This is an archive of past discussions with User:Renamed user 9nc9f7hfgg. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I can't just walk away. I know people, who have been brainwashed by the media, won't change their opinion, but I'll continue to express my opinion, because I've had enough of the entire world demonising all Serbs, I've just had enough. And Wikipedia is not the only place I'm expressing my opinion, watch BBC World, and you might just see my name there. Can you imagine what's it like when someone asks me where I'm from, I say Serbia, and they just don't want to talk to me... And why, just because of CNN... Why does the world hate all Serbs, why? --Serbiana₪22:07, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Sadly many people can't overcome the strength of the mainstream western media. I think you may be taking it out of proportion, though. Even in the United States I doubt very many people could locate Serbia on a map or explain any events of the Kosovo War (the few I've tried to inform about it usually dismiss it anyway). I wasn't trying to say you or your opinion were incorrect, I just think perhaps it would be best not to argue about Yugoslav history with the ideologues and know-it-alls of Wikipedia. NEMT22:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree with you. But it's stronger than me, Serbs are like that, we can't stand injustice. I feel so sad that Serbs, who always liked America and the West, are now victims of a higher political game. --Serbiana₪23:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Don't take it so personally. Serbs may be disliked by a few in America (actually I'm very surprised to hear you've experienced anti-Serb bias anywhere in North America, but I'll take your word for it), but I know from experience Americans are disliked pretty much everywhere. NEMT23:12, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
How can I not take it personally, when others are taking it so personally. I'm not saying that all North Americans hate Serbs, but most of them do. If an American went to Yugoslavia before the war, people would be smiling at him, being very polite, because people in Yugoslavia loved Americans. Even during the war it was like that, untill the NATO bombing. So, the Americans did do something bad to us, I had to spend 76 days of my life as a 10-year-old in a bomb shelter, so I, and other Serbs have a reason to not like Americans. However, Serbs never did anything to America, yet Americans hate us. I've come to realize that it was the administrations fault for the bombing, so now I don't have anything against those Americans that have nothing against me as a Serb. I can understand why a Bosnian or Croat would dislike Serbs, but why North America? --Serbiana₪23:25, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
That's my point. While there are a lot of partisan moutpieces here on Wikipedia with an ax to grind with Serbia (mostly due to misinformation) I don't think very many regular people in the US (or Canada) have anything against Serbs, or even realize the US was at war with Serbia just a few years ago. I've always felt the NATO intervention in the war was just an example of unneccessary political maneuvering on behalf of a very incompetent administration, and I feel terrible knowing how much suffering NATO caused in the region in defense of terrorists and criminals. I've also wrote extensively on the mistakes and crimes of Wesley Clark during his tenure as Supreme Allied Commander, though find it very difficult to get anyone to notice, testament to the lack of interest/knowledge in the Balkan conflicts. Anyway, as I said earlier, you'd find it much less stressful to pick your battles on Wikipedia, rather than argue with every anon and nitwit who comes along. Just some friendly advice. NEMT23:35, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice. And thanks for calming me down. I probably won't spend as much time on Talk:Milosevic as I did before. All the best, Serbiana₪23:41, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Always happy to help. Though I suspect we have vastly different political ideologies, it's nice to see we can agree on this - if only these anons were so civil, right? See you around. NEMT23:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. The duration of the block is 12 hours. William M. Connolley22:14, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
I must protest your actions. My reverts were to undo the unexplained reverts and vandalism by an anonymous user. I was merely bringing the page back to the state it was agreed upon on the talk page - which this anonymous user had been ignoring. I request an immediate unblocking of my account, and an assurance this will not happen again.
There's a reason I brought this issue to the attention of the administrators, whereas no one complained about my restorations of the page. The anonymous whose edits I reverted was removing important information and references - is that not vandalism? I have also been very active on the talk page in maintaining an agreed upon state of the page, whereas this anonymous user has constantly ignored the talk page and the consensus built there. As an administrator, you should use common sense - and realize no one has complained about my reverts, as they are only to counter vandalism and removal of information. Once again, unblock my account immediately, your actions are highly inappropriate. --NEMT22:27, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Still looks like a content dispute to me. If your version was indeed the consensus, then all you have to do it let it alone for a bit and someone else will revert William M. Connolley22:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
It is clearly not a high traffic page, and had been quite peaceful until this anon began reverting again. It's unlikely many (or any) users still have it in their watchlists, or care to make further additions, so waiting around for someone else to undo vandalism is not ideal. It is not a content dispute, as the anon has never once commented on the talk page or explained his/her reverts. Additionally, this still does not justify your highly suspect blocking of me, after I was the one who reported the violations. Your actions in this matter are extremely questionable, and raise serious concerns about your competence as an admin and knowledge of wiki policy. --NEMT22:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Adding something once on Aprils Fools day is a joke. Adding it three times is three times as funny. Furthermore, you started adding it on March 30. Do not engage in further vandalism, please. -Will Beback01:00, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Adding it on 30 March was just practice for primetime. I'm sorry if you weren't as moved by Teresa's performance as I was. --NEMT01:14, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
I mean no disrespect for Ms. Thierstein Simões-Ferreira Heinz Kerry, but she is one of the worst actresses I have ever seen on television. Her portrayal of a future First Lady was not believable, and was panned by the critics. Plus that Boston accent was horrible- totally fake. Strangely enough, I heard that they thought of casting her in "Basic Instinct 2" to replace Sharon Stone, back when Stone was asking for too much money. -Will Beback01:43, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm a little concerned about the screening process wiki has to admins after viewing this Gamaliel character's actions. Thanks for helping with the POV and citation correction, though. --NEMT15:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Me, personally?
In casual conversation, I mostly call 'em blues. I've heard all the terms you describe used by other people from time to time; regardless of what you call cops, the meaning's usually pretty clear from context. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!)18:30, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
The underlining of links
I'm not entirely sure why the links which used to be underlined are now linked, or why sometimes the links are underlined and sometimes the links are not. If you access My Preferences, and click on Skin, which skin does it say you are using? Bobo.20:35, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
At times they flip from being underlined to being okay again. This is nothing to worry about and is not really a cosmetic error, although sometimes when you use other computers they can render incorrectly. This may appear to be a problem in the future, but it does appear to fix itself rather swiftly. So it's not really a worry. Bobo.20:40, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Warning
Do not readd the link to the image of an arab shooting the italian player into the Zindane article. It is considered vandalism and you will be blocked. Sasquatcht|c22:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Also, do not remove warnings from admins. The only way to properly remove them is when you archive your talk page. Sasquatcht|c05:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Blocked
You have been temporarily blocked from editing for vandalism of Wikipedia. If you wish to make useful contributions, you may do so after the block expires.
Note the distinct lack of any logical rationale or given explanation for this block. God bless the wiki admin staff and the uninformed new-users with hot tempers and little or no formatting prowess who place their absolute faith in them. IN USERBOXES WE TRUST! --NEMT23:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Anyway, here's a brief explanation of what happened: I inserted an hilarious animated image on the page for Zinedine Zidane in reference to his actions at yesterday's World Cup final. This was quickly removed by another user, who, in doing so, disrupted the formatting of the page and broke several links. I attempted to repair this by copying and pasting the old code, however, it slipped my mind the gif link was still present. These are the two and only edits I made to the page. THis, of course, hasn't stopped several users from violating various wiki policies regarding personal attacks, 3rr, and so on. --NEMT00:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Additionally, I made no edits to the page after being "warned" by anyone, admin or regular user. --NEMT00:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
It's been ~24 hours, and still no explanation or justification from any admin, just harassment from some previously unseen renegade asspie on a power trip. Would any admin with an actual understanding and appreciation of wiki policy care to enlighten me as to why I've been blocked? --NEMT01:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Vandalism for starters... and I would suggest you cool down on ther personal attacks. Let it go, your unblocked, go edit. Sasquatcht|c17:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Vandalism on one page, which was not repeated after a warning was given on this talk page, you mean? Additionally, what are these "personal attacks" you speak of? I'll try to avoid ther personal attacks in the future, but FYI: Informing someone of a formatting errorisn't a personal attack. Additionally, "your" is the possessive form of "you," whereas "you're" is a contraction of "you are." --NEMT18:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Blocked (again)
I have blocked you for 1 hour to give you a chance to cool down. God of War is allowed to remove your (possibly frivolous) "warning messages" from his talk page if he wants, and your continuing edit-warring with him over it is inappropriate. --Cyde↔Weys19:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
You have no grounds to block me from editing. The warning message was not frivolous, as it is in response to well documented repeated edits which contained formatting errors and broken links. Additionally, comments from users besides myself (on wiki policy regarding personal attacks) were also removed from his talk page. I am not engaged in any kind of edit warring, I simply act in accordance with wiki policy regarding user talk pages, especially on pages I've left important comments on. --NEMT19:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure what the United Provinces of Central Italy were called in Italy during the brief time of their existence, but the direct translation from English to Italian would Stati Uniti dell'Italia Centrale. "Stati" may be incorrect, though, as the words for state, region, and province are not very clearly defined. --NEMT15:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Sandbox'd
Thank you for experimenting with the page Space Shuttle Atlantis on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. GW_Simulations|User Page | Talk|Contribs | Chess | E-mail22:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice amigo, I sure love your fancy encyclopedia site you've got here. --NEMT23:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, who would've thought an image from a long running YTMND fad would belong on the YTMND article in the fad and meme section? --NEMT19:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually, you have no basis to block me and would likely be violating wiki policy if you did, something you seem to do pretty frequently. I suggest you go make some worthwhile edits instead of harassing contributors - while you still can. --NEMT15:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Hidden Agenda
Could you be a bit more specific about the advice you want? I assume it is about an article with that name. - Mgm|(talk)21:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh, sorry, I was referring to the old MS-DOS political sim, I noticed you wrote a fairly lengthy critique of it on the talk page for the game's wiki article. --NEMT21:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Judah
(A repeat of what I just posted on the talk page):
I'm not in favor of deleting other people's text from talk pages, but this is patent nonsense. The streetcar line is named after the street in western San Francisco that it follows for much of its length. The street in turn is named after Theodore Judah, who helped conceive of the transcontinental railroad that connected California to the East Coast by land. Judah may have been Jewish (it was not an uncommon last name for American Jews in the nineteenth century), though that's not for sure.
The idea that any aritcle in Wikipedia should be promoting the idea that there's only one true religion is itself obviously problematic. --Jfruh (talk) 21:51, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually it's a famous sardonic quote from a san francisco-based military historian, greg friedman, not any kind of serious religious endorsement. --NEMT21:53, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Hello, NEMT. Thanks for restoring the discussion on Talk:British Shorthair. Although I originally agreed that the discussion should have been removed, I realized that it should have remained for a few days to let everything cool down before archiving it. And yes, it should have been archived if anything, and not outright deleted. Once things cool down, would you object to archiving the discussion, maybe after 5 days of no activity? --Targetter21:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
it is not confirmation by an Election Official, but a comment on basis as individuals, later you will be contacted by my fellow officer, so please listen to me relaxing,
I have some questions and requests about your statement.
Can you rewrite or make remarks to your statement? I can't understand some of abbraviations you used. Supposedly other translators too. Then you reduce the chance your statement will be properly understood.
Can you try to have your contact page on meta rather on English Wikipedia? It is not so much comfortable to log in a unfamiliar project, specially need in hurry. I hope you never intentionally neglect other 400 projects than English Wikipedia and 200 other languages' speakers.
I think I see a few enwiki-policy issues in your list of things you would like to establish. However, boardmember is no community-function. Does this thus mean that you want more involvement of the Wikimedia Foundation Inc. in the policies of the local Wikimedia projects? Does this only apply to enwiki, or also to other wikiprojects under the flag of the Wikimedia Foundation? And are you candidate for the Wikimedia Foundation boardmembership because of the enwiki policy you would like to change, or do you want to do things for the Foundation, what are your views for the future of the Foundation? I look forward to your reply. effeietsanders09:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I'll level with you, I have no idea what the board of trustees does or how involved WM is in specific wiki projects. --NEMT15:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Your userbox POV
Your statement under Tips/Warnings -- "I do not support the usage of non-babel userboxes.... It's plain to see they promote factionism and cronyism amongst editors" -- is perplexing considering your use of the questionably humourous/satirical box on American vs British English:
No personal attacks were made, "samp" is not an insult, and the second half of the reply was obvious light hearted sarcasm. --NEMT00:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I see. Your sarcasm was not obvious to me, I saw it as a criticism of JzG. The last thing Tchadienne needs just now is more "evidence" that he is being persecuted. His account is blocked now, and I think it will do him good. In any case, he has repeatedly stated he is permanently closing the account. Nevertheless, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and remove the warning. But please don't inflame the situation. I'm sorry if you think I over-reacted, but I've spent hours in the last few days trying unsuccessfully to help Tchad avoid a block. --Guinnog00:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I removed the comment, since NEMT appears to admit to being hasty in making it. The Tchadienne situation does not need any more petrol on the flames right now. Just zis Guy you know?09:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Vandalism Watchlist?
Is there some sort of watchlist of users and anon-IPs for admins to give a heads up on potential vandals? --NEMT23:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm a little unsure what you're looking for so this might be a little long. If you're looking to help with vandalism by seeing a list of possible vandals, I would suggest reading Wikipedia:Cleaning up vandalism and Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit. There is no single list of people because vandalism on wikipedia is fairly complex. Those two pages should start you off on ways that people can help though if you're interested in that.
Hi. Please explain on Talk:Silt why you think the Doug reference is important information in the understanding of silt. You seem to have multiple other editors who have not been convinced of that. Cheers, -- Infrogmation00:36, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Gaffitti in Cray?
Dude, what's going on in Cray? You hardly seem the sort to add graffitti. Is someone impersonating you? Maury
You mean the "Pretty cool, huh?" edit to the image caption? Yeah, that was me, I thought it was a pretty apt description for what is generally considered a pretty impressive piece of hardware. --NEMT19:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I meant that. I don't want to sound like your mom or anything, but you should know better! Maury19:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
If you're going to sit there and say the Cray-2 isn't "pretty cool" I suspect you're the one who should know better. --NEMT19:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
You have a problem with my commentary? Pretend you're watching the wikipedia director's cut DVD. --NEMT15:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with subject headings
Thank you for experimenting with the page Food on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Ucanlookitup01:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
All of these examples have taken place over the last few weeks, including three yesterday. Several administrators have warned you to stop it. Your only response to date has been flippant dismissals (also unfunny, IMHO). We have better things to do on the wiki than revert you silly edits. Stop.
You have been blocked from editing for violating Wikipedia policy by vandalism. You've been given plenty of warning to stop stupid edits. You're blocked for 24 hours.. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by replying here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}}. You may also email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list instead. See the latest nonsense. Tyrenius17:50, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
You will now witness a wave of vandalism so severe the entire wikimedia foundation will be thrown into a third dark age. --NEMT00:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
You have been blocked from editing for violating Wikipedia policy by intention to commit ongoing vandalism as stated immediately above. This block is indefinite, until such time as you withdraw your comment unreservedly and state your commitment to contribute responsibly to wikipedia. If you do this I will reduce to a three day block. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by replying here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}}. You may also email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list instead, or mail unblock-en-l@mail.wikimedia.org. Tyrenius16:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
I was obviously joking: note no pages have been vandalised by me since making that comment. If you'll notice, all of my edits since then have been conversational or constructive
Decline reason:
But several editors didn't find it funny. In fact, they found the threat disturbing and you have now been asked to leave. I add my voice theirs. -- ➨ ЯEDVERS18:59, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Redvers (or Yaedvers?): I'll ask you to take note of the 1000+ non-vandalous edits in my history. Additionally, semantically speaking, the comment was not a threat to commit mass vandalism, as it made no mention or implication of the possible source. Of course, this wouldn't matter to most rational people, who would recognize it as humor. --NEMT19:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
I was pretty obviously joking, Tyrenius, and I fail to see why after clarifying this a 3-day block is necessary, considering I hadn't vandalised anything. --NEMT17:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Once again, please check the date on the edit. Also, as it was a legitimate question ona talk page, is it really vandalism? --NEMT18:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
That answer is exactly the kind of thing that makes you not wanted round here, and is another flippant reply along the lines of your dialogue with Maury above. It was quite obvious that the part in question was "Would you hit it?". Tyrenius23:44, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Regardless, a deal's a deal. block is indefinite, until such time as you withdraw your comment unreservedly and state your commitment to contribute responsibly to wikipedia. If you do this I will reduce to a three day block. You can plainly see I've retracted my comment, and my four figure amount of goodfaith edits clearly show a commitment to improving wikipedia. --NEMT23:47, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't want to guess. I don't see you "state your commitment to contribute responsibly to wikipedia" either. I see you being evasive in answering a simple, and civil, question. You aren't doing yourself any favours here. --Guinnog00:20, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
I pretty clearly have. Why you admins love playing semantic games so much is beyond me. Blocking someone who hasn't vandalized anything is also pretty questionable. --NEMT00:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Additionally, why the two of you are hung up on one instance of unrelated and clearly non-malicious "vandalism" which took place before this incident is beyond me as well. --NEMT00:26, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
The deal involves you not only stating your good intent, but obviously then carrying it out. Your dialogue above demonstrates no contrition and no attempt whatsoever to do that, but only to continue to waste others' time, when they are genuinely trying to give you the chance to return to editing. People are blocked if they announce their intent to vandalise. The statement "Would you hit it?" is unacceptable. You seem not to be able to realise this. You are the one playing semantic games. I suggest you think about what you really want in regard to wiki for a few days. Tyrenius00:43, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
It's hard to carry it out while blocked, no? Additionally, if this block were for my edits to the image talk page you might have a leg to stand on with your "the statement is unacceptable" argument, however, it's not, so you don't. Once again, I've done what you've asked, unblock me. Unless you want to retract your comment, that is. This block is indefinite, until such time as you withdraw your comment unreservedly and state your commitment to contribute responsibly to wikipedia. I see no mention of "contrition" or fallow response to others' commentary. --NEMT00:49, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
I've met your conditions, and you fail to respond. We both know you never had any intention of unblocking me, Tyrenius - otherwise you wouldn't have made such an arbitrary and questionable indefinite block to begin with. I'm unsure what you hope to accomplish by blocking a user with hundreds of contributions, but hey, you're the admin. --NEMT01:47, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
You are really not doing yourself any favours by now saying that I lied. If I say something I mean it, and had you been straightforward it would have been honoured, but you have not been. The block has been supported by other admins and indeed with the suggestion that it is maintained, come what may. I am not inclined to that myself, although if it turns out to be the consensus, so be it. The block followed previous conduct and warnings for the same. It was not in isolation. You need to know that flippancy and messing around with edits wastes people's time and is incredibly irritating. You might like to show your good intent by an honest response to the question put above as to your comment, "Would you hit it?" I take this to be vulgar and abusive. You have so far shown no indication that you have done anything wrong with making that statement. Until such time as you do, I would consider it irresponsible to allow you to make any more edits. Please note: I am still talking to you. Tyrenius02:34, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
First off, you did lie, I met your stated conditions, and you have not unblocked me. Perhaps the "would you hit it?" comment was in poor taste, however, I fail to see how it has become the focus of this discussion. Is it because you acknowledge your initial reasoning for the block (an obviously non-serious comment - which, if taken seriously, could only be viewed as a "threat" as a stretch, as it made no mention of methodology or involvement) could be erroneous? Why do you continue to ignore all of my contributions to wikipedia, wikitravel, and wikiquote save a select few you consider "vandalism?" --NEMT02:40, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
You have been blocked from editing for violating Wikipedia policy by the culmination of previous disruptive edits, and ongoing uncivil and uncooperative responses on this page. There was a suggestion to maintain the indefinite block. I'm not doing that, but I don't think you're ready to come back yet. I've removed the indef block, as I said I would. I've instated a 1 week block. You really need to go away and come back with a new attitude. If you carry on as you have above, I don't think you'll last on the project for very long. The question about "would you hit it" is to assess your current outlook, which leaves plenty of room for improvement right now. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by replying here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}}. You may also email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list instead, or mail unblock-en-l@mail.wikimedia.org. Tyrenius06:23, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
I can't help but notice a week is longer than three days. The number of vandalized pages since your initial block still remains zero, as does your justification for further provokation. I have no intention of disrupting wikipedia operations, but I really question your judgement here, and I'm still confused as to what you expect to gain from your experiment in severe overreaction. I request you delegate any further action on my account to another admin, as you are obviously no longer impartial to the situation as evidenced by your actions. --NEMT06:56, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
It seems reasonable to me. A week for repeated vandalism and the disruption caused here by your evasiveness and rudeness, seems very fair. I suggest you take Tyrenius's advice and use the time to decide your future participation. Maintaining your innocence, and questioning his judgement will not help, any more than calling him a liar will. --Guinnog08:58, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
I no longer have any intention of making any significant (or disruptive) edits to wikipedia in the future. I've been contributing to wiki for a long time, long before this account, with many helpful additions - but I have no desire to spend any significant amount of time helping a project that would give a person like Tyrenius administrative power. --NEMT17:12, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
You will not see things clearly or understand how you have got into this situation if you merely shift the blame onto another person. If you read this talk page, you will see the unanimous disaffection with how you have acted. Until you start being honest with yourself, you won't just have problems with wiki. You'll have problems with life. Think of it as a wikibreak for reflection on things. Come back after that and be straight with the community. Then your contributions will be welcome and you will be appreciated. Tyrenius17:54, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
If the account is an anonymous user (IP address) and the vandalism is over a long period of time, there's nothing much we can do (other than temporarily block after several occurences in quick succession). Otherwise, first make sure they've been warned (for example with {{test4}}), then see Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism (a.k.a. WP:AIV) – Gurch19:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
