User talk:Mike Rosoft/archive1
Otaheite.
First: I don't appreciate the tone that you took on my talk page. [1]
Further, Otaheite is an historical name, and at the least deserves a redirect to the modern island. This is a cultural issue, as well as a historical one - and I believe that it is important to be accurate. Writing the name Otaheite out of history does not seem like a well thought out answer to the issue.
Now, we can go through the proper channels and deal with this issue, or we can agree that Otaheite deserves a link with a possible (and likely) redirect and do that. I'll wait to hear back from you within the next week before I proceed - or you can just change it back.
Debate with GNAA Popeye
I agree that this is racist bullshit, but unfortunately, it's a real thing in the real world (as real as the Net is.) It would be like deleting the Holocaust article. RickK 06:30, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)
- I still believe that this "organization" is not noteworthy enough to warrant its inclusion in an encyclopaedia. (As I said earlier, Wikipedia is not Hate Watch.) This is the opinion of a majority of Wikipedia users. But further requests for deletion are not likely to succeed because of the user accounts created for the sole purpose of creating and keeping the article. As such, there is very little to be done - at the moment, at least. -- Mike Rosoft 14:00, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- For the last time, the GNAA doesn't hate minorities. In fact, such people aren't allowed in the organization. We make disruptive, racist and anti-semitic comments for the purpose of subverting social norms and ridiculing people's political convictions, among other reasons. Humor is a large part of it. Making fun of society's stereotypes is humorous. Why is it OK to make fun of white male culture in this country but not OK to make fun of gooks, jews or niggers? You can call us racists all you want, but you're being narrowminded. The real racists are the people who think it's OK for a black person to use the word "nigger", but not OK for a white person to, or that "affirmative action" or all-black colleges isn't racism, but Lord of the Rings having an all-white cast is. Or that killing somebody because he was sleeping with your wife isn't a "hate crime" but suddenly becomes one if his skin color isn't the same as yours. The real bigots are the people who play the "anti-semitism" card anytime somebody criticizes Jewish Zionism or brutal Israeli policy. So before you criticise the GNAA as being "racist", perhaps you should take a hard look at American culture and tell me who the real bigots are. GNAA Popeye 16:53, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Making fun of people is one thing. Hate speech is a completely differnt one one.
- First of all, I'd like to tell you that you don't have unlimited right to freedom of speech. To repeat an often-used example, you are not permitted to shout "Fire!" in a crowded cinema.
- The GNAA does not hate minorities, for the last time. Get it into your head. We sometimes mimic race-hate groups, but only to parody or otherwise lampoon them.
- Maybe you don't. But that doesn't mean that you are offensive to most forms of life. If you don't want to be taken for a hate group, don't act like one.
- I frankly don't care if what we say could be considered "hate speech" because the term is ambiguous and designed to enforce a habitual mental pathway. What exactly the hell is "hate speech", anyway? Suppose George goes to work with a man he doesn't like very much - let's call him "Bob". If, after work, George tells his friend, "Bob was really annoying today. He didn't help with my project at all, and he talked loudly in my cubicle the whole time. He also smells horribly. Now that I think about it, I hate Bob!" Is the preceding comment hate speech? George says he hates Bob; how could it be any clearer? Now, would saying something like that get you arrested in the Czech Republic? Probably not.
- No, this is no hate speech. As you probably already know, such a statement - if untrue - already has a name: "slander". And you don't have a right to slander or libel either; if your statements cause damage or harm to another person, you can expect a rather unpleasant lawsuit. (As opposed to your example, which is best solved by an apology - and if George refuses, Bob knows what to think about him.)
- So "hate speech" obviously doesn't mean what it seems to mean, that is, stating you hate something or someone. No, "hate speech" is nothing but a propaganda term used by politicians and other weasels to try to censor people they don't agree with. It's supposed to invoke feelings of disgust and loathing towards the perpetrators, yet, paradoxially, the idea that feeling hatred - for anything - is somehow morally repungnant, or that the "haters" are something less than human. In other words, the concept of "hate speech" was invented as a tool to encourage hate. And outlawing "hate speech" would be a very dangerous thing. Sure, it may be OK when it doesn't conflict with your views, but what happens when people who don't share your particular definition of what "hate speech" constitutes come into power?
- Hate speech legislation is NOT meant to suppress unpopular opinions, nor to outlaw some statements just because they are offensive to some people. Rather, the motivation is that such statements are seen as disruptive to society and may even lead to acts of violence. Do you believe that people should be permitted to spread the lie about Jews practicing human sacrifice? If so, I have no other choice but to respectfully disagree.
- In the United States there was a recent incident where, during a fundraiser for the Kerry campaign, Whoopi Goldberg made a sexually-suggestive joke about George Bush. This benign event was suddenly turned into a "Hollywood hate-fest" by Republicans and much of the media. This example can be easily extrapolated to the larger political scene, where there isn't a week that goes by without some politician referring to his opponents' rhetoric as "hate speech".
- Any word can be abused. That doesn't mean that it shouldn't be used at all.
- I am the victim of hateful speech all the time, but I guess I'm not Jewish enough for the government to come rushing to my aid. For example, I get into arguments frequently with street preachers at my university who tell me I'm "going to hell" for being an atheist. Telling people they deserve eternal torture for their beliefs is the most hateful thing you can say. I'll be damned, though, if I'll let their right to say those things be taken away. Freedom is always a two-way street.
- You don't have to worry; the U.S. government cannot do anything against anti-Semitic hate speech either because of the first amendment. But I agree that there is a double standard; not in the state's actions, but in the public reaction.
- Saying "nigger" is wrong as long as it offends the person it is directed at, whether or not you are white.
- Oh, so saying things that offend people is wrong? Let's see. You have explicitly stated earlier that you think "hate speech" should be illegal, and you have accused myself and the GNAA numerous times of practicing hate speech. This incorrigible disdain of my freedom to speak offends me greatly. Furthermore, I'm sure if I got to know you better I could find at least ten additional things about you that offend me. Perhaps you should cease doing these things since they offend me so much. What's that, you say? You won't stop? Then, ladies and gentlemen, what we have here is what's known as a double standard. Listen, I'm not going to stop saying "nigger", and the fact that you or anyone else is offended by it will never change that. I don't let others dictate what I can and can't say. Period.
- You are confusing a few things together. Using the word "nigger" does not constitute hate speech by itself, but it is often considered rude and offensive. And, if you want me to say that: yes, it is wrong to be rude and offensive. I don't want to be referred to using derogatory terms, and (presumedly) neither do you. And as a wise man said, "do not do to others what you hate." And if that offends you, tough luck. I'll always prefer to offend a small group of troublesome individuals to offending most members of a race.
- Most people don't think "nigger" is offensive, anyway - so long as a nigger is saying it. That is a racist point of view to hold.
- This is completely besides the point. What matters is what the person the term is directed at thiks about it. You'll likely find many blacks who would mind even if another black called him a nigger.
- Oh, so saying things that offend people is wrong? Let's see. You have explicitly stated earlier that you think "hate speech" should be illegal, and you have accused myself and the GNAA numerous times of practicing hate speech. This incorrigible disdain of my freedom to speak offends me greatly. Furthermore, I'm sure if I got to know you better I could find at least ten additional things about you that offend me. Perhaps you should cease doing these things since they offend me so much. What's that, you say? You won't stop? Then, ladies and gentlemen, what we have here is what's known as a double standard. Listen, I'm not going to stop saying "nigger", and the fact that you or anyone else is offended by it will never change that. I don't let others dictate what I can and can't say. Period.
- I do not approve of affirmative action or of Israel's actions in the conflict with Palestine.
- Good for you, but that wasn't the point. The point was that Jews will often dodge the issues by accusing anyone who doesn't agree with Israeli policy of being an anti-Semite. It's all part of the Zionist effort to use the holocaust tragedy and past violence towards Jews as an excuse to murder people.
- I agree that misuse of the word "anti-Semitism" is a problem. (Compare the controversy caused by the "Snow White and The Madness of Truth".)
- I already said that I oppose affirmative action. However what I do support is laws banning discrimination in public services. For example, should you own a restaurant, you shouldn't be permitted to decree that you won't serve blacks.
- Good for you, but that wasn't the point. The point was that Jews will often dodge the issues by accusing anyone who doesn't agree with Israeli policy of being an anti-Semite. It's all part of the Zionist effort to use the holocaust tragedy and past violence towards Jews as an excuse to murder people.
- I DO approve of hate crime legislation.
- Why don't you get a clue. Almost all crimes of violence are "hate crimes", since it usually requires a great deal of hate to want to hurt people. Making punishments for crimes against minorities or other select groups harsher than crimes against anyone else is a racist and bigoted policy.
- Hate crime legislation doesn't mean that a crime committed against a member of a minority is to be punished more severely than a crime committed against anybody else. (I agree that it would have been an intolerable act of discrimination; however, no such thing takes place. In fact, an exact opposite is often true - look at the statistic of death penalty use against blacks who murder white victims, as opposed to whites who murder black victims. ) Instead, it means that a crime whose motivation is hatred towards a group of people - whether a minority or a majority - is seen as more dangerous to society and punished more severely.
- Motivation of a crime already makes a difference in the sentencing. For example, a hitman hired by criminal gang or a robber who kills another person during a bank robbery may be punished more severely than - using your example - a man who murders his neighbor because he slept with his wife. (And to answer your question: it is generally not a hate crime regardless of the victim's race.)
- By the way, I strongly oppose death penalty - in case you wanted to start discussion about it.
- Why don't you get a clue. Almost all crimes of violence are "hate crimes", since it usually requires a great deal of hate to want to hurt people. Making punishments for crimes against minorities or other select groups harsher than crimes against anyone else is a racist and bigoted policy.
- I am not American. - Mike Rosoft 11:16, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Maybe not, but it wouldn't take long for me to criticize Europeans for falling victim to even shittier social norms. GNAA Popeye 22:46, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- If you believe so. - Mike Rosoft 14:09, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Maybe not, but it wouldn't take long for me to criticize Europeans for falling victim to even shittier social norms. GNAA Popeye 22:46, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Making fun of people is one thing. Hate speech is a completely differnt one one.
- For the last time, the GNAA doesn't hate minorities. In fact, such people aren't allowed in the organization. We make disruptive, racist and anti-semitic comments for the purpose of subverting social norms and ridiculing people's political convictions, among other reasons. Humor is a large part of it. Making fun of society's stereotypes is humorous. Why is it OK to make fun of white male culture in this country but not OK to make fun of gooks, jews or niggers? You can call us racists all you want, but you're being narrowminded. The real racists are the people who think it's OK for a black person to use the word "nigger", but not OK for a white person to, or that "affirmative action" or all-black colleges isn't racism, but Lord of the Rings having an all-white cast is. Or that killing somebody because he was sleeping with your wife isn't a "hate crime" but suddenly becomes one if his skin color isn't the same as yours. The real bigots are the people who play the "anti-semitism" card anytime somebody criticizes Jewish Zionism or brutal Israeli policy. So before you criticise the GNAA as being "racist", perhaps you should take a hard look at American culture and tell me who the real bigots are. GNAA Popeye 16:53, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
GNAA Popeye takes a forced break from the arguments
GNAA Popeye has been blocked for vandalizing your userpage. WhisperToMe 23:38, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Can you give more explanation? I don't see any vandalism in Mike's user page's history. In fact, none of GNAA Popeye's contributions seem to qualify as vandalism. Sam Hocevar 22:20, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, see the village pump. - Mike Rosoft 22:21, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Wikipedia:RFC link from RFC
OK, so my brain isn't working too swiftly today. Why is the link better as a full-blown URL? I assume this is to avoid an inter-Wiki link? Noel (talk) 23:25, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Yes, this seems to be the policy. (If I am mistaken, please correct me.) - Mike Rosoft 23:38, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Schoolkids
Hmm... I'm considering your suggestion about delete/blank/protect on that article. Good idea, and I've seen it done before. My worry is that they will just choose a different article name to write nonsense under. For the moment, I've only deleted it, not taken the extra steps. The article is now on my watchlist so I'll see if it reappears. Hopefully, they will get the idea and eventually give up. Hopefully, that is. It has already been deleted four times. :-) SWAdair | Talk 11:14, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Timewave zero
Mike-
although you may consider it to be patent nonsense, (and it very well may be!), if its important to enough people its inclusion in wikipedia should be warranted. it gets 14,000 hits on google, which isn't particularly significant, but its something. people have been talking about it for over 30 years now. check out the Novelty Theory page as the timewave zero page should probably become a redirect to that. thanks. Heah 18:42, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Mike, I just wanted to let you know I removed the Speedy tag from Connections nightclub, and removed the vanity portion of it, as well. What was left looked like a decent stub about a notable club. I found a site that verifies it is the longest continuously running GLBT nightclub in Perth, but I couldn't verify the article's claim about all of the southern hemisphere. Happy editing! SWAdair | Talk 07:14, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Willy on Wheels
Apparently, you are claiming to be Willy on Wheels in the discussion portion of VIP/WoW. So, Did Willy on Wheels get his name from a wind-up toy penis with wheels attached? --SuperDude 18:13, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
- For context, see User:Whilly on Weels, an account I have registered for the hell of it.
Hi Mike, I saw you in the history of some of User:Coolcat's template experiments; I've reworked what he was doing as subpages in his user space; there's a discussion on my talk page and I adjusted his notice on the village pump. The timeline is still a template and I thought I should give you a heads-up; it's still used by Kurdistan Workers Party which I'm not going to touch for now. — Davenbelle 06:22, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
Images and media for deletion votes
- I am contacting people who previously helped to vote to delete a generally objectionable photograph by a vote of 88 to 21, and who might be unaware that immediately after that image was voted to be deleted someone posted another which was very similar in content. My objections to this, and the previous image that was voted to be deleted might be based upon reasons far different from any that you have, but I do object to it, and consider the posting of such images to be acts of asinine stupidity, which burdens the project and its major educational aims in ways that they should not be burdened, and can be extremely detrimental to the acceptance and growth of WIkipedia's use and influence. Thus far those who I believe to be in the extreme minority of Wikipedians who would like to include these images, many who have been channeled to the voting page from the article with which it is associated have dominated the voting, 23 to 12 (as of the time that I composed this message). I would like to be somewhat instrumental in shedding a bit more light upon the issue, and if possible, helping to turn the tide against its inclusion. It might also be necessary to begin making an effort to establish an explicit Wikipedia policy against explicite photographic depictions of humans engaged in erotic, auto-erotic, or quasi-erotic activities. To my limited knowledge such images have not been accepted as appropriate anywhere else within this project, and frankly I can agree with those who are casually labeled prudes for opposing their inclusion, that they should not be. Vitally important information that might be unwelcome by some is one thing that should never be deleted, but un-needed images that can eventually prevent or impede many thousands or millions of people from gaining access to the great mass of truly important information that Wikipedia provides is quite another matter. There are vitally important distinctions to be made. Whatever your reasons, or final decisions upon the matter, I am appealing for more input on the voting that is occurring at Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion. ~ Achilles † 21:45, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Vfd on blunders
Re: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of the Great Boners of all time - You did some strange things during your edits. Jmabel's vote seems to be deleted and Mo0's name is now in two columns at once. I don't know what you were thinking, so I'm not gonna touch it. Letting you know so you can fix/explain it before someone else comes along and accuses you of vote tampering or some other stupid accusation. It looks to me that you just accidentally typed over something or cut and pasted things the wrong way. - Pioneer-12 17:36, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Looks like somebody has already fixed it. Jmabel's vote has been properly moved to "abstain/ambiguous" section, and Mo0's one to "keep". If I have made a bad edit, I apologize for that. - Mike Rosoft 21:22, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Why the re-write?
Why do Mark Lee ,Mac Powell ,Brad Avery ,David Carr ,and Tai Anderson's pages need to be re-written?
- Because of the way they are written: they look like vanity articles, not encyclopedia entries. - Mike Rosoft 06:35, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
The page is listed for VfD. It will be deleted once the vote has run its course. Leave it alone. Ral begged to be blocked, I accomodated. RickK 06:57, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
- Good luck not getting blocked for what you did. My reverts got me a day because RickK wouldn't listen to what I was saying. You've got balls, though. ral315 07:35, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
- Looks like I got away with my edits, and even managed to persuade an admin to speedily delete the page. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Again, and also User talk:Again. - Mike Rosoft 22:52, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Context (retreived from User talk:RickK)
I'm not sure if you have a script reverting Userspace edits by unaffiliated users, but User:Again is violating WP:WIN (Wikipedia is not a free host or webspace provider, Wikipedia is not Anarchy) In addition, I have an honest belief that the content of User:Again's user page violates the laws of Florida, where Wikipedia's servers are stored. Such is explicitly against WP policy, and whatever space it may be in, I believe I have an honest right to revert it.
The quote on YOUR user page says it best:
We need to take due process seriously, but we also need to remember: this is not a democracy, this is not an experiment in anarchy, it's a project to make the world a better place by giving away a free encyclopedia.
User:Again's page does not make the world a better place, and it specifically fits what happens if anarchy reigns over WP. Until I am explicitly told not to make these edits by someone like Angela, Jimbo, or certain sysops/Wikimedia leaders who I would defer my decision to, I will continue to revert User:Again's page.
Sincerely, ral315 05:56, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
(P.S. - leave any comments on my talk page; I likely won't travel back to check yours too often)
- So be it. Block me from editing. But my edits are not in bad faith; I truly and honestly believe that since WP policies contradict each other, and promoting warez on Wikipedia leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I respect your opinion, but in this case, I do not agree, and if you choose to block me, that's your choice. I did what I believed was right, feel free to do the same. ral315 06:14, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
- I fully support User:Ral315's actions. They do not constitute vandalism; to the contrary, it is User:Again who is guilty of vandalism by using Wikipedia for promotion of illegal software. I request unblocking of User:Ral315, and a permanent block on User:Again and speedy deletion of his page. - Mike Rosoft 06:54, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I have edited User:Again's page once again: I have removed e-mail addresses which are being used for illegal activities, and marked the page for speedy deletion. As was stated here, illegal material already gets deleted on sight (presumedly as vandalism). - Mike Rosoft 07:36, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- P.S. (so that you don't have an excuse): Please don't block me. It is not MY (or User:Ral315's) actions which constitute vandalism. - Mike Rosoft 07:36, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- For more context, see User talk:Ral315/Archive 2#User:Again
Still no reply about Galore
Can you believe it? After all these weeks I 'still haven't had a reply from the City of Port Phillip about the alleged Principality of Galore. Well, that's not quite true. I did recieve the standard "Thank you for your enquiry, someone will respond later" message, but no-one responded later! — P Ingerson (talk) 09:10, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Appreciated
Bear in mind that the Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians for Decency is not MY project. It was created by Agriculture and assisted by Noitall. In retrospect, I was unaware they had been tagging a few images and articles...a sockpuppet did the rest, FYI...had I known that images and articles were to be tagged, I would not have enlisted, but still would have voted "strong keep" on the Vfd. I'm discussing with several other supporters of the project what needs to be done. Prior to Jimbo Wales chiming in, I suggested dropping the templates associated with the project, renaming and expanding the effort so that it wasn't going to act as some sort of a witch hunt for arbitraily determined "obsenities". I would like to do something different and feel that the current project has lost it's purpose for existence in it's present state. I appreciate your commitment to doing the right thing, even if you don't agree with the premise of the effort...I won't hesitate to keep you posted as to what can and will be worked out. Thanks.--MONGO 09:30, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
James Deese
Copyright Violation
Dear Mike, I am a newbie. Please tell me how you determined the page to be a copyright violation? And, please tell me how you jumped on the page almost before I put it up? My son was a student of James Deese, and I have attended his class. I can't find such a bio on the internet to copy. I got the page from my son, who posted "Text grammar" on Wikipedia. It was his own work in its entirety. I will check with him soon to find out where he got the Deese material. I am not trying to be smart. I want to learn. Thanks Phil 20:50, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
Again
Thank you for the courteous and informative reply posted to my talk page. Should I have replied to you there? or is here the proper place? Anyway, I am sorry for the fiasco. It is my intention to go the the "Jamees Deese" page and remove all content and make it a stub. Then I intend to do my own research, follow the Style Guide for obituaries, and see if I can post a creditable article. Thanks again for your guidance.Phil 10:16, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
Lesson Learned
Thanks for your guidance and corrections. I looked for the bio stub and saw nothing suitable. I have recorded the correct one. I am afraid that I let intuition take over and should do more observant reading. Phil 12:17, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
James Deese reposted
I have posted an original <smile> bio of Deese. Would you kindly help me clean it up? Thanks. Phil 20:00, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
Just a thought
This may not satisfy all of your needs, but if you don't show some support, we're not likely to get even this much. — Xiong熊talk* 10:46, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
Hello Mike
This is regarding my Image source. Actually some are from my friend.
Thanks for your guidenes.
Rajesh - Rajesh Kakkanatt
You tagged Image:Rajesh.jpg for deletion as unencyclopedic. As it is generally accepted practice for users to have a personal image on their Users page, I have kept the image and informed User:Kjrajesh he is free to use it. --Nv8200p (talk) 16:50, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
Careful with the speedies
When you marked Hannah Wang as a speedy based on it being vanity, you missed the point that the article was claiming she's a notable actress (a point with which Google agrees). Ineptly and messily done, yes, but notable. No harm done; just be a bit more careful. DS 13:11, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
Thank's for kind wellcome
Dear Mike, thank You for the kind wellcome You gave me! I was, and still am on visit from German Wiki and was looking for details concerning computertechnologyhistory, which I was only able to get by private investigations by my musicfriends in London. And after editing the article "Flipflop" I found by link on article "William Henry Eccles" a much more foundet article "flip-flop". So I lost nearly 2 hours to get "Flipflop" deleted. Hope it is inbetween! Yes I enjoy very much to be in English enviironment! My special favorites are Wallace an Gromit, whom You already have in the pictures - Germany again suffers a heavy cultural lack! It will last untill we get the new Wallacs and Gromit in Hamburg. Now, hope we'll meet again in Wikipedia! Auf Wiedersehen! (2005 11 22 19:39 CET)ko
Image
Hi, sorry bout uploading the wrong picture over the "right version" of fluffy. It is a picture of my cat that I use on my user page. Again sorry for the trouble. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk. 19:10, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Also about image deletion so I'll leave it under the same heading: I've replied to your deletion notification on my talk page, as well as IFD. -- Tim Starling 10:03, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
Flipflop
Thank You again, Mike! Friendly help backstage behind the curtains! Could You please change the redirection to the page with the electronic meaning of Flip-flop? Many thanks! And good night! Please don't mind the mistakes! (2005 11 23 22:50 CET) ko
Foul mouthed lesbian - Muriel Belcher
Brookie here - I have re-written this and hopefuly now made it different enough to not be a copyvio. Check it out please! :) Brookie: A collector of little round things 18:09, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
Classic Rock
Hello. I was wondering if you would like to participate in my classic rock survey. I'm trying to find the most like classic rock song. There is more information on my user page. Hope you participate! RENTASTRAWBERRY FOR LET? röck 03:39, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
pink
It's a shame you don't like pink, or fun; I'm not sure which --86.144.85.93 21:25, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- You seem a bit unfamiliar with some key wikipedia policy. First, WP:AGF. Second, anonymous users (by which I mean those editing with the IP adress; they are in fact less anonymous than named users) shouldn't be treated as second-class editors. Third - well, this isn't actually policy, just something jimbo has written on his page:
- You may edit this page
- Really, you can. :-P
- This is my user page. I like to keep it a certain way. But, the thing is, I trust you. I trust that you'll add something here that makes me smile
- not that I'm saying you shouldn't have reverted anything. Just keep in mind AGF etc.; agressive and uptight users make wikipedia suck --86.144.85.93 21:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Spam Bot Trap Link Removal
Concerning dfwforums.net/spamlock.php
I removed the link to my spam bot trap because you are stealing my bandwidth.
I will continue to remove the link if you insist on hot linking to it.
Create your own site with spam bot sand boxes on it.
If you have any issues with this you know where I am and you are free to email me.
Respectfully,
Stephen
Article about José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero
Hi, Mike. I have found today you have shown of late some interest in the article on the current Spanish Prime Minister. Don't dare edit it ever again!!! You are warned!!!
No, just kidding!!! :-) I have devoted quite a deal of effort in that article (and it has provided me a lot of suffering) and I personally welcome every honest contribution if it helps to make a better article.
However, I have a little complaint. You have inserted a tag that states, among other things, that "Discussion of this nomination can be found on the talk page." I found nothing in the talk page, so I would feel grateful if you could provide a little background about what passages you find "suspicious."
If you are interested in the matter, you can find here an old version of the article, that has a lot of defects but has the advantage that it contains a lot of references to articles and all that.
In any case, I honestly believe that the article currently contains only objective facts and opinions and theories by (let's say) important Spanish political players, which are treated fairly as what they are: opinions and theories. Of course, I admit the possible existence of mistakes and I would welcome any positive observation or criticism from you or others. Thank you for your attention. Zapatancas 15:35, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Deletion of 'liberals wikipedians' category
Hi. I saw you're (like me) listed in this category which is up for deletion. Hoped you'd like to vote in favor of keeping it... Thanks! Larix 23:07, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
"vandalism"
You should not throw around the label of "vandalism" so easily. Certainly, the anon's edit to voting system was fairly content-free, but it seems to have been made in good faith. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 18:54, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Brain scan pictures - not postage stamps
Hi, thanks for calling me on that. I thought there was a comma between "fair use" and "postage stamp", in other words I thought i was simply choosing fair use. How can I label the picture as fair use without asserting that its a postage stamp (I didn't see it in the list)? Fresheneesz 09:47, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
May I enquire why you posted a deletion marker ? If you want to discuss the Category please post at the discussion page for the Category. Cordially Battlefield 00:11, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Set the email in your "my preferences" tab. You won't receive any spam and your email is confidential unless you choose to reply to an email. =Nichalp «Talk»= 11:26, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
- Hi Mike; I just dropped by to say that I agree with Nichalp that administrators should have their e-mail enabled. Especially if you block someone, that person should have a way of getting in touch with you. I understand that you already have your e-mail address displayed on your user page, but I still feel that the standard method be used, so that people can click "E-mail this user" or go to Special:Emailuser/Mike Rosoft. I guess I'm also a little confused why you wouldn't mind displaying it on your user page (in obfuscated form) and yet wouldn't want to set it in your preferences. Also, I feel that your message to Nichalp was a tad abrupt and seems out of character for you. — Knowledge Seeker দ 00:34, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Well, having your email set in your preferences is a lot more secure than displaying it publicly. The email settings are mentioned in the admins reading guide, so I really don't think that I alone am dictating you to set your preferences. I have opposed many RFA in the past, and have withdrrawn it as soon as the email id was set. =Nichalp «Talk»= 04:49, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Why does it matter whether he uses the standard method, as long as we can e-mail him? This just sounds like conformity for its own sake. Yeltensic42.618 18:12, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Never mind, I just saw Mike's post on Knowledge Seeker's talkpage. Yeltensic42.618 18:15, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- I thank you for reconsidering, although I don't believe that those without e-mail accounts will be able to e-mail you (unless they put a false address in, and even then they wouldn't be able to receive a reply. I'm a bit confused by your later comments on your RfA, though. Your comments there still sound to me like you're overreacting to a simple request. Especially when you complain about no one leaving a request on your talk page with an explanation, which I would think is how this conversation started. I understand that getting oppose votes can be stressful, but I don't really see anyone making demands of you. I don't have any desire to draw this matter out, but I'm just confused by this behavior from an otherwise great Wikipedian. — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:09, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- I've clarified this a bit on the RfA page. BD2412 T 05:13, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
George Reeves
Thank you for reverting. The user called "Vesa" which is apparently a sock puppet for user "Project" (or vice versa) or anon user 64.107.2.115 keeps messing with that article, and getting weirder about it each time. I won't argue that my response to it has been getting less than sterling... each time. At first I said "I understand but it's POV", and then he got more aggressive with each one, and I'm getting tired of dealing with it. Wahkeenah 18:47, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Reply, block Wakheenah
The user Vesa and Project are two different people but we are from George Reeves Project. We would appreciate you get in touch with us, or post an email here, so we can contact you. The user Wakkeenah is very sly, he is using nice language to make it look good, so we will use nice language too. Wakheenah is a very ignorant man, this person is protecting possible murderers of Reeves. We are only adding facts associated with the possible murder of Reeves, we are saying probably, nothing is certain. We want you to keep it like it is, and stop reversing, because a lot of effort has been put into this and I understand George Reeves Project has been deleted from this page. But it will become popular and when it does we will not allow you to post it here. But the above person has no merits and has no right to delete important people, important changes and many, many other facts surrounding Reeves. We are Reeves experts, if you can give us an email, we will be more than happy to proove it to you, it's very hard to do it here and time consuming and vandals like Wahkeenah should be blocked from this site. There is much more to this... But we are only reporting facts and if some things are not facts they are generally known within Reeves circles of friends and 95% of his fans and supporters agree this was not suicide.
Vandal
A Vandal you have warned vandalised G4TV Article I reverted it thought you would want to know he is User:71.240.210.197 Mike 11:20, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
- LOL OK, Just trying to help out heh, anyways thats good he didn't do more. Thanks Mike 17:13, 31 December 2005 (UTC)