User talk:Mirv/Archive 4

Archives by date
archive1 (27/01/04)
archive2 (pre-12/04/04 history)
archive3 (04/12–07/29/04)
archive4 (07/29–20/09/04)
archive5 (20/09–26/09/04)
archive6 (27/09–03/11/04)
archive7 (03/11–22/11/04)
archive8 (22/11–05/12/04)
archive9 (05/12–17/12/04)
archive10 (17/12/04–11/01/05)
archive11 (11/01/05–24/7/05)
archive12 (24/7/05–12/12/05)
archive13 (12/12/05–25/4/06)
Others
rubbish bin
AOL-using lawyer
Arbcom election
User talk:Mirv

Messages left here may not be seen for months. Use e-mail if you absolutely must contact me.

A minor posted what was probably his home phone number and mailing address here. I deleted the page to hide that information; the edit history is preserved at User talk:Mirv/history.

Administrator powers

If I have misused my magic powers in any way, this is the place to tell me.

Protection

Every page I protect is on the wrong version, of course, so to conserve valuable electrons, just leave a link to the page and a number from the list. Thanks.

If I accidentally protected a page to which I have made substantive edits, tell me here. I will unprotect it immediately.

Deletion

Did I speedy-delete something that wasn't a candidate? Did I delete something for which there was no consensus to delete? Tell me here.

Blocking

Marine 69-71

Why did you unblock Marine 69-71? What was your justification? The only thing you cited in the unblock was Antonio's email to the mailing list, which isn't justification. RickK 00:04, Aug 4, 2004 (UTC)

The email I cited described the reasons for the block, which were not, in my opinion, backed up by policy—I do not think sysops should block other users in order to win editing disputes, even if the other users are uncooperative. —No-One Jones 16:52, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

So if I reverted a vandal, and he decided to vandalize something else, or even the same article, I wouldn't be allowed to block him? RickK 18:41, Aug 4, 2004 (UTC)

I don't think Marine 69-71 was a vandal; he was wrong-headed, perhaps, and he was less than cooperative, certainly, but he was not vandalizing. Wikipedia:Dealing with vandalism#Vandalism defined says:

• Bullying, or stubbornness: Some users cannot come to agreement with others who are willing to talk to them on an article's talk page, and repeatedly make changes opposed by everyone else. This is a matter of regret [. . .] However, it is not vandalism.

—No-One Jones 19:00, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Tacitus

Glad you liked the image. There is also a sculpture around ([1] or [2]), but I wasn't sure of the copyright status of images of old scupltures. BTW, how come a historian got arms and a chest like this? Guess his second occupation was blacksmith, unless the artist cheated a bit ;-) -- Chris 73 | Talk 15:26, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Methylphenidate

Good catch on the recursive link (Ritalin->Methylphenidate)... Sorry for the boneheaded edit which created the problem. --Ryanaxp 19:40, Aug 5, 2004 (UTC)

VFd Debates

Why are you moving these? You can insert them into the talk page of the article thus:

Dunc_Harris|☺ 12:27, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Force of habit: I'm used to seeing deletion debates archived in a /delete subpage; also simple incompetence: this is my first day doing VfD maintenance, and I'm not entirely accustomed to the task's subtleties. Thanks for the tip, though; I'll remember it. —No-One Jones 12:31, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Kevin Bot

Thanks for blocking User:KevinBot. You found a bug for me. Apparently if it runs for too long without resetting, it's session times out, but it doesn't know it. So now I know to check for the validity of the session before posting. Sorry if it was any inconvience. Kevin Rector 13:33, Aug 7, 2004 (UTC)

No harm done; I spotted and blocked it about eight minutes into its run. Hope you get the bug fixed (and let me know when you do; I'll unblock it right away). —No-One Jones 13:40, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The Case of Spade

Congratulations! You are now the third user who, having argued vigorously against Sam in an article dispute, suddenly found his general conduct under microscopic scrutiny. Don't worry about it; Spade's pretext in this case is the flimsiest he has yet come up with, and you probably won't even need to dignify it with a response

LOL! I chose to respond but I thank you for your support. It is very much appreciated. Loremaster 17:31, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hey! Add me to this esteemed club. I crossed paths with Sam Spade a handful of times and now I'm finding my "incivility" and "admin abuses" under microscopic scrutiny on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. I started a counter-claim against him if any of you are interested in collaborating my case. 172 17:36, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

That's a tough case. Spade is usually scrupulous about obeying the letter of policy, and unless we get rules like Wikipedia:Don't edit topics about which you know nothing and Wikipedia:No Being a Bloody Nuisance, there's not much the arbitrators could do. —No-One Jones 18:01, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, he's quite effective when it comes to exploiting Wikipedia "policy" and passive aggression to undermine Wikipedia. It reminds me of the "work to rule" tactic of striking. I'm hoping that adding a note on "his fundamental failure to communicate effectively and reasonably regarding disputes" will be a sufficient pretext for the case. 172 18:34, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

As much as I appreciate the backhanded compliment for my hard work in obeying policy and taking to task rogue admins and other policy violators, I find the attitude of defiance towards it "hogwash and deserv(ing) nothing but contempt". Sam [Spade] 22:46, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

User_talk:Loremaster#our_conflict See how some people resolve their disputes thru discussion, compromise, and attention to the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution process. Sam [Spade] 00:26, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

thanks Mirv

Thanks Mirv: For so quickly catching and redirecting TinaModotti.

Carptrash 18:12, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Russian Islands

I am creating separate articles for October Revolution Island & Komsomolets Islands, please hold off reversing my redirection changes while I do so. Should be finished in 20 mins. --Keith Edkins 18:28, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Carry on. —No-One Jones 18:30, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

All done now. --Keith Edkins 18:46, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Revert

I deleted vandalism off your user page. Because I got that spunk, ya know. *eyeroll* Mike H 18:44, Aug 8, 2004 (UTC)

Many thanks for that. —No-One Jones 18:46, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I didn't know there were two comments to catch. I got one of them off "minions". I really hate it when people vandalize and put things in the edit summaries like they're being charitable. Stupid troll shits. Mike H 22:57, Aug 8, 2004 (UTC)

Stupid indeed—936, despite his knowledge of WP inner workings, apparently thinks that nobody else knows how to read an edit history. Thanks for catching him. —No-One Jones 23:01, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Deletions

As per point four of the Wikipedia policy at Wikipedia:Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators#On_deleting_pages, please do not include {{delete}} in your deletion summary. It is obviously unnecessary and clutters the deletion log. Thanks. blankfaze | (беседа!) 20:47, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Protection

The protection page should not be used as a dumping ground for your ignorant comments, but to list entries. I neither know nor care what beef you have with me, but you should at least try to get your facts right, as you have failed to in the past. First off, the edit war in question had already ended, as Neutrality ceased his senseless blind reverts. Second, I was asked by people on different sides to help with the dispute, and that's what I was doing, preventing Rex from being bullied by Neutrality over minor edits. The edit war was already in progress when I showed up to intervene. Also, I question the appropriateness of you using protection on pages in which I'm involved, since you obviously have a bias against me. VV 03:50, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

So because I remark in passing that you get into more than your share of edit wars, I have "a bias against you"? Bosh. If you don't want people pointing out your habit of revert-warring, then don't fight revert wars. It's not that hard, really. . . —No-One Jones 18:32, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I don't need to be lectured by you, though I explained myself above anyway. "Remark in passing" is a slick way of describing inappropriate sarcastic snipes at another editor, and your bias needs no explanation. At any rate, you failed to address the appropriateness of the protection, the main subject at hand. VV 22:00, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

There

Mirv, could you please re-protect There? The range-block on the vandal's IP isn't working, and he continues to make edits. Thanks. [[User:Supadawg|supadawg - talk - contribs]] 19:57, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Unintentional Hilarity

You wrote: "Should this policy address the problem, now demonstrated, of admins who use their sysop powers to threaten or intimidate other users? Admins are not imbued with any special authority, yet right here we see admins trying to use their technical capabilities to whip other users into line—a line (i.e. please do not edit this proposal and so forth) which they had no authority to draw."

You make a trenchant point, and I hope you'll have an opportunity to make that point (and possibly vote on) the soon to close policy proposal Wikipedia:Blocking policy/Personal attacks.

Substance D

For the record, I reverted your redirect to A Scanner Darkly mainly because, while you're right, PKD didn't go into a lot of detail about the drug, his characters did. That is, we never learn much about the drug that is factual, but fairly large sections of the book are given over to speculation about the drug's nature and its source. I've expanded the article a bit, and I think more could be done. Anyhow, please give it a week or so - if there's not much change, we can go ahead and make it a redirect/merge. -Seth Mahoney 05:49, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)

Sure. I'll try to track down my copy of the book and dig out what I can. —No-One Jones 05:55, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thanks! -Seth Mahoney 05:56, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)

Violence against Israelis

--> Talk:Violence against Israelis#Lists

Semi-policy

Hey, I notice you re-reverted some reverts I made to orthogonal's edits. I know orthogonal, and perhaps you, have issues with this concept of semi-policy. That's fine. I made the page with the intention of it becoming a site of debate. But I'd rather not see a bunch of pages cluttered with a discussion of this concept. If orthogonal wants to expand and edit the semi-policy page, he's welcome to. He already has, in fact. But there's no need for that debate to consume multiple pages. The header I've restored makes clear that there is a debate, and has a link to the place that debate is taking place. Surely that's enough. Snowspinner 02:22, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

Movie substubs

Hi. I guess you aren't aware of the pest that is User:The B-Movie Bandit. This idiot's range has been blocked, but it looks as if he snuck in through an unblocked proxy for that "Congo" substub. Even Jimbo Wales has determined that these are speedy deletion candidates. Please help during the next three days or so by tagging these things for a quick speedy. Thanks! - Lucky 6.9 02:08, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'd prefer to fix them when possible (i.e. when I have the time and motivation to do it), but if I can't I'll be happy to delete them myself. —No-One Jones 02:12, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

removing personal attack

I am within my rights to remove an off-topic attack on my editorial choices. Please read Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks. RickK himself has chosen not to address it further, so please stop fanning the flames. -- Netoholic @ 07:29, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks is not a policy and in fact has a significant amount of opposition; however, if RickK chooses not to pursue it I won't involve myself any further. —No-One Jones 07:34, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I thought you would not involve yourself anymore. Removing off-topic comments is completely a valid action. Please revert yourself, and move the discussion to my talk page perhaps. -- Netoholic @ 15:46, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Selective deletion of others' comments in a conversation in which you obviously have a strong interest is not appropriate. Move conversations to the appropriate place and leave behind a pointer if you like, but don't just wipe out stuff without even indicating that it's been wiped out. —No-One Jones 15:49, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Deleting off-topic comments outright is valid by policy. If someone wants to look at the history and see them (my edit summary says what I did), they can - they can also move it to my user page. All you're doing by re-posting that garbage is fanning the flames in completely the wrong place for it. -- Netoholic @ 15:56, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Doing so misleadingly changes the meaning of the conversation. And what policy supports that? -- orthogonal 16:00, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

My change does not disrupt the on-topic discussion, only removes the off-topic portion, which would turn into a useless flame war in the wrong place. Per Wikipedia:Refactoring#Remove off-topic comments & Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks, removing those sorts of comments from the article discussion seems reasonable. -- Netoholic @ 16:05, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It would be valid by policy if someone with at least a pretense to impartiality were to do it—but nemo iudex in causa sua. If you think a conversation in which you're involved needs refactoring, ask someone who wasn't involved to do it. —No-One Jones 16:07, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

No poilcy page I've found agrees with you that refactoring must be done by someone "not involved". Please provide me with a link to anything which supports that idea. -- Netoholic @ 16:21, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Refactoring#When to refactor says Do not try to refactor a discussion where you have a strong point of view. The summarised version needs to reflect the original meaning, and this may be obscured by your own biases. Show me someone who isn't biased about himself/herself. —No-One Jones 16:30, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It's doubtful that truly applies to personal attacks, since that also talks about the "summarised version" (when you remove large sections of text or question/answers with a short summary). Certainly when it comes to personal attacks, there is no expectation that one should summarize them. -- Netoholic @ 16:37, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You should also look over Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks#Who should refactor? (not a policy but still good advice) for reasons not to remove personal attacks against oneself—though it basically restates what is said in Wikipedia:Refactoring, i.e. that personal biases can easily skew the refactoring and thus fan the flames. (In my opinion, though, the best course of action is to ask people to stop making personal remarks—remind them of Wikipedia:No personal attacks if necessary—and see if they'll remove their own inappropriate comments.) —No-One Jones 16:44, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I have read that over, and here's where we are... removing personal attacks against oneself is a matter of opinion. I saw the comments as personal attacks and off-topic, and so removed them proactively. I think though that who deletes them is far less important than making sure they get removed in some way. I guess I would not feel comfortable running to someone else and explaining why and what I think needs removal. It get's them involved in something that is not their concern. I think that respecting my removal, by not reverting, has the same effect. -- Netoholic @ 19:44, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

TNX

[[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 23:22, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Compromise language offer going ignored in SBVT

Hi, Mirv. I've tried and tried to get my compromise langauge discussed so we can move forward but I am having little success. I don't know what else to do. Please advise. --Nysus 03:38, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, you've requested comment, which will help get other editors involved and perhaps break the deadlock; if necessary you can ask for a mediator. —No-One Jones 03:42, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I requested the comment. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 05:25, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Mirv, is it appropriate to ask a mediator simply to settle the matter as to whether or not Rex should be required to respond to my compromise language? That's all I'm trying to get him to do at this point. --Nysus 05:36, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

As Nysus makes clear in his comment above, it's true that he has only a singular aim at this point. And it's precisely because of this singular focus of his, that he is not addressing the issues which I am raising - he's focusing only on his own.[[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 05:43, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Edit Summaries on Template:vfd

On the Template:vfd edit summary, User:Mirv writes: nonsense: usually you'll just be asked to stop. even if you persist you won't be banned, just blocked

Please try to tone down your wording. User:JmBd appears to only have been here for one day, and is probably not familiar with the distinction between a ban and a block—I've been here for months and it still confuses me. Could you try to be a little more welcoming next time? — i386 | Talk 14:48, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Nonsense was unnecessary, I agree. Thanks for pointing that out. —No-One Jones 14:54, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

In use tags

Thanks! It never occured to me someone had built into the system a flag about editing. Last week, I forgot to put up my usual "Under Construction" notice on an article and darned if someone wasn't already in there working on a brand new article and conflicting with my edits. Will keep the "in use" tags in mind.
Let me know if I can help on your articles--see the list on my user page of subjects I'm into and the articles I've composed. Ave atque vale! PedanticallySpeaking 17:58, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)

Siena picture

The Siena picture is by J.H. Crawford (mailbox @ carfree.com). --Erauch 19:09, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Shquid

Salutato. I'm not sure it was a good idea to delete User talk:Shquid since the talk page contained information related to vandalism committed by that account. The page may be important if the RfC ever ends up at arbitration. Thank you, best wishes, and try not to be so easily hornswoggled in the future (Sell a Wikipedia account? I have a bridge for sale that may interest you). 66.167.235.142

I am watching Shquid's contributions carefully; if it turns out that 33451 was acting in bad faith (i.e. if Shquid continues misbehaving), I can easily restore the page. In the meantime it would be a simple matter to copy the relevant stuff to Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/33451 if necessary. Someone has restored the history, so nevermind. —No-One Jones 19:32, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The RfC has been resolved and will never go to arbitration!. You must understand that. i386 (Talk) 19:04, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

That's nice. The page should still stay around, I think, considering the profoundly silly—but still obnoxious—activities of the "WikiWatch Foundation". —No-One Jones ^(m) 19:08, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Attila the Hun

Nice work expanding that article. Keep up the good work. I will leave comments in a moment at WP:PR. - Taxman 21:23, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)

Thankyew. —No-One Jones 21:24, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

My user page

Mirv, thanks for reverting the vandalism of my user page, but I don't much mind it. (In fact, the "vandalism") is a coded instruction from my reptilian humanoid masters.) -- orthogonal 21:31, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Okay. I tend to zap random nonsense added to userpages by anon IPs without thinking much about it, but had I known I was jamming the reptiloid communications . . . :)

J00 h4v3 b33n 1i57ed f0r abduc710on! -- orthogonal 22:03, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

reply

here [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 19:46, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

new message

Please see "new message" here [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 21:34, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Arbitration request filed

Changing talk page comments is one thing, but altering votes on VfD is quite another. I've filed an arbitration request - see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rex071404 2 for details. Thanks. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 22:26, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Support

Thank you very much for your support during my recent run for adminship. I appreciated it very much. If you would like to talk sometime, please drop me a note on my talk page or email me. Mike H 00:03, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)

help !

This "Database error" is giving me false "new messages" alerts on my talk page [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 05:56, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Vogel

Just a note - Vogel is not hard banned, he's blocked for a year. Apparently, at the moment, until September 10, 2005, since he's come back again. Snowspinner 19:12, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps he's not hard banned, but he's still banned—i.e. he is not allowed to edit. And his ban timer has been reset each time he tried to edit (see Wikipedia:Banning policy#Penalty for evasion. —No-One Jones ^m 20:03, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Silence is Defeat

May be I am wrong with deletion. A very simple webpage does noything but solicits donations. I will not be surprised if it also steals your paypal account on the way. He also inserted plenty of references to his site around wikipedia suggesting that he offers something "free". Mikkalai 00:36, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'll VfD it as non-notable spam then. —No-One Jones ^m 00:41, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

..

[redacted] Whats your nationality bytheway? You got the balls to say it?--Themata 01:58, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

U.S.-Canadian, not that I think it matters one bit. —No-One Jones ^(mail) 02:00, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Its the only "justification" that can judge your behavior --Themata 20:20, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Some, including me, prefer to judge behavior on its own, without reference to their nationality. —No-One Jones ^(mail) 20:27, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

(rant from Themata cut.)

If you have something meaningful to say, say it; if you just want to rant, bugger off. —No-One Jones ^(mail) 23:40, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Bandit

The link Gzornenplatz used as an example in the B-Movie Bandit article was my own. I wrote that as an anon only because I'd forgotten to log on. I'd appreciate not being connected with any example set by the B-Movie Bandit. Thank you. - Lucky 6.9 19:53, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Xed

His warning came in the form of his previous block by no fewer than five users for this exact behavior a few days ago. Snowspinner 23:31, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)

I see. In that case, block away. —No-One Jones ^(mail) 23:37, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Texans for Truth

After you protected Texans for Truth, you edited it to restore the NPOV dispute tag, but in the process you added a superfluous headline reading "Headline text" at the bottom. I realize it's customary to protect the wrong version, but do you suppose you could make an exception in this case and delete that headline? JamesMLane 01:34, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sure. I'm not sure how I did that, though—I don't use the edit toolbar, and I certainly don't remember typing == Headline text == at any point. Curious. —No-One Jones ^(mail) 01:37, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks.

Thanks for your support and kind words re: my adminship. Jayjg 18:50, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"WikiWatch Foundation"

This wiki is in direct violation of the policies of the WikiWatch foundation. The specific citations are:

1. Failure to remove all British spelling on a U.S.-based project.
2. Failure to remove foreign news from the main page of a U.S.-based project.
3. Blocking users permanently without first giving a 24-hour block.
4. Locking the logo to prevent the “direct violation” notice from being uploaded.
5. Deleting an attempt to let upload the “direct violation” notice.
6. Utilizing an edit bar that encourages users to use "--" instead of an em-dash.
7. Needlessly removing a user's nomination for adminship.
8. Lack of a proper defense for users permanently blocked.

These issues must be dealt with or I guarantee action will be taken. WikiWatch 12:35, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Mm-hmm. That's nice. However, since the "WikiWatch foundation"—I don't suppose it has a website, or a mailing address, or a phone number—has no authority over Wikipedia's internal policies, said "WikiWatch foundation" is kindly invited to cram it with walnuts. —No-One Jones ^(m) 21:37, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hmm...I'm sorry you don't believe in the WikiWatch Foundation, although I can provide its mailing address:

[cut]

This is a residential address on a small side street. It seems that four people live there.

And the phone number:

United States: [cut]

This appears to be a personal phone—in any case, phone records say nothing of a "WikiWatch Foundation" owning this number.

The website is currently down, due to some security issues and upgrades.

Sure it is.

But you're welcome to contact the WikiWatch foundation via mail.

Why not by phone? I can call the U.S. on the cheap.

If that's enough for you, I'd like to let you know that the Foundation can take legal action. Just to let you know. — i386 | Talk 14:17, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

the Foundation can take legal action—Really. On what grounds? Would you care to cite the applicable laws? —No-One Jones ^(m) 22:51, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hello, I just removed the (presumably accidental) duplication of your talk page by 33451. Incidentally, isn't the Ohio connection just amazing? The WikiWatch Foundation is in Ohio, 33451 identifies with an IP address in Ohio, he used two more Ohio IPs to vandalize Template:In the news. Would anybody like to guess what an IP check would show for User:WikiWatch, User:Shquid, User:Totally Nude, User:Silver Proxy, and probably others besides? --Michael Snow 18:06, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

He also claims to have been User:Mr. Grinch. RickK 18:58, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)

The IP of 33451 is 156.63.193.62 This resoves to a virual school. Ie a school that you acess at home. I don't know much about education in ohio but i assume that this sort of school is for pupils who have been expelled from other schools plus those with special needs tha\t can't attend an normal school plus those who parents choose home schooling.The pupils all access the school via the internet and all presumably go through the same proxy. I think blocking the IP for a year is the best way to stop the vandalism from all of Tyler ***** accounts (He's revealed his real name in full on wikipedia but i won't repeat it because he is a minor). Perhaps in a year's time he will have matured enough to edit sensibly. I've warned him on the anon talk page, that any more vandalism will result in a block. Is this too severe? Does everyone else support this idea? Theresa Knott (taketh no rest) 11:55, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I support the idea—though contacting his parents first might be a good idea as well, since he's giving out what might be his own address and phone number, and his real name, over the Internet. Perhaps we need to add "Wikipedia is not an asylum" to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. —No-One Jones ^(m) 12:04, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Blocking that IP for a year is absurd. How about just deleting everything associated with this account and letting me start over? — i386 (Talk) 14:39, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Also his school teacher. He's used a dialup account to vandalize as well. [[User talk:216.255.48.112 and probably others in that IP range. Tyler if you are reading this putting your real name home adress and home phone number on the web is really really stupid. The are a lot of bad people in the world who harm children. Although I would like to stop them reading Wikipedia I cannot. Never Never Never reveal personal infromation about yourself online until you reach 18 and be very careful about doing it after that. Theresa Knott (taketh no rest) 12:12, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I figured that it would be okay to put an address and phone number as long as I didn't put my real name, but apparently you hacked that and found out. — i386 (Talk) 14:39, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

In fact, you revealed your real name in at least two other pages, and even if you hadn't, it is trivially easy to figure out whose address and phone number you posted. Is your father's name Paul by any chance? —No-One Jones ^(m) 17:19, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I will try the number he gave. If it is his own I can have a word with his parents and see if that does any good; if it belongs to one of his neighbors (nobody sharing Tyler's last name lives at the address he gave, but there's a couple with the appropriate name a few doors down) perhaps they'll be able to give me the correct information. —No-One Jones ^(m) 12:22, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Oh I see you've seen his last name as well. Ignore my email then. Theresa Knott (taketh no rest) 12:30, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The number is currently being "checked for trouble"; I'll try it again later. In the meantime I'll contact William and Cynthia ***** (the aforementioned couple). —No-One Jones ^(m) 12:57, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

OK I've contacted the dean of students at his school. Theresa Knott (taketh no rest) 13:58, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You must have my wrong last name because everyone in this house has the same name and the "William and Cynthia" are people whom I've never heard of. — i386 (Talk) 14:39, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

They're your neighbors, or they were until fairly recently (the directory I used might have been out of date). They have the same last name as you. Maybe you've heard of them, maybe you haven't. —No-One Jones ^(m) 17:19, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

No we have your correct last name. Don't worry about that. Theresa Knott (taketh no rest) 14:43, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Because I usually give a fake name of Brent Davis, and I notice you guys have been typing five asterisks: D-A-V-I-S. That's an alias. i386 (Talk) 14:48, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

LOL what are you planning to do? Braodcast your real name to all and sundry one letter at a time? I never thought for one moment it was Davis. Theresa Knott (taketh no rest) 15:03, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Okay, but one concern...How are you going to call when I'm on a dial-up connection? You'd have better luck with email. i386 (Talk) 15:12, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I've already emailed your school. I expect they will know how best to contact your parents. Theresa Knott (taketh no rest) 15:26, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I tried the WikiWatch Foundation's number again; I got the voice-mailbox of "the ***** [same as above] family", so I guess it was 33451's home number, or possibly a cell phone. —No-One Jones ^(m) 16:10, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Good for you, Wiki Watch Foundation! This place is as corrupt as the Ayatollah of Iran's nutsack! They NEED someone watching over them and making sure they're doing what they're SUPPOSED TO be doing! Keep up the good fight, Tyler! Could I have some more info on the foundation though? I'd love to become a member myself. I am a prominent lawyer in my county and seek to take legal action not necessarily against this project itself but against the corrupt cabal of people who've perverted it. Please, let me know more. Thank you.205.188.117.18 01:35, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The above user is User:Mr Treason Theresa Knott (taketh no rest) 01:40, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[personal attacks removed by —No-One Jones ^(m)] No. I am the anonymous user that you've dubbed "Treason". Your reverse pyschology is not working. The general Wiki populace knows that *I* am a noble and just freedom fighter and American patriot. An act of treason is the last thing I would ever commit. The population also knows that *you* and your minions *are* the ones guilty of treason, as will be shown by the Supreme Court. You cannot remove people's rights of free speech and self-defense by extortive means! You tried to do so! [Too bad] for you that you've gotten yourself involved in this!

The WikiWatch Foundation is nonexistent; it is no more than a silly joke by an obnoxious young adolescent. He might welcome you to it but I, for one, think you'd be wasting your time. If you have issues with the way Wikipedia is run there are better ways to handle them; joining the mailing list is the first that springs to mind. —No-One Jones ^(m) 02:55, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You're wasting your time replying to him:-( Anyway I'm rather flattered to be described as having "minions". Makes me sound evil but powerful muhahaha! Theresa Knott (taketh no rest) 10:33, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Follow up No need to contact the kid's parents, I got an email from the school. They are dealing with it. They asked me to block the school IP, which I have done for a year. Theresa Knott (taketh no rest) 10:33, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

protection

Someone just edited Swift Boat Veterans for Truth despite the page protection you implemented. How is this possible? Is the protection a selective block on previous editors of the page, or is it supposed to apply to everyone? I might add that the edit isn't quite evenhanded for reasons previously discussed in the archives of SBVT Talk. Wolfman 15:32, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Protection is supposed to apply to everyone; sysops can edit protected pages, but they shouldn't. The page is unprotected now, though. —No-One Jones ^(m) 21:27, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Comments?

I thought you might find this interesting: User:Orthogonal/Snowspinner_Time-line; you can also comment on the associated talk page. -- orthogonal 21:42, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Ann Coulter

I was subject to an edit war there tonight at the hands of a brand new user who appears to be a sock puppet. I tried to make a vandalism report, but seemed to get messed up there. Should we really be allowing sock puppets to edit war a page until it gets locked? [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 01:27, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Should we allow it? No. Can we prevent it? No. Can we try to reach compromises rather than fight edit wars? Yes. —No-One Jones ^(m) 12:14, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Golan Heights

Of the recent edits to Golan Heights, your name is the one I recognize and trust, so you get this question.  :-) I've never edited that article and only came across it while tracking an anon's edits. I notice that on the talk page, an anon who signed himself "danno" made a suggestion that he hasn't acted on yet. He left that comment on 07 SEP 04. It sounds reasonable to (uninformed) me. What do you think? SWAdair | Talk 00:24, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It was a reasonable suggestion, and I've been bold and done it, though I don't feel very strongly about it one way or another. —No-One Jones ^(m) 00:40, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I ate my Latin cat

We ran into each other on eating our Latin cats. Your command of the Latin language is superior to mine - I've gotten a little rusty. "Felis meum devoravi" is a better way to put it (if that exists...). Have a good day, Whosyourjudas 03:31, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, you had me on the numbers; I wrote felis, the plural, where you had feles, the singular; so thanks for that. —No-One Jones ^(m) 03:33, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Protection

Hi there, thank you for protecting Anti-American sentiment as requested. I guess that there are few things getting more on the nerves of administrators than people complaining about protections of the wrong version, but in the unfortunately not unlikely case that you should have to protect the page that has been vandalized by the same guy for a long time again later you may think of the policy that "when protection is due to a revert war, the protecting sysop may choose to protect the version favoured by those more closely complying with the guideline on repeated reverts. See wikipedia talk:revert#The protection option for the discussion on this." Get-back-world-respect 12:52, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm not fond of that policy. When I protect a page I usually don't read the history and the diffs until afterwards, so if I'm accused of partiality I can say in all honesty that I didn't even know what was at issue. —No-One Jones ^(m) 14:57, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)