Welcome!

Hello, Noitall/archive 1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! 

Personal note: Excellent job on Michael Steele's biography. However, as I have seen new users post copyrighted material many times before, are you sure this is not copyrighted somewhere? Did you type this up yourself, or did you copy/paste from somewhere? No offense, but Steele is rather obscure in the grand scheme of Wikipedia, thus having such a long bio is rather unexpected in my opinion.

I also enjoy working with Maryland politician pages (I've created most of the Maryland Governor and U.S. Senator pages) so I'm sure we'll run into each other from time to time.

Also, be sure to cite your sources. You posted a rather long article in regards to Steele, and I'm fairly certain you did not write that from memory, so please cite your sources (add a ==Sources== subheading at the end of an article and bullet them).

Again, welcome, and keep up the good work (if it isn't copyrighted ;) ). --tomf688^(talk) 15:14, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

I speak only the truth. But I'll oblige you. -68.239.64.111

It would help enormously to know what edit you are complaining about. Would you please go into the history of the article, do a diff on the edit of mine you are complaining about, and give me the URL so I can tell what you are objecting to? -- Jmabel | Talk 03:59, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Clearly what I did there is not vandalism. You may disagree with my edit, but it is on a substantive matter and my edit summary gives a clear reason for the edit. I see you brought up the matter on the talk page of the article, and at least one other person agrees with me. I'd prefer to continue the discussion there, rather than on our user talk pages, since it makes the matter far more visible to other editors of the article. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:22, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
• No, actually, if you will look, in both cases I specifically avoided an edit war by letting the other person's edit stand, even though I disagreed with it, and called for others to please take a look. In the present case, you seem to be a minority of one, with three of us disagreeing with you, so I don't see any need to seek other opinions: the consensus seems quite clear, and you are the one bucking it. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:02, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

"NeoCon" comes across to me as a dirty word....used to describe someone who is not well liked. If General Patton were alive today and strutting his stuff, would he be called a NeoCon? or a Patriot? Just curious.....Ariele 16:04, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You have just reverted Islamist terrorism for the 4th time. Your comment on your 3rd revert indicates your awareness of the 3 revert rule. You are therefore blocked from editing for 24 hours. You are welcome to resume the discussion once this is over. - Mustafaa 02:18, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Asking for assistance regarding Administrator Mustafaa:

Regarding the page and edits to Islamic Terrorism, Administrator Mustafaa acts as the police to this page to ensure that his biased POV is inserted. He was called in by Yuber to revert my edit, which was balanced, an improvement, and entirely without a POV (as are all my edits). They worked to team up to ensure that only their biased POV is inserted. Mustafaa then blocked me, in the process breaking many Wiki policies. Basically Mustafaa ‘s reactionary vandalism and his act of blocking me was an act of Wiki terrorisim.

Administrator Mustafaa broke many of Wiki policies:

1. Abuse of Administratorship: Most important is that Mustafaa has an obvious POV and abuses his Administratorship to ensure that his POV is inserted into his favorite articles.

2. Edit Abuse: Mustafaa (and Yuber) made a reactionary rv revert of the entire article instead of simply making one simple correction, the only correction that they disagreed with.

3. Edit Abuse: Unlike what they stated, there has been no previous discussion of this issue. The only previous discussion concerned their own sensitivity to the term. The term “Islamic Terrorism” is the term used by the West and it is the term being described. I provided a source (and there would be tens of thousands of sources, because this is the proper term in the West. I accurately described the dispute that some Muslims have over a term used in the West.

4. Violating blocking Policy: Use of blocks to gain advantage in a content dispute, and self-blocking to enforce a Wikiholiday or departure are specifically prohibited. Likewise, users should not block those with whom they are currently engaged in conflict.

5. Violating blocking Policy: logged-in users with a substantial history of valid contributions, regardless of the reasoning for the block should not be blocked.

6. Violating blocking Policy: the 3RR policy is not to be used to deal with vandalism as mine was of Mustafaa and Yuber vandalism.

7. Violating blocking Policy: Mustafaa made no warnings, he just wanted to protect his POV.

I believe that I have made significant contributions to Wiki and I very greatly object to 2 people teaming up to block me out of the system so that they can insert their POV.

These people are doing a real disservice to Wiki, and I can think of no worse vandalism than they have done:

I think Administrators like Mustafaa are dangerous for Wiki, especially when they are so willing to violate Wiki policy to insert their POV.

So, I would appreciate any information and assistance you can provide to Noitall. Thank you.

--Noitall 03:46, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

You clearly violated the 3RR, and now you are moving the page without even going to talk.Yuber^(talk) 03:48, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Referring to someone called Mustafaa as a "terrorist", while amusingly hyperbolic, seems rather Islamophobic. --Irishpunktom\^talk 11:43, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

Noitall, you posted the above matter to User talk:Mustafaa, User talk:Noitall, User talk:Davidcannon, User talk:SlimVirgin, User talk:Sam Spade, User talk:Jayjg and Wikipedia:AMA Member Statements. You should seriously reconsider if you really want to post this in so much talk pages. It looks like like an attempt at blackening another editor, and such things tend to reflect pretty bad on you. The place to go if you are worried about administrator abuse is Requests for Comment, but talking calmly about it with the editor in question is not a bad thing to try first. — mark ✎ 07:26, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This was not simply an edit war (although that is what started it), they teamed up to BLOCK ME, basically kick me off Wiki, for the sole reason that they are monitoring a page on Islamic Terrorism to insert their POV. I believe that there is more to it. On your suggestions:

1. The editor did not let me talk it over with them. They immediately blocked me. There was no discussion and no talk.

2. I believe that this is the worst abuse, based on all the preceding violations and with very bad motivation, that you could possibly have.

3. I have found edit wars on Wiki, but I have not found this particular event -- teaming up to immediately block and terrorize a person attempting to do a simple and (not controversial) edit because they have a religious POV.

4. I have not yet had any assistance.

--Noitall 12:40, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

You must cease immediately from refering to other editors as "terrorists." You must ensure that you adhere to No Personal Attacks policy. If you feel there was an administrative abuse, the channel to turn to and issue such a complaint is Use_of administrator privileges, not copying and pasting a lengthy message on user's talk pages, which is generally viewed as a discourteous pratice. Thanks. El_C 12:57, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If you paid any attention to the merits here and the harm to Wiki El_C, you would not be stating such things to me and instead resolving problems elsewhere. ---Noitall 13:02, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

Chill Man, if it was a 3RR block, then it was only a 24 hour Block - Thats happened to the best of them (and worst of us). Fact is, you can't make sweeping changes to articles, especially on points which have been bashed out over time, without expecting people to revert it back. --Irishpunktom\^talk 13:20, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate your attitude Irishpunktom and note that I have specifically refused to NOT get in an edit war before, see Category talk:Irregular military. In this case, I made a 64 word change and they objected to 1 word of it, and did a reactionary revert. The issue was never addressed before on any talk page. And finally, I bring up an issue that I do not believe has been addressed on Wiki before: teaming up to insert a POV and block someone out of Wiki. --Noitall 13:34, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

OK, Noittal, let's see what I can make out of it. First, the one word you're talking about was your Islamic vs. the Islamist of the article, an issue which had been discussed extensively before (please read all of Talk:Islamist terrorism). Did you notice that? Secondly, I don't know what you mean by a 'reactionary revert' — what I see in the edit history is a revert by Yuber, accompanied with the following explanation: RV, this has been discussed in talk, islamist was the consensus. Now, a revert is a slap in the face, as they say, and maybe Yuber could've handled this more carefully. I note however that he immediately thereafter posted a clarification on the Talk page. However, instead of consulting the talk page and maybe questioning the outcome of the previous debate, you responded to his revert by a counter-revert, saying get your POV off here, the edit is accurate and improves the article. This ensued an edit war between you and Yuber. What worries me most, is that you went to the Talk page only after your third revert. There, you started of with a personal attack: "As in many Wiki articles, the primary editors have a POV." Why'd you do that? You didn't talk with any of the editors before.

After the revert warring Mustafaa came on the scene. After reverting your edits, he enforced the block you earned yourself by violating the Three revert rule. That was maybe not the wisest thing to do, as he had involved himself in the dispute (however slightly). However, your calling Mustafaa a 'wiki terrorist' and your massive spamming of personal attacks was totally uncalled for. Really, you've picked the wrong one to pick your particular bone with — you should read Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mustafaa for a start to see what others think about him.

Quite frankly, to me it seems that you should take some time to calm down, because you've been making a mountain out of a molehill. Worse, you've been piling up a load of personal attacks. Please stop suggesting that there is an Islamist conspiracy against you or against NPOV. Try to talk first, consult 3RR, No personal attacks and maybe read something about Wikilove. — mark ✎ 15:08, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

mark, you are remarkably adept at writing quite a bit while missing the entire issue. What relevance is it that an Administrator had some support 6 months ago when just now the editor violated all of the Wiki policies? The most I have been accused of is not sufficiently supporting "Wikilove" for an Administrator who blocked me in violation of Wiki policy. I am accusing Administrator Mustaffa of serious Wiki violations. And the issue was not discussed at all -- just because there is a topic heading with a particular name does not mean that the issue was discussed. It only began discussion AFTER I was blocked and made my complaint. Your long statement missed the entire point (actually all 10 of them that I have made), but I will be willing to discuss anything if you can rationally and thoughtfully think through the problem and issues.

--Noitall 16:00, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

Bye, Noitall. I've got other things to do than being offended by you. I'm sorry for not being patient enough, but I'm off now. — mark ✎ 16:08, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Noitall, Mark's point is very simple: you cannot revert an article more than 3 times -- for any reason. That is Wikipedia policy, & is not subject to exceptions; as one Wikipedian describes it, it is an "electric fence" that no one is allowed to cross. By my count on the History page of Islamist terrorism, you did it four times, not counting your original edit. Yuber made only 3 edits; Mustafaa made only 2.

Further, your description of his edits cannot be considered "vandalism". There is a carefully thought-out definition of vandalism here, which includes several explanations what vandalism is not which covers to what Mustafaa did -- & also what you did.

I don't know what is the cause of this dispute, & I honestly don't care. Mustafaa made a faux pas, minor mistake, when he banned you. However, your current behavior to post your rant against him on several User Talk pages (some of whom I don't see how are involved in this dispute) is far more serious. I pointed you to the proper steps for settling disputes amiably & successfully; contributors who follow these steps, as tedious as they are, show that they respect Wikipedia & build good faith with the rest of the community, & you will accomplish something. As Mark wrote above, you need to take a chill pill & think of a better way to make your point. Consider the following as a friendly piece of advice: ranting about how someone else on Wikipedia is being "unfair" only serves to alienate people who might agree with you -- or help you in this.

If you honestly feel that you are being "ganged-up on", contact the Association of Member Advocates. -- llywrch 20:20, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

llywrch, I accept the fact that you can accurately count. But you have not addressed a single fact in my complaint. Your statement about the "electric fence" is also inaccurate, according to what is written as to Wiki policy. On the one hand, you complain that I made my complaint too many times (without addressing a single issue), and on the other you want me to make it one more time if I "honestly feel that you are being "ganged-up on"". I think I made my compaint enough times, and will wait for someone to address the issues. I don't have some grand Wiki designs, only to make it better. If others do not care about this serious problem, well, it is a little like hating Bush and not voting in the election--it only harms Wiki.

--Noitall 20:52, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

You asked for what started this. I wandered into the article Islamist terrorism with the goal of accuracy and simply improving it but without knowing the militant people that police articles such as that one. Then Yuber and Mustaffa took over. I will post what many other editors have recently complained about regarding the same type of issue, but issues that I was not involved in and did not even learn about until recently. The complaints speak for themselves:

Yuber is a vicious POV pusher. He has been constantly warned by administrators and other editors that he is showing bad faith by not cooperating with others. Articles have been locked numerous times because of his tendency to ignore the 3RR rule and start revert wars. [2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jizya) [3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Palestinian_territories&action=history)http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Golan_Heights&action=history] [4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Israeli_conflict) Every chance has been given to Yuber to stop his militant pov pushing. POV pushing was not as much a concern for me and other editors, as for the fact that he fails to cooperate with other editors[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Arab-Israeli_conflict)[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jizya#Protected). Evidence of his intrasingence has been recorded on his [page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Yuber%7Ctalk)]. Jayjg, SlimVirgin and Humus sapiens can testify to his inability to cooperate.

Many members have tried to cooperate with him, but the leniency editors have been giving to him is over. He has not changed his militant pov pushing, he does not cooperate, he initiates revert wars constantly instead of the talk page, even over single words and after repeated warnings of its POV content. He has shown deliberate disregard to wikipedia rules. It seems that his sole purpose is to turn specific articles relating to his agenda into a giant soapbox for his viewpoint. He should be banned from editing in Middle Eastern related articles, either permanently or for a limited amount of time as a warning. Blocking him for his numerous 3RR violations has had no effect and I am afraid unless he is disciplined for his violations, no amount of reasoning will help in the future.

I urge the ArbCom to take up the case of Yuber. He has been vandalizing my user page repeatedly despite being repeatedly told to stop. He is responsible for the locking of the Dhimmi article on Wikipedia. Numerous editors have run into his POV-pushing and revert-warring; indeed he seems to feel that any article related to Islam is his to "defend" no matter what factual information is brought forth.

Yuber is in the middle of starting another revert war over at Saudi Arabia.

This cannot be allowed to continue. Though I fear it goes beyond Yuber himself, there are a few other editors (Mustafaa and [another] come to mind) who regularly act in concert with Yuber, including sending messages to each other to coordinate in revert wars on these articles.

• Yuber claims consensus when there is none: [1]
• Yuber inserts an entire article into another to prove a point: [2]
• Yuber's edit squarely blames Israel in an article describing Muhammad_al-Durrah's murder controversy. His comment: "I try to NPOV articles": [3]
• Yuber attempts to justify suicide bombings, removes well-sourced statements that contradict his POV: [4].

You may want to take a look here, Yuber has been repeatedly vandalizing a user page involved in the Request for Arbitration you list above.

Yuber gets an award: The editor has started his one millionth edit war! Yuber only knows how to insert his POV in articles, and only by reverting. Even worse, Yuber vandalizes pages, even User pages, see [[5]]. Many others have cited Yuber and there is an effort from many others to ban the editor from Wiki, see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. --Noitall 23:27, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your support, but it would help if you also supported your claims with links to his vandalism. It would make matters easier in having him brought up in the arb comm. Who do you think are his "sockpuppets?"

Thanks again,

Guy Montag 00:14, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Peace --

I'm impressed! Congratulations on what has obviously been a very quick ramp-up to WP.

Hoping to get some help from you on the Spiro Agnew article. With your background in Maryland politics, I thought perhaps you might be able to shed some light on how he came to Nixon's attention in the first place? He was, if I recall correctly, among the last person anyone imagined Nixon would select as a running mate in 1968. Thoughts? BrandonYusufToropov 19:39, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thank you BrandonYusufToropov. And peace be with you too. I gave it a shot on Spiro Agnew, but there is more work to do about the convention and why Nixon picked him. As only a guess, maybe it was a birds of a feather syndrome -- both highly skilled politicians who were ethically challenged and somewhat politically arrogant to abuse power so blatently. But they may have had very different personalities as I understand Nixon to be sort of cold while Agnew may have been outgoiing. --Noitall 06:17, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

Hi Noitall, it's unlocked now. Happy editing. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:21, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

I would like to work on this article, but I don't want to put time into adding material if it's just going to be reverted without question or discussion. I'm going to attempt to re-word some of the controversial sections, and I would appreciate it if people could edit without revert. Please read the changes, they will be quite small.

I do not appreciate your continual personal attacks against me, and you say that you do not hold a grudge against me although I can see that isn't the truth. There are now other editors at that page if you wish to deal with them. Also, I'd like to point out that I never reverted your edits, but rather added back a part in about all three religions viewing him as the ancestor of the Arabs.Yuber^(talk) 03:17, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Noitall, I acted on your 3RR report. Would you mind taking a look at the way I wrote up the diffs here Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:Yuber? That's the way they need to be done in future. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:05, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Your addition of the categories Category:Pro-1st Amendment, Category:Pro-Family, Category:Pro-U.S. Constitution, Category:Pro-Marriage are out of line and unnecessary. If you have a problem with a certain category, which in this case you seem to feel is left-wing, adding four right-wing categories to make a statement is not the appropriate action to take, and you should instead utilize Wikipedia:Categories for deletion.

I will again be reverting the pages. If you revert again, I will be disappointed that you feel this is the only way you can get your message across.

You also need to actually make an entry on the Wikipedia:Categories for deletion page regarding your belief that Category:LGBT rights opposition should be deleted. I personally agree that that category seems POV, but you need to make an entry first. --tomf688^(talk) 02:42, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

Tom, there are many ways of getting a point across, I made mine my way. I was very clear in the subjects I edited that they were 2 side of the same coin, all POV. Before I took action, I did not see you or anyone else opposing an intentionally POV article. BTW, if you don't see a LGBT rights opposition as left wing, then that is exactly why I created the categories: to open up some closed minds. In any event, I always appreciate assistance with Wiki procedures.

--Noitall 03:04, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

I didn't actually notice the edit before you added your categories, but tbh I probably wouldn't have reverted it simply because it didn't really seem all that bad (probably in the way the category was entitled).

Furthermore, don't think of me as closed-minded towards the right. I lean right myself; hell, I even voted for Bush the last election (Steele '06? ;) ). --tomf688^(talk) 03:20, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

I created your category deletion request. You can edit it here to give your reasoning for why you want it deleted: --tomf688^(talk) 04:12, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Tom. BTW, my political interests are in the two-party system, and when one party gets far too dominant, then the system needs to be brought into balance with the goal of competition for the public vote. As for Michael Steele, I think that having the first competitive Senate race in my lifetime is a good thing. I also can't stand hypocracy, such as in this case, when obviously POV categories are listed so that all opponents on a political issue can be lumped together. It is also lazy, since the appropriate thing is to accurately describe the person's views in the article. Good chatting. --Noitall 16:22, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

I think the section has plenty of good information in it, but perhaps it should be placed towards the bottom of the article beneath education and honors (since the article is about Ben Cardin, foremost). I also feel the article should probably include a bit more information on his earlier life.

Good lengthening, though. Any chance you will work on the other Maryland Representative articles? ;) --tomf688^(talk) 23:09, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

I left a few replies on the page. There are two things I want you to consider.

First, unfortunately, there was an edit conflict between one of your edits and mine. I think I resolved everything, but I didn't want you to think I was hiding something when you saw an edit like this one, which modified your writing. I apologize for any inconvenience this caused.

I would advise you to back down on this issue. You're starting to move into the realm of personal attacks, and your disruption of wikipedia to make a point is becoming less and less relevant as the "rename" option gains strength. I may ask an admin for comment if this keeps up much longer. I've tried to be reasonable, and I've supported name changes even though I think they're only minor POV violations. There are more important things to do than worry about these category names.

Dave (talk) 03:44, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Please stop adding false information. It is according to the Old Testament of the Bible that those are Ishmael's twelve sons. I will keep reverting your false changes if you add stuff like that. Here's the source.Yuber^(talk) 17:00, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Was "No, I have said many times here that I am only editing the Christian parts and anyone else can edit the other parts, I donot presume to speak for all on this religious topi" meant to be an answer to my question "Noitall, is it possible that you aren't aware that the Torah _is_ the first five books of the OT? Or do you just object to including the Christian name for it?" I assume not, and would like an answer. I can only hope it's not really the former - and that you don't "presume", as your suggested division of labour would seem to indicate, that being a Christian automatically gives you more knowledge of Christianity than any non-Christian. - Mustafaa 23:33, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please, I don't know how much simpler I can make it. No, the statement you keep trying to insert is inaccurate with regard to the Old Testament. That is why I changed it. I change things to make them better, which usually means more accurate or less POV. What I keep telling you is that it could also be inaccurate for the Torah or Koran, but I am not going to change it. I have knowledge in the areas I choose to research and have knowledge, and that for the purposes of this edit, it is Christianity. --Noitall 23:40, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

OK, I'm afraid you've confirmed my worst suspicions. The Torah is the first five books of the Old Testament, no more, no less. Now what do you claim is inaccurate about this? - Mustafaa 00:27, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Mustafaa, please don't go down the User:Yuber rat hole that you went down once before. You are suspicious because you have a POV that you are trying to insert in Muslim-related articles and someone (me) is slightly SLIGHTLY limiting your POV. For the 10th time, I am not editing with regard to the Torah or Koran. So I have no idea what argument that you are trying to stir up. MY suspician is that, as usual, you are extraordinarily confused. My point on accuracy was that the Old Testament did not state the POV that you are trying to insert. --00:56, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

The Old Testament is the same thing as the Torah, and does indeed say that Ishmael, father of the Ishmaelites, was Abraham's son. See Talk:Abraham. If you choose not to believe the Bible, that's your own affair; we still have to report its contents. - Mustafaa 01:08, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Your ignorance and your gall are amazing! I can't imagine going on the Islam page or interpreting any Muslim section of any page simply because I found a couple of sources, that are both inaccurate and taken out of context, but that state my POV. You and User:Yuber would revert my edit as fast as a Wiki bomb. Now take your POV off my talk page. --Noitall 01:19, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

You may strongly want to take a look at Jihad. Yuber is up to his old tricks.Enviroknot 23:54, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I reverted an addition you made to Afrocentricity because the central claim of Afrocentric scholars regarding Egypt is that the cultural practices (language, spiritual systems, political systems, patterns of lineage) that make Egypt unique do not emanate from outside of the African continent. There is significant reason though to conclude that at least some of their cultural practices came from Nubia to the South (the work of Bruce Williams at the University of Chicago is important here). While there are probably some Egyptologists who do believe that it makes more sense to talk about Egypt as being outside of Africa, I do not think this position has much merit, nor do I think this position is particularly strong at this moment in history. I am willing to hear a counterargument though. --Lester Spence 06:33, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi Lester. Thank you for providing your rationale. I moved the discussion to the Afrocentricity talk page and will respond there. Thanks. --13:55, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

It was not vandalism. Currently the school is called Cranbrook Kingswood, but at the time he attended it was called Cranbrook. He met his wife while she attended the Kingswood portion (at the time they were separated by gender). I just thought that it was deceptive for it to say that he graduated from Cranbrook Kingswood, when in reality at the time he did not.

Parachutegurl

I noticed in the discussion on the Mitt Romney page that there was a report for vandalism on the school line. It had the Kingswood part highlighted in red, next to your name on the report for vandalism, that's the reason I contacted you about it.

Parachutegurl 16:54, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please refrain from modifying the CfD archive. As stated, "Further comments should be made on the category's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record." Thank you. --Kbdank71 29 June 2005 17:57 (UTC)

It cannot be an archive because you have not recorded it correctly. I do not know your agenda here, but it is not the agenda of what was discussed on the CfD. I will continue to correct the record. --Noitall June 29, 2005 21:27 (UTC)

• It was archived on the 28th as having no consensus. Further attempts to change it will be considered vandalism. Also, you are about to violate the WP:3RR. I strongly suggest you take it to the WP:CFD talk page if you wish to discuss this further. --Kbdank71 30 June 2005 01:40 (UTC)

• Forgive me if you are a new editor, but I assume that if you are messing with an archive you are fairly experienced. If you are experienced, HOW STUPID CAN YOU BE THAT THE ISSUE WAS CLOSED WITH FULL CONSENSUS AND IT IS RIGHT THERE ON WIKI FOR EVERYONE WITH 1/100 OF A BRAIN TO READ. Here is what else anyone can read: Kbdank71 = VANDAL. --Noitall June 30, 2005 02:23 (UTC)

• For continuing vandalism of the CfD archive, you have been blocked for 24 hours. When your block expires, please feel free to take your issues to the CfD talk page. --Kbdank71 30 June 2005 13:12 (UTC)

Your vandalism and ABUSE OF ADMINISTRATORSHIP has been reported, see Administrator Kbdank71 reported at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. --Noitall July 1, 2005 23:28 (UTC)

One sentence for a lead section is not correct. It's not that I wish to stamp approval of all edits that you do: nothing could be further from the truth. But the following text in Wikipedia:Lead section is clear:

---

The lead should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it could stand on its own as a concise version of the article. It is even more important here than for the rest of the article that the text is accessible, and some consideration should be given to creating interest in reading the whole article (see Wikipedia:Summary style and Wikipedia:News style). The first sentence in the lead section should be a concise definition of the topic unless that definition is implied by the title (such as 'History of ...' and similar titles).

To get a better understanding of what a great lead section should do, the perfect article: "Begins with a definition or clear description of the subject at hand. This is made as absolutely clear to the nonspecialist as the subject matter itself will allow. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to codify human knowledge in a way that is most accessible to the most people, and this demands clear descriptions of what the subject matter is about. So we aren't just dropped into the middle of the subject from the first word—we are eased into it."

The appropriate length of the lead section depends on the total length of the article. As a general guideline, the lead should be no longer than two or three paragraphs. The following specific rules have been proposed:

< 15,000 characters	15,000 characters - 30,000 characters	> 30,000 characters
one or two paragraphs	two or three paragraphs	three paragraphs (consider splitting up the article)

The length of the individual paragraphs again depends on the article length.

For the planned paper Wikipedia 1.0, one consensus recommendation is that the paper version of articles will be the lead section of the web version. Summary style and news style can help make a concise intro that works stand-alone.

---

What part of this guideline are you having issues with? - Ta bu shi da yu 30 June 2005 05:44 (UTC)

Please read our guidelines on civility, and avoid making personal attacks against well-known and hard-working contributors such as KBdank71. Radiant_>|< July 2, 2005 22:03 (UTC)

• Please put your advice on Kbdank71's page as he violated lots of Wiki policies all in bad faith to block me for 55 hours. --Noitall July 3, 2005 00:14 (UTC)

• I see you are still steaming [6] about the "55 hour" block I gave you. For the record, it was a 1 day block [7]. In fact, your own contributions page shows your last edit before the block was "01:07, 30 June 2005" and the first one after it expired was at "18:44, 1 July 2005" [8]. Hardly 55 hours. I'm sure this won't stop you from further complaining about it, in fact I'm certain I'm wasting my time posting this. But at least now you have the proof that I didn't block you for 55 hours, no matter how many times you say I did. --Kbdank71 17:42, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• First, I did not mention your name at all. I simply described what happened as to the issue and how problems might be resolved in the future. But, yes, I am still upset since you refuse to apoligize. As for the 55 hour block, I do not know all the details or what you did. I showed you the Wiki record that I was blocked for 55 hours. At that time, one of my IP addresses was blocked while the other was not (I always register under my Wiki name). Be my guest and figure out what happened. --Noitall 17:51, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

I'm sure it was unintentional, but you absolutely have to make sure to add {{cfd}} to categories you nominate for deletion. If this had gone through the whole vote process and the tag wasn't added, it would just have to go through the vote again. I'll take care of it this time. -Seth Mahoney July 6, 2005 00:01 (UTC)

Thanks Seth Mahoney. Actually, I had added the {{cfd}}, but I note that Kbdank71 had removed it, which I did not realize. --Noitall July 6, 2005 07:13 (UTC)

• For the record, I removed the tag when the last cfd was over. It was never re-added for the new cfd. --Kbdank71 6 July 2005 12:56 (UTC)

I'm moving this here to discuss because it seems to be winding down. If you want to copy it back to admin incidents, feel free. It's obvious we aren't seeing eye to eye on this matter. All I can do is explain what I did. I honestly don't care what happens to the category in question. If you noticed, I voted abstain on the first cfd, and I don't plan on voting on the second. I have no problem with you personally. You questioned my motives. I have none. I help around here mainly by archiving old discussions on CfD. I've been doing that for months. I'm pretty good (at least I think so, you may disagree) at determining consensus. In the first CfD, as I marked it, there was no consensus. Between you and Dave, perhaps, but not between everyone who expressed an opinion. I took into account not only the discussion itself, but the fact that you (or Dave) had commented out the rest of the discussion after only one day and said it was finished. CfD categories are listed for seven days, not one. So after seven days, I found there to be no consensus and marked it as such. This didn't mean anyone couldn't re-nominate it, it didn't mean I had an agenda, it didn't mean I had a gripe with you, it just meant that I got to your category, called it, and moved on. Same as I do every day. Did you have to agree with it? No. But it's not like I just flipped a coin to determine if there was consensus. And considering several admins agreed with my determination, I feel confident I was right. But then you went and changed it. The page was supposed to act as an archive, as it states. Was I wrong to block you myself for 3RR/vandalism? Perhaps. I know now to get another admin to do it. Am I going to apologize for it? No. Were you blocked for 55 hours? No. I set the block for 24 hours. In fact, your own contributions shows two of your edits less than 48 hours apart. Did I act in bad faith? No, I did not. Just because you disagree with my choices does not make them bad faith. Like I said, we aren't seeing eye to eye on this. That's fine, we don't have to. I just want to move on, but every time I turn around I see you complaining yet again about what happened. I don't know what else to tell you. Can we drop this? --Kbdank71 6 July 2005 13:52 (UTC)

• We can drop this because I suspect you probably won't do it again, at least to me. But you are stubbornly irrational about simple matters and refuse to listen to anyone else. And your refusal to apologize pretty much says it all. These are not good qualities for an Admin. --Noitall July 6, 2005 14:21 (UTC)

For the record, I wrote that the "consensus" was provisional, that it wasn't exactly following policy, and that I wouldn't mind if my post was ignored. I don't want to be associated with anything that happened afterwards. Dave (talk) July 7, 2005 13:22 (UTC)

I just want to apologize for being haste in my dealings with you. Yes, there probably are more errors in that map. I suggest we remove it entirely from the article until it can be confirmed for accuracy. Another thing, can you please articulate why another column is needed for the tables? I do not understand as of yet and I feel I have justified caution as seeing that you only repeated information for no votes. Perhaps this can be corrected. Globeism 00:37, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. No problem. See the talk page and let's discuss it. I modified 2 charts and we can discuss both of them. --Noitall 00:41, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

you know very well that you are misrepresenting the debate on coulter in your clinton edits. you also know the policy on disruption to make a point. how about finishing the debate on talk? Derex 22:21, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't disrupt one article because you're not getting your way on another unrelated article. See WP:POINT. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:22, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• You have it wrong. This is not the "can I do something" point, but the consistency in Wiki article writing point. The later point is made all the time, e.g., what is appropriate for a summary, the order of subjects, consistency in discussing related issues across related pages, etc. --Noitall 22:29, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to revert you on Clinton once more, because you clearly are disrupting for a point. Further, you have refused to dialogue about this point on the Coulter page. A reminder: you have already reverted 3 times there. I assume you know about the 3 revert rule. Derex 22:45, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, I have written books on that page. No one has ever accused me of not forcefully making my point. This supports my willfully deaf, dumb and blind statement. --Noitall 22:47, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

That's twice in one day you've helped me. Thank you. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:39, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

I have removed some entries under the "evidence of disputed behaviour" that had been inserted by another editor that went beyond the original intent of the RFC. I have ammended the summary of the RFC to list its two specific goals: that SlimVirgin's edit contains too many errors to be reinserted into the article and that she has held herself above any criticism of her edit. There seemed to be a misunderstanding of the scope of the RFC. Hopefully this clarifies. FuelWagon 18:21, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it clarifies. But it does not change my opinion that SlimVirgin is a reasonable and helpful Admin. You can see from reading my talk page that far worse accusations are frequently made. I really don't have a comment on Slim's edits because I think that simply accusing someone of a bunch of errors is not appropriate for a RfC. It takes away from when the really bad stuff happens and a real RfC is needed. And I frequently get into edit disputes (I am trying to reduce the warring) with POVers and arrogant know nothings, and SlimVirgin seems like one of the few reasonable editors on here. --Noitall 18:32, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Noitall: I've given evidence of how Tlotz has violated the personal attack policy. Please list the exact policies which I've violated, with diffs. Thanks. Rhobite 22:02, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

I have replied to your comments on my talk page. older≠wiser 23:18, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

Hi Noitall, that's deleted now. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:43, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

FYI Wikipedia:Votes_for_undeletion#Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment.2FTlotz SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:09, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Lincoln, Nebraska is more prominent than Abraham Lincoln. A simply test of this is the fact that it recieves twice as many hits on google. Agriculture 01:28, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to be critical, but let's just say that that lacks common sense. Google is only 1 test of prominence. It has many faults that I am certain others listed. In this case, simple common sense says it is somewhat misleading. --Noitall 01:33, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Not really, it's a pretty basic test that is useful in this case. While Abraham Lincoln is undoubtedly prominent, Lincoln, NE is the current head of the Nebraskan government. It's more currently prominent, and a dynamic element which is only likely to increase in prominence vs. a historical figure who will not accomplish anything new in the coming years. Agriculture 01:50, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't want to debate something so lacking in common sense. I never said Lincoln, NE is not prominent. But we are talking about the man who many believe saved the U.S. Your Lincoln, NE started out as the village of Lancaster and was named after Abraham Lincoln. Ahh, how many places are named after Lincoln, NE? --Noitall 01:55, July 22, 2005 (UTC) (moving this conversation to the appropriate talk page)

I was putting them in the same order that succession boxes are usually ordered, which is old on top, recent on the bottom. Thanks for the good comments on the box, though; I've been wanting a better politician box than the senator or presidential one, since most politicians have served in more than one office and having one infobox just for that office seems a bit discriminating. --tomf688^(talk) 16:11, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry you're having to go through this, Noitall, though I see it's not certified yet, so hopefully it'll go away. People have been taking these things far too lightly of late. If it gets certified, I'll do what I can to help. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:28, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you very much. It seems sort of ridiculous that someone can fill up an entire complaint section based entirely of my deletion of his statements about "disciplinary" actions (yes, I think they were personal attacks and said so) on my own talk page and on the subject talk page (which he calls vandalism). And no one else was even involved because the argument was so dumb. Well, thank goodness for the 48 hour requirement. --Noitall 04:38, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

• I am not acknowledging that page because it will rightly get deleted soon, but if deletion of personal attacks can themselves be a basis for any criticism, then I guess the lesson is that anytime we disagree with anyone, we can start a RfC and state untrue personal attacks on every related article talk page we find. --Noitall 13:46, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Here is further abuse: A User who goes by two names, by ~~~~ and by User:-Ril-, just tried to chase me off another page. It is the first time that I have run into him. Immediately after, he went on the RfC page to "certify" it. I think that use of an RfC for edit warring or when Users purposely lie or mislead, should be the true basis for an RfC. --Noitall 15:19, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Now ~~~~ or User:-Ril- is going on editors User pages (see Mustafaa) attempting to involve uninvolved Users. This should be the basis for an RfC. --Noitall 15:36, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
• ~~~~ or User:-Ril- went on Wikipedia:Requests for comment to move it from uncertified to approved even though he never knew anything before a half hour ago. This should be the basis for an RfC. --Noitall 15:42, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Okay, to archive your talk page, hit edit, write the name of the archive at the top of the page (e.g. User talk:Noitall/archive1), copy and cut the sections you want to archive, and save. Then go to search, type in the name of the new page, paste in the sections you copied and cut, and save. Done. If you have a problem, let me know and I'll do it for you. Regarding the thing I was to delete, was this the old RfC for I've-forgotten-his-name? If so, it's deleted. Or was it something else? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:25, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

It's been certified by two users, User:Agriculture and User:-Ril-. The top of the page says: "In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute, not different disputes. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it ... "

Let me know which part of the above has not been done, and I'll take a look. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:44, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

This is just bad. Please don't listen to Slim when it comes to archiving. Hit MOVE, not EDIT. MOVE it to User talk:Noitall/Archive1 and then go back to User talk:Noitall and remove the redirect. This will preserve the edit history of your archived talk page, an then you start with a fresh clean page. If you need help, ask me. Don't do it the way Slim says. Ever. Shame on her. Shame on you Slim!  :-p  :-p  :-p Tomer ^TALK 06:10, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

There might be a better way, but SlimVirgin was assisting me at my request. She is very helpful. --Noitall 06:09, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

Oh believe me, I know. I was only castigating her in jest.  :-) Tomer ^TALK 06:13, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

Ok, sorry, my humor is sort of lacking right now, but it will come back to me :) --Noitall 06:20, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

Noitall, I've deleted the RfC as not properly certified. Hopefully that will cheer you up and restore your humor. ;-) As for archiving, far be it from me to contradict Tomer, but if you use move, you do preserve the edit history regarding the archived page, but you lose it from your main talk page, so it's a matter of preference. I like to see my entire edit history in one place, in case I have to check when certain IP addresses left abusive messages or whatever. However, I won't take offense if you prefer the Tomer method. Having said that, I'm technically hopeless, so I could be talking nonsense. ;-D SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:32, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

-Ril- is trying to have it undeleted [9] but he's being told to buzz off. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:04, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

I've moved this discussion here as it's not relevant to the Spiro Agnew discussion page where it originated. But I am upset that you've accused me of being a sock puppet; I am not. Please tell me what's lead you to believe that I "obviously" am one.

Furthermore I feel that you are rude, and your attitude drives away contributors and hinders creating a sense of community. Calling something that is important to me "juvenile" and saying only 11-year-olds would find it interesting is hurtful and unnecessary. Surely there is a polite way for you to express your opinion; why not try it?

Looking through your discussion page, I see that I am not the first to have such complaints; you seem to have a lot of difficulty working with others. Perhaps it would be good if you re-evaluated the way you interact with people here and ask yourself if this is really the most productive way you can contribute to Wikipedia.

DondleAtkinson 21:56, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're a sockpuppet who seems to be trolling, so please give it a rest, or you're likely to be blocked from editing. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:11, July 24, 2005 (UTC)