Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:59, 19 December 2005

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, vfd comments

Daryn Kagan page protection

Thanks for putting the protection on. This seems like an awful silly argument I have gotten in the middle of, but then again, most of them must seem silly, right? --rogerd 23:16, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration accepted

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Benjamin Gatti has been accepted. Please place evidence on Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Benjamin Gatti/Evidence. Proposals and comments may be placed on Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Benjamin Gatti/Workshop. Fred Bauder 03:57, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Veganism update

FYI...User:Canaen has initiated a meatpuppet campaign to remove criticism from the veganism article. . --Viriditas 07:26, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

You probably remember the anonymous attacks that Idleguy was being subject to in various places. Well, Skinwalker appears to be the latest recipient . I don't have all the facts, so I'm hoping you'll contact him if you have the time. Thanks for your help. --Viriditas 14:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

WWK, thanks for stepping in. I intend to file a user conduct RfC later today. Would you be available to look over my RfC before I post it? This situation has seriously gotten out of hand. Cheers, Skinwalker 16:44, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

You are right this situation has gotten out of hand. Viriditas and Skinwalker continue to dole out their lies and play Wiki legalese to push their agenda. You are being sucked in and manipulated Woohookitty. We have suffered too long with these guys vandalism and personal attacks. May be you are just friends with Viriditas

Time and time again we have tried to engage them in direct discussion, Viriditas just plain ignores it. All 3 just reverese any edits that do not suit their pro-meat agenda. Idleguy trying to use statistics targetted against the meat industry against veganism, Skinwalker trying to use data about anorexics which did not mention vegans at all.

This accusation of meat puppetry is the low stoop so far. They are scrapping the barrel in order to find someway of silencing the informed debate. Skinwalker has repeated his erroneous, unsustainable accusations time and time again but they are wrong - and I can write that confidently as one of the other wholly independent defenders of the vegan page from their attacks. My involvement came before Canaen's and will continue after. I have never read his journal And for the record, I do not have a fixed IP. 195.82.106.62 19:26, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

It's OK

Don't worry - its alright, just a little bit annoying. Is there any way i'd be able to have them separate? I'll be going through articles listed in the category shortly. Spum 12:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

More on History of Gibraltar

Hi Woohookitty. I'm writing to you looking for directions, since I don't want to enter a new edit war.

As you can see in Talk:Disputed status of Gibraltar, I've listed the disagreement points providing the arguments and sources why I don't think they are true. Such a list has been available for more than two weeks. Gibraltarian hasn't provided any argument but the usual personal attacks. Only Gibnews has objected to two specific points.

Having considered that, I've reworked the article, explaining what has been done .

As usual, the article has been reverted without any explanation (by a Gibraltar-based IP address that I'm completely sure is Gibraltarian) . The revertion includes, as usual, the removal of the {{disputed}} template. What can be done to prevent a new edit war?

Many thanks in advance --Ecemaml 13:14, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I am currently disputing those things asserted by Ecemam1 which I have personal knowledge of having lived the last 25 years of the history of Gibraltar as an active participant. Over the last few years my contributions to Misplaced Pages have been anonymous and have been limited to tidying up wording and expanding some sections. Communications in Gibraltar being an area of expertise. Items removed in both the English and Spanish version have been the unfounded allegations of state criminality which have offended many and were covered in the local media. This may have attracted the attentions of others less careful and experienced, there may be only one user called Gibraltarian but there are many Gibraltarians who resent continued defamation in the media by Spanish sources.

The earlier material presented by Ecemami has been sent to the president of a historical organisation Europa Historical Society as they have experts in the period outside my competence. Because the perspective of Ecemam1 has not currently been disputed by myself does not imply its acceptance.

Regretably much of the published material in Spain is outright lies. To this day Spanish politicians continue with this practice example and locally there is a view, based on experience that anything that originates from Spain about Gibraltar is propaganda designed to support an antiquated territorial claim aimed at turning back history 300 years and imposing something on the Gibraltarians which they simply will not accept.

It is only this year that the Spanish Government have admitted that the Gibraltar Government even exists and have conceded that it must form part of any discussions - so far despite a number of rounds of talks this has not produced any tangible result and Spain continues with many of the restrictions introduced by the fascist dictator Franco. Given there are real reasons for misstrust, it is easy for people here to write off anything by Ecemam1 as 'another day, more shit' and delete it, even if he has genuine merit.

He is as much a victim of the Spanish persecution of Gibraltar as the rest of us. --Gibnews 10:20, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

User:200.79.192.25

Sorry I beat you to the block - still at least they're blocked now... -- Francs2000 15:25, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

BDAbramson's RfA

Thanks, Woohookitty, for supporting my RfA - I swear, I wasn't already an admin! But now I'll do my best as an admin to help the reality of Misplaced Pages live up to the dream. BDAbramson T 15:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Fix/clean/nicer WP:NPA

Hello again. I know I wasn't the best of people, but i think that the WP:NPA should be expanded slightly, and cleaned up - it is a bit messier than you-know-what. I just think that me, of all people can actually share experience of NPA and expand the article so people actually get more info out of it. So, am i allowed to edit the article? Spum 17:41, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

George W. Bush

You removed the {{vprotected}} from George W. Bush, but didn't unprotect it. If we protect an article, we need to explain to our visitors why. Thanks, TacoDeposit 19:13, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Persistent 1.800.Vending vandal

We've got a couple of different IPs, and possibly a registered user, working on this article, repeatedly reverting information about fines this company has received for misleading clients.

1. (cur) (last) 14:57, 13 December 2005 65.105.237.226
2. (cur) (last) 09:03, 13 December 2005 67.186.196.85
3. (cur) (last) 21:57, 12 December 2005 Alaska1050

Are you in a blocking mood? :-)--SarekOfVulcan 23:07, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I protected the page and added a note to the talk page. Thanks for the heads up...always appreciated. --Woohookitty 23:42, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! I would have bothered the previously-blocking admins, but they seem to be on WikiBreaks. --SarekOfVulcan 23:49, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

My RFA

Thank you for your comments. I apologize if I offended you or made the situation worse than it already was. That was never my intention and I like to think I learned a great deal about Misplaced Pages from that experience and am a better Wikiepdian for it. I made mistakes and for that I am sorry. No hard feelings for your oppose vote. I was not surprised that it came up (see my answer to number 3). Thanks again and have a good one!Gator (talk) 01:01, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I understand. The whole thing is water under the bridge to me. No hard ones.Gator (talk) 01:11, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Computer science

I've noticed you protected that page. I also left a message on the Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_page_protection#Computer_science and waited for your response. In the mean time, a reply was made to the 3RR violation report: Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_oticeboard/3RR#User:Powo. You protected the page with Powo's version, which I claimed to be unsourced, and Powo's only listed source was one about "computing" and not "computer science."

This seems to be vague on what actually is a revert or edit war. Some take revert as completely identical and others take them as partially. It is obvious Powo wanted a certain sentence stated one way even after 3 revisions. Other things were changed, so the reverts weren't "identical" reverts as policy stated. It seems people can get around the 3RR by the added little extra changes that make reverts not completely identical. The reply on the 3RR reports seems to suggest the page shouldn't be protected, but dispute resolution should still be followed.

Just my 2 cents. — Dzonatas 03:13, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

When you unprotect Computer Science, the list of sub-disciplines of CS needs to be fixed so that "formal grammar" is no longer a discipline of computer science (one could add "formal language" to the "Theoretical computer science" or "Mathematical foundations" section, either of which makes more sense). - Connelly 22:39, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

thanks

thanks for reverting vandalism on my user page. keep fighting the good fight, :-) Alhutch 08:53, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

lol. good job.--Alhutch 08:55, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

RFC on Canaen

FYI, I filed a user conduct RFC on Canaen. Cheers, Skinwalker 19:15, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I posted this to Skinwalker's discussion page. Canaen and Skinwalker is entirely wrong. So wrong as to being deliberately dishonest.

So what is your relationship with Viriditas?

This matter will not resolve itself without reasonable discussion. They can try to use all the dirty tricks in the book they want, threats, insults, provocation, banning. It wont work because they crossed the line of common decency first and they continue to cross the line. Why, we even had Skinwalker editing off comments from a third party from Canaen's home page now!

Is that right?

• == Response to the lies in your RFC ==

Hi

I posted this response to your RFC on Canaen.

I would like to point out that in British English the word nark is non-pejorative and I understand that it has an objective meaning something akin to a " snitch " in American. That is, meaning someone that makes, often erroneous, allegations to authorities in order to personally benefit themselves in some way.

The funniest thing for me is that you are busy digging a hole in your own canoe because your allegations are lies. You are entirely wrong. I know this because I know who I am and I know with whom I have and have had connections and I take a very minor little offence at being accused by the likes of you of being something I am not. I state " very minor little offence " because you and your views genuinely are so unimportant.

You are an individual of very little decency and integrity. I do not state this as an insult but as an objective statement. You have been told on many occasions that I have no connection with this or these other individuals and yet you not only continue to go on making such allegations but you even use them as the ground to make an attack on another individual. Don't worry, Karma will come and get you in its own time. 195.82.106.78 21:54, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

• Quote from Vegan talk page ==User conduct RFC==

Please be advised that I have filed a user conduct RFC on you. It can be found here. Cheers, Skinwalker 19:27, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Just out of interest, who do you think this nark Skinwalker is and why is he so motivated to go about doing what he is doing? I put this record up in the open for you and them to see because I have no and have had no connection with you nor any of the journal pages and, frankly, I take offence at being called a meat or sockpuppet of yours when I am not. I am sure that you are just or even more upset as being accused of a connection with me when you have none.

Unfortunately though, that is the depth of Skinwalker's lies and the shallowness of Skinwalker's integrity.

• Where he has no grounds he invents them and he is, oh, so clever at playing WikiTricks with all these technical terms and methods.

I am starting to feel like a Jew in Nazi Germany being hunted down, connected to individuals which I have no connection with and their so-called crimes and accused of crimes which are not mine.

And what of Viriditas? He just seems to get off on throwing around his weight whilst avoiding entering into the actually factual discussion.

For the record - and let them love every minute of their persecution syndrome, let them avidly copy and paste and make little weblinks to this as they are so good at Wikitricks - I am a vegan of 20 years or more standing and, arguably, MacDonald of Clanranald. I became involved in editing the vegan article before you returned to it recently. I am entirely responsible for kicking this whole thing off because I refused to let Idleguy get away with his ridiculous domination of the article and I put Skinwalker in the same category for his anorexic stuff.

From my point of view, my objections are largely literary. The article became too bloated and required editing down. It is merely meant to be a definition of what vegan is. I don't see any point in actually engaging in those that oppose veganism. I don't even support vegan's trying to counter counter-vegan propaganda on the Wiki. It is best to keep it short and simple and give a few links so that folks that are interested can go find out more.

I approached Skinwalker reasonably and got the same sort of response as you did, see ; . When Viriditas started to engage in his revisions without consultation, I tried to engage him in reasonable discussion, see ; . But he just ignores it.

Fine. I showed respect, they showed themselves for what they are.

I find it weird in a way that individuals can become so obsessed by something that they obviously do not love but instead want to demean or destroy - and that means you now - and are willing to invest so much time and energy into it.

I could understand it if Skinwalker was a paid employee of the meat industry - he says he has professional scientific interest in animal husbandry. That would just make him a paid publicist. But if he is doing this and attacking you in his own free time, I pity him deeply.

"What were you doing all this evening on your computer, darling?" His wee wifie asks him.

"Oh, I spent hours trying to stomp on vegans on the internet, made a really good complaint against one and tried to mess up their article with references to anorexics who think they are vegetarians "

"That's nice."

195.82.106.78 04:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Please don't use my talk page for stuff like this. I don't have any "relationship" with Viriditas. I've helped him with 2 issues in the last what...3 weeks? Before that I didn't know of his existance. I help people who ask for help. I don't have "relationships" with them. --Woohookitty 04:07, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Image:Vernal lds temple.jpg has been listed as a possibly unfree image

You tagged this image as PD but there is no source to verify. Uploader is absent. -Nv8200p talk 02:46, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Depleted uranium RfC

Your input to an RfC at Talk:Depleted uranium would be appreciated. DV8 2XL 04:09, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your support. I have been trying to move this article from an anti-DU pamphlet to a real Misplaced Pages entry but I have been facing a lot of opposition. DV8 2XL 07:17, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Skinwalker's RfC

Hey. Just wondering if you'd be willing to put your input into a section of this RfC. Particularly, what is now listed as numeber 5., where he points out that you blocked me. If you still believe me on the issue of my identity, I would think that claim negated. Thanks for reading. Canaen 04:17, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

ad hominem attack on Canaen by Skinwalker

Skinwalker's Bogus lies

This RFC is nothing but an ad hominem attack on Canaen by Skinwalker and Viriditas based on bogus lies.

Please note, e.g. ;

The LiveJournal refered to is dated 2005-12-03.

I am one of those contributors mentioned above and have point out to Skinwalker, the author of this attack, many times that I have no connection to the accused. As someone accused of being a meatpuppet, please note my contribution to Skinwalker discussion page, here ; . http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3ASkinwalker&diff=29046153&oldid=22008974

• It is dated 23 November 2005

Please also note my contribution to Viriditas discussion page, here ; Viriditas

• It is dated 22 and 23 November 2005

• Noto Bene, they predate the Livejournal by 10 days, and note the initial tone of Skinwalker response. Viriditas just ignores it and any consensus on the vegan talk pages to continue making his own personal revisions without consultation.

I hope this undercuts the credibility of Skinwalker ad hominem attack on Canaen under the guise of a RFC. I state what I have always stated that I have no connection with Canaen or other users however much Viriditas enjoys using the word meatpuppets to insult vegans.

I have to draw the admin's special attention to the deliberate and implicit insult within the name calling of unconnected vegans by Viriditas as meat puppets or " Mr Meatpuppet " as he now puts it.

Most vegans and vegetarians would consider it as distasteful as "niggerpuppets" would be to African-Americans people. See here ; .

CheckUser, IPs

Thanks for the information. BTW, would you mind putting my user and talk page on your watchlist in case they are vandalized again? The "vegan smegma" comments that Skinwalker and myself received yesterday were quite cheeky. --Viriditas 15:23, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry to bug you again. User:195.82.106.78 is repeatedly vandalizing my user page with a rant about "vegan smegma" and a picture of an erect penis. The last instance of vandalism occurred 15 minutes ago. Can something be done about this? Cheers, Skinwalker 18:37, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for blocking that guy. However, he's been blocked before, under a different ip, and he just comes right back with another ip in the 195.82.106.xxx domain. Either it's a dynamic ip, or he's using multiple computers on one subnetwork. Regards, Skinwalker 00:19, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, as I have said many times before, I don't have a fixed IP and so I get whatever the PPP server doles out to me. It'd be hard to justify banning an entire ISP just because a couple of folks don't like a taste of their own medicine.

Now, Michael, I am perfectly capable of playing nice. *IF* your two friends Viriditas and Skinwalker and their stooge Idleguy are going to climb down to a point of humility as well and work within the consensus of the discussion page. A deliberately oppositional POV is not a NPOV. Actually, I'd like to add intelligence and integrity to humility and I will match them. I make it clear, what I chose to do was a reasoned reaction to unreasonable behaviour on their three behalfs. The Wiki will go nowhere is folks refuse to engage in reasoned discussion and join in with consensus instead just slamming insults, using clever wikitricks to try and ram home their POV and making block revisions which is what we were suffering.

What a tiresome waste of energy it is when folks use those tactics, and how else do you expect other folks to react under a barrage of repeated dishonest accusations? To defend Canaen, I state clearly - again - that I have no connection with him at all.

This is where it all approximately started; http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Veganism&oldid=29045261, It would hard to criticism that as either a bad edit or the immediate response calm and reasoned; http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Skinwalker#Vegan. Sadly, with the unprotecting of the article, Viriditas has already started to repeat their behaviour of revision without consensus and refusal to engage in actual reasoned discussion which is where they started ; http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Viriditas#Vegan

212.18.224.118 08:19, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Just to confirm - in the spirit of reasonableness and honesty - yes, I am the same person that was banned earlier. If you check both IP ranges you will see that they belong to the same ISP.212.18.224.118 08:28, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Mr. reverto

User:Mr. reverto was most likely an account created by User:133.20.16.171 (based on both user's edits to Mr. Roboto and its talk page. Should any action be taken against this address as well to prevent more account creation? Mike5904 02:15, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

um.....

• Bigdaddy1204 (talk · contribs)--Um 23456789 03:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Urgent

please check your email, I just sent you a message... thanks 172.140.219.7 04:21, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

User_talk:70.153.223.11

I just wanted to ask you why you added the {{bv}} tag to a user that had only made a few edits. Perhaps you should start by welcoming them to Misplaced Pages before you skip a few levels in the "test" hierarchy. Thank you, JHMM13 (T | C) 05:54, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

K, thanks for the reply! I was just making sure :-) JHMM13 (T | C) 06:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Query

Hi WooHooKitty,

I saw an edit by you on an article that I had authored. I am not sure as to whether you are inviting me for helping out with "someone else's wiki syntax" or is it that the tag is something that you often leave behind as an admin.

Regards,

Me

Usual suspects

Well, your efforts are appreciated. Don't let it get to you. This has been going on for quite some time. As long as you take a glance every now and then at the mainspace articles (and their talk pages), we should be in good company. Again, thanks for keeping on top of this situation. BTW, I've pretty much confirmed (through edit histories) that 195.82.106.65 (talk · contribs), 212.18.228.53 (talk · contribs), Mitsu (talk · contribs), 195.82.106.78 (talk · contribs), 195.82.106.176 (talk · contribs), 212.18.224.118 (talk · contribs), and 212.18.228.53 (talk · contribs) are the same user. --Viriditas 08:41, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

It's the same ISP. See . --Viriditas 09:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Book excerpt

There's another one @ THE CRUMBLING STEELFRAME OF INDIA. 68.39.174.238 13:49, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

POLICING UNDER POLITICAL PATRONAGE IN INDIA - not convinced these are speedy candidates, but seem to be, so I'll leave it to you :-) Dan100 (Talk) 14:08, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

ROLE OF POLICE IN THE RECONSTRUCTION OF INDIA The new one... 68.39.174.238 14:09, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

NEED TO LIBERATE LAW ENFORCERS FROM UNHOLY ALLIANCE IN INDIA Dear ! It's the B-Movie Book Bandit! 68.39.174.238 14:13, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

POLICE UNPROFESSIONAL IN INDIA HELP! It's an INVASION!! 68.39.174.238 14:16, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree. If he could make legitimate contributions to the existing articels that'd be great, but the fact that he hasn't responded to warnings worries me... 68.39.174.238 14:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

You missed the latest original research: Role of Popular masses and Women in the French Revolution! 68.39.174.238 14:46, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Oops

I sent you the message with the title 'Query' from my room mates account by mistake. Sorry. I was checking up this page for any vandalism and found your edit with a tag in it. Wondering if you wanted me to join in the 'cause'.

-- Heavynash 14:12, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Semi-protection policy needs your input

Heya Jimbo, juet letting you know that we've come to a pretty solid consensus (98 support votes to 4 opposing) on a proposed Semi-protection policy. We feel with all of the heat we're facing right now, it might be a good time to enact something like this. Please check out the discussion and give any input that you can. It'd be much appreciated. --Woohookitty 04:19, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Has someone talked to Brion about implementation?--Jimbo Wales 15:10, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Brion has commented briefly , so he is at least aware of the proposal, and has presumably read the front page. Note that the comments he made were on those features we presently opted to avoid for exactly the reasons he mentions. -Splash

We've talked most with Ævar, another developer, to try to make it as easy to implement as possible. All we need now is "Royal Assent" now. Titoxd 18:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Please protect History of Gibraltar

In recent days, the number of times Gibraltarian (a/k/a 212.120.*.*) has reverted this page to his preferred version has swelled to 32, and it looks like things aren't getting any better. I suspect that if this page is not protected, that number may very well swell to 50 by Christmas. Therefore, I urge you to protect this page ASAP, and let it stay that way until a temporary injunction is issued and/or the RfAr case closes.

Illinois v. Gates

Please revisit your nomination for deletion. The article creator saved and brought it to your attention before writing the most important paragraph. This was actually a precedent-setting United States Supreme Court case. It could get speedied if you withdraw. Cheers, Durova 17:13, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

My RfA

A Conservative Version

I'd appreciate it if you took a bit more time to read completely what is on a page before completely throwing it away. I refer to your completely trashing the A Conservative Version page (without even, for example, checking the "What Links Here"). Thanks. Brusselsshrek 10:23, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Tebulosmta

Hi woohookitty (good name!). ive just restubbed Tebulosmta - please dont use subst with stub templates. it makes the articles harder to edit. thanks :) BL kiss the lizard 10:34, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

sorry bout that. dont think of it as a yell - just a lizardy purr :) BL kiss the lizard 10:42, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Tim Butler

Hi there. I noticed you speedied the Tim Butler article. I was thinking about adding a mergeto tag (or merging it myself) as the article was linked from The Psychedelic Furs, for which some of the information might have been suitable. Could you check the content of the deleted page please and see what could be put into the band's article? Thanks --Whouk (talk) 12:28, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I'll probably copy some of the biog across and redirect. --Whouk (talk) 12:36, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Human Sexual Behavior

I see that you warned User_talk:195.225.176.35 to stop blanking Human sexual behavior. He's done it again. Please block him. Can you also semi-protect that page? It seems prone to vandalism. Jehochman 15:27, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Dominion Virginia Power

You deleted a page start, because it was "just an image". What do you think the chances are I will ever visit that page again and post a good image to support an article that may develop there? -Edbrown05 21:14, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

You've hit the big time

User:Woohookitties · Katefan0/mrp 05:40, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

damnit, my plans are ruined. --kizzle 06:07, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Whoooo HOOO Kitty!!

I thought you Douchebags...er...I mean...Microelectric Circuit Engineers...would be encouraged to know how WELL my PHASE II- STOP THE FUNDING plan has worked in forcing Misplaced Pages to change. 

See the link below:

http://wikipediaclassaction.org/

Yours Truly,

Big Daddy

ps I told you it wasn't nice to be mean to Big Daddy...

Thanks

I appreciate the support. Cheers, -Willmcw 07:21, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Gibraltarian

Hi Woohookitty. It's really a pity that Gibraltarian has been blocked, not because he didn't deserve it (he indeed did) but because I did expect some kind of civilized discussion could take place. But Gibraltarian has proved beyond any doubt that he's got to working in forum with a lot of noise and bombastic statements and not to a place as wikipedia, with its own rules.

Well, I'll go on working in the articles. I've even created a new one, Disputed status of the isthmus between Gibraltar and Spain, hoping that Gibnews will be able to play in a more civilized way.

BTW, Gibraltarian goes on vandalizing the articles (last time as 212.120.229.168). What can be done? You've talked about a "range block for a short time" but such a measure makes me always fell unconfortable (since other innocent wikipedians may be blocked just because of this vandal). Is there any other measure that can be taken (I ask that because we have the same problem in en: and I'd like to know whether other possibilities may be used). Best regards --Ecemaml 07:33, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

09:46, 19 December 2005, as 212.120.230.167. --Ecemaml 10:00, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Re: Bogdablocks

Thx for the heads up. I asked on IRC if there was such a list, and nobody seemed to know. However, judging by Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Bogdablock, it appears that quite a few of the Bogda-socks are not on the list. Perhaps they should all be listed on the face of the template, in really small print, then the template transcluded onto the page you linked to, in lieu of manual listing? — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 18:41, Dec. 19, 2005

your proposal is good concerning the Moldovan language

But unless after that RfC the user will be blocked for good. I don't see another answer. Or maybe Jimbo will see this. Bonaparte talk 18:46, 19 December 2005 (UTC)