User talk:Equazcion/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Let's go on

I do not actually see this as much of a basic issue--it is not the sort of outrageous long-continued multi-facted and defiant administrative abused perpetrated by Alkivar. I see it simply as an administrator's mistake, and then persistence in it. My advice is to treat this as just an interruption to a renewed discussion of the actual issues in the matter originally being discussed. I think those involved have realised their error, and so have those watching. Discussions about how A reacted to B's discussion of X are not usually fruitful in advancing consensus on the original topic. And even if seen as an unfair attempt to quash discussion, such attempts have a tendency to backfire--that's one reason that anything that can be seen as cutting off debate is generally an error.DGG (talk) 03:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I also agree with DGG here and I'd like to apologise for my part in the situation above, and my revert. In retrospect, I shouldn't have done that - Alison ^❤ 07:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

This isn't about one admin's misbehavior. This is about a general attitude among admins (yes, general, meaning there are exceptions) that grows out of a lack of consequence for their misdeeds.

Take Alkivar, for instance, who has a long record of blatant abuse. The arbitration has been going on for two weeks now, and it took a week before that arbitration was even accepted.

So with the consensus now that Steel's action was wrong, what happens now to prevent him from doing it again? Is anyone going to start another ridiculously bureaucratic process to get him a slap on the wrist? Would an arbitration request even get accepted? How about for the admin who denied my unblock request?

I don't care personally about apologies or punishment for the sake of making me feel better. My concern, my reason for not wanting to be here anymore, is the fact that this will happen again, because admins don't have any reason to keep themselves in check. They have nothing to fear, unless they have a ridiculously long and clearcut record of inappropriate action, the way Alkivar does. These "little slipups" are forgiven and forgotten, so there's no reason to not let it happen again. And I should add that if you've ever had the pleasure of getting blocked, especially with your block notice being "take a break" (which I found especially insulting), you wouldn't consider this a minor slipup. The fact is, the next time I happen to have the bad luck of getting into a dispute with the wrong admin, I had better watch what I say, because he can block me without thinking twice.

If I make the choice to participate in a forum of open discussion, it's going to be completely open. That's a prerequisite. Fear of reprisal resulting from arguing with the wrong individual is unacceptable.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 16:49, 10/29/2007

Arguing on the basis of principles like that is exactly the right way to bring about reform. There are some abuses present in the admin corps and their mentality, but less than I've seen in the ranks of admins on other sites. However, we want zero abuses, of course, so we've got to keep fighting hard and talking loud to correct the oversights in Wikipedia's adminning policies. This can be done.--Father Goose 09:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm gathering steam for a proposal on village pump that administrators be subject to recall or community de-sysop, appointed for definite periods, RFA's have a higher threshold for approval, or something like that. If anyone objects as a perennial proposal I'm going to just delete that part from the perennial proposals section. It's unacceptable that a class of people are appointed for life with almost zero oversight or recourse for misbehavior, and that the policy pages seem to forbid even talking about changing the terms of their lifetime appointments. It's hard to tell based on personal observation but it seems to be that in the past few months there has been a sharp increase in bad behavior by administrators, and that the problem is well beyond a few bad apples. I haven't been around long enough to know whether this is a global climactic trend or just random cyclic variation in the surface temperature of Wikipedia. In any event, if the administrators anger enough people consistently enough it will boil over to the point where the system gets changed, the Foundation intervenes, there's a mass exodus, or the project is severely compromised. When the pressure builds up, it has to get released somewhere. Some change is inevitable.Wikidemo 20:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

RfA will always be a popularity contest and I don't think there's any way to get around that. Definite periods would be good, I think. This "for life" thing is just way too absolute. However I'd also suggest a new recourse, something apart from the severity and tedious bureaucracy of arbitration and de-sysoping. Admins can block people at the drop of a hat, so if they use that power incorrectly, there should be something similarly inconvenient that can be imposed on them just as quickly, once consensus has formed that an action was inappropriate. Just a little something that makes them think twice before using admin tools. I think that would do a load of good.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 05:28, 10/30/2007

I've been arguing the exact same thing myself; I feel 1-year terms with RfA re-elections is a reasonable approach to inject more accountability into the process. I have ideas about how to make that a reality, but it won't come about overnight.--Father Goose 09:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The arguments given against re-elections (supposedly a taboo subject because it's a "perennial proposal") are that they are unworkable because there's too many of them, and because admins should be free to take unpopular actions without fear of losing their adminship. I think both are silly arguments. If we can handle 100-200 AFD's per day surely we can handle 150 adminship elections a month. They could be held in monthly group sessions. I've been trying to encourage some creative brainstorming on the subject over at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) but so far all I'm getting is that there is no problem, the current system works, and I'm impudent for bringing up the subject.Wikidemo 17:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

this isnt the place for an extended discussion , but first of all we can not handle well the 150 AfDs a day--,many of them get only the most cursory look. and then, consider the relative length of the typical RfA. Rather than reconfirm 1300 people a year to remove 20, we need a better procedure for removing the 20. Of course, if you think half of the 1300 are no good, then that's another matter. There are perhaps 10 or 20% of my colleagues i think are not always correct, but there are probably a number of people who think that of each administrator. Those who do not like the makeup of the present group, should help join in. Everyone agrees we need more good people.--and they dont have to agree with me to be good. DGG (talk) 02:34, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I've probably seen 10-20 myself, which is why I'm guessing there's more. Not half, but several percent probably. There are quite a few others who can do good work, but not in the environment created by the disruptive ones. A little management never hurts. But I can't seem to think of a good way to remove the bad ones. Even 10-20 de-sysops per year is a heavy load for ArbCom, and it would be helpful to do it without all the drama, effort, and stigma of behavior enforcement actions. Any kind of voting raises issues too. Maybe I should just scold the bad admins, but they scold me back, and that creates backlashes and enemies. Sorry to hijack your talk page, Equazcion. Wikidemo 19:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I don't see what's so bad about a little stigma for an admin who acts inappropriately. Bad admins cause stigma to regular editors. Despite the consensus that they were undeserved, I've now got 2 blocks in my account log. I don't see why you should be so worried about portioning out a bit of stigma where it's deserved. So what if people will see that an admin was disciplined for doing something bad. Boo-freakin'-hoo. That's part of the reason disciplinary actions work. Next time they'll think more before acting.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 01:20, 11/2/2007

Sure, I understand. But the stigma sometimes makes people dig in their heels and fight when they shouldn't. Nobody likes to be told they're bad. I'd be happy to send problem administrators a dozen roses and a box of chocolates if they would only retire. That's thirty dollars times a hundred people, so we could clean up all of Wikipedia for three thousand dollars. You must admit that your block and mine hurt our pride and sense of justice a lot more than it hurt our practical ability to edit articles. For all this aggravation, I'm rewriting the Golden Gate Bridge article, with ample citations and no trivia, thank you. When things become a matter of principle, rather than a matter of expedience, people fight harder. Stigma for its own sake would take things in the direction of a few exemplary de-sysops in the extreme cases, in hopes that everyone else gets the message. That's what we have now. The opposite extreme would be one time limited length appointments with no renewals. That has its own problems and will never happen, but nobody would fight that when their time was up. I think not getting re-elected is about the right amount of shame and incentive. After all, the biggest crime most bad administrators commit is simple rudeness, carelessness, and arrogance. They're still being honest, unselfish, and doing what they think is right for this project and the world - it's not like being a Wikipedia administrator is some great personal treasure. Actually, given how many people we have and how big this project is, if that's the worst thing that happens it's not even so bad. In other enterprises this big, people are getting shot. Wikidemo 01:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Although I've favored a renewal/reconfirmation process up until now, I'm beginning to acknowledge that over 100 reconfirmations per month is probably too much overhead to get rid of "the bad ones". My current thinking is that a hybrid reconfirmation/recall process could be used: every 6-12 months, admins go up for renewal; renewal is automatic unless enough users raise a reasonable objection, at which point, the admin will have to undergo a new RfA to be reconfirmed.--Father Goose 06:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

←(edit conflict) I don't know how well re-elections would work though. How public would incidents like these be? If I weren't as "prominent" an editor as I am and hadn't made as big a stink as I did, how many people would really have found out about it? The people voting wouldn't necessarily know about it, and the people who cared about it when it happened might not even remember or care when re-elections roll around. I think it would be better to address each incident when it occurs. Otherwise it just wouldn't get its due attention. I wasn't suggesting stigma for its own sake, but rather a disciplinary action, with whatever incidental stigma that goes along with it. Nobody likes to be told they're bad, but that's life. Sometimes there's just no way to avoid it. Admins who aren't mature enough to handle that shouldn't be admins anyway. This kind of concern for feelings, in my opinion, is going a bit overboard, and a product of trying to keep adminship open to members of the community who really shouldn't be admins anyway. The sooner you start treating Wikipedia a little more like adult reality and less like a teenage online forum, that's when you'll see some real improvement. In my opinion.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 06:49, 11/2/2007

I find this discussion very interesting, and I can empathize with you, Equazcion, because recently I was blocked after a group of different editors kept on deleting some valid material which I then reverted one time too many (not even technically, that is, but that doesn't matter as it was obviously part of their strategy to lead me there). One of them then just called on an administrator (a friend?) to block me, which he/she did right away, for one day, without even bothering to contact me or look into the issue. I have attempted a dialogue with that administrator, but it's like speaking to deaf ears. All the details are on my Talk page. I don't have the time nor the energy, and even less the patience, to go further "up in the system" and complain about one particular administrator, but I certainly share your feelings and everyone else's concerns about administrators' "impunity". · Michel (talk) 11:32, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey there

How's it going? If you've really left, I hope you reconsider; if you're still around, stay cool with the pop culture and UCFD stuff, wouldn't want to see you get blocked. Anyway, since I know you're like me in testing the limits with your sig, here's something you might be interested in... east.718 at 15:59, 10/30/2007

In Remembrance...

--nat ^{Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?!} 02:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Your watchlist is recreated

I emailed it to you. I do hope I will see you around here again some day.--Father Goose 05:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

And if for some reason you didn't receive it, contact me and I'll re-send it.--Father Goose (talk) 23:14, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I did receive it, thanks, much appreciated :)

Equazcion • argue/improves • 06:38, 12/12/2007

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alkivar closed

The above arbitration case has closed. "For showing consistently poor judgment in performing administrative actions", Alkivar is desysopped. He may apply to the committee to have his adminship reinstated, but may not apply at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship. Burntsauce is banned as a meat-puppet of banned user JB196. For the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (t) 01:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Woohoo! USA! USA!

Equazcion • argue/improves • 06:37, 12/12/2007

Long overdue

		The Barnstar of Peace
		I meant to give this to you ages ago for your help in extricating me from that melee over WP:ROC. Thanks again, and know that even if you never return, I appreciate all that you did here.Father Goose (talk) 08:03, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks :)

Equazcion • argue/improves • 06:37, 12/12/2007

wut happened to...

The image Image:Wikipedia book.jpg? The original version has been superseded by a (in my opinion) not-as-good version. It was apparantly used as a basis for Image:Wp first edition.jpg which is better but not in my opinion an improvement over the original, and is the wrong size also. At any rate the version Image:Wikipedia book.jpg is the one used by almost almost all users, as a check of File Links for the respective images shows.

I would probably restore the original version, but it does not appear to be in the history for some reason and I don't have access to the original file. At the very least Image:Wikipedia book.jpg should be copied over Image:Wp first edition.jpg as the former, in its current state, appears to be a draft.

Even so I don't like the new one as much. The title "WikipediA" is not properly embossed, ahd the legends "the free encyclopedia" and "1937 edition" are removed, without which the joke doesn't work as well. Herostratus (talk) 22:27, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

The original image was deleted because it wasn't properly sourced. Deleted images don't stay in the history. New images were created following the deletion. Caeonic (talk) 13:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh Captain my captain?

Dude (male/female dude), I just wanted you to know that reading through all the trivia discussion archives I always found your comments to be a shining beacon of intelligence in scroll after scroll of inane nonsense. You inspired me to join this damned trivia debate. Actually, now that I think about it, maybe I should curse you for drawing me into this never ending squabble. Anyway, I hope you come back sooner rather than later. I could use a comrade in all these trivia discussions. Peace. Ozmaweezer (talk) 15:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Hear, hear.--Father Goose (talk) 08:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

nor will we stop asking until you do come back. DGG (talk) 10:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay okay, fine, I'm back... And I'm male, by the way.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 06:36, 12/12/2007

WikiTrivia

I have good quality shared hosting which, unless it becomes loaded with images and gets half a million hits a month, could provide a temporary home for WikiTrivia. Reply on my own userpage and I'll see what I can do. --Johan (talk) 20:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm kinda not in charge of that anymore... but you may be able to find others to collaborate with on that, perhaps via the meta page.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 06:36, 12/12/2007

Mitchell report list

Hey. Sorry if I came across as contentious. I was very concerned at the beginning when names were being added to the list in a haphazard fashion. I guess I got a little defensive with all the counter-arguments coming at me. After stepping back, it looks like we have enough editors now to make sure that information from the report is used responsibly. I'll mea culpa on the talk page, too. --Elliskev 22:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Think nothing of it. I've gotten defensive in past too, once or twice... :)

Equazcion • argue/improves • 22:06, 12/13/2007

Mitchell report list, 2

Hello, in order to avoid an edit war, I just wanted to discuss the "from a lawyer" stuff. I disagree that it is a relevant thing to put into the summary, because, IIRC from reading the report EVERY written statement from a player was submitted to the committee through the committee. I don't think Rigg's statement is different from any of the others. Regardless it should be all one way or all another (since it applies to a number of other players). I just don't thing a lawyer's involvement is all that special (most of the players who made in-person statements did so with their lawyer present as well). Regardless, I agree with you on reducing the block quotes in the BALCO section and would definately support your POV if that becomes an issue. Also, I'm about to add a ton of content to the Signature Pharmacy sections, so please look through that to see if any corrections need to be made (I'm sure there are). Thanks! - Masonpatriot ([[User talk:Masonpatriot|talk]]) 01:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if all written statements are from the players' lawyers and I'm not even sure how many written statements we've even got summarized in the article. I do know that the report specifically says that the statement came from his lawyer: "By letter, his lawyer stated that Riggs “never tested positive for improper substances.” This is pretty different from most of the responses Mitchell reported. Most responses were in fact not from lawyers, even if lawyers were present during interviews. If the report explicitly makes a distinction like that, I think we should make the same distinction.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 01:09, 12/17/2007

Back

Hey peoples. I had to make an appearance to work on the X-Files movie sequel article now that it began filming, and figured I've been away long enough. I'm not sure in what capacity I'll be returning... specifically I hope to avoid the drama of arguing over policy, for as long as that's possible, and just edit articles from time to time.

Thanks for all the support and kind words and stuff :)

Equazcion • argue/improves • 06:33, 12/12/2007

I'm pleased you decided to come back. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 18:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

a little something

		The Current Events Barnstar
		In my experience, most editors get unreasonably hung up with articles they created. For redirecting Brian McNamee, I award Equazcion with the Current Events Barnstar. brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Brew :)

Equazcion •✗/C • 23:38, 12/21/2007

Weakness

I can't imagine why you think I am quoting you in some inexact way when cut & paste exists. I am quoting a lot of people, none of them exactly, but the overarching theme is this bad faith vilification of whomever writes rules. You do get that, right? Your tactic here is demanding literal quotes to refuse inference, right? It is clear you are not just stupid.

I think your advice "just throw WP:IAR in their faces!" advice isn't really helpful, unless your goal is to create a battlefield. As for my opinion about WP:IAR, I think that is made clear downthread. However, your rules are wikilawyering, and the serious infraction you accuse me of is non-existent. Feel free to persue WP:DR if you disagree.

Also, this "bitch" and "weakness" rhetoric is kinda ugly, and may vector toward incivility, if not on your part then someone else's. Is this really necessary? / edg ☺ ☭ 22:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Dude, this is just playing games. Don't make me call you a troll. / edg ☺ ☭ 23:00, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Ed, your "quote" was clearly referencing me, not only because you used selective things from what I said, but because otherwise I don't even see what relevance it has -- "And "Rules are made by stupid busybodies motivated by fear, lust for power and [insert bad faith assumption here]" may not be a good reason." -- this had nothing to do with the discussion. I suggested the use of IAR and that was your response. No one said anything about the reasons why policies aren't valid, except you in this quote. The only way it would be (still questionably) relevant is if you were attempting to paraphrase my rant from the section above.

Ed, what's "ugly" is your method of argument. "I will ignore your rules" -- you said this. This is immaturity and it's not the way to debate a point. It doesn't even make any sense. If you're saying you'll ignore the rules then you are conceding to my point. So unless that was your goal, you have achieved nothing. You should try answering people seriously rather than engaging in... this, which I can't even classify. Plus, "I will ignore your rules" was in response to my quoting a rule about not misrepresenting others -- so if you weren't even trying to represent me, as you claim, then why wouldn't you just say that?

I apologize if my "bitch" comment offended you but I sometimes like to insert some humor to liven up the discussion. Next time I will try to be more sensitive to your sensibilities. However, if you'd like such consideration, try to be civil yourself. Otherwise you can't ask me for anything.

Equazcion •✗/C • 23:09, 12/21/2007

The "quote" was more inspired by something Fr. Goose had said in the same thread. It was a theme to which you contributed, and the "fear" part was pulled from another comment you made, but I was neither specifically quoting you not intending to represent you. My concern was that an inquiry about the guideline was answered with explanations that the guideline was formulated fundamentally in bad faith. You were more than ready to throw petrol on that flame.

Your tone of angry outrage over comments you disagree with (well, maybe just mine, but seemingly all of mine) is getting tiresome. When this happens, I don't see a reason to be baited (whether that is your intention or not) into long off-topic specifically I-and-thou threads like the bickering lovers everyone can spot us for being. I've made my point, you've made yours, we disagree on all conclusions and even basic terms, no surprise — this need not spin off on recursive tangents.

Telling a user to call someone "bitch" (whether literally or metaphorically) doesn't offend me, but its only a little humorous (this sort of shit having been quite played out in recent pop culture), and it is bad advice to give BrianGriffin-FG (talk · contribs), who already has one block for incivility and sometimes has problems figuring out what he can contribute. I share with you a bad habit (it this is for you a habit) of going for the joke and ignoring its consequences, but I'm trying to cut it out, and would recommend the same for you. / edg ☺ ☭ 23:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the recommendation. However the joke wasn't so much to demonstrate humor as it was to the put inquirer at ease, which is something I believe in since when I'm the one asking questions I appreciate humor in the responses, just because it makes the environment feel more relaxed.

Yes I get angry at your responses, because I find your responses to be in poor taste. I'll refer you again to this point which you haven't answered yet:

"I will ignore your rules" -- you said this. This is immaturity and it's not the way to debate a point. It doesn't even make any sense. If you're saying you'll ignore the rules then you are conceding to my point. So unless that was your goal, you have achieved nothing. You should try answering people seriously rather than engaging in... this, which I can't even classify. Plus, "I will ignore your rules" was in response to my quoting a rule about not misrepresenting others -- so if you weren't even trying to represent me, as you claim, then why wouldn't you just say that? "

You turned the discussion into a mockery with that infantile comment. It was your doing, not mine. I don't see how you can complain about my "Then you concede" when you made the comment that preceded it. If you're mystified as to how I could only get angry at the things you say, then maybe you should take a closer look at the things you're saying.

Equazcion •✗/C • 23:51, 12/21/2007

You made an invidious, wikilawyered accusation. I ignored it. / edg ☺ ☭ 23:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

You didn't say "Your accusation is incorrect." You said "I will ignore your rules". The former would have been appropriate, if it's true that you weren't attempting to represent me. The latter was an irrelevant and infantile jab. What rule were you ignoring? The rule that says I accused you of something? Care to point that one out for me? No, you weren't trying to say you were ignoring my accusation. You were trying to throw IAR back at me, to make some kind of point in an immature way, like kids say "well if you think it's okay to take my toy I'll just take yours". If I'm wrong then please, elaborate on your comment for me, and explain to me why it was relevant, word for word. I'd be interested in hearing this.

Equazcion •✗/C • 00:00, 12/22/2007

I guess you don't understand. I said I will ignore your rules, not Wikipedia's. I just thought that was really clear, especially since I've explained here (rather than in a tangential thread in WT:TRIVIA) where I disagree with your interpretation of Wikipedia's rules. I've also explained here at some length (and with little expectation of benefit for myself, since I knew going in this was going to be one of those long threads), that I wasn't trying to mock or otherwise represent you. (Why would I want to represent you on a Talk page where your presence is nearly constant?) Does this make sense? Is there something I can make clearer?

Also, why is my humor an "infantile jab", and yours a social grace? Is this one of those dishes it out, but can't take it situations? / edg ☺ ☭ 00:09, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

So now you say you weren't ignoring my accusation anymore, but now it's my rules that you were ignoring. I see. Well let me know which of "my rules" you were choosing to ignore, as that might help to clarify things for me.

Why is your humor an infantile jab and mine a social grace? I don't know. You're asking me to tell you why you choose to engage in infantile jabs, and I just don't know. If however you're suggesting that all humor is equal and if I want to call my humor a social grace then I must therefore consider all humor to be a social grace, well, then you're just wrong. There are different kinds of humor. Some can put people at ease and some can do the opposite. If you aren't aware of a difference then I'm sorry but this is beyond the realm of knowledge I'm prepared to impart on others.

Equazcion •✗/C • 00:18, 12/22/2007

I thought I had a concise response that stated my disagreement as much as was needed. I suppose my mistake (compromise word, since I don't think it was a mistake, and you think it was much worse) was not following your remark with much longer and more precise response, but I really didn't wish to engage in an off-topic tangent. And considering the objections you have detailed in this conversation, I am at this point still pleased that we didn't. / edg ☺ ☭ 00:32, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Your "mistake" (compromise word) was saying something rude that you didn't believe yourself. If you say something like "I will ignore your rules", you can't possibly expect anyone to see this as a polite avoidance of further argument. I didn't create any rule that I expected you to follow. If you wanted to state your disagreement you should have done it accurately, and yes, that would require a longer response. Overly short responses are called "flip remarks", they are seen as offensive, and they often do -- and even, are intended to -- incite further argument.

Equazcion •✗/C • 00:42, 12/22/2007

Reply

Thank you for letting me know...i'll just chill for a while, and see if he stops bugging me. I'm a bit of a drama queen and probably blew everything out of proportion. Thanks again! Ctjf83 ^talk 05:24, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

No problem :)

Equazcion •✗/C • 05:52, 12/22/2007

X-Files 2 TOC

What is the purpose of {{TOCnestright}} at Untitled X-Files Sequel? It's non-standard. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 07:23, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

It makes more efficient use of space on the page. It may be non-standard, but in many cases it is better. There's no policy saying we must use the default TOC.

Equazcion •✗/C • 07:25, 12/24/2007

No, but there is overwhelming precedent for film articles to use the default TOC. There's no reason to make this particular article an exception. All film articles with TOC have the white space in between the lead section and the beginning of the body. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 07:30, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Precedent doesn't mean much. There isn't so much as a guideline that states the default TOC must be used in any article. The reason the default TOC is so widely used is merely because it's automatic. The nested TOC is better in this case. There's no reason to avoid implementing a better method just because something else is usually used.

Equazcion •✗/C • 07:35, 12/24/2007

I suppose I shall have to seek a wider consensus for the presentation of TOC in the film article. In the meantime, though, I'll worry about expanding the article's content. Cheers! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 07:45, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

X-Files 2 cast list

I'm having a difficult time understandign your insistance on using columns for a tiny cast section. It doesn't look better and the whitespace reduced is three lines. It's not statndard to use columns for cast sections and it is more difficult for editors to work with, especially inexperienced ones. Chaz ^Beckett 13:10, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

See the article talk page.

Equazcion •✗/C • 13:11, 12/24/2007

Spoilers discussion

I'm moving our discussion on the Wikipedia_talk:Spoiler page here to clean things up a bit. To answer your last accusation of a CoI, I didn't even post on this discussion until last night, which was long after the initial removal. What you see as emotional involvement is respect for the rules and processes of Wikipedia.

Since you're saying that anyone who disagrees with the original post's namecalling and incivility would automatically have a CoI, please explain who exactly would not have a CoI in this matter, and be neutral enough to remove the comment? Snowfire51 (talk) 23:01, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Me.

Equazcion •✗/C • 23:02, 12/24/2007

By your own terms, if you didn't disagree with the post, then you agreed with it and therefore have a CoI, and therefore by your logic shouldn't be able to chime in on this matter, either. Snowfire51 (talk) 23:04, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Just because I didn't disagree with it doesn't mean I agreed with it. I never expressed agreement with it. I never saw the debate and I still have no idea what impropriety the user was referring to. I told him that his post was too inflammatory, which is all I still feel was necessary. The comment didn't break any rules to the point that removing it was warranted.

Equazcion •✗/C • 23:08, 12/24/2007

Not vandalism

My edit to Wikipedia:Permastub, which you identified as vandalism and reverted, was not. It was a rephrasing of one sentence to make it more concise. Please be more careful with whatever automated or semi-automated tool led to this false positive. NeonMerlin 15:35, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I apologize, my mistake.

Equazcion •✗/C • 20:02, 12/25/2007

Re: Yet another coding question

Hello, Equazcion. You have new messages at East718's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Dumbbell Indemnity

You know, you should have waited until the nominator had a chance to see the review before asking the reviewer to fail it. THe nominator is away for a few days and he would have gladly done as much as he could have to address the concerns. I also would have tried to expand the article as much as I could. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 04:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I apologize if my opinion had some undue sway with the reviewer. However this was a pretty poor choice for a GA nom... at the time it didn't even use proper grammar. If I were reviewing an article for GA and determined that the entire thing needed to be rewritten (which is basically what I ended up doing) and expanded on top of that, I would flunk it right off. These weren't small issues that needed fixing, the whole article sucked pretty bad :) No offense if you were a contributor. Anyway. I didn't exactly "ask" him to fail it, but nevertheless I'll be more careful about offering my opinion in the future. Equazcion •✗/C • 08:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I didn't write it, but the article does read much better now. You seem to be a good copyeditor, if you own any of the DVDs, would you be interested in helping out with the WP:SIMPSONS Featured Topic drive? We're currently doing season 9, although season 4 will likely be next. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't own the DVD's, but I've got "recordings" of most early seasons, by "other means", 9 included. So I don't have the commentaries or deleted scenes but I do have the original broadcasts, so I can help with synopses. Equazcion •✗/C • 01:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I find it extremely offensive if you claim that my work "sucked really bad". Failing my article without even letting me do anything was a poor choice. I am extremely furious at the moment, and unsure of what to do. I do not feel like nominating my article again, as I waited for a month and a half trying to get the article reviewed, and when it does, I do not even get the chance to fix it before it gets failed. I only hope M3tal will review it again without me having to nominate it again, otherwise, what happened was extremely unfair. I also left some notes regarding as to why this article is a GA article on the talk page of the article. xihix(talk) 21:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I didn't fail "your" article. I made a recommendation on an article's quality (having no idea who contributed to it), which did not include a recommended timespan. The reviewer could have waited but he didn't. The reviewer could have ignored my advice, but he didn't. I'm sorry you took such offense. Sit down and have a cup of tea. It's a Simpsons episode on Wikipedia, not a UN summit.

I think you should re-nominate this and get a different reviewer. The one you got didn't seem to know the general practices of GA. You might even be able to get away with replacing the nomination you already made and putting it on hold, with another reviewer's name in place, if you can find someone impartial to handle that. Just a suggestion. Good luck. Equazcion •✗/C • 22:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry that you've taken personal offense here, but Equazcion was just doing what editors are supposed to do, he was giving his opinion on something in an attempt to reach consensus. I'm sure nothing personal was intended by it, but quality control is something that every editor should make a priority. Keep working on it, and those kinds of articles and honors will come. Take care! Snowfire51 (talk) 23:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Come on, you've been here long enough to know that comments like "I understand everyone is in tears over this article" aren't appropriate. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Saying things like I "asked" the reviewer to fail even though I didn't isn't appropriate either, but I tried not to complain about it. Occasionally we all say some things that aren't entirely necessary. We're not robots and we deal with it. Equazcion •✗/C • 23:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

As I mentioned of the talk page of the article, I do not feel like nominating the article again. I did so before, waited a month and a half, and I didn't even get a chance to fix anything when the review was given. I looked at your comments, and other than the copy edits, they were not necessary. You unintentionally persuaded the reviewer in a negative way, and now my article has failed. I'll contact some of my other Wikipedian friends who know the GA system well, and see if I can put the article back to where it was without having it put all the way at the bottom, as if it was a newly submitted article again. xihix(talk) 23:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

"Unintentionally" being the key word. As for the other comments: I state my opinions. I have not, and will not, keep my mouth shut just in case someone may take offense. Taking offense so easily from the mere critiquing of an article you worked on doesn't fit with the way things work here. I wish you luck with the GA. Equazcion •✗/C • 23:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Why are you all blaming Equazcion? He brought up good points and i agreed. At least have the decency to call me an asshole on my talk page rather than behind my back on each other's talk pages. M3tal H3ad (talk) 10:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anyone's calling you an asshole. You happened to not know about the 7-day grace period, but it was an honest mistake and it's been rectified. Everything is fine now. At this point people are just making a big deal out of nothing (which is not so far from what they were doing originally). Let's all just consider this settled and move on :) Equazcion •✗/C • 10:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh they did, just not on this page :) M3tal H3ad (talk) 13:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Eh, ignore 'em. Some people take themselves and their "work" too seriously. It's not even worth worrying about. Equazcion •✗/C • 13:36, 30 Dec 2007 (UTC)

Once again, I see that you are ridiculing me in some way. As Scorpion said before, you should know that comments like that are not necessary. Please stop now. xihix(talk) 19:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not ridiculing anyone. I'm telling Metal Head that if people are insulting him then he should ignore it. If you're one of the people insulting him then that is unfortunate, but not my problem. I suggest you take my talk page off your watchlist if the things I'm saying bother you this much. Equazcion •✗/C • 02:29, 1 Jan 2008 (UTC)

thanks

thanks for the tweak on Wikipedia:Service awards. Nicely done! :) Kingturtle (talk) 01:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

No problem :) Equazcion •✗/C • 01:50, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

LauraWA11

Howdy, I saw your report on WP:AIV. Since there has been no activity for several hours, I removed the report with no action. If further problems of a similar nature arise, WP:AN/I would be a good place to bring it. AIV does not really foster the sort of discussion which is necessary. Thanks and keep up the great work. --TeaDrinker (talk) 04:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, will do. Thanks. Equazcion •✗/C • 04:33, 2 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Equazcion. You have new messages at East718's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Friedrich Kellner

I appreciate your repeating the message on my talk page. I went ahead and posted the information about the YouTube video on my user page. I also embedded the video itself on my Geocities Friedrich Kellner website. I think that is about all I can do with that video. When the diary is displayed next November at the United Nations, and the documentary film is shown there as well, I will seriously consider retiring from my labors at trying to bring the diary to the attention of the public-- which I have been at since 1968. I guess there's not too much one can do anyway to top the United Nations. And I sure am tired. Thanks again. Scott Rskellner (talk) 04:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Revert?

What was your reason for this revert? - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks like that was my mistake, I apologize. Equazcion •✗/C • 04:56, 2 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Mistakes happen. Thanks for stating that. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem :) Equazcion •✗/C • 05:01, 2 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Talk page

Ah, its probably pointless to keep reverting it. I've requested protection and somebody will do it soon enough. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Probably. Still fun though. Equazcion •✗/C • 05:04, 3 Jan 2008 (UTC)

LOL, yes it is a bit entertaining. You can revert to my reversion with the tag, thats what will happen when it is protected; at least usually. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

....Game over! - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Good game :) Equazcion •✗/C • 05:06, 3 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Ball Lightning

i'm sorry about that revert of your edits I clicked the 'rollback' button without meaning to, thanks Harland1 (^t/_c) 12:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

That's alright, no problem :) Equazcion •✗/C • 12:38, 2 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Fair Warning

Look out, that banned user tonight created a couple of other sockpuppets before he got banned. So far, they're quiet but I tagged them just in case. Good luck! Snowfire51 (talk) 05:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't know that, thanks for the warning :) Equazcion •✗/C • 05:09, 3 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Half Barnstar
		I'll pretend to give myself the other half...LOL. For your quick, and effective work dealing with sockpuppets of LaruaWA11. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Hehe, thanks! Equazcion •✗/C • 05:28, 3 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Haha...thanks. I did flip the star over though, since you've got the left side already. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Ha... good call :) Equazcion •✗/C • 05:32, 3 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Results from the checkuser

This may not be appropriate, but it is sure funny. - Rjd0060 (talk) 20:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I know... I may not be administrator material, but sometimes it's more fun that way. To be honest though, it wasn't meant as a taunt. It was more to see what the reaction would be, because despite what checkuser says, that user's history seems to be rather productive and their behavior unlike the puppeteer. I was just hoping to either get a confirmation or denial. Equazcion •✗/C • 05:45, 5 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Re:Protection

No definite time. The full protection should force editors to discuss, and generally when the matter has been resolved, a request for unprotection can easily be filed at WP:RFPP. Regards, PeaceNT (talk) 17:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I see... Thanks. Equazcion •✗/C • 17:32, 4 Jan 2008 (UTC)

good job

		The Original Barnstar
		Wonderful work over at the article, Ball lightning! Keep up the work! -- penubag  00:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks :) Equazcion •✗/C • 05:45, 5 Jan 2008 (UTC)

You're invited!

...to the next New York City Meetup!

New York City Meetup Next: Sunday January 13th, Columbia University area Last: 11/3/2007

In the morning, there are exciting plans for a behind-the-scenes guided tour of the American Museum of Natural History.

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to discussing meta:Wikimedia New York City issues (see the last meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and (weather permitting) hold a late-night astronomy event at Columbia's telescopes.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Non-administrator_rollback

I think this thing of ours is being percived by conserned editors as being shoved down their throughts and raillroaded for approval without abiding by checks and balances. I know you are doing this with WP:NPOV and WP:AGF in mind but other editors who have voted support may have an alternative agenda to get this past ASAP and WP:ABF towards the consesus building process. The way it is heading now it in violation of WP:NPOV, Wikipedia:Polling_is_not_a_substitute_for_discussion, and shows WP:COI on the part of the editors who have created the WP:Article. So unless you can do something really quick this article will be a Roadkill through WP:CSD. Maybe you should unarchive the discussion page and archive the voting page. That is the best advise I can give you. We need Wikipedia:Consensus. Good luck, Igor Berger (talk) 23:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no chance for a speedy delete of this page. I don't mean any offense but I think you need to read some of those pages you keep linking to. Start with WP:CSD. Also see WP:IAR. If enough people agree to handle a decision a certain way, it doesn't matter if it goes against policy. There are hundreds of editors behind this poll, and many of them are administrators. The page might not cause any changes, but it is certainly not in any danger of being deleted, I can assure you. I appreciate your concern though. Equazcion •✗/C • 23:45, 5 Jan 2008 (UTC)

I asked User:Durova to look into this User_talk:Durova#Wikipedia:Non-administrator_rollback. This needs some guideness. Igor Berger (talk) 00:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Good luck with that. Equazcion •✗/C • 00:01, 6 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Going nowhere

Hello, I have noticed that you have been very active in this discussion. As I observe it, people come, they say support, they list some reasons which have already been addressed, and leave. Others, say oppose, list some reasons which have either already been addressed, or at least already mentioned, and leave. The single edit nature of this is hurting our ability to reach consensus, as I see it. Now I see, by way of the poll, that most users either support, or oppose because of minor reasons. There have been a few separate proposals, but few have seen much attention, as most editors do not really discuss, but merely vote. Also, I have yet to see a proposal which truly reflects the consensus of those who voted. Rather, they seem to reflect a small number of opinions, which more people would oppose than the original proposal. I noticed that you mentioned that a new proposal should be written, and I agree. I think that the poll should end, most of the discussion archived (and possibly the "new proposals" as well), and each bit of discussion should be reviewed for consensus-finding purposes, and the whole thing should be rewritten. Sounds like a lot of work, doesn't it? Unfortunately, I can not see this moving forward any other way. I also think that such a change might be too bold, even for WP:BOLD, but I'm not sure. Any comments?--Vox Rationis (Talk | contribs) 22:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, and have already started doing something along those lines, see Wikipedia:Non-administrator rollback/Creating a new proposal. This is linked to in the lead of Wikipedia:Non-administrator rollback.Equazcion •✗/C • 04:05, 8 Jan 2008 (UTC)

User:Equazcion/Edit conflict bug

Ok, reformatted it, once you get a consensus, you can just file whatevers on the proposal page thats agreed to as a bug report. If you don't have an account with Bugzilla (and don't want to be bothered opening one), I'll do it. MBisanz ^talk 01:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I responded to your comment on the talk page. Equazcion •✗/C • 01:19, 6 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Editors' Toolbar

For the record I ran this back when it was current and didn't find it very usefuul.Geni 13:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Are there any particular reasons you can specify? Because I could see it being very useful. Equazcion •✗/C • 14:01, 6 Jan 2008 (UTC)

It was big and by the time I used it I knew all the markup code already.Geni 14:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Otherwise you might want to try User:Cacycle/wikEd. Or see wikipedia:tools.Geni 14:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I was mistaken as to what this is. I was looking for a toolbar with links to the current page's discussion page, and edit link, what links here, things like that, so that users wouldn't have to scroll around the page looking for such links. Equazcion •✗/C • 14:04, 6 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Ah that does not I think exist.Geni 14:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I struck out my comments at WP:VPR, so hopefully people will comment on it now. Equazcion •✗/C • 14:17, 6 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Non-Administrator Rollback

I think I voted after the vote was closed, looking at it again. Should I remove it or leave it in place? I only went there in the first place because of the notice on the watch list. - ‡Pelican eats pigeon‡ message _{contributions} 19:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

That's okay, you can leave it there. The poll didn't have an official closing date, and the exact "vote count" doesn't mean much in the final decision anyway. Thanks for checking though :) Equazcion •✗/C • 20:22, 8 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Tabs

I know, I just love those "I see no problem" responses. They're so helpful. PS, I've added just about every tab imaginable, and I've still got plenty of room. I'm at a high resolution, but even with the 15 tabs I have, they barely use half the page width (that's not including the monobook side navigation bar).

You wrote the above comment at the Village Plump. Please can you show/tell me how to add tabs, please! I though it was not possible, but then I see your comment. I would be really thankful, man, Cheers Lex ^T/_C Guest Book 05:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Tabs are usually added using scripts. You can find info on these at Wikipedia:Tools. If you need any further assistance let me know :) Equazcion •✗/C • 11:39, 9 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Post-abortion syndrome

Thanks for your comment here... I was really starting to feel like I was banging my head against the wall. Regarding going to WP:AN/I, I've actually twice brought Strider12's behavior there (believe it or not, it actually used to be worse than it is right now) - see this thread and this one. Both times, there was general condemnation of Strider12's behavior and some talk of a block or topic ban, but nothing concrete. I'm back and forth between filing a request for comment and just ignoring him/her. MastCell ^Talk 19:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem. That user sure has some chutzpah, claiming copyright as the reason she neglected to mention the conclusion of that response. A topic ban seems like the best way to deal with her. Equazcion •✗/C • 19:21, 10 Jan 2008 (UTC)

The misrepresentation is a persistent problem. There was also this recent gem on Talk:David Reardon, to which I responded here. I'm sure it's just respect for copyright at work again. MastCell ^Talk 21:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Unprotection

Consensus doesn't seem very clear on talk. Are you confident that the other party won't pursue edit war after the page has been protected? Regards, PeaceNT (talk) 20:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Consensus has been reached -- it's just that one user. I think she will probably edit war following unprotection -- but I don't see any way of dealing with this other than waiting until that happens and then taking it to AN/I for a possible topic block. Unless you have another suggestion? Equazcion •✗/C • 20:44, 10 Jan 2008 (UTC)

I see, it's been unprotected. Hope everything will go smoothly. Regards, PeaceNT (talk) 20:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate it :) Equazcion •✗/C • 20:50, 10 Jan 2008 (UTC)

LOL

[1] – Gurch 02:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

:) Equazcion •✗/C • 08:52, 12 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Regarding userbox template deletion

I have had two userboxes deleted from my user space, both I believe speedily deleted by you: Tibeten independence and the right to resist. Normally, I wouldn't take umbrage; however, I have seen no clear evidence aside from one certain user (mentioned at the mfd, I believe) whose actions I have not checked into. I would like to appeal these actions, for a couple of reasons:

• Evidence of divisiveness is low, so far as I know, and is contained within the user space.
• It potentially allows editors and admins to know about others' intents. I believe this increases transparency and lessens editor paranoia.
• The speedy deletion of userboxes messes with editors user-page, and I'm sure that in the minds of many this looks like admin abuse as our personal and political views are whittled down while other's opinions are not. And, aside from some policy set, there will never be userboxes that do not act as a source of contention, tacit or otherwise.
• Assuming good faith on the part of editors to make good contributions to the topics that concern them is not mutually exclusive with their views, whether they wear them on their sleeves or not. AGF first!

I would like to contest this, but I don't know where or how or even if. Xavexgoem (talk) 13:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

edit: Okay, that wasn't you. Sorry ;) Xavexgoem (talk) 13:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

That's okay, no problem :) Equazcion •✗/C • 15:46, 12 Jan 2008 (UTC)

your message crossed my comments. I was keeping that page not just watchlisted but open. By the way, please advise me, are you supporting the deletion of all political userboxes--I think that's defensible position, and might be the only way to end this nonsense. Supporting the deletion of this one alone probably is not. Sent you an email. DGG (talk) 18:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The MfD was apparently reopened. I maintain that this box is more divisive than its counterpart for the reasons you mentioned at the MfD. I would be all for the deletion of all political userboxes, but I don't think we necessarily need to decide that now. The way I see it, all we're forced to do now is decide on whether or not to delete both the pro-insurgency and pro-US-troops-in-Iraq userboxes. I agree that just deleting the pro-insurgency box is probably unacceptable. I haven't gotten your email yet but I'll keep checking... Equazcion •✗/C • 18:16, 12 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Re:My Sig

Thanks for trying to shorten it. I noticed you removed the section about it - why? It seemed to work... When ever I tried to shorten it it went weird and looked like: Tiddly Tom But yours did not do this. Tiddly-Tom 16:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I removed it because I realized that while I had removed some redundancies, I also had to add some other code that basically meant the total code wasn't any shorter. My version of the code may look "cleaner" but it's not actually shorter. May even be longer, but I didn't count characters. You're welcome though, if it did any good :) Equazcion •✗/C • 16:46, 13 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your time. I have sceen you around quite abit - inparticlr with the addition of the non-admin rollback. See yah around! Tiddly-Tom 19:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Occupation

Here[2], are you seriously suggesting there is a question as to whether Iraq is being occupied (as opposed to the question being one of whether or not it is illegal)? —Random832 14:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting anything. If you're seriously suggesting there isn't a question, then I don't know what to say. Perhaps try not to think in absolutes, and maybe balance out your reading material. Anyway, good luck with that. Equazcion •✗/C • 15:06, 16 Jan 2008 (UTC)

The reason I asked is because you went on to suggest that it was about legality (as if something that is legal cannot be called an occupation), so I thought that you might be confused on the definitions of terms. There are lots of legal occupations. The Allied occupation of Germany and the US occupation of Japan after World War II were perfectly legal. That doesn't mean it's not an occupation. —Random832 19:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I only included the word "illegal" to add an extra note of negativity to the claim, in the hopes that it would be more likely to satisfy the box's proponents as a possible reword. In other words, rewording the box to only say "occupation" might not adequately convey the message of wrongdoing that the proponents are aiming for. Personally, I do feel that whether or not an occupation even exists is far from established. Equazcion •✗/C • 19:13, 17 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Re: Hi, could you take a look at this?

Well, that's not cool. :I Now I'm actually going to take a nice, deep look at it rather than the quick glance I shot it at first. east.718 at 18:05, January 18, 2008

Thanks, I appreciate it :) Equazcion •✗/C • 18:07, 18 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Abortion and mental health

Hi, Equazcion. Thank you for all your help over there, I think your presence has helped calm things down. I was wondering, though, if you might post comments like this on a given user's talk page. Your point is completely valid, but might be more well-received if discussed off-article. I'm going to post over at IAA's, too. Thank you for all your contributions. Phyesalis (talk) 23:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I understand why you're suggesting that. However I've found user talk page comments are much easier for users to ignore or dismiss. They might not be quite as willing to be reasonable because less spectators are watching their talk page than they are the main discussion. I'll take this under advisement though. Equazcion •✗/C • 23:15, 19 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your gracious response (and not treating me like I'm a pedantic jerk). I understand your position, having had similar experiences myself. But User talk:IronAngelAlice isn't that bad. If you check her talk page, you'll see that she does respond to those things which require it. She's been reasonable, in my estimation, when given the opportunity (to be fair, I thought the comparison to Strider a bit painful, as in "ouch!"). So thanks for being open to my clumsy commentary! Phyesalis (talk) 01:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, ouch and all that, but she's actually worse than Strider. Strider was a hopeless slave to her POV and a bit tactless, but she was at least willing (sometimes exhaustingly willing) to discuss, and even hold off on reverts during those discussions. My first encounter with IAA was when she came back right after the page was unprotected and started reverting again, having not contributed a single comment to the discussion. And now this, which I don't need to describe to you. Anyway, I hope you've got more patience than I do. Good luck. Equazcion •✗/C • 06:31, 20 Jan 2008 (UTC)

While I understand your frustration, I think you were a very constructive presence on the article. I've taken a break for my own mental health (clear evidence for the existence of "post-Wikipedia-conflict syndrome", no doubt), but I do plan to look back in a week or so and see where things are. I hope you'll come back to the article in a bit as well and help improve it, because your input was quite helpful at a particularly difficult juncture and I appreciate it. MastCell ^Talk 23:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Me, too. Phyesalis (talk) 21:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:UBX guideline status

Please see my comment at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Policies/Userbox content#Discussion 8 and Wikipedia talk:UBX#Guideline_status. Equazcion •✗/C • 02:43, 21 Jan 2008 (UTC)

I've responded at the former and left a note at the latter.

I mean this as sincerely as possible, but please do more research before arbitrarily removing a policy or guideline tag.

That said, I'd be happy to try to help with said reasearch, if requested.

Have a good day : ) - jc37 10:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

As you can see from my comments, the removal was anything but arbitrary. A good day to you as well :) Equazcion •✗/C • 16:27, 21 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Gayass Wikipedians

Hi! Thanks for your work on this category. I have a question for you. Do you know if it is possible to make putting-one-of-the-Gayass-userboxes-on-your-page cause the user who does so to be automatically added to the category? If it is possible, do you know how to do this? Please let me know. Thanks! Photouploaded (talk) 17:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem :) They should already do that. The code: <includeonly>[[Category:Gayass Wikipedians|{{PAGENAME}}]]</includeonly> is in the template code, which would add any page that contains the template to the category. Check User:Equazcion/sandbox for a test. (deleted the test, but it worked) Equazcion •✗/C • 17:33, 21 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Message

Sorry for that.... shouldn't have sent you email!!

Anyway, I was only trying to solve the problem caused by this user, not make it worse. --Solumeiras (talk) 10:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

That's alright, no problem :) Equazcion •✗/C • 10:50, 24 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Wikipediatoolbarpreview.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Wikipediatoolbarpreview.png. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We requires this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

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

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

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 19:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks ... Philosophy page

Thanks ... that was getting ridiculous.

There is considerable effort technically in getting a page up and running and I am working with the philosophy portal.

I also need to go and get some laundry in right NOW!!! ;-) --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 07:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Hehe. I understand. Some people here like to bully, it seems. Here's hoping they let up. Equazcion •✗/C • 07:19, 25 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Toolbar

Wow, that's a great toolbar! May I have one? —BoL 01:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

There's a download link at the page. Equazcion •✗/C • 01:48, 29 Jan 2008 (UTC)

And how am I going to report a bug? (hint, hint?) —BoL 01:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Use the bug report page. That's the second question that would've been answered had you simply read the page. Equazcion •✗/C • 01:58, 29 Jan 2008 (UTC)

You do remember I'm topic-banned, right? —BoL 02:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I didn't remember that. You are not the center of our universe. If you need to report a bug, report it here. I'm currently the only developer anyway. Equazcion •✗/C • 02:01, 29 Jan 2008 (UTC)

I know, and got it. It's pretty good. —BoL 02:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Two ideas for you.

I saw your posting on Jimbo's talkpage and your toolbar looks neat. I will say, though, that I hope you aren't suggesting Wikipedia engage in spam!

Amyway. since you're a good programmer that does lots of work, I've got two ideas to bounce off of you.

• User:Zenwhat/Greylist: See the script on this page. I use it for intelligent tracking of violations of WP:NPOV, WP:RS, and WP:FRINGE by making a list of "suspicious" or "misused" sources, and then I check a list of pages which use those sources and 90% of the time, yes, there's a policy violation. Basically, right now I have a javascript that does this, but I need something in AJAX that does the same thing but better.
• User:Zenwhat/To Do List: An automated to-do list to make the wiki-process more of a logical algorithm that's easier to keep track of than having to regularly review your own contribs and keep an ugly watchlist. The project idea is laid out in that article.

☯  Zenwhat (talk) 02:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

No of course I'm not suggesting spam. But just having a good toolbar out there, listed at Mozilla Add-Ons, would be a good promotion. I'll take a look at your ideas but I'm not such a "good" programmer :) I've never written monobook.js scripts. Equazcion •✗/C • 03:32, 29 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Please stop removing the comments of others

I'm serious, stop it [3] now or we're going to RfC. This is not acceptable behavior at all. Chaz ^Beckett 10:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes it is. See wp:talk#Others' comments. Equazcion •✗/C • 10:35, 29 Jan 2008 (UTC)

The conversation is about the spoiler template. Quite on-topic in my opinion. Like I said, RfC is the next step if you remove comments again. Chaz ^Beckett 10:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Go to RFC now then. The conversation is a debate about whether or not someone's comment was a personal attack. It's pettiness. The part of the conversation that had to do with the spoiler template ended when I suggested DRV, and I didn't remove that part. Here:

---

YellowTapedR prefers to throw insults around instead. --Farix (Talk) 00:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Said the completely non-polarizing editor known as Farix. {sigh} Your constant accusations remind me of an old Usenet staple: "you telling me I'm off-topic is off-topic." You are free to figure out how that is relevant on your own. I trust that you are both intelligent and mature enough to catch my meaning. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 02:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of personal attacks...--YellowTapedR (talk) 02:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

And the dust covering the blood from the dead horse is beaten yet again....Chaz ^Beckett 02:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

You're very clever. I don't really see the use in ridiculing anyone who posts here who you don't agree with, automatically pulling the dead horse card. --YellowTapedR (talk) 02:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you're misinterpreting my statement. Even the editor starting this thread recognized that the horse has been laid to rest. If you're not going to contest deletion, perhaps it is time to declare the matter dead (at least for the near future). Just a suggestion.Chaz ^Beckett 02:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I got the same meaning off your statement as YellowTapedR did Garda40 (talk) 02:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

---

Let me know how any of this has to do with WP:SPOILER. Take it to RFC right now if you like. Equazcion •✗/C • 10:49, 29 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Still waiting. If you don't have an answer then you should revert yourself. Equazcion •✗/C • 11:00, 29 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Equazcion, as it seems to me they were clearly off-topic and engaging in personal attacks, something they should be warned for. However, you violated the core principle of "Don't be a dick," by removing their comments, citing a policy which technically supports your actions even though it was a dickish thing to do, and now, you're taunting them to put in the RFC, by saying, "Still waiting," and challenging them to revert themselves. Before you removed their comments and before the archive template was clamped down, you should've sent them messages saying, "No personal attacks please" on their talkpages and\or notified WP:ANI about the matter. What you're doing now, with all due respect, is just as childish as what they are doing and your escalating the situation rather than defusing it. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 04:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

That would've been the thing to do had my concern been a violation of NPA, but it wasn't. I don't actually see a personal attack here. It's just petty bickering that didn't belong on the talk page. It is generally encouraged that such things are removed, per WP:TALK, and it's not just "technically" supported but happens all the time, and it's not considered "being a dick". It's considered keeping talk pages clear of nonsense. There were furthermore a few people who participated, so even if I was engaging in an action that entailed a forewarning, I wasn't going to contact each participant to "make sure it was okay" with them, or whatever you're suggesting I should've done. The user who complained just mistakenly took this personally (and was the only one of the participants to get offended at the removal). To sum up, my "beef" wasn't with any individual; I understand that these things can happen and I felt no need to berate anyone for it, even though that's how Chaz took it. This wasn't one user violating policy and therefore requiring a warning -- this was simply housekeeping, a section of material that didn't belong on the page, and such things should be removed. Someone had to do it, so I did it. Equazcion •✗/C • 13:27, 30 Jan 2008 (UTC)

There is a similar situation here. User talk:Bishonen/temp#Jerk?. Would you act in the same manner?

Being that after you removed his comments, the user then came to your talkpage and you subtly taunted him, your actions didn't help the situation. Simply not removing his comments and\or not responding to his comments on your talkpage would've defused the situation. As of now, it's progressed to the point that you are now arguing about it with an uninvolved third-party. Are you going to taunt me also? He may have mistakenly taken your actions personally, which is why you could've said, "I'm sorry, it was nothing personal. I just wanted the conversation to cool off a bit."

I don't think my own words here will likely help things much either, so this is the last I'll say on the matter. I don't think the user should go to RFC, but you also shouldn't be so liberal about removing others' comments for sake of "housekeeping." ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 23:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I respect your opinion, but this is a common practice. If we're too sensitive about offending people to the point that we leave such pettiness on talk pages, then those pages would get overrun with it and descend into something akin to your average internet forum. This has already been over for some time though, as it was taken to ANI (as well as an admin's talk page). Equazcion •✗/C • 00:08, 31 Jan 2008 (UTC)

I will still be notified...how?

Hi Equazcion, I wandered here randomly and saw that you like people to keep discussions on the page they start on...right on. You say above that you'll still be notified...are you saying you put their userpage on your notify list, or is this some bot magic? If so, share, please. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 20:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

That's just to make sure new users know I can see that they answered via my watchlist. Nothing exotic involved here, sorry :) Equazcion •✗/C • 00:11, 31 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Darn. My watchlist is getting too encyclopedic as it is. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 02:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Just take the page off your watchlist once it looks like the conversation has ended. Unless it's someone you enjoy spying on. *cough*--Father Goose (talk) 02:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Changes to templates

The "changes" referred to were controversial design changes, not so much being bold... it's like when the ambox template was introduced it caused controversy. I've learnt the hard way about being bold. Thanks, --Solumeiras (talk) 10:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Well then allow me to learn. These changes aren't controversial unless someone voices a concern, which no one has thus far. I made my first such edits days ago and haven't seen a revert or a complaint yet. If someone has an actual problem with this then wait until they voice it. Don't take it upon yourself to predict that and act on it. Equazcion •✗/C • 10:53, 1 Feb 2008 (UTC)

• OK, sorry for that mistake. No offence intended. I think I was the only one to voice a concern. --Solumeiras (talk) 11:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

That's alright. Thanks for being so reasonable :) Equazcion •✗/C • 11:04, 1 Feb 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for that... oh well, what articles you editing?? I'm editing anything and everything at the moment... --Solumeiras (talk) 11:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Aside from slimming down the talk page headers, not much lately :) Still reverting vandalism when I see it and doing some general cleanup, but I haven't gotten heavily involved in any particular articles lately. Equazcion •✗/C • 11:38, 1 Feb 2008 (UTC)

As you can see...

...my block has expired (finally). Thanks! --Gp75motorsports ^{REV LIMITER} 20:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem :) Equazcion •✗/C • 20:06, 8 Feb 2008 (UTC)

!תודה

Thanks for the revert on my userspace! :) That's the first one from the latest set; I saw you reverted five times this afternoon. I'm too lazy to copy the other four diff links. :P Tuvok[^T@lk/_Improve] 05:31, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem :) Equazcion •✗/C • 07:25, 9 Feb 2008 (UTC)

User:FreeThoughts

Hi Equazcion. A couple of thoughts about the situation with User:FreeThoughts. First, it generally isn't a good idea for anyone except the blocking admin to leave a block notice on a user's talk page. Leaving the block notice there yourself could give the impression that you had performed the block, which is potentially misleading. Second, please leave User:FreeThoughts be. Further antagonizing this user by continuing the argument over the status of Scientology isn't productive or helpful and is very unlikely to change FreeThought's opinion or make it more likely he will calm down and return to productive editing after his block. This is a situation where walking away is probably the best thing to do. Thanks, Gwernol 10:26, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I sometimes leave block notices when the blocking admin neglects to do so, as I see happen often regarding blocks that resulted from AIV reports. I feel users should be notified at least. I'm fine with admins replacing the block notice if they had indeed intended to leave one.

I will walk away if this continues as a debate between religion vs. cult, but as you might see from my latest response, I'm trying to keep this in terms of what we can say in Wikipedia articles and what we can't. Hopefully he'll start to understand, but I can recognize lost causes and when I see that I will walk away. I don't have any vested interest in the topic that would keep me in the game. Equazcion •✗/C • 10:31, 11 Feb 2008 (UTC)

You might want to leave a little more than 3 minutes before concluding that a block notice is not going to be left. This particular case is a complex one that required a careful explanation to the blocked user of why they were blocked. A standard block notice wasn't going to effectively explain what was going on. You edit conflicted me while I was composing my block notice. Gwernol 10:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

RfC

Hello there. I'm considered writing up a user-conduct RfC regarding Strider12's conduct, revolving around issues of tendentious editing, edit-warring in favor of seeking consensus, using Wikipedia as a venue for advocacy, constant personal attacks, etc etc. RfC's require the certification of other users who have attempted to deal with the conduct in question and resolve the underlying issue. Would you be willing to co-sign an RfC to the extent that you've tried to resolve the dispute with Strider12 on the relevant article talk-pages? I know you've since moved on, but you did try fairly hard to resolve the problems and find common ground. Up to you, but I thought I'd ask. MastCell ^Talk 23:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd be happy to participate in the RfC, however there are a couple of things I just want to make clear. While she makes things difficult due to her steadfast POV, Strider is usually willing to discuss things. I'm not sure how much policy she's actually violated, if any. It might be helpful to conduct the RfC anyway just to show her some constructive outside criticism and get her to to be more balanced in her editing.

Also: IronAngelAlice will need to be included in this RfC (or, I'll add her after it begins, if you prefer). She is just as POV-pushing as Strider, only in the opposite direction, and is less willing to discuss, while being more willing to revert-war. I notice that she ignored my last talk page comment and reverted my edit of the lead, which would be her second time reverting to her preferred version. So if you start an RfC for Strider, Alice should definitely be included, as she's been far less constructive than Strider -- she just happens to agree with a more popular POV, so she doesn't garner quite as much criticism for it.

Just FYI. Let me know when the RfC starts. Thanks. Equazcion •✗/C • 00:31, 12 Feb 2008 (UTC)

Correction - I just remembered about Strider's personal attacks, so that would be a violation, and I'd be willing to attest to that. My experience with her was a while ago so you'll have to forgive me for forgetting some details :) Equazcion •✗/C • 00:39, 12 Feb 2008 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable and I agree with your comments. What you choose to say at the RfC is totally up to you - you're free to agree, disagree, partially agree, or ignore anything I say, and to bring up the conduct of other involved editors. Cosigning would indicate only that you have helped attempt to resolve the dispute with Strider12, and that the dispute persists despite reasonable efforts to resolve it. I'll let you know when I get it together; you can review it before making a final decision. MastCell ^Talk 00:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I took a look at the RfC instructions for user conduct (as I don't have any experience with that process). It seems to formally focus on only one user. This is what concerns me. I feel that IronAngelAlice has acted far more inappropriately than Strider, and the only reason people aren't noticing that is because she acts for the majority POV. I'd ask that before preparing a report, you perhaps consider some other avenue that would allow examining both users' actions. To me, it doesn't seem fair, if we must choose one user, to go after the one who has been so communicative and open to discussion in comparison to the other, just because the former happens to be in disagreement with the majority. Equazcion •✗/C • 01:12, 12 Feb 2008 (UTC)

I understand. I was thinking of the part in WP:RfC where it says that "An RfC may bring close scrutiny on all involved editors", though you're right that the formal focus of the RfC is on one editor. The other alternative is to bring a case to the Arbitration Committee, who will certainly look at everyone involved (and would likely not be overly well-disposed toward IronAngelAlice's approach) - but they often will not accept cases like this unless an RfC has been completed first. I don't know of other mechanisms to address it. Anyhoo, I'll draft the thing and then it's your call if you feel comfortable signing off or if you'd rather not - no big deal either way. MastCell ^Talk 08:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

GP block

Sorry, I have no idea how to lift an autoblock (n00b admin). Could you lift it, please? Best, Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 22:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but the autoblock apparently expired on its own (see GP's comment above). Thanks though :) Equazcion •✗/C • 22:12, 8 Feb 2008 (UTC)

You're not an admin? **shocked** You should go for RfA. Thanks for letting me know. :) Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 22:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Although I'm not sure why you're saying that, thanks nonetheless. I'm flattered :) Equazcion •✗/C • 22:22, 8 Feb 2008 (UTC)

Wow. I've always assumed you were an admin. :P I just looked over some of your contribs, you'd have a much easier life if you had the tools. Don't hesitate to ask me if you want a nom! Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 22:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'm quite admin material yet, but maybe I'll take you up on that one day. Thanks :) Equazcion •✗/C • 22:36, 8 Feb 2008 (UTC)

Best of luck, I'm always happy to help with administrative stuff if you need it. :) Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 22:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Will do, thanks once again :) Equazcion •✗/C • 22:46, 8 Feb 2008 (UTC)

Why not? Everyone else thinks you're a natural (including me). --Gp75motorsports ^{REV LIMITER} 00:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely! You're as big an asshole as any of the admins. You'd totally fit in. ;-) --Father Goose (talk) 00:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Zing. But I agree, you'd make a good admin. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 00:53, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow... thanks everyone (and lol @ FG, who I think probably deserves a nom before I do). I've stepped on a lot of powerful toes in my time though, so an RfA for me would probably be very divided. I dunno. I'll have to give it some thought... Equazcion •✗/C • 01:34, 9 Feb 2008 (UTC)

If you perform any task regularly where the tools would come in handy, by all means, apply. You'll have several nominators, and I doubt there are any diffs in your past that would kibosh your request.--Father Goose (talk) 08:00, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

← The more powerful toes you've stepped on, the more likely you'll be a decent admin. Well, up to a point anyway. The process is a crapshoot, and it's guaranteed that anyone you've pissed off will show up to get a whack in. Still, it's always good to have more admins who have actual experience editing tough articles and resolving disputes, so you ought to consider it if you think the tools would be helpful to you. MastCell ^Talk 19:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, now there's a set of diffs that'll cause you trouble.--Father Goose (talk) 21:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I think we can say byebye to the admin option now, at least for a while :) I dunno, is being an admin nearly this much fun? I don't think I could pull crap like this as an admin. Perhaps better to be in the trenches with the common man :) Equazcion •✗/C • 23:24, 12 Feb 2008 (UTC)

To MastCell: The process is mostly the reason I've never gone for it before. It's like running for office, a popularity contest, and as you say, a crapshoot. You've gotta answer for everything you ever did, write bullshitty essays about what you would do "if elected", and kiss the collective ass. Then you've gotta hope that the people who like you show up and the people who don't like you don't. I have very little respect for RfA as a process and I'd feel like kicking my own butt if I participated in it. Equazcion •✗/C • 23:32, 12 Feb 2008 (UTC)

WP:3RR

Hi Equazcion, this is just a friendly notice to tell you that your reversions on the ZZ Top article are sailing close to breaking the 3RR policy. Perhaps slowing down on the reverts and more dicussion with the users involved would give a more satisfactory conclusion. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. Scarian^{Call me Pat} 14:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Category:Rouge admins

The category is a subcategory of Category:Wikipedia_administrators_by_inclination, that is, it's a category for those who are admins. Non administrators should not add themselves to it as that would confuse other users. I've removed you. If you add yourself back again I'd consider that as evidence of intent to disrupt or deceive. ++Lar: t/c 19:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

You can consider it whatever you like, but there's no policy that says users can only add themselves to certain categories. The category is a joke and it's not harmful for me to have it. If you want to argue that I'm being deceitful, it's even deceitful for admins to be in this category. Not that any of this matters. User inclusion in categories isn't limited under any policy that I'm aware of. Show me one, and I'd be happy to remove it. Til then please leave my user page alone. Equazcion •✗/C • 19:41, 12 Feb 2008 (UTC)

Let me second Lars' point. It is pretty disruptive to represent yourself as an admin when you are not one. It misleads other users and common sense should tell you that isn't a wise thing to do. I would suggest you take that category off your userpage. This seems like a pretty small think to get into a conflict about, particularly if you are thinking about applying for adminship yourself in the near future. Please consider this some freindly advise. Best, Gwernol 19:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

If you place a statement on your user page that you are an administrator when you are not, that's deceptive, and I've seen it removed from user pages time and time again, enforced by blocks if the point didn't stick. If you place yourself in a category that is designed to classify administrators (whether it's partly humorous or not) when you are not an admin, that's deceptive as well. Just common sense there, really. Demanding citation of a specific policy to support that is wikilawyering. I'd suggest you reconsider whether the LULZ of adding it are worth being considered disruptive. I suspect that being considered disruptive this way would put paid to any near term RfA ambitions. ++Lar: t/c 19:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I consider it wikilawyering to be so uptight as to not allow a user to make a joke by including himself in a joke category, just because it has the word "admin" in it. Seriously, just how much potential disruption are we talking about here? At most, once in a while someone will think I'm an admin (maybe), ask me to do something adminly, and I'll politely correct them and say sorry but that's just a joke. I really don't see this causing such trouble as to warrant block threats etc. If it does end up causing trouble, and/or people do in fact frequently mistake me for an admin, I'll remove it. I can assure you I'm not out to destroy Wikipedia. I've been here a fairly long time, fought vandals and other disruptive nincompoops til I'm blue in the face, and my guess as to the potential damage this will cause is an educated one. I hope that's sufficient and we can all move on with our lives. Equazcion •✗/C • 19:57, 12 Feb 2008 (UTC)

I've removed it. If you add it again I will block you. Please don't. --John (talk) 20:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm adding it again. You can't just threaten a block instead of contributing to the discussion. Talk to me and state your reasoning like everyone else is. I'm a nice guy, I'll listen :) Equazcion •✗/C • 20:02, 12 Feb 2008 (UTC)

That was unwise. I always keep my promises. You have been blocked for 24 hours. On your return remember not to edit war, listen to others' advice, and do not falsely claim you are an admin. Best wishes, --John (talk) 20:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, you're not discussing your reasons. You're just imposing authority. That's just plain wrong, and you should be ashamed of yourself. And now I'm not joking. Equazcion •✗/C • 20:05, 12 Feb 2008 (UTC)

If you want to add it back, convince the members and other users of the category to remove it from Category:Wikipedia_administrators_by_inclination, then. As that category says "This category is a self-reference and is used for administration of the Wikipedia project." meaning that it is used to track who is who. As long as any other category X is a subcategory of that one, only administrators belong in category X. Your argument that you'll explain away confusion is insufficient in my view. If you can convince them to remove it, then I would not be quite as concerned at the deception value. You've now been told by three different administrators not to continue doing this. You miss the point that the category is not purely a joke, regardless of what is asserted by others not in it. ++Lar: t/c 20:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The category itself states "This page contains material which is kept because it is considered humorous. It is not intended, nor should it be used, for any remotely serious purpose" which appears to me to be a clear statement that it is a joke and has no serious intent. DuncanHill (talk) 20:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Good point. Equazcion •✗/C • 20:19, 12 Feb 2008 (UTC)

See also WP:POINT. --John (talk) 20:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Seen it. What's your point? Equazcion •✗/C • 20:22, 12 Feb 2008 (UTC)

@Duncan: Sorted, the category has been revised to clarify that it has the "ha ha, only serious" nature. I believe it used to have some clarifying material to that effect.

@Equazcion: If, with that clarification, (you should have known better but sometimes maybe it is better to spell things out) you're willing to stop adding yourself to the category, I'm willing to unblock, against my better judgement in view of what John says below. ++Lar: t/c 20:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

My point is that by repeatedly adding an admin-only category to your user page when three different admins asked you not to, you were disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. --John (talk) 20:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

And what point am I trying to make? Equazcion •✗/C • 20:26, 12 Feb 2008 (UTC)

No idea. You're not making it very clearly, whatever it is. ++Lar: t/c 20:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Well if you're gonna accuse me of a WP:POINT violation, you should probably have some idea of what point you think I'm trying to make. In any case, John: I'm not trying to make a point, and I'm not sure what point you think I would be trying to make. I'm simply adding myself to a joke category, as a joke. I've also already explained that I don't foresee any significant disruption as a result. You refused to respond to that and blocked me instead. If you'd like to now discuss this, please feel free to respond to my comment above. Equazcion •✗/C • 20:29, 12 Feb 2008 (UTC)

You're either disrupting wikipedia to make a point, or just plain disrupting wikipedia. Which is it? ++Lar: t/c 20:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

With respect, I think its very clear that you added yourself to the category to make a point about how the category was a joke and should be deleted: [4] as well as comments here. This looks like a pretty clear case of what WP:POINT was designed to discourage. I think its a great shame that you decided to take a stand on this issue, Gwernol 20:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

If I were adding myself to that category to make the point that it should be deleted, then why would I have explicitly stated that I was refraining from nominating the category for deletion since that would be making a point [5]? My point in wanting to nominate it was not because I think it should be deleted, but because I think other humorous categories are deleted for reasons that should apply to this one. I thought it would be interesting to hear the Keep rationale that admins would use to defend this category on the basis of humor, when other such categories are defended with similar rationale yet still get deleted. That would be making a POINT though, so I didn't make that nomination, and stated as much. I don't the think the category should be deleted at all. Equazcion •✗/C • 20:39, 12 Feb 2008 (UTC)

You can wikilawyer until you are blue in the face, Equazcion, but I do know WP:POINT when I see it. Your behaviour is unacceptable. Some of us are here to write an encyclopedia, and silly nonsense like this is distracting us from that goal. I, too, will unblock you if you guarantee not to re-add the admin-only category that three admins have asked you not to add. This constitutes my final offer to you, and is non-negotiable. --John (talk) 20:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I know WP:POINT when I see it too, and this isn't it. See? That argument works for me too. Saying "I know it when I see it" is no argument. I'm not trying to make a point, and if you don't even know what point you think I'm trying to make, then your accusation means little. I'm here for the same reason as you, and if you take a look at my contribs I think you'll see that Wikipedia will only be worse off for my absence. PS you might want to take a look at that cat listing and remove those other plain editors from it :) Equazcion •✗/C • 20:52, 12 Feb 2008 (UTC)

Hey, Equazcion, if cat:Rouge whatevverrs upsets you, gee, I can only suggest ignoring it, though that might be difficult. FWIW, I think this went all too far - if you feel it was worth it getting blocked, and looking like the wrong end of the argument in some eyes, then so be it. My best wishes for when your block expires, in any case, I value your calm(!) contributions. Newbyguesses - Talk 22:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The category doesn't upset me at all... I'm honestly not sure where certain people are getting that from. Equazcion •✗/C • 22:54, 12 Feb 2008 (UTC)

Unblock request

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

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

---

Request reason:

I was blocked because I added myself to Category:Rouge admins, a category whose page states: "This page contains material which is kept because it is considered humorous. It is not intended, nor should it be used, for any remotely serious purpose". If it's only kept because it's considered humorous, ergo without the humorous aspect it would be deleted, I don't see the harm in adding myself to it. It's not a remotely serious category, and my adding myself to it was, similarly, not remotely serious.

Decline reason:

You were asked to stop adding yourself to a category that defines those within it as administrators, and you continued to add the category to your user page anyway. While it may not have been as disruptive as attempting to add yourself to Category:Administrators, it wasn't any more appropriate. The only way I can image this block being reversed or reduced would be if you agreed to stop disruptively adding yourself to categories designated for administrators (as mentioned by Lar below). - auburnpilot talk 21:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

---

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

Response to decline rationale

Yes, I was asked by admins to stop, but I disagreed with them that my actions were disruptive. Are we supposed to just do what admins say, even if we disagree, or else be blocked? Is that how it works? Equazcion •✗/C • 21:12, 12 Feb 2008 (UTC)

• Not necessarily, but in this case it was a reasonable request. Representing yourself as an admin when you're not one is disruptive. You're not the first to be blocked for it, and I doubt you'll be the last. Black Kite 21:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

"Are we supposed to just do what admins say, even if we disagree," It doesn't matter who asked you to stop, the correct course of action would be to stop adding yourself to the category, and start a discussion on a relevant page (this talk page, the category talk page, an RfC, whatever). Repeatedly adding yourself to the category was the last thing you should have done. - auburnpilot talk 21:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• • (ec) I disagree with the contention that, in this case, my action qualifies as representing myself as an admin. The category is for humorous purposes only. Again, I was warned, but disagreed, and I think this matter is anything but clearcut enough as to warrant a block. I'm sure others have been blocked before for misrepresenting themselves as admins, but I have doubts that anyone was blocked for misrepresenting themselves as rouge admins. There's no precedent or policy for this. Equazcion •✗/C • 21:20, 12 Feb 2008 (UTC)

To AuburnPilot: I did start discussion, on this page -- and the blocking admin didn't participate in it (at the time of the block). Equazcion •✗/C • 21:20, 12 Feb 2008 (UTC)

If I violate the three revert rule, but make comments on the article's talk page between edits, I've still violated the three revert rule. Yes, you made comments on this talk page, but you still added yourself the category after being asked not to (ignoring warnings that you'd be blocked if you continued). - auburnpilot talk 21:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, however three-revert rule is a policy. I didn't violate a policy. I just did something that went against the opinions of admins. Equazcion •✗/C • 21:26, 12 Feb 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be blinded by the fact that those who asked you to stop are admins. That's quite frankly irrelevant, as you should have stopped if it had been an IP editor, admin, 'crat, arbitrator, or Jimbo Wales himself. It doesn't matter who asked, you should have stopped. - auburnpilot talk 21:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. If everyone did everything they were asked to do by anyone, nothing would ever get done. That's not generally how things work here. People do what they feel is right, unless someone makes a convincing argument against it. Equazcion •✗/C • 21:31, 12 Feb 2008 (UTC)

3RR is a bright line, not an entitlement. Repeatedy making the same edit after it's been reverted by others is edit warring. After the first reversion, or at most the second, the thing to do is stop making the edit, and ONLY discuss... no more making it. The location of the edit is irrelevant. After you've been warned not to readd an edit on pain of a block, it's then pretty clear that to do so again is indeed edit warring. And that's exactly what you did in response, you exhibited intransigence and defiance, you were practically daring John to block you in my view... At that point you should have instead said "OK I'll stop adding it, let's discuss why it's a valid add." ++Lar: t/c 21:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Why shouldn't John have said "Ok I'll stop removing it, let's discuss why it's an invalid add"? Was it that big of an emergency that it had to be removed during the duration of the discussion? Equazcion •✗/C • 21:38, 12 Feb 2008 (UTC)

John was returning to the status quo ante, in which you were not in the category. "Bold, revert, discuss". Not "bold, revert, revert back, discuss" ++Lar: t/c 21:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Is that how it's supposed to work? "Bold, revert, discuss"? Does it say that somewhere? (seriously, I want to know) Equazcion •✗/C • 21:44, 12 Feb 2008 (UTC)

WP:BRD. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 22:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

That's just an essay. If there was consensus for it then I would've said you have a point. Equazcion •✗/C • 22:09, 12 Feb 2008 (UTC)

It works though. Revert warring doesn't. In the spirit of that essay though (you really should read it, and maybe review the history to see how many highly productive and successful editors have contributed to it), you have my attention. Do you have a compromise position you'd care to advance? Some sort of mechanism that makes the point that you find the category humorous/silly/whatever (or whatever other reason you had for wanting to be in it, would you mind rearticulating the reason again?), without being actually in it? That seems a good compromise, doesn't it? ++Lar: t/c 22:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

In a perfect world it would work, but I don't believe in it only because people tend to feel significantly less compelled to pay attention to a situation when they've already gotten their way. What seems like a good compromise? The one you're asking me to come up with? :) Yes if there were a compromise that fit with that description it would be good, but I can't really think of one. Again my motivation wasn't to make a point. I just think it's funny for an ordinary editor to be a rouge admin, when even admins aren't rouge admins (multiple levels of humor, you see the levels?). And, once again, the amount of deal that has been made about this is so incredibly ridiculous in my opinion. There were ordinary users who were part of this cat long before me -- I just happened to declare it somewhere, and that caused this hubbub, because people blew it up into that. I continue my claim that this would not cause any disruption. And in fact, it hasn't, as we can see from those others users. Equazcion •✗/C • 22:27, 12 Feb 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, that would have been a better course of action. Maybe you can learn from this experience, if you can appreciate that edit-warring is always bad. Even if you think you are right. Every edit-warrior does think that. It is not how we work, which is why we have strict policies against it. --John (talk) 21:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

An edit war requires more than one party. Others edit-warred just as much as I did. Edit warring is always bad, even if you think you are right. Maybe you can learn from this experience. Equazcion •✗/C • 21:42, 12 Feb 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Well I can see I'm wasting my time here. I'll see you around, no doubt. Don't even think about adding the category again when your block expires, or you will find yourself blocked for longer. As I said, we have better things to do. Bye. --John (talk) 21:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Bye. And please, in the future, remember not to edit war. It's always bad. Equazcion •✗/C • 21:49, 12 Feb 2008 (UTC)

Sarcasm noted. ++Lar: t/c 22:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Noted your notation of my sarcasm. It wasn't exactly intended as sarcasm though. I was making a point, that it's ridiculous to berate me for edit warring when my opponents engaged in edit warring just as much. Equazcion •✗/C • 22:09, 12 Feb 2008 (UTC)

@Eq, maybe you have some ideas for Wikipedia:this is not an edit war, a newly-created essay. Or not. Newbyguesses - Talk 23:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Unblock request notes

Note: "added myself to" == 3 separate times, in effect edit warring, twice after being warned/asked not to repeat. See just above and Wikipedia_talk:User_categories_for_discussion#Category:Rouge_admins... the user has an offer on the table from 2 admins (myself and John) to unblock if the user will undertake to stop adding themselves to the category. I myself, as an involved admin, choose not to decline the unblock, although I am one of the two admins willing to conditionally lift it. ++Lar: t/c 20:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring on my own user page, which I don't think applies. Also I was trying to discuss this issue above when I was abruptly blocked by an admin who was unwilling to participate in the discussion. Equazcion •✗/C • 20:57, 12 Feb 2008 (UTC)

You do not own any page here, even the user page associated with your account, so yes, you were edit warring. There is no requirement for others to participate in discussion to suit your own particular definition of how to discuss. The warnings were plain already, and John warned you not to do what was already being discussed, and your next action was to do that very thing. Did you consider that he may not have felt the need to reiterate the points already made? Would it have been hugely better if he had said "I agree with the other admins who already warned you not to do this?" You're wikilawyering, and now apparently you've incited some other non admins to be disruptive as well, if I gather what you were alluding to. That's really not good at all. Please clarify. ++Lar: t/c 21:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't just jump when admins snap. See the discussion on this above. As for "inciting", please clarify what you're referring to. Equazcion •✗/C • 21:23, 12 Feb 2008 (UTC)

"PS you might want to take a look at that cat listing and remove those other plain editors from it" As it happens Allstarecho added him/her self while this was going on... it's not an unreasonable inference, (which is why I said "apparently") but perhaps it's just coincidence. So, do you plan to readd yourself when the block is lifted or ends? ++Lar: t/c 21:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I was pointing out that I saw other plain editors in the category, since this seems to be a major concern, detrimental to the collective health of the encyclopedia. I'm not sure how that could be considered inciting anything, but if so, then no, that was not my intention. Equazcion •✗/C • 21:49, 12 Feb 2008 (UTC)

OK, assuming you weren't inciting, and apologies for making the inference in the first place, who all did you spot? Thanks in advance for the information. ++Lar: t/c 22:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem, we all make mistakes (although I'm still confused as to what I could've been inciting). I spotted allstarecho, Adriaan90, and Lapinmies. Equazcion •✗/C • 22:13, 12 Feb 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I missed Lapinmies but spotted the other two. For reference it appears that Lapinmies was warned about this some time ago but the admin let it slide after 2 reverts. Your point above about dramah is correct, but the thing is, you're the source of the dramah... if you hadn't started what some might characterise as a bit trolly of a discussion and then mentioned your add, maybe no dramah. ++Lar: t/c 22:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I assume you mean "drama", but I don't see the original post as trolling, and the drama is, as I said, caused by the people who made a big deal out of something that was really not a big deal at all. I can't be blamed for that. Equazcion •✗/C • 22:41, 12 Feb 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) No, I meant "dramah", the ironic H is intentionally added to the standard word. I am not sure that everyone else will agree with your assessment of your lack of culpability in this matter, I'm afraid. I'm still kind of curious, do you plan to readd yourself to the category? ++Lar: t/c 22:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The question is whether or not the addition to the category was itself disruptive, and I say it was not. The attention it garnered was the disruption and it was unwarranted. Of course most admins won't agree with me. I've been on Wikipedia long enough to know this. Equazcion •✗/C • 23:03, 12 Feb 2008 (UTC)

WP:ANI#Block_of_User:Equazcion

Hello, Equazcion. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. ➪HiDrNick! 22:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Dr. Nick, I was kinda wishing I could do that, so thanks for doing it for me :) Equazcion •✗/C • 22:33, 12 Feb 2008 (UTC)

Any of the admins here would have done it if you'd asked it to be brought there. ++Lar: t/c 22:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm surprised that I haven't been blocked for doing so already!  :-P Joking aside though, if you have a statement you would like to have proxied over there, I'm sure anyone will be glad to move it over there for you. ➪HiDrNick! 22:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. One thing I wanted to say, in response to those talking about 3RR on user pages, is that I didn't violate it even if it did apply to user pages, as I only reverted twice. Equazcion •✗/C • 22:47, 12 Feb 2008 (UTC)

I am afraid that it has been explained to you more than once that 3RR is a bright line, not an entitlement. You don't automatically get 3 reverts for free. Read WP:3RR. ++Lar: t/c 23:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

And now someone mentioned WP:POINT -- I've made it clear on this page that I am not at all trying to make any point by adding myself to that category. Equazcion •✗/C • 22:51, 12 Feb 2008 (UTC)

See above, in trying to see if there is a compromise position, I've asked you what you're trying to accomplish... knowing what, might aid in finding such a compromise, if you were interested in that. ++Lar: t/c 23:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I responded to you and told you what I'm trying to accomplish (nothing but to be funny). And that still says nothing about the point accusation. I'm not trying to make a point. I think that's the 5th time I've made that statement on this page. Equazcion •✗/C • 23:05, 12 Feb 2008 (UTC)

I'll postulate that you think you're not trying to make a point, but what matters sometimes is how others perceive what one does. Others perceive that you are and sometimes no amount of denying can counteract that. Often one is judged on outcomes, not intent, because intent is so hard to judge. The outcome here seems pretty indistinguishable from one where you were trying to make a point. So maybe accept that it's a perception, unfair as it might be, and then decide what to do about it. ++Lar: t/c 23:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Responses to ANI comments, which I'm posting here since I'm blocked

• To Gwernol: I wasn't trying to make any point! I responded to this accusation on my talk page already, many times. Just to prove it's humorous? I have no vested interest in convincing anyone of that. I just thought it was funny to add myself to it. No point involved whatsoever. Equazcion •✗/C • 22:57, 12 Feb 2008 (UTC)

• To Black Kite: New users would find "rouge admin" confusing even if it were an admin who had it posted, so confusing the newbies doesn't seem like a valid concern here. Equazcion •✗/C • 23:09, 12 Feb 2008 (UTC)

Did you want these copied over? ++Lar: t/c 23:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, please. Thanks. Equazcion •✗/C • 23:27, 12 Feb 2008 (UTC)

Done. Hopefully I put them in the right place, it was a judgement call. ++Lar: t/c 23:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks good to me, thanks, I appreciate it. Equazcion •✗/C • 23:41, 12 Feb 2008 (UTC)

• Black Kite: Because I want to make it clear just how ridiculous it is to make a big deal out of this, especially to the point of imposing a block. There's no way I would make a promise like that, because it would be condoning all this ridiculousness. If you want to block a good-faith editor for doing something that really would not have caused any significant disruption (and most people do agree on that point), then so be it, it's your loss. But if you want to prove that this isn't some kind of turf war (not you personally, but you as the body of admins who adamantly oppose this) and that you support reserving blocks and two-mile arguments for situations that actually warrant it, then you'll unblock me and tell me that it's okay to post this stupid joke category on my user page. Again, if you don't want to, that's your loss, and not just because I'd be gone, but because of what it says about where admin priorities lie. Equazcion •✗/C • 23:52, 12 Feb 2008 (UTC) (please paste this over there -- thanks.)

why not promise?

Blocks are only for preventing disruption. If you promise not to do the thing that some are considering disruptive the rationale for your being blocked goes away, no? If the category itself is silly, insisting on being in it is even sillier. I think everyone got the message at this point. Wikidemo (talk) 00:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

See my last response to Black Kite above, that's why I can't make such a promise. Equazcion •✗/C • 00:03, 13 Feb 2008 (UTC)

And if someone could please past that response over at ANI I'd appreciate it. Thanks. Equazcion •✗/C • 00:10, 13 Feb 2008 (UTC)

I've just done it, but not sure if I put it in the right place. DuncanHill (talk) 01:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, it's fine where you put it. Could you also paste my response to AuburnPilot below? Thanks, I appreciate it. Equazcion •✗/C • 01:28, 13 Feb 2008 (UTC)

OK, done. DuncanHill (talk) 01:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks :) Equazcion •✗/C • 01:32, 13 Feb 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you again but could you just move that last one down to the bottom? Thanks Equazcion •✗/C • 01:34, 13 Feb 2008 (UTC)

Under the "Proposal" section? OK DuncanHill (talk) 01:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes exactly, thanks :) Equazcion •✗/C • 01:36, 13 Feb 2008 (UTC)

Done! I wonder if I'll get blocked for being a meatpuppet of a blocked user? Still, they'd have to block Lar too, so I'd be in good company! DuncanHill (talk) 01:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Ha, yeah I think if you do the same thing as an admin, you're pretty much safe :) Equazcion •✗/C • 01:45, 13 Feb 2008 (UTC)

Well, that depends to some extent on which admin you're doing the same thing as! DuncanHill (talk) 01:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

...And on if you're adding the same category to your user page as they do :) Equazcion •✗/C • 01:49, 13 Feb 2008 (UTC)

Really?

Are you seriously going to actually quit if you're not allowed to add yourself to a category? Doesn't that seem a bit childish and pointless? I mean really - aren't there other things more worthwhile upon which you could "make your stand"? I can't say I get it. I don't necessarily know if blocking you was the best move, but if you're so bent out of shape about it that you're going to take your ball and go home because you can't join the category... You need to re-evaluate why you are here. The rest of us are (hopefully) focused on things that matter to the encyclopedia. What about Wikipedia is important to you? Avruch ^T 01:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

AuburnPilot made some kind of false interpretation, apparently, because I never said that. Equazcion •✗/C • 01:15, 13 Feb 2008 (UTC)

And once again could someone please paste my response to Black Kite above at the ANI?? Equazcion •✗/C • 01:24, 13 Feb 2008 (UTC)

And here's another one to AuburnPilot:

• "Equazcion has stated on his talk page that he intends to leave the project if he is not allowed to add Category:Rouge admins to his user page" -- I said no such thing. Equazcion •✗/C • 01:26, 13 Feb 2008 (UTC)

I suppose I misunderstood the statement "Again, if you don't want to, that's your loss, and not just because I'd be gone, but because of what it says about where admin priorities lie."[6] - auburnpilot talk —Preceding comment was added at 01:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes it appears so. Equazcion •✗/C • 01:47, 13 Feb 2008 (UTC)

Care to clarify, then? - auburnpilot talk 01:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

"Again, if you don't want to" -- If you don't want to unblock me -- "that's your loss" -- that's your loss -- "and not just because I'd be gone" -- and not just because I'd be gone -- "but because of what it says about where admin priorities lie" -- because it shows that admins are willing to make an inordinately big deal out of trivial things. Equazcion •✗/C • 01:52, 13 Feb 2008 (UTC)

That's fine. I'll come back once your block expires; maybe you'll be more civil and cooperative then. - auburnpilot talk 02:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

What makes you think that? :) But seriously, I don't know how you got "I'm leaving if I can't add myself to this category" from the statement you quoted. I'm not being uncivil. I've clarified my statement as much as I feel is possible. If you can articulate what you're confused about more specifically I'd be glad to try and clarify further. Equazcion •✗/C • 02:16, 13 Feb 2008 (UTC)

Yes! How dare you defy the admins! You must be civil and cooperative and do as the admins would have you do! It's really getting rich in here. ➪HiDrNick! 03:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I am surely an insolent motherfucker who deserves to be prosecuted to the full extent of admin authority :) Equazcion •✗/C • 14:10, 13 Feb 2008 (UTC)

Another section

I am confused, and maybe it is none of my business. Just answer if you wish, this is not harassment, as I am interested in your opinions on a number of matters, (not connected to this current brou-ha-ha).

1. Do you want to add your user:name to cat:Rougeadmins?
2. By doing so, does that mean you become a rogue admin?
3. Do you want to add your user:name to cat:rogue editors?
4. Do you want to be an admin, at some point in time?

Thanks, Newbyguesses - Talk 02:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

1. Yes.
2. No, it means I put a funny link on my user page.
3. No.
4. I haven't decided.

Equazcion •✗/C • 02:47, 13 Feb 2008 (UTC)

-Thanks, I am a bit less confused now. Newbyguesses - Talk 02:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem Equazcion •✗/C • 03:00, 13 Feb 2008 (UTC)

So how long till the b---k expires? Newbyguesses - Talk 03:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

24 h---s. Equazcion •✗/C • 03:17, 13 Feb 2008 (UTC)

OK!I have commented at AN/I.—Newbyguesses - Talk 03:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

And might I just add, we're all zombies around here! lol This whole thing has gotten ridiculous. Admins that have a joke category, that can't seem to get the joke itself. Amazing. Anyway, I've since expanded Category:Rouge editors and put myself there. And for what it's worth, the block of you for 3RR is bogus. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 03:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

What an incredible graphic. And, by coincidence, I was just checking out the pix on ASE's talkpage, Newbyguesses - Talk 04:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm getting a kick out of the whole situation. And the graphic. I suppose that one can assume that the category is a joke in itself, so it's fair game for all editors (as it's not restrictive as Category:Administrators. Or one can assume that the category is factually correct, in that there are administrators that go out and boast about their incompetence. Which would be pretty sad. My hat is off to you! Seicer (talk) (contribs) 05:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

That graphic (and the entire of Wikipedia:Zombies) is a masterpiece. I usually couldn't understand what User:Zenwhat was trying to accomplish, but that page is genius.--Father Goose (talk) 09:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

for justice! -- Ned Scott 06:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

That went through, but now we have Wikipedia:User categories for discussion#Category:Rouge admins. -- Ned Scott 07:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

(undent) @FG, I dont think all of Wikipedia:Zombies is useful, but then, I have been having lots of trouble understanding User:Zenwhat lately! It is an excellent graphic, though. For those (like User:Zenwhat) who haven't worked or read-up in mainspace much lately, it might be surprizing how much funky stuff there is in over 2 million articles—Newbyguesses - Talk 11:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Ned Scott, etc.

We've have had our differences in the past, but Ned has earned major points in my book with this: [7]. Sums up very nicely just how ridiculous this block is.

Furthermore, this block is ridiculous. Have I said that already? I don't even care about not being able to edit. I'm basically being being told I'm not allowed to serve the encyclopedia with my free labor anymore. That's hardly my loss.

The admins who condone this block should really be ashamed of themselves. This is the absolute height of pettiness and turf-protecting. Blocks are a tool to protect against vandalism etc. Being in this category could not possibly have caused a comparable level of disruption.

So far I haven't seen a single regular editor agree with this block. Admins are supposed to act for them, not themselves.

You simply don't block someone for adding themselves to a joke category. You just don't. It's absurd. I'm not saying this out of my own interests. I don't care about the block and I could care less about the category. At this point, I'm just worried about the future of the encyclopedia, because of these admins and how they're allowing themselves to act right now. This is a real shame and I hope someone comes to their senses real soon.

This block is ridiculous. This argument is ridiculous. These admins are acting like small children and I can't possibly articulate just how sorry I feel for everyone who is going to have to endure their similar ill-conceived decisions in the future. We say things like "admins don't have any authority" and "admins are just ordinary editors with mops", and then we see situations like this, where people get blocked simply for not following their orders. This was not an enforcement of policy, but an enforcement of the right of admins to impose their authority, which they supposedly are not supposed to have. Equazcion •✗/C • 13:25, 13 Feb 2008 (UTC)

With respect Equaszcion, I disagree with the gist of the sentiments expressed here. Though I think I understand what you are trying to say, I am confused by what you are doing. But, if you feel like taking a break from working for free, short or long, and one lump or two, it's up to you, enjoy—Newbyguesses - Talk 23:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

My CfD !vote, please paste

Delete - I didn't have any problem with this category when I was under the impression that it actually was intended purely as a joke. However my recent block, which resulted from adding myself to this supposedly joke category, has changed my mind. As User:Wikidemo pointed out, "[If] the category itself is a joke, ... it's fair game for all (an administrator-only joke area does not seem to be in the spirit of the project)..." If it's a joke, then by definition it's a joke that anyone should be able to partake in. If it's at all not a joke, it should be deleted. Even if there is some humorous reason to keep it around, the amount of divisiveness and controversy it has created is reason enough to get rid of it. It's fine to keep a joke around as long as it doesn't cause any harm and no one takes it remotely seriously, but since that doesn't seem to be the case and it's causing all this mess, with this being its third CfD, it's time for it to go. There's no compelling reason to keep a joke around if it causes this much trouble. Furthermore, categories that exist for humorous purposes only get deleted by the truckload every day, for the reason that they don't aid in encyclopedic collaboration. It never matter that they're "just jokes". If they don't help people write the encyclopedia, they get deleted. That reason surely applies to this category. Equazcion •✗/C • 13:44, 13 Feb 2008 (UTC)

Done. DuncanHill (talk) 13:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks-- I made a minor edit since you pasted it though, could you replace it with the updated version? Thanks! Equazcion •✗/C • 13:53, 13 Feb 2008 (UTC)

Also could you copy and paste the code, by editing and copying, rather than copying from the display page, so that my signature and links etc. show up? Thanks again :) Equazcion •✗/C • 13:55, 13 Feb 2008 (UTC)

OK! DuncanHill (talk) 13:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your repeated meatpuppeting of a blocked user, DuncanHill. I greatly appreciate it :) Equazcion •✗/C • 13:59, 13 Feb 2008 (UTC)

Copying stuff over to an AN/I thread about your block is a courtesy, and an appropriate thing to do, since it's directly about your block... but while blocked you shouldn't be participating in other things. Duncan should not be copying things for you anywhere else, as that's proxying for a blocked user, not a good practice. I hope he doesn't continue that, and I hope he reverts it but am not going to stress about it. Your block will be over soon enough anyway, the UCfD discussion isn't going to end before you could have commented anyway. ++Lar: t/c 15:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh please... Are you honestly suggesting it needs to be reverted just so I can wait another few hours to post it myself? Talk about lawyering. The vote isn't disruptive. Leave it alone and stop the silly complaining. You're an admin. Please try to rise above the pettiness and act like it. Equazcion •✗/C • 15:33, 13 Feb 2008 (UTC)

Drop the attitude please. I'll leave it, which is what I said already. But don't ask again for any copy-overs unless they are directly related to your block. That wasn't directly related, and policy is when you're blocked, you're not to contribute anywhere except on your talk page. Whatever you have to say can wait, or not be said at all. (If it was urgent, you shouldn't have done what got you blocked, after all, or you should have compromised your intransigence when offered ways to get unblocked sooner) ++Lar: t/c 17:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Just be a little careful, EQ. Someone will surely post for you to AN/I if necessary whilst you cannot, but asking others to post for you to any other forum at this time could cause someone problems. FWIW(NBG)Newbyguesses - Talk 23:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

An Invitation

When you can, you are very welcome to join Category:Wikipedians who have read the BIG HUGE FREAKING PURPLE BOX. DuncanHill (talk) 13:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Done :) Equazcion •✗/C • 13:46, 13 Feb 2008 (UTC)

2nd unblock request

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

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

---

Request reason:

Since my block is merely intended to keep me from adding myself to a category, how about just protecting my userpage then, to prevent me from adding the category? There's a significant amount of discussion going on pertaining to me, in multiple locations, and I'd like to be able to directly participate. Protecting my user page would accomplish what this block is intended to accomplish. The block itself seems to be overkill.

Decline reason:

Sorry, Equazcion, but you show no signs that you understand why you've been blocked. Also, based on your comments, you show no indications that you will refrain from the activities that have caused you to be blocked. I'm basing this decision on the comments that you've left here and here — Rjd0060 (talk) 15:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

---

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

Response to 2nd decline reason

That doesn't make any sense. You're refusing to unblock me and protect the page because you're afraid I'll keep adding myself to the category, which I wouldn't even be able to do if the page were protected. Also, I'm not "unclear" as to why I was blocked. I simply disagree with it -- and many others do as well. This block is far from undisputed. You just happen to be one of those who agrees with it. Equazcion •✗/C • 15:36, 13 Feb 2008 (UTC)

Are you going to add yourself to that category, or any other category that implies that you are an administrator, while you are not an administrator? - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

You're ignoring my proposal. If you protect my userpage, you can yourself ensure that I won't add myself to any categories. Why don't you just do that instead of insisting that I concede to having "learned my lesson"? Equazcion •✗/C • 15:45, 13 Feb 2008 (UTC)

Come on, Equazcion, don't you get it? You've been very, very naughty! You've been a bad editor. Until you admit that what you did was wrong you'll remain blocked. ➪HiDrNick! 17:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes that does seem to be the real problem here. Truly pathetic. I can't accurately express my disgust with mere words. Equazcion •✗/C • 17:16, 13 Feb 2008 (UTC)

Well, rest assured that you're not the only one who gets it. I really don't know where to go from here, though, I honestly expected that people would come down against your block on ANI like a ton of bricks, and that admins would be reminded not to block good-faith contributors for petty nonsense. Alas, the consensus on ANI appears to be that behavior like John's is A-OK. Perhaps the selection bias is too great over on ANI, and this would be better served by an admin conduct RFC. But really, I doubt that would be any more sane at this point. Maybe things are just too far gone. ➪HiDrNick! 17:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

This really is an unfortunate situation. Most people see that. However, this could be so simply resolved if you would not add yourself to the category, or any other category that implies that you are a sysop. Protection of your userpage is not a solution here. It should not be necessary. - Rjd0060 (talk) 17:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course it's a solution. It's the simplest solution. You're just not willing to do it. Equazcion •✗/C • 17:29, 13 Feb 2008 (UTC)

(ec) This could also be simply resolved if you, Rjd0060, an admin remanded by the community to follow and enforce our consensus-based policies and guidelines, would unblock this user forthwith because either (1) the original block was not in line with either the letter or the spirit of the blocking policy, or (2) Equazcion's continued blockage is not helpful to the goals of the encyclopedia. You can either do the right thing, or do what is apparently popular with some admins, but don't try to put the responsibly off on Equazcion or anyone else, the choice is yours. ➪HiDrNick! 17:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Other notes

Could you please promise not to add the category to your user page again? You can be unblocked and your user page will remain unprotected. --PeaceNT (talk) 14:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I would rather not make a promise like that. It doesn't matter though. Even if I don't make that promise, protecting my user page is all that was ever necessary. I should be unblocked and that page protected. Equazcion •✗/C • 14:35, 13 Feb 2008 (UTC)

We prefer not to protect if we can get agreement not to continue behaviour. If you're saying "I will continue doing the thing that I was asked not to do unless you put up a wall to prevent it" then you really aren't ready to resume editing collegially, you're saying you are going to continue disrupting. I'd decline any unblock request that required protection of a specific page like that and I'd urge any other admin to do the same. ++Lar: t/c 15:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I haven't edited disruptively except, according to you, on my own userpage. I promise that if my user page is protected I will not edit disruptively anywhere else, as always. Equazcion •✗/C • 15:47, 13 Feb 2008 (UTC)

Several others (including me who hasn't commented before) think it was disruptive to keep adding yourself to an admin category after being warned not to by admins. Frankly, I find it odd how much time you spend on this discussion if your only reason for adding your non-admin account to an admin category you want to be deleted is "I just think it's funny". How about adding {{User rouge wannabe}}, creating Category:Users who think it would be funny to be a rouge admin, or something other non-deceptive instead? If users see an admin category on your user page then they may of course think you are an admin. They may not look at the admin category, and the misunderstanding can have consequences even if you intend to refer them to real admins. For example, if they see you have commented on a situation (copyvio, libel, ...) then they may think an admin is aware of it. Or they may contact you without you guessing that they thought you are an admin. After your reply they will think they have discussed with an admin. Real admins have passed an RFA which means the community has expressed a certain trust in them. Users should not be fooled into thinking they have contact with somebody who has received that expressed trust. And what if other editors start doing the same based on your precedent? This has already happened and they may have no intention of reasonable responses to people who contact them as assumed admins. Adding yourself to that category has many possible bad consequences (including all the time used on this discussion), and I cannot think of any good. It doesn't make sense to me to allow this misleading of users just because you apparently think it's funny. Whether the category should be deleted is another discussion. As long as the category is there with a name claiming it's for admins, there should only be admins in it (no matter whether the category page has a humor disclaimer). That a user shouldn't falsely claim to be an administrator is so obvious to me that I don't think a policy explicitly stating it is needed. If you agree to stop misleading users by falsely claiming to be an admin then you will be unblocked. That seems sensible to me. Page protection is not for situations like this. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

By the way, you don't have to agree that it was bad doing it. All you have to do is say that you will not do it again. Blocks are not punitive. They are to prevent future incidents and your comments here give reason to suspect you will continue doing it if you are able, even though I don't see how it could be funny now, unless you think it's funny to cause wikidrama. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Which is what I've been saying [8]. - Rjd0060 (talk) 18:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

If blocks are not punitive and are only meant to prevent the "disruptive" behavior, then prove it. Unblock me and protect my user page. Equazcion •✗/C • 18:15, 13 Feb 2008 (UTC)

I guess they are punitive then. If the priority was to keep me from adding myself to the category, you'd follow my suggestion. The only reason not to is to hammer home my punishment. Equazcion •✗/C • 18:39, 13 Feb 2008 (UTC)

"We prefer not to protect if we can get agreement not to continue behaviour." That's a widely accepted practice, at the very least (see if you can avoid the temptation to ask for a cite). Even if the protection is of your own user page. What if you want to make some other, legitimate change to it? What if someone else wants to prettify it for you because you asked or whatever? So no, protection is not the right approach. And when your block expires, see if you can resist the temptation to do something you know in your heart, whether you admit it or not, is disruptive. I think you can. Best wishes, and I mean that sincerely. ++Lar: t/c 20:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I think several others would disagree that the behavior was disruptive. I'm disappointed to see Lar behaving in this manner as he seems to have made a mountain out of a molehill. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I did make a mountain of a molehill, yes. Or perhaps a user who wanted to be intransigent in the face of polite requests and warnings maybe learned that wasn't a very good long term approach. But I'd also note that the unblock request was declined, twice, and consensus at AN/I seemed to be running in favour of the block. That suggests that maybe some felt that revert warring was appropriate, but it wasn't a majority view. Either that or the big bad admin cabal steamrollered everyone again. ++Lar: t/c 20:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

My feeling is that his biggest mistake was bringing a knife to a gunfight. But he seems to like those odds.--Father Goose (talk) 20:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

FatherGoose, you have an uncanny ability to state the situation in a way that always makes everyone understand it a whole lot better :) Equazcion •✗/C • 00:15, 15 Feb 2008 (UTC)

PS, WP:BEANS notwithstanding, if your user page was protected, nothing would prevent you from creating some other random page (or just using your talk page) and adding the category to that page (you added a category to THIS page within the last 24 hours after all). That's also what Adriaan90 did, I actually think "by accident" since he has a copy of another user's page as a subpage. The better thing to do rather than having admins going around protecting every page in your userspace as you act out (if that was what you ended up doing, and I hope you choose not to) would be to get your agreement not to do the thing again, regardless of where. ++Lar: t/c 20:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm well aware of what is normally preferred. That doesn't mean that in this circumstance it would've been a good solution to a unique problem. Although I do hear you about being able to add categories on other pages -- which I would not have done. It's moot at this point, but my suggestion was a good solution in this case. It doesn't matter that it's not normally the "preferred" method. To each case its own. Equazcion •✗/C • 00:08, 14 Feb 2008 (UTC)

I think you'll want to get policy changed, then, because this isn't current policy. Pages don't get protected to prevent the actions of one or a small handful of users, the user(s) get(s) blocked. ++Lar: t/c 20:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

You're the one who cried wikilawyering when I brought up policy. Is it policy to block someone for adding themselves to a category? Policy doesn't matter. We do what's appropriate on a per-situation basis, which is a concept you seem to more than understand. If a solution would work for a particular situation, that's what gets done, whether policy supports it or not. Equazcion •✗/C • 20:21, 14 Feb 2008 (UTC)

eh? you were wikilawyering, shedfuls of people called you on it. The protection policy is a broad one and has been around quite a while. As was explained to you. As for policy on blocks, it's policy to block for disruptively editwarring, yes, when you've been asked, then warned, not to do a particular edit. As was explained to you. Once discussion starts, you just don't readd the same thing, it tends not to work. As was explained to you as well. I get the impression that you're just arguing for the sake of arguing. Not exactly the tactic of an editor in good standing. Have fun with that. ++Lar: t/c 22:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Counterpoints to all of these things have been explained to you as well. The community is fairly divided on what went on here, so saying "this has already been explained to you," as much as you'd like it to mean "I'm right", most assuredly does not. Have you explained your stance to me? Yes, you have, and I understand it fully. Do I agree? No, and neither do a significant portion of other editors, and even many admins. So these authoritative lectures on proper behavior mean little coming from you. Your language is not exactly the tactic of an admin who has a firm grip on his sense of objectivity and cool-headedness in the face of adversity. I would forgive you since neither was mine, however you're an admin, and I tend to hold them to a slightly higher standard, as they probably should be. I'm perfectly willing to agree to disagree. But don't even think about telling me the end-all and be-all of "what's what", 'cause there's just no basis for that. Equazcion •✗/C • 00:13, 15 Feb 2008 (UTC)

Except of course, that the community wasn't really all that divided at all. Two unblock requests declined, and no consensus to unblock established at AN/I. If you think otherwise, well, have fun with that. ++Lar: t/c 03:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Two unblock requests denied means that two people disagreed with me. And there was "no consensus" established either way at ANI. If you've witnessed these lengthy discussions and consider the community undivided on this, well... I won't try to spoil your buzz. Equazcion •✗/C • 03:30, 15 Feb 2008 (UTC)

I'll spoil the buzz! Behold, the Readers' Digest version of users who said something on-wiki to the effect of "I disagree with the block": HiDrNickSceptreDuncanHillFather GooseChristopher ParhamHaemoRocksanddirtNed ScottDihydrogen MonoxideKbdank71DanBealeCocksRal315NeilPeaceNTSave Us 229PhilippeCaribbean H.Q.Captain InfinityEJFPocopocopocopoco
Premeditated Chaos
—Preceding unsigned comment added by HiDrNick (talk • contribs) 05:58, 15 February 2008

Man. Say what you want about Eq, but he sure inspires people to do their research. Snowfire51 (talk) 06:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

It may also have been that those admins who disapproved of the block were not willing start a wheel war by overturning it, given that the penalties for doing so are far worse than what Equazcion faced.--Father Goose (talk) 07:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

And given that the blocking admin offered to unblock immediately if Equazcion agreed to stop making the false claim of being an admin. This seems a reasonable request and when Equazcion explicitly and repeatedly refused, I wouldn't expect another admin to overturn a 24-hour block, regardless of how the admin feels about the original block. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Silly admin. Okay kiddies, that's enough. If you want to repeat the same arguments over again please scroll up and read the same responses over again, pretend you've gone through the argument process again, privately, rather than forcing the rest of us to relive it. Even when it's gone it'll still be in my archives, for eternity, so you can relive it to your heart's content, I assure you. Go in peace. Equazcion •✗/C • 14:42, 15 Feb 2008 (UTC)

Epilogue

It's been an interesting 24 hours. See my final thoughts @ WP:ANI#Epilogue. Equazcion •✗/C • 01:57, 14 Feb 2008 (UTC)

An editor has readded you to the category because you earlier wanted to be there. I don't see how anything good can come from this. Will you remove it yourself to avoid more drama? Will you object if somebody else removes it? PrimeHunter (talk) 15:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

You're right. With the way the admins have been acting, I wouldn't want to be categorized as one of them, even mistakenly. Equazcion •✗/C • 16:03, 14 Feb 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for removing it. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem Equazcion •✗/C • 19:40, 14 Feb 2008 (UTC)

This is totally random, but I'm an admin, and I think this whole thing has been fucking ludicrous beyond rational belief. It doesn't matter now, but I think you should never have been blocked. *shrug* That's just my two cents. Hopefully that at least convinces you we're not all insane. ♠PMC♠ 08:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Not all, just most :) Thanks PMC, I appreciate the support. Equazcion •✗/C • 12:19, 15 Feb 2008 (UTC)