User talk:Aim Here/archive1

Archive 1

Regarding Ogging

Wikipedia is a new type of media and it can't be stuck in the quagmire of old paradigms. In a paper encyclopedia, it's not reasonable to expect to get first hand testimony of events, though such things would probably be nice. Wikipedia, however, can expect first hand communication: the person who invented this new device can actually come here and make a page. Do you demand that he first write a magazine article and then reference that article? Why? Why not just let him come here and type it up first hand and cut out the middle man?

The only vandalism I see on that page is you going there to cut out the history of the word simply because the guy who has first hand knowledge of it is the one who wrote the article! Let's see someone show up and actually dispute the origin with another first hand account before we call it "disputed". -- TheCynic

Perhaps you should take your crusade over to the Wikipedia Wiki entry. Clearly, such a first hand account as "WikiWiki" on a train station sign being the origin of "Wiki" is, as you have just proven, not worthy of a Wikipedia entry and should be removed. All it should take is one person saying "I dispute that" and we can remove it from the encyclopedia and leave people in utter ignorance as to where the term "Wiki" started. Good plan. Get right on that.

In reality, saying "I dispute it" is nonsense unless you have a source. We have 1 concrete source (the original author) and a potential source (the original Usenet discussion, assuming it's archived somewhere). You have nothing. You can't go around "disputing" Wikipedia entries based on nothing but being cranky, or if you are going to do that, why not start with official Wikipedia entries, or is that dog too big for you to bark at? --TheCynic 20:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're a master of reading the letter of the law without comprehending the spirit of the law. The same rules that keep the main waterways clear can choke off the narrow inlets -- areas where not much information is available and now there's even less, thanks to you. This should be a repository of information and you do it harm by deleting information. Once again, I suggest thinking about what the rules are meant to accomplish. Think with your head.--TheCynic 05:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Think with yours. Wikipedia is NOT an indiscriminate collection of information, let alone the non-information of the sort that your passage describes.

The purpose of an encyclopedia is to summarise human knowledge. As far as can be discerned, the events in your passage did not happen, and there is nobody on the planet who thinks or believes they happened, apart from you. There might be more than one person who thinks that the passage is true, but you're curiously reluctant to actually point to any evidence that this is the case. Did you just make the passage up off the top of your head or something?

The salient facts of the article boil down to this:

"Someone on the internet says he remembers that 10 years ago, there was a usenet post, that can't be found, that said some anonymous guy remembers how some students in lab concocted a word that sounded like the word that the article's about, but had a different meaning."

Really, that's not the sort of 'knowledge' or 'information' that's worth inflicting on anyone. Who on the planet needs to know what you vaguely remember or don't remember? Who cares what some anonymous person says on Usenet, where posts are eminently fakeable and drivel is plentiful? The Wikipedia rules are designed, both in letter and in spirit, to keep worthless crap like this out of the encyclopedia. --Aim Here 09:31, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"The purpose of an encyclopedia is to summerise human knowledge". So stop deleting the human knowledge that you arbitrarily disagree with. If YOU have a different account of the origin of the word that you would like to share, then as is the case with MANY Wikipedia entries, both accounts can be included. Just because you decide that the holocaust didn't happen doesn't mean you can delete the Wikipedia entry on it, either. Produce evidence to the contrary or stop vandalizing the encyclopedia. Thanks in advance. --TheCynic 19:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Since you seem big on Wikipedia rules, note that WP:RS states, "However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception". I believe the more applicable rule is this one: WP:IAR. Pay particular attention to the first "See Also" under that rule, as it may have information you find helpful. --TheCynic 19:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Esker Melchior Deletion

Can you explain why you speed-deleted this page? You cite 'attack' as the reason, but who is it an attack on? Esker Melchior is a genuine (and very funny) example of a Yahoo Troll. I suppose, for an overworked Wiki admin, the article's example of an Esker rant with reference to LIE-NUX COMMIES would trigger some sort of recognition reflex with the example of a personal attack on the Speedy deletion page, since they're both written in Leet speak.

But read the article again. It's not an attack in the Speed-deletion sense.

If you're seriously suggesting that the article is an attack on Esker by mentioning his poor spelling and grammar then you've completely missed the point of Esker. The bad spelling and grammar is intentional.

If you think that the diatribe against LIE-NUX COMMIES or whatever (I forget which Esker gem was put on this page) was just some sly way of inserting an attack on them on Wikipedia, then again, you've missed thepoint of Esker. Esker is actually making his own inimitable mockery of the arguments of the anti-Linux crowd.

If you think the article was just a way of smuggling an attack on SCO by quoting a full example of a satirical post (the closest to the truth), then you have to remember that's all Esker does - it's hard to talk about him without mentioning the fact that he's a satirical jibe at the actions of The SCO Group and it's dwindling band of supporters. Anyways, that's surely a matter for some sort of NPOV tribunal, not a speed-delete.

I don't see how this article fits into the 'attack' category. If you don't like the article, then 'non-notability' might be a better bet for a non-speedy delete, though there has been the odd instance of Esker getting notification by the mainstream press these days, so you may have a fight on your hands....

Aim Here

OK, perhaps I was hasty in speedying it. I have restored it and listed it on afd - here. That will ensure a proper debate on its notability. I suggest you give your arguements there. --Doc (?) 10:46, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

I appreciate your efforts at reverting spammers, I spend a lot of time removing spam myself, but please keep your edit summaries civil --GraemeL ^(talk) 15:57, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, sorry about that. If only I could apply physical violence over the internet, then I wouldn't have the urge to swear at spammers...

Aim Here 16:01, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it can get frustrating at times. --GraemeL ^(talk) 16:05, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Hey thanks for your anti-vandal work. It is appriciated. You should consider joining Wikipedia:Counter_Vandalism_Unit. -Ravedave 01:09, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, you caught vandalism of the Olmec article within 1 minute. How did you do that so fast? Thanks a lot, Aim-ee!! Madman 00:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's easy enough, if you treat vandal hunting as a sport in itself, and lie in wait on the Special:Recentchanges page for the tricksy varmints...

Thanks for watching over Homeostasis. --JWSchmidt 18:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal fighting

I just wanted to give you yet another compliment on your vandal-fighting. Where (talk) 00:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And a big thanks from me for reverting vandalism on my user page. I've being doing RC patrol for a while. Some of 'em have taken to fighting back. My vandalism counter is really spinning along now! Gimboid13 19:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PROD

Just wondering if you checked out the trial about WP:PROD (Proposed Deletion). During this trial, articles should be PRODded first, before going to AfD. -- Andy Saunders 15:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't, cheers for the heads up -- Aim Here 15:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Babe Ruth

I'm posting this message on you Talk Page either because you've contributed to the article Babe Ruth, or because you've edited other baseball or sports related articles. I've recently completed a revision of this article at Babe Ruth/rewrite. If you have the time, I'd appreciated it if you'd compare the articles and leave any feedback you might have on the rewrite discussion page. I'd like to reach a consensus before makeing major changes to the main article. Thanks for your help. --djrobgordon 20:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Awardach Speedy

I noticed you placed a speedy tag on the User:Awardach article. Did you mean to place it on the Andrew wardach article (note it redirects, was recently userfied)? --Hansnesse 01:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did indeed, didn't notice that. Cheers. --Aim Here 01:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heroic Dose

I agree that the heroic dose is almost certainly an hoax but for the sake of due process:

what was its previous title when it was deleted before
if it went to BJAODN, where did it go - BJAODN is rather big!
if it was nominated via the proposed deletion process (with which I am not familiar), why was it deleted within a few hours instead of five days?

-- RHaworth 09:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. To answer your questions

what was its previous title when it was deleted before
From the BJAODN page, it seems to be "Music:theheroicdose"
if it went to BJAODN, where did it go - BJAODN is rather big!
Wikipedia:Whose_Bad_Jokes_and_Other_Deleted_Nonsense_is_it_Anyway? is the page, look for the heading From Music:theheroicdose
if it was nominated via the proposed deletion process (with which I am not familiar), why was it deleted within a few hours instead of five days?
I don't know, I wasn't there when it was deleted. Perhaps someone else speedied it (I think that's allowed for previously deleted pages).

--Aim Here 10:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much. It was voted off by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Music:theheroicdose. The original article claims they were a heavy metal band from America. The one you nominated claims they were sociological researchers from the 1970's, researching in the south of England but the list of villains is the same. It was not speedied - yours was the last edit - that is why I asked. Dunno why I am wasting my time on trash like that. But at least we have rounded up the antecedents. -- RHaworth 10:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

68.47.166.72

Is that guy pissing you off as much as he's pissing me off? I think he was referring to both of us when said "stop deleting this SOB"--Vercalos 22:54, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well he's only one test template away from being blocked so it'll sort itself out soon anyways. --Aim Here 22:55, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He's been vandalizing this article every day for the past week. This is why I find him so irritating. He keeps getting told not to add it, but he doesn't listen.--Vercalos 22:58, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I've not been following the Jack Thompson article saga much so I wouldn't know. Beyond reading up on whatever bannage and blockage you can ask the admin to impose on this guy, I've no real suggestions. --Aim Here 23:01, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've already submitted a request for arbitration on the guy. I don't know how long that will take to be processed.--Vercalos 23:06, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ivica Kostelić

Stop spreading lies!!! That what's been said about Ivica Kostelic is highly exaggeration of one tabloid type magazine and BBC- media divoted to make picture about Croats as a nazis, ultranationalists, followers of Hitler etc...

You're vandalising the page. You don't blank pages that say things you don't want to hear. If you've got verifiable facts to back up your point of view, put the facts in the article. Note that Kostelić has denied the statements, sortof, and that's in the article already. If the media statements are lies, then prove it.--Aim Here 13:31, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a difference, I'm FROM CROATIA, AND KNOW A "LITTLE" BETTER ABOUT THIS, so called "controversy", and how it was managed in the media, and what is much more important, who did this articles about this skyer and why! And there's nothing to hear that "is unacceptable", only to remove what's pure propaganda and spread of hatred!

I had been enough of depicting Croats and Croatia as a pro-nazi state, and as a nationalists!

We're not au pair to some "democratic" and so called "liberal" countries in the matter of nationalism. It's enough to see what's been going on in a past few months in a France, Netherlands, Denmark etc...

None of that matters a toss to me. What matters with this article is whether the facts are verifiable and NPOV and encyclopedia-worthy. In this case, as the article stands, I reckon that's the case, although there may be more pertinent facts that I don't know about. I'm sure not all Croats are Nazis, but that's irrelevant. I've no real opinions on whether this particular sportsman is or not, either. I just want a better Wikipedia. --Aim Here 13:47, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This what I have been doing is to remove something that isn't true, and what's pointless to stay since Kostelić already denied this! Prolongation of this part of article is nothing else than insulting anyone who's fair and just, and is in a manner of cheapest tabloids!

Not to mention that this part of article is totally irrelevant from the point of sport! And, if you really do want a better Wiki, than you should remove something that is allready denied!

Just because there's a denial doesn't mean it's not true. Even if it isn't, the fact that there were allegations is worth mentioning, as is his denial. They're both there, what's your problem? --Aim Here 13:56, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did not reffering to a BBC as a cheap tabloid- that is NACIONAL, but BBC published this exaggerated article ( of which reasons- I'm blank?!) as a verified "truth". It happens that I have watched HRT (Croatian television) on which Ivica not only denied this, yet called all that have been done by the nazis as a horror, and unthinkable evil! But, somehow BBC didn't find that necessary to publish- I wonder why! And something for the end, you know, you shouldn't consider all you see on BBC (or CNN) as a confirmed fact!!! BBC also had it's dark part in a bloody wars in EX YU!!!

MY PROBLEM- THERE'S NO NEED TO FOR THAT KIND OF REMARKS WHEN THEY'RE UNTRUE, AND CAN SERVE ONLY AS TO DEPICT IVICA IN A WRONG LIGT !

You know, you shouldn't consider all you see on BBC (or CNN) as a confirmed fact!!! BBC also had it's dark part in a bloody wars in EX YU!!!

If your facts are holding on a BBC broadcast, then you have a very cheap argument!!! And also, from my point of view this article end is a vandalism! You should think about that!

I don't think article is neutral, since it's making a "case" from something that's highly arbitrary. I don't know exactly when it was, but interwiew has been published on HRT with kostelić explaining things conserning this issue!

Samantha Brett

I have rewritten the article to make it NPOV and establish notability. I would be grateful if you could take a look. Capitalistroadster 00:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reason for deletion... Vanity???

Vanity is not listed in the rules for Speed-deletion.

As another (much nicer and friendlier and more helpful admin has pointed out), You may request that the articles be deleted on the grounds that the author is personally related to the topic, but citing "Vanity" is simply designed to insult the author. It seems from what I'm reading on this page that you lie in wait for articles to be posted so that you can complain about their content.

Your wikipedia-side manner leaves something to be desired. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tina Brooks (talk • contribs)

Hi Aim, be sure to avoid biting newbies and always contact the author of the the article you are prodding first. Cheers, —Ruud 03:05, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point on the author-contacting thing. However, I didn't speedy any of the articles by User:Tina Brooks; Vanity is a perfectly good reason to prod or AfD articles. As for lying in wait - yes, that's exactly what I do. Someone has to patrol for vandalism and bogus new articles, just because of the sheer quantity of the garbage that people try to fill wikipedia with. -- Aim Here 03:15, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism of Discussion Pages

Please stop removing content from Wikipedia; it is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Waya sahoni 03:37, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jeff. Up to your old tricks I see. Calling something vandalism doesn't make it so. And you're banned. Get off Wikipedia already. -- Aim Here 03:39, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warnings

Hi, just wondered why you started at test2 on User_talk:164.83.99.83 after they just had a test4 16 minutes earlier? We need to be taking a stronger hand to vandals... Arniep 22:32, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because the test4 was immediately under a heading reading 'Feb 06' which I took to mean the 6th of February, so I didn't check the test post's date! I always take about 4 months to get my head round the end of year changeover... --Aim Here 22:37, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism and Page Blanking of LKML Article

Please stop removing content from Wikipedia; it is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Please do not page blank or vandalize articles. If you disagree with the content, use the talk page to address your issues, but do not remove the content. This is the second time you have vandalized an article. Please stop. Waya sahoni 03:45, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary Jeff, if you want to make major edits, please check the talk page for consensus. In this case, you're the only one in support of this little crusade. Oh, wiki guidelines say to keep out of your own articles. Oh, and you're banned Jeff. Get off Wikipedia --Aim Here 08:08, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop removing content from Wikipedia; it is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Please stop vandalizing the article, page blanking, and removing content. Thanks. Waya sahoni 08:38, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary Jeff. Will YOU please stop trying to move the Jeffrey Vernon Merkey article somewhere else. Wikipedia works by consensus, and the consensus is that the article stays. --Aim Here 08:40, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR and False Statements on Talk:Jeffrey Vernon Merkey

Hi, I atchived that page because it was over 94K in length. You then posted a **FALSE** statement I was page blanking when what I did was archive the page, then reverted it back with a glib comment. Why? Waya sahoni 16:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I initially assumed you were up to your old Jeff tricks and vandalising the page so people don't see what's on it, so I figured I had to undo it. Then I spotted that you were up to new Jeff tricks and "archiving" it, where people won't bother to go to the archive look at the page, so I figured I'd better fix my mistake, and reverted it back with a glib comment. We do reserve the right to unarchive and carry on any of the discussions in archive 4, by the way. --Aim Here 16:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Civility towards User:Waya sahoni

I'd appreciate if you could be more WP:Civil towards User:Waya sahoni, no matter who he is, his motives or how he behaves. Whatever his behaviour, the point of Wikipedia is to create a great encyclopedia, not score points against him. --MJ^(☎|@|C) 19:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Too Late

They already deleted the article you recommended for deletion, I believe.

ban schoolkids from editing Wikipedia too

Yes, please. absolutely. :) Dlohcierekim 02:04, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are named in an ARBCOM Proceeding regarding Jeffrey Vernon Merkey Article

See WP:ARBCOM for the details. Waya sahoni 04:10, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Sources from Joe Byrd (Cherokee Chief)

Please do not remove source citations from the article. This is the worst kind of vandalism. Waya sahoni 04:42, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, please don't source your article edits with nonexistent literature. --Aim Here 12:31, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My evidence that Waya is Jeff

Have you seen it? It's pretty good, methinks: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Vryl

Summary: Waya use Jeff's email address. --Vryl.

Yeah, I saw it. Well spotted. It slipped my mind when writing the ArbCom thing. --Aim Here 14:37, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can always add to your statement. I forgot about that email thing too. --BWD^(talk) 14:49, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfC/JVM

You might want to check back in on Requests for comment/Jeffrey Vernon Merkey to see how Waya reused your "Outside view" text. —Steve Summit (talk) 15:25, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, and I took it out, so the final RFC positions represent, roughly, what people voted for. I'm not surprised by that sort of crap anymore, though I still can't tell whether Jeff is being deliberately deceptive there, or just clueless about how these sorts of things are supposed to work. WP:FAITH compels me to assume he's merely stupid, though!--Aim Here 16:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shoot-to-kill policy in Northern Ireland

I have removed the following from the above article.

"The shootings were initially investigated by other members of the RUC, and the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland decided to bring prosecutions. At the first trial, relating to the shootings of the two INLA men, Constable John Robinson admitted to having been instructed to lie in his statements. The resulting public outcry caused RUC Chief Constable John Hermon to ask John Stalker to investigate the killings."

I have done a lot of reserach on this and have never come across any archival evidence relating or remeber this public outcry. So I think this assertion initailly looks POV. Can you provide background info so we can be sure this is accurate.

No offence is intended.

Cheers

--Strangelyb 23:44, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. That part of the article I merged/redirected from the old 'Stalker Inquiry' article, though I rephrased it since the original appeared to be a straight copy of this article on the Charter 88 website. I'm a little young to remember the exact timescale of the public outcry over the Stalker affair assassinations, but there was certainly a HUGE outcry at the time, whether it began after the initial court proceedings or after the Inquiry or after Stalker was suspended is something I can't recall. I remember deciding to shove it in because there was a gap in the article between the shootings and the suspension of John Stalker --Aim Here 00:16, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Origin of the term slipstream

Hi,

just one note about the origin of the term "slipstream": I wrote to CoffeeCup software many weeks ago and never got a reply; we can't even ask the editor who put in the section, as we only have his/her I.P. address (07:13, 15 June 2005 68.118.126.104). Honestly, I don't think CoffeeCup has invented the term, and even if so, the practice to update a software without changing its version number is hideous. Better not even mentioning it :) Cheers --Gennaro Prota 12:22, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick note to say...

...you have a cool username. It's rare that usernames make me smile. Nice one. :) Nuge^(talk) 00:37, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cherokee redir AfD was changed to a WP:RfD

User:PeyoteMan got the procedure wrong on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma and should have used the WP:RfD instead; I moved it there already, so you may want to recast your vote in the correct place. I should probably label the botched AfD more clearly, or at least ask an admin for assistance. --MJ^(☎|@|C) 18:06, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I moved your vote over altogether; User:PeyoteMan changed his vote on the now-closed AfD page; that vote was moved as well. Please see WP:RfD#March 29 (7th entry). --MJ^(☎|@|C) 10:32, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You owe me an apology

That comment you left on the Merkey talk page was uncalled for, and I would like to ask you kindly for an apology. I am frankly shocked at the lack of good faith. --Jimbo Wales 22:03, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about forgetting the WP:FAITH thing. Sudden and drastic admin actions confuse me. --Aim Here 22:20, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merkey

Thanks for the adjustments! Any suggestions on how to improve it? RN 16:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I see anything, I'll edit accordingly or use the talk page. I'm still not sure to what extent Jimbo has been drinking the Jeff kool-aid --Aim Here 16:45, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Me neither :)! I just tried to rewrite it a bit in featured-article style. RN 16:58, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Holroyd

Hello, I believe you were right about it all, Holroyd did allegations of a different type. In his book he only ties himself to Wallace after the fact. I will update the Holroyd article soon with his views and more details on his bio. Thank you for putting me straight on it all. Fluffy999 21:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! With some sources (Red Ken's speech, for example) it's easy to get the two sets of allegations mixed up. I suppose I'll have to get myself a copy of Fred's book now!--Aim Here 21:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs: Danny John-Jules; Kenneth Robinson; National Hunt racing; Jay Cutler (bodybuilder); Cheltenham Festival; Washing; Cheltenham Racecourse; Francis Wheen; Military Intelligence Hall of Fame; Stevens Report; Karen Ann Quinlan; Ellen Foley; Mare (horseracing); John-Paul Langbroek; Charles Armstrong-Jones; John-Paul Wilkins; Norman St John-Stevas, Baron St John of Fawsley; Long Live Love; John-Paul Clarkin

Cleanup: Peter Wright; Randy White (porn star); Heterophobia
Merge: List of Notable Australians - actors, actresses and comedians; Reluctance; List of England international footballers
Add Sources: 1930s; Star Wars Galaxies; Globe artichoke
Wikify: Critical section; List of rock musicals; The Ultimate Enemy
Expand: E. E. Evans-Pritchard; Kublai Khan; Benny & Joon

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 12:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Willie Bosket

Nice work - you did that fast. I like people who take my db-speedies and make something good out of messes. --ArmadilloFromHell 05:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, thanks --Aim Here 05:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Red vandal

The vandalism to the Eric Red article that you recently reverted was almost certainly done by the same vandal (ip 71.107.255.200) that I (as 4.172.186.141--I wasn't signed in at the time) reverted a few weeks ago. This person (who may be Red or someone associated with him) clearly has an agenda and blatantly removes all mention of Eric Red's crime (as was done most recently) or attempts to "minimize" Red's guilt by deleting sourced references indicating that Red intentionally crashed into the billiards bar. This person should definitely receive a vandalism warning.

Sullenspice 14:15, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, yeah - the original vandal (Eric himself, perhaps?) was the reason I put the Eric Red article on my watchlist. He had been quiet for a while so I didn't bother with any vandal warnings this time, but if he starts his nonsense up again, I'll certainly bring out the vandal templates. --Aim Here 19:35, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Charles Bay

Hi there. Well done for picking this up. The person who created it is someone who thinks it's funny to create hoax articles; he also re-created Giovanni-Battista_Pierogli after I had it deleted under an AfD: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Giovanni-Battista_Pierogli. By the way, you put your note to him on his user page; I assume it was meant to go on his talk page, and I moved it there. --Stephen Burnett 08:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. Thanks for that. --Aim Here 09:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I dont think that it is "funny" to create "hoax" articles or anything of the like. These two articles were not hoax articles at all, they were intended to be real articles about real people, perhaps you should try doing research before you penalize people. Giovanni-Battista Pierogli and Philip Bay are both very real people who deserve some degree of merit for their musical skills. So I'd like to know why you keep deleting these articles before I can even finish them, thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wolfgang howell (talk • contribs) 18:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I didn't really pay much attention to the Giovanni-Battista Pierogli article, and I didn't delete it, so I'm the wrong person to ask. As for Philip Charles Bay, I've already pointed you at WP:MUSIC. You've yet to point to one reliably sourced, verifiable, fact that would warrant the inclusion of this person . What's more, since you and Philip Bay appear to be the same person, WP:COI almost certainly applies too. Hope this helps. --Aim Here 19:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Royal Family

Re your comments about my motives for reinstating the article: unfounded, assumptive and personally insulting; as though I am some covert weasel. Please put into practice the principals of "assume good faith" in future. --G2bambino 04:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You did unilaterally, knowingly, and without discussion, overturn an AfD in order to make your own brand fork of Monarchy in Canada. I can't think of a "good faith" reason for doing so. WP:AFD doesn't mean 'pretend wrongdoing isn't wrongdoing'. --Aim Here 07:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Without discussion? May I direct your attention to: Talk:Canadian Royal Family#Reinstatement, a discussion I initiated and where I explained my motives. --G2bambino 15:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not true, I disagree that G2bambino set out to overturn past AfD, on purpose. The MiC article is a large article, and needed to be merged out, (remember the wiki guidelines on article length) he merged it into the article topic that most describes the Royal Family in relation to Canada, so it can be wikilinked to from the MiC section on the RF. This was not a POV pushing campaign by G2bambino, it was his good faith attempt to improve Wikipedia, a attempt that should be respected, in my personal opinion Brian | (Talk) 10:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have difficulty squaring his 'good faith attempt' to improve Wikipedia with blatantly ignoring procedure twice now, in overturning the AFD, and with removing the second AFD tag before it was completed --Aim Here 12:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll quote myeslf from elsewhere: "...that was a mistake - "Speedy close," "no deletion request," etc. appeared to me to mean the discussion was, well, closed." My apologies for the distress this seems to have caused you. --G2bambino 15:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI

Your recent post at ANI is not acceptable - personal attacks, trolling and intentional disruption all rolled up in one. Take a step back and imagine: Jeff reverts a troll and the response is, in addition to vitriolic diatribes like your own, the dredging up of old court documents from a decade ago. There is no excuse for this type of behavior. I won't warn you again. --Duk 19:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Being a magnanimous sort, I'll disregard this message in it's entirety and hope you never said it. I suggest you do the same.

Three reasons why:

First, disagreeing with you over who is or is not a troll is NOT intentional disruption, it's called having an opinion. You're entitled to vehemently disagree with me over whether Kebron is or isn't a troll, but threatening me with admin actions is way out of order. Casting aspersions on my intent is a WP:AGF violation too, by the way.

Secondly, that 'vitriolic diatribe' is a perfectly fair comment on Merkey's *behaviour* on Wikipedia, as you would see if you follow the links. There are plenty more just as bad or even worse than the ones I posted. Jeff is making a huge mess everywhere he goes. Since his ban was lifted, he's caused a big mess on Eric Schmidt, Daniel Brandt, Cherokee and Mountain Meadows Massacre, which constitute most of the edits he's attempted in the main namespace. Jeff is definitely a problem editor, even if you disregard entirely his reactions to the trolls and the editors he sees as trolls.

Thirdly, it is bad form for a Wikipedia administrator to threaten action in a dispute in which he is directly involved. If you think what I said is worth chasing me around with a banhammer, then go get another administrator to do it. Threatening me with *your own* admin powers over a single edit that disagrees with you and your assessment of the situation is at best an overreaction, and at worst is bullying. --Aim Here 22:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

I've asked you to stop your disruption but you continue - blocked for a week.

As always, I encourage any other administrator to review and revise as they see fit. In my opinion Aim Here is bringing the SCOX message board stalking and harassment to Wikipedia. Each future block from me will be longer. --Duk 22:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh come off it. I come across a page listing me and my activities and you expect me NOT to want to put a sarcastic comment on it! Do you have a sense of humour or perspective at all? --Aim Here 22:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock}} tag removed after unblocking --Aim Here 23:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that Duk has developed an unhealthy fixation on Merkey and has ceased to be a neutral party. His creation of a Kelly Martin style enemies list is very inappropriate. Creation of such a list has been considered evidence of intent to harass in previous cases. My name is also on his list and I editted that page. The humor of my edit was perhaps more subtle than yours, but was intended to be just as sarcastic. I was expecting him to have the sense to delete the page and apologize. If an admin believes a user's actions are problematic, he should talk directly to that user, not add them to some covert list of suspects. --MediaMangler 07:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MediaMangler, stop trolling. It's disruptive. This is your only warning.

For the benefit of others reading this, the only thing out of line here is that after a year and a half of stalking and harassment of Merkey, trolls still aren't being blocked on site. This is going to change.

If you have concerns about any user's actions, then please have the decency to discuss it with them directly. ... see [1]

I've made some notes at User talk:Duk/SPTA for anyone interested. --Duk 15:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reblocked

..(reverted Aim Here trolling)...

Aim Here, I've increased your block to a month. I will of course lift it if you promise to find another hobby than stalking and trolling Jeff. --Duk 15:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I promise not to stalk and troll Jeff. If you unblock me, I will carry on editing Wikipedia normally, as I have always done. I have not been stalking and trolling Jeff, contrary to your (and Merkey's) assertions. My edits that relate to Jeff have, for the most part, been perfectly defensible and in line with Wikipedia policies, and I include the edit for which I received your warning to be such an edit, as well as the edit which you have just reverted. I do cross paths with him more often than I'd like, but that's a natural consequence of being on a message board where people often link to his postings, nothing more, and the fact that when I see something on Wikipedia that needs changing I change it. I consider your repeated blocking and threats to be bullying and harassment. --Aim Here

If you unblock me, I will carry on editing Wikipedia normally, as I have always done. ... I don't accept that, as explained in my earlier warnings to you. You need to do better. --Duk 16:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warning singular. You gave me one 'warning' then blocked me for a week, making no response to my reply to your ban warning. And this incessant claim that I'm 'stalking and trolling' Merkey has not been explained, merely asserted. I did try explaining it myself here, but you reverted it as 'trolling' --Aim Here 16:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've been blocked indefinitely and your page protected. You can contact me through wikipedai email. --Duk 16:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You need to enable an email address in your preferences before I can respond to your email. --Duk 16:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocked

You have been unblocked, and are on a 1 month 1RR probation, any admin which catches you exceeding that revert limit can and should reblock you. Please, for the love of god, behave yourself. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 23:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fully intend to. Cheers! --Aim Here 23:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My block was lifted, but the residual IP block is still in place --Aim Here

Y	Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): Autoblock of 82.45.163.18 lifted or expired. Request handled by: Netsnipe ► 09:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]