit and participate in a mediation case, an RfC is posted linked to a public location where it invites any interested people to comment. It draws in a much larger cross-section of the community, who are mostly neutral. It will be interesting to discover whether Salix Alba believes anything is being accomplished in the mediation case regarding the excessive linking. --Ars Scriptor 04:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your note on Ars Scriptor's talk page. It seems that since Rosencomet reverted you earlier, Ekajati talked some sense into him on his talk page. He has removed the external links that he restored on several articles. He may have missed some, but I don't think that was intentional. I've cleaned up one or two myself. I think there is general agreement from myself, Ekajati and Rosencomet that the external links can be removed. I think there will be no further objection as long as the internal Wikilinks are left. Might I suggest taking it up on the talk page of the article in those few cases where it is really not appropriate. I've restored some internal links that I think should be left. I have not restored others that I agree are too distantly related to matter. I think this is about to sort itself out unless you (or User:Kathryn NicDhàna) choose to unnecessarily escalate it... —Hanuman Das 02:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:CheNuevara:

Thank you for your offer to mediate the Starwood mediation (is that a proper sentence?) I would welcome you in that role. I am willing to attend in good faith. I won't throw tantrums. I'll listen to advice. I'll try to be civil at all times and will apologize if I overstep civil discourse. (Now if everyone would just agree to these things as well...) --Pigman (talk • contribs) 04:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. :) - Che Nuevara 04:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your thank you message on my talk page. Thanks for your thank you!Thaurisil 10:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. I've set up a mediation page at Talk:Starwood Festival/mediation where I've addressed the issues raised on my talk page.

Peace! - Che Nuevara 06:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whenever you put this list on a page, e.g. Talk:Starwood Festival/mediation, it never goes anywhere except "No such special page". How do I get to the page that link is pointing out? Thanks! Sincerely, Mattisse(talk) 18:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Thanks for all that you are doing. You are doing it well, in my opinion. Sincerely, Mattisse(talk) 18:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just ran across this: Musart. The links at the bottom are bad. One goes nowhere. The other pertains if anything to this: Musart Records -- which I wrote (not very well) trying to sort out the problem regarding various (legitimate) artists whose articles list this label -- none of which are in that list on Musart. What to do? Perhaps you know. Thank you. Sincerely, Mattisse(talk) 02:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see, it's the usual Starwood Festival crowd listed. I wonder if this is hopeless. Sincerely, Mattisse(talk) 02:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, now this is not funny, Mattisse. That article, as you have to know, was started by Flinders, who was confirmed by CheckUser as one of your sockpuppets. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 14:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, the article itself is the issue, not the creation of it. If you see there's a problem with the content of the article, please correct it. That would be helpful. --Pigman (talk • contribs) 19:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is it a browser thing? I use Firefox. The last time you used that link it didn't work for me either. I'm not technical and do not understand these things! Is it just me? Sincerely, Mattisse(talk) 02:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it does now. Wow, what an eye full! Thanks. Sincerely, Mattisse(talk) 02:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heya. Thanks for your efforts in countervandalism. Always nice to see another wikipedian working hard on the matter. Look out for popups though, as they can occasionally lead to reverting to the wrong version (Common dolphin for example). Cheers! --Brad Beattie (talk) 03:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I deleted the external links from the article was because they did not seem connected to the Musart described in the article. One of those links referred to a Mexican record company founded in 1948 and the other was broken but a little fiddling found it referred to the same company. This seemed incorrect for an event sponsored by a group based in Ohio and a musician based in Ann Arbor, MI. Was I wrong? If you have different supporting information, please add it to the page. I'm acting on the information available to me. While I've heard of the rest of ACE's projects, I'm not familiar with this one. --Pigman (talk • contribs) 18:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

It hardly matters. The whole article should be re-done. The sole artist in the list that actually HAS worked with Musart is Dennis Chernin. The only connection ACE has with Musart (besides booking its founder, Muruga Booker, and his band Global Village) was a co-sponsored event called the SpiritDrum Festival, a tribute to the passing of Babatunde Olatunji held in 2002 at the same site Starwood takes place. The two groups also plan to release a CD (and maybe a DVD) from that event one day. Musart is an interesting company which, among other things, released a CD called Cosmic Rhythm Vibrations, re-released by Chesky Records recently as Circle of Drums, featuring Muruga Booker, Babatunde Olatunji, and Sikiru Adepoju. I believe it has ties to Merl Saunders, George Clinton, Jai Uttal and Krishna Das. Rosencomet 19:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a Musart link, for what it's worth: [1] Rosencomet 20:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your recent application to use AutoWikiBrowser. I have approved your request and you should now be able to use the AWB application. Be sure to check every edit before you save it, and don't forget to check out the AWB Guide. You can get any help you need over on the AWB talk page. Feel free to contact me with any questions, Alphachimp 03:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is rather strange. If you run into this problem again, please send me an email or leave another note on my talk page and we can adjust the block parameters. Take care, Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link on Musart. Perhaps you didn't notice that I had added that one as an external link in the article the same day I removed the other external links. Thanks again for your suggestion and input. --Pigman (talk • contribs) 20:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

No, but I saw it since then. I just changed the text to at least be an accurate stub. I really don't care what happens to it, but if anyone wants to add to it, at least they'll be adding to something that isn't total fiction. I wish I had a list of their albums; maybe I could find them on Muruga's webpage. Ain't much on the Musart one. Rosencomet 20:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{pinfo4}} —Hanuman Das 06:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(warning template [2] removed). User:Rosencomet has claimed to be the executive director of ACE.[3]. Rosencomet also stated that Jeff Rosenbaum is exec director [4]. --BostonMA ^talk 15:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, a heads up [5] [6]. --BostonMA ^talk 15:36, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but Rosencomet has not volutarily revealed his name on Wikipedia. There are two directors of ACE, and speculating about who precisely Rosencomet is is a clear violation of policy. Do not remove valid warnings on other people's talk pages. —Hanuman Das 16:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rosencomet has said he is *the* executive director of ACE here and here. When he wrote his auto-biographical entry Jeff Rosenbaum, he edited it here to state that "Joseph Rosenberg is Co-Director" - note that this is different than "executive director". For whatever reason you took it upon yourself to remove all the tags without consensus here. Why? The template is inappropriate and I have removed it. - WeniWidiWiki 19:47, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Starwood/ACE/Winterstar links provided by User:Rosencomet himself click through to this, wherein Rosenbaum is described by the exact same words with which Rosencomet has repeatedly described himself. --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 19:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not interested. As you know, I withdrew from the latest round of mediation. I've removed my name from your arbitration request. I have no further interest in the Starwood links. —Hanuman Das 22:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because I have withdrawn from the debate, it is not bad faith or a conflict of interest to attempt to report what I consider to be policy violation. If you include my name in the arbitration, I will simply fold up and leave Wikipedia like Ars Scriptor. Get your satisfaction somewhere else. —Hanuman Das 23:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have re-added Hanuman Das based on his participation at Talk:Starwood_Festival#Request_for_Comment:_Inserting_references_to_Starwood_Festival_in_articles and allegations made against him at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-11-03 Starwood Festival. You should list any users whose conduct you believe has been disruptive or inappropriate or who have been important in either adding or removing the links. Thatcher131 23:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain this? I feel that we were having a perfectly reasonable, rational discussion on the mediation page, and we were slowly making our way towards some sort of middle ground. A reasonable compromise was just proposed. I have not seen any evidence of reprehensible behavior since the most recent mediation round began, although to be honest I have been a little less active than usual. What brought about this seemingly sudden decision? - Che Nuevara 00:40, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies: I didn't mean to sound like I was indicting you. I was surprised, not offended. I'm honestly struggling a little to keep up here because of real-world things, so I wanted to make sure I hadn't missed something. Thanks for the explanation. - Che Nuevara 02:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you are going to use Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mattisse, the version before Hanuman Das removed himself is the most accurate. I believe that is the second to last version. The version now is not representative of the original. Thank you. Sincerely, Mattisse 00:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With Hanuman Das talk pages gone, I have no involvement in the case and request to withdraw. He was the person who caused me grief (along with 999 who is on a long wikibreak), not Rosencomet. Thank you. Sincerely, Mattisse 01:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please let me know where this arbitration page is. I want to withdraw. Sincerely, Mattisse 01:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have started an aritration from Rosencomet's talk page. I believe this is once again a bad faith effort to bypass mediation simply b/c it wasn't going the way you wanted. I note that you didn't bother to notify me, though I am listed in the arbitration. Trying to bias the arbitration in your favor? Ekajati (yakity-yak) 03:31, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the apology. I must say that I think this action is misguided and unnecessary. I'l leave it at that as I've already put the rest in my statement in the RFaR. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 04:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

You have put yourself as interested in helping out at WikiProject on user warnings. We are now at a stage where we are creating the new templates and are wondering if you are still interested? If so please visit the overview page and choose a warning type you wish to work on. There is a base template available here, which you can copy and use to get you started. Have a look through the redirects and see what old templates are affected and incorporate them into the the new system. Anyway, any questions please don't hesitate to give me a shout. Regards Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 08:57, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you own, host, or otherwise administrate paganachd.com? Frater Xyzzy 23:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm part owner of the domain paganachd.com which hosts The CR FAQ. I'm also altering your question to remove the external link to avoid excess appearances of the link on Wikipedia. --Pigman (talk • contribs) 00:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, Paul, I see you're a linkspammer too. Just getting started, I expect. Hilarious. Pot. Kettle. Black. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 01:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fascinating. --Pigman (talk • contribs) 02:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It appears as though the links appear in only six articles.

• Polytheistic reconstructionism
• Celtic Reconstructionist Paganism
• Beltane
• Imbolc
• Lughnasadh
• Samhain

Also, the website did not appear to me to be commercial, although I do admit that I did not look at every page. Please correct me if either I am wrong about this, or about the number of articles with links. --BostonMA ^talk 15:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that they are looking forward to selling their forthcoming book. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 15:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sigh The print/dead tree version of the book is not out yet and is a project conceived after the web version went live in June, 2006. It's intended mostly as a convenience to libraries and people needing a permanent reference copy. It's will be print-on-demand so there is no excess stock to get rid of or a certain number needed to be sold to make back the "investment". All profits from the sale of the book will be going to a specific and well-established Gaelic-language preservation group who's name escapes me at the moment but is totally unconnected and independent of the writers. --Pigman (talk • contribs) 18:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The organization chosen by the FAQ collective is An Comunn Gaidhealach, Ameireaga http://www.acgamerica.org/ We have not yet put their name on the website, however, as it didn't seem appropriate to list them by name until the book is actually out and they have received money from the sales. The printer we are planning on using, lulu.com, has an arrangement whereby all money from the sales are sent directly to our chosen charity. None of the authors will make a dime. I am a dues-paying member of ACGA, which enables me to get the newsletter and participate on their message board, but I otherwise have no connection to the organization and I hold no position in ACGA. --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 19:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, got your note. Just trying to follow WP:CAT. Since Category:Religion in Ireland is a subcategory of Category:Irish culture it's redundant to put it in both categories. No problem moving it up if that is a better solution, but usually an article should not be included on more than one level in the same branch of the category tree. Usually the narrowest category is the correct place.... HTH. Jefferson Anderson 16:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that makes sense to me. I usually just keep the narrower category unless I find some reason to keep the wider one... Jefferson Anderson 23:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I just noticed that Category:Neopagan holidays wasn't a subcategory of Category:Neopaganism - that's fixed now. :-) Jefferson Anderson 23:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could help with a couple categorization questions that I'm not sure what to do with. Take a look at Category:Paganism. I have a question about two subcategories. First, I don't think that Category:Idolatry belongs here at all, being a concept of Abrahamic religions. Second, it seems to be that Category:Pagan festivals should really be called Category:Neopagan festivals and moved down under Category:Neopaganism. What do you think? Jefferson Anderson 17:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I did, look one section up. :-) Jefferson Anderson 21:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I don't doubt that, Paul. I just don't see how that's any different from ACE, which is also not-for-profit. If that's important in your case, surely it's important in his case too, eh? Ekajati (yakity-yak) 14:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'm glad you agree about those two categories. I took Category:Idolatry out of Category:Paganism. I also created Category:Neopagan festivals and moved the Neopagan festivals to it. There were a couple that didn't apply, so I also left Category:Pagan festivals for those and made Neopagan festivals a subcat of that to make it easier to navigate. Jefferson Anderson 23:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Starwood. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Starwood/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Starwood/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Srikeit 00:59, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching those typos. They were pretty heinous and my only excuse is that I wrote that article very quickly. Thanks again. -FateSmiled&DestinyLaughed 05:45, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for having requested an editor review. A month has passed since it has been posted there, and it has been archived. You can find it at Wikipedia:Editor review/Mark Ironie/Archive 2, where you may read last minute additions. We would really appreciate your help in reviewing a random editor. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 23:27, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wish you would find this out for me. I have tried everything. Further, there is a User:LiftWaffen that is called my sockpuppet but the template was applied by Hanuman Das. Recently an article called What Witches Do turned up that was created by LiftWaffen. User:Rosencomet and User:Ekajati discussed it but since they liked the article, they even created a Category for it (Wicca Books, I think). I need to know who exactly was an actual sockpuppet of mine. I am so surprised no one is concerned about real users who could be hurt by this, like Timmy12 and perhaps LiftWaffen. Sincerely, Mattisse 17:54, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just came across this. I don't know where you got the idea that I "liked" the article, or that I had anything to do with the creation of a category (something I have no idea how to do, and never discussed with Ekajati or anyone else). And what in the world does this sentence mean?: "I need to know who exactly was an actual sockpuppet of mine." Rosencomet 17:53, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• September 3 - sockpuppet tag put on my page by User:Netsnipe
• September 3 - removed by User:Rdsmith4 [7]
• September 3 - replaced by User:Hanuman Das [8]
• September 3 - I remove it [9]
• September 3 - replaced by User:Salix alba [10]
• September 3 - I remove it [11]
• September 3 - my page protected by User:DragonflySixtyseven [12]
• September 10 - my page unprotected by User:Netsnipe [13]
• September 10 - sockpuppet tag replaced by User:Hanuman Das [14]
• October 18 - I notice for first time that tag is there and remove it [15]
• October 18 - replaced by User:Ekajati [16]
  • I remove it [17]
  • Ekajati replaces it [18]
  • I remove it [19]
  • Ekajati reverts page to prior sockpuppet tag by Netsnipe [20]
  • I remove it again (this time the revert reveal bookmarks I had removed for the sake of privacy [21]
  • It is replaced by User:Nishkid64 [22]
  • I remove it [23]
  • It is replaced by User:Ryulong [24]
  • I remove it [25]
  • Replaced by User:Nishkid64 [26]
  • Then User:Nishkid64 protects page [27]

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive141#Puppetmaster Mattisse repeatedly removing puppetmaster tag filed by User:Ekajati where it is decided I can remove it.
• I remove it [28]

At the time I did not know that anyone can put a sockpuppet tag on your user page and you are not allowed to remove it. Sincerely, Mattisse 19:23, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

by User:Mackensen [29] and revised August 18 by User:ADNghiem501 [30] (who apparently just changed the catagory name slightly}. I would be forever beholden if you would give me reality over this issue. Sincerely, Mattisse 19:42, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What I am aware of:

1. Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Listerin Filed July 26
2. Wikipedia talk:Requests for checkuser/Case/Listerin
3. Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Mattisse filed September 6
4. Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Mattisse (2nd) filed September 6
5. Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Mattisse (3rd)- filed September 21
6. Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Mattisse filed October 25

Sincerely, Mattisse 19:51, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And Sockpuppet User:Dattat, about whom User:Ekajati is entering evidence right now at the Starwood Arbitration, has been blocked as a sockpuppet of Shravak: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Shravak. Sincerely, Mattisse 20:09, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It gets stranger and stranger. It was User:999 that filed the sockpuppet accusations against User:Dattat that got Dattat blocked as a sock of Shravak. But if you look at the supporting edits, they seem to involve User:Hanuman Das as much as 999.

As Carlton said in the RFC/Mattisse: User:Rosencomet should not fool himself in believing that whatever Matisse's actions, harassment and blocking of Matisse does NOT absolve him or her of his or her own actions. What is going on? Am I that important? I've done more than 10,000 article edits and I would say probably less than 200 or so have anything to do with neopaganism. I don't get it. Sincerely, Mattisse 21:59, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are right about the diversion tactics, but still there is something strange going on. Check this out from him to Che re me [31] - he accomplished something some way that was never recorded. Sincerely, Mattisse 00:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the RFC/Mattisse, only 999 certified it. Although Geo signed as certifying he did not provide any diffs (since he signed it after he was removed as mediator) and without the provision of diffs he was not eligable to certify. (I believe a person has to provide diffs of trying to solve dispute to be even eligible to certify.) Hanuman Das removed his diffs and his certification when he decided to close it. Ekajaki provided diffs but refused to certify when asked. Rosencomet endorsed only and he provided no diffs. Sincerely, Mattisse 20:54, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

---

Don't know if any of these will help you:

• stirring up trouble
• [32]Talk page
• [33]
• August 26 Netsnipe to 999 on Phillip Farber - blatant ad hominem , 2006[34]
• November 29 a stalking day for 999[35] on Andrew Cohen
• August 21 999 files first ANI (comment farther down from Netsnipe) [36]
• August 21, 2006 Your're starting to sound uncivil Mattisse to 999 [37]
• Auguest 21, 2006 Just source your articles appropriately - Mattisse to 999 [38]
• August 21 999 starts to sound uncivil[39]
• August 21 To Netsnipe [40]

• Checkuser 999 and Synergetic Maggot [41]-999 & SynergeticMaggot ended July 31, 2006

---

Hanuman Das

• [42] 6:09 Hanuman Das tells me to stick a razor up my (body part) and is blocked.

999 (known to harass me and others on behalf of Hanuman Das) who has not had anything to do with these articles before except perhaps the last AdelaMae ones

• [43] 17:28 - Peggy Sue - I had just written Jerry Allison which related to that article & had a better reference.
• [44] 17:52 Razor
• [45] 17:53 - Tom Collier
• [46] 17:57 Sivasamudram
• [47] 17:58 - Ruthless Rap Assassins
• [48] 17:59 - The Coasters
• [49] 18:29 - Peggy Sue
• [50] 18:23 editor of Peggy Sue
• [51] 18:31 - Sivasamudram
• [52] 18:37 - Shivanasamudra
• [53] 18:37 - Sivasamudram Falls
• [54] 18:52 - editor of Peggy Sue
• [55] 1853 - editor of Peggy Sue
• [56] 22:09 re (→Re:Selena Fox & Phyllis Curott) to User talk:AdelaMae
• [57] - same as above but different diff numbers
• [58] 22:23 999 tells User Shane 1 why Hanuman Das is so pissed off at me

_____

• 999 calls Timmy12 Mattisse when he is a newbie.[59]
• Look on Timmy12's pages for more -- he sort of messed up the pages. I don't thin he knew what was happeing.

___

Feel free to disregard, as you have been doing a huge job. I have more diffs on HD -- one day when he stalked me to 39 articles. But don't wear yourself out, as this stuff can drive you nuts. Sincerely, Mattisse 03:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. When you're using AWB, please be careful not to leave misleading edit summaries such as here. Speedy Deletion is kind of an important part of the edit there. :) Thanks. - crz crztalk 01:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support in the RfA on my behalf. It is an honor to have received your expression of confidence. To be chosen as an administrator requires a high level of confidence by a broad section of the community. Although I received a great deal of support, at this time I do not hold the level of confidence required, and the RfA did not pass. It is my wish that I will continue to deserve your confidence. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 16:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you are an actual adult. (I have been suspecting something like that.) Thank you for being clear headed. Like Salix alba, you seem to be a real human being -- he is a friend of mine for no reason other than that he is good. I copyedit also, like you, and have writing professionally. But I can't seem to find a place as you have here.

Thank you for actually investigating the evidence (which very few do). And thank you for for your user page. Sincerely, Mattisse 04:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that you are a deeply human person and may have a splitting headache as I do right now. I don't have all your years of online experience, having only in this centery had a computer capable of going on the internet. I discovered Wikipedia this year. It's an experience and I will continue to read your page! (My pet peeve is the same as yours, as I would never consider adding unsourced material to an article.) Is it measurably better to formally be part of the League of Copyeditors do you think? Thank your for your clarity and humanity. Sincerely, Mattisse 00:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I upgraded Firefox to 1.5.0.9 but still have the same problem with the special links. Maybe it's my computer (WinMe OS still). I know my computer crashes if I try any of those tools Wikipedia offers, like monobook.js. Thanks, Mattisse 00:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate it if you would direct conversation with another user to that user's talk page rather than mine. If necessary, you could copy the comment from my talk page in your discussion on their talk page. While your alteration/changes to Mattisse's comment on my talk page did not substantially change the meaning of the comment, I still consider it highly unethical to do so without explicit explanation. Please do not do this. --Pigman^{talk • contribs} 18:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize. But COME ON! I did not alter the meaning of ANYTHING, substantially or trivially. I only made the names into links so I could go right to the pages and find out what comments Ekajati and I did or did not make about What Witches Do. This is the kind of thing that convinces me you have NEVER assumed good faith regarding me. You KNOW I was not attempting anything unethical or trying to alter text to obscure the truth in any way, yet you have to make a big thing about it with a title that accuses me of just that! Now I'm sure you'll refer to this at some point and say "On January 7th Rosencomet perpetrated the unethical practice of altering another user's comments" when you KNOW that's not what was intended or occured. Your contact with me and judgement of everything I do is replete with such anger, insult and accusation. It's no wonder I have reacted by being defensive. Rosencomet 20:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Rosencomet. Assuming it was not done with intent to deceive, harass etc., there is nothing unethical about correcting spelling mistakes or in this case, making Wikilinks in comments made by others. Of course it is fine to politely request that he not make such edits, but there is nothing unethical. --BostonMA ^talk 20:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Crossposted from BostonMA talk page) Your point is a valid one. I've altered my comment and apologized to Rosencomet for my excessive response. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. I'm afraid this whole affair has contributed to a certain edginess and snappish quality to some of my interactions. I'm not proud of it but at least I seem to recognize my overreactions when they are pointed out to me. The attitude I displayed was is neither helpful nor conducive to resolving disagreements. Thank you again. --Pigman^{talk • contribs} 22:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Behavior that is unacceptable:

Don't edit others' comments: Refrain from editing others' comments without their permission (with the exception of prohibited material such as libel and personal details). It is not necessary to bring talk pages to publishing standards, so there is no need to correct typing errors, grammar, etc. It tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Never edit someone's words to change their meaning.

Though Rosencomet's edit to Matisse's words did not change her meaning, it was inappropriate, especially given the tensions and harassment Matisse has endured. Rosencomet, please respect Wikipedia guidelines and do not alter talk page comments by other users. Thank you. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 04:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree 100% with the post of Kathryn NicDhàna above. I felt violated by Rosencomet's actions as he has not treated me as a human being during any of this. He has never AGF with me. Rosencomet posted an aggressive and demeaning message on my page subsequently that was very upsetting to me as I have been friendly and civil to him. In fact, I apologised to him on December 21, at Ekajati's suggestion, and he never bothered to acknowledge it as he has never responded to any friendly comment I have made to him.

I feel very badly that Pigman, who is taking the heat here for trying to keep the arbitration on track when others seem to be attempting to derail it, felt he had to apologise to Rosencomet for showing kindness and acting to protect me from being once again being made a joke of by Rosencoment who has never shown that he considers me a real person or that he needs to accord me common courtesy. This is a very difficult, extremely stressful and troubling situation. Thank you, Paul, so very much. Sincerely, Mattisse 12:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He has posted a second message despite my request that he not do so. Is there a way I can get him to stop? Sincerely, Mattisse 17:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need to apologise. The very best way to move arbitration along is to gather a lot of evidence, propose things at the workshop and discuss it on the talkpages. It's important to not expect the ArbCom to do its own investigating and passively wait for results. Jkelly 21:13, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the typos, I really can't post on the fly, but did that to forestall the AfD discussion for now, as it is a major topic in climate change and the biological sciences. KP Botany 15:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"I'd suggest seeing about lowering the level of jargon, simplifying the language, and wikifying it a bit more, particularly the word 'enzymes'." I agree. I can't write on the fly, especially science for the masses. The AfD board is tough though, people nominate things for the strangest reasons. It would never occur to me to nominate something for deletion in a topic I knew nothing about, yet it happens all the time, an article is nominated because someone never heard of it. When I do random article sweeps, half the articles are stuff I never even imagined, much less heard of--how could I possibly know it qualifies to be deleted? I'll put up brief articles within the next few days, then use that one as a redirect. KP Botany 22:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...is simply a variant of usable (it's listed as such here), and not a misspelling, so I'm not sure why you changed that in Open Circle Fighting Method. The article itself remains awful, of course, and to be honest I'd forgotten about it (I was going to try to clean it up a bit, but gave up!), but still. Loganberry (Talk) 02:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Paul-

It was not an experiment. It "The Gary Coleman" is a valid wrestling strike and was added to in the correct section of the page.

Please let me know if you would like to discuss this further.

Thanks!

You might like to check out the wikiproject Wikipedia:Schools and the guideline WP:LOCAL - WP:Local states ...it is better to mention the subject under the article for its parent locality...

As to the Families question - if they are unsourced put them up for deletion. If it causes no rucus so be it. If there are sources, an AfD will flush them out! HTH Garrie 03:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

However - if you take a school to AfD - good luck, I bet big-time you are simply hounded with Don't delete, improve it - as though it's the reader's responsibility to verify content, not the original editors.

Apparently, all schools (and railway stations) are notable (once they get to AfD at least)- I don't really know why.Garrie 05:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am presently contacting all parties to confirm voluntary participating in the MedCab Case. If you wish to participate in this voluntary, informal mediation please return to the mediation page, edit the discussion section, state that you wish to proceed with my mediation and sign your name. Alan.ca 21:55, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problems with the prod, sir. I have added what data I easily found, and am still not entirely sure why I created the article in the first place. He still may not really qualify as notable, so I haven't myself removed the prod. If you think that what data I was able to find justifies keeping the page, feel free to remove it though. Badbilltucker 18:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments and links. Phew - lots of stuff to read. But very useful. A picture is starting to emerge. Of course, nobody is clean. We all get a bit grubby editing Wiki. Interesting stuff. SilkTork 01:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, Please take a look here. I am intrested in working in this article a like to improve it to FA level. If you can Please take time to help me. Is this article at present fit to be nominate to a Featured article? If not please suggest the ways to improve. I found you in the league of Copy editors and so requested you. Please help. Thanks - _Д=|Θ|=_{Д Paul}| 22:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The case was originally filed based on the actions of editors involved in the Starwood links issue. A second issue involving a dispute at Celtic Reconstructionist Paganism was added in the evidence phase in the belief that it was a continuation of the same alleged harassment. However, the two cases have very little overlap. Arbitrator Fred Bauder [60] has decided to consider only the Starwood matter at this time. I have trimmed the workshop page to remove material related to the Celtic Reconstructionist Paganism matter. That matter may be placed before the arbitration committee at any time by filing a separate request for arbitration. If the case is accepted, evidence and analysis may be copied from the page history and used there. Thank you. For the arbitration committee, Thatcher131 01:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thatcher131, I'm not responding on your talk page because it would probably be seen as intrusive and/or inappropriate in the midst of an active arbitration which I'm party to but I hope you'll see these words. Thank you for your work on this case. There has been a lot of links and words to go through in it and you've done an admirable job of sorting through and getting to the central issues. Once things got going with your recent sifting and Fred Bauder's work, I'm amazed at how quickly the rather dense clutter and more essential issues have been separated out. So I'm just offering a heartfelt thank you. --Pigman^{talk • contribs} 02:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Thatcher131 13:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Paul Pigman, I don't think I noticed until just a few moments ago that you spammed one of my pages with a barnstar. A very belated thank-you. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 23:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a sockpuppet. Keep an eye on my IP address, it is the only one I'll log in with. If you have comments for me on my edits or discussions, please leave them on the talk page of their respective articles. Thanks.Chai Walla 02:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I read your note, but there is nothing to get. I looked at your discussion page and caught a glimpse of what might have stirred your concern, but you are barking in the wrong direction. I have never seen your username prior to finding it attached to an inaccurate tag on my userpage. Perhaps you should enjoy a soothing cup of chai?Chai Walla 06:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paul, no problem. The instructions for filing a sockpuppetry case are awful, the procedure is hideous, and it results in many (understandable) mistakes. In case you don't know, admins aren't paying much attention to the WP:SSP page these days, and if the matter is urgent, you might want to post at WP:ANI. Of course, if the suspected accounts have been involved in any arbitration cases, you might want to post to the appropriate ARBCOM board. The sockpuppetry report may go for a long time without a response, although I've noticed that some of the recent cases have been dealt with. I would try to help more, but I'm not an admin, therefore my ability to deal with sockpuppets is limited. --Akhilleus (talk) 06:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any point in taking this to arbitration since you have removed the links. In fact, I am at fault for not responding quickly to withdraw the Mediation request when you did that. I hope you will not continue to hold this against me. Sincerely, Jefferson Anderson 16:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. I think that it is hard to argue that there hasn't been something of a fetishising of the impenetrable in the humanities in the last thirty years so, but, nevertheless, a couple of things occur to me when thinking about it. One is that writing for a general audience is, well, sometimes kind of boring. The more we, and I mean we as a society more than anything else, prize and reward specialisation, the harder it gets for those specialists to bring people, including experts in other fields, up to speed to the point where we can discuss something that's actually engaging. If I'm going to sit down and invest the time in writing, there needs to be something fun, or even educational, in it. The other thing is that it's often challenging to simplify something without getting it wrong. The last edition I saw of the Cambridge Encyclopedia of Philosophy had a simple, very readable discussion of Pascal's Wager, but the naive reader would go away without any idea that Pascal had anticipated the obvious objections that naive reader would immediately come up with after reading that article, and there was no mention whatsoever of why it would still be worth discussing. It was simplified to the point where it was misleading.

In any case, I, obviously, like this project a lot, and enjoy contributing. Some people have read those comments and come away with the idea that I'm some sort of "Wikipedia critic"(TM) frustrated and pessimistic about what we're doing here. I'm glad that you, and others, picked up on the spirit in which it was written. Jkelly 00:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your clean up of the Reepham page!

Much appreciated :) Reverieuk 14:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear League member,

We've started a participation drive for the remainder of February. If you can, please help clear the backlog by adopting the following goals each week:

• Select an article to copy-edit from the backlog. After your copy-edit, list the article in the articles ready for final proofread section.
• Select a different article to proofread from the articles ready for final proofread section.

Thanks for your help! BuddingJournalist 08:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]