User talk:SchmuckyTheCat/Archive 4

Welcome to my talk page. Feel free to leave me messages or even flaming bags filled with poo.

At least 100 years ago I archived a few years worth of people's comments. And then I did it again! I'll keep doing it as hard as I can.

You DO NOT have any new messages (last change). So, don't click either of the blue links in this box.

I award you The Purple Star for getting a bad rap for being a good editor. I thank you for defending Wikipedia against sockpuppets and other vandals. Let's hope future Purple Hearts won't be necessary. - Jeffpw

		Defender of the Wiki
		I award SchmuckyTheCat the Defender of the Wiki Barnstar for his fearless, persistent determination in upholding the light of knowledge in the face of overwhelming darkness and ignorance. —Viriditas | Talk 12:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Image:AvnerCat.jpg

If this image isn't under a free license, it's a non-free image. Whether it's "fair use" or "with permission" doesn't affect that. That's why we don't allow "noncommerical only" licenses, for example, although they do give us permission to use the image. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:20, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Farm Sanctuary

Hi, Just curious, what's your opinion of Farm Sanctuary? And as a peripheral question, view on Animal Rights? Olephill2 16:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee ruling

Please be advised that the Arbitration Committee has voted to lift the restrictions (probation and other remedies) that were imposed on Huaiwei in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Instantnood 3. This notice is given by a Clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad 19:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Although I still have problems finding the full details of the motion other than at [1] (cant seem to find where the actual voting took place), I thank you for taking the trouble to advance this initiative. I am indeed glad that the final shackles and legacy of a three-year dispute has finally dissipitated!--Huaiwei 12:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The voting took place on Wikipedia:Requests for Arbitration. I don't think the actual votes got archived there, just the original discussion and the result, but you can find them in the history of WP:RfAr before yesterday. FYI, the arbitrators' vote in favor of lifting the restrictions was 6-4. Basically, the arbitrators who supported the motion thought it was time to make this change, while the others wanted to see some more time pass without your having any more difficulties. Regards, Newyorkbrad 12:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Tiadon Hill question

Since I know you are also an admin at that other wiki, I ould like you to give me back the deleted content of the "Tiadon Hill" article. If so, I will attempt to write a first draft of an article about that wiki in my personal sandbox. Illintea 03:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

You don't have email enabled. I won't restore it to any public site. SchmuckyTheCat

If you don't restore it, I will tell about the countless times you have insulted MONGO. You have been warned.

Well, on a more serious note, I will not reveal my e-mail address. Why was the page deleted, anyway? Illintea 15:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

OK fine. You're just a threat, so go away. SchmuckyTheCat

Source of CCTV-9 statistics

About 18 months ago, you added some significant Xinhua statistics to the CCTV-9 article in this edit. An anonymous editor has now removed them. I'm reluctant to add a statistic without a source, so could you track down the IHL article? I have tried, but (a) herald.xinhuanet.com doesn't seem to have a search (b) search.xinhuanet.com seems dead (c) a Google search gets lost (zillions of CCTV.com pages and closed circuit television reports). Seektruthfromfacts 22:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Attack sites

Some butthurt morons opened up an arbitration case there. Since you have interest in the subject, hopefully you can comment there. Oh, and RESTORE TIADON HILL!! Illintea 21:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

now go away.

ED

As you're an ED admin, can you tell me what's happening/happened about Die clown die and the page about me? At the moment, the page on me is just a stalker's conspiracy nutjob theories. Will ^(talk) 20:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Sceptre, also contact Blu Aardvark, he is one of the most active ED administrators for dealing with stuff like that. As far as I know he also has had dealings with Die clown die. Zurishaddai 22:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome.

Thank you for the welcome and advice. I like contributing because I care about the truth, like how wikipedia has info on almost anything, and abhor poor grammar, spelling, and punctuation. I will check out those things you mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronar (talk • contribs) 00:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Forgot the four tildes

Just forgot the tildes to sign last message.Ronar 01:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

I owe you a big thank you for supporting me in My RfA, which was successful with 67 supports and 20 opposes. By the way: I've stayed away from that area of editing, so I doubt that your comment will come true. :) - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 23:50, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Flamarande - China - Can you help me?

Hy, it appears that the debate about "China" has reached a deadlock-stalemate situation. All my arguments are answered with "no consensus" and "NPOV concerns" or something similar. I honestly don't agree with any of these arguments but I do not intent to make the moves "against all opposition". You seem to a bit older and wiser in Wikipedia policies. Is there any way of getting a fair ruling in this matter? Where should I turn to? Flamarande 09:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

No true hope then? Well, China and of Wikipedia are the true losers with the current situation. I have done my duty as a Wikipedian and presented my case at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese). Could you give a post when the naming issue flares up again? Flamarande 17:18, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Hy again, could you help in "gathering evidence" for Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese)? I think that we can, and should prove, our case to a considerable extent. I honestly don't know if the debate is going well for the "moving side" or not. As of now it seems to me to be a 50/50 split (deadlock). Flamarande 02:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't want get on your nerves (you're probably more than tired of fighting agains windmills in the "China" issue) but I have read some wikipolicies (which are very vague in "how to change a policy" - I wonder why :) and it seems that we could request a "request for comment". But I seriously don't expect great justice; most administrators seem use the "unclear issue" and "NPOV" excuses alot these days. I'm not sure about it but I think it is possible that the the "traffic" of an article can be analyzed. I'm sure that most users go from the current China-article to the PROC-article. If this could be proven... Anyway give me a post when you can, and don't be afraid to tell me to simply drop the issue... for now. I truly think that a very small minority (with certain prejudices against the goverment of the PROC - something which is very hard to prove) is keeping the whole situation from being corrected. Flamarande 13:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC) If a journalist made an article making fun of this the whole situation would be over in 5 min. Wishful toughts.

thedeadmanandphenom chit chat

Do you go to TPMS? Thedeadmanandphenom —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 16:08, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Tagging of Talk:MS-DOS/archive1

I recently removed a speedy delete tag that you had placed on Talk:MS-DOS/archive1. I do not think that Talk:MS-DOS/archive1 fits any of the speedy deletion criteria because not speedy criterion. I request that you consider not re-tagging Talk:MS-DOS/archive1 for speedy deletion without discussing the matter on the appropriate talk page. You are, of course, free to tag the article with {{prod}} or nominate it at WP:AFD. Carlossuarez46 18:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Ringling Brothers

Thank you for stopping the senseless vandalism on Ringling Brothers Circus! Would you like to join Wikipedia:WikiProject Circus?--Hailey 16:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Stop.

Please do not remove others sections on WP:AN/I, especially when they are complaints about yourself. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 03:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Comments from banned users can be removed by anyone for any reason. SchmuckyTheCat

I see no evidence that this was a banned user. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 03:16, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Instantnood

Final warnings

This is your final warning. Stop your mass reverting of other users. There is no evidence whatsoever on the instantnood page that Kowlooner is the same person.⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 03:31, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Please read the ANI talk page archives and my user talk page archives. Kowlooner shows up and instantly creates a complicated stub template, starts applying it, and making the EXACT SAME EDITS to the EXACT SAME articles where Instantnood and all of his previous sock armies did their revert warring? Figure it out. New users don't create stub templates [2] as their second edit. Nor do they edit war over innane spelling differences, EXACTLY like Instantnood. Please see this article history: [3] and then tell me this is not Instantnood, and please note all of his socks as well when examining it. SchmuckyTheCat

It's not convincing. The duty is on you to file a report at AIV, or Checkuser. Not to mass revert, especially in the middle of making incredibly POV category changes (which should probably merit a disruption block on their own). ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 03:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom rulings have my back. I don't need to convince you. SchmuckyTheCat

Considering you have I believe 4 disruption/3RR blocks on your record, I believe you do. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 04:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, don't forget to read the apologies [4] after I was proven right. SchmuckyTheCat

Blocked

You have been blocked for 24hrs for continuing to disrupt Wikipedia by mass reverting another user, wikistalking, etc. You've been given final warnings both here and on AN/I. It is your duty to provide actual evidence of the user being a sockpuppet of a banned user before mass reverting them. The evidence you provided is not compelling. You can file a checkuser, or complain at AIV or AN/I. The correct option is one of the above. NOT mass reverting another user. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 04:33, 28 October 2007 (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).

SchmuckyTheCat (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

[5] at least someone agrees with me.

Decline reason:

I'm only 90% sure that Kowlooner is Instantnood, but these aren't the edits of a new user, and you weren't totally alright in the way you acted, either. Once I get some sort of checkuser evidence, then there can be a more definitive answer here.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:01, 28 October 2007 (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.

If Ryulong really agrees with it, he can unblock then.⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 04:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Hold on a sec, I'm talking to Ryulong about this. If Ryulong has compelling evidence to say that Kowlooner is Instanood, obviously there's no reason for the block anymore.⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 04:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

E-mail me with what's diagnostic of an Instantnood sock, because some data may be too old to check.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

E-mail forthcoming. But there are five diffs in this diff [6] SchmuckyTheCat

{ec}

"Once I get some sort of checkuser evidence," There won't be any checkuser evidence. IP logs are deleted after a few weeks. You're welcome to create a new case here Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Instantnood but note the archived statements and how many times I can smell his socks.

"you weren't totally alright in the way you acted, either." Well, what is the correct action? Any edits made in defiance of a ban may be reverted to enforce the ban, regardless of the merits of the edits themselves. SchmuckyTheCat

The correct action would have been to get the account blocked immediately, and THEN revert the edits, rather than doing so before any blocking had been done. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 06:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it's obvious that it's him. He's repeated a lot of edits. The change from Macau to Macao with two different accounts is very telling. You've been unblocked.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:30, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, and for the record, here goes some identifiers I was putting down in an edit conflict:

(ec)

ugh. Can't send email when you're blocked.

Diagnostic of an Instantnood sock

Edit wars over the "status" of Hong Kong/Macao in the structure of the PRC.

Insists that "mainland China" is a jurisdiction/political division at an equal level with Hong Kong/Macao. Those explanations he wrote on ANI about the political structure of China are his, no doubt ever about it.

Edit wars over "Taiwan" as never being a term that can be used interchangeably with "Republic of China", it only means the island.

Wiki-stalks myself and Huaiwei (note that this Kowlooner user, after seeing me make a correction, not a revert, to one of his recent changes, immediately edited a different article I had edited that he had not)

Insists on spelling Macao with an o, when Wikipedia long ago agreed to use Macau, with a u, for the sake of simple consistency.

Replaces "in China" categories with "by country" categories on HK/Macao articles

Replaces "China" stub types with "Asia" stub types on HK/Macao articles

Goes back to the same articles, repeatedly.

Has a particularly, and recognizably bad, version of HK English. Which results in either recognizable Instantnood grammar, or very, very short sentences.

Doesn't write much, but edits templates/stubs/categories. These affect huge numbers of articles without giving away his poor English.

Edits serially - makes the same edit to dozens of articles in a short amount of time.

revert wars - just redoes the same edit over and over when it is undone.

SchmuckyTheCat

For the record, I support the unblocking from what Ryulong has shown me; however I think you could have gone about it a different way the first time. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 06:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

FYI, a blocked user normally can send e-mails unless the blocking administrator checks a box to activate a newly implemented "block user from sending e-mail" capability. This is meant to be used only in serious abuse situations, and I suspect that Swatjester's checking that box in this instance was a mistake. (See also comments on my talk.) Newyorkbrad 12:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

As I said to NY Brad, the email block was inadvertent. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 12:23, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

storage

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Craigengower_Cricket_Club

• Keep It's not "a bunch of chaps". It's an entire complex of sports facilities. For cricket, they were one of the first three cricket clubs in HK. It's not just a sports club either, the join fee is close to $80,000 of US dollars. The modern socialite papers track who comes and goes and with who. Historically, they are places where the elite met to make deals, or give the appearance to the populace during wartime that everything is ok (for instance, the governor came here to play at sports during a communist uprising in the '60s, which sent a political message that everything was under control and he wasn't paying attention to it) - as mentioned in one of the definitive books on the colonial history.

on an unrelated note

I deleted Itmfa-flag.png which you had uploaded (I came across it through Jeffpw's user page). You uploaded it under a public domain license; however I checked the link and found no release into the public domain, and no explicit licensing in a format compatible with Wikipedia. If you can get in touch with the copyright holder and have them send a statement of release into public domain to permissions@wikimedia.org, we can go ahead and put it back in; however such a release needs to be a) explicit, and b) come from the copyright holder themselves, not a third party such as yourself. If you need help with this, please let me know. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 08:24, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Statement of explicit release at bottom of page. Savage expressly did not copyright it. It's public domain. Jeffpw 08:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Check out my userpage: I made my own rainbow American flag with ITMFA as the thumbnail text. Not bad for a first try, though I do want the other one back. It's GDFL if you want to use it. Jeffpw 09:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

All images are automatically copyrighted unless released into the public domain. Since he did not explicitly release the image into the public domain, and his own misinterpretation of the law is inaccurate, it's still a copyrighted image. He can explicitly release it into the public domain, license it under a GFDL friendly license or you can simply make your own and do the same. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 10:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

It's all good.

Looks like a hell of a lot went on after I got off Wiki last night. Glad you're unblocked, and that you've been vindicated. While I had little particular doubt that you had properly assessed the situation, I still felt that the best way for you to get your side across and supported was to keep your head held high above kowlooner's muck. When there's a two person AN/I, he said/she said apathy gets there fast when both sides get tattle-talish and strident. Which ever one presents the calmer, more reasoned case,usually succeeds to convince more people. Had you taken a few minutes to put together the diff links BEFORE posting, I suspect that some of the admins would've backed you faster, esp. RyuLong and Denny. Both are pretty good at sorting out the gold from the dross. have a good one. ThuranX 13:31, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Security Section, Microsoft_windows

When did you totally remove the security section of Microsoft_windows? emacsuser 17:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't remove anything. Take your accusations elsewhere. A vandal removed it a few weeks ago. Looking at the page history, it looks like the vandal deleted a section, then deleted another section while someone restored the old section, and the second blanking got lost. I restored it. Thanks for noticing it was gone. SchmuckyTheCat

ITMFA!

Sockpuppetry

FYI - I've started a sockpuppetry case against Peter zhou (talk · contribs) here, if you'd care to add any input. Thanks  _{Folic_Acid | talk}  17:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Mainland China

I agree with some of what you say at your rant. However:

• While non-Mainland users may have an anti-Mainland slant, having large numbers of Mainland editors wouldn't necessarily make the situation that much better. For better or for worse, Mainlanders have been thoroughly indoctrinated in that country's ideology and are (in my experience) largely intolerant of other viewpoints. Just as one example, Taiwan/ROC is not an issue for Mainlanders. Taiwan is a part of China -- end of story. No nuances, no equivocation, no recognition of reality on the ground -- it IS a part of China, no argument, full stop. There are many other issues where the Mainland viewpoint is exceedingly hostile to objective analysis.

• We know that HK and Macau belong to the Mainland. But Deng Xiaoping did promise no change for 50 years, although that promise seems to be increasingly forgotten by many Chinese, who regard the transfer of sovereignty as the be-all and end-all. The attitude you increasingly see is: "They're now part of us; why should they presume to be different?" But the fact is that HK and Macau are quite different from the Mainland in many tangible ways. You hop on a plane from Beijing to HK and you get on an "international flight" (although airports carefully mark it as "international flights and flights to HK/Macau"), and you pay international fares. The currency is different. Remittances are international remittances, not domestic. The laws are different. The language is different. For copyright purposes, HK, Macau, and Taiwan are different territories. (I tried to buy Taiwanese translations of "Gone with the Wind" in HK, and found they are not available as a HK translation is available. This is an exception, however; for many books the copyright appears to be for Traditional Chinese, which covers Taiwan/HK/Macau).

So there is nothing strange about setting HK/Macau apart from Mainland China. The big issue with the Chinese is always the "sovereignty issue". And sovereignty is, of course, Chinese territorial claims based in their own view of history and what "rightfully" belongs to China. (Actually, this is shared by Mainlanders, HKnese, and Taiwanese, all of whom virtually are united by a dynastic view of history. The Taiwanese and others just don't recognise the legitimacy of the dynasty!) Still, just because the Chinese have this particular view of sovereignty and history doesn't mean that Wikipedia should follow it uncritically.

Just my two cents worth. Bathrobe 04:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

That essay was unfinished and I'm not sure I actually got to the point of making a point in it. :)

It wouldn't make it better as an editing environment. Cuz, yeah, mainland Chinese are going to bring their biases, prejudices and jingoism as strong as anyone else. There are dozens of nationalist flare-ups on Wikipedia weekly from all over the globe and we can handle that. But the current wikiality we have about anything China was written by people who had their own agendas, to the point that you can't call China "China". If mainlanders could edit, somewhere in their throngs there would be eloquent editors who would abide by our policies and articulate that under-represented POV.

And yes, HK/MO are very different from the mainland but they are part of a whole which has 33 divisions, not 3. I'm very aware of the differences, crossing from HK to Shenzen is stranger than Seattle to Vancouver BC. There isn't anything strange about setting them apart, but there are HKers who would use that separation to elevate HK and/or denigrate the PRC - and that isn't correct. SchmuckyTheCat

Ringling Brothers

• I've started a circus Wikiproject and as much as dislike spam from animal rights groups, I can't believe they would keep vandalizing a defunt circus about animal abuse!--Hailey 17:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

In the quick history of the last 50 edits, there hasn't been a single useful edit to that page. It's peculiar they choose that one so overwhelmingly. I bet there is a bit of activist e-mail that goes around that links to it. SchmuckyTheCat

Arbitration

I have added your name to involved parties in the MONGO 2 arbitration case as shown here.--MONGO (talk) 06:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Seajion

I do agree that Seajion (talk · contribs) is a sockpuppet -- but the user name of the sockpuppeteer escapes my memory. Do you remember it (or can you add a proper {{sockpuppet}} tag with the name)? --Nlu (talk) 18:50, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: the talkpage

Hey Schmucky, Just let it be/leave the comments until the CU that was filed has confirm what we already know. I don't want to lock down something that should absolutely not be. Regards, nat.utoronto 23:34, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Reclamation at Tai O.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Reclamation at Tai O.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 21:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Since you took this photo yourself, you can alleviate the problem quite easily by replacing {{fairuse}} with {{self|cc-by-sa-3.0}}. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 21:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Windows XP FAR

Windows XP has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

ALF redux

Hi. Your comments at the bottom of Talk:ALF make it look like you support a split because a crucial word was missing from your statement saying that you didn't. You may want to correct that because the editor who you were replying to in the negative, just went ahead and split the dab page. —Viriditas | Talk 10:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Windows 95 and USB

Hello. I created a discussion about USB support in Windows 95 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Windows_95) yesterday, and you discarded it (by undoing my addition to that discussion page). Why!? Please provide explanation for your action.
Nihad Hamzic (talk) 10:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I have just now realised that you in fact moved my discussion chapter at the bottom (where it really needs to be). It was my mistake by writing it at the top. I haven't been participating in Wiki edits for several months, so I forgot some structuring rules. It is OK now. Thank you for correcting my mistake, but you should have marked you action as "Moved USB support chapter to the bottom" instead of marking your action as an "undo". I suppose that this discussion is completed. Nihad Hamzic (talk) 11:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't mark it as an undo, but I apologize for not making a good edit summary. If you are new to Wikipedia, it may be useful to learn how "diffs" work. Diffs are extremely useful to view what actually changed at a glance. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

TW

May I ask what TW is like? Like the TW mentioned in this diff[7]. I am looking through the page it links to and I just wanted to know from someone who has used it before installing some strange javascript on my account. Sam Barsoom (talk) 20:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

for anyone following along: [8]

Greeting

I notice that you have reverted Marcus2's edit. Why did you mark it as vandalism? I highly doubt it was. My advice to you is to stay out of The Powerpuff Girls' article. 70.101.182.149 (talk) 01:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Go away.

I would ask you to be more polite to users like myself. The way you are now, you sound like you're not a nice person. Sorry if I sound a little rude. It wasn't intended. 70.101.182.149 (talk) 02:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Why is it that you reverted my addition to Washington. You mentioned something about not being relevent. It was a fact about washington, a law related to the fact, and sighted 3 references. I came back today to add that Squatch is the supersonics mascott only to find you changing what I did. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Throttle-junky (talk • contribs) 15:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

homeopathy is the future

WOULD YOU LIK TO CONTRIBUTE TO WIKIPROJECT HOMEATPHY? GOOGLE IT PLEASE TO FIND OUT HOW YOUC AN DONATE YOUR ITME AND HELP SAVE MILLIONSOF LIFES EVERY SINGLE DAY THROUGH EDUCATION AND WIKIEDITING. Smith Jones (talk) 00:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

yo sign up please visit this page. Smith Jones (talk) 00:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: China

Hey Schmucky, just to let you know, although I do not plan to reprotect the article at this time, another sysop has agreed with me that protection is the most viable/best option. nat.utoronto 19:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

That is completely antithetical to the protection policy. It's part of the understanding of "the wiki way" that there are more good people than bad. Long term protection would mean that a vandal can dictate, long-term, what is displayed and who can edit. It would be a fundamental and systemic failure of the project goals. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

elephant

"advertised as the world's largest elephant" - there you go - perfect! Good change. Without the "advertised as" it sounds like so many other claims about "the world's best..." etc. Thanks Bob98133 (talk) 18:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Socks on China

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Peter zhou

Don't warn. Just block. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

I can't block. And I have no history on this; or at least don't remember it. But, I'll report directly to AIV next time, or do a level-4 warn then report. Gscshoyru (talk) 17:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

RE: "wikipedia is not censored for obsolete computers"

I am very much confused by what you mean by this phrase. Do you mind explaining it to me? The browser I am currently using is Mozilla Firefox 2.0 and your version shows much different brackets than "< >". Your revision shows:

〈 〉

While the previous version[9] shows:

< >

So which are you trying to write, 〈 or < ? --Henry W. Schmitt (talk) 06:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

See Talk:Bracket#Angle_brackets_2007. The likes2beanonymous user reverts the page to avoid unicode because his ancient computer doesn't display it correctly. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 21:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Episode prods

Replied to you message on my talk page. I assumed that your earlier reversions were just due to my poor choice in edit summaries. However, it now appears that you're actually contesting the prods themselves. I'll open an AfD in an hour or two. You don't have to actually go to the trouble of un-proding them, I'll clean it up. I'll let you know when the AfD is up. Cheers, ➪HiDrNick! 20:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, done now. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/24 Hour Propane People. ➪HiDrNick! 21:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Pseudoscience category for homeopathy

I am looking forward to reading your detailed exposition of "no way this isn't appropriate here" at Talk:Homeopathy#The ArbCom reference to psychoanalysis. --Art Carlson (talk) 22:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Copyright problems

Hello, SchmuckyTheCat. Concerning your contribution, Donald Glaude, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material without the permission of the author. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://www.myspace.com/donaldglaude. As a copyright violation, Donald Glaude appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. Donald Glaude has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message. For text material, please consider rewriting the content and citing the source, provided that it is credible.

If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) then you should do one of the following:

• If you have permission from the author, leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Donald Glaude and send an email with the message to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
• If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDL or released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Donald Glaude with a link to where we can find that note.
• If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on Talk:Donald Glaude.

However, for text content, you may want to consider rewriting the content in your own words. Thank you, and please feel free to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Murderbike (talk) 23:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Irvin_CEC_baby_elephant.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Irvin_CEC_baby_elephant.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rettetast (talk) 16:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Categories

Are your categories supposed to be that crazy? Kimera Kat (talk) 22:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

what? You must be confused. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

The categories you go in. Most don't exist. Seriously, "Wikipedians that poop"? Kimera Kat (talk) 20:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

what? Where did they go?! SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Heh

Had to LOL at the edit summ :-) [10] Shot info (talk) 04:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for 3 hrs for [11]

That was disruptive and unnecessary and provocative editing. I've blocked your account to give you a short cooldown period to rethink whether your actions are escalating drama or reducing it. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

So you can't be blocked for POV pushing, DEing and TEing on a article under probation, but following WP:TALK...that's disruptive and unnecessary and provocative editing. Schmucky, welcome to the modern world of Wiki where is all about the Civility rather than the Content. Shot info (talk) 04:45, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The question of whether people on one or both sides will be blocked for existing actions of POV pushing, DEing and TEing on an article under probation, etc is an open one. This particular action was, however, disruptive and drama-increasing, and right after notes on ANI to the effect that the situation was on the brink of requiring drastic action. The 3 hr block hopefully will allow Schmucky to regain some perspective without causing long lasting or undue harm. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

It's funny what you have chosen to block. But heck, it just reinforces the point that other editors have made, inasmuch as the admins capricious enforcement of policy is bunk. You have a blantent 3RR on jossi....no block... you have an editor defusing a offtopic comment (following policy) and bang...a block. But hey, easy options are always the best aren't they. FWIW, it would be better for you to point out where in WP:TALK Jossi's comment should've been posted, why it should remain, and then prehaps you should apologise to the editor here for his following policy. Shot info (talk) 04:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

And to cap it all off, you didn't even revert Jossi's off topic comment. So now you have blocked an editor for following policy, policy that it appears you even agree with. Shot info (talk) 05:02, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

That would require actually touching content on the page, which at this point leads to acusations of bias and involvement.

Don't look at me - I didn't create the environment there. You seem to want to help make that environment worse. I can understand if the environment there is frustrating for you... it's frustrating for me, at many levels, and we probably agree on some of them. But with my WP admin hat on, I have to act to try and protect the Encyclopedia. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

George, I'm going to have to give up, as you say that you are protecting the Project, without irony it seems, and until you and other admins begin to enforce policy better rather than stomping on the occassional bystander, then the project is largely doomed to irrelevancy. No doubt comments you've heard before, but POV pushers haven't been this active ever in WP. And admins like you with your WP hats on seem ineffectual to allow Wiki to be taken seriously in the real-world (tm). Shot info (talk) 05:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Everyone has a POV. Science is no less a point of view and biased worldview than any other, though I generally agree with it.

The issue here is the collision between some rude homeopaths and some rude skeptics. This is not a battle anyone wins. It's a battle that, by being fought at all, has already significantly damaged Wikipedia. Having to step on people I would, in other situations, agree with, is not pleasant. But here we are. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the way WP:NPOV, WP:RS and WP:V are written implies that "science" (and it's POV) will always trump other POVs. It is quite clear that the "SPOV" is Wikipedia's preferred position and the "ASPOV" is not (per WP:FRINGE inter alia). What the problem is here, admins have lost the plot on enforcing WP:NPOV thinking it is some "neutrality" contest when equal weight applies. Hence you have the problem where articles degenerate into edit wars, because admins don't enforce policy. Instead they pick on the first suspected case of "civility" (exactly what you have done) but they are hamstrung by not being allow to be "involved". So admins are forced to be ignorant of the debate, don't understand NPOV and they can only fall back onto "who last said something vaguely nasty". Unfortunately following our discussion over in AN/I it is regretful, but you seem to be following this pattern. I would encourage you to look at the editors who most edit the article (and it's talkpage(s)) and start there. Shot info (talk) 05:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

This is bizarre. Smucky the Cat removes comments that are certainly going to cause problems on the homeopathy talk page and gets blocked for it? Surely the whole point of the probation is that univolved editors like smucky the cat come to the page remove that type of comment to try and keep things on topic. This block completely misses the point of the probation, IMO. David D. (Talk) 06:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

This is an absurd thing to block over. From George's perspective, removing comments made things worse. Schumucky felt differently. So instead of asking him not to do that.. no warning, you jump on a block? Wha? Schmucky's logic for removing the "OMG I'm leaving" comments are reasonable. -- Ned Scott 06:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Good edit StCat, sorry you were blocked over it. I see that no one has yet found their way to restoring the wayward comment. But alas, sometimes blocks can happen despite the best of intentions. Well, fare thee well, happy editing, and try not to forget your place in the wiki-scheme of things. Supportively, R. Baley (talk) 08:39, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Response

So, jossi came to the talk page, announced he knew nothing of the subject, but was a master of Wikipedia policies and therefore could tell everyone on the talk page how to edit. He made his pronouncements. When nobody paid attention, he made his goodbye message. Other editors removed it[12] it, and asked to remove it[13], saying the "I'm leaving" messages were nonconstructive, so I removed them. So he came back and said "OH NO, I demand an audience! I will hand out blocks!" [14] I think a psychological deconstruction, and appropriate response, of that type of behavior has already been done. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Also, I recognize that Jossi came to the page with the good intention to be helpful, in a few instances he actually was helpful, and is for all purposes a good and respectable guy. Let this be a clear Thank you! for that. But, the pronouncements about his own comings and goings, especially the one about coming back, are not helpful. I removed them, I've removed things like that before in other situations, and I will continue to remove them. In a heated situation, removal of comments that are not related to improving the article keeps the focus on the text that readers see, not our personal feelings about the subject under discussion, or our personal feelings in general. If you're ego is hurt, take a walk IRL, don't announce it in wiki-land. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Circus - WTF

Well, if the circus is using their conservation efforts to counter claims of animal abuse - as it says in the article - than this should be refuted if clear examples exist. Personally, I think the conservation by the circus should be moved from the cruelty section to the conservation section, where their opinion can be properly refuted. I am not aware of any data that shows that seeing animals exhibited leads to increased conservation efforts; and in fact, the research I've seen seems to indicate little or no effect. I don't disagree with your change, just that this whole area could be a bit more clear. Thanks Bob98133 (talk) 17:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

3RR noticeboard

A 3RR noticeboard report against you has been closed with no action. This is because it was determined that one or more of your reverts to Island country were exempt due to being reverts of a banned user's edits. Here is a link to the report. Stifle (talk) 09:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Trollish behavior

You may wish to monitor User:Coloane. He claims to be from Macau, and his writing style is a tad less refined compared to Instantnood's, but he has been wikistalking my edits and reverting some of them such as in World's busiest airports by passenger traffic‎ and List of countries by foreign exchange reserves‎. Even if he is no sockpuppet (which I doubt he is anyway), he could easily qualify as a meatpuppet given this strange insistance on certain actions. Thanks!--Huaiwei (talk) 13:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, that user has always been interesting. I don't look at what they do, but they turn up in my watch list a lot. There is another editor named after a place in Macau that is also interesting. I did revert one of those you mentioned, but it shows up on my watchlist, not cuz you asked. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Sock

Who's the puppeteer for User:Heimm Old? Dreadstar † 21:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Instantnood. You can tell by the move warring over the name of Taiwan/Republic of China, edit warring over the spelling of Macau/Macao, "correcting" articles to split China and Hong Kong apart, and wiki-stalking Huaiwei and myself. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Exactly what I needed. Dreadstar † 22:08, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

The checkuser on Heimm Old came back "unlikely", so we may need more detailed evidence proving it. Dreadstar † 22:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

That's the IP evidence. CU can prove (within reason), but not disprove sockpuppetry. Instantnood socks have used Tor and private proxies before. The behavior, and choice of articles is the proof.

For instance, List of banks in mainland China look at the history of that article. It is a history of Instantnood and one of his, and Heimm Old has been continuing that edit war. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Alrighty, I've put that evidence on the user's talk page and left the block in place. Dreadstar † 23:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

List of seaports

Hi. I don't know the background the the sockpuppet allegation with User:Heimm Old - my only contact with this issue is the reversion of changes at List of seaports.

Hamilton, Bermuda fits within the definition of a seaport, having both a cargo and a cruise shipping capacity. I have re-added it to the list for this reason. St George's could be argued either way - I have left it off for now given there seems to be some contention.

This is just in case you're wondering why your reversion has been partially reverted. Feel free to drop me a line if you disagree with my edit. Euryalus (talk) 22:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Fine by me. Just wanted to make sure you didn't think I was joining in the dispute. Euryalus (talk) 22:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

You Can Do Magic

Hi, I saw that you put You Can Do Magic as an "American compilation album". While this is true if talking in context of its origins, I reverted your edit because it is by a group named America, so You Can Do Magic being an American compilation album wouldn't make sense. Happy editing! — Cuyler91093 - Соитяівцтіоиѕ 23:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Center for Elephant Conservation logo.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Center for Elephant Conservation logo.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 21:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Homeopathy

Hi. Sorry for my stupid edit of the homeopathy page. I read that paragraph and my brain inserted an extra "not" in there, so what I could have sworn I saw was this: "...no condition for which homeopathy has not been proven to be an effective treatment" so you can understand why I removed it. Next time, I'll make sure I don't edit on a Friday when my brain is tired. Cheers, Stuart.allie (talk) 06:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Signing

Is there a reason you didn't leave a time stamp here (that I had to add afterwards)?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:20, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Let me reprhase that, is there a reason that you never leave a time stamp when you post something on a page meant for discussion?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Every year is getting shorter, never seem to find the time. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Type a fourth tilde after your posts.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, no, maybe, I don't know. Can you repeat the question? You're not the boss of me now and you're not so big. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

No reason to build up tension.... what Ryulong means is that instead of using 4 tildes (~~~~), it seems that you have been signing with only three tildes (~~~) which only signs the username but not the time when the comment was made. Regards, nat.utoronto 06:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I am well aware of that. I am choosing not to add a time stamp.

why not? nat.utoronto 06:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Seriously. Why aren't you adding a time stamp?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I might have an idea... Lets see if he confirms. Raffethefirst (talk) 11:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Rollback

You have been 4 granted with the rollback permission on the basis of your recent effort on dealing with vandalism. The rollback is a revert tool which can lessens the strains that normal javascripts such as twinkle put on the Wikipedia servers. You will find that you will revert faster through the rollback than through the normal reversion tools such as javascripts and the undo feature, which means that you could save time especially when reverting very large articles such as the George W. Bush page. To use it, simply click the link which should look like [rollback] (which should appear unbolded if you have twinkle installed) on the lastest diff page. The rollback link will also appear on the history page beside the edit summary of the lastest edit. For more information, you may refer to this page, alternatively, you may also find this tutorial on rollback helpful. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 21:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Identifying edits as vandalism

This edit was not vandalism. Please try not to identify good-faith content changes as vandalism. Stifle (talk) 15:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Removing edits by banned users is vandalism. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

AfD nomination of Minor characters of the Powerpuff Girls

I have nominated Minor characters of the Powerpuff Girls, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minor characters of the Powerpuff Girls. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. treelo _talk 14:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Light

“ You cannot cause a shadow to disappear by trying to fight it, stamp on it, by railing against it, or any other form of emotional or physical resistance. In order to cause a shadow to disappear, you must shine light on it. -Shakti Gawain ”

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I do realize nothing was going to happen; shedding light on those behaviors was the goal behind bringing it to ANI. There was a general realization that those two tandem revert like an Olympics pair. The next step is getting policies to state that pattern tandem reverts are bad faith. It's certainly against the spirit of collaborative community editing that Wikipedia was founded on - now it needs to say it. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

As noted on the ANI, there's a thread at WT:3RR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Tea

Thanks! Nandesuka (talk) 07:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Homeopathy rant

In case it comes up again, it was lifted from here. Cheers, Silly rabbit (talk) 03:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Re your comment about Mikkalai

Re this comment: [15] There are a few problems with the course of action you suggest, SchmuckyTheCat. Note that according to Wikipedia:Blocking policy, blocking is not used in response to abuse of admin privileges – though it can be used in response to normal editing abuse by admins. Apparently it's the feeling of the various admins looking at this situation that a block for incivility (in itself) would not be productive in this situation, perhaps because the amount of incivility has not been considered enough to warrant a block, or because it's believed that Mikkalai is going through a temporary problem such as burnout and needs to be left some space (that blocking would make things worse). Note that admins technically have the power to unblock themselves, though they're not supposed to use it – that may be a factor in this decision. Apparently this problem was seen as being more of a problem with using admin tools while being uncommunicative, than just being uncommunicative in itself. Also, with the recent mostly-blanking of Mikkalai's talk page, perhaps there isn't that much of a problem. Anyway, I hope this explains why many people believe that if anything strict is to be done, Arbcom is a more appropriate method than blocking. --Coppertwig (talk) 13:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

P.S. What would happen if I did click on the blue links in the banner at the top of this page? :-) --Coppertwig (talk) 13:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Your PC explodes in a shower of sparks. Macs implode into a perfectly round perfectly black sphere 1" diameter.

I realize that blocking for abusing admin privs is supposed to be no-no (though it does happen in obvious cases, like vandalizing the main page, hijacked accounts don't necessarily know how to unblock themselves). I realize why abuse of admin privs should be at ArbCom, but it looked like the issue was general incivility by being non-communicative and issuing blocks outside of procedure (which is incivil, as well as abuse of privs). If Mikkalai is just being incivil, then use judgment to decide whether to block. If he's abusing admin privs, make it stand out and clear and there would not be any dissenters from ArbCom. If he's "going through some temporary problems" then he has no business editing or administering Wikipedia. That's no excuse at all. If they are IRL problems he needs to take care of them, Wikipedia is not his comfort activity. If they are Wikipedia problems, he needs to get other admins to fix it or else get over it.

Mainly, I am tired of our Admin corp refusing to use any personal judgment. By editors with all sorts of permissions, all sorts of incivility, edit warring, trolling and spam go unblocked because nobody broke the bright line rules. Our elected admin corp needs to make some judgment calls and follow through. ArbCom doesn't need to see half the stuff it sees. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

I understand where you're coming from, but at the risk of making a rash assumption, I'm thinking that you may not be aware of the whole story. There have been something like four ANI posts about Mikkalai (for issues to do with both incivility and abuse of admin tools) within the space of a week. He was blocked by one admin, but then the block was removed by another, prompting a big argument about whether he should or should not have been blocked. The problems continued and, at the same time, Mikkalai stated his "pledge of silence". In recognition of the fact that an RfC would've been pointless without his input, the ArbCom case was opened since everything else had been tried with no result (on the contrary, the situation got worse at every turn).

So in other words, your implication that people have leaped straight to ArbCom without trying other things first just isn't true. -- Hux (talk) 00:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. Different people using their personal judgement come up with different decisions. --Coppertwig (talk) 01:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Mikkalai has put up a message which, although still uncommunicative, is civilly worded as compared to his earlier message. This can be considered to be progress, and to be perhaps a sign that the strategy of not blocking him is working.

By the way, I would prefer that you not use phrases such as "grow a pair". (I had to think for a few seconds to figure out what you meant: grow a pair of what? Horns? Antlers? But that's not the reason for the preference I just expressed. :-) --Coppertwig (talk) 13:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to Mikkalai at all. I wouldn't have read his statement unless you directed me to it, but "There is a an alarmingly visible category of people with extremely high ratio of their edit count in pages which has nothing to do with actual content creation." is true and important. Matter of fact, I see that Ryan Postlewaite, who opened the ArbCom case, has exactly zero mainspace edits out of his last 500 edits that add content to the project. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Notwithstanding what Wknight says below, or what I said on the ArbCom page about the accuracy of your claim, your implied argument - that making only administrative edits to Wikipedia and never (or hardly ever) adding actual content to articles is a bad thing - is a matter of opinion. It isn't fact and it certainly shouldn't prejudice an ArbCom case. For my part, I have absolutely no issue with someone who only ever performs admin duties. Such actions are also valuable contributions, they're just valuable in a different way, that's all. -- Hux (talk) 00:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe it's a problem in a philosophic sense, not a pragmatic one. The purpose of this project is to create content. People who are exclusively doing admin duties often lose touch of that and what it means. At the worst, they become wiki-cops and that leads to burnout.

I don't know enough about either Ryan, or Mikka, to make an indepth commentary about the dispute. My RfAr comment had advice to both of them. My suggestion to Ryan from a 2 minute glance at his last week contributions was meant as constructive criticism under that philosophy. He should make more content to remain in touch with the purpose of the project. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Keep in mind that he may be writing featured articles every day using a different account - perfectly allowable under WP:SOCK#LEGIT. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Allowable != good idea. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

How so? —Wknight94 (talk) 22:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Because it gives the appearance of not contributing to the project. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

NPA and Disruption

[This is a NPA violation and disruptive. Don't do it again, certainly not on the RFAR page. If I'd seen this first, I'd have blocked you for even longer. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Did you notice I specifically said it was not an attack on Ryan? Have you read the ArbCom guidelines? Please see the quote below. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

unblock

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).

SchmuckyTheCat (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I call BS. Wikipedia:Arbitration policy/Case handling: "Material correctly posted is usually allowed to stand, even if one of the parties is using the arbitration pages as a platform for personal attack or misrepresentation. Behavior at arbitration can be, and is, part of the evidence, and both sides will usually be allowed to present their evidence in full, and at length." It was my interpretation that Thatcher removed the threaded discussion following my comment, and included my comment by accident.

Decline reason:

I stopped reading after "I call BS". Try again in a more civil manner, please. — Sandstein (talk) 06:19, 5 March 2008 (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.

I call BS, a rather uncivil comment, isn't going to do many favours for you in trying to get unblock. Maxim_(talk) 00:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Strong language directed at no one in particular is not uncivil. Epithets delivered to specific people is. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

The request to unblock is perfectly reasonable, imo. The comment SchmuckyTheCat was blocked for is not a personal attack in any way, shape or form. In fact it's not any kind of attack. It's not even particularly uncivil. Its only failing is that it's not the kind of comment that should've been posted to an ArbCom page since it's irrelevant to that topic. But then we don't go around blocking people for that, do we? As for his "BS" comment not doing him any favors, sure, but I think he's right that this block was made in error. -- Hux (talk) 01:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

It's relevant to the topic. All parties to an RfAr case should expect to be scrutinized. It is a very long-standing tradition, people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, etc. Based on Mikkalai's talk page, I was pointing out how Ryan fit in with one of Mikkalai's statements about what was wrong with the editing atmosphere on Wikipedia (too much cop, not enough content), and gave advice to Ryan on how to change that (make some content). SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Well, if it's a long-standing tradition then I think it's a stupid one. I don't see how Ryan's percentage of article contributions versus admin work has any bearing whatsoever on Mikkalai's conduct and whether ArbCom should take action over such conduct. To imply that it does is absurd, imo. -- Hux (talk) 03:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)