User:Anthere/penderie

Wikipedia:Counter Vandalism Unit

Hi, I know you guys already gave me permission to use the wikimedia and wikipedia logos to be used on the CVU images. Several users appear to have concers if I actualy got the permission or not. It might be best for you to mention that I/We have permission to use the wikipedia/wikimedia logos on wikipedia.

Hope this makes some sense. --Cool Cat ^Talk 19:26, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification - as I've said, my biggest concern is the use of the logos to suggest that the Foundation is endorsing sockpuppet claims and the like. (And both are problematic in that respect, since they prominantly say "Wikimedia Foundation." Snowspinner 07:13, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

link

Volker Grassmuck

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Template/Workshop

You, or any Wikipedia user, can contribute your suggestions and comments to the /Workshop page of any active arbitration case. Comments on evidence or proposals can help in understanding the import of evidence and in refining proposals. Proposed principles, findings of fact, or remedies may be listed on /Proposed decision and form part of the final decision. Fred Bauder 18:31, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Heh

:( Wahhhh!!! R e dwolf24 (talk) 08:03, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Edit summaries

So I've been going through the admin list to see if the inactive list needs updating and I am making comments where edit summary use is particularly low. In your case it's only around 10 or 20% percent. Sorry to be a busybody, just that edit summaries are becoming more of a criterion on RfA and it seems only fair to ask current admins to keep up the habit if we're judging potential admins that way. Cheers, Marskell 13:50, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Western Sahara Infobox/Vote

As I notied on the talk page, I am a proponent of yet another option: have both SADR/Morocco information in the box, but I don't know infobox design well enough to do one. Can you look into it? --Nlu 16:17, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I decided to tackle it myself. Please see what you think. --Nlu 08:21, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Samira Bellil

Salut Florence. Can you have a look at the article and especially the talk page to understand what's really going on there (where one wikipedian are trying to push his way against the will of 4 established one). I made a reference to Laurent Mucchielli, the CNRS expert in the field and also to his book from Le Monde Diplomatique. Cheers -- Svest 23:16, 5 November 2005 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up}

Historically Black College and University recruitment

I'm not sure if we have encountered each other before but I would like to request your opinion. Jmabel and myself have been discussing the merits of actively recruiting students and faculty from Historically Black Colleges and Universities. We have identified Wiley College as an ideal candidate for several reasons: they are the oldest HBCU west of the Mississippi, they have been a pioneer in the usage of computer technology in college education in Texas, and their location allows the outreach to send a representative in person, me. However, I have been putting it off because I realized that it would be odd to walk into Wiley to recruit on behalf of Wikipedia just because Joe and I think its a good idea. I thought it would be best if I consulted Angela, Jimbo and you and see what ya'll think before running off and making an appointment to discuss an outreach. Please respond as soon as you can. Thanks. -JCarriker 08:42, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

The idea is to recruit faculty and students from Wiley as regular conributors in an attempt to diversify the community and soften our systemic bias. Please see:Wikipedia:Historically Black College and University recruitment I'd write more but I have a class in six hours and no sleep yet. -JCarriker 09:06, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for you patience. What we would hope to achieve with a meeting is to see if Wiley is interested in encouraging its faculty and students to become regular contributors. Specifics really can't be known until a meeting takes place, e.g. if Wiley would want to do something formal or informal, or even if they are interested at all. My primary reason for requesting your opinion is to see if the outreach might have your support. Without the support of Jimbo, Angela, and yourself I really don’t feel qualified or comfortable meeting with Wiley to ask them to help us recruit new wikipedians from their ranks, as that creates an environment in which I could easily be mistakenly identified as an official representative of Wikipedia. Basically all that I need to know right now is that if I meet with Wiley, may I enjoy your support in that effort and that you will be interested in what Wiley had to say. If you would like more details about the outreach, please read Wikipedia:Historically Black College and University recruitment or contact Jmabel, this is really his idea, I’m only helping. Thanks. -JCarriker 08:56, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Image:Molsoncentre.jpg

Re: Image:Molsoncentre.jpg. This image was available for free download from the official webpage of the Molson Centre. As the centre has subsequently been renamed the Bell Centre, the original webpage no longer exists. I cannot comment on who the copyright holder is as I have no way of determining. I would suggest that the image be deleted if someone is claiming it as their own, as the original site cannot be obtained to check the status of the image. Jcmurphy 03:05, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Christmas Pudding Recipe

Hello, Anthere. You don't know me, but I have just seen a message that you wrote to the Christmas Pudding talk page in February of last year, saying that you would love to have a recipe. I just wanted to let you know that I made my puddings today, and took a photo to upload to Wikipedia for the Christmas pudding article, which had some photos that were tagged as having doubtful copyright status.

I don't know if you have found a recipe that you were happy with, but I'm writing to offer you mine. I'm extremely fortunate in having it. An old woman, now dead, who used to teach piano at the school where my father was director, used to make us a delicious pudding every year, and, at my father's request, parted with the recipe. It was far better than the one my mother used to make; it was far better than various puddings I tried from books by famous writers such as Delia Smith. I began to sell them for charities, and people would sometimes phone me and order more, saying that they were the best Christmas puddings that they had ever tasted. A lot of Christmas puddings are too dark, and are a bit heavy. Mine is light and moist and fruity.

Let me know if you'd like me to e-mail you the recipe, using the link at the left of your user page. I realize, reading this, that it looks a bit like spam, but I assure you, you won't find this message on any other talk pages. I just wrote to you because I saw your message on the Christmas pudding talk page. Also, in the true Wikipedia spirit, I'm not trying to sell the recipe!

By the way, I'm not a professional cook, but it's a hobby that I love. I spent August at the Cordon Bleu School in Paris last year; it was a fantastic experience.

AnnH ^(talk) 00:10, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Counter Vandalism Unit

Wikipedia:Counter Vandalism Unit/Watched I am considering putting this template on articles suffering from heavy vandalism in an effort to adverise that there are people dedicated to fight vandalism. Given the latest CNN interview I think it is necesary to advertise bodies that are deidicated in combating vandalism. I also hope this will discourage vandalism as people will know we are watching.

I want to have the Boards ok for using the wikipedia and wikimedia logo like this (the CVU images as the apear above), primarily as a precation for incidents regarding copyrights of the Wikipedia/Wikimedia logos. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 18:48, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

hi. I will wait a bit to see the community's opinion on this first. It seems to be the first logical step and I do not want to influence it :-) Anthere

Semi-protection

I've left this message on your Meta page as well, but I wanted to make sure you got this. At Wikipedia:Semi-protection policy, a couple users and myself are attempting to gather consensus about a possible change in editing. So as not to keep the community out of the loop, we've been posting to user talk pages, which seems to have worked. If you can add your thoughts to the talk page, it would be greatly appreciated. We've gone over a few issues, ranging from perception of anti-wiki to time limits, and recycling pagemove code, so you might want to check out #Rehashing to get up to speed. Thanks in advance, Mys e kurity^{(have you seen this?)} 21:25, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Requests

I can vouch for Linuxbeak, Brian0918, and Spangineer as trustworthy en users. Raul654 23:31, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Greetings, and requests regarding ArbCom elections!

Greetings! I hope you're well. As you may be aware, significant discussions are underway (including prior polls) regarding the upcoming Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) elections. As a result of the recent poll, Jimbo has indicated that we should proceed with a hybrid voting/nomination process that garnered a plurality of support in the poll.

As a political animal and committed Wikipedian, I have taken an active interest in this issue and in ensuring an effective process this year. To that end, a number of Wikipedians have had additional discussions and developed a provisional ruleset to give form and detail to this year's process (we've also designed a provisional vote page template). While Wikipedia is neither a democracy nor bureaucracy, the ruleset is designed to give the electoral process legitimacy and with the hope of obviating potential challenges and additional instruction creep (as some would say of last year's election). For instance, a prominent characteristic with political elections is the presence of a neutral, ad hoc body/administrator to ensure elections are conducted properly and fairly.

During our discussions, your name was suggested as an ideal Wikipedian to function as an electoral officer for this process, whom we've entitled the Wikipedia Electoral Officer (WEO). Interested volunteers upon the WEO's approval – e.g., me! – can act to help administrate the WEO's mandate and the many ArbCom candidate pages as Wikipedia Electoral Monitors (WEMs).

Would you be willing and able to function as the WEO and to 'sanction' the rules/process we've developed for the ArbCom election? In any event, would you be able to peruse the ruleset and suggest any process improvements? All of these are works in process (as is Wikipedia), but everything should be fixed prior to the election and once there's agreement and consensus.

Please let me or us know if you have any questions or concerns. Thank you so much for your consideration and co-operation, and I hope to work with you in the time ahead! E Pluribus Anthony 11:53, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello again! I hope you're well. Recently, Kelly Martin (a current ArbCom member who is running for re-election, as you likely know) commented on the proposed ruleset above and indicated that she felt it constituted 'instruction creep' (harking of the comments of one other user) and wasn't derived through consensus. I responded. I'll gladly grant that everything is a work in progress and encourage any and more input from Wikipedians, not less.

Numerous Wikipedians have commented on the talk page and where the rules are being drafted. KM was not among them. Though she participated in prior discussions, it is odd that KM would evince consensus (or perceived lack thereof) at this late juncture when she has not participated at all in current discussions regarding Jimbo's hybrid option (i.e., since Jimbo selected it), nor when developing the ruleset presented (except her only note, prompting this one to you).

I believe this may be a belated attempt by KM to derail this well-intentioned effort to organise and codify some sort of system (particularly given the pitfalls of last year's process, which I was not involved in). I also believe her recommendations and her contacting you to discuss another approach/advocate – no matter how good-intentioned (and as much as I or others may support User:Mark_Ryan) – constitutes a conflict of interest regarding the ArbCom election process. In the very least, she is acting/recommending without any mandate or consensus regarding the proposed process, not me or my fellow Wikipedians.

I will cease and desist completely if you indicate that I should, but again I believe this effort can serve as the basis for a salient and effective improvement for the election process. I look forward to hearing from you, and thanks again for your consideration. E Pluribus Anthony 23:38, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

[1] - David Gerard 17:32, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

DG – yes: how relevant is this? It was an abortive attempt that I still support, but accepted the decisions of the ArbCom without dispute. Herein: I and others are merely trying to develop a ruleset for an effective process – whatever that is – KM initiated contact with me recently and expressed solitary dissent. Fine, but DG's recollection of this is analogous to other users (for example) dredging up another current Arbitrator's disbarment in public life (and I won't name names), so I believe this is an attempt to obfuscate one prior issue with the current one: to sully the process and to sling mud. Lastly, I'm not running for the ArbCom, so this is unjustified and KM's actions still (IMHO) constitute a conflict of interest. Anthere: please respond when able. Thanks. E Pluribus Anthony 17:40, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Anthere, further enlightening diffs: [2] [3] EPA honestly seems to mistakenly believe that (1) arbitrators are not to express any opinion outside their duties as arbitrators (2) "consensus" is achieved when one person writes something and four people comment. His objection here to Kelly's words is that, as one of four said commenters, she disagreed and said so - David Gerard 18:37, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm willing to acknowledge possible error (and have done so previously) and do not desmirch anyone from commenting on matters outside their duties. But this isn't it: is it not odd that an Arbitrator – whomever that may be – is weighing in on the ArbCom process that will select them? And not on the necessary talk pages? IMHO, that's improper and a conflict of interest ... and I think it's wholly appropriate to have stated that.

Whether DGs recent diffs are enlightening or merely producing a shadow is an entirely other matter: DG's initial note of my prior unsuccessful ArbCom case is wholly unjustified. I'm just a regular Wikipedian who initiated a case erroneously (and with all the feedback garnered) and has put it behind me. I and others have been long discussing and are attempting to formulate rules and achieve or ID consensus to ensure an effective process (i.e., perhaps not there yet). KM did not comment previously, so I question her approach but not some of her suggestions. Moreover, I believe DG (as an Arbitrator "Away") has entered the field and dealt with this (through his "one explanation") in a dispirited and distasteful manner – a "poison pill."

Anthere, I'm sorry to clutter your page with text and I will withdraw from this if necessary. However, I feel justified in bringing all of this to your attention and prevail upon you for some guidance regarding this. Thank you again for your consideration. E Pluribus Anthony 19:21, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

No problem. I have read most discussion pages yesterday (quite a few :-)) and talked to karynn and a couple others. I had little time today to answer, but received private emails on the issue, so I wish to let more opinion on the matter flow in before giving you mine :) Tomorrow likely :-) Anthere 00:30, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello! Thank you for your time and consideration of these two separate issues (methinks) – ArbCom rules and the "poison pill." I really appreciate it. :) E Pluribus Anthony 00:42, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, FYI: I just received this note from a complete stranger (and feedback regarding editing, which I completely grant!) So, I hope it's all for not what. :) Anyhow, thanks again! E Pluribus Anthony 00:52, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello again! Have you been able to assimilate or arrive at any decisions regarding the requests above? The natives are getting restless, so to speak: given the timing of the election, I believe this requires your neutral (or similar) leadership. As well, IMHO, the discussion has taken a life of its own and is getting rather circular: too many ArbComm candidates are now commenting when they perhaps shouldn't be and I do not feel I should comment on that much more. And, separately, I'd like for you to weigh in regarding the "poison pill" cited above.

I realise you must be crazy-busy, but your prompt feedback and guidance would be appreciated. Thanks again! E Pluribus Anthony 16:20, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi there. I completely understand: absolutely no problem! There have been some interesting developments (with some rumblings about timing), but there's still no clear plan of attack nor neutral party to lead and move things forward effectively. I'm sure we all look forward to you weighing in and hopefully participating somehow. Thanks again for your attention and consideration ... and happy holidays! :) E Pluribus Anthony 17:11, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Happy new year! As well, do you have any feedback on the above? Thanks. E Pluribus Anthony 00:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

I would like to wish you and your family a Merry Christmas and all the best for the New Year. Guettarda 17:01, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I wish you and your family a Merry Christmas and a happy New Year. --Bhadani 16:41, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Same here. Have a Merry Christmas and happy 2006!- JustPhil 01:06, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

This is VERY NICE to read this :-) Thanks a lot ! I appreciate. Anthere

Dealing With Information That Presents A Security Risk

I feel this template below is an important and integral part of the development of Wikipedia. As an important part of WP, would you please comment on the matter? The ongoing addition of information that may cause serious security risks to the safety of not only Wikipedians, but citizens of the non-digital world as well is in need of addressing. PeterZed 22:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Sympathy re: image deletion

I just heard about the troubles you had with regards to deletion of images you put up in good faith. As someone working on the project to clear out the {{no source}} category, I just wanted to express my sympathy for the mistakes that were made in the case of your images. AFAIK, I did not delete any of them, but I will see if I can figure out which ones they were, and see if I can find them on the mirrors, if they have not already been found. Again, sorry. JesseW, the juggling janitor 09:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I got a list of the images that were deleted (by bugging someone with toolserver access), and after searching on answers.com and/or google I was able to find copies of the following ones:

If you want, you can just state they are your images, and I'd be happy to upload them, tag them, and just add a link to each page refering to your statement. Let me know. JesseW, the juggling janitor 11:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

RFC in re Raul654

Please see Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Raul654 // NetEsq 00:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Consulting

Hi, the International Rice Research Institute in the Philippines have contacted me looking for someone to consult short-term on Wikis. I'm not sure I'd be exactly what they were looking for and Angela thought you might be interested- if you are could you email me and I will foward on the details.--nixie 15:48, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

My user box

Hi, I made my userbox like 30 minutes ago and it got deleted with the apparent grounds of me being the only 'contributor'? Considering it's a template I wouldn't expect it to be contributed to very often, if at all. Could you please recreate my userbox?

Thanks. Kevin 23:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

No.

It got deleted because we are here to create an encyclopedia. Not to create crap. Who cares which hand you use to masturbate yourself ?

Anthere 23:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Who cares which browser you use? Who cares what your wikimood is? Who cares what your policy is on goatherding? I imagine in the same way, some people will be interested to know what hand User:Kevin Mulligan uses to masturbate. -82.40.177.197

Look VERY carefully 82. On my user page, there is no userbox. You have no idea what my wikimood is. You have no idea which browser I use. If I could take that decision, I suspect that all userbox unrelated directly to Wikipedia would disappear. In effect, wikipedians mood IS actually important to the community. In effect, which browsers are used is also an interesting information how Wikipedia appears to readers. Which hand is used to masturbate self is of no interest within wikipedia activity, except if you are actually masturbating yourself in writing on a user talk page. In this case, I highly recommand you go to one of the usual porn site as it is more likely to trigger an interesting reaction. Anthere 23:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

People have odd sexual-interests these days... No? --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 00:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked Kevin, indefinately, after he admitted on Cool Cat's talk page that he was trolling. -- Essjay · Talk 01:07, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

AMA

Hello, you are receiving this message because your name is on the list of members of the Association of Members' Advocates. There is a poll being held at Wikipedia talk:Association of Members' Advocates for approval of a proposal for the revitalisation of the association. You are eligible to vote and your vote and input are welcome. Izehar 22:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Mediation Committee mailing list request

Could you approve Will Beback and Ronline to the MedCom mailing lists? I'm not sure if Ronline has tried to access the list yet, but Will Beback is waiting to be added, I know. Ral315 (talk) 21:20, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry about it; Improv took care of it. Thanks, though! Ral315 (talk) 15:24, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

\

Kennel Club

You are invited to participate in the consensus vote on Kennel Club naming policy. Click here to participate.--Esprit15d 22:00, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

threat

Next time you try to force the french wikipedia to move such pages to meta against their will, you'll be blocked. Each project is free to decide what to do with such pages. Please do not mix with other projects habits. Make the move to meta if you wish, but do NOT impose english habits on other languages (in short, do not impose moving the pages over there). Thanks in advance. Anthere 22:11, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I dare you to block me for that, I merely tried to unite interwiki communities on a bold attempt. For that I only get yelled at. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 22:18, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

you can not unite communities in forcing them to move to another place where the language is essentially english. Which most do not speak. That makes no sense. I do not complain about you trying, I complain about the answers you gave to those non-english complaining of your bold move on your talk page and I complain about you reverting back when local communities opposed the move and reverted what you did. This is the problem, not the bold attempt. You must be aware that non english communities do not have the same rules than the english communities and that this MUST be taken into account and respected as long as it is not hurting the project. Typically, having community pages on local projects is a local decision to be respected. Forcing them to follow english rules is plain non acceptable. If they like the rules, they will adopt them themselves, or they will accept your bold moves. But if they revert your changes, you MUST accept that, with a smile. So, I repeat, on the french project, which is MY community, I can tell you this will not be acceptable. And we do not have to justify this. You do not UNITE people in imposing them your own rules of organisation. Please understand that. There are many things to do on meta, but sorry, not this. Anthere 22:32, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I am not forcing anyone to do anything. I only made an effort to convince people, that's called persuation. I only reverted a nl wikipedian reverting me on practicaly on all other languages and I only reverted him once on each. The "Nl guy" decided for the local comunities including en.wikipedia. I did absolutely nothing wrong for pushing the matter untill people at local comunities decide.

META is NOT english only. Thats like saying commons is english. Also pages I moved to meta were identical copies of the pages on every language wiki.

I blanked pages to take the attention of the local comunities. Never the less you threat worked! Farewell. I shall not be a part of a comunity that threatens me with blocks over two edits. MARMOT is given greater tolerance and I was not even vandalising. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 13:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I still dare you to block me. See blocking policy for christ sake, you cannot threaten random people with blocks whenever you feel like it. I havent even violated 3rr on any of the language wikis (assuming they have a policy such as 3rr). I am highly disapointed given you are a board member that should know better. If this was an idle threat what was the point of it? --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 17:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Why am I even explaining wikipedia policy to a board member? Why is this happening? --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 21:01, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

This was not an iddle threat. You do not even know that 3RR is a rule of the english wikipedia. I think this is a point enough. For the rest of it, I'll let your comments stand. I stick to my opinion. Even if that means I am less tolerant than Marmot. Anthere 21:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Surely if a nl guy was wikistalking Cool Cat through different languages this should be something we frown upon, Anthere? Sorry for meddling, but if what Cool Cat says is correct, this is a cause for concern. - Ta bu shi da yu 15:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

No you got it all wrong. Marmot is not the tollerant one, Marmot is the one being tollerated and he writes vandalism bots unlike me who is been threatened with blocks for making 2 edits on fr.wikipedia. What you are saying is you prefer people writing vandalism bots over bold users (I wouldn call 2 edits I made as "bold"). In fact I am suprised you dont know about MARMOT.

I do know 3rr applies to en.wikipedia (and MAYBE other wikipedias). I also know every wikipedia has their rules ranging from wikipedia policies to how copyrights are handled. Don't treat me like a newbie. This is never the less is en.wikipedia and anything happening in Fr.wikipedia is not in anyway of en.wikipedias concern and you are conflicting yourself.

This raises an interesting question: "Whose policies are you enforcing?" also "Which policy are you enforcing?". When threatening me with blocks are you wearing your "fr.wikipedia" hat or "en.wikikpedia" hat? I can basicaly cause havoc on fr.wikipedia at my whim which cannot in anyway affect my en.wikipedia experience in any way. I have no reason to do that since I am not a malicious user even though you treat me worse than how malicious users (ex:User:MARMOT who recieved Jimbos personal grace) are treated.

I have never threatened to block you on en.wiki ! What you do here is your own business. However, yes, I indeed say that should you try to impose again to the french community any decision you take *alone*, yes, you could end up blocked. Because blanking pages repeatedly for no reason or for a reason the french community will not recognise valid is bordering vandalism action. If any *stranger* of the english community came today here and decided on his own, to move the arbcom pages to meta and to blank the relevant pages here, I am pretty sure he will be blocked in NO time. I will not try it to make my point, but I am completely convinced nevertheless. And I think that the french community would do the same thing to protect itself from an outsider. This is the basic of wiki. People can try to be bold. But if the community is not happy with the boldness, the community will either protect the page or block the outsider. And the outsider can always afterwards try to screen "sysop abuse", or play Calimero as much as he feels like it, it will be correct that he is blocked, because it is the way wikipedia has always protected herself. So, now, take it the way you want. Do it again, but if you get blocked (by anyone, not only by me), do not come crying that the so-bad french admins blocked you, You would have deserved the block. OR, listen to what I suggest and do not impose your views on other communities you do not belong to. Suit yourself. I just wish you try to *read* what I am trying to tell you rather than pleasantly repeating to yourself that you are such a poor sad lonely cowboy. Get real CoolCat.

This conversation has been most disgusting and I am walking away from it. I will not run around screeming "admin abuse" nor will I take any of the threats here seriously as they neither have any policy or logical basis. Also I do not see how your threats poised at me making wikipedia a better encyclopedia. Fr.wikipedia is not any special wikipedia. It is just another wikipedia.

--Cool Cat^Talk|@ 01:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Do me a favor. Stop playing Calimero. You are not victim of any sysop abuse. Anthere

Hi Anthere. I'm one of Cool Cat's mentors appointed by the Arbitration Committee on English Wikipedia. I'm advising Cool Cat not to meddle with thecontent of other Wikipedias, and instead to put notes, in local languages where possible, on the talk pages of the relevant articles pointing out the existence of the copies on meta and leaving it to local policy to decide whether to redirect or to keep the local copy.

If you have any further problems, I'd be happy to help in any way I can. --Tony Sidaway 19:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)