Welcome!

Hello, 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:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! _ [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|^(talk)]] 10:02, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)

German silver

Please don't include copyrighted material into Wikipedia articles without getting permission from the copyright owner. I had to revert your edit in German silver as it is copyvio from the The Hutchinson Dictionary of Science. --Pjacobi 21:15, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The sentence The letters EPNS on silverware stand for electroplated nickel silver. is a verbatim copy from above source. But I will include the content in expanding the article. Please don't do further reverts. --Pjacobi 21:28, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This argument is going on in three separate places now: Here, this page, and this page. Samboy 00:38, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Katoomba Scenic Railway

Hi there, I noticed that you made an edit to reword an edit that 203.40.120.202 had made. I'm wondering whether you've actually heard of the urban legend in question. I've reverted an edit to this page before and believe that this is a hoax, although if you've actually heard of the urban legend I'll leave it as it is. JYolkowski 03:21, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

User:Samboy

He's a top contributor who has spent a lot of time stewarding the Atlantium and other micronation articles. I thought he was also an administrator, but I guess not. He's party to an arbitration dispute with User:Gene_Poole, who is really George Cruickshank (see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gene Poole vs. Samboy) - [[User:KeithTyler|Keith D. Tyler [flame]]] 18:03, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

Sealand

That whole section seemed rantish. I don't know who wrote it, and I don't care. It was crap! Heck, it even had a sentence that referred to the article as an object itself, which is totally against form. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:14, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If you want to see where it start, see [1]. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:39, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, I've done a little rearranging. The guy is correct you know. It just needs less righteous anger. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:51, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

School deleters

I know, it's scarcely believable. There are people working on an encyclopaedia, whose founder suggests it will be a repository of all human knowledge, who spend their time trying to rid it of knowledge. It's a bit depressing, although luckily they are mostly awesomely pompous, which makes them fun to read and laugh at.Dr Zen 05:50, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Jus cerebri electronici

Having read through the article more closely I am convinced it qualifies as a rant. It is, however, a reasonably good representation of a moderately widespread delusion, and as such probably deserves mention somewhere. Perhaps when I am feeling more creative I will try to write a neutral summary as a substitution.

--Kelly Martin 03:36, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Wow

Lots of stuff on Sealand I see. I personally think it should be merged with Sealand, others may think differently. I've put a note on the talk page to get the ball rolling. If you need assistance let me know, as I won't be watching that article. My Wikiactivity is stretched thin as it is! I'm going to have to start relying on users to let me know where potential issues are: beginning with this article I'm starting to delegate :-) - Ta bu shi da yu 11:25, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

redirects

Redirects are really simple, you just clear the page entirely, apart from at the very to where you put #redirect [[article to redirect to]]. Hope that clarifies things. --fvw * 01:28, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)

OK I think I've done it right - please let me know if I haven't. Also, do you know how to edit the bit right at the bottom of the Sealand article that shows up as {{sealand}} in the code?--Centauri 01:39, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that looks fine. To edit the footer, you have to go to Template:Sealand and edit that. Under the edit box there's a list of links to the templates in use on the page you're editing. --fvw * 01:42, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)

Edit summary

Hello. Please provide an edit summary. Thanks and happy edits. Hyacinth 02:27, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Microwiki.tk

I marked it as non-functional because the domain name was failing to resolve for me. After your explicit statement "im looking at it right now", I had some other people check. It worked for them, meaning the problem's on my (ISP's) end. Sorry if this caused you any frustration. -- Cyrius|✎ 02:26, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No problemo. I wondered if that might have been the issue.--Centauri 02:43, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Deletions - but in case you missed it

Interesting that when I posted on Gamaliel's page, advising Centauri that he should just accept that there are rules that are only applicable to some and really he should move on, that my post was immediately deleted. The quicker posters here realise the pecking order, realise that Wikipedia is nothing to do with being accurate or 'fair' or even consistent but is merely about 'contributing to our joint existence' then unhappy people, people faced with abuse, will be able to move on. Wikipedia will be less likely to be quoted in academic circles when, ironically, academics start trying to contribute and all the knee-jerk posters will be outshone by the light of intelligence. Remember: abuse is not abuse when it is by someone revered; then it becomes a policy. The Number 22:05, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I've quickly become familiar of the wildly inconsistent, subjective approach some editors here seem to use as their modus operandi. Evidently some people believe that voicing a divergent opinion to their own constitutes a "personal attack", but their own outright abuse of others is perfectly acceptable. Weird.--Centauri 23:27, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hi, How long should you wait before rewriting an article that has been deleted through a VfD procedure? I am thinking of rewriting the Marco of Alexandria Article. Cheers Omar Filini 14:54, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

paniq on VfD

There is an interesting discussion over on VfD for the bio-article for German demoscene musician and artist paniq. I was hoping you could enter a comment or vote after reading through and reviewing the article. -R

Schools on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion

As of March 4, 2005, the following (7) articles are currently listed for deletion under the POV suggestion that schools are not notable (even though this is invalid reasoning as per the Wikipedia deletion policy. Whether you agree or disagree, please be aware that the following schools are actively being voted on:

Thank you for your time. --GRider\^talk

Deletion

The user in question was clearly trolling for responses in order to fix several votes in his favor, a practice which is not permitted since it unfairly skews VFD votes - these are not meant to be political. The m:Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians is a nice central location where GRider can point interested users to certain votes. Feel free to put a note on the top of your talk page if you don't want anyone to touch it. In the meantime, please sign your comments on others' talk pages, and please do not throw the term 'vandalism' around lightly. — Dan | Talk 04:59, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

More schools on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion

As of March 25, 2005, there are an additional (6) articles listed for deletion under the POV notion that schools are non-notable (even though this is invalid reasoning as per the Wikipedia deletion policy). Please be aware that the following schools are actively being discussed and voted upon:

In response to this cyclical ordeal, a Schoolwatch programme has been initiated in order to indentify school-related articles which may need improvement and to help foster and encourage continued organic growth. Your comments are welcome and I thank you again for your time. --GRider\^talk

notability

You have recently stated that bridges are among the articles you consider inherently notable. You may therefore be interested in the Olchfa footbridge arcticle. Thryduulf 13:37, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

double voting

Hello Centauri. I have no idea why you're using multiple accounts (work and home, perhaps?), but could you please only use one of them per VfD vote? It seems like ballot-stuffing otherwise. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 08:12, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You know, I don't like witch-hunting, and I believe that if a user wants to use multiple accounts, nobody should interfere unless those accounts are used for malicious purposes (Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry). I'd rather not go around tagging both accounts' votes with the crystal-clear evidence (two diffs, if you're curious) that I encountered in a chance trawl through the history of a page which shall remain nameless. Rather than do that, I thought I would ask you nicely to stop. So please don't play dumb. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 08:32, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If you insist: [2][3]. Do you need further explanation? —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 08:43, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Another piece of evidence: Recent listings of the edits of User:Centauri and User:Gene Poole chronologically don't show much overlap:

User:Gene Poole - 31 edits in a row from 8 March (02:14) to 15 March (06:00)
- User:Centauri - 1 edit at 15 March 07:07
User:Gene Poole - 6 edits in a row from 15 March (22:34) to 16 March (05:36)
- User:Centauri - 1 edit at 17 March 11:40
User:Gene Poole - 23 edits in a row from 17 March (21:51) to 18 March (04:36)
- User:Centauri - 12 edits in a row from 18 March (08:02) to 19 March (22:31)
User:Gene Poole - 34 edits in a row from 20 March (22:32) to 23 March (05:30)
- User:Centauri - 1 edit at 23 March 07:24
User:Gene Poole - 10 edits in a row from 26 March (02:17) to 26 March (02:40)
- User:Centauri - 23 edits in a row from 28 March (03:57) to 28 March (21:01)
User:Gene Poole - 12 edits in a row from 28 March (23:11) to 29 March (05:33)
- User:Centauri - 4 edits in a row from 29 March (08:24) to 29 March (22:39)
User:Gene Poole - 3 edits in a row from 30 March (22:44) to 31 March (01:40)

--Calton | Talk 04:27, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Evidence of what? That I'm personally acquainted with Gene Poole? I publicly said as much over 3 months ago - and in any case I didn't realise it was a crime.--Centauri 09:45, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That I'm personally acquainted with Gene Poole? What, was there a sale on non-sequitors at your local Megamart? It means that it looks like "Gene Poole" and "Centauri" are one person swapping identities between editing sessions. --Calton | Talk 05:59, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You haven't any explanation, merely handwaving and disingenuous head-scratching as to why you, "Centauri", should be responding -- in the first person -- to comments addressed to "Gene Poole". And, I should point out, circumstantial evidence convicts people in legal proceedings every single day. --Calton | Talk 09:04, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry of the penis

That's the best thing I've read all week! Looks like Team Deletion doesn't like hearing home truths from either of us. Do you want me to say something to one of the admins? --Gene_poole 23:05, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As discussed earlier: [4].--Gene_poole 01:41, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've just removed a personal attack against you (and me) here [5] by Calton.

User:NoPuzzleStranger

If Aussie was not so far away, I'm sure I would have a beer with you (this is why I called Keith on the phone; it's important to look at the human on the other side of a keyboard when in a flame war to douse the fire).

I really wish User:NoPuzzleStranger (who is probably Wik/Gzorn) wasn't around during this entire episode. I have been trying to be civil about this, but it has been frustrating. Now, you noticed that I did not play lets-count-reverts with you in the Micronation article; I removed a very small part of your contribution (one sentence; heck one word before Wik came around) because of a perceived conflict of interest. I only reverted once when you reverted your change; I did not ever revert your revert. Now, Wik, who I am convinced likes to get in to edit wars for the sake of getting in to edit wars, added a lot of heat and very little light. If I knew he would have played stupid revert games, I would not have left a message on his talk page; in fact, if you look at the dates, I left that message on July 12th; NPS's first edit to Micronation was on July 11. So, NPS was involved in the article before I ever messaged him.

The issue was, until Keith came alone, no one who looked at the issue wanted that list of Micronations except you in the Micronation article. I think, in a case like this, it is important to work with other editors and come up with consensus and compromise instead of blindly reverting the changes of other editors. Consensus with Wik, of course, is impossible--I saw this myself when trying to stop an edit war in the Atlantium article. He won't listen to polls; he won't have reasonable discussion on talk pages; he just blindly reverts and flames until we kick him off, at which point he gets a new username.

That in mind, I will add a poll to the Talk:Micronation discussion page. Please vote; while votes are not perfect, this helps find consensus. Samboy 07:42, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip, I'll add micronation to my watchlist. I thought that that Wik thing was old news by now, but seems I was mistaken... --Gabriel Beecham/Kwekubo 19:33, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To add to what I said yesterday, if anyone wants to put up a RFC against NoPuzzleStranger, I will support the RFC. Samboy 20:47, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Micronations Article

Thank you for your comments on this situation. If you have no objections, I plan to continue this discussion purely on my talk page, as what I have to say is relevant to both you and User:Samboy. I plan to post more this afternoon, after I have had some time to more thoroughly examine the situation.

Also, I request that you take a break from reverting that article while this matter is being resolved. Speedy changes are only necessary when an article contains misinformation, so you can take some time to establish consensus before making changes in this case. --L33tminion (talk) 15:24, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

A way with words

micronation (i.e. a self-declared, unrecognized state-like entity)

Nice edit. Uncle Ed 01:34, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Micronation poll

Since I'm no longer an active editor, I ought not add myself to this controversy. I also am skeptical of polls. For what it's worth, however, I find the wording in question unobjectionable and find no fault in the word representative. So you can say that I support it if you wish. Very Verily 15:47, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dominion of Melchizedek Request for Comment

You have shown some interest in Dominion of Melchizedek, so I wanted to let you know that I created the following RFC. Bollar 13:54, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

*Talk:Dominion of Melchizedek (Also Malpelo Island, Clipperton Island, Bokak Atoll, Rotuma, Antarctica, Microstate, Dominion, Micronation) - POV over the validity of Dominion of Melchizedek's sovereignty, and claims over numerous small islands in the Pacific plus Antarctica.

I think the Melchizedek should be limited to article of its own and not to pollute other, innocent and valid articles. Thanks for helping with this - it is quite annoying to run into dedicated troll with lot of time. Pavel Vozenilek 15:01, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Centauri, thanks for helping with dealing with that IP that keeps trying to link everything to the Dominion of Melchizedek article. Samboy 22:15, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

micronations news article to reference section

Hi...thanks for moving the reference to the article to the right place, sorry to misplace it...jamie

Schoolcruft

Schoolcruft unfortunately it has a somewhat perverse following. These have managed to orchestrate a uncivil political campaign of fixing votes on vfd combined with intimidation of moderates to firstly force no consensus votes and then even to get "consensus" that cruft is worth keeping. I mean, we are missing articles on major towns in foreign countries, we're missing articles on villages in England, yet for some of those villages their primary school gets an article. It's always a terrible article of course, but you somehow manage to fill it with random subtrivia about its pet bunny.

No, I defer to you. It's simply brilliant because you've managed to get away with it. A year ago, unnotable high schools would have been deleted. I mean, Newton North High School was vfded at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Newton North High School. The result was a marginal keep (and I voted marginal keep) because we had 1 notable alumnus, but the rest of the article was (and still is) a pile of shit.

What makes it worse of course is that I have written several articles on notable schools. You won't find me bragging about it. "All schools are equal", you say, yet clearly some schools are more equal than others. That part of the brain that likes politicking and power and the warm feeling that gives seems to be missing out on what a concept of a encyclopaedia is. But we are missing articles on notable schools, and no doubt I shall continue to write them as and when I find the time to volunteer my attentions. Hopefully if we can keep the number of good articles, the cruft will settle to the bottom because nothing links to it and hopefully people will take one look at it and move along.

But, please, since you seem to have a better feeling for what cruft is than me, feel free to try to Vfd *any* of my contributions. Whereas I can cite published books technical information and quite complex engineering that is clearly of interest to a sizable body of enthusiasts. Historical data won't change over time, and there are several of us who will maintain it. There is, I believe no cottage industry for books about schools.

Congratulations, the lunatics have taken over the asylum. Unfortunately it seems there's no-one, not even Dr Jimbo who can cure them of this terrible illness. Dunc|☺ 18:01, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

re:Sockpuppets

Please tell me if there are anymore, also, how are you so sure it is Wik? I'm still lost in that regard. Sasquatcht|c 22:49, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind that, just talked to David Gerard on IRC, I will now ban any Wik like users =) Sasquatcht|c 22:55, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nice job

Congrats on getting rid of the troll. Nice job. --Gene_poole 12:48, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reverting DOM today

I appreciate your watching the pages that have been vandalized by the person pushing DOM. Right now I'm in the process of trying to delete some of the articles that he has added that push the DOM idea. Here are the links to the pages

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Ecclesiastical_government Solkope David Even Pedley

If you would vote to delete on Ecclesiastical Government and Solkope and vote to delete or delete and merge on David Even Pedley, I'd greatly appreciate it. Thanks Davidpdx 13:25, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Maryville Middle School

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maryville Middle School appears in danger of being trumped by a conspicuous and concerted effort on the part of deletionists. Please review the nomination and vote at your convenience.--Nicodemus75 05:37, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Making your vote count: please sign vote

Hi, just a friendly reminder, if you don't sign your vote, it may not be counted. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maryville Middle School [6].

DOM/Bokak Atoll

Just to let you know I'm taking a break from dealing with these pages. I just got sick of constantly reverting the page from the crap Johnski put there. Anyway, I will be around working on various projects I've promised myself I'll finish. If you need me just yell. Davidpdx 08:53, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Centauri, I think it's finally time we take this to the next level. I see you have had to revert the Bokak Atoll article quite a few times the last couple of days, which I appreciate. John is becoming difficult in terms of his constant reverts. I'm going to put in a request for mediation and see what happens. If you don't mind, I'm going to mention your name as well as Gene Pool and jdavidb as well as any others that helped to curb Johnski's vandalism. If that doesn't help, then we'll have to take it to arbitration I guess. Someone needs to do something to stop this madness. Anyway, please let me know what you think. Davidpdx 10:39, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look at the mediation page, it seems like right now they are swamped in terms of mediation cases. We might have to wait a week or two to take that step. Meanwhile, I'm thinking of having the Bokak Atoll Article protected for awhile until we can do so. Davidpdx 12:19, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was hoping the cleaner version would signal a fresh start among editors, but it appears Johnski is back to exactly were he left off. Thanks for catching the revert. I'm going to be online this weekend and will keep an eye out. Meanwhile, I'm doing some research. I think you know what kind of research I'm talking about. Davidpdx 06:24, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Centauri, I really don't know how you can call my last edit vandalism. I've put logical reasons in advance for most of the changes I've made to the last edition. No one has been able to give a logical reason why those changes shouldn't be made. I didn't just go back in history to an older version, but started fresh with the last edition, and spent real time on improving it. Did you read it?

Can you at least try to find something that you agree with in it, and let that part stick? I'm at odds with some of the other editors on this subject, but look at their work, and kept the parts that clearly belong there, and even stuff I don't agree with. For example the opinions of a certain private web site shouldn't be there, but have left them and multiple links to that person's web site to show compromise. If you could honestly try to find the parts in the latest edition I've improved that you agree with, and add those to the prior edition, then you would show good faith, something that Davidpdx hasn't shown. Sincerely, Johnski 07:05, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Arbitration

You have been requested to appear as a plantiff an arbitration case. Comments have been added on your behalf. If you wish to add comments please contact me. Here is a link to the case [7] Davidpdx

Arbitration accepted

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Johnski has been accepted. Please place evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Johnski/Evidence. Proposals and comments may be made at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Johnski/Workshop. Fred Bauder 04:05, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wik block

As much as it's against my nature to gloat, it sure feels good to be able to block that guy. Thanks for letting me know. I thought you were an admin already...? - Lucky 6.9 01:00, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration Talk Page

I have created a special arbitration talk page. This is to discuss what evidence we want as a group and to present and make recommendations before putting them on the arbitration page. Please feel free to make suggestions here:[8] Davidpdx 07:30, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have begun to post evidence. Hopefully some of you can help me a bit with this. It's turning out to be a lot of work. Davidpdx 10:41, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Last Call

Ok guys, this is a last call for evidence. No one has posted evidence besides myself. At the end of this week, I'm going to let the Arbitration Committee know that we are done.

When recommendations are made, I will need you guys to check in and sign on that you agree with them. Otherwise this will be all for not. I intend on asking for a six month ban for Johnski from Wikipedia as well as 1 year probation from editing DOM related articles. Davidpdx 01:37, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration Proposed Decision

Just to make everyone aware, arbitrators have begun to write the proposed decision in the arbitration case. You can view the decision here:[9].

So far no punative measures have been offered to solve the problems regarding the behavior of those involved. I strongly urge people to post comments asking for a stronger proposed decision from the Arbitration Committee. Otherwise, this will be all for nothing. We need to lobby them to get a ban on users as well as having them banned from editing certain articles for a period of time. There needs to be a clear message to those involved to stop reverting the article. Your comments can be left here: [10].

I know this is a busy season for everyone, but this will only take a few minutes. We need to deal with this now. If not, this problem will continue to disrupt Wikipedia. Davidpdx 00:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vote here

Vote here "keep" : Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rosario Poidimani (3 nomination). Regards, M.deSousa 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Johnski is at it again

Take a look at Dominion of Melchizedek. --Centauri 09:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I am well aware of it. I could see from what he and his buddies were doing, that was coming. Hopefully hhe arbitration committee will stabalize now that elections are over and we can get the final word on the case. Not that they will abide by it, but it would be a start. Davidpdx 13:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Centauri, I though you would like my citing CBS that the State department called DOM a fraud, etc. What problem did you have with it? Sincerely, Johnski 05:06, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Johnski Arbitration Case

Just a quick update on the arbitration case, two new arbitrators voted and there now might be enough votes to close the case finally. We need to keep an eye on this and make sure whatever solution that passes is fully implemented.

I'm pushing for a little bit tougher outcome, but realistically it's probably not going to happen. If you have time, please make some comments at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Johnski/Proposed decision. Hopefully, semi-protection will be enough. Davidpdx 12:06, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFAR closed

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Johnski

This request for arbitration is closed. Dominion of Melchizedek and associated articles, shall be semi-protected. If necessary, Johnski (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log), or any other editor believed by an administrator to be a sockpuppet or meatpuppet of Johnski, may be blocked indefinitely by any administrator. The article may be unprotected (and reprotected) at the discretion of any admin who deems it safe to do so.

For the Arbitration Committee, --Ryan Delaney ^talk 04:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gay_and_Lesbian_Kingdom_of_the_Coral_Sea_Islands_(second_nomination)

Hey. Sorry for jumping the gun on you at AfD. I still don't feel there's any agenda going on here, but I was mixed up about your links and statements. I've indicated that I was incorrect about 'em at the AfD. Clearing that up was the only thing keeping me from voting. Cheers :) Adrian Lamo · 02:11, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I'm willing to believe agenda on a number of issues, but on this one, I'm more disposed to entertain coincidence. It's not too far-fetched that someone woke up, came across a micronation article that they felt wasn't notable, and scouted out a few more, inspiring at least one duplication of effort.

Then again, I tend to steer clear of local politics -- that includes Wikipedia -- so I could be oblivious to some trend in re. micronations on Wikipedia that you're aware of.

Either way, I think the case has been argued well. I take each AfD as I find it, and this procession of micronation AfD's swung me to voting Keep on most (but not all) of them. I'll keep an eye out in the future for a 5th AfD :) Adrian Lamo · 02:30, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't seen that link. I don't find his guidelines to be 100% persuasive to me -- they're clearly in good faith, and state good criteria, but aren't enough. As you might have inferred from my posts on AfD, I'm planning to draft something which lays down proposed informal guidelines for micronation notability on Wikipedia, so we can avoid re-hashing hectic AfD's. Or at least make sure that if we have to keep doing it, we'll have something to play by. I'll probably talk to you about this when I start, and having prior art by GP is helpful. Community support will be another matter. Thanks. Adrian Lamo · 03:58, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My definition of "territory" is pretty mutable. I'm familiar with a number of the micronational manifestations you reference -- a boat might cut it, a platform certainly would, anything "conceptual" in the sense that it doesn't actually exist in physical form is very iffy at best. I don't see the need for stamping coins and printing stamps, though :) But obviously, what I think isn't what matters most here. Community input is key. Adrian Lamo · 04:11, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But is micronation the proper term to use if it has no actual territory? It's possible there's a better way to describe it. BRB, stepping out to the apothecary. Cheers. Adrian Lamo ·· 04:35, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then I think my next issue would be -- if "Micronation" is the base-level description for anyone professing to form a state, de minimis or otherwise, is it worth it to distinguish states that have engaged in more recognized activities of governance, such as international negotiation or conflict? I'm mostly thinking of Sealand here. Adrian Lamo ·· 05:37, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oldest and best known, yes, but also the closest to any real recognition. It's a headache to decide where the line is, though. I have some reading to do on a number of other micronations before I'll feel informed enough to offer a position for Wikipedians to consider :) Adrian Lamo ·· 05:57, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marlborough

Thanks for the heads-up on the Marlborough article! Lankiveil 22:33, 4 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Micronations

While you're going around accusing people of having an agenda (which I don't, outside my usual and documented abhorrence of vanispamcruftisement), linking to AfDs using http links instead of wikilinks is seen by some as very sneaky, as it does not show up on "what links here". I'm sure you wouldn't want your actions to be misconstrued, so I'm just pointing this out. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 09:15, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DOM

Hey Centarui, long time no see. I saw you removed some words from DOM. Notice that it's been almost two months since there has been an edit. My main concern is that your going to set off an edit war. Just because we were successful with the arbitration case, doesn't mean Johnski et. al. won't be back to cause problems. Honestly right now I'd be happier to error on the side of caution in terms of starting something back up again. Two months of peace took a lot of work on my part to get the information for the arbitration case prepared.

I'm going to revert it to the previous version, if there's an issue, please message me back. Like I said, I just don't want to see this crap start all over again. It's frankly quite annoying to me. Thanks... Davidpdx 09:47, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem in general with removing it. My issue is that it will give Johnski an excuse to start an edit war. I realize he's banned, but that doesn't mean he's gone completely. In fact if you look at the DOM page, he's around and posting the same old stuff. That's my only issue with it. If you feel strongly, then go ahead and change it back. But I think we need to keep a really close eye on it. Thanks for letting me know. Davidpdx 08:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On another similar subject, I was asking Gene Poole what he thought about merging the content from the David Even Pedley article into the DOM article and turning it into a redirect. What do you think about that idea? Davidpdx 08:27, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard the idiom, "quite a dog's breafast." That's an interesting one..

Yes, the whole article probably could be redone and tightened for form and content. That is until Johnski comes along and reverts it. It's not a matter of whether he'll do it, it's a matter of when.

But seriously, I'll go ahead and do that this weekend. So maybe we can put off the rewrite until next week. The main reason is at the end of this week, I'm going to achieve the talk page and that will also probably set him off, because he'll repost the same stuff again with in a few days. So keep an eye out for the next week or so if you can. Thanks.. Davidpdx 08:49, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Be aware that Johnski is up to his tricks again. I've just reverted the DOM article to your last version. --Gene_poole 22:52, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Centauri, I hate to say it, but I told you so. This is exactly what I wanted to avoid, an all out revert war. I think Johnski has comeback under at least two diffrent names. Almost two months of peace in the article! Davidpdx 22:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

templates substituted by a bot as per Wikipedia:Template substitution Pegasusbot 08:00, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Imaginary creature ?

I was investigating a incident in the Fouke, Arkansas area when some guy said that if I was a (polite) skeptic, he was going to shoot me. By the way, I did find other witnesses who were not as evil tempered as that one. The idiot who wanted to shoot me claimed that skeptics had (polite) ridiculed and insulted the townspeople, and he wanted to "rectify" that. Martial Law 06:03, 2 May 2006 (UTC) :)[reply]

What are you talking about? --Centauri 06:51, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was in Fouke, Arkansas investigating the Fouke Monster related incidents long ago when the above happened. Martial Law 08:18, 2 May 2006 (UTC) :)[reply]

Australian Flag

saying something is erroneous when it is erroneous is not POV but merely stating a fact. Xtra 03:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hamster racing

Hi, I too believe that Notorious labeling the links as "bogus" may be stretching it a bit too far. However, I believe he lost his cool, being totally fed up with Will 210's persistent removal of speedy tags, whose behavior was rank bad even for a n00b. FWIW, Will 210 made a personal attack on my talkpage. As I mentioned on Notorious's talkpage I'm not sure abt the notability of the article but I feel afd may be better than speedy. Please remain cool and keep contributing positively. --Gurubrahma 16:04, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Country

Sealand is a country, not some virtual "micro-nation". It has control and sovereignity over a piece of land, and has not been encroached upon by the British (though attempts were made). Legally, no country has asserted authority over the country. No taxes have been collected for the operations there. Voyageour 23:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Few if any people believe that Sealand is a real country. The best place to argue your case is on the Sealand talk page. --Centauri 22:58, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your abusive reverts and edit comments on Spring Heeled Jack

Claiming that no explanation was given for changes when it's clear from the edit comments that they were explained, calling another editor "abusive" without cause, and putting in highly deceptive edit comments are behaviors that are clearly not acceptable here. Please take the time to learn Wikipedia policies, and do not think anyone is stupid enough to fall for your transparent tricks. I don't know why you are so stubborn about reverting my edits, but your bad behavior isn't going to fly. DreamGuy 12:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This comment "You would do well to familiarise yourself with WP:CIVIL, lest you find yourself the subject of a Wikipedia:Requests for Comment and further corrective action." you placed on my talk page is quite ironic, as you are the one breaking the civility policy by falsely labeling me abusive in order to blind revert any changes I make. Here's a hint for you, Skippy: I know all about RFC and policies here, and know that I am well within what I am supposed to be doing here. Attempts to scare me by silly threats like that will not work at all. It's your actions here that are out of line. DreamGuy 12:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about this then if you need it made clear: You are not following policies, your threats against me that you think I will get into trouble absolutely will not work, and has been tried already by lots of abusive editors like yourself in the past to no avail. Because you have proven yourself to be acting in bad faith by trying to "warn" me about things that are simply false, I will simply remove any and all comments you put on my talk page without reading them, as they will undoubtedly be more of the same harassment and deceptions. You are acting like a bully, and one rather ignorant of the way things actually work. I am perfectly within my rights to remove harassing comments from my talk page, as proven time and time again. You, on the other hand, are just making your motives painfully clear, and they obviously have more to do with attempted intimidation and getting yoru own way than they do with making a good encyclopedia. DreamGuy 12:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you would read the actual vandalism policy, you would note that I did not violate it. Furthermote, if you read the three revert rule, you would also see the my edits did not violate that either. On top of that, you should also know that repeated posts to my talk page after I had already told you to not post there because your messages were clearly only intended to harass is just proof of your intention to harass me instead of working toward contributing to an encyclopedia. I am sorry that you are all worked up, but your actions only further make yourself look bad and demonstrate a lack of understanding about the way things work here.

Now this is MY last warning: cease your harassment, stop posting bullying, uncivil personal attacks to my talk page, and go read up on the actual policies before you accuse others of breaking them. DreamGuy 13:20, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DreamGuy

I am posting below my various warnings to the above editor on this page by way of a permanent record, as he is continuing to remove them from his talk page in violation of WP:Vandalism. The original comments can be seen in context here. --Centauri 13:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

---

You would do well to familiarise yourself with WP:CIVIL, lest you find yourself the subject of a Wikipedia:Requests for Comment and further corrective action. --Centauri 12:03, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adding further abusive comments to my talk page is extremely ill-advised. Removing warnings against your abusive behaviour posted by me from your talk page is also extremely ill-advised, as this constitutes vandalism. Again, I urge you to familiarise yourself with Wikipedia's established policies and procedures, and to ensure that you comply fully with them, lest corrective and/or disciplinary action be initiated against you. --Centauri 12:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I note that in addition to multiple instances on deliberate non-compliance with WP:CIVIL and WP:Vandalism, you have now also deliberately broken the 3 revert rule. This is a serious breach of policy, and will therefore be reported accordingly. --Centauri 12:22, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would also direct your attention to Wikipedia:No personal attacks, with particular reference to the prohibition on abusive edit summaries, which states "Abusive edit summaries are particularly ill-regarded." . --Centauri 13:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to say no, because I have never been involved in such a process, and understand it is not pretty, and don't have the time for it either. But, after seeing his latest blatant personal attacks directed against me at Talk:Mythology, I must say will certainly lend my support to anything you can arrange. He actually considers himself the "professional" one, and anyone who does not share his POV is of course, "unprofessional". What really got me is where he blatantly threatened to stalk all of my edits, and informed me that I should 'consider myself lucky' he doesn't. Be forewarned, he seems to have very powerful friends here in the hierarchy (possibly a major contributor in the last drive) which is why he seems to be able to treat the entire project as his personal sandbox with impunity, ignore all policies and make up his own as he goes along. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 15:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

---

Response to attempted intimidation by this editor.

---

DreamGuy = Victrix. Same articles. Same abusive edit style. Same edit summary essays. Same edit summary terminology. Apparent instance of abuse of 3RR - 4th edit by Victrix identical to 3 prior edits by DreamGuy. --Centauri 10:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The message you removed

No, see, the message you removed was a 3RR warning from an admin. That's a real warning, the kind you're supposed to not remove. I don't choose to pursue the issue at this time, but please be aware that if you edit your talkpage abusively, it may be protected so you can't edit it at all. Bishonen | talk 23:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Block warning: stop it

Since you had so little courtesy for my original reasoned appeal, I won't waste time on amenities. I see you have continued to post on DreamGuy's page. You will be blocked for a limited time if you do it again. Bishonen | talk 20:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]

I must say, I've never heard of an editor getting blocked just for posting to someone's talk page who didn't want that editor posting. Is there any precedent for this? Is there a policy covering this that says something like, any user can forbid specific other users from using their discussion page for discussion, on penalty of blocking? Or do only certain users have this privilege? Thanks, -- Curious

And *I* must say I'm surprised to receive my reply from an anon IP who has no other contributions. It seems inherently unlikely that you don't have an account, "Curious". Why are you on Centauri's page? Are you Centauri logged out? Yes, there is plenty of precedent for blocking editors for Wikipedia:harassment. Bishonen | talk 22:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Chill out, Bishonen, I'm not Centauri. I'm an editor with this page on my watchlist, however. It should tell you something about the type of climate this kind of discussion is producing, that I would feel it necessary to use a rotating AOL IP to protect my user account, exactly because everyone involved here seems like the retributive type, who might lash out at anything that gets too close, and that's an especially bad thing for a sysop. I probably won't have anything else to add here, so I'll be going now (glancing over my shoulder) --Curious

Of course there's no precedent or policy for it. It's a complete nonsense intended to intimidate me for daring to challenge a highly abusive editor, and I won't have a bar of it. --Centauri 21:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anybody looking at your edits on DreamGuy's page can see that what you're doing is rather far from "using his discussion page for discussion". Please just use common sense. Wikilawyering will get you nowhere. Bishonen | talk 22:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]

I take strong exception to the abusive, histrionic and threatening tone of DreamGuy's comments in his "discussions" with me on the articles I have attempted to edit which he appears to claim ownership of. Pointing out my objections on his talk page, and advising him in no uncertain terms that his attempted intimidation is out of line does not constitite "harrassment". It is simple communication in the only language he seems to understand - his own. I note that dozens of other editors have had similar experiences with DreamGuy, so my response is in no way unique or unusual. --Centauri 22:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Articles have talk pages for the purpose of communication about editing the article. Please use those. Bishonen | talk 22:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Don't lecture me. I have a long history here and know exactly what article talk pages are for. I've already asked you to look at DreamGuy's abusive article talk page "discussions" which necessitated my posting of comments to his personal talk page. I have also pointed out his use of a sockpuppet within the past 24 hours to subvert the 3RR. Have you addressed that yet? --Centauri 22:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Please see my page. Bishonen | talk 23:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Haven't you helped DreamGuy with this kind of stuff before, it is awfully familiary. DreamGuy posts abusive edit summaries/personal attacks, user gets annoyed posts on DreamGuy's talk page in order to try and resolve the situation. DreamGuy removes these attempts to communicate with more abusive edit summaries and personal attacks. User tries to do the same again, DreamGuy does the same again. DreamGuy then accusses the user of making personal attacks and harrassment. Despite whether there's little evidence there's personal attacks, these personal attack claims are accepted. The user's own personal attack claims are ignored, plus the user is in trouble for harrassment. Admins then block the user, then some other users say "well actually, he does have a history of getting himself in these conflicts". Then some admin replies "he was harrassed a few years ago, so he's allowed to" or something along those lines. User gets block for a prolonged period of time, DreamGuy gets away scott free and posts more abusive edit summaries and comments to other users and the cycle continues again. Round and round it goes. Englishrose 07:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I remember the matter you're referring to. If you think it's of interest to Centauri, or reflects credit on you, how about taking the trouble to post a few links to it? Bishonen | talk 09:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Reply about DreamGuy

Hello,

Thanks for your message. My own previous experiences of DreamGuy are not good, I first encountered him during an AFD on an article which was called “aladin”, later renamed to Eenasul Fateh. I wouldn’t had minded if he’d have explained his reasons for voting delete and leaving it at that. However, he was quite rude to everybody and accussed me of issuing hoax information, to the point of claiming that official government press releases were hoaxs etc etc. His edit summaries were also abusive towards me. He also persued a vendeta against the aritcle with another user, forcing it to be put up for deletion four times. He also redirected it to Aladdin and persued a revert war, which was detailed on the admin noticeboard here: [11]. An other user got involved User: Elonka and he issued several personal attacks against her, which were eventually removed but not without a fight from DreamGuy. She prepared a case again him, some of which can be found here [12]. In hindsight without sounding smug, those voting keep were clearly right as Aladin has been part of a major book that has won several awards recently.

He accussed a me of beign a sockpuppet to a number of people including Elonka and even accussed me of beign Aladin himself. All these claims were proven false. As an admin pointed out the Ips were from different countries. It would be too ironic if DreamGuy is using sock-puppets, although I find it hard to believe that two people can make such similar edit summaries.

The thing that wound me up the most about the dispute with DreamGuy is that the admins were all quick to defend and protect him. When I investigated further admins such as User:Android79 had a long history of defending him and even unblocking him. Another admin User:David Gerard then made an inappropriate block of Elonka for complaining about DreamGuy and planning an RFA, she was blocked indefintley. [13]Another admin later reduced this block. User:Bishonen also was quick to defend and ignore DreamGuy’s actions. Elonka detailed the actions of the admins here [14] (read Elonka’s view for more).

It wasn’t the first time DreamGuy has been involved in these kinds of arguments and it wasn’t the last, nor will this. In short, I believe he bullies those who don’t agree with him.

Hope this helps, Englishrose

Dreamguy

My God, is that cancerous little pygmy still abusing his way around WP while hiding behind the skirts of weakling sysops? Colour me shocked. IVoteTurkey has long since quit WP, mostly due to the rotten, miserable stinking failure of sysops to recognise abusive behaviour when they see it. And I can't be arsed anymore. Icundell 22:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cancerous little pygmy?! Come now, there's no need to start badmouthing cancer and pygmies like that! ...but in answer to your question, yes he is - for the time being anyway. If you become re-arsed at some point your help would be appreciated. --Centauri 00:51, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You'd have a better chance of getting anything done if you could somehow find it in you to avoid making -- or condoning -- personal attacks like the above. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 01:49, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have a better chance of getting things done in this matter if admins addressed their concerns to the single abuser, rather than to his seemingly rather disturbing multiplicity of victims. --Centauri 02:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just thought I'd let you know that I've backed up your statement on the Check user page. Hopefully admins will act this time and give DreamGuy the correct punishment, although I wouldn't hold your breath. Englishrose 10:38, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He has been named as a likely sockpuppet. I think you can now report him for 3RR and get him banned. I've put sockpuppet notices on his user page. Englishrose 19:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppets: DreamGuy = Victrix

I'm posting a copy of the result of a recent enquiry concerning the above here, as I'm uncertain if or where these things get archived. --Centauri 22:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DreamGuy

DreamGuy (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Victrix (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Recent suspected multiple subversion of 3RR at Beelzebub and Spring Heeled Jack, where DreamGuy and Victrix have been involved in edit wars on numerous occasions with numerous editors.

Example 1: After Dreamguy reverted Beelzebub for the third time (revert 1, revert 2, revert 3), Victrix appeared out of nowhere to post a message of support on his talk page, then reverted the article to Dreamguy's preferred version, using a similar longwinded edit summary to those Dreamguy typically uses, phrased in almost exactly the same hostile manner.

Example 2: After Victrix reverted Spring Heeled Jack for the third time (revert 1, revert 2, revert 3), DreamGuy appeared out of nowhere and reverted the article to Victrix' preferred version, again using the same longwinded edit summary to those Victrix typically uses, phrased in almost exactly the same hostile manner.

A comparison of their edit histories reveals that Dreamguy and Victrix edit the same group of articles (particularly those related to the Victorian era, Jack the Ripper, crime and mythology), use the same lengthy edit summaries, the same terminology (ie "crap", "fucked up", "spam" etc when describing anything they disagree with), the same technique of accusing anyone who disagrees with them as "harrassing" them, and the same predisposition to conducting edit wars over content.

They are obviously the same person using multiple identities with the deliberate intention of circumventing the 3RR and attempting to influence the outcome of talk page discussions. Centauri 02:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CommentBoth have edited at similar times and periods. Both have been absent for prolonged periods at the same time as well, e.g. both DreamGuy and Victrix have been away from the early hours of June 1st, both also didn't edit from 13th onwards of may and both returned on 23 May 2006. Both use the same edit summaries and both step in to revert articles in order to avoid 3RR when nessessary. Both radily breach WP:PA. DreamGuy has a history of being blocked for breaching 3RR. Englishrose 10:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Likely. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 19:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've had [highly negative] dealings with DreamGuy before (weigh my contribution per that as you will; I mention it in the sake of fairness), and I can see a similar pattern in the two "different" users' methods. EVula 16:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amokolia

Thanks for removing the "Amokolia" references. There's a user who keeps trying to get his phony "nation" into Wikipedia. His latest sockpuppet was just blocked. Keep watching, though. Thanks. --John Nagle 04:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DreamGuy

Bishonen believes (and I agree) that you should report the situation on WP:ANI to request review and admin action. I think it's important that he doesn't get away with this. In a nutshell, just state the situation, how he evaded 3RR by using sock-puppets, was uncivil and has a history of being uncivil and breaking 3RR. I'll defintley help try and make sure this case is dealt with correctly and I'll support you. If you need any advice or help, just post on my talk page. Englishrose 21:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added bits and bats to your statement, it's a case of sitting and waiting, replying and hoping the admins do something this time. The evidence seems to be very strong. Englishrose 12:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This may be useful: Wikipedia:AMA Requests for Assistance#Open requests. I've tried it before, but to be honest, I didn't even get a reply from someone until after the issue was resolved via other means. Probably couldn't hurt to try though. --Elonka 16:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dreamguy is particularly abusive, breaching WP:PA regularly in the following ways: abusive language in edit summaries, deliberately stirring up bad feelings when there has been a legitimate misunderstanding, accusing new users of breaking Wikipedia policies in the rudest possible manner, and reverting a page wholesale when he disagrees with just one detail, then sometimes reverting again for spite if material he claims not to have objected to the first time is re-introduced without the objectionable material, after the revamped material has been getting the thumbs-up on discussion pages from other users. In addition, he likes to cite Link farm policies as a reason to delete many external links in an article, not just those of questionable value (see User_talk:DreamGuy#Circus) Blue Milk Mathematician 13:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Return of Johnski

Hi, just wanted to let you know that Johnski is testing again. Although all he has done was a spelling correction, it won't be long before he's back at it. Please keep an eye out on the DOM page. Thanks... Davidpdx 13:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the warning. I'll keep an eye out on the articles. Davidpdx 23:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Avram

Hi Centauri,

Yeah, I have blocked the current IP for 24 hours, we will see how that goes. If it doesn't help, longer blocks may be in order! -- Chuq 06:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Victrix block

Hi! I see 3 edits within the last 24 hours that are essentially reverts--the first and the last also included the vandalistic removal of all references, external links, categories, and iw links, whereas the middle one was just a revert on the part of the article that has been causing contention. Added to this is the fact that after nearly 3 weeks of protection without any discussion towards a resolution of the conflicts over this article Victrix immediately restarted the edit war--to me there are two alternatives: reinstate the protection (which hasn't worked so far), or start blocking editors who refuse to work by consensus, preferring instead to edit war. JeremyA 13:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Centauri, I just removed one of your comments as I can gaurantee that if one of the admin's that DreamGuy likes sees it, they will block you and if this case goes further it could go against you. Feel free to put it back if you wish, but try and keep civil with him...I know it's hard. Englishrose 09:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've had a quick look and there's strong similarities, some of the usual phrases spring out. I think it's a good idea to start collecting evidence. Englishrose 08:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, a good idea will be to present the evidence directly to Jimbo and see what he thinks. Englishrose 09:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo

Did you present the evidence to Jimbo? Oh on an entirely unrelated topic, I think he'll be back. Englishrose 19:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Micronation links

External links placed

Centauri - I've reverted the fifteen odd links you placed in the micronations article. I'd strongly suggest that you review the external links guideline. - brenneman ^{L} 13:13, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Johnski

Just to let you know to be on the lookout. Johnski is at it again, he left a message on my talk page as well as on the DoM talk page. Both have been reverted, but if you go into the history you can see them. Don't report him just yet though. Let's wait and see what he's up to. Davidpdx 12:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GLK stamps

I'm a little confused. First you deleted the sentence as "slight rewriting", and now as "unverifiable." The sentence is an exact quote, followed by an inline link to the GLK site page which contains the quote. At face value that seems to me to be verifiable. What am I missing? Gimmetrow 00:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It intends to issue stamps only rarely "with the aim of creating a high and distinctive reputation amongst the philatelic fraternity."[15]

Frankly, I don't understand your concern with this sentence. This quotes the group's stated intention; isn't their own site a verifiable source for their own intention, as a relevant, non-contentious, not unduly self-serving statement not involving claims about third parties, and not reasonably doubtful as it comes from their primary site? I want this included for two reasons 1) it conveys information that the stamps will be infrequent (possibly a one-time thing) by quoting the publicly stated intention, and 2) it discusses the stamps as stamps, contributing to the fair use rationale for the stamp picture. The rest of the paragraph rewrite is OK. Gimmetrow 15:04, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

K...micronation

Good catch! The web page is still under construction and it still got 70 hits! Surely there is a place for complete and utter fraudulent things like this somewhere in wiki? I mean it has pseudohistory, etc etc in the pseud entries ? :) SatuSuro 14:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I see your point - if it was allowed, could almost swamp the boat !SatuSuro 00:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Banned?

REDIRECT Where and when was I banned, by whom? Whatsupdoc 05:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So I'm Johnski because you say so?Whatsupdoc 05:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you reverting your garbage to my user pages? Whatsupdoc 02:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Johnski, notifying people that you are the sockpuppet of an editor banned by the Arbitration Committee is not "garbage" - at least not to those of us who live in the real world. --Centauri 22:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Whatsupdoc

Yes, it appears he has returned. I'll make sure to message a admin about blocking him. It should be pretty straight forward. Good catch! Davidpdx 06:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck with that.Whatsupdoc 02:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I recieved a nice little threatening note on my talk page from our favorite vandal:

"Do you want me to do to your user page what you have done to mine? Whatsupdoc 02:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)"

Do me a favor and put my talk page on your watch list. I'm guessing it's an empty threat, but you never know how wacked out he might get. Davidpdx 08:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I put a note on TomHarrison's talk page, but he might be really busy. Maybe you could contact another admin and ask about a hard ban. Davidpdx 12:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the edit conflict on Common Era

My connection went haywire and I didn't check for another edit. Feel free to rv to your verison. Fireplace 01:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Big Coathanger

Hi Centauri!

That was good. Some of the expression in that article had a competitive tone which I don't like. I rewrote a bit more of it, then stupidly lost it. I'll get back to it, I suppose.

--Amandajm 11:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DreamGuy

It does sound familiar, best thing you can do is alert the admins and do another check user request. Englishrose 09:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see, the best thing we can do is wait for him to go on the rampage again and then take it RFC. Englishrose 10:26, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Check 172.134.109.34 (talk · contribs) . Looks like the older DG account may have been re-activated to get around a 3RR at Jack the Ripper [16]. --Elonka 21:37, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Assistance Bell Witch

I wish I could, but at this point I can't. I've scaled back the amount of time I spend on Wikipedia lately. The other thing is I know pretty much nil about that kind of a subject. For now, I hang around to watch the DoM article and a bunch of other political articles having to do with Oregon. Davidpdx 14:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Johnski At it again

Johnski is at it again. His sock Whatsupdoc has been blanking his user talk page. He then posted a templet to unblock himself, which I reverted. Please make sure he is on your watch list and keep and eye out for him. Thanks.. Davidpdx 09:06, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Johnski has been reverting his talk page again. Here is the 3RR report I filed against him: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR#User:Whatsupdoc_reported_by_User:User:Davidpdx_Davidpdx_09:53.2C_21_August_2006_.28UTC.29.28result:_.29 Davidpdx 10:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you hate Australia?

At least you admitted that it was funny, unlike that Caesar douch. I'll stop now.

Conch Republic

Please refrain from making changes to the above article that don't conform with reality. The Conch Republic has existed for over 20 years, and continues to exist and be celebrated annually. It continues to have a Prime Minister, continues to sell passports and tourist ephemera, and continues to maintain a very live website. From your comments you seem to be labouring under the belief that because it's a tongue in cheek project it can't also be a micronation. Where this notion sprang from is anyone's guess, but it's just plain wrong. You might wish to familiarise yourself with the micronation article before contributing further to this discussion. --Centauri 00:19, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Do you want a copy of my W-2 forms from 1996-1998?

I worked in Key West and had to pay taxes to the United States Federal Government. If I was living and working in a "micronation" how could this be?

I'm sorry, but you haven't the faintest idea what you are talking about. Please review micronation to better understand the subject under discussion before making further comment. The link that you seem to think exists between micronations and "not paying taxes" is valid only with a very very tiny minority of "serious" micronations. For the rest - including the Conch Republic - it's simply not relevant to the discussion at all. --Centauri 00:39, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Centauri, have you ever actually been to the Keys? FairHair 01:15, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. Also, please do not label as "vandalism" edits intended to improve the article which were discussed on talk and agreed by a number of editors. Jonathunder 05:27, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DG

Don't worry, I'll keep my eye on him. Englishrose 10:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Principality of Vikesland edit

Dear Sir,

I would appreciate it if you could, at the very least, not edit the information for Howe. His relation to Clavert can be verified simply using ancestry.com. You can start a search with his grandfather, James Myers Debutts and, either go forward to Howe, or work your backward to George Calvert. The line from Calvert forward is Calvert – Tasker – Dulany – Debutts – Howe.

Thank you.

The Return of Johnski

Hi Centauri! Well Johnski is back again. He left a message on the DoM talk page. Also he has been blanking his talk page as well in an attempt to whitewash his bad behavior. If you'd keep an eye out on both things I'd appreciate it. Thanks... Davidpdx 09:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible that this is a sockpuppet of Johnski's? Johnyajohn (talk · contribs) I've been having multiple troubles with him both on and off Wikipedia. Let me know if you'd like details. --Elonka 17:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DreamGuy

First, that checkuser request didn't confirm they were the same, it was just found likely. Second, the DreamGuy account isn't a sockpuppet of anything, it's the main account, so the tag is wrong (if anything it's the puppetmaster account). I don't know anything about your last allegation.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DG (sigh, again)

Thanks for letting me know. I'll engage in discussion withCúchullain and explain a few things. He's also commenting on this [17], feel free to add your comments. :-) Englishrose 22:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Documentation

The following 5 comments were originally posted to DreamGuy's talk page. As he has selectively removed the last 3 of them to as part of his latest attempt to spin his long history of harrassment and abuse into a victimization sob-story, I've decided to archive things here, for future reference. --Centauri 08:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello :-) I removed the outdated sockpuppet template. There is no further need for this to be on your user page. If it gets replaced, I will protect your user page. Happy editing. FloNight 01:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks... There are some pretty hard core harassers here. Basically some editors who months and months ago objected to the fact that I got articles/content deleted that was something spammy or unencyclopedic they wanted in and they've been gunning for me ever since. DreamGuy 05:13, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't changed your abusive attitude since you were caught out and disappeared "months and months ago", so I see no reason why the checkuser request could possibly be considered "outdated" by anyone. If anything it's more relevant than ever, now that you've decided to reappear and try to foist a farrago of further deception upon us. --Centauri 05:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're a constant abusive editor here, and one who seems most intent on harassing me and making these charges. I bet your behind this little impersonation stunt. You certainly got really psychotic when i edited out your bad edits on an article months ago. You should seek psychiatric help. Seriously. DreamGuy 05:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see you're now rolling out the old "abuse your victim" routine, right on cue again. --Centauri 05:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, if you'd have made that comment instead of DG, u'd have been in serious trouble. However, what I came here was to say that you should relax. Keep an eye on the situation and if it flares up, take it to RFC. Obviously there's a few loop holes in wikipedia that allows certain things to happen, but if you watch the situation close enough there will come a time when more sterner action can be taken if certain users choose to continue their old ways. So relax and don't let it get to you too much. Englishrose 11:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. If anyone else even thinks about adopting the sort of contemptuous disregard of Wikipedia's civility and general community standards that DreamGuy is openly encouraged to believe he can get away with, thanks to support from a few rogue admins, they're blocked from here to kingdom come - and rightly so. I don't intend to stand idly by while he causes the project further grief - particularly as he seems to be laboring under the illusion that he can harrass and intimidate me into submission, like he has with everyone he's tried it on with before. Big mistake. --Centauri 12:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you an alternate account?

Are you an alternate account of User:Gene_Poole? JBKramer 13:17, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BibleCounsel.homestead.com spam

Hi — just a note to say that I respectfully disagree with your restoration of "BibleCounsel.homestead.com" link as not spam. The only edits of user 71.80.145.105 (talk · contribs), ever, were to add links to that site. In one case three links within the same article. That clearly fits into the category of spam which encompasses links added only to promote a site and is indicative of an editor with a conflict of interest.

The other link states "Premier resource for ..." which also seems suspect, although I might be willing to let that go if the description is cleaned up and it fits the guidelines in WP:EL and MoS:L.

I am going to remove the BibleCounsel link again and problaby start working on the forums, blogs and other unencyclopedic links discouraged by WP:EL. JonHarder 02:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka

I've been going through and posting thank you notes to those who participated in my RfA, but I'm honestly not sure what to say to you at this point. I have to admit, that one of the diffs that was provided did appear to confirm that you have used both the Centauri and GenePoole accounts. If this is true, I am extremely disappointed. But, I still want to assume good faith, and give you an opportunity to tell your side of the story. So, is it true? --Elonka 19:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for not jumping on the bad faith bandwagon like everyone else. This accusation is raised every time someone doesn't like something I say here. It has no substance. I have gotten to know Mr Cruikshank (Gene Poole) as a collaborator on several projects I've worked on. We both live in Sydney and have met half a dozen times in the past couple of years. On one occasion I logged on to WP using his computer. He evidently posted a comment here while I was still logged in, realised the mistake and reversed it. That's it. --Centauri 21:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply. Since the issue keeps coming up, may I suggest a formal CheckUser to clear your name? Then the next time this gets dragged out, you can point to the result to help set the matter to rest. --Elonka 23:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for trying to resolve things in a reasoned way. As far as I can see, the people pushing this barrow have already made up their minds, so that's one more good editor down the toilet. --Centauri 22:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, Centauri, the more that both you and Gene Poole resist a CheckUser, the more convinced that I am that the charges of sockpuppetry are true. :/ If your claim of innocence is genuine, my recommendation is that you immediately submit a CheckUser on yourself to clear your name. Otherwise, you are probably heading for a block. --Elonka 18:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(reply) Though I'm willing to do it, I think it'll look much much better if you request it on yourself. --Elonka 23:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(reply) Please note that I am not talking about an RfC, I am talking about a CheckUser, which is a very different beast. Please see Wikipedia:Requests for Checkuser. Also, I strongly recommend that you work harder at being excruciatingly civil. The more that you sound angry and confrontational, the worse that the entire situation looks for you. --Elonka 00:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe checkuser would not "clear" them at all, but rather it would show that both accounts were used on the same IP, as he's already said. -- Ned Scott 03:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it would show that the 2 accounts are unrelated, which is what I've been saying all along. Funny how the same people baying for blood all suddenly seem to be falling over themselves not to do a checkuser. Hypocrites and cowards, the lot of them. --Centauri 06:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

eh? If both accounts were used on the same computer, rather, the same IP address, then it would show a connection. I'm not sure if you are talking to me when you say that, as I'm unrelated to this dispute. I only saw some other editors having a dispute and wanted to point out the slight misconception. Checkuser won't really be helpful to anyone on any side. -- Ned Scott 02:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Micronation flag

I recently removed a link to Category:National flags from the page of Flag of the Gay and Lesbian Kingdom of the Coral Sea Islands because it is a micronation. Before I get all indignant towards User:GilliamJF for putting it back, I want to ask if I did the right thing; i.e. other micronations, due to the fact that they are not recognised by other countries, are not on the 'official' national flags page. (I ask you because your name is on the history page of that country, and I read your comments in the request for deletion (Mark IV, that is).) Scoutersig 01:30, 27 October 2006 (UTC)(oops, forgot to sign earlier)[reply]

Block

As per discussion here I have blocked this account. — Matt Crypto 22:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Centauri, I recommend you stop the anon editing of actual articles while the block is active. That's just making things worse.

If you and Gene are verifyably different people, you might consider sending copies of both of your drivers licenses or some sort to the Wikimedia Foundation to establish that you are in fact two separate people.

If you come across vandalism of articles you contributed to regularly, post a note here on your talk page and I'll go take a look. I've already recommended Matt Crypto do something about Harvardy for vandalizing some stuff.

Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert 20:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Archenland

An article that you have been involved in editing, Archenland, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Archenland. Thank you. --BJBot (talk) 00:19, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Gay and Lesbian Kingdom of the Coral Sea Islands

An editor has nominated Gay and Lesbian Kingdom of the Coral Sea Islands, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gay and Lesbian Kingdom of the Coral Sea Islands (3rd nomination) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 21:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Nova Roma

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Nova Roma. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nova Roma. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:10, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of fictional future events

You commented in the last Article for deletion discussion. This article is up for deletion again.

You are welcome to comment about the discussion for deletion. Ikip 19:03, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]