Please leave message below at the end of my talk page. Thanks -- MrMacMan

Hi there! I see that you made an addition to the Motorola G5 project page regarding functional processors. I'd appreciate if you could corroborate that statement with a reference or two. I'm satisfied with the article, so it's no criticism, I'm just curious of personal reasons.. :) -- Henriok 18:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cool.. I live little anecdotes like that. Sometimes I'd like that all executives would come clean and write about what really happened. There should be a limit on how long you have to keep your mouth shut. 10 years, and all things are forgiven.. :) -- Henriok

I don't think Ned Scott's actions are unreasonable. Although some discussion beforehand would have been good, there is nothing wrong with being bold. I've given my comments at Talk:Ghost in the Shell (philosophy)#My Mass Confusion about the merge. I suggest you discuss the appropriateness of the merge there. There's no reason to go for mediation unless you reach a stalemate - try to get some other neutral editors involved first. Cheers, Yomangani^talk 11:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I hope this is correct here. I am the same person as '148.100.223.69' who posted under the vote for picture of year. Commons: 148.100.223.69 I am MrMacMan and I have 100 edits with wiki. MrMacMan 23:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article should have been, in my opinion, classified as a7 because it was written in the form of a biography or autobio. In fact, the article stated that the subject is a "good friend and a stand up guy". If this was an attack article, it would more likely be a few sentences long directly stating how the subject is flawed. Similarily, if the subject saw the article and tried to change it to his liking, it would most likely be composed of a few sentences saying how perfect he is. Stephenchou0722 02:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

sincere thanks for reading and tagging it. It needs both. Still, I beleive it is low drag and at least faintly notable and, thus, fair game. 05:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I have dozens of sources, if you count secondary links; take 1972, for example: dozens of sources. Plenty of stuff happened in 1972. Seriously though, the term "sehleprock" is out there. Numskll 06:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously Christopher Aaron Moore Jr. was non-notable, and no amount of effort wasted upon embellishing the article would have changed that underlying problem. It would be dishonest of us to suggest to people that they might merit articles when they don't. Melchoir 05:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't agree more with the deletion of Bobby Sue. It was definitely nonsense. You beat me to the SPEEDY tag, though; what tool are you using? Whatever it is, it must be great. — Tuvok[^T@lk/_{Improve me}] 06:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, MrMacMan. Thanks for your post at AIV about the pages being contributed by User:Brocketologist; but I'm not sure that the pages are patent nonsense. They seem to be connected with the comedy album Brocket 99 (to which, you'll notice, Brocketologist made his first edits). Now, I wouldn't be at all surprised if the pages were copyright violations, or non-notable, or unworthy of Wikipedia in some other regard — but I don't think they're patent nonsense. (They might be — I've never heard of this album before tonight, but Brocket 99 has a substantial history, so it's presumably real, and the elements mentioned in the pages created by Brocketologist sound like they might be connected somehow to it.)

Anyway, I wanted to let you know why I removed your post from AIV without blocking Brocketologist. I don't think he's done anything that merits a block. If you have more concerns about his edits, let me know on my talk page or re-list him at AIV. Thanks. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you go crazy doing this? Andyroost 21:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just trying to help the wiki out. I suppose 'crazy' wasn't the best word for what i was doing... but i was doing it till pretty late at night so, yeah. MrMacMan 21:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! HagermanBot 02:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find your tone a tad aggressive and pompous. Just because I reached your default level of not quickly remembering my tildes enough for you doesn't mean I need the reminder. And yes I recognize you are a bot and don't matter. MrMacMan 03:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC) as well as MrMacMan 03:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC) agree about this matter.[reply]

Hi ... saw your message on my talk page about dealing with people who remove the speedy delete tags. I'm afraid I don't know the answer either, but if you find out, let me know, because I keep running across the same thing. (And if I find out, I'll let you know.)--Proofreader J-Man 05:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to try to convince you that it's not notable. Replied at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Libertarian National Socialist Green Party. — coelacan talk — 07:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn’t know you edit for Wikipedia too. I thought you didn’t like it. And you said some of it is not true. Of course there’s going to be things that aren’t true. Cause its people writing for it. And we’ll not perfect. That’s an interesting username. How did you come up with it? I don't take resource room this year. I have one extra period to take an extra elective. I don’t understand how people like resource room. All it does is takes up space. Therefore, they can’t take as many electives as most people can. Anyway, how do you know I'm jessica? This is an IP address, after all. (69.117.20.128 - Talk)

I also use this IP address to....this is the Great Neck library IP address. I am working on Inclusive classroom right now....you should read it...it's very interesting. I wish Great Neck South was an inclusive school. What articles have you been working on? I reverted your edit on Great Neck South High School. First your version sounded like Great Neck South is a competitive school. Why can't we make the article more friendly? Who cares if South does really well....my version describes every type of student...yours describe the success of only the overachievers.(209.177.21.6 - Talk)

Kyla is me.....and I know that I took it from the Village School site....I took the picture of the Village School from the site...The Village School was updated recently...so of course the picture is different now. (209.177.21.6 - Talk)

I don't see how you have a higher quality picture then is on the Village School site. It's not possible. MrMacMan 21:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello MrMacMan,

I noticed you marked an article as a stub using the {{stub}} template. Did you know that there are thousands of stub types that you can use to clarify what type of stub the article is? Properly categorizing stubs is important to the Wikipedia community because it helps various WikiProjects to identify articles that need expansion.

You can view the full list of stub types at WP:STUBS.

If you have questions about stub sorting, don't hesitate to ask! There is a wealth of stub information on the stub sorting WikiProject, and hundreds of stub sorters. Thanks! — jmorgan (talk) 04:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! alphachimp 22:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you know, I've blocked 209.177.21.6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) for 25 hours for comment removal and 3RR violations. Cheers, alphachimp 22:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much MrMacMan 22:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"I think that the wikipedia picture was the original picture and the one on village school site was given to them, and then they made it smaller -- thusly wikipedia has the original and unstolen image."

How can Wikipedia have the orginial picture of Village School? The Village School has the original picture first since it's theres. Wikipedia doesn't own original pictures. The person who uploaded the image was from the Village School site. The Village School recently updated the site so it's different now.

Speaking of the Village School, I deleted most of it because it is copy violation.

Inclusive classroom needs help...why don't you help by adding sources on it? that would be great. i luv that article....do you think that i can go to the board of education and ask them if the school district can change all of its schools to inclusive. Great Neck South, North, Village..aren't inclusive...i'm going to do it...what do you think? I felt isolated in special education...therefore i'm going to do it...i'm going to protest this unfairness. (209.177.21.6 - Talk)

You are correct, wikipedia doesn't own the picture -- however what I meant to say was that the person who took the picture originally uploaded it to wikipedia. After sometime the Village school was looking for a good picture of the school and found it on wikipedia. They downloaded the image, made it significantly smaller and put it up on their website. MrMacMan 22:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'They updated the site so it's different now.' so how am I supposed to know it was actually their picture instead of ours? Anyway isn't the school a public entity? Even if the image was owned by the school I could easily request that it be made open to the public. MrMacMan 23:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That user was usually replacing into a girl with dimples. That may give a bad luck time. This is an automated notice by Groupempty. If you have any questions/comments, please go to my talk page. Thank you! 02:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relieved. I reported him to WP:AIV!

• WS114AUT (blocked indef by Persian_Poet_Gal (ACB)

- Microtony 02:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I added a picture WITH the teeth showing girl. Are you actually okay, now? Groupempty (talk · contribs)

No problem ;). I'll watchlist your page for awhile.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 17:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't I create articles for the elementary schools in the Great Neck School District? All of the secondary schools in the Great Neck School District is listed. I don't understand why I can't create elementary schools too. If elementary schools are not important, then secondary schools shouldn't be listed either. right? I also added another image for the Great Neck South High School article. And I changed the heading to academic excellence. Go check it out and tell me if it's okay. I hope it's okay. Do you like the image I took? I love taking pictures. What other pictures should I take of the school? (RainingmySoul 20:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Well you can just remove the edits made by the IP on your user subpage. After you get evidence of possible socks, you can go for an RFCU case again to confirm whether or not they are actually sockpuppets. If confirmed, they can be blocked afterwards. Nishkid64 23:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:RFCU. Read everything carefully, and when you make the report, please do so in an appropriate manner. You can contact other admins if you wish. I don't see it as being entirely productive, but they might offer some advice that might be worthwhile. Nishkid64 23:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. :) The goal, in my mind, is to be as user-friendly as possible. The meat of the request is up to you, the finicky formatting and ohno which template is best here issues are less important. Always nice to see somebody adding their request onto /Pending, too! Good luck. – Luna Santin (talk) 08:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There were 2 edits in a row. I may have been a bit over zealous with the final warning notice considering it was only their 2nd vandalism of the page. I normally give many, many warnings before resorting to such things. --BlindEagle^talk 16:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot show you the changes. I suppose I could dig for the vandalism around the time I placed the warning. But, by the time I got done writing the vandalism warning, someone else reverted the edits. This has happened to me several times in the last few days. Those bots are fast. --BlindEagle^talk 18:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I did some digging and I think I found it. You may look at this [[1]] to see the differences that I reverted from this vandal. --BlindEagle^talk 18:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I could have put the notice on the wrong page. I'm human like everyone else. --BlindEagle^talk 19:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clear up the sitaution: You believe those accounts are socks of Jessica Liao? Correct? If they are, then I suggest you bring it up at WP:AN/I and ask others if the accounts can be blocked as sockpuppets of the user. I know her previous socks were blocked, and I'll check into the RFCU request that you made earlier. Nishkid64 23:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am a 2006 graduate of Great Neck South High School who now attends Carnegie Mellon University (due to privacy reasons I cannot give my real name here), and after observing this edit, it would seem that we might know each other in real life. Can you please send me an e-Mail (using the "E-mail this user" link) to check whether my suspicion is correct or not? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TML (talk • contribs) 22:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Will do. MrMacMan 06:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tom, meet my best friend in the whole world Jeremiah! Yes you guys both all go to the same school. Wow...what a coincidence...i knew you guys would meet someday...this is so romantic! (sarcastic)(69.117.20.128 - talk)

Thanks a lot Jessica. You really seem to have some weird ideas about about my non-relation to Tom here. We all went through the same schools... so what? MrMacMan 04:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For this issue, and for future relevant issues, I would suggest reporting this at the administrator's incidents noticeboard. User:Jessica Liao's block was lifted last July by another admin, and the recent edit is her only edit since then, though her IP seems active. IP addresses are harder to handle, and are rarely permanently blocked due to possible collateral damage to other editors. --Tom (talk - email) 13:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. I hope everything goes smoothly. =) Nishkid64 13:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you ever go back to visit South High School, please tell me. I'd like to see you and so does Mrs. Goodman...She has been waiting for you....to visit her!!! Why don't you ever visit her to tell her how good you have been? (My contributions that I made to Wikipedia! - talk to me!)

Well I have easter off so I might be back on one of those days. If you see her tell her i said hi. MrMacMan 23:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on the vote, not the voter. Your edit has been reverted. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 10:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And to answer your question, which should have been asked in the appropriate place (my talk page), I am under no obligation to archive anything. And right at the top of my talk page I say "be aware that I ... reserve the right to revert and refactor at will." Comments such as your's or your buddies' that are made solely to get a specific rise get the vandalism treatment. Comments put in wholly inappropriate places under the same goal is trolling. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 10:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My !vote is not broad opposition to ATT, but opposes this merger to its present text. I have classified your vote in the same category; please correct if I am wrong. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

People are pretty free with reasonable limits on their user pages to remove content. Feel free to review the user page guidelines. Also, as a matter of community consensus, established and productive users are generally allowed a bit more leeway, especially in regards to subpages. With user talk pages, it's considered nice to archive. However, as long as they aren't changing words to make it seem like something differant was said, its acceptable for them to refactor and delete. How that helps. If you have any questions, please hit my talk page. Be well! Vassyana 09:06, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If someone deletes your comments on their talk page, it doesn't mean that you're trolling or anything of the like. Some people just delete comments after they are read. WP:TALK is for general talk page guidelines. User space operates under a differant set of rules. WP:USER is the guideline for all user space pages, including an editor's main user page, their user talk page and any user subpages they might have. If you have questions about how it works out, or just questions in general, please feel free to drop a message on my talk page. Vassyana 19:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're quite welcome. It's no problem at all. If you have any other questions regarding Wikipedia, always feel free to drop a line on my talk page. I'm glad I could help. Vassyana 00:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep - my bad there, WP:TW is massively useful but the whole warning system is put down to a few buttons. I hit the "AFG" option rather that the "ok, stop it now its annoying". I don't think I did any harm but thanks for pointing it out. ...adam... ^{(talk • contributions)} 21:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope - it's all good, I'm just a bit ham fisted sometimes. Still learning as well is probably half the battle... Thanks again ...adam... ^{(talk • contributions)} 21:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for all your good work on WP:AIV :) - Alison^☺ 22:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey MrMacMan, thanks for your kind support in my RfB. Sadly, it didn't pass, but I appreciate the support, and I do intend to run again eventually. Happy editing! Majorly _{(o rly?)} 03:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MrMacMan, thanks for your support in my successful RfA. As the picture shows, the goddesses have already bestowed my new weapons, which I hope to use to good effect. If you ever need assistance, or want to give me feedback on my use of the admin tools, please leave me a message on my talkpage. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thx for thx. I think you should get a full assess/ advice as you have registered the pages in the right place. Major problems usually are refs and a neutral POV. before I rushed out this morning I saw that you did have a good quantity of refs... well done. If we don't supply enough advice or you want explanation then do come back to me. (One good method of finding out is to assess a couple of dozen schools ... we're always looking for traineee helpers ...Victuallers 13:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Why did you undo my reverting of an inappropriate external link?Invisible Noise 17:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well they had had warnings before and I saw no point in letting them continue. The list of contributions has an extra link on the right that can be clicked on to roll back edits. There are scripts that you can use though like Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/Twinkle or User:AmiDaniel/VandalProof. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 08:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about my snarky sense of humor. Mayorcheese 04:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not abusing the special education article. The article looks fine as of now. I provided references. (69.117.20.128 - talk)

Thanks for reverting the blanking of my talk page. Regards, Mr Stephen 08:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And for the same on my user page. I'm puzzled at why this happened to me; I haven't been in any nasty disputes with anyone lately -- or at least anyone who'd consider vandalizing user pages as a useful way to dispute items -- & I don't know the three other Admins who this vandal attacked. I guess my time to get hit had finally come. -- llywrch 19:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will revert to neutral edit and you can leave it be until the discussion is over.

Marxian Lurker Marxian_Lurker (talk · contribs)

I didn't mean to give attitude but I couldn't understand why you would revert to the least neutral edit. I still don't understand.

Marxian Lurker Marxian_Lurker (talk · contribs)

IMO, the most neutral edits are either the b&w edit or the 4/19 edit of Watchdog07. I prefer the latter because it's fuller, but I'm just a lurker.

Marxian Lurker Marxian Lurker (talk · contribs)

No problema, dear Mac :) In fact the removal of 90% of an article that has been fairly stable is not something that can be easily decided (especially by single purpose accounts), so I decided to step in in order to calm the moods down a little. I see you've suggested a RFC; it's a good decision, and I hope it leads to a compromise and solve the dispute. If the revert warring continues, please let me know and I'll submit it to to WP:RFPP if necessary. Cheers! Phaedriel - 21:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, MrMacMan! However, your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but note that the link you added, matching rule img[0-9]*\.imageshack\.us/img[0-9]*/.*\.jpg, is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia's external links policy for more information. If the link was to an image, please read Wikipedia's image tutorial on how to use a more appropriate method to insert the image into an article. If your link was intended to promote a site you own, are affiliated with, or will make money from inclusion in Wikipedia, please note that inserting spam into Wikipedia is against policy. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! Shadowbot 03:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really not a fan of bots. Yes bots have a good purpose of automating simple tasks, but this is really silly here. I know the bot isn't going to respond to me, it's just silly, it could have removed the link itself but nooo it just reverted my entire edit. Gah. MrMacMan ^Talk 03:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a proposal on the TSSI talk page which I respectfully ask that you consider and then take action on.

Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)

Arnon Chaffin 23:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What are you saying "please stop"? I provided additional information. What is your problem with my edit? I think it's important to provide it...some editor deleted the useful link. It has a lot of valuable information. Explain to me why you think it's a bad site. "Emphasis is placed on using computers as writing instruments, and each student is given a laptop computer to be used during the school year." That line is included in that site. So if you use that...then you definitely have to include the site. (69.117.20.128 - talk)

Hello there. I have noticed that you are making attempts to mediate in a dispute between an unregistered user and a user by the name of Fogeltje, on the talk page of the Command & Conquer: Red Alert article. I am posting this message to notify you that I've found myself having to call upon outside mediation regarding the edits of user Fogeltje as well, in my case in the article of Command & Conquer. This user typically quotes a section of Wikipedia policy which in the opinion of other editors does not apply to the context of the situation, and then moves to arbitrarily and repeatedly delete external links from articles, even when presented with explanations accompanied by excerpts from Wikipedia policy that underline the validity of these links. In one particular instance, this included the deletion of all official websites from the article of Command & Conquer. Perhaps you can offer some mediation in my case as well? At any rate, I think you should know that if the behavior of this user continues in this fashion, I will begin to regard his edits as vandalism and will act accordingly. Thank you. 84.192.125.204 12:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You till haven't made clear why a page of only screenshots is a relevant addition. Yet to avoid a continued edit war I started the discussion on the talk page (the last deletion of the link was a mistake on my behalf and I forget to self-revert myself, I admit that). I don't arbitrarily remove links, I remove links that are not according to the policy in my eyes. The remove of the FTP site was a mistake, but at the time I removed the link it wasn't working and I assumed it was broken, a mistake on my behalf. As for the opinion of other editors, I haven't heard any other opinion than your own. --Fogeltje 15:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to keep this brief.

1) I have made the rationale behind the disputed link's addition perfectly clear, and three times at that. You apparently systematically ignore any argument you are not able to refute.

2) The Wiki policy quoted by you does not apply to this disputed link. I've explained why that is three times already as well.

3) I disagree that your continued removal of links is not arbitrarily.

84.192.125.204 11:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I don't agree since your rationale doesn't make clear why a page composed of only screenshots is relevant. The wikipolicy I quoted is relevant since it adds nothing of value to an article that would be a featured article. A featured article would include one maybe two ingame screenshots for illustration purposes, a site with only screenshots would add nothing of value to that. --Fogeltje 14:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to warn you. MrMacMan ^Talk 17:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, and thanks for reverting!  :-) —David Levy 17:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For undoing blanking of my user talk page. Best wishes --Guinnog 17:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

As one of the sysop members who has had the misfortune of having to deal with this mess, I call your attention to:

a. the messages I wrote today on the TSSI discussion page. Note especially the one on meatpuppets but please read my proposal in the next section as well.

b. a message I left today on J.Smith's discussion page calling his attention to the above and suggesting a penalty.

I have no reason to be given all that has happened in this discussion, but I am still hopeful of an amicable resolution of this controversy.

Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)

In the first sentence above, I am referring to you being a sysop member. Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)

Well I'm not a sysop on wikipedia so I can't take some direct action but I have replied on your talk page that you should follow WP:SSP if you suspect someone of using sockpuppets. Goodluck. MrMacMan ^Talk 19:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to warn you. MrMacMan ^Talk 17:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reverting it! —METS501 (talk) 19:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for pertecting my page against that vandal. I really appreciate it. Karrmann 19:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find the source on here: [2]. I tried looking for it, but I can't find it.... (209.177.21.6 - talk)

I responded to you on the village school talk page. The quote is directly on the page. MrMacMan ^Talk 21:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to warn you. -- MrMacMan ^Talk 21:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reverting it. I appreciate it. --Haemo 21:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. MrMacMan ^Talk 21:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently the user is still attacking you... I just reverted an personal attack on this talk page. MrMacMan ^Talk 21:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I saw. I just reported him. --Haemo 21:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Goodluck. MrMacMan ^Talk 21:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is User:Glarsen and I have been playing around with my user page. I am trying to learn about wikipedia and thought this would be a good place to start. I am currently a student and just partipated in a class where we went heavily into companies that are going public and experiening extreme growth. I saw so many companies on wikipedia, I thought this would be a good way to practice my wikipedia writing with this company's permission. Let me know if I'm doing something wrong. I'm all ears...

Oh and thanks for the heads up on somone else editing my user page. I actually was showing a friend down the hall and started making edits on his computer. Thanks again!!

So.. whats up? this edit? MrMacMan ^Talk 00:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hit the wrong button while looking at Gibberish. Intended to revert vandalism but actually reverted your reversion and then left you half a warning message. Sorry about that – Gurch 00:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reverting my user page. Much appreciated! ... discospinster _talk 15:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for alerting me too... I won't forget to login anymore. J-Baptiste

So are you going to respond to me on the talk page of Great Neck South High School? You said you were. (Jessica - talk)

I noticed you dunned an IP user as a (stage 3) vandal for this edit, his only one. A short consideration of his edit shows it to be a relevant reference, though poorly formatted. It's usually best to Assume good faith. Perhaps you should consider replacing the warning with a welcome message. 66.248.85.149 23:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While it one of your first edits I felt that since you blanked the page for a 2nd time before I gave a warn showed intent to blank this page. The warn policy states that I can start with a higher level warn if an editor feels it necessary. Please do not continue blanking the user's page. MrMacMan ^Talk 23:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the rvv. You are my Guardian Angel. --Meno25 07:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How long is it going to take you to respond to me?! I'm not going to live forever. Is it b/c you don't know how to respond. Why don't you just admit it instead of waiting? So are you going to respond to me on the talk page of Great Neck South High School? You said you were. (Jessica - talk)

Hi MrMAcMan I already tried to find a middle ground. The numbers user Gon4z keeps inserting are outdated by at least five years. I have my information from the "The World Defence Almanac 2006", Mönch Publishing Group, Bonn 2006 and also from the official homepage of the Albanian Army: http://www.army.mil.al/ After meeting with stiff resistance and personal attacks from user Gon4z i.e.: "you did not citise anything its all crap you stright out deleted everything just because you are an anti Albanian dont mean you ahve to go around spreading propaganda you so called contribution of deeting articles are not wealcomed" I tried to compromise with him, that we could put the scrapped equipment in a own paragraph of equipment once used by Albania, but he doesn't even read the discussion posts, nor does he read in the articles themselves that I did NOT delete his paragraph "Albania Land Forces" from the main article Military of Albania, but rather move the (correct parts of it) it to the more appropriate sub-article Albanian Land Forces Command. So if you want to help, please try to reason with user Gon4z that the amount of material and troops he claims Albania posses wouldn't even fit within the structure of Armed Land Forces. You can have a look at the structure yourself under: http://www.army.mil.al/materiali.php?id=26&l=a According to Gon4z the single Tank Battalion does have 655 Tanks... which would amount to 1 tank per soldier in the battalion. Or the Artillery Battalion, if we believe Gon4z numbers it must have about 300 Field Guns, 500 Heavy Mortar and 200 Multiple Rocket Launchers... which would amount to 2 artillery pieces per soldier in the battalion. Maybe you have more luck trying to reason with Gon4z. I've given up and will just continue to revert the article to the correct numbers. noclador 07:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome and every help is appreciated. noclador 07:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will keep reverting my edit I have not included the land forces I’am working to fix this article and give basic information on the whole military.

Thank you for reverting the vandalism to my userpage. I owe you one! :-) -Billy227 19:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can we add the quotes back? Mel Etitis reverted my edit. Is that appropriate? Can I revert it back? What's wrong with those quotes? (Jessica - talk)

My contribution in the Albanian military is fully sourced unlike yors.

Your first source http://www.hri.org/docs/bmf/ comes from an anti Albanian Greek website (racist website) read the articles even that site contradicts with your figures because that website states more quantities than you are.

Your second source is http://www.csees.net/?page=country_section&country_id=1&sec=8 which is a OK source but extremely out of date 2003/2004 around 4 years old and even that ones again contradicts your figures.

Non of your sources agree with you they all prove you wrong now I don’t know if you hate Albanians or what but pls do not edit that article unless you have sources from 2006 or 2007 I have been trying to work hard and fix that article I don’t need some one coming to ruin and spread propaganda just because they have a problem with Albanians

Thanx Gon4z 20:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Las time I checked it was you vandalising the Albanian military articles using racist anti albanian websites as source i have cetise my figures. Gon4z 02:59, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I not sure what you are considering an attack, I ahve not attacked you once I have just simplly replied to your comment, it is not nice to play the victim take it like a man you sources are not correct and are ruining the article.

Have you taken the "Wikipedia:Are You a Wikipediholic Test"? I saw it...and i am traumatized....they think this is funny being addicted to Wikipedia......i'm laughing so hard...when i took the test...tell me if you were laughing....is this normal behavior?? (Jessica - talk)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalise pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did to Template:Infobox National Military Albania, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Albanian Land Forces Command. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. Thank you.

Please stop. Continuing to add unsourced or original content, as you did to Albanian Land Forces Command, is considered vandalism and may result in a block.

Please stop. Continuing to add unsourced or original content, as you did to Military of Albania, is considered vandalism and may result in a block.

Please stop. If you continue to vandalise pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did to Template:Infobox National Military Albania, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

Please stop. If you continue to vandalise pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did to Albanian Land Forces Command, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

Please stop. If you continue to vandalise pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did to Military of Albania, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

Please stop. If you continue to vandalise pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did to Template:Infobox National Military Albania, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

Please stop assuming ownership of articles such as Albanian Land Forces Command. Doing so may lead to disruptive behavior such as edit wars and is a violation of policy, which may lead to a block from editing.

You have violated the three-revert rule on Albanian Land Forces Command. Any administrator may now choose to block your account. In the future, please make an effort to discuss your changes further, instead of edit warring.

You have violated the three-revert rule on Template:Infobox National Military Albania. Any administrator may now choose to block your account. In the future, please make an effort to discuss your changes further, instead of edit warring.

This is your last warning. If you continue to make personal attacks on other people as you did at User talk:Noclador#Albanian Military, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people.

This is your last warning. If you continue to make personal attacks on other people as you did at User talk:Noclador#Graphics, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people.

This is your last warning. If you continue to make personal attacks on other people as you did at User talk:Noclador#PERSONAL ATTACKS, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people.

This is your last warning. If you continue to make personal attacks on other people as you did at User talk:Gon4z#rev, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people.

Woah.... thats not how warning work. You need to warn the user right after they made the edit, not stockpile them. And if you really think i vandalized your user page or have violated the rules so blatantly you should report me for administrators or some abuse board like 3RR or Admin intervention against vandalism... But really, you think I attacked you personally or am claiming that I 'own' the article? MrMacMan ^Talk 02:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, however, this is why we have the 3RR. If there is consensus, someone will come along and revert eventually. If I were to get involved in a revert war for which I just blocked someone, that would violate quite a few policies, probably worse ones then the 3RR too. Prodego ^talk 03:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As per your request - heads up, there was an attempt by a vigilante Sysop to remove votes by anonymous IPs on the vote you voted on on the Commons. Link:[3] . I reverted him. 71.204.133.75 08:34, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I'm not sure how else to say this 'This is me from english wikipedia', I didn't have a commons account before but now I just registered. MrMacMan ^Talk 15:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up, dear Mac :) In fact, I abandoned the maintenance of that subpage long ago, since I mostly upload immages on Commons now, and I can't keep up with all of them. As for that "missing" image, well, I deleted it some time ago, because... let's say it brought me a few unpleasant troubles. I think I'll delete that page altogether soon - thanks for reminding me it existed! :) Take good care, and have a beautiful day, Phaedriel - 06:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What I find hysterical is that she thinks we don't know! She edits the exact same articles witht he same edits and obvious agenda and thinks we're oblivious. She must be very thick. I keep a very close eye on everything she does. I think we all need to keep watch on these IP address editors, they cause havoc. --Brideshead 20:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I don't find it funny. It's actually just a big waste of time and effort. As far as I'm concerned, the IPs should be blocked. We've gone out of our way to be accommodating to her antagonistic approach to editing, yet it makes no difference. As far as I'm concerned, treating an anonymous IP address as your username is an abuse of the system. Nposs 20:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't attack anyone you stupid bitch

I fail to see how that even referenced you

I dunno... it certainly seems like an attack to me... MrMacMan ^Talk 22:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remeber Me? Arnon Chaffin 22:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC) I'm doing pretty good now so far 463 edits in 2 months :-)[reply]

Thank you for reverting that nasty vandalism on my userpage, Mac! :) Sorry I was afk and I missed the party - but fortunately my friend Alison always watches my back! Let me know if I can help you whenever you need, k? Have a great day, and thanks again! Phaedriel - 23:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks man. Good lookin out. Cheers. -- Reaper X 01:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you remove my links form the education page on wikipedia. I am not trying to vandalize, I am a new user who started a local special education ciriculum in my town and thought that itw as relevant to special educaiton, espically sp. ed reform so i posted my link under the section talking about reform. Why can I not do this? And who dictates whether my link is spamming? Is it posssible to leave it on any page with some tlak about it? Also, sorry if I posted this in the wrong spot I am a new user. Thanks, respond soon please I am eager to contribute to wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.248.92.4 (talk • contribs)

replied to on your usertalk page. MrMacMan ^Talk 04:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see you reverted my tags. In reply to your questions, I explained why I placed the tags on the article on the TSSI talk page. Unfortunately, you reverted before you had an opportunity to read my replies. I'd like to put the tags back on the article now. Any objections? Please note that the issue of how the section on COPE constitutes advertisement has been discussed at length on the talk page already. If you think the spam tag would be better placed elsewhere in the article, I can accomodate.

Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)

Smee's been locking horns with me since I came here. I initially signed on with Lsi_admin, not realizing that admin was a reserved username and not realizing that there was actually an entire community here. The page said 'just re-register with new name', so thats what I did.

Smee and Anynobody are on this witch-hunt to find socks and they came across my original username and now they think they have found gold.

I didn't even realize it was still there, or I'd have suggested someone delete it and clean up wiki.

Lsi john 08:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. They already got spanked once for fishing. Ironically, earlier Smee posted a link which contained this:

"When you start accusing everyone of being in on a conspiracy, you shouldn't be surprised if they decide to confirm your paranoia by banding together against you." —khaosworks

He's so caught up in witch hunting, he doesn't even see that he's making his own conspiracy. Lsi john 08:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

-

I asked for help from two admins Seraphimblade:[here] and Krator: [here]

Seraphimblade [stated] that, as he had prior knowledge of myself (and Smee) and the situation, it might be COI for him to be involved in investigating and deleteing the category that smee created and my initial user account.

I will assume that since Krator is also familiar, it would also be COI for him to become involved directly.

I have posted some historical details [here].

Since we have no prior history, if you would be willing to help, I would appreciate it.

As smee is using that category to imply intentional wrong doing, and suggest that further investigation will be done, it creates a cloud of suspicion around my username and my edits which simply should not exist.

I would like a fair and speedy trial (so to speak), in order to have those pages investigated for what they are: (initially innocent) and now (prejudicial inflamatory suggestion) and then have them deleted from wikipedia.

Any help you can offer would be most appreciated.

Thank you. Peace in God. Lsi john 13:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mets501, I've commented in an ANI 2 days ago, the issue went uncommented and went into the archive, I brought it back and since I reposted it another editor has said that they requested for comment on the same user twice before with no one making any comments. I would really, really like to see some comment on the issue. I hope this doesn't come across as canvassing but no one has commented on the issue and I don't want to see it fade away again. It is posted here. MrMacMan ^Talk 03:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MrMacMan. I don't know of any such policy, and it seems as if you've gotten a response now, but if that ever happens again and it's serious you could try other routes such as WP:RFC. —METS501 (talk) 16:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I replied to on your talk page. The issue wasn't responded to by an uninvolved party the other editor who i had a discussion with there pointed out to me that they have filed 2 previous incident reports and none have been answered. That's why I'm hoping to get some answer to this issue. MrMacMan ^Talk 23:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you change the number of bunkers in the same edit you removed the source and the entire source list (the source gave 700,000 bunkers you changed to 750,000, but then you changed the number yet again to 1 Million with no source at all. Please help me understand. MrMacMan ^Talk 02:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well the source I presented shows that OVER 700,000 pillow boxes were build it does not include the naval, army and air force bunkers also it clearly states over which means more Gon4z 02:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the source? I don't see it in the article. Can you point me to the source or website? MrMacMan ^Talk 02:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The source has been in the external links all along my good adversary, but I think you were a little sightless so you missed it, because you did not look carefully for it, I guess you were sought after for a quarrel with me, so you did not look that hard. For that reason I have added the link to the section to make it easier for you to twig it

Well I bid you good day my favorite antagonist, from:Gon4z 02:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah exactly source says (BBC)

More than 700,000 of these cement and iron monsters were built between 1950 and the dictator's death in 1985.

This is what the article said before your edits

Albania Built over 700,000 Bunkers during the 40 year communist rule under Enver Hoxha.

This is what the article says after your edits

Albania Built over 1 million Bunkers during its 45 year communist rule by Enver Hoxha,

So I still don't see where you got your number from and the discrepancy is rather wide. And I'm not your 'antagonist' I'm just trying to make sense of your edits here. MrMacMan ^Talk 02:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hummm I thing you are, since you seen so occupied editing a article you know so little about, I think you have some sort of aversion towards Albanians or me, so you and your companion are prosing slurs with intend to make Albania appear feeble to the world. But if it makes you sleep better at night then I will change that 750,000 to over 700,000 because I anticipate to be the bigger man, also communism did not end in Albania until 1989 and Albania became officially a communist state in 1945 but it was considered communist since 1943 so yes there was over 45 years rule of communism I was right about that and yes there are over 1 million bunks over 700,000 of the pillow boxes exist today there are many others that have been destroyed and that sources does not count the countless arm bunkers that were made for various reason bomb shelters, artillery bunkers, AA bunkers, tank bunkers…etc also the naval and air force bunkers so I am right about this one as weal, I hope now you can resume to sleeping weal at night since I have helped clarify something for you to help you comprehend my edits. By the way I wrote the first article you quoted.

Well good day once again my good adversary, from: Gon4z 03:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'By the way I wrote the first article you quoted' -- Your saying that you are Daniel Howden from the BBC, and 'The Independent' (british newspaper)? MrMacMan ^Talk 03:29, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No bright derrière I’am not, I referred to the article in wikipedia.Gon4z 03:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1) stop calling me names, its against wikipedia rules. 2) I have made further comments to Template talk:Infobox National Military Albania. MrMacMan ^Talk 04:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See the tags placed by AKliman Akliman (talk · contribs) on the article Pluralism in economics. Someone ought to tell him that editing Wikipeadia entries should be about one-upsmanship.

Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)

The editor in question referred to HIMSELF as "the antichrist": indeed, that's how he SIGNED his edits. You can see for yourself if you look at the history of his user page. That topic came up repeatedly in discussions on the TSSI page.

Here are his exact words, taken directly from his user page dated 4/24: "Hi. I am Akliman, aka Andrew Kliman, aka the antichrist". Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)

Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)

I replied to you on your talk page. He no longer uses that signature, it is improper to keep using it. MrMacMan ^Talk 13:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is all rather confusing. Once someone refers to oneself as "aka [fill in blank]" then it seems to me to be legitimate to refer to that person in the same way regardless of whatever additional "akas" s/he chooses to assign to oneself. In any event, it was MOST CERTAINLY not personally abusive to refer to him by the name that he himself referred to himself as. Note, by the way, that since he referred to himself as "the antichrist" others have - outside of Wikipedia -- referred to him with that expression. Once you give yourself a name like that, it's really impossible to take it back. Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)

Thanks for your input. I replied to your latest comments on my talk page. Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)

Could you reinstate the image instead then? Konekoniku 07:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to be quite popular these days! Thanks for keeping an eye out. ... discospinster _talk 13:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Presented to User:MrMacMan for his efforts at keeping my user page vandalism free! ... discospinster talk 13:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My first banstar! Thanks discospinster! MrMacMan ^Talk 13:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have since moved this to a subpage (User:MrMacMan/Ze Banstars) so I can put this on my user page... I'm not sure how my to 'move this' without breaking my own refactoring policy... so I've leaving this here, but it is the same banstar you see on my user page. MrMacMan ^Talk 02:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read what I wrote on the user talk page of J.smith J.smith (talk · contribs). Thanks. Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)

Dear MrMacMan,

I appreciate your quick response to the RfC. However, I don't think that there is any POV dispute or cleanup dispute other than the dispute regarding advertising and spam.

Not true. Many other objections have been explained at enormous length on TSSI talk page. Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)

Watchdog07 regards the provision of information about the TSSI as an advertisement for it, and as spam, and so it is the provision of information about the TSSI--rather than any specific content--that he regards as non-neutral and as requiring "cleanup."

That is a complete misrepresentation of my position. Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)

(Please take a look at his deletion of the International Working Group on Value Theory--which is associated with the TSSI--from the "Groups for Pluralism in Economics" section of pluralism in economics.)  

Please look at AKliman's edits on that page, especially those concerning URPE. Further, note that the IWGVT is listed on that page in the same section as URPE. Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)

In other words, he wants the article reduced to a stub in order to eliminate almost all information about the TSSI and in order to then have the article deleted.

This is directly contradicted by my many attempts at a good faith compromise, all of which were either rejected or ignored by Akliman. Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)

Please note that he has repeatedly threatened to reduce it to a stub (see above).

See above. Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)

If you look at the complaints he's made, there is nothing still at issue that he's said is non-neutral or in need of cleanup other than the alleged facts that the journal section is an ad and the link to my book is spam.

Not even remotely close to being true. Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)

The other specific complaints have been dealt with.

Most certainly not true! Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)

He wanted quotation marks around some words; they're now there. He wanted citations from reliable sources; they're now there. He is, it is true, claiming that exceptional claims are being made that require exceptional sources, but this is not an NPOV issue; it's an RS issue. (Please see WP:RS.) He's repeated been asked to identify non-neutral content and to supply additional content, but it hasn't happened. Everything specific is about advertising, spam, or RS.

Imagine that I want every Wikipedia article to say "X is a kangaroo," and I don't want it to say anything other than "X is a kangaroo." Frank Sinatra is a kangaroo--nothing else. Finland is a kangaroo--nothing else. The Magna Carta is a kangaroo--nothing else. Etc. So I put NPOV and cleanup warning tags on every article. And nothing anybody says convinces me to remove them. Nothing can convince me, other than eliminating all content other than "X is a kangaroo." Does it make any sense to say that there's a POV and cleanup dispute about everything because there's no "consensus"? Isn't it rather the case that these actions are just sophisticated vandalism that jeopardizes the integrity of the encyclopedia? And shouldn't they be treated as such?

The vandalism was done by AKliman with his edit of Jurriaan's article -

which he didn't even attempt to explain on the talk page. Jurriaan (a long-standing and active Wikipedian who has edited articles on many subjects and created the TSSI page to begin with) wrote that his article was "murdered" by Akliman. Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)

What's going on here is the same thing, but focused on one issue and not so frivolous.

The removal of the neutrality and other tags by Akliman was not an act of someone displaying good faith. This lack of good faith also was displayed on the pluralism in economics page. His actions as editor have been, at best, extremeley inconsistent. Note also his edits of the David Laibman page which resulted in a lock of that page. Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)

justice-thunders-condemnation 06:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what I wrote freed from the constant stream of interjections that serves to interrupt the flow of my argument, thereby rendering it unintelligible:

Dear MrMacMan,

I appreciate your quick response to the RfC. However, I don't think that there is any POV dispute or cleanup dispute other than the dispute regarding advertising and spam. Watchdog07 regards the provision of information about the TSSI as an advertisement for it, and as spam, and so it is the provision of information about the TSSI--rather than any specific content--that he regards as non-neutral and as requiring "cleanup." (Please take a look at his deletion of the International Working Group on Value Theory--which is associated with the TSSI--from the "Groups for Pluralism in Economics" section of pluralism in economics.) In other words, he wants the article reduced to a stub in order to eliminate almost all information about the TSSI and in order to then have the article deleted. Please note that he has repeatedly threatened to reduce it to a stub (see above).

If you look at the complaints he's made, there is nothing still at issue that he's said is non-neutral or in need of cleanup other than the alleged facts that the journal section is an ad and the link to my book is spam. The other specific complaints have been dealt with. He wanted quotation marks around some words; they're now there. He wanted citations from reliable sources; they're now there. He is, it is true, claiming that exceptional claims are being made that require exceptional sources, but this is not an NPOV issue; it's an RS issue. (Please see WP:RS.) He's repeated been asked to identify non-neutral content and to supply additional content, but it hasn't happened. Everything specific is about advertising, spam, or RS.

Imagine that I want every Wikipedia article to say "X is a kangaroo," and I don't want it to say anything other than "X is a kangaroo." Frank Sinatra is a kangaroo--nothing else. Finland is a kangaroo--nothing else. The Magna Carta is a kangaroo--nothing else. Etc. So I put NPOV and cleanup warning tags on every article. And nothing anybody says convinces me to remove them. Nothing can convince me, other than eliminating all content other than "X is a kangaroo." Does it make any sense to say that there's a POV and cleanup dispute about everything because there's no "consensus"? Isn't it rather the case that these actions are just sophisticated vandalism that jeopardizes the integrity of the encyclopedia? And shouldn't they be treated as such?

What's going on here is the same thing, but focused on one issue and not so frivolous.

justice-thunders-condemnation 06:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

justice-thunders-condemnation 03:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The restoration of the neutrality and cleanup tags was a necessary but insufficient step. I have presented plenty of evidence and arguments for why the spam and advertising tags need to be on the TSSI article. I will restore those tags. If they are removed again, then I will revert the article to stub. These tags are urgently required to preserve the integrity of Wikipedia and to alert readers of the article to the presence of spam and advertisement. The alternative is to delete the offensive sections and/or reduce the article to a black-and-white factual edit. Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)

Please note my most recent message on the talk page of J.Smith J.Smith (talk · contribs) regarding meatpuppets and a puppetmaster on the TSSI talk page.

M.Posner has reverted the TSSI page in violation of the 3-revert-rule. See comments I made on J. Smith's talk page J.Smith (talk · contribs). Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)

WAtchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)

A the user is 'J.smith' with a lowcase letter s.

B I don't regard the editors as meat-puppets.

C The 3RR, ergo, doesn't apply.

D Your making this very very hard on everyone involved by being rather aggressive in your edits, clams and messagine very party that is involved while blanking useful info on your own talk page. MrMacMan ^Talk 02:32, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied to all of the above on my talk page. It has already been determined that the two editors in question (Alan XAX Freeman and M.posner) are and can be treated as meatpuppets. The conditions by which both can continue to participate have been agreed to by both users. These conditions specifically stipulate that neither user is to edit the article except where it is a simple non-controversial issue such as grammar or spelling corrections. Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Temporal_Single-System_interpretation, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.

1. A minor point- you were only supposed to write "agree" or "disagree".

2 The format of the RFM makes it possible to edit the request, of course. There was nothing wrong with that, was there?

3. A change from "delete" to "change" might have seemed unnecessary, but many of my requests were for edits to change rather than be "deleted". A specific inclusion of the content of articles Marxian economics and Pluralism in economics as issues to be resolved was both important and consistent with the RFM (since both of those articles had been referenced in the RFM), in my opinion.

Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)

1) Yes I read the guidelines too but I don't see a comment section.

2) I've never had a RFM before but you changed the scope of the RFM so I would assume that it isn't proper.

3) I'm not involved in the issues in those articles, so I have no comment on the changes. MrMacMan ^Talk 02:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Temporal single-system interpretation. For the Mediation Committee, ^demon[omg plz] This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

I responded to your comment on my user talk page on the same page. Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)

Indeed there is no 17th Alpini regiment, BUT there are hordes of other specialized and short-lived Alpini units- have a look here- but be aware this list is not even remotely complete! :-) There were even Coastal (!) Defence Alpinis... Thanks for the accolades fot my contributions- I try my best to make wikipedia the best :-) noclador 17:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been seeing more and more of your edits and I want to thank you for some of the revert work you have been doing. MrMacMan ^Talk 19:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And vice versa. My focus is more New Jersey related, but I grew up on Long Island and lived for a few years in the Great Neck area, so I allow myself to be sucked in if the edit summaries attract my attention. Thanks for all your work on these school articles, as well. Alansohn 19:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Template:Infobox National Military Albania. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. Gon4z 21:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Giving me the same warning i gave you doesn't make you in the right. And you also have been blocked for another 48 hours for breaking the 3RR after I posted this message on your talk page. MrMacMan ^Talk 23:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Regarding the community sanction noticeboard, it's a little like AN/I except it's specifically for discussing topical or site-wide bans on problematic editors. The idea is to handle relatively straightforward cases without having to bother ArbCom.

In general, it's best to try other methods of dispute resolution first (for example, a request for comment). However, given what I observed with a brief look at that user's history, an RfC may be a waste of time.

If you want to request santcions at the noticeboard, just leave a note (similar to the one on AN/I) detailing why you think the editor should be sanctioned. Also best to be specific about what you think would be appropriate (e.g. a topic ban on Albanian military matters, or "revert parole" (restricted to 1 revert per week or such), or a site-wide ban). Also details of why you think the editor is a problem and unlikely to improve, past blocks, etc. You can look at some of the prior discussions on the noticeboard archive to get a sense of how things usually go down. MastCell ^Talk 22:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will not reply to you-know-who on the TSSI talk page as his latest writing is unworthy of a direct response to him. Instead, I will direct your attn. to comments I made today on the user talk page of J.Smith J.smith (talk · contribs). Do you recall anyone on Wikipedia ever having done something similar, or as outrageous, as what he-who-shall-not-be-mentioned did today?

Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)

Excuse me; to ask for an escrow account in the hands of a third party simply cannot properly be called solicitation of funds. This statement violates WP:Harass. Readers should indeed check out my explanation of why the escrow account is advisable. I am trying to find a way to induce Watchdog07 into mediation. His refusal to directly respond is tantamount to continued refusal to engage in mediation. The record shows clearly who is looking for a solution and who is not. justice-thunders-condemnation 02:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear MrMacMan - I have placed another comment on the user talk page of J.smith J.smith (talk · contribs) concerning this matter. Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)

Please see what I wrote on the talk page of J.smith J.smith (talk · contribs). Basically, it concerns the following: Andrew Kliman twice deleted a RFC which I authored concerning the use of the expression "New Orthodox Marxists" in the TSSI article! He also deleted two other RFCs which I wrote! This latest scandal follows yesterday's scandal in which he objected to the use of an expression in the article which he himself introduced into the article and sourced. The latter action (especially his rationalization of it) is ridiculous, self-contradictory and insulting. The former action is an attack on the entire Wikipedia community as RFCs are an important and integral component in the Wikipedia process of dispute resolution. For his repeated acts of vandalism (and his overall pattern of behavior) I have asked that he be indefinately blocked. Watchdog07 12:35, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, a ban is something imposed on a user by the community appointed Arbcom or Jimbo Wales by fiat for whatever reason, and a block is something any admin does to an individual user account or IP address for predetermined reasons (usually vandalism, sometimes immediately if the vandalism is severe or offensive enough, or in the case of continued actions by users blatantly against policy in the face of multiple warnings). They can both be for a set time or permanent. Bans can be permanent, blocks of user accounts can be permanent, but we don't like to permablock IP addresses. As in the case of Jessica, I blocked (what I believe to be) her IPs for 6 mos., so it ever gets reassigned to another computer after that time that computer can conceivably register for a new user account. Known shared IPs are blocked for much less time. Admins are supposed to use Arbcom mandated block ranges to enforce bans, but don't themselves declare bans on other users in order to block or have other admins block. That way, admin actions can be reversed by other admins or even by themselves if they change their minds, but bans "from above" can't be lifted by admins. I don't know why she was allowed to edit for so long, I don't even remember now (incipient Alzheimer's?) what attracted my attention to her editing, oddly since sockpuppet hunting isn't the sort of thing I usually do. My guess is she slipped through the cracks since she is apparently pleasant enough and what she does isn't obvious vandalism. Her ban came as a result of checkuser, which is overseen by Arbcom members, I believe. Other admins have reviewed my blocks and declined to unblock, so I think it was OK, but if I hear a good enough argument to the contrary I will definitely reconsider. Again, this is only how I understand it, others will have their own opinions to be sure. Cheers, --Fire Star 火星 18:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they were decent photos, but they came from a source we've found we can't trust, a source that will say practically anything to continue on her terms with a project where she has made herself unwelcome to the community. There is debate on the issue of how far to revert banned users, but my take is that leaving (especially) images of dubious provenence could expose Wikipedia to legal liability if they actually originally came from another source; if she didn't actually take them herself, and the (hypothetical) original source happened to see them unlicensed on Wikipedia some day. If we've severed our ties with her, yet leave an image she's uploaded, we can't easily go to her and ask her to prove it's hers if anyone ever challenges the image copyright status. Add that to the consideration of the upshot of the ban being that she's lost the privilege of contributing to Wikipedia, I thought it best to refactor the articles as much as possible. --Fire Star 火星 04:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The burden of proof is on you or Alison to show me One Night In Hackney making edits where he removes relevant content from pages that are not related to Irish Republicans. How am I supposed to show you edits if I am saying they he hasn't made any of these edits? Please THINK before you post on my talk page. Bobby Sands man 20:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

His outrageous actions continue: see my comments on J.Smith's J.smith (talk · contribs) user talk page. He has altered the Wikipedia guideline on shunning WP:SHUN so that it now allows for the asking questions of "difficult editors" in an effort to "reveal" the "motive" of other editors and as a "behavior modification technique". He then uses this as a rationalization for harassing me on the TSSI Talk page. Watchdog07 23:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know. It probably means I'll end up an administrator, as I see they are the ones who get their user pages vandalized the most. :-) IPSOS (talk) 22:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No chance, you are too aggressive and indulge in too many disputes. When you learn to show respect for other users then you might be considered after a suitable period of 'good behaviour'. If you really want to be an admin then your home page would be a good place to start i.e. by removing your arrogant and offensive material. 217.42.83.204 (talk · contribs)

User 217.42.83.204 -- I assume you are referring to IPSOS, but its not necessary to express your opinion about this editor here. Thanks, MrMacMan ^Talk 01:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, thanks for looking out - I forget to login sometimes. Zena Dhark…·°º•ø®@» 04:24, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your advice. I can see that there may be fault on both sides. However, so far Watchdog hasn't been able to support his claims. I don't know if he is capable of doing that. What do you think? Sunray 08:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Correction - I have provided exactly what you asked for on the Marxian economics talk page. You asked for succinct reasons and I have given them. Watchdog07 13:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MrMacMan - 5 exclamation points is a bit excessive - not to mention the use of CAPS which you have critisized me for using. Watchdog07 13:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At the time I posted in both the WP:ANI and Talk:Marxian_economics You had not yet given succinct reasons. You, since that time, have. Thank you. MrMacMan ^Talk 17:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC) _{I will not acknowledge your response to my edit summary when you continue to make use of bolded words in your actual text.}[reply]

Sorry, I didn't see the above until just now. I will try to minimize the use of bolded words, but will use them when I think they are necessary. By the way, the quote that I reproduced from WP:AGF was in bold in the original. Watchdog07 02:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If we can get some agreement on how to proceed (based on WP policies), perhaps we can actually improve the article. I've suggested some groundrules on the talk page. We shall see. Sunray 17:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. We shall see. I have explained my feelings about those ground rules on the article talk page. If others are committed to increasing the neutrality of the article, it can be done and should be done rather effortlessly. Unfortunately, after a couple of months discussion I know that nothing that seems like it can be done effortlessly has been done without enormous (time-consuming) effort. You wouldn't believe how long it took and what had to be done to get another editor to agree that a quotation should be placed in quotation marks. Please read today's edits of the article by Andrew Kliman. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, right? Have you ever seen edits like that in an encyclopedia? He has a hard time with writing edits based on fact rather than his personal opinion, or so it seems to me. By the way, are you familar with the literature on the subject of Marxian economics?Watchdog07 02:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the revert... apparently a lot of people have a problem with me. Whatever.

Thanks again.

Stealthrabbit ^{Say it, baby, say it!} 16:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey thanks, I think they are pretty stable now. Feel free to put them on, I don't think I need to change them any more. Any suggestions? Just let me know if you do. Thanks again, though.

Yes we are the same person. Mindys user page redirect to ajwc and the talk page redirects back to mindys. I edit under the mindys account to keep the same history. But I would like to have my account name changed to Adam.J.W.C. I am still waiting on approval.
Thanks. AdamJWC 06:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, i should have checked that first. Silly mistake, sorry. MrMacMan ^Talk 06:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How did you notice this. AdamJWC 06:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strange as it sounds I actually patrol the Special:Recentchanges, specifically under recent changes to users. I often find that userpage vandalism is much harder to spot and usually harder to find than article vandalism so I have to try and weed out changes by editors using different accounts and such. I saw a bunch of edits in relative succession on the page and here I am. Anyway, sorry bout' any confusion. MrMacMan ^Talk 06:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thats ok, thanks for looking out for mi. AdamJWC 06:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I have 1 account, gbgg89. those are my friends' accounts, and we all like to get cool userboxes from each other and things like that. Gbgg89 13:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I reported him today to administrator Prodego as he had to deal with Gon4z more than once too. Gon4z is currently editing unsourced material into articles and accuses anyone that does not agree of “vandalism” or “racism”. I think a longer ban is required. You can find my report about Gon4z (and a list of “deeds”) to administrator Prodego here. If you have any negative experiences with Gon4z or an opinion to add I would welcome your contributions. Thanks and best regards noclador 01:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear MrMacMan,

Please see my reply to user:sunray's query about translations of articles from other language Wikipedias, posted on his talk page. Comments are welcome and I have suggested to Sunray that these are posted on his talk page - he may have another proposal. I am endeavouring to contact other active editors who might be interested in these proposals and would welcome your suggestions on who these could be. I intend to post this identical message on the user talk pages of andrew-the-k, Haemo, Watchdog07, and M.Posner

Alan XAX Freeman 08:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've been impersonated by MrsMacMan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - and I think I know who's impersonating you. TML 20:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure it's Jessica Liao? bibliomaniac15 Join or die! 22:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Same pattern of disruptive edits and confrontational talk page discussions. I was going to add the "suspected sockpuppet" template myself. Nposs 01:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

She also seems to have taken on a look-alike of MrMacMan's signature. bibliomaniac15 Join or die! 04:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is what happens when i take a few days off wikipedia... I get impersonated? This is an outrage. MrMacMan ^Talk 09:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your impersonator was a sockpuppet of banned User:Jessica Liao and has been indefblocked. What tipped me off to look deeper was that she impersonated you, who had dealings with her before. --Fire Star 火星 21:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there MrMacMan! Thought you'd be interested in this discussion. It be nice to get your input. Best, aNubiSIII ^{(T / C)} 18:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As much as I don't like to make accusations... User:Nitsirk edits the same articles, already tried to change all of the infobox's to 'senior high school' out of style... I haven't been active editing in a while, but it smells fishy to me, what do you think? MrMacMan ^Talk 23:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Sure smells like it. I don't understand the perceived distinction, but I am keeping an eye on these Great Neck school articles. Alansohn 23:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• You might like to take a look at User talk:Dekimasu and Talk:Grade retention. Dekimasuよ! 13:10, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that I forgot to "wikilink" senior high school in the Great Neck South High School article. I didn't know that was a rule that you have to wikilink everything. But other than that, is there a problem with my contributions? If there is, please just tell me. I like to learn on how I can be a better contributor. --Nitsirk 20:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment, MrMacMan. I'm glad you approved of my edit. Tim Ivorson 2010-01-10

Do plan on working on that? I want to change the front-end clients table to a add version details etc. Some of the clients are bound to get deleted as separate articles. Look at User:Pohta ce-am pohtit/Apollon (GUI). Pcap ping 22:42, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, it happens! I'm glad you too like IPA, there are far too many people out there who want those horribly ambiguous pronunciation spellings. If you run across an article needing a pronunciation, feel free to let me know (or tag it with {{Need-IPA}} or {{Cleanup-IPA}}, I check them regularly): it's kinda my thing here, and I'm always looking for a challenge. Cheers! — ˈzɪzɨvə (talk) 04:34, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, if you are active on Wikipedia and are still interested in helping out with urgent tasks on our large Schools Project, please let us know here. We look forward to hearing from you.

---

Sent to project members 13:58, 29 August 2021 (UTC). You can opt of messages here.