User talk:WikiUser/page 1 archive

Vandalism

Your vandalism of my userpage is not appreciated. I see you have a history of such actions. I advise you to stop this immediately, lest you find yourself blocked. Regards -- [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 21:46, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)

---

WikiUser 18:17, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Re the revert of my page that you've marked in its history:

(cur) (last) 21:46, 14 Oct 2004 Neutrality (rv removal of warnings + one more warning)

Please stop taking control of my talk page. This is against a clear Wikipedia Guideline. It is my user talk page not yours.

I did not vandalise anything. A request was made by a reporter and others for people to tell him about The Wikipedia. I politely told him about it and politely communicated with him. I clicked the correct edit tag to edit that particular section of Village Pump -(considerately) left a history page description and then pressed "Save". It's a lie that I did any vandalisation.

I also left a similar totally appropriate and polite similar message after the same request that Mr. Kruegar of The St. Petersburg Times made on your talk page. I want to see the rule on Wikipedia that says; "you must praise it and never say it might have any faults". Where is this rule listed please? I don't have any "history of such actions", but your total re-write of my talk page, which was blank, is against a clearly stated Guideline that people shouldn't take control of someone else's talk page and act as if they spoke for or were an agent of the user.

Can you tell me how to proceed with taking action against your abuse of me here? To prevent you from using your position as an Administrator to lie about and abuse me; and delete my entries and threaten me for no reason with banning? For example what is the next step? Seeking mediation? Or do I go straight to a Request For Arbitration? Is there ANY OTHER WIKIPEDIA USER who can advise me of the correct way to go about stopping user Neutrality from doing this harrassment and abuse of my rights on The Wikipedia?

Below is an exact cut-and-paste copy of the edits that user Neutrality is on about. Can anyone tell me what is "illegal" about them or how they are vandalism that should result in the immidiate banning he's threatening me with? He's only been an Administrator less than 48 hours and already he's hell-bent on deleting people. Voting against him in an Admin election is not "vandalism" - having a different view from him is not "vandalism".

*EXACT COPIES OF POSTS CONCERNED:

(POST 1) From Village Pump page: (cur) (last) 20:57, 14 Oct 2004 WikiUser (Newspaper reporter wants to speak to Wikipedia people - corrected edit mistakes)

(cur) (last) 20:55, 14 Oct 2004 WikiUser (Newspaper reporter wants to speak to Wikipedia people - Added comment)

---

Newspaper reporter wants to speak to Wikipedia people Hi everyone, I'm Curtis Krueger, a reporter with the St. Petersburg Times in Florida. I am writing an article about Wikipedia and would like to talk to some of the people who write and edit articles frequently. I would like hear from people who can tell me what motivates them to contribute to Wikipedia with their writing, editing, research and so on.

I will probably speak to 3-4 people on Thursday or Friday (Oct. 14 & 15 2004). If you are at all interested, please send an email to me at krueger@sptimes.com (mailto:krueger@sptimes.com). Please put in your phone number, city and state and best time to reach you by phone in the next couple of days. If you have the time, you might also tell me a little about what kind of work you do on Wikipedia and why, plus anything about your background such as your profession, education, age, etc.

By the way you can find our newspaper at sptimes.com (http://www.sptimes.com).

Thank You!!! Curtis Krueger St. Petersburg Times krueger@sptimes.com

Can people who have responded leave a note here? I'm willing to chat with the reporter if there's any fear he won't have enough people to interview (I think an article based on why we all write here sounds fabulous), but I don't feel I have contributed as many articles (or very many truly great articles) as others here, so if they're replying, I'd rather have Curtis talk to them. If you don't feel like revealing yourself, that's fine, but it would help me out. :-) Jwrosenzweig 21:53, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

By the way, a helpful fact for your article: "Wikipedia people" are called "Wikipedians." :) Neutrality (hopefully!) 22:34, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)

Jimmy and I have spoken to Curtis, but he is still very keen to get more responses. Please let him know as soon as possible if you are interested. Angela. 17:52, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)

I dropped him an email. -- Jmabel|Talk 19:04, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)

Mr. Krueger, make sure you find out about the real nature of The Wikipedia, the bis and abusing of people that don't support the views and aren't in with the clique that "run" it. Some suggested starting points below. You need to go to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Neutrality

and check out "oppose" and also look at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Rex071404

You might also try user Rex071404. I don't know if he's interested but I'll put a note on his Wikipedia talk page.WikiUser 20:45, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)WikiUser 20:55, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28news%29"

*(POST 2) From Rex071404's talk page: (cur) (last) 20:51, 14 Oct 2004 WikiUser (News from WikiUser.)

---

Please note the following which I read on user Neutrality's talk page after finding the details on the Village Pump page. I've added my comment that I put on N...'s talk page:

Note from Curtis Krueger Hi Neutrality: Nice Dodecahedron. Any chance you would mind chatting with a newspaper reporter? If interested, I can be reached :at 1-(800)333 7505 ext. 8232. I need to use real names of people involved etc., but if you wouldn't mind chatting about Wikipedia -- or know anyone else who would be interested in talking to me today or tomorrow -- please call. Thanks! Curtis Krueger St. Petersburg Times krueger@sptimes.com

"but if you wouldn't mind chatting about Wikipedia" You need to go to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Neutrality

and check out "oppose" and also look at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Rex071404

and similar pages to get a clearer picture of user Neutrality Mr. Krueger.

"or know anyone else who would be interested in talking to me today or tomorrow"

You might try user Rex071404. I don't know if he's interested but I'll put a note on his Wikipedia talk page.WikiUser 20:45, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)"WikiUser 20:51, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rex071404"

*(POST 3) From user Neutrality's talk page:(cur) (last) 20:45, 14 Oct 2004 WikiUser (Added comment to Mr. Krueger.)

---

Note from Curtis Krueger

 Hi Neutrality:
 Nice Dodecahedron.
 Any chance you would mind chatting with a newspaper reporter? If interested, I can be reached at 1-(800)333 7505 ext. 8232. I need to use real names of people involved etc., but if you wouldn't mind chatting about Wikipedia -- or know anyone else who would be interested in talking to me today or tomorrow -- please call.
 Thanks!
 Curtis Krueger
 St. Petersburg Times
 krueger@sptimes.com

"but if you wouldn't mind chatting about Wikipedia" You need to go to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Neutrality

and check out "oppose" and also look at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Rex071404

and similar pages to get a clearer picture of user Neutrality Mr. Krueger.

"or know anyone else who would be interested in talking to me today or tomorrow"

You might try user Rex071404. I don't know if he's interested but I'll put a note on his Wikipedia talk page.WikiUser 20:45, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Neutrality"

WikiUser 18:17, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

(Reverted due to racist change of page by Tagishsimon.

Kindly explain this comment. --Tagishsimon (talk)

I'm still awaiting an explanation of your accusation of racism. I presume you are honourable enough to make such an explanation. --Tagishsimon (talk)

WikiUser 21:40, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)For the fourth or fifth time you've blocked me from writing to my page. For God's sake how can I write on the page as you demand when you and your friends have blocked me from it for half an hour? What's the matter with you people. I'm not your mother.

I was trying to write this:

"Difficult to ignore someone who is vandalising the wikipedia. I would like an explanation from WikiUser: he absolutely owes me that, having levelled a charge of racism. I note that the definition of the UYK in wikipedia talks about "formerly distinct nations of England, Wales, Scotland,"; this being the case it seems consistent to list them as they were listed in the List of United Kingdom-related topics </wiki/List_of_United_Kingdom-related_topics>. Retrieved from "<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:WikiUser>""

You're so keen to bombard me with abuse that you're preventing me from writing to and saving this page. There's little point in bombarding me with abuse demanding answers in such a case. And while I'm trying to put my anwser from three pages back on another one's in here. How come you people can always block my edits. Get the Jesus off my back so I can save my page. You're costing me 20 minutes effort to make a tiny change to my page. To Tagishsimon: You're breaking The Wikipedia Guidelines by saying I vandalised The Wikipedia. Other people have as much right to edit it as you and your friends. I edited it.WikiUser 21:40, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"Please stop changing the List of United Kingdom-related topics article - it was correct and it is not right to change it to the way you are wanting. violet/riga (t) 21:17, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)"

You blocked me form writing to my page. As I've said before on here I'm disabled. It's taken me 40 minutes to try and write this. People able to use The Wikipedia ought to be able show some basic manners and consideration for other users.

It weren't correct. And it is right to list the U.K. as existing on the garbage Wikipedia as it (the U.K.) does exsist.WikiUser 21:41, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Everyone has the right to edit. No-one has the right to vandalise. Please explain a) why England, Scotland and Wales should not be referred to as nations or states within the United Kingdom and b) explain why my reversion was "racist" - a most serious allegation. Preferably, have the good grace to apologise and withdraw your cowardly and unfounded accusation. --Tagishsimon (talk)

BLOCKED AGAIN. I didn't vandalise anything. Stop insulting me and breaking the wikipedia guidelines. Find someone else to abuse OK?WikiUser 21:54, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Surrogate mother's off home, OK dictators?WikiUser 21:54, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Once again, explain a) why England, Scotland and Wales should not be referred to as nations or states within the United Kingdom and b) explain why my reversion was "racist" - a most serious allegation. Preferably, have the good grace to apologise and withdraw your cowardly and unfounded accusation. --Tagishsimon (talk)

To Violetriga - Thanks for your new editing of the U.K. Topics page. Jwrosenzweig is of course talking nonsense when he claims an essential explanatory note is "both POV and inappropriate for a list". The linked page "Subdivisions of the United Kingdom" has of course still got some mixed up errors.WikiUser 19:18, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Unblocked

I've unblocked you. Please try to work out issues with articles on the talk page, and avoid edit wars in the future. Gentgeen 06:37, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

(I thanked Genteen by e-mail.) But I want to point out that as my record and the detailed e-mail I sent him asking him to unblock me showed, that lecture's inappropriate. That's just how I joined the Wikipedia and acted but fascists here who dominate the place won't let one do what he said. WikiUser 18:15, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"WikiUser

I've unblocked WikiUser. I don't think a one month long block of a user for violating the 3 revert rule and POV pushing is an appropiate action without a ruling by the Arbritration Committee. If you think a user needs a long term editing restriction (which in my book is anything longer than 72 hours), the ArbCom needs to be involved. Gentgeen 06:26, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)"

Retrieved from here.

I didn't of course break the 3-revert rule and never have, and wasn't involved in POV pushing and never have been. As I made clear in the e-mail I sent to Genteen asking him to unblock me. I would have put this after the note but of course "Neutrality" deleted it before I could.* (I'm putting this here rather than at the end of the page, as I have been meaning to get round to adding this here since it was posted by Genteen on 24 November.) WikiUser 19:29, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Home page

Click here to visit my user page. (Had to delete link because Wikipedia won't let me post link to my homepage but lets everyone else do it. Typical Wikipedia.) WikiUser 20:16, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC) (External link.) If I am blocked I'll put a notice on that page. I never know when I'm next going to be blocked as admin "Neutrality" has blocked me in the past for no reason. If I'm ever blocked in this way could a responsible admin unblock me. WikiUser 21:44, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You should know this

I have asked someone to look into Neutrality's blocking of you. I have asked neutrality to explain to you why he has blocked you. You should know that I am not able to vote. I have not been at wikipedia long enough - you need to have been contributing for at least 90 days, I only have 32. CheeseDreams 21:21, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks you're very helpful, but note I was un-blocked. These blocks happened about a week ago. You can contact me when you wish but I have to log off at the moment.WikiUser 21:27, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Just before I go -on the recent changes page it says: "Voting is underway in the Arbitration Committee Elections. You can vote here." But it's easy to miss. How about a banner there?!WikiUser 21:38, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

just add the tag to the top of pages where you think it needs to go be bold

Could you mind doing he a favour? Would you have a look at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/John Kenney and see if you think it counts as abuse of adminship. If you think it does, please add your certification, as I am in need of a second signature. CheeseDreams 18:53, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'll definately look tomorrow but my sessions up and I have to log-off. Best wishesWikiUser 18:57, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hi! CheeseDreams.

From reading the policy guidelines at "Wikipedia:Protection policy" I see he did break them. I've spent 2 hours (since I came on-line today), reading the page in question and it's history, and the RfC page. But the policy is stacked against you in typical Wikipedia fashion. It 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 sysop and have failed. This must involve the same dispute, not different disputes. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts,"

I haven't "tried to resolve a dispute", with him, let alone "the same dispute". So what should I do? I can only be on-line until 9.50 pm (GMT) tonight. So I can't "and each of them must certify it by signing this page". I can only put a an endorsement at the bottom of that section which I will do now. Have you contacted directly FT2 or anyone else involved? If you can enter an e-mail address on your preferences page, you can perhaps contact them quicker.

One thing; some of the people listed in "Users who endorse this summary": (Mackensen, Chris0, Proteus, Neutrality, Rhobite, Antandrus), shouldn't be there as the page says that section should be used: "by the sysop whose actions are disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the sysop's actions did not violate policy." They should use the Outside Comments section as he admits he did violate the policy and it's a matter of record that he did. You can take this further perhaps because the RfC page isn't fair.WikiUser 20:48, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

barnstar for Rex

I don't recall you actually being involved with any concensus-building including Rex? It sounds like your choosing the underdog simply because he is the underdog. Take a look at Texans for Truth talk page for example, or really any other page, or the evidence page on his arbitration case. --kizzle 23:42, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

I'm afraid your trying to involve me in your own thought processes rather than dealing in the facts of what I've done on the Wikipedia notice-board. I said months ago that I had read thousands of lines of stuff of the arbitration against Rex. I awarded him a star a month ago after meaning to get round to it for 3 months. He showed an amazing amount of patience while being up against a group of people that were goading him even as the silly arbcom case was in progress. I said so when I awarded it and "Neutrality" broke the rules and deleted it and banned me for a month -again breaking the Blocking policy. This is a web site. Not a police state or prison controlled by "Neutrality" and Raul654 and their other friends.WikiUser 19:07, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Blocking you without reason is definetely wrong, its just a barnstar. I heavily disagree with your praise of Rex in this situation but that doesn't mean you should be able to express your opinion, I was just curious if you had ever had the experience of participating in dialog with Rex or knew intimately his history of dialog, as apparently you do. I guess to each his own. --kizzle 02:12, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)

Re my question titled "A good idea?"

I'VE JUST POSTED THIS QUESTION ON MFP'S TALK PAGE:

Why did you remove my polite question, prompted by your own concern about the moving of these pictures? If "Neutrality" is moving every single picture, apparently there's thousands, from The Wikipedia to The Commons without asking any one of the other users, including the people that took the trouble to upload them, that is a matter for concern.

Why insult other users for no reason, when they're taking the trouble to ask you about the same thing you asked about? You know more about the situation,and the technicalities than me in this so why be so insulting when I take the trouble to help?

Original question is available on my talk page so people can see that what I say is true.

ORIGINAL QUESTION THAT MFP DELETED FROM HIS TALK PAGE:

Re: "Hi Neutrality - am I right in guessing you are (slowly?) moving (all?) pics from Wikipedia storage to Wikimedia Commons storage? " - Should he be doing this Has he asked people? Does it cause problems?:

"- could I ask when doing so with plant pics, to make sure there is a added to the page they're stored in? That way they show up in the subcategories on the page at Wikimedia. I've added to the Thujopsis dolabrata page there, but don't know what others you've been doing. Thanks - MPF 18:06, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)"

Thanks. WikiUser 21:41, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MPF" WikiUser 17:08, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hi WikiUser - sorry about that; the main reason I'd removed it was that the way you'd inserted it left my user page indexed at several Category pages (you'd not put nowiki tags around them!), and it was late at night and I didn't have time to go through it properly (there were still a few mainspace edits I wanted to get done before turning in). Also - forgive me if I'm wrong here - but I sensed a degree of animosity between yourself and Neutrality, which I'd rather not get involved in! - MPF 14:55, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thankyou- I'm so used to being blocked etc. that I assumed I was being cold-shouldered. Excuse me. As for "Neutrality", I'm not responsible for his actions. I was asking you about the pictures, as I said because I'm interested to know what was happening. He doesn't answer me when I ask questions so it make even more sense to ask you.

So what's happening? If all images get moved then people will have to join the commons to edit or delete there own contributed pictures. This is unecessarily complicated and they may not want to do that. People don't necessarily understand the complexities of this site. I've got a computer degree and I find it difficult to use - for instance I don't really understand your first sentence above. WikiUser 21:51, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks; no, I've not heard anything. I'd assume it is some sort of internal housekeeping, though I think you probably have a valid point about joining commons (I'm in it anyway, so it doesn't affect me so much). Sorry to read about the blocking you mention above, I didn't know about it. Of my first sentence above, if when you type [[Category:Things]], that then appears as a category link on the page and indexes the page in that category. To mention the category without making it an effective indexer, it needs a colon in at the start, so - [[:Category:Things]], then clicking on the category will take you to the category list, but won't list the page at the category. Note though that the colon is invisible in the formatted page. To make them appear in this paragraph in square brackets, I type <nowiki> before, and </nowiki> after, then the wikilinking doesn't happen at all. Hope that helps! - MPF 19:15, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Discovery

I've just worked something out. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rienzo for information.

Whiter than White?

If an active arbitrator admitted that they are a right wing POV warrier who has, in real life, even acted in such a way as to have been suspended from practicing law, are they fit to continue in their post and meet out judgements on others.

I don't know who you mean, but when you're ready let me know. You can count on me to do what I can against the dirty cabal here of people who control the Wikipedia and use it to internet harrass people who are kind enough to use their ruddy site. Put an e-mail on your preferences page and you can e-mail me privately too. WikiUser 15:33, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

---

Thank you for your endorsement, the Red Faction will remember that you are a friend of the people. Someday, we will be successful in our campaign for due process and judicial rights here at the wikipedia. Lirath Q. Pynnor

• [1] I have concurred. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Sorry Lir, I put that in the wrong place, it was an answer to CheeseDreams. WikiUser 15:33, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Just read your stuff at the link. Thanks for your support. I hadn't read, not interested, "jimbo"'s user page before, until after he goaded me for as he said "fun", but when I did read it yesterday I saw he paid half a million dollars to run the wikipedia. I feel that's signifcant, and I didn't know it was so much. But still as I said below no one can buy the right to hassle people and if he didn't want all the public to be treated as equals on this site, and with the basic decency all normal adults expect, he should have made that clear on the front page instead of labouring, extremely, the opposite claim. Not to mention all those glowing press releases etc. WikiUser 15:44, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Goal?

I don't know what you hope to accomplish by writing provocative comments on Jimbo's page and the mailing list. Your rhetoric is far too extreme to get a hearing; to get listened to one must be calm and polite, especially if you're promoting a minority view (of course, that's not always enough). I know you have issues with how things are run around here, but right or wrong they're not going to change very much or very quickly, so at best one can hope for tiny victories. Right now you're just making people angry and contemptuous of you, and definitely not helping your case, whatever it is you're trying to accomplish. I suggest just laying off the whole thing, especially the legal talk and the attacks on Jimbo (who, while flawed, can't be expected to remain calm in the face of ferocious criticism), and instead take a break or work on articles. I'd also suggest giving up on your battle with Neutrality, as that (right or wrong) is simply not going to go anywhere. Just my two cents (as someone who myself is a victim of the authorities' poor judgement). VeryVerily 23:56, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I take your post as genuinely meant "Verily", I voted for you in the arbcom election by the way. But please note that a lot of what you say is just your interpretations and not what I'm actually doing. I haven't been provocative, just dealing in facts. jimbo" wales chose to be abusive to me in response to my polite response to him raising an issue on the mailing list. If he doesn't want to use his mailing list except to abuse people he should say so. If he doesn't want the public to use his site he should put that on the front page. Just give a factual statement about the place, rather than suckering people, and donors, in (to give their time and a GNU licence to their efforts), with the wikipedia glowing self-propaganda. I have no "goal". I'm just trying to use a site. If there weren't people who abuse me I could devote myself to my (small) editing efforts, as I intended and tried to do when I was suckered in. WikiUser 15:30, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Forgot to mention. I bust a gut during the election to try and do my bit to make it fair. No "goal", just doing what I can to support fairness and see people are treated right. Also the abuse comes and originates from their side. Check my history and their general behavior on the site. WikiUser 15:54, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It is certainly true that I don't know the whole history of your present conflict, but the comments you put on Jimbo's page are definitely the sort that will get you disliked rather than listened to, even if you feel they are appropriate. Surely you can predict that? Yes, it may be that Jimbo makes comments of the sort he shouldn't with the weight of his position backing them up, but I'm guessing most donors know that Jimbo's absolute authority remains a principle of Wikipedia and trust him to generally make good decisions, perhaps realizing and accepting that sometimes he does not. If you want to protest what he says to you on the mailing list, you should in my opinion do so with more restraint. At the moment it looks like the conflict has already escalated to a point where the two sides are not going to "work it out", so that's why it might be good to simply step away. (Again, I offer my own experience to relate to, to indicate I'm far from happy with the status quo: Jimbo made a deathly wrong call (and a disappointingly aggressive one) in my case, but I'm not going to hang around and hammer on it.) This of course is just my impression based on what I have seen. Thanks for your vote! VeryVerily 16:39, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Jimbo's payment of a half-million dollars is of interest; however, one could reasonably question the veracity of that -- and no proof has been submitted. Furthermore, it stands to reason that if Jimbo has a half-million dollars... he probably has a great deal more, and I will not allow the rich to laud the glory of their donations...when they should return even more to the hard-working common people of the world.
  • Jimbo told me that he was not rich -- and if he has the ability to donate a half-million dollar...Well, I trust him even less now. In any case, a half-million dollars is a small price to pay for the long-term benefits of being "Mr. Wikipedia" as some call him. Regardless of how much he has donated, he needs to relinquish his authoritarian control; he is hurting his own site.
    • Whatever, here is my official condemnation of the wikipedia: kapitalism.net Lirath Q. Pynnor

It's good. Remember to try to keep a record of the objectionable stuff on wikipedia and that you can e-mail me via the wikipedia or WikiUser@emails.net You're right about the money thing too. The Guardian newspaper, Yahoo, MSN etc., etc., have million/billion dollar grossing sites but they don't abuse their users and sucker them in with misleading glowing self-propaganda claiming users will be well treated and protected from abuse with loads of rights. WikiUser 18:48, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I desperetly need your help in Dispute resolution -- Zain

I desperetly need your help in dispure resolution. An 'admin' has removed all my contens. and not even accepting last version done by him self.

please help required.

Zain 22:10, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

As you probably know I'm only an ordinary user not an admin. But I'll be happy to help if I can. I'm using the computer for some work I must finish today, at the moment. I'll read the material as soon as possible. WikiUser 16:14, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC) I'm still reading. WikiUser 17:32, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ovaltineys reply

I have replied on my discussion page, thanks --mervyn 12:31, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Claire Weekes

Howdy, Part of my changes to the article were only say the page conformed with Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies), which states the the lead sentence should be the way that I have structured it. I was also removing some material that I thought was POV and editing the article to make it easier to read. I also fixed some mistakes like having an 1970's instead of 1970s. Also Revert#Explain_reverts states that you should always explain why you reverted the page not just leave a blank edit summary. Evil Monkey → Talk 21:48, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

All the information needed for people to see what was going on was available. I wouldn't edit an article on, say economics, if I didn't know anything about it. Please only edit articles to improve them. Not make them worse or pointless. WikiUser 18:20, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Quotation marks

I'm all in favour of protecting articles against rampant Americanisation, but I do accept the Wikipedia standard of using double quotation marks. Aesthetically, given Wikipedia fonts and styles, they are much easier to see than single quotation marks. Kind regards, jguk 21:13, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I be English an me place is ter die for americans killin chilidren in Iraq against international law- so's I ain't at liberty ter answer yer question mighty one. (I seen yer page.) WikiUser 21:22, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Case any americans cum on an tell me their gonna ban me fer using incorrect English, (of which they're a course the leadin guardians), I'm talkin in me dialect, from where I'm from, which is me right, same as all the other ethnic groups on wikipedia are allowed ter. OK? WikiUser 21:30, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You write, "British English for British subjects and articles already in British English. Well established convention on wikipedia". This is not entirely true. It is a general principle, but the WP:MOS requires some exceptions to this. I disagree with these, but there is no consensus to remove these from the policy. These include the banning of the term "US" (we should always use "U.S." as that is the term more commonly used in that country!), and the more abused than respected policy that we should use the Oxford comma (which has all but died out in the UK except for the OUP). There are also requirements in WP:MOS to use American punctuation in some circumstances, even in articles otherwise written in British English.

I disagree with much of this; I'd far rather a straightforward "Use one standard form of English consistently in an article" approach, with a preference for a standard form of English appropriate to a particular article, if there is one. But most Wikipedians oppose such a policy, absent the exceptions outlined above, so we have to live without it, jguk 21:33, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Stop breaking the law. English people are not allowed to discuss things and must know their place on the mighty Wikipedia.OK? WikiUser 15:03, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

3RR

I'm being kind and will take the current status of your edits on secondary modern school as being on the third revert. Revert once more and you will be blocked for 24 hours. violet/riga (t) 22:05, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I didn' do 3 reverts I did one or two at most. I made a point of editing rather than reverting, AS IS MY STANDARD PRACTICE. Stop targetting me for abuse an mis-using yer ADMINISTRATOR privileges against the rules of The Wikipedia Foundation. I wish to file an arbitration complaint against yer but first I'll go fer mediation.WikiUser 13:55, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

FURTHER. Your behaviour is additionally disgusting considering that when I left a polite note on your talk page:

(((Re U.K. Topics page Thanks for your new editing of the U.K. Topics page. Jwrosenzweig is of course talking nonsense when he claims an essential explanatory note is "both POV and inappropriate for a list". The linked page "Subdivisions of the United Kingdom" has of course still got some mixed up errors.WikiUser 19:16, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Violetriga")))

you never had the basic manners ter answer even tho you answered several other people soon after.

Instead in additiona to the physical abuse against me you added ter when that 'tag' bloke was bombardin me with demands despite the fact that I asked you all ter stop as I'm disabled an have difficulty typing... instead, you join in a pack attack with these others. I AS USUAL being conscientious an decent, ave spent the last few weeks writing around 40 articles that have been requested for months an that no one else was interested in doin. An when some people who just wanna use the wikipedia ter abuse people find that I have, they go thru them all and and trash em. Then they come an attack me in a group with you joining in and MISUSING YOUR ADMINISTRATOR PRIVILEGES ON BEHALF OF THE WIKIPEDIA FOUNDATION.

You've no grounds fer threatening me or banning me. An I demand that the WIKIPEDIAS FOUNDATION take proper action against yer.OK? I give warning that you people have no right to misuse the WIKIPEDIA to force me to give up using it, or if I don't, suffer health damage. And it is THE WIKIPEDIA FOUNDATION'S responsibilty to stop you all doing it, particularly you personally as you are acting as their agent.WikiUser 14:18, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"Ownership" of articles

Can you give me a break and find someone else to latch onto, or just do it to your own articles?

WikiUser, feel free to debate what should go in articles but please remember that they're not your articles or anyone else's articles - they're common resources. Remember, "If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, do not submit it." -- ChrisO 23:54, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

One more bit of abuse from you after the constant targetting for abuse you gave me from the moment I came here, an for months, an I'm pursuing all the complaint actions possible on the wikipedia against yer.OK? You arte the most flaming and abusive person I've come across on the wikipidia or anywhere else on the net in six years. Find someone else to latch onto.WikiUser 13:52, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Please show me where I have made spelling and grammar mistakes

Can you please point where I have added "spelling and grammar mistakes and other stuff to make them worse." Looking back through my contributions for edits I've made to 'your' articles:

• John Bluthal - [2]
• Arthur Marshall - [3]
• Hot Chocolate (band) - [4]
• Dora Bryan - [5] (to which you have made an edit that has now been reverted by another user)
• Lesley Duncan - [6] (this seems to be the only one where I have actually rewritten a sentence)
• Claire Weekes - [7] (this is the latest edit I've made and excludes the earlier edits that brought me to your attention for sabotaging articles)
• William Q De Funiak - [8]
• Ian Lavender - [9] (which I also moved to the spelling used at IMDB)
• Derek Royle - [10]
• Jack Haig - [11]

Evil Monkey → Talk 03:47, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

On top of your targetted abuse and trashing articles you want me to do all your wiki editing for you now. Look STOP TARGETTING ME FOR ABUSE.OK? One more an I'm pursuing all the complaint actions available on the wikipedia against yer.OK?WikiUser 13:48, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Re the above

For reasons of obvious mendaciousness, no doubt because they have seen from my record how polite and helpful I am to people, and how conscientious, the above people have thought: there's a nice bloke. we'll hassle him, and mmm, he's disabled and has said typing is physically painful for him so mmm, that'll be even more pleasurable for us. Re their dirty conduct: I've placed copies of the relevent messages on violetriga, monkey, and chriso's talk pages, so all can see their breach of wikipeida rules WikiUser 14:54, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You just spammed me with a load of irrelevant nonesense. I've not read it as your arguments with other people does not have anything to do with me. As for my involvement I hope you'll realise that I was working to the MOS rules and yes, you did revert four times. violet/riga (t) 18:29, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I edited. I'll check but I made a point of only reverting once or twice. As IS MY USUAL CUSTOM. How many times must I write something before I get the same basic right not to be discriminated against on THIS SITE?!!!!! If it was more it was a mistake.

From my record here of busting a gut to be helpful and treating people such respect, and just as part of wikipedia's norm you should come to my page treat me with the basic respect same as everyone else gets. You have no right to call me a spammer! It is not irrelevant nonsense. It is related to the page and the editing activity on it that YOU said you were gonna ban me over. People on wikipedia regard it as offensive goading abuse to call em spammers. STOP doing it to me. I have THE SAME rights as ALL who come ere!!!!!!!!

As you admit that u only wanna come ere and threaten me with banning but not do your admin tasks: "You just spammed me with a load of irrelevant nonesense. I've not read it ", I wanna know about who you want to be mediater in my complaint against you?WikiUser 18:43, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Glad you've not initiated any complaints - not really worth either of our time, I think, and I'm sure we can both get on with making articles better instead. violet/riga (t) 20:27, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

And yet before you said that and before I could even answer you have insulted me and my country on another page.WikiUser 20:39, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"Your" country? Really? violet/riga (t) 20:45, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes I have a country. Are you insulting me, again, personally by saying I of all the people on earth have no right to a nationality and must be stateless, or are you just breaking the Wikipedia guidelines by trying to goad me with abuse? (In what any reasonable user would consider a particularly unacceptable type of breach of the rules.) Either way I want you to stop hassling me so I can get back working on articles. As I have been for weeks peacefully and politely with others (providing more than 40 requested articles), until you and your friends began targetting me for abuse.WikiUser 21:16, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I merely meant to imply that "your" country may be the same as people you are arguing with. violet/riga (t) 22:04, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

3RR again

You are now on your third revert of List of United Kingdom nations by population. Your use of "countries" rather than "nations" is inconsistent with the article title and is against the previously agreed consensus expressed on Talk:England. Please seek consensus on what the term should be rather than imposing your own view. I suggest raising this issue on Talk:United Kingdom so that any change to the terminology can be made on all of the articles which currently refer to UK nations rather than countries. If you revert List of United Kingdom nations by population again you will be blocked from editing for 24 hours. -- ChrisO 20:51, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

USERS PLEASE NOTE:I have not reverted it at all. I have edited the pages in question, in the same way as everyone else does edit pages. I warned this user that if he continued his abuse of me I would proceed with complaints against him. I HAVE GIVEN plenty of notice to The Wikipedia Foundation that I am partially disabled and have been caused great distress by the continual abuse of this and other users who have targetted me for abuse since I joined. And I want The Wikipedia Foundation to note that this discrimination, insult and abuse is driving me towards considering suicide. I CALL FOR all users and Administrators of goodwill to stop this user from harrassing me in this way.WikiUser 21:16, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

May I suggest a vacation from Wikipedia if you are so stressed by it? You are not the target of abuse or discrimination just people disagreeing with your edits. violet/riga (t) 22:04, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Users of goodwill please note: I have researched the appropriate procedure to deal with my complaint about this person and been told that it is to go to mediation. I have asked this person to do so more than once and they refuse.WikiUser 17:18, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I haven't refused anything. You have a complaint and so you should take the next step - it's not down to me! Please proceed as you see fit. violet/riga (t) 17:22, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"I haven't refused anything." It's a matter of record that I asked this person twice to go to mediation and they refused.WikiUser 17:30, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have advised you that, as far as I am concerned, your complaint is not appropriate for mediation. I have not chosen a mediator because I believe that to be your job (being the initiator) and, again, because I don't see the point of mediation when no disagreement is apparent. Move the complaint on or forget about it, please. violet/riga (t) 17:37, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Stop making false statements I have done all the things necessary to move it on and you have blocked the process in every way. I was doing so as you were writing the above fasle statement. Your abuse here will form part of my complaint. Once again; stop targetting me for abusive breaches of the rules. You are required on Wikipedia to act in good faith and not lie about statements that are a matter of record on the same page a couple of inches away, and not to goad people.WikiUser 17:49, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Choose a mediator and I will be happy with that. violet/riga (t) 18:17, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

In that case it will be appropriate for you to only address me via the mediation complaint process. Please do not contact me directly again!WikiUser 18:23, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I note that you have placed a request on Wikipedia:Requests for mediation, though you put it into the wrong section. Please take another look and add details of the complaint. violet/riga (t) 18:26, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

May I suggest you add such details soon or somebody will remove it from the page. violet/riga (t) 00:19, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Changes to "Superstition (song)" and "Your Cheatin' Heart"

You've reverted my changes to these articles twice, and accused me of "insulting" you in the process. Despite evidence that it will be fruitless, I'm going to go through this once in good faith. First, fixing and improving aritcles is not "insulting" anyone, it's the way things work here; remember the bit about "ruthlessly edited". My changes involved specific formatting issues (ie. songs go in quotes not italics), grammar/clarity issues (ie. "it's" vs. "its" and "Arp, Moog sound" vs. "Arp and Moog sounds' -- they are two different instruments) and factual clarity (ie. It can't be true both that "Ray Charles had the only chart success with the song" and that "it was a posthumous #1 for Williams"). If you'd like to go through the changes one by one and hash out which version is better, or if you'd like to work from the most recent edit towards something you think is better, that's fine, but please don't revert these again. Jgm 18:02, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You statements are abusive and insulting. You have no grounds for accusing me of bad faith, I explained my edits very politely "please...." etc. I have the same right to edit as anyone else. Your claim that I do not, and that you do and I do not, and any edit I make is ipso facto an offence on wikipedia, is insulting. It is clear from your false statements about those pages and your extreme abuse of me that I stand no chance of you being reasonable or not continuing to abuse me. I therefore request that you go to a mediation complaint with me as it's clearly the only way I can stop you claiming I have no right to edit the pages and you do. (I don't know y u and so many people on here think this, nevertheless it's not true. If others have the right to edit pages so do I!. Do you agree to putting a request on the mediation request page?WikiUser 18:14, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

How to do a biography

FYI, as you seem to be doing biographies these days, you might find it useful to take a look at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies) to see what the standard format for these is. -- ChrisO 00:09, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Final warning

A few months ago, Jimbo Wales commented on Wikipedia's "boundless good will" in tolerating your personal attacks and unsupported allegations against other users (including Jimbo himself), as well as your refusal to abide by Wikipedia standards of conduct and editing.

Just in case you got the wrong idea, our good will is not boundless. You are, in fact, right on the edge of the boundary.

• You don't own articles - they are common property, and anyone can edit them. You're totally unjustified in attacking other editors for correcting what are very often your own errors and omissions.

• You aren't being stalked. If people are picking up on your edits, that is because you aren't abiding by the rules or by the established house style.

• You aren't being discriminated against. Everyone is obliged to abide by these policies, including you and me both. Being English or Jewish or disabled does not give you an exemption.

• You have absolutely no right to post slurs about other editors' motives - so far you've called people Nazis, vandals, fascists and anti-semites, simply because they've had the temerity to edit articles in ways that you dislike or because they've politely asked you to abide by Wikipedia policies.

• You also have no right to abuse Wikipedia dispute resolution procedures for your own ends, as in your frivolous arbitration request last August and the equally frivolous mediation request you've made this week.

So, for the last time, please read and follow the policies set out in the links below.

1. Wikipedia:Civility
2. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
3. Wikipedia:No legal threats
4. Wikipedia:No personal attacks
5. Wikipedia:Staying cool when the editing gets hot
6. Wikipedia:Three revert rule
7. Wikipedia:Wikiquette

Your editing access to Wikipedia is a privilege, not a right, and it can be revoked if necessary. If you continue with your present disruptive behaviour I will take the first step towards a long-term ban on your editing privileges - see User talk:ChrisO/RfC WikiUser. I hope that it won't be necessary to turn this draft request for comment into a formal one. But this will happen unless you decide to change course. -- ChrisO 22:40, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You should also read Wikipedia:Ignore all rules