User talk:Ceoil/Archive 9

Blocked

Ceoil, comments like this are not useful, are rude, and are obviously a threat to another user and have NO place here. Jmlk17 01:55, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reflexive, unsubstantuial block of an established user. I assume your use of the bit is punitave. Ceoil (talk) 01:57, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

48 hours block. You are more than welcome back after it expires. Jmlk17 01:59, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

So generous. Ceoil (talk) 02:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

All my worst fears about this website confirmed. Content; pah. Just an extendable cog. Ceoil (talk) 02:10, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Fuck this. Wesley, Outrigger, and latterly, Johnbod, life is short, and amazing. Out. Ceoil (talk) 02:28, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

While you're out I'm going to listen to some Tindersticks. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

An absolutely dumb block, and ample evidence that this administrator should be immediately stripped of his powers. For the record Jmlk17, Ceoil does more helpful things on Wikipedia one day than Betacommand has done in his entire time editing Wikipedia. Don't leave Wikipedia for Betacommand's satisfaction - I didn't when I got blocked for telling him what he truly is. LuciferMorgan (talk) 11:41, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Lucifer; you've been blocked for telling the same person thing the same thing. Ah, it happens, i'm being punished, fine. Whatever. Wesley, I'm way past Tindersticks. Think JC at At San Quentin ;-) Ceoil (talk) 12:42, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Ceoil (talk) 12:34, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I've taken it up at ANI as it certainly seems excessive. Johnbod (talk) 12:53, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Lucifer can you copy this to AN/I.

• The initial indefinate block shows that Jmlk17 was being reflexive and did not look into the situation.
• Ditto for Ryanjcole's septic "Get over yourself" comment on bettacommandbot's talk. Do these people have any substance?
• The block is transparently punitave.
• The phrase "driven off wikipedia" has been diluted through overuse, but if you want to find a good example look at the broken bones and dust left in this bot edit history. I sincearly think he does way, way more harm than good, he is consistently incivil, remote, and unresponsive. This needs to be stopped. Ceoil (talk) 13:22, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd tone down "Being incivil to Bettacommand is what he deserves, and should expect" myself - there are now 4 admins supporting unblocking there. But up to you. Johnbod (talk) 13:27, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I took it out. It was pointless and inflammatory. Ceoil (talk) 13:39, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

LM seems offline - shall I copy over? Johnbod (talk) 13:32, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Please. I'm not a fan of drama, but I'd like to be heard about this. Ceoil (talk) 13:37, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Done Johnbod (talk) 13:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

• Unblocked per discussion at WP:AN. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:43, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I just woke up; can someone give me the Reader's Digest version of what the heck this is about? Was Ceoil honestly blocked for saying he would call a bot a bot? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:05, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Found it, caught up, confusing read above (I thought Lucifer had also been blocked). Well, and a fine Merry Christmas to all. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:19, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Ha, good morning Sandy. I was a bit more naughty than that, and I take back nothing I said, but bless, merry christmas to you too. Ceoil (talk) 14:23, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I found a naughty word. Was that it? Does one naughty word justify an indef block of a long-time productive editor? I dunno. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:25, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Dunno either. fucktard (his recent reply on AN/I to critism) vs prick. Which is worse; I'll let the philosfers figure than one out ;). Ceoil (talk) 14:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, as you know, I've seen admins (and not then but now admins) do much worse, in full view of ArbCom, so it troubles me when different standards are applied. (Ask someone else in this discussion if he remember the time he told me to "fuck off" in full view of half a dozen admins and half of ArbCom ... and as far as I know, we worked that out and are friendly today. Honestly, common sense should apply every now and then before we hit the block button. :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:37, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

One comment: I don't think you deserved a block (and said so on WP:AN), but I hope you'll be able to take the actions of BetacommandBot philosophically. Betacommandbot does a very valuable service in forcing us to keep ourselves honest in our goal to create a free encyclopedia. That isn't always pleasant and sometimes forces us to jump through hoops that feels unnecessary when you just want to write your article. But however annoying the bot is, its actions are very much in the spirit of "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge". But perhaps there is a way to do this in a less confrontational way, do you have any ideas? henrik•talk 15:24, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't give a flying fuck about the bot. It was the reaction afterwards. Though, I have to say I appreciated your view and input. Ceoil (talk) 15:29, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I've got to get back to my "regularly scheduled programming", because the more I think about this, the more it steams me. If I were to ever put up a list of the blockable things said to me and about me by admins and on admin talk pages, it would certainly make one usage of the word prick pale. I'm a particular fan of those admins who use their talents to lodge full on personal attacks without ever using a vulgarity. This incident gets added to that long list of "adminship is no big deal" hypocrisy. It certainly is a big deal when someone with tools can wield them over someone who adds the kind of content that Ceoil has added because of one misplaced word one time. Adminship is a big deal; admin abuse is a big deal, too. I'm not excusing Ceoil's use of the word prick, but when the day comes that the same standards are applied to everyone, then we can say adminship is no big deal. On the other hand, I have to say one of Wiki's finest moments was when one admin told another admin s/he was a "mean motherfucker"; that was an excellent application of spade, but it's a darn good thing I wasn't the one who said that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:37, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

The foremost worst thing I've seen on the internet so far is the 'we admins' comment on your talk last july. I dont like drama-i like paintings and music-but we have a big problem that we need to sort out if this project is going to suseceed. I totally agree that adminship IS a big deal, and I've been tempted in the last few weeks to appose on RFA on the basis of an account being insubtantial. Whatever, thanks for pitching in, Sandy. Funny, the way outriggr was treated befor he left is the reason I went ballistic. Ceoil (talk) 15:44, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Yep, yep and yep. 'Nuff said; I don't hold grudges, but I do have a memory, and the Wiki graveyard is a huge concern. Different standards for different classes of users, egregious personal attacks can be lodged without ever using a vulgarity, valued contributors aren't sorted out from trolls, and if no one knows you're a prolific FA writer, you're fair game for a random indef block. "No big deal" my rear end. I'm unwatching your page for a bit so I can get back in the holiday spirit; I woke up quite looking forward to my final Christmas preparations :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:51, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Just be glad you were only blocked for 48 hours. Getting mad over a block just proves the block was correct in the first place. Terrorist.

Good luck

Ceoil, I don't plan to post at ANI again, but I just wanted to remind you how much you're admired as an editor. Get mad if you can't help it; but don't get so mad you leave. And if you can avoid getting mad, and figure out how to get a productive outcome out of the conversation, you're an even better editor than I thought. Mike Christie (talk) 21:49, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

My apologies.

Ceoil,

I'm (obviously) not a perfect person; very far from it. I don't try and act as if I am, and I do make more than my fair share of mistakes sometimes. Including my block of you yesterday. I don't view myself as "above the law" around here (as it seems some people think I do), and I hope you don't share their sentiment (though I would not blame you for that right now). I cannot erase your block log, but all I can do is offer my apologies for my mistake. I hope that any paths we cross from here on out are more than productive, and hopefully someday we can look back on this with an amusing thread on our talk pages and laugh at my mistake. Either way, please accept my sincerest apologies, and I am a man who can recognize when he is wrong, and this is one of those times. I wish you Happy Holidays, and I hope to see you around the project!

Very sincerely,

Jmlk17

I have no issue with you Jmlk17, as I said on your talk. The reaction after is the issue. Ceoil (talk) 22:31, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Truth and Reconciliation

What happened to you was wrong. The wrong was (later) undone but it cannot be reversed. You are angry, and you are justified in your anger, because it happened. It cannot, however, be changed, but hopefully your anger will subside. Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:40, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I hope you can take the advice from a stranger and leave your computer for a few hours. Go do something else for a while and ignore us silly fools on wikipedia. Sleep on it, come back tomorrow and then we can talk about how things could be improved so things doesn't happen again. Right now you're angry and reacting, just waiting a few hours can drastically change ones outlook - I know, I've been pissed plenty of times myself. After all, this is just a website. henrik•talk 22:51, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but my whole point is that this stuff gets washed under the carpet, and nobody is listening. I'm not going to let this go. Ceoil (talk) 23:02, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting anything getting washed under the carpet, I just hope you can wait a few hours or until tomorrow before proceeding. henrik•talk 23:15, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Great advise. Ceoil (talk) 23:16, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Tongue in cheek

Don't take my "shallow," or rather tongue in cheek, comments at WP:AN at face value. I actually spend a fair amount of time trying to calm the lynch mobs around here, and my most recent effort was unsuccessful. So I've been venting a bit -- and perhaps aping the attitude of the ban hammerers -- at your expense. I hope you didn't take anything I wrote too seriously. If you ever were the subject of an unjust block that no admin wanted to lift I'd be among those leaping to your defense. -- Kendrick7^talk 23:08, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Well you did get unblocked. The half-serious part is there are plenty of editors less fortunate than you. Try to keep that in mind. -- Kendrick7^talk 23:28, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Recently, i haven't found myself in agreement with Kendrick. He is absolutely right here, though. You might want to take a deep breath and relax the tone in your emails messages.I know how easy it is to take offense and fight off the overriding desire to chop your fellow editors into little, civil cubes, but honestly, it doesn't work. It's hard on the assumption of good faith, and its hard on the furniture. Maybe live and let live. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:09, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Emails? wtf? Ceoil (talk) 02:11, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Whoops, I meant messages. Sorry 'bout dat. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

So . . .

Would you like a beer? WesleyDodds (talk) 23:19, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Ceoil (talk) 22:33, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

 edit icons

tonysidaway@gmail.com Deleted page contents are accessible in the page history

Why was he unblocked

Either read the full thread and look into the background, or walk away. Too many reflexive, random comments I've seen tonight from tourists to the discussion. Ceoil (talk) 21:50, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm no tourist here. Stop attacking other Wikipedians. Don't declare war. --Tony Sidaway 21:53, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

You sure don't know how to make a bad situation better, Tony. Just when the situation was deescalating you ratcheted up the tension exponentially. I'd at least consider striking your comment, if I were you. Jeffpw (talk) 21:55, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to know what possible reason could have persuaded someone to unblock this disruptive editor after he declared open warfare. --Tony Sidaway 22:05, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Then you should unplug you ears and head to myspace. I was already indef blocked, and not for declaring holy war. Shows how much you looked into it, tourist. Ceoil (talk) 22:14, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive editor? Woah! I suppose you have some semblance of credibality, or is it just random illinformed insults from 4 section reviews that make you happy. Grow up. Ceoil (talk) 22:17, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to know what possible reason could have persuaded someone to unblock this disruptive editor after he declared open warfare? Then why not lookinto it before moralising. Ceoil (talk) 22:34, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Loutish acts? Ha ha, an acceptial dig out of a hole, but transsparently what it is. Drive by, snapshot judgements? Hmm, life is short, such a waste to spend it making poor judgements on situation you know nothing about. Whatever, that's your choice, have fun. Ceoil (talk) 00:14, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Please take your bluster elsewhere. I have carefully scrutinized the disruptive actions that led to the block. --Tony Sidaway 01:08, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

You moralised on the situation of your own free will, I did not go looking for you. You made a judjement on me, you disregared it with 'bluster'. Not good enough; actually poor form. have carefully scrutinized the disruptive actions ?? Ha, please Im not an idiot or a child. Ceoil (talk) 01:14, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I didn't moralise at all. I remarked that you had been blocked for a serious breach of Wikipedia policy (which was clearly premeditated) and asked why you were unblocked. I'm still not happy with your unblocking and predict that ill will become of it. --Tony Sidaway 01:54, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

premeditated? Oh god. ha ha ha. On what grounds, and for what reason? Again, ha ha ha. Ceoil (talk) 02:09, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

The fact that you posted a link to your attack on the subject's talk page, and then went back several times to rub it in, is strong evidence that your acts were premeditated and not made off-the-cuff. You had time to think about the situation, and then went back and threatened warfare. --Tony Sidaway 02:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Nice rubbing of the timeline. To be honest I feel sorry for you, and maybe I will walk away. Maybe you check your facts, and think first, maybe, maybe. Did you know its ok to call people fucktards on wikepidia, but not pricks. I assume you do, from your heavy research. Ceoil (talk) 02:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what "nice rubbing of the timeline" means. I agree that it's best if we leave this conversation, it's not helping to resolve anything. --Tony Sidaway 02:28, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

It means having a lack of understaning of the timeline of the situation you moralised on. Ceoil (talk) 02:30, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Tony Sidaway says "Stop attacking other Wikipedians"? Then later on over at Giano's talk page, he says; "I've been convinced through discussion that I was a little hard on you in reverting your earlier personal attacks on my talk page, and that the language I myself used was grossly inappropriate and tantamount to a personal attack." As far as I am concerned, Tony Sidaway can his bluster elsewhere and stop making hypocritical statements. LuciferMorgan (talk) 16:01, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Yuletide Felicitations and the Compliments of the Season.

Thank you. Mark LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:19, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the invite. Some editor at ANI is calling for me to be blocked now. Seriously, I am absolutely fed up of such ignorance on this website. Any time I speak up, I always have some editor calling for blood. Betacommand uses the word "fucktard" though, it's alright. If an admin swears, it's alright. This website typifies double standards. It's either WP:CIVIL, or they have some other stupid page to quote. They can't even make their own opinions anymore, but need to find a damn Wikipedia page to link to. I really don't think ANI is achieving anything at all. They don't seem to understand that contributors are being driven away, nor do they seem to understand that this is an encyclopaedia. If you packed up tools and left, that'd be a few less music FAs in future. My opinions seem to be falling on deaf ears, and it's real sad. LuciferMorgan (talk) 00:54, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the straight talk, and lack of BS. The truth is though, I've made a lot of comments about Betacommand that others don't like. It's what I believe though, and won't hold back. It's true though, that others tend to use alleged incivility to deflect the situation. Betacommand has given a new message, which I do not wish to comment upon. Suffice to say, I do not believe the words are genuine. Feel free to draw your own conclusions, though watch what you say (or else someone may ask for you to get blocked). LuciferMorgan (talk) 01:34, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Happy Christmas

Thanks - have a good one! Johnbod (talk) 02:04, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the well wishes, Ceoil; and may the New Year be a joyous one for you and yours. All the best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:The kiss.jpg

If this image is correctly tagged (I don't know, and I hope you could correct me if it is not), it is a fair use image, and thus not eligible for use anywhere except in article space, per our policies. I think it would be a good idea if you yourself either correct the tagging to clarify the copyright if it's mistagged, or remove it from your user page. I'd consider it a personal favour as well. Thanks for your consideration. ++Lar: t/c 03:14, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Removed. The painting is certainly notable, but is not discussed in enough depth in the artist's article to justify a FU rational. I have sources, somewhere, but it will take me a couple of days to complete this. Thanks for the note, though. Ceoil (talk) 17:45, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I was referring to here rather than at the artist's article though... I don't know enough about the artist to know how significant the work is, but it well could be significant. ++Lar: t/c 20:46, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't panic during the holidays

Merry Christmas, you wily Irishman. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:06, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On 25 December, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ralph Griffiths, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Royalbroil 13:04, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Joy Division

Sure, I'll be happy to. I'll take a look in the morning and see where I can help out. Merry Christmas! Regards, Dan.—DCGeist (talk) 05:09, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Alice in Chains

Hello, I submitted Alice in Chains for Peer review, would you mind commenting on Wikipedia:Peer review/Alice in Chains.
Thank you,
Burningclean _{[Speak the truth!]} 03:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

My advice for you.

Leave Wikipedia. Your contributions are not appreciated. Wikipedia cares about those who delete fair use images but does not care about those who write featured articles. If article writers walk away, either Jimbo will realise what is wrong and make sure the project gets its priorities right (then you should come back) or the project will be ruled by those who delete fair use images, with nobody to write articles (then you should not come back). Just some friendly advice from a lurker. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.189.57.144 (talk) 11:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks 59.189.57.144. Note that you voice was reverted twice by people that seem not to have read your full msg. So ironic. Ceoil (talk) 01:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Apologies for the revert Ceoil, I acted hastily (apparently a common problem in admins *cough*). Today has not been a good day for the encyclopedia, and comments like the one above saddens me. Rest assured that your contributions are appreciated. In some aspects, Wikipedia is struggling to define itself with its own success. Trolling, pov-pushing and systematic efforts to undermine the encyclopedia are present, and when I say that I'm definitely not referring to the efforts of Giano, yourself or any of our other great writers. I'm talking about bitter infighting among nationalists, anti-science editing in evolution and users becoming more skilled at skirting our policies, never acting quite badly enough to be thrown out. For better or worse, wikipedia has become important - in some aspects it defines Truth. How tempting is it not to edit it to reflect your Truth then? After enduring and combating that for days, weeks or months, it is not surprising that the good faith of some admins is badly bruised. After seeing so much very skilled disruptive behavior, it is not easy to tell friend from foe, to tell a genuine grievance from trolling. I believe this is what's behind many recent problems, not some plot to rid the world of fair use images. I wish we as a collective could be more calm, more willing to ignore insults and more skilled in defusing conflicts. Thank you, and apologies. henrik•talk 01:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with honest mistakes henrik. Thanks for the explination, and believe me I don't underestimate the terrible things admins encounter every day, or undervalue their effort in fighting back. My beef is accoutability; and a desire to see a more widespread display of the attitude you showed just now. Ceoil (talk) 01:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

What a nice message from Henrik. I started to say more, but then I got my senses back about me and sat on my fingers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

That message did not mean "Get lost, I hate you". It is a sad reflection of what Wikipedia is like. I appreciate Ceoil's contributions but leaving Wikipedia is best for him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.189.62.101 (talk) 14:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Replyed on myserious anons talk. Ceoil (talk) 16:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I think I am using a dynamic IP. I did not get your message. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.189.61.190 (talk) 03:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry for that anons comments, everyones contributions are welcome even yours. If there was a problem some one would have told you by now and they would not tell you to "leave" that only applies to vandals. I am warning the user for personal attacks. If you need anything from me do not hesitate to ask. Rgoodermote  01:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Even mine? The anon msg was welcome, please read more than the first ten words of comments you revert. Ceoil (talk) 01:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I read the entire message seemed vandal in nature. Sorry long night..need to remove that warning huh...Rgoodermote  01:28, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

That was my first reading too, tbh. "Long night" is a good excuse, no harm done. Ceoil (talk) 01:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I am again sorry, this had made me realize that I need to continue with my holiday break though....to much eggnog does weird things to the mind. Rgoodermote  01:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

And the liver, and the stomack ;-). Ceoil (talk) 01:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Good Night and Happy Editing to you. Rgoodermote  01:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Las Meninas

Pleasure to contribute. Great article. Tyrenius (talk) 01:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Primal Scream

Primal Scream is the current COTW. Could you spare a brother a soundclip of "Loaded"? Also, I'm probably going to go through your Back Pages account to look for reference material. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I just remembered: aren't we supposed to be getting a new My Bloody Valentine record before the end of the year? Kevin Shields has four days to prove he isn't talking out of his ass. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

All things Velázquez

Hi Ceoil, I'd be glad to help with the Venus, the Pope, and all things Velázquez. Thanks for asking. Great work, by the way, on Las Meninas. JNW (talk) 14:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I am going to return to the catalogue raisonne by Lopez-Rey, which probably has good info on provenance and history. I also have a couple of older books on Velazquez, which I will check on, too. Might not get to it for a few hours or more--there's some post-holiday real-life work to be done. So much for leaving wikiland. Research like this is just too enjoyable. Cheers, JNW (talk) 14:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes. The line I think about is from Terms of Endearment, when, at the airport, Nicholson drawls, Almost a clean getaway. JNW (talk) 14:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Wishing you a happy new year, whether you spend it in wikiland or the real world. Cheers, JNW (talk) 21:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Hey

Yeah, Christmas was alright. I didn't go to any gigs though, since there were none on that really caught my interest. I'm more of the "listen to the CD" type than go to the gigs a lot really. Hope your Christmas went well. LuciferMorgan (talk) 14:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be having ding dongs with a fair few in the past couple of days. Calm down, you're making me look like an altar boy (bad for my reputation lol). You're better off leaving such affairs to others and sticking to article creation. I've spoken up on issues in a curt manner in the past, and it hasn't helped much. Better off sticking to article writing. For some reason, nobody batters an eyelid (except one or two) when Sandy's harassed anyway. I noticed an editor call her a "sad bastard" at the talk page of FAC once, and nobody said anything. It's bit of a sad situation when you think about it. LuciferMorgan (talk) 02:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Yep, that has been the sum of my entire experience on Wiki :-) Everyone can tell me to fuck off, and I've never said an uncivil word anywhere anytime to anyone on Wiki. I've never done anything here except work my buns off for good articles. I guess the message is I'm expendable, just like the rest of us. I'm hearing it loud and clear; I'm not as dumb as I look. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Im abandoning my account. Fuck these people. Ceoil (talk) 03:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't you DARE, Ceoil. Something smells quite funny here, and I don't think many people are going to swallow it. Hang in there, sleep on it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

It isn't worth abandoning your account, as Sandy says. We'll see how things unfold. LuciferMorgan (talk) 03:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Your note

I talked to the user, Ceoil, and advised him/her to stay away from the people in question, and to be careful to stick within the rules. I'll also be keeping an eye on things. The blocking admin had no objections, so I unblocked on that basis. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

A change in which policy? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

RE: Flipping

Hey comrade. I discussed it with CloudNine and he gave me the go-ahead. Most of our project articles, as well as most high-quality articles in general list the references above the notes. I find this way to be favorable because if the references are above the notes, the reader can familiarize themselves with the full sources, before seeing the abbreviated citations within the notes. It seems clearer and more logical that way—to me at least. I should note however that there don't seem to be any guidelines on this issue as yet, so logic and clarity are all I really have to go on. If you'd kindly revert your reverts, I'd be very thankful. Best wishes. Grim (talk) 18:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

The role of the admin - per Zeraeph, SlimVirgin et al

The admins are more janitors than managers. An admin may unblock an editor or perform one of the functions permissable not because of a complete understanding of the matter but because other (non-admin) editors have formed a consensus but needs somebody to carry out the task. The other matter is that admins are very civil when involving themselves in circumstances that another admin has already acted - what you saw was diplomatic language (I am also of an opposing viewpoint over several matters of policy interpretation with SV, so being ultra civil indicates a willingness to work together despite other differences). There is also the matter that I have dealt solicitors, barristers, Queens Counsel, and the like in my professional career and am used to writing in those terms. Lastly, do I think you are a child...? I am 48 years old. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

There's a combo you don't see every day. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

-). Ceoil (talk) 00:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

You wake up with what you go to bed with. Ceoil (talk) 00:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict):I am explaining why I used the language I did - when I write civilly I use the terminology that is natural to me, which might be considered arcane - rather than indicating that I have some claim of intellectual mastery or the like. In the event SV replied to me in similar language, which indicates that my message was properly delivered. Whatever, why should I care that you wish to involve yourself in discussions between two other parties?LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Huh? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Huh exactly. Meaningless bluster. the language I did - was that when you told me to fuck off? Ceoil (talk) 01:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

my user page

Dont carry on fights with other users at my user page. It is extending the disruption. DGG (talk) 04:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Ye were discussing me, and there were judgements being made. What I have no right of reply. For crying out loud. Harsh terms like fuck off and I have to keep shut. Ceoil (talk) 04:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

"the disruption"? Substance, please. There is a reason behing all this; please read before bitching on talk and expecting; actually demanding, no right of reply. Ceoil (talk) 04:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The discussion was at the ANB. and I never mentioned you there. another editor and i were discussing what i said to him about his own edits. I have the right to remove material from my own user talk page. I would not like to have to ask it be protected, it would not reflect well on you, but you may not use it for your fights with other editors. DGG (talk) 04:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

So what would you call this:

• Ceoil is annoying me a bit at the mo with his "how dare you unblock" if only because I unblocked him less than a week ago - I don't demand gratitude, but...,

or this:

• Almost forgot... I didn't write legal memo's -I used to instruct solicitors, barristers, QC's... and, no, I don't believe I ever said "fuck" outside of quotation marks. LessHeard vanU (talk) 03:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Given this[1].

Ceoil, I note that you have now apologized to me. That was appropriate, and is accepted. as for the rest of this, I am not involved particularly. DGG (talk) 22:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Busy-ness

I have no idea what all this shouting is all about, but wouldn't your time be better spent dancing to the music? WesleyDodds (talk) 04:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Where the hell did your user page go? WesleyDodds (talk) 10:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your comments in my successful RFA. I'm not sure what you feel "substantial" contribution is, but I hope you'll see that I'll make my best effort to use the mop wisely. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 07:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)