DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.

This archive page covers approximately the dates between 2005-12-28 and 2006-05-04.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are replying to if necessary.

---

Watch out for that guy, he's a troll. Nbettencourt 12:16, 29 April 2006 (UTC) reply

thanks HTA 14:33, 4 April 2006 (UTC) reply

What about my edit on the Br. Rice High School in Chicago page was not factual? MrCrusader

Thank you for teaching me a lesson. Much appreciated. 24.80.196.187 06:48, 11 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Roughly states the facts, undisputed facts, valid info, all are terms meant to be disputed, what is not disputed is the following:

1. We have to respect the fact that she was born in calif. and hence she is an American by birth, this doesn't discredit her or the article in anyway,

2. Wikipedia states that Arab Americans descend from a heritage that represents common linguistic, cultural, and political traditions. Arab Americans have a common linguistic background, and hence she is not an Arab American, otherwise we have to change the linked pages

3. Yeslim is the half brother of OBN and hence she is the half-nience

4. her not accepting her fathers wish for arranged marraige shall be linked to some undisputed article or hers and not of the said tradition itself

ok, for one I have just got out of that asylum at uncyclopedia which is an inviolable place for screw jobs , and two my spelling is bad because I have been at wikicities chat for ever, don't blame people before you even know them or youll be in an assumpsit. - Cao An Min 16:57, 28 December 2005 (UTC) reply

In the interests of assuming good faith, then, I'll ask you to review Wikipedia:Tutorial.

Spelling should always be right, so if you have a problem with that, try using a site like Dictionary.com to check your spelling, or paste your work into MS word or a similar word processing program that will check your spelling for you.

This is a serious academic forum here. A scholarly aim should be evident in your edits and comments, no matter what other aspects of your personality there are. Unlike Uncyclopedia, this is not an "anything goes" forum. We're serious about being fair, accurate, and unbiased about everything we do here. If you have any further questions about editing here, please feel free to ask me or a real admin. ;-) - CobaltBlueTony 22:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Thank you for all your help p.s I do use the tilde feature -- Cao An Min 22:14, 28 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Thank you for your help that was exactly what I was looking for Whopper 21:12, 29 December 2005 (UTC) reply

boo hoo why are you irritated with me -- Cao An Min 22:55, 28 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Well, no signing your comments again, for one... ;-) But seriously, it is quite likely what you yourself said: you are conducting yourself just as you did on Uncyclopedia, which is precisely not what we do here. Are you interested in helping write serious encyclopedia articles? If so, then stick around and learn from the older editors and admin. I'm only here les than two years myself. - CobaltBlueTony 06:07, 29 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Do you know what Mendels theory is? Whopper 20:55, 29 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Perhaps you are looking for Mendelian inheritance? - CobaltBlueTony 21:08, 29 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Although this is not required, it's encourged for you to substitute user talk templates, just add subst before the template, for example, instead of {{welcomeip}}, use {{subst:welcomeip}}-- Ichiro 18:55, 30 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Thanks for that tip! - CobaltBlueTony 19:04, 30 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Heah Tony! Thanks for the welcome! I have first seen you at Wafah Dufour, right? It seems that guy is still at it. Cyberevil 11:19, 31 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Hello Tony, I found this http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=814296&page=1 It should suffice to substantiate the claim that Dufour never met him. What do you think? Cyberevil 16:08, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the heads up, but luckily I was at my watchlist when the anon reworded again, and managed to revert it. I'm not sure if it's just one person doing this, or if everyone wants to add their own account on how the Palpatine/Yoda fight transpired, but it's getting a little annoying, especially when the edits exhibit poor grammar, spelling, POV, etc. Oh well, hopefully they'll get tired of it soon. Nufy8 05:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

I'm not entirely sure, but it might have something to do with my automatic rollback as an admin. Unless you're an admin, then in that case, I have no clue.

SRV... Guess which one can be "listened" to? -- uberpenguin 15:03, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Perhaps you miss the point. What Cyberevil did was that he edited out my remark on the status on the edition of the collected works of Paul Erdos as irrelevant (!) and then left the following message on my page

"Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. Cyberevil 12:42, 31 December 2005 (UTC)" reply

Well, if my remarks are useless, damaging, meaningless, then I should write my info on mathematics, especially Hungarian mathematics in the Sandbox, dont you thnik so? 132.68.13.226 06:38, 3 January 2006 (UTC) reply

No, it is not that your remarks were useless, but mentioning a DVD compilation of his works should be included at a proper place in his biography - it was not the information per se you introduced. If it appeared as if I tried to bite your head off, as Tony said, I'm sorry. I put your contribution at a better place in Paul Erdos biography, alright? Cyberevil 01:48, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply

I tweaked the grammar a bit. Don't hate me. ;-) - CobaltBlueTony 05:36, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply

How dare you! ;) Cyberevil 16:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Pardon me for asking, but do you think I would be a good admin? Whopper 19:26, 8 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Based on your newness and what you did on my user page and talk page, perhaps not. I think you need to learn more Wiki etiquette and editing techniques and style. Take your time and learn as much as you can, and in time, you will gain yor adminship, maybe even by recommendation and not a request of your own. - CobaltBlueTony 05:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

things move faster if you're not logged in. less 'spyware' tailing you around. - george

There's no spyware associated with Wikipedia. Read " Wikipedia:Why_create_an_account?" - CobaltBlueTony 14:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Please be more careful labeling people as vandals. Yes, I by accident added some random mispelling, but you apparently forgot to check both the link I provided or who I am. Assume good faith, please.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Cobaltbluetony and Central, I am trying to follow some of the suggestions on Wikipedia:Civility especially those under the subsection on Rephrasing disputants comments. My intent is to keep the tone civil and on topic on the Mediation page. The notes that remain in the Mediation text points the users to deleted text, so if they still want to read it, they can go to the history.

I do not favor, nor does the Mediation Cabal, admonitions, so I try to avoid those.

I am taking a little liberty here, since it is mediation, albeit informal. Your protest is so noted.

I do not have the authority, not do I want the authority, to "zap" history. It is all still there.

Thanks,

SteveMc 18:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply

---

Cobaltbluetony, I appreciate the approach that you take on resolving disputes. Your edit are concise and depersonalized. Many thanks for your feedback, SteveMc 18:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Tony, I am the Cabalist working on "tired light" and would welcome your input there! I have not had much time to work on it since I have spend so much time on the JW Armageddon resolution. Please help if you are interested! The issue on "tired light" is partly a matter of quality of references, but since I have not had time to look into it much, I am not sure of the depth of the dispute. Have a look at the stated positions on the Cabal page. If you are still interested, let me know. Thanks, clarified SteveMc 16:36, 15 January 2006 (UTC) original post: SteveMc 20:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply

I intend to look in on this today. Regards, CobaltBlueTony 17:31, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Thanks, SteveMc 16:36, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply

My talk page is private enough.

Sorry, but from my exprience.

I want to talk with you privately.

Really means!

I want to brow beat you privately.

No Offence intended. -- Greyfox 22:22, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Grey, I think you need new experiences. I want to understand where you are coming from, because there is alot of emotion behind your discussions and edits that I just don't understand. I get the impression that somewhere along the line you did not feel the warmth of your brothers; something bad happened, perhaps. What I want to say isn't WT doctrine, nor apostate ideas. It isn't about theology or semantics, or this series of articles. There is a disconnect between individuals in your situation and individuals in mine. So I just want to talk, individual to individual. I do not want to say anything where people who don't appreciate it, nor care who I am or you are as an individual, who have their own agendas, can read and pry. - CobaltBlueTony 01:05, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Please don't be offended if I take it off. I corrected one broken link on the article, but I do not wish to be associated with Jehovah's Witnesses or religion in any form. Andymc 18:16, 17 January 2006 (UTC) reply

I have requested arbitration regarding Tommstein. You can find the request here ( Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Tommstein). Duffer 11:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Accusations of sockpuppetry again plague the editors of Jehovah's Witnesses articles, namely, the sudden appearance of Rockumsockum, directly into the RfA against Tommstein. This is the LAST thing we need. I presume to speak only for myself, but I would not doubt if my fellow editors agreed on the point that no one wants the support of a sockpuppet. I am uncertain as to the proper procedure, but if would not mind advising on this, I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks! - CobaltBlueTony 03:11, 24 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Dear Cobaltbluetony: I regret that I have frankly had enough of this Jehovah's Witness dispute, and I don't really have any further willingness or inclination to get involved further in this. If you post a synopsis of the issue at Wikipedia:Administrators' Noticeboard/Incidents another Wikipedia administrator will assist you. I am incredibly sorry. Best regards, -- NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 21:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Hello,

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Mackensen (talk) 03:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Tony, thanks for the update. I'm glad to hear that "life here is better" now. That is good news. -- DannyMuse 15:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC) reply

The arbitration committee has reached a final decision in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tommstein case. Raul654 13:31, 26 February 2006 (UTC) reply

You were kind enough to welcome me (not so long ago). Can you help me on how best to deal with unjustified (and erroneous) entries? See the Architects Registration Board and User talk:Goodison. Incidentally, good interventions from User:Last Malthusian. Salisian 12:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC) reply

I have decided to quit editing on wikipedia for good. I just came to apolagize for my irrelevant behavior. Moreover, I'm sorry... Cao An Min 02:43, 4 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Well you sought me to try one more time, but the first thing to do is create my userpage, the second thing is to be a bit nicer to other users. Lastly, I'm glad that you helped me through my 18-hour-a-day-work-period. Even though I was working for 18 hours, that was no excuse for my behavior. I dont hope to become an admin amymore, but would just be glad if someone would help me at all. But you had risen to the ranks, and decided to help me, and I thank you for that. Cao An Min 13:35, 4 March 2006 (UTC) reply

I think I'll just greet newcomers from now on with a welcome. But can you please help me get on the right path, if thats not too much to ask. Cao An Min 01:26, 5 March 2006 (UTC) reply

I'll start editing this april, for work prevents me.Thanks for the help though. Cao An Min 03:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC) reply

... and thank you for the kind note! -- uberpenguin 17:37, 7 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Speedy is usually within a few hours if not quicker... and almost always the same day.-- Isotope23 18:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Put this code at the top. Replace "User XYZ" with whatever you like:

<table style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; margin-bottom: 0.5em; width: 250px; border: #99B3FF solid 1px">
<tr><td>{{User XYZ}}</td></tr>
<tr><td>{{User XYZ}}</td></tr>
<tr><td>{{User XYZ}}</td></tr>
<tr><td>{{User XYZ}}</td></tr>
<tr><td>{{User XYZ}}</td></tr>
<tr><td>{{User XYZ}}</td></tr>
<tr><td>{{User XYZ}}</td></tr>
</table>

Best wishes! -- Esprit15d 22:10, 17 March 2006 (UTC) reply

I have not blanked out the page, I archived the older stuff b/c it was so long. You can see the links at the top of the page whicky1978 23:23, 17 March 2006 (UTC) reply

I would strongly urge you to re-examine the pattern of anonymous users harassing Duffer, which led to your block of him. Perhaps a CheckUser might reveal these anonymous users to be connected to indefinitely banned users or other users who have contended with Duffer in the past. Even if no sockpuppetry is revealed, please look more closely at the pattern and timing of edits, as well as the attitude and language used by these anonymous attackers. I fear you have been used by these vehement and unrelenting individuals who hide their identities to continue their personal attacks as part of a vendetta against Duffer for his involvement in the indefinite ban of both Tommstein (who was banned before his RfA was completed) and Central for what David Gerard called "trolling, personally abusive, unable to work with others, gross net negative," strikingly similar tactics used by the former. These other anonymous users are using religious ideas to provoke and antagonize. How can you let them continue on? Again, please examine carefully what is going on here. Thank you. - CobaltBlueTony 17:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC) reply

I had blocked him for a violation of the three-revert rule. The 3RR is a hard and fast rule on how many times an article may be reverted, i.e. changed back to a prior form, in a 24-hour period. I have not, and do not, take any sides in the dispute, and in any case I must recuse myself from the content dispute due to my personal beliefs.

Again, I don't support edit warring. The pattern of anonymous users harassing Duffer1 is irrelevant — if you break the 3RR, you break the 3RR. Stifle 22:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Tony I really appreciate your help, you were johny-on-the-spot with the impersonator and this as well, I am very grateful. Regarding the heineous comments posted on my talk page about you I will leave it up to if you want to delete the comment or not. I havn't as I would like admins to see the nature of these vandals, but given the nature of the comments you may choose to delete it and I fully support you if you would like the comment removed. Duffer 13:25, 21 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Hello, I have blocked the anon in question for one week. In the future please report vandalism to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism which is checked regularly, rather then to talk pages of individual admins as we aren't always around to respond (I haven't been here for almost 2 days). Thanks. - Loren 23:05, 21 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Well, I have read the WT and have noted the pics of Catholics burning in Armageddon. It is hard to mistake the anti-Catholic tone. If someone portrayed Jews that way they would be considered anti-Semitic without much argument. You may not believe you are anti-Catholic, but oddly most others see it differently and not just catholics. Just because your views are sincere does not mean they are not anti-Catholic. I have met people who sincerely believe we worship Satan, but don't consider themselves anti-Catholic at all. There is no way to squirm out of the label in this case. I think Lucy's rewrite has a lot of merit. I thought my original wasn't bad either. The fact is that it is part of the controversy and should be given mention. It is a controversial issue and that's what the article is for. Cestusdei 23:30, 22 March 2006 (UTC) reply

I am not talking about violent actions. Although we Catholics have suffered more then our share at the hands of so called Bible Christians. Even in the US our churches were burned and catholics were killed. If a JW was beaten, which may or may not have been the case, it could well have been that he provoked the action. Walk up to an Irish catholic in the late 19th and early 20th century who has suffered discrimination and tell him his faith is Satanic and the Pope is the anti-Christ and yes you might get knocked down. Anti-Catholicism is not just using violence against us. It often comes with a smile. You smile and hand me a copy of the WT which shows the pope burning, St. Peter's falling into rubble, and portrays catholics as rubes. That is anti-Catholic. You may not think so but you are not on the receiving end. To misrepresent our faith and call us corrupt is anti-Catholic. Especially when examples of WTBTS corruption are easy to find. I don't think any evidence I provide will satisfy you. I provided WT quotes, but you don't see any problem. Just like an anti-semite would see no problem portraying Jews as money grubbers or a Klanner who thinks blacks are subhuman. To them it is self-evidently true. That is how you see us. This is controversial. I realize you don't want to confront your prejudice, but it's there. Would you say a Klanner is a bigot? Of course, even if he objected. You may be a sincere bigot, but that still makes you one. If that bothers you then reexamine your beliefs.Cestusdei 04:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I responded to your post on my page. Cestusdei 00:13, 25 March 2006 (UTC) reply

see User talk:Never mind in the history and pick nevermind's edit. This is actually sad. Whopper 04:10, 25 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Hello!!!

I edit some things that don't have any relation whit Pan Am.

Simonlebon 01:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)Simonlebon reply

Hi, I can't get the enought copyright information of this picture, so I retired that form the Michelle Baena page.

Simonlebon 17:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC) Simonlebon reply

• 38.139.36.109 ( talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) blocked for 2 weeks per their vandalism and ignoring of warnings. Thanks for posting at AIV. Your friendly admin, ¡Dustimagic! ^{( T/ C)} 19:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Apparently Tommstein and Central fail to understand the meaning of "indefinate"... Duffer 14:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Actually, I have no idea what is the more widespread usage and have no strong opinion about it one way or the other. I'll go off and do some research and come back with a strong opinion though, but in the meantime, I certainly defer to your preference. joshbuddy ^talk 14:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply

I hope that you'll also get well soon. Take care. Ω Anonymous anonymous Ψ: ''Have A Nice Day'' 21:42, 17 April 2006 (UTC) reply

I'm totally confused. How did all that crap slip in there? I was just readding the marking section (which someone deleted) and it seems to have gone nuts. I'll have to sit down in detail and see what happened. Very weird. joshbuddy ^talk 18:38, 20 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Looking a little more, that section looks like it was totally trashed. I clearly need to spend less time working, and more time editing. Some of these edits were terrible. joshbuddy ^talk 18:40, 20 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Oh, I see what happened now. Somehow, I was editing revision 49316349 instead of the current. Not really sure how that happened. Just sleep deprivation I suppose. Damn sleep. joshbuddy ^talk 21:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Excuse moi, but the edit I made to the Gordon Brown page was to remove some outdated information, Tony Blair has announced his intention to leave before the end of his third term, contrary to the information provided on the page, as tempting as it may be to others, I am not a vandall, and I do not like to be treated as one, Thank you. 86.63.29.217 22:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Thanks for sorting out the abbey school article for me :-). Bodil 18:29, 21 April 2006 (UTC) reply

OK, I understand your concern, I have an account but I'm a bit lazy. :p Will use it in future. - —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.63.29.217 ( talk • contribs) 16:05, April 21, 2006

In regards to your question about the paleontologic information related to Godzilla. It was repeated information from the Godzilla (film series) article. I was the one who repeated the information and after I found my error I corrected it.

The origenal idea was to have all the real world and cultural information in the film series article to protect from the constent editing wars, vandalism, and the like that goes on in the Godzilla article. Also it would allow the fan boys who bicker about fiction and mythos to do so while a deeper and more encyclopedic article can exist in the film series article. A name change is in order to reflect this but no one has gotten around to suggesting one as of yet.-- DyslexicDan 05:05, 29 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Hi Cobaltbluetony. Please note that I've archived or removed your recent request for investigation. That page is only for very specific cases, as described by the page's guidelines. Your alert would be better placed on Administrator intervention against vandalism ( WP:AIV), where it will usually be processed within minutes. Many alerts that are incorrectly placed on Requests for investigation are never dealt with, simply because they become old before an administrator gets to them. Thanks for your efforts. :) Petros471 08:40, 4 May 2006 (UTC) reply

PS. I haven't blocked for now as no edits since your final warning. Have you checked that all info added changed has been reverted? Petros471 08:40, 4 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Request concerning 86.16.102.3 ( talk · contribs) was moved by Deskana here, not by me. Vandal continued since my addition of the IP to the WP:AIV page. I do have to review ALL of the edits, because some I let slip by due to not knowing at first the nature of the "trivia". - CobaltBlueTony 13:16, 4 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Oh, ok I didn't realise you hadn't reported it. I wouldn't mind if more admins actually paid any attention to RFI, but as very few do, AIV is the best way to get a quick block on a vandal. Thanks for helping out, keep it up :) Petros471 13:22, 4 May 2006 (UTC) reply

"Would you please, please, please consider a block on this person? They're at it again, and they're getting sly-er! *grinds teeth* - CobaltBlueTony 14:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC) reply

No problem. Now blocked for 24 hours, will extend if continues on return. Petros471 14:18, 4 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Thanks so much! - CobaltBlueTony 14:59, 4 May 2006 (UTC) reply

P.S. I like your italicized method of recording both sides of a conversation. I may adopt it! - CobaltBlueTony