User talk:Mirv/Archive 11

Archives by date
archive1 (27/01/04)
archive2 (pre-12/04/04 history)
archive3 (04/12–07/29/04)
archive4 (07/29–20/09/04)
archive5 (20/09–26/09/04)
archive6 (27/09–03/11/04)
archive7 (03/11–22/11/04)
archive8 (22/11–05/12/04)
archive9 (05/12–17/12/04)
archive10 (17/12/04–11/01/05)
archive11 (11/01/05–24/7/05)
archive12 (24/7/05–12/12/05)
archive13 (12/12/05–25/4/06)
Others
rubbish bin
AOL-using lawyer
Arbcom election
User talk:Mirv

Messages left here may not be seen for months. Use e-mail if you absolutely must contact me.

Administrator powers

If I have misused my magic powers in any way, this is the place to tell me.

Protection

Every page I protect is on the wrong version, of course, so to conserve valuable electrons, just leave a link to the page and a number from the list. Thanks.

If I accidentally protected a page to which I have made substantive edits, tell me here. I will unprotect it immediately.

Deletion

Did I speedy-delete something that wasn't a candidate? Did I delete something for which there was no consensus to delete? Tell me here.

Blocking

Rollback

Did I use the admin "rollback" feature on one of your edits without warning or explanation? Then I probably thought you were vandalizing, spamming, or otherwise editing in malice, and chances are good that you were: most of my rollbacks are of such edits. If you want to know why I reverted your edit, append your question to the end of this talk page.

The Templar Revelation

Since you've done such good work on Priory of Sion and Holy Blood, Holy Grail, I thought I'd ask if you can add anything to this article. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 00:11, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I would love to but I haven't read the book so I can't contribute much to the article. Loremaster 15:25, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've been seeing your username come up on my watchlist today. I was earlier to think that you'd be leaving for a while. Glad to see that you're still popping in occasionally. Take care, 172 08:22, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

209.122.104.163

Are you particularly enjoying reverting User:209.122.104.163? Why not block him per the ArbCom decision and be done with it? It doesn't seem to be a shared IP, don't see why not. --fvw* 22:54, 2005 Jan 14 (UTC)

I just did. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 22:55, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Canada comment

The issue of Canada vs Dominion of Canada is pretty thoroughly discussed at Talk:Canada section 5 Official Name. It seems to be a tempest in a teapot. BNA Act 1867 Section 1 Preliminary, clause 3 says "It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the Advice of Her Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council, to declare by Proclamation that, on and after a Day therein appointed, not being more than Six Months after the passing of this Act, the Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick shall form and be One Dominion under the Name of Canada; and on and after that Day those Three Provinces shall form and be One Dominion under that Name accordingly." Most of us take "that Name" to be "Canada" but I guess others read it differently. The word Dominion does not occur again in the BNA Act. Indeed just about every clause says something like "Parliament of Canada", "House of Commons of Canada", never Parliament of the Dominion of Canada. You can come to your own conclusion.--BrentS 05:24, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Template:Islam

Whoops, sorry about that. At the time I did the revert, your revert was not at the top of the page. Must have been some sort of glitch that caused my revert to be applied to the most recent change, even though it wasn't showing up when I did the rollback. RickK 00:37, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

Спасибо

Thanks for reverting vandalism to my user page. I am much obliged. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 00:46, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Charles Darwin

You blocked me a couple of days ago, but I think you made a mistake. I did do more than three edits but I only did two reinsertions of the factoid. I guess you just counted the edits and assumed they were all reinsertions. I'd appreciate if you didn't take my word for it verified for yourself. Cheers, Vincent 00:17, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Apologies, I didn't realize that blocks could be redundant. Your block was simultaneous with another but I was under the impression that it was made a couple of days later. My mistake. Cheers Vincent 09:29, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Tacitus: traslated from it:Tacito

I have translated it:tacito from Italian into Tacitus. I have put the traslation below the (old) English article. Since there are some points present in the (old) English version but bot in the traslated from Italian version a merge is needed. Since I am not English fluent speacking, is better if someone else does it. A clean-up and spell and grammar check is also wellcome. AnyFile 22:20, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I started to clean this up, but then I saw that you put an inuse tag on it. Note that among AnyFile's problems with English is that he doesn't know the usual English forms of most of the names. I'm guessing you know what you are doing, so I'll get out of your way, but feel free to grab me. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:07, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

& now I see it's been hours, the inuse tag is off, others are working on it, so I guess I'll jump in. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:45, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

Ass Rape

Fine, but then either protect it or else put it on your watchlist so that you know if it gets vandalized. ;) --Dante Alighieri | Talk 23:42, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

Miranda 4Play

Hello. I noticed you closed the VfD discussion on Miranda 4Play, but didn't actually delete the article, although there was a consensus to delete it. Is there any reason for it? JoaoRicardo 17:42, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It seems to have been simple negligence on my part. I note someone has deleted it now. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 20:51, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the answer. JoaoRicardo 02:11, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Not sure what's going on, but this page still exists. --Misterwindupbird 03:29, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Reverts vs. personal attacks

On the new/old no-personal-attacks enforcement policy proposal, you argue based on our experience with three revert rule enforcement that the remedy would be worse than the problem. Out of curiosity, may I ask if this means you've reconsidered your support for the three-revert rule enforcement policy? --Michael Snow 22:04, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Re Rules of wiki

Hi. I voted for you in the arbcom election based on your record and statement. I also voted for:Chuck F, Dante Alighieri, DG, Ed Poor aka Uncle Ed, Everyking, Improv, Lir, PedanticallySpeaking, sannse, VeryVerily

REQUEST: User:Violetriga has taken editorial control of my talk page, and created a new (archive) talk page for me; without asking me, and if she had I would not have given my permission. There is of course a strong rule that people add comments to others' talk pages but do not edit them. She's always coming to my page and adding stuff so she could've ASKED me to do a new page in the way she wanted. But there was nothing wrong with how I did it anyway.

Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page, makes it clear there is NO set way to start archives: "In closing, there are no fixed rules about archiving discussions on Wikipedia."

Please see history of my talk page where she says:(cur) (last) 10:00, 2 Feb 2005 Violetriga m (fix archive link after moving it to the correct place). The page above says: "(Note: Utilizing the "Move this page" feature for such an operation is not at all advised.)"

It also says that:

"Monolithic discussion file.

For certain discussion pages, particularly those concerned with policy, which don't lend themselves to organising by topic, the following alternative archiving strategy may be preferable."

Which is what I did. If I am not allowed the same equal option to edit my talk pages I can't be responsible for them, or for pages others create "as" me. Please list her archive page that she's created "for me" on pages for deletion, as if I do it, or do or type anything on the wiki I'm liable to be "banned" "long term" I'm told.

Please also note that UserChrisO is breaking the mediation rules by posting comments on that page and. It says on the page: "Please do not edit this page directly if you are not a participant in a case." He did twice and as usual "took control of the page" on himself; deleted add more edit etc. Please use your Amin powers to warn/block him as rules require. Above is page vandalisation of mediation page. The post he's got on there is not allowed by rules/is designed to discourage people from volunteering/influence them in how they see my appeal. Page states clearly NOT ALLOWED. Appealants make their case not him. HE thinks no rules here apply to him, and no rule giving users rights applies to ME. Such hate filled ARROGANCE.

And User:Neigel von Teighen came to my page, gave me more trouble and deleted my request for an Advocate and hasn't put it back from the wrong section, or corrected the claim that makes it look as if I've FOUND an Advocate. This'll stop someone volunteering as an Advocate.WikiUser 21:06, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

FURTHER: Hi Charles (Mirv). Neigel von Teighen has been in touch with me and been helpful so please disregard that bit of my post. ALSO: Because of the huge level of chriso and v.riga's posting re me everywhere I go and elsewhere, before even I can get there, I can't make out what answer is what to me below. Or is everything below the line not from you to me? Could you post your actual answer to me on my talk page and I'll read it and if necessary get back to you. Thanks.WikiUser 19:19, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

---

I've taken the liberty of improving some of your wikisyntax; I hope you won't mind. As to the substantive issues:

First: It seems to me that something like this happened with your talk page archive: You cut-and-pasted old discussions to User talk:WikiUser page 1 archive, as recommended by the guideline you cited. Violetriga moved that page to User talk:WikiUser/page 1 archive and deleted the redirect that remained; she then fixed the link from your talk page to point to the archive's new location [1]. The edit history of your archive page was not changed; you are still the only one who has edited it. I don't think this was meant to be a hostile move.

When you created the archive as User talk:WikiUser page 1 archive, the software treated that as the user talk page of a user named User:WikiUser page 1 archive, and that user does not exist. Under its current title, user talk:WikiUser/page 1 archive, the software considers it a subpage of User talk:WikiUser: it is automatically backlinked to its main page, and links to it from that main page are simpler to make. (For example, on this page, the link [[/Archive 10]] automatically links to User talk:Mirv/Archive 10, like this: /Archive 10. So I'm pretty sure Violetriga's action was intended to be helpful, and had I seen it before her I might have done the same. Assume good faith.

While it might have been more polite of her to ask, it was probably simpler just to do it herself. I've never seen anyone object to the tidying of their userspace. In this case it might be better for all concerned if you just try to see it as an honest bit of helpfulness, which is very probably what it was. Deleting it probably isn't necessary, but if you really want it gone there's no need to list it for deletion; since it's your subpage you can have it deleted any time you like. Just slap the standard speedy deletion notice on it (using the text {{delete}}) or ask a sysop to delete it for you.

Next: ChrisO probably shouldn't be posting comments in your request for mediation; he ought to use the talk page, yes. However, it doesn't qualify as vandalism, and it's not up to me to stop him, especially not by blocking him. The Mediation Committee handles this sort of thing.

Given that one of the complaints against WikiUser is frivolous misuse of Wikipedia procedures, it seems only fair to mention that fact; it's certainly relevant to the question of whether his mediation requests against Violetriga and myself should be accepted. -- ChrisO 23:37, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps so; the RfC does show something of what you were talking about, so it's worth bringing to the mediators' attention. However, as I understand the procedure, cutting in to someone else's request for mediation is considered bad form and comments on a request ought to be placed on the talk page. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 15:59, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Last: Have you tried talking to Neighel von Teighen about your problem with his actions? That would be the necessary first step; let me know how it goes. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 21:58, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hello there. To clear things up in your mind (I know WikiUser won't listen) you are correct in your assumption of my actions. I moved the page to the more appropriate convention of subpages, deleting the original location after noticing there were no direct links there. The reason I didn't ask is because WikiUser assumes bad faith on my part no matter what I do. For your reference Neighel von Teighen has removed his offer of being his advocate and you make wish to check Wikipedia:Requests for comment/WikiUser, though I wouldn't at all blame you for staying out of it! Cheers, violet/riga (t) 22:14, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I took up my offer only because I'm not the right person for this, not because of any campaign against WikiUser. Indeed, I never heard of him before! About the request: I must recognize it's my fault, but I did the move and told WikiUser about this. --Neigel von Teighen 22:21, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You made the offer before reading the RfC and withdrew it after reading it, which illustrates my point above about needing to mention it! ;-) -- ChrisO 23:37, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thank you

So what am I allowed to edit? And how does this apply to other people, like Rubenstein, for example?

P.s. do you know how I can make a formal complaint?

Tigermoon 12:19, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You are allowed to edit anything you want, as long as you're editing for yourself and not proxying for CheeseDreams. Slrubenstein isn't under any editing restrictions, so I'm not sure what you're asking. You can make a formal complaint through the dispute resolution process, but you're encouraged to try and sort things out on your own first. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 15:59, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

There seem to be four different choices. I am not sure which is the formal complaint. Is it mediation, comment, arbitration, or advocate? Tigermoon 16:36, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration is the formal complaint, I suppose. A request for comment is just that: a request for broader input in resolving interpersonal difficulties. Mediation is a more structured method for resolving disagreements. I'm not really familiar with advocacy.

In my opinion, a request for arbitration made at this time would probably be rejected, as I see broad agreement that Slrubenstein's actions were proper. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 16:46, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ibn Khaldun

Moved from Wikipedia:Translation into English:

• Article: de:Ibn Khaldun
• Corresponding English-language article: Ibn Khaldun
• Worth doing because: The German article—which is featured-quality—has a much better biography and summary of his works.
• Originally Requested by: —No-One Jones 02:06, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Status: done. But could be checked for typos etc and English/Wiki-spelling of names, and also there seems to be (looking at some of the external links listed) some confusion/contradiction over parts of his middle life (all the intrigue, who and where) which somebody could check. Rd232 10:22, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Other notes:

I figure there's no point to leaving this hanging out longer on Wikipedia:Translation into English. As done as it will probably get, now like any other article with possible issues. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:34, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

spambot domains

I think we have a handle on the set of domains the spambot is using. See Category:Protected against spambots. As soon as Silsor adds it to the spamfilter list and it propagates, we should try unprotecting again... how long does it take for additions to the blacklist to take effect? -- Curps 01:10, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Rienzo

Rienzo is still editing under further sockpuppets User:65.161.65.104, User:MahBoys, and User:Sandor, and User:130.236.84.134.

This is in violation of a 3 month ban from the arbitration comittee - Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rienzo

I would appreciate an immediate block of these accounts. CheeseDreams 14:36, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I am NOT a sock puppet of Rienzo! Sandor 14:39, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes you are, your edits are identical in style to Rienzo's other sock puppets, particularly your edit summaries. CheeseDreams 14:41, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Treason

Because he walked and quacked rather like Mr. Treason. But go ahead. Snowspinner 01:18, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

Gmail password harvester

What is the email I should use to contact gmail about that guy? I figure the more people complaining, the more likely they close his account(s). -GregNorc (talk)

Thanks for the info, I got a response from google saying they're looking into it.

On another note, the offender was given a 24 hour ban, but once that's up he'll probably screw around some more. Keep an eye out. -GregNorc (talk) 23:48, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

Republic

Any chance you could look into the edit war Wheeler and I are conducting at Republic and perhaps protect the page? - SimonP 15:39, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, but would it be possible to protect it at the version that existed before the edit war broke out? Shades of m:The Wrong Version, but I personally doubt that much discussion will occur if it is left at the version Wheeler prefers. - SimonP 16:01, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)

Quebec Wikipedians notice board

You are hereby cordially invited to join the Quebec Wikipedians notice board.

Vous êtes cordialement invité à collaborer au Quebec Wikipedians notice board. Circeus 19:27, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)

Usenet thread

Reading over the Usenet thread, I agree with your decision to remove it.

You realize that, with this item, we have a situation that could get out of hand. Personally, I thought I would VfD it if this happened. Now I'm unsure about my decision.

I take issue with your edit summary, "remove link to thread that is largely mike and his sockpuppets talking to each other". That claim is untrue, except for the obvious fact that "Mike Church" and "ambition_game" are the same person. I'd maybe given him credit for "spirit of night" (left-wing, long-winded, thorough) but maybe not. It's truly unclear. The rest are all clear non-socks, such as Nick0r who runs cardschat.com, and Llor.

The problem is that WP frowns upon abusive edit summaries in general, and this is a particularly hot issue. So please refrain from the allegations because they'll turn this into a nightmare for everyone. You can justify your edits and votes on content alone without making sock accusations, because the second people start playing dirty they won't go back, and we'll have to delete Ambition (cards) for that reason alone.

That said, I agree with your decision to remove that link. Looking at it, it doesn't have all that much to do with Ambition.

Cordially,

EventHorizon talk 09:06, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

User:Vfp15

Vfp15's ban timer is extended [2]. Could you point me in the direction of the proof of his ban timer being reset? User:Michael_Snow was the original banning admin I think... --Mrfixter 17:04, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ok, shouldn't have quoted your "ban timer" can I not see proof of his block being reset until march 23 then? --Mrfixter 18:24, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Mike

I noticed you undeleted the Minions page. I don't know everything Mike's been up to lately, but I doubt he's given up dishonesty for Lent. Did you notice the bit where he used a sockpuppet to nominate himself for adminship? I wish I'd seen it while the discussion was still active. I think that one is sufficiently bad (especially considering how many times Mike has been warned about this stuff) to consider getting the Arbcom involved. I've been trying to find a developer to do a sockpuppet check, but real life hasn't given me enough Wikipedia time to pursue it strongly. Isomorphic 01:54, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

User:Mike Church was nominated for adminship by User:Lst27 last spring. While this judgment was questioned by the Wikipedia community, he was not considered a "sock puppet" by most users. He later admitted to being User:AlexPlank.

I have studied the "Ambition war" very closely and was very opposed to User:Ludocrat's decision to revive the page. I think that if you have a problem with the recent revival of the article, you should nominate it for deletion. Reinstigating a politically-motivated personal attack on an individual will create a situation that gets really ugly, really fast. We can have a VfD debate on Ambition (cards) on grounds of content and logistics alone. I still have not made up my mind how I will vote, but as a recognized neutral authority on the matter (having researched this thing pretty heavily) I fear that VfDing it myself would send a strongly anti-Ambition message. Frankly, if it were sent to VfD, I would probably lean toward delete, though wishing to hear both sides' cases before making a decision. EventHorizon talk 04:01, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It is true that Lst27 nominated him for adminship [3], but that is not the nomination in question. We all know which it was, and Mike knows we're on to him, so the less said about that, the better.

Nominating the new article for deletion would be premature, I think. Mike seems to have learned some lessons from his last go-round. He's not trying to fill the article with unverifiable claims, he's not trying to link to it from as many places as possible, and so far he's kept his temper. (The puppet show has, unfortunately, continued.) In my opinion the deciding factor in its final deletion was Mike's behavior, so if that doesn't come up again, the article might be worth keeping. We'll see. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 04:32, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It is still pure self-promotion in the sense that we would never have an article about it if Mike hadn't written one. Those of us who think that notability is a criterion for inclusion (including myself) would therefore object to it. Also, we don't want to set the precedent that if you're a persistent enough liar you can get whatever content you like into Wikipedia. Isomorphic 21:09, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It was a borderline case. Perhaps new evidence will show up. Perhaps it won't. EventHorizon has produced many claims of its notability, but hasn't referenced or verified them. Bad precedent, true, can't argue with that. Send it to VfD and let it decide. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 21:25, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Adios

--Nasrallah 02:27, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Charles, I'm very sorry to see you leave the project, and I hope that you'll consider returning as yourself at some point. We need people like you. I'm not going to argue with what you said, but I do have two observations: what you described as the negative aspects of some sysops reflects how I, and others, occasionally felt about 172, and people don't talk about IRC because very little of import happens on IRC. If everyone who was suspicious of what happened there spent a few hours silently watching, I think they'd feel reassured. Best regards, Mackensen (talk) 04:54, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Nasrallah, personal attacks in edit summaries are still personal attacks.

Mirv, VfD is a sink for time and effort that might better be spent elsewhere. But it's a significant problem only if articles that should be kept get deleted or vice versa. I don't see much sign of that, do you? VfDs that probably aren't warranted don't get very far (Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Mayor of Galway is currently 6-0 keep). Newly-minted voters, anons and sockpuppets are usually pointed out by others, and this is taken into account in the tallying process. There's also VfUnD to correct mistakes.

You complain about "fetishization of process" and "wikilawyering", but the alternative to "process" and "lawyering" is arbitrary use or abuse of power by admins, or bypassing "process" and moving decision-making to back-channels like IRC — both of which which you also complain about. It seems there's a contradiction here, which is natural since it reflects the same contradictions of the real world.

The messiness of Wikipedia reflects the same messiness as society in general... the politics of Wikipedia is no different from political systems in wider society. Just think of it as politics and governance, because that's what it is. Efficiency, transparency, fairness... these are all issues that every political system deals with. It's hard to see how Wikipedia could magically invent a simple and perfect system when the real world has so notably failed to do so over decades and centuries.

I happen to agree with you on images. Not so much on moral grounds but as a practical matter of real-world issues and accessibility to all.

I also think that Wikipedia's real strength is in the large number of quiet and uncontroversial articles on relatively obscure subjects, and creating and improving such articles is a great way to take a break from politics. Like Georg Wilhelm Richmann, a gentleman who tried to replicate Ben Franklin's experiment with unfortunately shocking results... you can recharge by creating such articles, but why do it anonymously, though? Why do a dramatic exit when a wikibreak or time reduction or simple change of focus might work well instead? And there's lots of mundane uncontroversial admin stuff that can be done (speedy deleting new articles that are alphabet soup or test pages, or sorting out the copyvio backlog, etc.) -- Curps 05:01, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Charles, when I was brand new on Wikipedia you were one of the first people whose signature I learned to associate with constructive actions. Very soon I came to realize your edits were always well reasoned, according to policy and in the best interests of the project. While reading your reasons for leaving, it was those qualities about you that kept going through my mind. Charles, those aren't reasons to leave; they are reasons to stay, and to stay active. Change only happens when someone speaks up. Your leaving is a statement, loud and clear, but I hope you reconsider and choose to make more than that one statement. I hope you remain active in this persona to work toward making things work better on the administrative side. We need admins like you. SWAdair | Talk 08:08, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I only wish I could have said it half as eloquently as SW has. Take care, whatever you decide to do. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:21, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hello Mirv, it's maybe strange to write this since I'm on a sort of wiki leave myself, but I can only say the same as the people above: take a break, but don't go entirely. Wikipedia needs people like you more than anything else. sad to see you leave and hoping that there will be one day an "auf wiedersehen", --Elian 00:16, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Mirv, I'm truly sorry to see you go. We'll all miss your enthusiasm and spirit, and I hope you return after a good wikibreak. — Dan | Talk 03:44, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Mirv I am mainly active on nl: wikipedia so you probably do not know me. I can see what you have done though over the years. So I hope you will decide to stay. Waerth 07:07, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Charles, I'm sorry to see you go, and hope it is only a temporary Wikibreak. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:47, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Glad to see you're at least considering. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:42, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Of all the words/Of tongue or pen/the saddest are these:/It might have been." (John Greenleaf Whittier) Goodbye, Charles. Someday I hope to see you again. Neutrality^talk 04:50, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

• I have just read your page. It is brilliant beyond all compare. yes, Wikpedia is turning into mob rule. It is sad. I am forced also to go around recruiting votes for pages and i concur with your comments.WHEELER 20:24, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Welcome back

Hope your break went well. -- Netoholic @ 06:35, 2005 Mar 11 (UTC)

Ah, good. Hope is not lost.  :-) Considering is good. I'm looking forward to seeing a flurry of edits any time now. SWAdair | Talk 07:56, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Whooohooo! you're back! Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 08:46, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Welcome back! Jayjg ^(talk) 14:08, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sock puppet (if that's the right term)?

Hi Mirv -- I think that Paul V has a new user account -- User:Manuchao (contribs). He's targeting a set of articles related Paul's favorites, and is now re-adding deleted links to talk pages...but I wanted to at least get a second opinion before rushing to judgment.

Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 13:53, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I see what's happening now -- I've been paying scant attention to the mailings lists of late, and have mostly been away for a couple of months. Thanks for the clarification. BCorr|Брайен 21:45, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:District Attorney's Office

What the fuck are you doing at Wikipedia:District Attorney's Office? BLANKFAZE | (что??) 06:55, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure what Wikipedia:District Attorney's Office is all about, but is it really a good idea to make prank edits to it? -- Curps 08:56, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Barnstar

I just realized that no barnstars adorn your userpage, an injustice which must be remedied quickly. Therefore, I award you this shiny rotating barnstar. Best wishes --Neutrality^talk 07:21, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

(somewhat belated) Thank you. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 04:13, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The DAO

For what it's worth, the DAO was started after the comments from Mav, Raul, and Ambi in rejecting the arbcom case I brought against myself, asking for an prosecutor's association to counterbalance the AMA. Snowspinner 14:46, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

Glad to see you back!

Hope your Wikibreak was productive and fun. ^_^ -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:15, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

RFA for ABCD

Tim Starling has shown that I am not a sockpuppet on my RFA. In light of this, you may wish to change your vote. Thanks. – ABCD 00:49, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

My RFA is now at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/ABCD 3, after being reset. – ABCD 17:24, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Good work

Good work defusing the de-adminhip policy situation. →Raul654 05:37, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. It seemed the obvious solution. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 05:42, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

OIC

Isn't OIC one of those -censored- ideas set up by User:Snowspinner? I think it should be run through the Arbcom, since it's at least against our No Personal Attacks rule to begin with.

I do believe some kind of investigator club should exist, but one that is neutral and impartial.

Kim Bruning 08:49, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

OIC is shorthand for "Office of Investigations critique. The Office of Investigations, now the Office of Member Investigations, is indeed a—censorship be damned—maliciously wrongheaded idea of Snowspinner's. The arbcom encouraged him (though one member has expressed dissatisfaction with his method), and the attacks are general rather than personal, so I think an arbitration case would be futile.

I could support a similar group, with the same caveat: that it be neutral and impartial. Doesn't the AMA already do something like this? —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 09:01, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

See Wikipedia_talk:Association_of_Member_Investigations#Why_not_the_AMA. Cheers, (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 10:26, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Association of Member Investigations

I don't really like how you said they were a "dictatorial fiat" (regardless of whether is true or not). It gave rise to all sorts of ill feelings and dispute-like behavior. If they bully good users they dislike it should be easy to prove and arrange them before the arbcom for it themselves.

His words, not mine. He declared himself a dictator, and I will call him a dictator. Pointing out bullying to the arbcom has not proven successful yet, but I am willing to try again. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 15:04, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Have you tried to suggest changes to Snowspinner in a friendly manner, or become a member of his association before you started your organization? I've got nothing against your organization, but publicly bashing the AMI and calling them "dedicated to bullying the users that its narrow directing clique dislikes" doesn't seem like a good idea. It's not productive and only causes conflict. Wikipedia users should stick together. -- Mgm|^(talk) 14:37, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

I tried joining the organization and politely suggesting changes. For the dictator's response, see the addendum on User:Mirv/Little tin gods. So that's no good. Saying that the AMI has nasty purposes may not be a good idea, but I submit that nasty purposes ought to be exposed. Sunlight is the best disinfectant. Wikipedia users should stick together, not form dictatorships devoted to persecuting the users that the dictator dislikes. Hence my harsh opposition. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 14:57, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Politely? Hahahaha. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 16:47, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Not at first. Later yes. Both got the same response. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 16:49, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Good job!

One thing about you mirv, you keep me laughing! Smacking around Snowspinner was the best thing I have seen you do in quite a while. The only person capable of taking on a rogue admin is another rogue admin, clearly.Nasrallah 22:55, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

admin request

Hi, I have a favor to ask for you. Another user, User:HappyApple reverted me four times today. If you have the time, could you take look at the situation for me? I'd like you to consider blocking him for 24 hours. The article is this: [4] According to my calculations, he reverted four times a set of copyedits I did at 11:23 this morning (he also edited anonymously for some reason). Part of the problem is that he is also refusing to adhere to a vote taken on the Pump regarding a naming issue. [5] I hate to bother you with this stuff but I feel he is going too far. If you are unable to help out, no problem. -- Viajero 19:47, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I realize your position. I wasn't aware of that page. All taken care of. All the best. Viajero 22:58, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Double votes ?

Sorry but your message about "double votes" is more than a tad confusing. I have 1 user account, and I don't post anonymously. --Centauri 08:24, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I was hoping you might actually want to explain what you're on about.--Centauri 08:41, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

So Gene_Poole used my account once and then reverted it. I think I've already pointed out elsewhere that I know him, and that he's helping me research a book I'm writing. Please check your facts and assume good faith before jumping to conclusions. --Centauri 08:55, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Master list of open proxies?

Hello Mirv. I found your list of open proxies, User:Mirv/Open proxies. I wonder if there is a list of all open proxies known to Wikipedia. Would that be your list or is there another one I should look at? Thanks a lot for any information. Regards & happy editing, Wile E. Heresiarch 06:44, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Palestinian cartoon

Hi Mirv. I thought you might be interested to know that (with not a single valid justification offered) the Image:Shark Palestine Caricature.jpg, formerly being used to illustrate a widespread opinion about the nature of the Arab-Israeli conflict, has been put up for deletion: Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion#April_1. - Mustafaa 09:58, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Template:Kurdistan Workers Party/Timeline

Hi "Mirv", I saw you in the history of some of User:Coolcat's template experiments; I've reworked what he was doing as subpages in his user space; there's a discussion on my talk page and I adjusted his notice on the village pump. The timeline is still a template and I thought I should give you a heads-up; it's still used by Kurdistan Workers Party which I'm not going to touch for now. — Davenbelle 06:26, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC) p.s. Feel free to bring that pear I mentioned.

Wikipedia talk:No original research

has a discussion going right now that you might be interested in. - Mustafaa 10:51, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

John Kerry Protection

It seems extremely POV to delete a quote of John Kerry that fully explains his position and replace it with a POV pushing summary before protecting the page. Please protect with the full quote. Symes 03:49, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

(cc User talk:Symes) You were the anonymous user in the edit war? Note that sysops are, by protection policy, allowed to protect the version preferred by those who have more closely complied with the rule regarding repeated reverts. Since the anonymous user had declared intent to avoid any blocks applied because of the three revert rule, I thought that the better option. Please do use Talk:John Kerry to discuss the issue in question. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 03:53, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am not the anonymous user - what happened to Assume good faith - I have been watching the changes to see what would happen. Do not make unsubstantiated allegations. How can you even argue that a full quote from the subject of an article is not appropriate and that a POV pushing summary is better. Symes 03:56, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC) PS - am I to learn from this that obey some rules is better than facts??? - i.e. you reverted the anonymous user because someone else "more closly complied with the rule"??

I have contacted User:Jamesday who i have been told is a Developer to verify to you that I am not the anonymous user in question. I respectfully request an apology for your false accusation. Symes 02:41, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Mirv. I just want to let you know User:Trodel, a friend of User:Symes, asked me to look into the trouble here. I thought you ought to know my interest in the matter. As far as the article goes, I have little interest; and I voted for neither Kerry nor Bush this time. Tom Haws 15:00, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

Bias

Hello, i have inserted this quote and your whole website seems to be somehow against it. This is a terrible stain on your reputation. If your website cannot tolerate some of Mr. Kerry's most important words and one of the main factors in his presidential bid, then the bias of Wikipedia will only add to the reasons people already dismiss it as an unreliable source.

On NBC's Meet The Press in 1971, Kerry admitted to having committed war crimes by saying: "There are all kinds of atrocities, and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free fire zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire... I took part in search and destroy missions, in the burning of villages. All of this is contrary to the laws of warfare, all of this is contrary to the Geneva Conventions"

This information is completely correct even by your own editors' admission. Trying to remove the quote because it makes John Kerry look particularly guilty would be like trying to remove the holocaust references from Hitler's page because that makes him look particularly guilty. The facts are always neutral and Kerry's quote is his own. The edit is relevant and you should understand that.

As for this website's bias, it is almost completely clear to me. The George Bush page has a warning that information on it is in dispute. However, the John Kerry page does not have such a warning. When i find comments like "George Bush enjoys gay porn in his free time" on the Bush page and i remove it, i am scolded by your editors. This is hilarious. How do you expect to be taken seriously? Anyway, since i can switch my IP address a million times, you should probably unban the other one as it will now be taken by an innocent user who will no longer be able to use your site. I hope you conquer your bias. Have a nice day.

What Wikipedia:WikiProject Rankings project is not

• This is not suggesting a hierarcal system.
• It will be used only by users who want to use it.
• Only ranking will be assigend to users who want to use it.

  And how many users want to use it? Two? Three? By all means, they can award each other meaningless ranks that nobody else cares about, but they don't need official sanction for that.

• The idea ment to make it like barn stars, but based on regular contribution.

  Barnstars are an entirely informal method of congratulating Wikipedians who do good work. They're slightly silly, but they're positive, and they're harmless, and they don't suggest a hierarchy in any way.

• It is currently a prototype, likely that it is nothing like the final version.

I urge you to reconsider your vote based on this clarification. Thanks Cat ^chi? 08:41, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

One by one:

• This is not suggesting a hierarcal system.

  It had me fooled. You know, with the name "rankings", and the levels, and the pseudo-military insignia, and all the trappings of hierarchy with nothing to suggest otherwise.

• It will be used only by users who want to use it.
• Only ranking will be assigend to users who want to use it.

  And how many users want to use it? Two? Three? If they want to award each other meaningless ranks that nobody else cares about, they don't need a WikiProject.

• The idea ment to make it like barn stars, but based on regular contribution.

  Barnstars are an entirely informal method of congratulating Wikipedians who do good work. They're slightly silly, but they're positive, and they're harmless, and they don't suggest a hierarchy in any way. This system is also silly, but if used would be harmful (there's quite enough rank-pulling already, mostly by sysops), and it does suggest a hierarchy, your protests notwithstanding.

• It is currently a prototype, likely that it is nothing like the final version.

  Which means nothing if the whole idea is misguided, as I believe it is.

My opinion stands. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 17:09, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I dont know dude, by annoying me you only achive sick plesure while destroying me. Thanks. Agree to disagree, follow proper wiki. What the hell are you trying to prove anyways? I cannot discuss the project properly because of you. Be civil. This is outragious. You call your self an "Admin" with this kind of behaviour? Cat ^chi? 04:07, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Very well, then leave my project alone. I can discuss it with the 2,3 users, you are welcome to contribute. I do not have time or patience to stuff like "WikiProject Penis Measuring" is stuff I dont care, respect views you oppose, stay out or stop the "wow this sucks" stuff. Pretend being an adult at least. Cat ^chi? 13:17, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I do not need your mocking of the project to improve it. Creationism exist as an article, you dont see me make retarded comments in it. You are asked to be civil. Cat ^chi? 13:21, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I thought wikiranks was kinda cute, when I first saw it really. Especially the "Not an ordinary bean" rank, I liked that! Though perhaps there is a sinister purpose behind it all, that I have simply not managed to discern yet. Whichever it may be, perhaps this discussion might be held at Wikipedia:Wikiproject/Inappropriate_projects? Kim Bruning 21:44, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Reverting TfD

Well, thanks, guy, but honestly, I kind of agree with the anon vandal. Maybe we should leave TfD blanked and locked blank for a week, just to see what happens. I don't think it will be anything bad. — Xiong熊talk 20:24, 2005 Apr 16 (UTC)

You agree with "lol faget [sic]"? Okay. . . :-/ —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 20:33, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wikiranks

I'd like to talk to you about wikiranks. Email me at rrcaballo@yahoo.com. Thanks, Ron.

Any reason we can't talk about them right here? —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 12:41, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

HELP

Please block User:Slrubenstein for violating 3RR 7 times in the last 4 hours!!!! on Jesus.

Please read the message at the top of this page. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 22:03, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

oh sorry

HELP

Please unblock me (User:Fish Supper).

"Jayjg" has blocked me claiming I have violated 3RR on Historicity of Jesus, which I haven't edited once!!!.

And if he is talking about Jesus, then he has blocked me without blocking User:Slrubenstein as well, who made 4 more reverts than me!!!, like he is corrupt and biased or something.

You're right, the comment should have been 3RR violation on Jesus, which you've reverted, what, a dozen times now? Jayjg ^(talk) 23:17, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Annoyance

Why do you annoy me anyways? You did not allow me to work on my project at all, your uncivilised and rude tone will not earn you friends. Cat ^chi? 10:52, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have nothing against you, just your foolish and misguided ranking project. I am not here to win your friendship, I am here to write a free, neutral encyclopedia. Your project would have harmful to that goal and, I believe, needed to be obstructed and stopped. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 18:19, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Copyvio Template

I saw your changes to the copyvio template. At least on my machine, wiki is sporadic in correctly handling anchor links (#section_name) not on the current page. When I follow the link on the new copyvio template, it puts me at the top of WP:CP rather than at the date section. I know what I'm supposed to do, but someone less familiar with wiki procedures may get very confused at this point. The "click here" formulation was loosely based on the step-by-step instructions on WP:VFD, which includes "follow this edit link" as a link. I like formatting the internal wiki link as an external (has the external link icon inline) because it further emphasizes that the user MUST follow that link to complete the process. Also, the original fomulation fit on a single line on most monitors, rather than wrapping to the next line. Let me know what you think. Feco 04:10, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the page unprotection

I was starting to get really frustrated at the fact that the admin who protected the page on the anon's version to begin with wasn't even willing to establish what he would consider reason to unprotect. -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:59, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Charles

For your vote in my rfa. Though we have yet to collaborate much, I have a lot of respect for and confidence in your opinion. I appreciate your support very much. El_C 03:25, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Just a quick note, Charles, that my nomination was successful! Thanks again for your vote of confidence! El_C 00:32, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Comparative Contributions

You may find, in light of various accusations, that this sheds some light on how and for what editors use Wikipedia: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#Comparative_contributions_to_the_Encyclopedia_and_to_supernumerary_namespaces

-- rrcaballo AT yahoo.com

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Haham hanuka

I left out one of the notable frauds he's currently committing on English Wikipedia. His user page is an extensive list of random Hebrew and English words, the purpose of which is meant to pull in people from search engines. He also committed this act on the Hebrew Wikipedia, and the admins there explained what he did (translation):

This page contained, until September 30, 2004, a list of words whose purpose was to pull in random surfers from the internet. This list could've caused Wikipedia heavy damage, for search engines do not act with forgiveness towards attempts to cheat them. Because of this, [an admin on Hebrew Wikipedia] was forced to clean out this page, and to lock it.

They didn't take this lightly, and neither should we. --brian0918™ 19:20, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

That is certainly problematic behavior. Perhaps we just ought to remove the offending text and explain why. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 19:22, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

He should be let off scot free? His old user page is still cached (and will be for some time) in all the search engines. He has been pulling this fraud off since Day 1 (September 2004). If this isn't evidence of bad behavior on the English Wikipedia, I'm not sure what is. Ignoring this would be comparable to ignoring a user who went through blanking dozens of pages, simply because his blankings can be reverted. Note that Phils has switched his vote based on this new information. --brian0918™ 19:48, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

In the Hebrew wiki, this fraud led to his page appearing as sixth or seventh when searching for common words in Hebrew. --brian0918™ 19:55, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Hey, thanks for this nice welcome! I know all the things you wrote, I'm also a member of the German Wikipedia. This thing with the article of Paul Erdos: mhh, I think it's a really bad thing, that the software can't handle with title that contains e.g. ö,ä,ü. I hope this will change soon! Greetings --AlphaCentauri 14:46, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Council on American-Islamic Relations

I think we are looking at a revert war with these anonymous vandals. --Briangotts 15:19, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

COTW Project

You voted for Culture of Ancient Rome, this week's Collaboration of the week. Please come and help it become a featured-standard article.

Mediation Request

We received the above mediation request regarding yourself and Snowspinner. We're already working on a case with Everyking and some similarities were noted in the request. Feel free to take a look at it and make comments on that page if you are interested in doing informal mediation. --Wgfinley 03:38, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Re: Protection

I am protecting pages against moves because if a page that has a large history is moved (eg as vandalism (think WoW)), then there will be a long replication lag time on the servers, neccitating a DB lock so that everything can catch up, as shown by the recent move of Wikipedia. This is being done at the suggestion of the developers. – ABCD 14:17, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

WP:SEMP

Mirv, I was wondering what your opinion on Wikipedia:semi-policy is. It seems to me that these should be either considered (and named) guidelines or (in most cases) described as failed proposals and filed away. Any thoughts? Zocky 18:53, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and Wikipedia talk:What is a troll is fun. Zocky 20:39, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Trey Stone and Davenbelle

Hi! Trey Stone has Requested Arbitration with me:

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Trey Stone and Davenbelle
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Trey Stone and Davenbelle/Evidence

You are mentioned in evidence that I have presented and I'm bringing this to your attention. Comments and evidence of your own are welcome.

Sincerely, Davenbelle 01:08, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Islamofascism

Seems to me that the paragraph you've added to Talk:Islamofascism about Klonimus is on the wrong side of the "no personal attacks"; at any rate, it's certainly not helping the level of discourse there. (I'm not sure anything could, actually.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:10, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, you're probably right, but it springs to mind so readily whenever someone compares himself to Galileo. I'll remove it. —Charles P. (Mirv) 16:12, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Cleavage

Thanks for spotting that one! Intrigue 17:33, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome. —Charles P. (Mirv) 17:34, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Statistical Abstract

Charles, wrt to the returnof User:Statistics (contributions): Hum, I think it's a mistake. If that user('s purpose) had a point, s/he could have made it without playing these games. I think we're going to have to respectfuly disagree on this one. El_C 05:55, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

03:19, 16 May 2005 Mirv unblocked User:Statistics (block was a perfect example of why empowering lone sysops to block for "trolling" is a terrible idea)

No problem, but I hold up to you as counter-evidence for your thesis the fact that you were easily able to unblock Statistics. I'm not king of this Wiki. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:11, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Speedy Delete: Fuec

I added a page for Fuec today and it was speedy deleted.

Just wondering what rule it violated, and why it was deleted. I just heard the term the other day and thought it would be an interesting entry.

Thanks.

Book of Jeremiah

Thank you. I don't know if it's my dyslexia, my stupidity, or someone elses misspelling. i found it hard to believe there was no article. Anyway, Book of Jeremiah must have a misspelling somewhere. Thanks again. Nobs 16:16, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Matthew Hale

Hi Mirv, the reason I put the vprotect tag on the above is because it was an anon IP reverting five times in, I believe, just over 20 minutes with "RaHoWa!" as an edit summary. Not that it makes any difference, but I just wanted to let you know my reasoning. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:33, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

WP:AN/I

The inability of some people to RTFM never ceases to boggle me.... Thanks for fixing that loon's misfiling. Noel (talk) 00:25, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Tacitus and Tacitean studies

see User:Mirv/Tacitus#More_issues --Francis Schonken 10:42, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Roylee

Hi Charles, if you feel like doing some Roylee watching again, please tune in at User:Mark Dingemanse/Roylee. He's back, hasn't ever responded to inquiries on his talk page and just goes on adding the same web of self-referential fringe theories. — mark ✎ 09:17, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Adminship

Thanks Mirv for your support during the vote!--Wiglaf 19:14, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Dhimmi

I have put in wording to satisfy your construction on Dhimmi, but [ . . . ] Mel Etitis and [ . . . ] Mustafaa have reverted it repeatedly. ElKabong

Have you asked them why they reverted? Have they responded? There were some other problems with the text that I'll address on talk:Dhimmi. —Charles P. (Mirv) 22:51, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Mustafaa responded that Saudi Arabia is not a real example, which is pure bullshit and even you would know that, you're the one who put the mention of SA there in the first place. Mel Etitis just did as he always does and reverts me for the sake of hounding me. ElKabong

Neofascism and religion

Would you mind having a look at the actions on that article of Enviroknot and 129.7.35.1 [6]. Both are insist reinserting SS's pov, despite his being blocked and having no credible supporting cites for that *unique* pov, and the fact that Cberlet has provided on the talk page no less than 12+ signifcant and credible references supporting the point that fascism is primarily a right-wing product. Thanks Mirv. FeloniousMonk 22:13, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your vote in support of my admin nomination. Paul August ☎ 13:15, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

Request

Your commentary is requested at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/RFC. →Raul654 19:25, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

User:ScapegoatVandal

I looked over the edits, and they seemed vaguely familiar, but actually the user is not one familiar to me by name, either as User:Kenneth Alan or any other editor. I think there was an edit war regarding POV in the Circumcision article, so it could be the same person as that. Best wishes on the vandal hunt. -- Decumanus 02:27, 2005 Jun 19 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you for your support for my adminship. Cheers, -Willmcw 21:51, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

NPA blocking

Hi there! I'm attempting to revitalize Wikipedia:Blocking policy/Personal attacks with a proposal that's far more lenient than the previous two, and requires multiple attacks and multiple opinions. The main point is that the remote threat of blocking may well discourage people from attacking. Anyway since you were involved in the previous version, I'd like your feedback on the new one. Thanks, Radiant_>|< 17:46, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Roylee

Hi Charles. I you feel like doing some Roylee-watching again, User:Mark Dingemanse/Roylee is still open — in fact, there has been quite some activity lately. The new thing is that he has abandoned his account and only edits from 4.241.x.x IP's since halfway June. I'm worried about his involvement in Silk Road and a web of related articles. I don't know anything about that, and no-one seems to be taking notice of his edits there, but they surely smell of his particular POV. — mark ✎ 29 June 2005 13:47 (UTC)

Elections for Board of Trustees

Mirv, are you publically endorsing a candidate?

No. Why do you ask? —Charles P. (Mirv) 30 June 2005 13:48 (UTC)

Nice work on Suicide bombing

Hi there. Just a note to say thanks for your work on the Suicide bombing article. There was an earlier deadlock over some of the material (mainly 'shahid') which you have since added - these debates recently resulted in the page getting locked. Nice work, a good example of neutral language which will hopefully be noticed by everybody .illWill 30 June 2005 23:52 (UTC)

I would like to second illWill 's compliments on this article. Nicely done. --Noitall July 2, 2005 18:49 (UTC)

Thank you both. I can only hope that my edits set an example for certain of the more, eh, vocal editors of that page. —Charles P. (Mirv) 2 July 2005 21:10 (UTC)

Sorry, this is a bit Delayed, but, yeah, brilliant job!Am I a vocal editor? Probably! It's one of those occassions where one of those Barn-stars should be given.. but you already have a spinny one! --Irishpunktom\^talk 08:30, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Whats up with the revert on the Islam page

Why did you do the revert? --Urchid 2 July 2005 14:54 (UTC)

Because you pasted in an entire article and deleted nearly all the external links, calling them "pro links" even though they were purely informative. Don't do that. —Charles P. (Mirv) 2 July 2005 14:59 (UTC)

Well the point I was making was that on the Islam page , anytime anyone tries to add a critical link they inevitably get taken out with the explanation that all critical links go in the directory links. Well that is fine, but what goes for the critical links also goes for the pro links( even though you call them informative , would that not be a consistent application of this rule. Do you also object to a slavery section in the Islam article???--Urchid 2 July 2005 15:03 (UTC)

The critical link removed was for faithfreedom.org, which is a site dedicated to religious polemic. The "pro" links you removed were, by and large, academic; no religious agenda was apparent. In any case, if you dislike the way the external link section is handled, you should take it to the talk page and work things out calmly rather than making revenge edits. That sort of behavior will not convince anyone of your rightness; if anything, it will do the opposite. —Charles P. (Mirv) 2 July 2005 15:20 (UTC)

I know you're busy, but ...

Could you please take a look at the ongoing dispute at Sahaba? Many thanks.BrandonYusufToropov 4 July 2005 19:04 (UTC)

Question

I'm embarrassed to ask this, but I don't actually know what the procedure is for making a proposal ammendment. Do you know how this is done? I want to make an ammendment so that we can get consensus on how to use Template:Personal. - Ta bu shi da yu 9 July 2005 14:21 (UTC)

How it is done? Generally one or two users, and sometimes a few more, set up a page in the Wikipedia namespace outlining the proposal. They set a short period for discussion, a week or two, and jealously guard the text from edits by anyone else. At the end of the discussion period, it's put to a vote, which is generally polarized and inconclusive. The proposal is categorized as a historical page or a rejected policy and forgotten about. Occasionally one of the originators will return months later and decide that despite the lack of support in the vote, it's a policy (or a "semi-policy") anyway.

That's how it often is done, as I see it. If you want advice on how it should be done, then here's what I suggest:

• Write up the proposed policy for use of the template; Wikipedia:No personal attacks/Controversial topics might be a good place for it, but put it where you think fit. Announce it through the usual channels: the village pump, the mailing list, MediaWiki:Recentchangestext, Wikipedia:Goings-on, the Signpost, etc. Collect any preceding discussions on the talk page.
• Set an open-ended time for discussion. Encourage editing.
• When the discussion and editing settle down, put it to a vote.

For this proposal, I would suggest waiting until Tim Starling finishes work on Wikipedia:Per-article blocking. I doubt that punishing one personal attack on the talk page of a controversial topic with a summary block from all editing will gain enough support; I think that blocks only from editing the talk page and the article will prove much more palatable. —Charles P. (Mirv) 9 July 2005 14:43 (UTC)

The Just War Theory

I see you moved The Just War Theory to plain Just War Theory. I put a bit on the discussion page before moving it to include the the. I'd be interested to read your reasons for doing the move there. BTW I agree as a general rule 'the' is not needed but in this case there are reasons to make an exception.Dejvid 19:07, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Islam

Hi Mirv, you're welcome. I've blocked Qasim666, A Kaffir, Nickbee, and Billal as sockpuppets created to get round 3RR. I haven't blocked User:Exmuslim, but I've left a warning on his talk page that he's heading for a block. Let me know if you need any other help. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:36, July 24, 2005 (UTC)