GreenSpigot

Headline text

Hello, GreenSpigot! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! DuncanHill (talk) 01:37, 19 September 2008 (UTC) Getting started A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review Miscellaneous User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General • Spam • Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Service Pack 3

I didn't get any error installing the pack. But I'm not an expert in computers by any means. You may get a better response on the reference desk or on the Microsoft SP3 forum. Laïka 19:11, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

BLAST (telescope)

There is a bit of a mention at BLAST (telescope). There is a pretty good news report at The giant balloon borne telescope BLAST has landed! and some more stuff at space.com, search for June 16 and there are several links that don't appear to match up. There are several links to various reports at Google, look for the ones dated 2005. I had a hard time finding it until I changed Cambridge Bay over to Victoria Island in the search. I remember that after the team (two people? and possibly from the Columbia Scientific Balloon Facility) had arrived we were tracking the balloon on the net. I think they got a helicopter up to get the stuff but either I was not a work or they didn't come here because I don't recall seeing it. I did get a couple of pictures of the aircraft they arrived in. I may have some more information at the other work site and will check that later when I move back over there.

As to the cold well it's not so bad now as it's −31 °C (−24 °F). After 30 years you sort of get used to it. It will get cold soon though as the sun returns on Sunday and then we start getting the -40 °C/°F temperatures. Even that's not so bad, the worst is the wind which makes the wind chill right now −44 °C (−47 °F). CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 11:35, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

OK after a bit more checking it was the National Scientific Balloon Facility now the Columbia Scientific Balloon Facility. The helicopter did come here and brought back parts of the balloon/instuments. I don't have any pictures but I hoping to pursuade a friend to give me some. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 17:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Question

I'm humbled to see such a sincere, important question on the ref desk, which is why I'd like to respond here. I feel you may be able to answer the question yourself by considering from where (or whom) war originated. Here is a lesser-known experience of Moses that may elucidate the matter, along with some commentary by modern-day prophets. I offer these insights out of goodwill and would be happy to discuss the topic further via email. Either way, best wishes in your search! --Eustress (talk) 04:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Your edits to electron

I have some concerns about what you are doing to the introduction on the Electron page. First, the current intro (prior to your edits) was written in response to the FAC. By removing the history information, you are taking it out of compliance with WP:LEAD as a summary of th article. I fully intend to put that history information back because it most definitely belongs there, in preference to some of the other, less important material in the lead. In addition, the lead is at the allowed four paragraphs, so I am unclear why you think it is too long. Please discuss this in the Electron talk page so we can come to a reasonable compromise. I am trying to get this page up to FA quality, and your revisions appear to be hindering that effort. Thank you.—RJH (talk) 17:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Aha! Will respond soon--GreenSpigot (talk) 00:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Account problems

My account seems to have been blocked and I cannot edit. Im not aware of breaking any rules so why am I prevented from editing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by GreenSpigot (talk • contribs) 00:08, 18 February 2009

• See [1]. User:Friday blocked you for sockpuppetry, apparently. I do not know why he failed to leave a block notice or any kind of explanation. DuncanHill (talk) 02:37, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Im not a sockpuppet Im a genuine editor wih only one user name: Green Spigot so I dont see why I should be blocked.--GreenSpigot (talk) 12:37, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks DuncanHill (talk) 12:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I cant understand why Ive been blocked. I am not a sock puppet. i have only made good edits in all the time ive been here. i can only think that this is a case of mistaken identity by someone called friday who may think im someone else. could someoe please look at this and restore my editing rights? Thank you--GreenSpigot (talk) 23:44, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Please don't waste the time of good administrators, or try to take advantage of the good faith of other editors. A conditional unblock might be arranged if you drop this charade. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:04, 19 February 2009 (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.

I've left a message for the blocking admin asking for clarification on what other accounts s/he thinks you're using. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:29, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much!--GreenSpigot (talk) 01:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

• So just who is this editor supposed to be a sock of? And given Friday & TOAT's documented connivance in ALLOWING a banned editor to edit in the past (and threatening editors who questioned there behaviour), I do not believe that TOAT can be considered in any way an independent admin in any case involving a block by Friday of this nature. DuncanHill (talk) 04:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Friday was kind enough to email me the name of the original banned account name. After reviewing both sets of contributions, I agree that this is a good block. No conspiracy here. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:26, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

So because I appear to a couple people similar to some one who is banned (who?), I get blocked. Is that how wikipedia works? Seems weird to me. Surprised you get any contributions at all with that attitude. Anyway if my contributions are not wanted Ill say farewell.

TOATS Offer

OK TOAT, if your offer is genuine, can I have a complete amnesty and pardon and return to my original name without persecution and witch hunting if I promise to behave according to the rules as I have been doing the last 6 months or so? Or do I need to get a new name?--GreenSpigot (talk) 14:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

If you had kept editing as you had for the last six months, you probably wouldn't be blocked – and we wouldn't need to be having this discussion – now. We're only on this talk page because you decided to go back to your old, bad habits on the Ref Desk. Furthermore, when you were called on your misuse of this account, you made exactly the same sort of disingenuous denials as you've made every other time you've been caught sockpuppeting.

Looking at this account, you created it as a sleeper sockpuppet in August 2007, as you did with apparently dozens (if not hundreds) of other accounts. (Some, but by no means all, are in Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Light current and Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Light current.) You made four edits with the account (including the creation of your userpage) and then let the account rest for a year.

In August and September 2008, you went on a spree of vandalism using an assortment of throwaway socks (many year-old sleepers like GlobularCluster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) and logged-out IP addresses. You started using this account again just sixty-two minutes after you logged out to deface one of your sockpuppet categories.

You've never shown any indication that you understand or care that your conduct is harmful, hurtful, or destructive. At times, all of Tiscali UK's DSL customers have been blocked from editing Wikipedia in order to prevent your vandalism. This is possibly the first time that you've even admitted – grudgingly, and in hope of a reward – to your sockpuppetry.

All that said, I would be willing to unblock your original account under a number of conditions and editing restrictions. I'm willing to offer essentially the same conditions that you were offered a year ago when you were using TreeSmiler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): [2].

• You will need to disclose all the accounts that you have created, whether you've used them or not.
• You will not create any new accounts. Any name changes will be announced on your user and talk pages; you will not change account names more than once per year.
• A checkuser will have to be willing to sign off on your recent conduct.
• I will need the approval of admins at WP:AN/I, as your behaviour was bad enough that it would not be appropriate to make this call on my own.
• You are banned from all policy, guideline, and talk pages related to the Reference Desk, including

• Wikipedia talk:Reference desk
• Wikipedia:Reference desk/guidelines (and talk page)
• Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines/Medical advice (and talk page)

• You will be on strict parole for vandalism, incivility, and personal attacks. That applies to edits anywhere on Wikipedia, and in any email that you might send to another Wikipedia editor.
• You will not make any edit that may be perceived as 'trolling' (broadly construed) on the Reference Desk. I strongly urge you to stay away from any questions of a sexual or scatological nature.

The terms can be reviewed at some point in the future — let's say six months. Violation of these terms will lead to a block of at least twenty-four hours, at the discretion of the blocking admin. Egregious violations – or any use of an alternate account – will almost certainly lead to a restoration of your original site ban. I believe that if you offer a sincere undertaking to abide by these conditions, your original block may be lifted. Absent those conditions, I don't think that I would be able to get AN/I to go along with the unblock — and I would almost certainly oppose along with them. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Just for clarification, what was wrong with my ref desk post(s)? Im not being obtuse, I just want to know what exactly was offensive/against the rules etc that caused me finally to be blocked.--GreenSpigot (talk) 23:23, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Also I can tell you that many of the alleged confirmed /suspected sock puppets are not in fact me. If we can come to a deal, i will admit to those I created but also tell you the ones that are nothing to do with me. GreenSpigot (talk) 23:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok as a gesture of good faith I'll admit to being all the 88.XXX.XXX.XXXs. Some may not be me but i wasn't counting. Most probably were.

I agree that some of the socks were likely misidentified; I also know that in many cases I (and other admins) blocked your socks without adding a sockpuppet tag, so those accounts won't be in the categories. That part isn't really of consequence — what's important is closing out all of your accounts. Since you haven't seemed to have had any difficulty returning to many of your disposable accounts months after their creation, it stands to reason that you have a record of them.

If you genuinely can't understand how this post was trolling, then you should probably avoid asking questions on the Desk altogether. You don't have a new 70-year-old lady friend; you weren't asking 'a serious question'; your putative fetish for vaginal odor is not of interest to other Ref Deskers and is certainly not our problem.

Do you have any other concerns about the proposed terms? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:12, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I do have a problem in that a number of accounts I created remained unused, and, since my transmogrification into GreenSpigot, I have discarded that list. I cannot now remember them. I therefore am unable to disclose them, but if prompted, I may be able to remember them. But since I cant remember them, I cant uses them! Is that going to be a problem?--GreenSpigot (talk) 12:12, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, you don't have to go through the list — in fact, please don't. It would be a pointless exercise, since those accounts are already blocked.

I already know that you were continuing to create sockpuppet accounts up until within days of when you started your most recent use of the GreenSpigot account. You will have to forgive me for remaining somewhat skeptical of both your intentions and your poor memory; you're expecting me to believe that back in September you underwent an instantaneous and miraculous change of heart.

How, precisely, were you keeping track of your long list of alternate accounts before? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:53, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

The point of listing those socks that I admit to is to point out that you have some other socks who were not me and were just jumping on the bandwagon). Do you still want me to cease listing those who were me?

Back around september I started to edit under the GreenSpigot name (a sock created sometime before). When greenspigot started to be accepted, I decided that I would try to conform to all rules using this name. THe list of alternate accounts was kept on a paper list, with them being crossed off when discovered. These socks were being discovered at an alarming rate and I think I was down to my last 30 or so when I decided to go straight. In a clearout around Christmas time, I decided i no longer needed these other names and so disposed of the list along with masses of other paperwork. Honestly you cant expect me to remember all the names I created. As I said, I may remember them if prompted.

Now, how else can I convince you?--GreenSpigot (talk) 15:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh very sorry, after a search around my desk, I have just foud a list. Now what do you want me to do exactly?

(← Unindent, ec) To some extent, you can't convince me to trust you. Not yet, not given your behaviour over the last couple of years. This isn't the first time you've maintained a good-hand account for a period of time, only to start sliding back into very bad habits. I truly don't know if you're capable of remaining a positive contributor on a permanent basis, or if Wikipedia would be better off without the bother of monitoring your parole. You've never expressed an iota of regret for all the abuse, insults, vandalism, and trolling. I have no way to be certain that there isn't already another MilesTerrex (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) account waiting in the wings.

The point of the editing restrictions is that I don't trust you or your judgement, and you've never given me good reason to. The restrictions would bar you from areas where you've been persistently unpleasant in the past, in hopes of minimizing any temptation on your part to waste the time of other editors. I seriously weighed imposing a flat ban on any participation in the Ref Desk, but I'm willing to give you enough rope to hang yourself if you so choose.

If you can't work constructively – and only constructively – within those conditions, it strikes me that further restrictions would not be worth the effort to impose, and it would be simpler to return to the status quo — you're an editor with a richly deserved community ban, and can be blocked on sight.

Leaving aside the issue of your undisclosed (and presumed lost) accounts, are you prepared to abide by these terms? I'm going to have a couple of other editors look in on things, to see what they have to say. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:03, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

You're going to have to post the list, or email me with it. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Response to TOATs comments

Before we get down to the nitty gritty of the agreement, Im in the process of formulating a response to the above comments on a subpage (if i can). Please refrain from answering there; please wait till the full response is posted here. Thank you. --GreenSpigot (talk) 17:00, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi there GS, I don't think that you need much time at all to respond to TOAT's generous offer. You certainly don't need to "lawyer-up" so to speak, you only need to be contrite about your most recent trangression. After your denials above, I'm surprised that TOAT is still willing to stick his neck out for you. This isn't the time for you to negotiate the terms but only to accept the terms of your conditional reinstatement. This whole thing is razor thin and is dependent on your agreement to the terms of your parole. This isn't a negotiation and if you seem to make it seem so, then a pile of user objections will bury this goodwill gesture by TOAT. I'm on your side so please don't disappoint me now. We are your friends or we wouldn't be here at this time  :-) hydnjo talk 03:06, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Take what time you need. I'll warn you now that I'm going to be quite busy in my non-Wikipedia life over the next week; I will attempt to be prompt in responding here, but I also want to be absolutely certain that we get this right, rather than fast. Hydnjo – as usual – offers some very wise advice, though I'm always open to creative, constructive suggestions. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:30, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

There is no rush on my part and Im not about to be rushed. After all, I am (almost) harmless ATM wrt WP. Lets call it an armistice. In the interim, I wish to thank TOAT for his kind consideration of my predicament and also Hydnjo for his interest and support. However, I do side with TOAT in that we take time to get it right in order to avoid further misunderstandings. BTW Joe, all agreements between warring parties (even total surrender) are arrived at by negotiation of some sort!--GreenSpigot (talk) 00:59, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Good point! -hydnjo talk 01:37, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

My so called vandalism

This interim period may be a good opportunity for all those interested to try to find examples of my vandalism of wikipedia articles (as opposed to non article space items)--GreenSpigot (talk) 02:17, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

This isn't a scavenger hunt. I'll save everyone time and state for the record that I'm not aware of any article-space vandalism by this individual. As far as I know – though my memory may be hazy after a couple of years – all of the vandalism you engaged in (and there was rather a lot) was in the Wikipedia:, Wikipedia talk:, Category:, User:, and User talk: namespaces.

I'm not sure why we would be looking for instances of vandalism in the article namespace in the first place — the proposed parole terms don't restrict your editing there. To the best of my knowledge, your mainspace edits tend to be both minor and harmless. Can we try to keep this discussion on point? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:24, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

This section that you've started is ill advised and so let me be blunt (I know, unusual for me). To my knowledge and as TOAT has just acknowledged, your WP mainspace edits as Light current, TreeSmiler, MilesTerrex, DarkFuture, ProperFraction, GreenSpigot and perhaps others are not the issue. So, your invitation to find otherwise is not a genuine request but is intended to misdirect this discussion. You've already gotten your own category or two; when is enough, enough.

I realize that there are many details and much consensus required and attendant to a reinstatement after a community banning but I'm not impressed with your claim of innocence in areas that have not been contested. I guess that's what I meant (above) when I advised against "lawyering up". This isn't the time to invite controversy where there has been none - that's a lawyer trick to divert attention. As TOAT has emphasized, your misbehavior has been in areas other than article space so let's not try to change the subject. hydnjo talk 23:11, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Not really Joe. This is a backbone of my defence: that I have never wittingly vandalised any mainspace articles. Therefore Im not a vandal 8). All minor temporary modifications to other pages are irrelevant: they do not harm WP in the slightest and no general reader would even be aware of them.. They only upset those who try to block me for no good reason. Call it tit for tat or revenge if you like.--GreenSpigot (talk) 23:36, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Well then let me not dissuade your quixotic quest. My comments have been solely to help you see the other side and not to engage in quarrel. It seem to me that a bit of humility while attempting reinstatement would be appropriate whereas a bit of indignation would not. But that's me, not you. I continue to value your thoughts about all this and hope that you feel the same. My counsel to you is genuine and public and I hope that any other is the same. :-) hydnjo talk 00:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

My quest may be Quixotic, but I will have my say before any capitulation. Also, remember that I have quite a few cards still in my hand. That is why TOAT is negotiating (or it could be out of the goodness of his heart).--GreenSpigot (talk) 00:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know you, and I wasn't aware of your block or your subsequent sockpuppeting. In fact, everything I know about you, I've read on this talk page in the last week or so. The comment you just made indicates that you are still open to disrupting Wikipedia, and that, in fact, you consider threats of disruption as leverage in pressuring for your own unblock. For that reason, when this comes up for discussion, I will oppose your unblocking. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your vote of no confidence. I know where your loyalties lie. Hoping

to become an admin- if your not already one?GreenSpigot (talk) 00:35, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

That didn't sound much like, "Oh, no! I have no intention of trying to blackmail admins into unblocking me through threats! Why would I, when I know that never, ever, ever works? I'm so sorry- here's what I meant to say!" So I think that, yes, I have no confidence that this will end well. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

We have here ATM what you might call a fairly unstable truce. Please dont try to break it by unwelcome comments that can only inflame the situation. THank you. Thats not a threat just a request.--GreenSpigot (talk) 02:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

<outdent>It is out of the goodness of TOAT's heart and don't you dare question that. He could quit this entire mess right now and save himself quite a few keystrokes; what the hell do you think is going on here! I hope you don't think that it is some grandiose indulgence of your behavior - it isn't. TOAT genuinely feels that you can become a consistently good editor, not only in article space but overall. He will have some argument as he attempts to restore your editing privileges. The more you exhibit your belligerent behavior the more folks will pile on against you making TOAT's efforts seem all the more foolish - is that what you want? hydnjo talk 00:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

This is the GreenSpigot talk page, not the "Lets hammer Greenspigot into the ground and try to beat him to a pulp so that hell even accept ANY deal before hes even had a chance to reply to some unjustified allegations" page.

So lets all cool off and take it easy. Im not editing WP ATM (except here), so whats the problem?GS

Im sure TOAT will have a hell of a job trying to reinstate me. I just wonder if its possible at all. For instance, after agreeing to restrictions I may just be left in the same situation because 'pedians just will not allow a banned editor back.. I dont know why User:Friday is insistent on hunting me down all the time when Ive been a tame editor for many months now.

Creating a sub page

I need to do thisd to put down my thoughts. Can anyone tell me how to do it. Ive tried the usual way but when I click on the red link, it sends me a 404 error. Am I allowed to create a sub page whilst blocked?GS

My response to TOATS offer

1. I will disclose all the accounts that I have created, whether I've used them or not.

2. I will not create any new accounts. Any name changes will be announced on my user and talk pages; I will not change account names more than once per year.

3a I will not edit the RD guidelines. However I must state here that the first couple of paras do not properly outline the purpose of the desk and that omission was what I was trying to rectify in previous edits to that page. Someone should read those paras with open eyes and see if they can be improved.

3b. Similarly I will not edit the RD guidelines talk page.-- Theres no point

3c I will refrain from editing the RD talk page.(Although I dont see the need for this restriction as nowadays I dont get involved in discussing removals etc. Others do that adequattely)

4 I will not not make any questions that could broadly be percieved as trolling on the RDs. (although I would like to be allowed the occaisional innocent joke.)

5 I understand that I will be monitored closely for any infarctions.

Acknowledgments please

Could I please have some acknowledgment of my capitulation from someone?--GreenSpigot (talk) 02:53, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

You said that you wanted to be left alone until you completed your response. (Which, I'm pleased to see, essentially boils down to 'Okay'). You're welcome to make occasional innocent jokes on the Ref Desk (or elsewhere), but bear in mind that your judgement about 'innocence' has often proven suspect in the past, and you should exercise that privilege with caution. I repeat my caution that you should tread very lightly around any issue of a sexual or scatalogical nature.

Let me know when you've disclosed your complete list of alternate accounts. Afterwards, you can put together a brief statement – a couple paragraphs, give or take – that will accompany my post to AN/I. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:37, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

How long can the paragraphs be, Ten?

My statement

Firstly, I would like to thank User:TenOfAllTrades for his lenient attitude toward me and also maybe his pragmatism in this matter.

Before starting proper, I would like to say that Im am not about to insult the intelligence of my fellow Wikipedians by issuing false apologies or promising things, or begging for forgiveness. I know all these actions would be looked upon with extreme skepticism by those who know my history. Instead I will just outline the facts as I see them as to what has happened, and why it cant happen again if I were to be allowed to edit.

1.I believe in the aims of Wikipedia and I only aim to improve its accuracy and content by peaceful and non disruptive editing. I have never wittingly or purposely disrupted any (main space) article. My arguments have only been with Admins who have blocked me in the past for what they have considered inappropriate comments mainly at the RDs. I have made some errors in judgment in modifying those persons talk/user pages. Some wikipedians call that vandalism. I prefer to call it extremely minor disruption that harms no one and certainly does not harm the credibility of Wikipedia.

2.I admit to creating a number of socks to evade blocking. I did this because I thought I had been unfairly blocked for what I deemed minor infringements of etiquette. The list of undiscovered socks will be forthcoming in due course.

3.Over the last year or so, I have learned that my edits can be identified by the 'quacks like a duck' method whatever user name I use. Since I would like to go on helping in the scientific and engineering areas (including answering Qs on the RDs), it seems likely that any further sockpuppetry would be quickly discovered and therefore would be futile.

There are a number of experienced editors who can tell my edits from 10 miles away, regardless of my user name. It is therefore almost impossible for me to edit under a sock name without being detected.

4.In my early days, I was quite prolific in my edits (some say too prolific) making up to 50 edits per day. Because there has been a lot of improvement in the areas in which Im interested, Im now happy just to keep a watchful eye on articles with only about 10 edits per day.(ie the GreenSpigot rate).

5. If fellow Wikipedians are happy with the above statement, I let it rest. If not, please add your comments below.

6. If im allowed back i would like to retain my original name and reputation of User:Light current.

--GreenSpigot (talk) 02:36, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Im quite buy ATM (on non WP things). So apologies to all those waiting with baited breath for my next revelation!--GreenSpigot (talk) 01:18, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad that you've found yourself to be "quite buy (sic) ATM". Speaking for myself, I find that I'm neither "baited" nor "bated" of breath. My wish is that you had done more to gain the community's approval rather than to have this confrontation. My best wishes are with you for a future incarnation devoid of those characteristics that seem to draw negative attention - those really are my best wishes. Done properly of course we'll never know for sure will we? But that's the point isn't it? ;-) -hydnjo (talk) 03:04, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I see its almost 3 weeks since I started my statement. I must be busy. One can never have too much time for reflection. Some may have baited breath. Im not sure if, when and how I will be reincarnated. Maybe Ill be too busy for WP activity. We'll see GS

Comments on my statement so far

Please feel free to comment on my statement above as it develops. You may be able to influence it.

I have made some retaliatory gestures (to) those persons talk/user pages. Some wikipedians call that vandalism. I prefer to call it extremely minor disruption that harms no one and certainly does not harm the credibility of Wikipedia.

Uh-oh, ô_o ... I don't think that some wikipedians would be satisfied with your characterization of your "retaliatory gestures". I think some rewording would be to your benefit prior to your presentation at AN/I (but that's just me). -hydnjo talk 22:16, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

What else could you call my revenge attacks and still be truthful?

A regretful error in judgment. -hydnjo talk 00:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes!--GreenSpigot (talk) 01:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me (but that's just me again) that the phrasing "Some wikipedians call that vandalism. I prefer to call it extremely minor disruption that harms no one and certainly does not harm the credibility of Wikipedia." is unnecessary and doesn't harm you if you were to delete it. To the contrary, its deletion would demonstrate your willingness to be non-confrontational and accepting of the community's opinion of your past behavior. I'm trying to be helpful but your bargaining isn't being helpful. It seems that the absence of any further thrusts to reestablish your legitimacy should have sent you a message by now - cool it. You're not helping yourself with your "conditions/demands". hydnjo (talk) 21:44, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

One more thing, my thoughts and observations resulting in my comments here are transparent and without any off-wiki conversation and I expect the same from you. If indeed there is any off-wiki conversation going on, then you should make me aware of such without the need to identify anyone. It's just that I feel kind of *naked* if I'm also talking to someone behind the curtain >_> <_< (glancing around paranoid-ly (Thanks for that Froth).) As always feel free to discuss any or all of my comments. -hydnjo (talk) 23:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what you're saying. But I don't talk to anyone now off Wiki.--GreenSpigot (talk) 00:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm Back!

Hey all my admirers/enemies, Im back!!! Im now thinking about my statement as regards me getting back to a non banned person. Im not sure what else I can add. GS

Up to you

OK Ive made my statement. Its now up to my judges and jury to give their verdict. --GreenSpigot (talk) 19:57, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Time for you folks to make your mind up. Dont take too long now!--GreenSpigot (talk) 22:55, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

My keyboard

My keyboard longs to have its keys stroked and pummeled.

My fingers

My fingers long to stroke and pummel your keys, my keyboard. How long will it be before we can have meaningful joint wiki pummeling?

Still waiting

Well Im still waiting for a response to my latest offering. --GreenSpigot (talk) 22:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

It strikes me that you haven't taken the advice that other editors have offered you on your statement. As someone who has cleaned up a significant share of the vandalism and abuse you heaped on Wikipedia and its editors leading up to and following your banning, I am very disappointed that your statement so blithely minimizes and repaints your actions.

If your present statement genuinely represents the way that you see your past actions – as 'extremely minor disruption' and 'minor infringements of etiquette' in response to being 'unfairly blocked' – then I cannot in good faith support an unblock request from you. Frankly, expecting me to post your message – wherein your only regret seems to be that you can't sockpuppet obnoxiously without getting caught – on your behalf would be embarrassing to me, and is borderline insulting of you. Further, you couldn't even bring yourself to take the one step which might have indicated concrete good faith, preferring to hold your list of remaining sockpuppets in reserve as an implied threat.

I had hoped that your enforced time away from Wikipedia would allow you the time to reflect on your actions and to mature. While that may well have happened, I have seen no evidence of it in your recent actions. Your recent talk page posts trying to get my (or someone's) attention strongly suggest that you still don't take any of this seriously. (I freely admit that I missed your first announcements, but you had been taking your time, I have a long watchlist, and I've been busy in the real world lately. If you needed to get someone's attention, you have an email account.)

The status quo stands. I note that if you go out and create non-obvious, non-destructive, positively-contributing socks, there's no reason for anyone here ever to identify or even take notice of you. If you resist the temptation to draw attention to yourself, you have the opportunity – the same one you've always had, if you've been willing to avail yourself of it – to build a new reputation as a responsible, respected contributor. You might as well move past any hope of rehabilitating your old account name; as far as I'm concerned you've irretrievably thrown away this last chance. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:15, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

FEET OF CLAY as I suspected. 8(

However, strange as it may seem to some, your statement doesn't bother me unduly.

I always knew you weren't to be trusted (like many other admins) and that you were not a man of your words. your staement above confirms this. Let WAR continue!!

Youll have to block the whole of Tiscali to stop me editing this time. You had your chance and you blew it, you fool

You may be interseted to learn I have just created another ten socks to add to my list of 100 or so. Prepare for trouble

All things will pass

All these things/people (inc TOAT like so many other of my enemies) will pass into oblivion in the great scheme of things. Life is too short to argue with anyone. I just carry on as I please. Its the best way. The only important thing is the accuracy of WP articles (not crap on assholes talk pages).

Six a day

Hmmm! that should be adequate for now

Im still here

just in case there was any doubt, Im still editing under a number of pseudonyms. 8-)

Ahh so nice to be able to edit in peace at last!