Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
What do you mean by "acting through proxy"?!? Am I now a meatpuppet of Rgulerdem as well?
I've written large parts of this policy myself based on ideas I've found on the mailing list.
What's wrong with that?
Raphael120:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)reply
It's just that you've already mirrored his Wikiethics page, and you're mirroring a lot of his ideas for WP:OURS.
It's been discussed on AN/I. Zoe has noted that there's been a lot of tag-team editing between you and Rgulerdem. Will (
E@) T20:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Well, didn't you delete the proposal based on Zoes accusation? Why haven't you asked Zoe for evidence? What is "tag-team editing" in the first place? Does it mean, that collaboration is forbidden here? Have you been "tag-team editing" with Zoe and Netscott, when you removed that proposal?
Raphael101:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Isn't it somewhat uncivil, that you first remove my work and than even refuse to answer my questions? Please explain what you mean by "Raphael is just acting through proxy"? Is a banned user a "persona non grata", with whom I am not allowed to communicate with? It does not matter where I get my ideas from - be it my sister (w/o any wiki account), my cat or the devil himself. I am an individual who is not banned. Since you refuse all communication, it becomes really difficult for me to not suspect you of having some kind of despotic disposition. Please restore
WP:OURS!
Raphael112:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)reply
I am very grateful, that you finally condescend to talk with we. I'd like to tell you, that my version of
WP:OURS has already been different from Rgulerdems version, and there is no reason to believe, that
WP:OURS would not get substantially changed before it would have been polled for approval.
WP:SNOW does not apply, since there were three keep votes on
Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:OURS. The reason you've stated
here is flat out wrong, since
WP:OURS is not a recreation, and the reason you've stated
here is a personal attack, since you completely disregard my individuality and the work I put in
WP:OURS before creating it. Please correct your mistake and restore
Wikipedia:OURS.
Raphael113:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC)reply
I should've made myself clearer.
WP:SNOW applies to the actual polling of the policy, not deleting it. On the deletion log, It was supposed to be G5. Anyway, just take it to
WP:DRVWill (
E@) T14:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)reply
How do you know, that there will be an unanimous rejection of the policy, when nobody knows what that policy would evolve into? G5 does not apply, just as G5 does not apply to
User:Raphael1/Wikiethics. I have created this policy and I am not banned. Please refrain from reinterpreting
WP:CSDad libitum and restore
Wikipedia:OURS.
Raphael115:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Will, you've done nothing wrong. The only thing that may need changing here is an addition to WP:CSD that clearly defines that pages created by proxies of banned users (ie: acting on the behalf of a banned user as Raphael1 was doing) are equally qualified for speedy deletion (which I'm sure your common sense told you when you did the actual deletion).
Netscott15:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)reply
MUAHAHAHA
Here is an 6/6/6, aka Evil Day, greeting for you
friend. These type of messages promote
WikiLove in an unknown way. Spread this evil love to others by making a derivative work of this... Or another evil something that is flowing about.
The Kingof Kings20:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Evil!
Here is an 6/6/6, aka Evil Day, warning for you, enemy. I am extremely evil and you have entered on my evil property. Spread this evil-ness to others by making a derivative work of this... Or another evil something that is flowing about. And, if you don't you will be a goodie too-shoos forever!! GeorgeMoneyT·
C 6 June 2006
Wiki Quicksearchers -> 404 Error
On
Wikipedia:Tools/Browser integration, there's a subsection on
User:Sceptre's "Wiki Quicksearchers." However, clicking on the link in question takes you to a "page not found" error on your website. I wanted to alert you in case you wanted to host it elsewhere. If you don't, let me know and I'll remove the reference on said page. — Mike •
17:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)reply
I've installed wordpress on my site, and it's currently not allowing you to see certain pages. I'll put it in a subfolder later tonight. Will (
E@) T17:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)reply
I'm far from a WordPress expert, but I've done a few things with it, and my site runs on it. Lemme know if I can be of any help to you in pointing you towards cool WP extensions, etc. No urgency — just figured I'd alert you to the broken link. — Mike •
17:44, 8 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Why have you reverted
User:Wikinorthernireland's content by script
[2], without any comment being made on why your makeing the revert? The additions all seem to be referenced and it certainly is not vandalisim, thus the use of a script rv without comment really isn't on. Thanks/
wangi17:21, 11 June 2006 (UTC)reply
It was in my own userspace, it's a record of harassment against myself, and the other user in question moved and then deleted it. He is out to have a go at me, as is everyone these days. Thanks,
HighwayRainbow Sneakers18:23, 11 June 2006 (UTC)reply
If it wouldn't be offensive, I'll second that. ;-)... funny though your face looks feminine now that I do a second look it could just be youth. Anyways, with the apparent nudge in the pic it's definitely cute.
Netscott21:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)reply
User:Nathanrdotcom
[warning removed by Nathan]
It's not really vandalism. Nathan and I share a common interest, that being
Doctor Who. We like to slip in our injokes, especially on other users like Snopake and Oreos. Will (
message me!)
18:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)reply
I find it ironic that Cyde doesn't remove the warning. I did that myself. He and I seem to be reverting each other in my userspace and it's getting on my nerves. I wish he would just leave me alone :| —
Nathan(
talk)17:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)reply
It is not my fault that it appears on your user page. I edited your actual
Vandalism sandbox in accord with what is explained on your
user page. I'm not sure why it is appearing on your user page when I never edited that. In my Safari browser on OS X (Macintosh) your user page appears normal. I kindly recommend you remove such allowance to avoid a similarly natured future experience.
Netscott14:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Hi, I see that you've dealt with this user's violations previously. It looks like he got off a week long ban. From what others have written, he's been banned over 10 times and has many sockpuppets. I thought you like to know he's at it again. If there is a 10 Revert Rule, he's violated it. Especially on the
Kobe Bryant page.
Prokj19:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Jesus Christ, he's difficult enough as he is! Don't wack him out anymore! Kitty treats were bad enough, but just plain sugar? Oh, my God! He's getting fractious!
SergeantSnopake13:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Wikiproject
Hello, I am
Thetruthbelow. I was recommeded to ask you by GeorgeMoney to join a new Wikiproject I am starting called "The User Page Design Committee". We will assist users in creating a great user page, and will have many great features. As of now, the Founders are, if you choose to join, GeorgeMoney, Sango 123, myself. and Moe Epsilon. I will create the page, but then feel free to edit it. Thanks,
Thetruthbelow21:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)reply
It is really a rough draft so make as many changes as you want. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Thetruthbelow (
talk •
contribs) 22:34 16 June 2006 (UTC)
The article was (improperly IMHO) blanked and protected by an administrator. There is verifiable public information on the legal activities by
Lloréns-Sar. Another question is whether his legal activities are notable, but since the AfD has focused on the privacy issues, this has not been discussed/resolved. No clear grounds for deletion are given. ~
trialsanderrors21:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)reply
My perception was that the AfD was in process to decide whether or not to bring back (some version of) the blanked article. Deleting the article because the article was blanked seems circular. If/when the article is recreated and rewritten, as is sure to happen, we'll just have to go through the AfD again.
Dori00:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC)reply
I think my comment on WP:DRV was a bit too presumptuous. I apologize for saying so much more than I should have (I should have let MetaMagician3000 reply first ;-). Considering I don't do AfD closures, I don't get the experience of always having someone objecting to my actions in that area. Keep up the good work. Cheers,
NoSeptember 21:27, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Fred Wilson
Would you mind explaining how you arrived at the conclusion of the AfD with 'The result of the debate was delete, no reason to keep it and was an autobiographical article anyway'? Seems to me there was no consensus, and at least as many (if not more) votes to keep than to delete. there were numerous arguments presented on why it should be kept, and I did not see any of them addressed in any sort of debate.
Isarig04:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)reply
I'm sorry, but that's not really responsive to what I asked you. There was a debate. Arguments were presented on both sides, and there was no consensus. Did you just take it upon yourself to decide that since you were not convinced to keep it, it should be gone?
Isarig14:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)reply
I brought up the AfD for a review at
Wikipedia:Deletion_review if you want to comment. Will, I'm not holding this against you, but three AfD closures with a clear lack of interest in doing due dilligence might be a signal for a Wikibreak, or at least a signal for an AfD break. ~
trialsanderrors03:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Hi, sorry to bother you, but you were the closing admin of the afd for that entry:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Lost Boys (demogroup). While I don't particularly care that the article is kept or deleted, I wonder what was the basis for the deletion closure. You wrote "delete, fails to establish notability", which is fine and all within the AfD discussion but is not what is expected of an admin closing said discussion, that should have been something along the line of "no concensus". Care to reconsider ?
EquendilTalk17:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC)reply
It would be a good idea to clearly state when you close an AfD based on CSDs, but anyway, I don't believe CSDs should have priority above AfD discussions, I'll bring it up on review (DRV).
EquendilTalk17:39, 18 June 2006 (UTC)reply
I've started a Doctor Who Glossary of Terms and Names, but there's not much in it. It'd be really cool if you could add to it, its mostly to list relatively minor things such as
Waterhive, The and such as the like, but goes on to give brief details on major things such as Daleks as well as links to their articles.