User talk:A Train/Archive V

Please help adding an item,

Dear Fernando,

I have prepared the folowing stuff for entry Sex_Magick, but due to my Internet Account Filtering I am unable to edit the Sex Magick Page. Please add following stuff at the end of the page Sex_Magick.

Best Regards, User:Sepand

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@BEGINS HERE@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

There always have been some unrevealed mysteries about sex magick. But Aleister Crowley teases us with commentaries on Atu XV in The Book of Thoth relating to sex magick and the eye of Ra/Horus/Shiva:

"There is a special technical magical meaning, which is explained openly only to initiates of the Eleventh degree of the O.T.O.; a grade so secret that it is not even listed in the official documents. It is not even to be understood by study of the Eye in Atu XV[The Tower of Thoth Tarot]. Perhaps it is lawful to mention that the Arab sages and the Persian poets have written, not always guardedly, on the subject."

Books on Sex Magick by Aleister Crowley

Liber IAO, Aleister Crowley, Aleister Crowley

IAO. Sexual Magick. Gives three methods of attainment through a willed series of thoughts. The active form of Liber CCCXLV.

De Nuptis Secretis Deorum Cum Hominibus, Aleister Crowley
Liber Stellae Rubeae, Aleister Crowley [Download in HTML]

A secret ritual of Apep, the heart of IAO-OAI, delivered unto V.V.V.V.V. for his use in a certain matter of Liber Legis. Sexual Magick veiled in symbolism.

Agape, Azoth, Aleister Crowley

The Book of the Unveiling of the Sangraal wherein it is spoken of the Wine of the Sabbath of the Adepts. Secrets instructions of the IX° O.T.O. (Sex Magick.)

Liber Cheth vel Vallum Abiegni, Aleister Crowley [Download in HTML]

A perfect account of the task of the Exempt Adept considered under the Symbols of a particular plane, not the intellectual. Sexual magick veiled in symbolism.

Liber A'ash vel Capricorni Pneumatici, Aleister Crowley, [Download in HTML]

Analyzes the nature of the creative magical force in man, explains how to awaken it, how to use it and indicates the general as well as the particular objects to be gained thereby. Sexual magick heavily veiled in symbolism.

Paris Working, The (including Esoteric record and sundrys), Aleister Crowley, [Download in HTML]

A record of homosexual magick operations.

Books on Sex Magick by others

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ENDS HERE@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Sepand, I've responded on your talk page. Fernando Rizo T/C 23:49, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Added as per Sepand's request. Fernando Rizo T/C 03:21, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

---

hi thank you! :) Are you from España? Yes I know i sometimes check in with Lucky 9.6 but i haven't talkaed to him for a while I mean i do a LOT of work on Brazil (brasil) and pornography, sex, jewish hot women (i'm jewish and love hot women) cocaine, and South Park and I know a lot of my stuff gets votes to delete, a lot of it to merge or redirect but a lot of my articlse also are praised like our Lisa Kushell article (she is my American princess swettheart!!) I did that article with Jucky 6.9 and Superdude151. I did the Bus 174 article all by myself and that was about Brasil too. I am trying my best but I think that peole dont respsect the cutlure of Brazil here at all do you get that impression that they feel the wame say about Spain?Wiki brah 18:38, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to see your reply. No, I'm not from Spain; I'm an American of Latin American descent, actually. Your Bus 174 article is pretty good, especially for a new user like yourself.

The big problem isn't that people respect Brasilian culture; quite the opposite, I think that Brasilian culture is respected almost everywhere and the Wikipedia community is no exception. It's just that Wikipedia has certain standards that it has to maintain, and some of your other articles don't quite make it. But don't worry about that. Check out Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, and feel free to drop me a line the next time you're going to start a new article, and I'll work with you to help you write what you want but still meet Wikipedia policy. Talk to you again soon, Fernando Rizo T/C 18:45, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thank you! I'll try my better from now on!Wiki brah 18:50, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re Geek Shopping

Hi Fernando

I appreciate your comments on my Geek Shopping entry. You are the only one so far who has mentioned anything concrete on what is wrong with my the article and that ranks high in my book. I hope to address the concerns you mentioned and maybe give the article some life. I have already added the Fry's entry (don't know how I missed that since I have a Fry's about 2 miles from my house). I hope to make the article more 'Encyclopediac' while still keeping it current and useful.

PS -- I like Slurpees too!

Hey there buddy. With regard to Geek shopping, I'm afraid that even the inclusion of Fry's isn't going to save it, as it can never really be an encyclopedic article with the name it currently has. The fundamental problem with the article is that it can only be about what someone's opinion of geek shopping is. An encyclopedia can't have any original research, it can only present information referenced from other sources. I hope this clears it up for you, but please feel free to leave me another message if you've still got questions. I hope that you can still contribute to Wikipedia despite this initial setback. Cheers, Fernando Rizo T/C 17:58, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fernando: I don't get your point as far as the title of the article. If I accept your critism of the term Geek Shopping then the term Geek has the same fundamental problem in that it can only be about what someone's opinion of geek is. However the Wikipedia Geek article seems quite widely accepted, hence the many hits when I was initially searching for Geek Shopping info via google. If a defination of Geek shopping is in order then that can be easily accomplished by referencing back to the Geek article. I don't disagree that there are other problems with the 'Geek Shopping' article but nothing I've seen so far that cannot be addressed with a reasonable amount of editting and updating (including references to original source material). Best Wishes -- Dave

Hey, Dave. The problem is this: I think that geek shopping consists of going to stores a, b and c, but you think geek shopping is going to stores x, y and z. The problem is that there's no reference we can check. A good, encyclopedic article would be able to say, "Geek shopping is defined as ______, and is also considered _____", with the statements referenced to an outside work.

The big difference between Geek and Geek shopping is that "Geek" is a term in very, very wide usage, that has had a notable impact on the English language and has an almost universally agreed-upon meaning. "Geek shopping" doesn't have the same cachet. Fernando Rizo T/C 18:52, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how to determine if a term has a wide usage of not since this is a Point of View concept, but I notice a google search of "Geek Shopping" has around 34,000 hits whereas the term "Geek canon" has around 6,000 hits but is a valid Wikipedia article without a non-Wikipedia referenced defination (that I found anyway). I don't mean to drag this on since I have much more serious fish to fry as I sure you do to, but I hit this discussion again via Google while looking for something else.

hello Fernando

Please visit website: www.billmurphy.com. Read there main page at the end. Bill Murphy works in many styles including "minimalism" and "NeoPopRealism".

The Best, Marg

ps from Yahoo search today:

murphy Biography Bill MURPHY

Bill Murphy was born 1946 in Hartford, Connecticut, USA and grew up on the South Coast of Massachusetts. Murphy studied art at the University of Massachusetts and at community colleges in California and Hawaii. For him, learning is an ongoing process; skill the product of daily experience and years of practice. Murphy served in the US Army as a Green Beret officer in the 70's. He has lived in Central America, Europe, Ukraine, the Northeast US, California and Hawaii. Murphy has traveled extensively. Today, Murphy is operating a large format printer in native New England. Recently, he worked from his studio in Lugansk, Ukraine. Murphy began signing his work i. Murphy in the year 2000. The photos (left) were taken in the late 80's when Murphy began his art career.

He moved from California to France in the spring of 1999. Aside from a few trips to the Middle East and USA, Murphy has lived in Ukraine and France since then. He has met many artists in Kiev, Lviv, Lugansk and Yalta. Presently, Murphy is working on two film projects, one a collaborative film, Project W from Moscow. Currently, Murphy is traveling in Europe. He assists graphic arts instruction at the Art Institute in Lugansk as a volunteer.

Earlier, Murphy displayed his works at art festivals in Laguna Beach and the Scottsdale Celebration of Fine Art. His work has been displayed in several museums in both the USA and Europe. Murphy has exhibited his works at art galleries in Spain, Ukraine, France, Wisconsin, New York, Massachusetts and California. His work has been registered in Los Angeles, NYC and Hartford, CT. His painting and sculptures were part of the 1999 City of Los Angeles Juried Art Show. Murphy is listed in the International Registry of Art and Artists, an artists' database sourced by Getty Foundation. He has appeared on Russian Television, ABC and NBC; his works were published in several national publications, including Maxim Magazine. He is an print art and design consultant and has participated in the implementation of important digital color assurance technology for the Internet.

In early 2004, Murphy participated as one of the artists in the 1st Annual Lugansk Body Painting Festival, something quite new and exhilarating. Murphy completed a large print series based on the event, which served as a springboard to his focus on the female figure that continues into 2005.

Murphy has created one of the most popular of the professional artist's websites. He has participated in multimedia events for the Internet. This website was established in 1997. It has received many awards including: Art of the Web Award, Britannica's Internet Guide Award, the Gold Award from AA Project Juno and StarSaber's Award of Excellence.

Murphy has been invited to to display his artwork at: the Artist's Workshop 2002 on Crete, Greece; Art International 2003 - Zurich, ArtWalk 2003 at San Diego; the Biennale di Firenze, Italy 2003; Montserrat Gallery in Soho NYC, May 2003; Art-Philadelphia 2003, a contemporary art show June 27-29, 2003; XXX Aniversario Batik, Barcelona, October, 2003; Salon International de Peinture et de Sculpture 4e edition, Monte Carlo, November 2003: Gallery Gora, Montreal; Art in the West, Galway, Ireland, Montreal's International Festival of Erotic Art, June, 2005 and Omma Center of Contemporary Art, Santa Barbara, California in September. Last year, Murphy was interviewed on Russian-language television. A complete segment of the series is devoted to Murphy's recollections and comments on art and the art world. Was it Pablo Picasso who when asked, "What is art?" responded, "If I knew, I wouldn't tell anyone." Look for Murphy's work to appear online at Instair Art's June Exhibition of New Computer Art.

In addition to his painting and design work, Murphy has written poetry. Murphy has done volunteer work for several charities. He is a gifted artist dedicated to his work and to making a contribution the community. This is central to his philosophy and fundamental to his appreciation of life.

Murphy began his art career as a painter. Today, he is a computer artist, printmaker and film producer. His work with watercolors and oils offers a rich, spontaneous style. Much of his recent effort has gone into creating digitally-mastered prints, many of these are available on this website. He demonstrates a diverse capability delivering minimalist to NeoPopRealism. His works are world-class. Murphy's goal as a contemporary artist is to engage the viewer and elicit an emotion. With simple forms and lines it is possible to create a subtle complexity. An overview of Murphy's work can refresh the senses and might encourage participation. We can experience joy for ourselves and in our world. Murphy believes that the creative experience enlarges our spiritual world and begs for an increased participation in life and can foster a greater sense of belonging.

Murphy contributed artwork to E-Cards.com and Care-Mail.com, two charitable e-card web sites. Please visit them. At E-Cards your participation generates a contribution to protect our wildlife. Also, you can send postcards of Murphy paintings and prints to your friends and relatives from this website, if you simply CLICK HERE.

Okay Marg, here's what I propose. Instead of getting sidetracked with Neopoprealism in the Nadia Russ article, let's you and I collaboratively right a Neopoprealism article. The first step is going to be research; we have to make sure that its notable enough for inclusion, and we have to make sure that we can supply references for the article. Tomorrow, I'll be at my school's library inbetween classes. I'll see what I can't dig up for references and you dig through whatever art reviews and magazines you have for references, and we'll compare notes tomorrow or Tuesday. Fernando Rizo T/C

To: Mr. Rizo

Two members(Paul Klenk and TheDeletator)have been posting, nearly all of the articles I created and contributed, to be deleted, Users request that the articles be kept, all they might need is expansion. I dont think thats fair for new commers, just because his name is "TheDeletator" doesn't mean he could go out and post anything to be deleted just because he dont like it, other people do. Just like my name, "imdaking" it dont give me any power. I think they want attention or revenge. They are users that are not responsible with their powers.Imdaking 20:38:42, 2005-08-28 (UTC)

Imdaking, I'll look into it right now. Fernando Rizo T/C 20:43, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, first of all, you did the right thing by not making any accusatory messages to Paul Klenk or The Deletator. Secondly, it looks like both of the articles that have been VfD'd are on worthwhile subjects and should survive VfD easily, so don't worry too much about that.

Thanks for bringing the matter to my attention. The mission that The Deletator claims to be on it worth watching, and if he brings a lot of bad faith VfDs up, it will be dealt with. Remember that they could well be a fairly new user themselves, and may need some time to the hang of the way things work around here. Fernando Rizo T/C 20:56, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SW Cast List

ESB

There are disputes over the plot summary, the cast and the opening scroll. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:40, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Jtkiefer's RFA

Thanks for your support on my RFA. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 05:14, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Go Eat Poo Wikipedia

I'm happy you laughed when I wrote that. I won't do it anymore, but you will never know, because I have a dynamic IP address. jk, I won't do it anymore.

    I never vandalized anything and I don't appreciate your blocking me.

I hereby award you...

I hearby bestow upon you Fernando Rizo

The Sandwich of Exceptional Excellence (Potato Salad of Congeniality cluster, 1st. class) *In Panis, Veritas*

this noble award. For your help and congeniality relating to all issues Wiki, and for your outstanding contributions as a newly minted WP Godling. Hamster Sandwich 23:45, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Accuracy edit?

I'm not sure if this edit on Erwin Walsh's page I just did is appropriate under Wiki policies (aside from Be Bold). I'm therefore asking an administrator (already involved) for judgement as to whether is appropriate or not. If necessary, please revert my changes, and feel free to rant at me on my User Talk page. =) Abb3w 04:09, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Hello Fernando,

The Greek Cypriot guy User:82.35.34.24 who vandalised my User page, and a number of Albanian related pages is back doing more of the same. He is creating a lot of problems wherever he is going.

For example, he has created an article called Albanian_mafia and is creating links to it, for example, from the Kosovo Liberation Army page. He continues to vandalise the Kosovo Liberation Army article. This so-called Albanian_mafia article must be deleted because it is totally and utterly POV. I tried to report this page to be deleted, but could not figure out how to do it. So, I thought maybe you could help?

Many thanks, -- Kosovar 02:42, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kosovar: sorry for the delay in response, I'm just now getting settled back here at home from my recent trip. I'm looking into the matter right now. Fernando Rizo T/C 23:50, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Looked into it and replied on your talk page, Kosovar. Fernando Rizo T/C 23:55, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A sandwich can be very satisfying...

Welcome back FR! Hope you had a fine weekend. I ate weenies with the socialists and had some union made danish pastry. I had the crazy idea of putting an article I've done some extensive editing to up for FA. Nathan Bedford Forrest. Hopeing to get some opinions ideas and suggestions regarding this. I'm just going to post some of the other regular editors over there about this idea. Dmcdevit had one good idea I'm going to incorporate in the "War record and Promotions" chapter. Let me know what you think, bro, I'll be around for a while getting the dinner going here. Peace! Hamster Sandwich 01:04, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go check out that article sometime tonight, and give you my vicious, merciless critique of it. :) Fernando Rizo T/C 01:38, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

UVSC Redirect

From [[1]]

"Uvsc: redirect Hi Nm1m- I made your Uvsc stub redirect to the existing article at Utah Valley State College. Have a look at Wikipedia:Naming_conventions before you throw another article up. Drop me a line if you've got any questions, and keep contributing. Fernando Rizo T/C 03:01, 1 August 2005 (UTC)"

Fernando,

Thanks for letting me know about the redirection. I was demonstrating the wonders of Wikipedia to a friend, and didn't take the time to properly check / format the UVSC page that I created. I apologize for the error.

-nm1m

Hurrican Katharina Info Box

hi,

the problem is that the dam'n box breakse it does not allow to place "highest sustained winds" instead of highest winds, yesterday it was fixed from a user as agreed in the discussion, but today it reads highest winds again and thats not what was agreed in ihe discussion. And i can't fix it as it simply brakes..... any idea how to proceede?

(Wilhelm.peter 09:52, 7 September 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Sorry, Wil. I'm no expert on the infoboxes. Try User:Ericg, I think he'll have a better idea of what to do. He may not be around right now, however. Fernando Rizo T/C 09:57, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I won't get involved in the debate on what the language should be, but if you go HERE, then you can see how to edit the template, which affects what is displayed on the page. Do you still need help, or do you got it under control?--GordonWattsDotCom 20:20, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: 3RR Violation at Terri Schiavo

This is a copy of your message from my page.--GordonWattsDotCom 17:15, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon, after reviewing the edit history carefully, I can see that you most definitely violated WP:3RR today at Terri Schiavo. These are the edits in question:

Normally, this is grounds for an automatic twenty-four hour ban; however, in this case I feel it would be counter-productive, as you need to be able to edit the Terri Schiavo talk page in order to sort out the differences that you're having with User:FuelWagon and User:RN. I have protected the article for now, and I would like to see some civil, good faith attempts at compromise with those other users. Please don't make me regret my leniency in this case. Leave me a talk page message if you have any questions.

Please note, I am not interested in taking sides on this issue. My only desire is to see a consensus formed and I will enforce that consensus, whatever it may be. Fernando Rizo T/C 09:21, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I looked that the diffs in question, and the first one was a simple (but "contentious") edit, and the second one was in the spirit of a revert, but I didn't technically use the revert tool (by clicking on an older version), as you can see as an admin.

However, while I don't feel I violated the letter of the law, I feel I either violated or came very close to violating the spirit of the law, the higher standard that I (and others) have long ago set.

The reason I even made the first edit was to improve the quality of the paragraph -and set it up for the second edit, adopting an older version that FuelWagon had not liked; he wanted a source to address the "atypical" language I chose to use, and I gave him that source. So, it (the 2nd "revert") was not "technically" a revert, but I did use a "version" of a prior edit, but with modifications to make Wagon happy. The 3rd and 4th edits were certainly reversions, as I indicated in my talk posts. I was getting frustrated with POV-pusher, such as Wagon, and asked for help. Thank you for any assistance you can give, Fernando.--GordonWattsDotCom 17:15, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon, I can see that you are certainly a good faith editor, and I know for a fact that FW is as well. I have no reason to doubt RN's intentions, either. I am sure that three mature adults such as yourselves can resolve whatever issues you may be having.

I can see your issue with my 3RR accusation; it's quite valid, and I am glad that I decided against blocking. You're an experienced user, and I have no advice for. Go forth and do good things. Fernando Rizo T/C 17:19, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You are a messenger of good news, literally translated "Angelos" in the Greek or (I think?) "Malchos" in the Hebrew, and translated "Angel" in English. I hope to take positive advantage of my chances and opportunities, and, yes, I think both RN (Ryan Norton) and FuelWagon act in good faith. While I would still try to accommodate their views, I am even more glad -considering their desire for good faith. (Wagon, for all his arguing, has contributed heavily in a positive way to the article.) Still, your input on our particular edits is welcome, and for that you merely have to look at the last 10-20 edits (on the Schiavo article itself) and also in the recent talk page (Talk:Terri_Schiavo) entries. Thx in advance for any help you can offer as a disinterested third party. Tenga Ud. un buen dia. (Have a nice day.)--GordonWattsDotCom 17:36, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's not enough just that I give the appearance of trying to listen and bend; I actually think my suggestions (see my recent edits) have merit, and I would like the watchful eye of an objective third-party, such as you -and we can even bring in all the crew, if you'd like; I'm not perfect, but I have nothing to hide.--GordonWattsDotCom 00:49, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon, I've been in class for much of the day. I did visit the Terri Schiavo talk page while I was on RC patrol earlier, and saw that it was no closer to compromise than it was yesterday. I haven't had enough time to immerse myself in the current debate, and I hope that you'll understand my reluctance to weigh in on a matter where I have not read all of the associated material. I'll drop by late night tonight and see where everyone stands. Fernando Rizo T/C 04:18, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I had classes at Florida State University (and before that, a vocational-tech college for electronics), and I understand how classes like Biochemistry, Physics, and some funny math classes can fry the brain, but I want to ask you for your help -when you get a chance. I am glad of your desire to "see a consensus formed and I will enforce that consensus, whatever it may be," and, I understand your human limitations, yes, I do, but please note that I made a proposed solution here, and FuelWagon made a counter-proposal (very similar, but leaving out one key quote) right here, and then FuelWagon asked for a vote here, which seemed good enough, but I recalled his past efforts to avoid concensus, and told him of my displeasure with that right here, and ask for your help in seeing that what is right is done. (Wagon's had past disciplinary problems, but also he's contributed POSITIVELY to the article, so I do not look to the past too much, just a little.) I hate calling a person names, like "non-genuine," but I must be honest with myself and others: Wagon's opposed concensus in the past, and this is my only concern -other than the time & effort I've spent here, when I could be doing something else. Thx in advance for your efforts and concern -and your help, HELP, help!! (I'm not too proud to ask for help when I need it.)--GordonWattsDotCom 19:49, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon, I'm looking into it this evening when it gets quiet at work. Fernando Rizo T/C 20:43, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not a nano-second too soon. Thx.--GordonWattsDotCom 20:59, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stuck regarding Terri Schiavo

I was going to ask for some help resolving this, but I see Gordon already came here. Here's one of the sticking points that hasn't been sorted out:

Gordon's edit contains this diff: [2]

In April 2000, in the midst of the guardianship challenge, Schiavo, widely described as the "brain-damaged Florida woman" ^[3] at the heart of this legal battle, was admitted to a Pinellas County, Florida hospice ^[4], a facility, which in her state of Florida, is typically only legally allowed to admit terminally ill patients. ^[5]

Basically, I oppose the insertion of the paragraph because saying the Hospice "typically only legally" admits terminally ill patients is weasel words to imply that Terri's transfer was illegal, when the courts never found it illegal.

I was right to make this edit, but I have no problem removing the "typically only legally" language, and I said so much in my proposed compromise right here, at this permalink diff, and afterwards, Wagon offered a similar but not same compromise, ignoring mine, eh?--GordonWattsDotCom 21:51, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've proposed a compromise here and asked people to vote on it here.

I added language from the Schindler's motion against Michael challenging his guardianship. They submit as evidence that Terri's transfer to a hospice was an improper use of her assets. (see bullet 31 of the motion which is linked in the proposed version).

The courts tossed the Schindler's motion against michael. The guardian ad litems appointed to have Terri's best interests at heart never mentioned this transfer as being a problem. There is nothing but an accusation from the Schindlers that the courts dismissed. Introducing Gordon's "typically only legally" doesn't belong in the article.

The attorneys' jobs on both sides is to make "accusations." It is OUR job to report them -all of them, and if Wagon wants to include info about the court's response of whatever, that is alright with me.--GordonWattsDotCom 21:51, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The rest of the paragraph is redundant and can be removed completely. It only exists so that Gordon can say a Hospice "typically only legally" accepts terminal patients. Anyway, he insists on this sentence being in the article, and so we're stuck. FuelWagon 21:27, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Falso: I HAD in the PAST put that in, but, again, I propose a different edit that removes the "typically only legally" language, HERE, which says, in relevant part (with a spelling error fixed) this:

In [[April]] [[2000]], in the midst of the guardianship challenge, Schiavo, widely described as the "brain-damaged Florida woman" {{ref|CNN.com.story}} at the heart of this legal battle, was admitted to a [[Pinellas County]], [[Florida]] [[Hospice_care|hospice]] {{ref|AbstractAppealInfoPage}}, amid objections by her family {{ref}LibertyLink.AndersonMotion}} that this was a facility which is was prohibited by state law from admitting nonterminal patients {{ref|StateLawOnHospices}} and prohibited by federal law from taking federal funds if it did admit nonterminal patient {{ref|A.New.Miami.U.Link}}. The court eventually ruled A-B-and-C.

Signed and indented here,--GordonWattsDotCom 21:52, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ray Nagin

Regarding your message to me: Significant parts of your edit to the Ray Nagin article were POV statements about whose responsibility it was to evacuate New Orleans' citizens. Please try to keep Wikipedia as neutral as possible. Fernando Rizo T/C 17:07, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My reply: Nope. If you had taken the time to study the Louisiana Evacuation Plan signed by former New Orleans mayor Marc Morial you'd have realized evacuation is up to state and local officials. Here's the link: http://www.ohsep.louisiana.gov/plans/EOPSupplement1a.pdf See page 11 section D7, Organization and Assignment of Responsibilities. I have no other desire than to keep Wikipedia as neutral as possible hence my addition of Nagin's defense to criticisms he has received as well as my adding the balance of criticisms against Nagin to criticisms Nagin has issued. I've added Nagin's criticism of the Governor as well. Criticism by Nagin, criticism against Nagin, and Nagin's defense of criticism - what could be more neutral or balanced? Are you suggesting a whitewash of all criticism is in order? -- Long John Silver 209.247.222.92 17:17, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, sir, you appear to be alone in your belief that your position represents a neutral point of view. Fernando Rizo T/C 22:41, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

With return respect, sir, you may have missed others on both the discussion page and in comments reverting to my version of the article but I assure you if you take a look you will find them. I believe you have fallen victim to falsehoods told by those with a political agenda. I do not fault you. Clearly you were unaware evacuation was the mayor's responsibility as defined in the state evacuation plan signed by both the governor and mayor. I suspect you may have been prodded to that belief by those with something other than a neutral point of view.

I am a political moderate. What I object to most from both the right and left is their partisan supression of fact. Suppression of Mayor Nagin's criticism of the Governor and suppression of his responsibilities under the state evacuation plan can only be motivated by partisan interest. A new fact reaches the world tonite. That fact is the Governor opposes Mayor Nagin's mandatory evacuation plan of his Parish. Suppressing that fact can only be considered POV. When I find an adequate source, that fact will be added to the article. It's a fact I'm convinced the left will choose to try to suppress for political reasons. -- Long John Silver 209.247.222.87 01:23, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Political moderates do not spend their time accusing others of being left wing extreemists, National socialists and liars as this user has done repeatedly. Nor do they constantly revert an article wholesale to their own version ignoring every other editor. Although there are comments from other IP addresses all of them are clearly comming from a single site with dual firewalls, apparently at a Naval installation in San Francisco. There is also a user Corwin8 who has been accused of being a sock but is probably not and is getting rather anoyed that his edits are being reverted by people who mistake them for LJS. I have also added some anti-Nagin comments to the article that have been eliminated in the same way. More details are at wp:vip including the subtle tricks he is playing with redirects to turn entirely unconnected articles into a political platform for an extreeme POV. --Gorgonzilla 05:19, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

images for deletion....

If someone has a image with no source, and was notified, could they be removed from the page they are used for, or a (sysops) can only do it?.::Imdaking::. ^{Tlk | E-M} 23:29:13, 2005-09-07 (UTC)

King, if you suspect that an image may be a copyvio and the user who posted it hasn't gotten back to you, I see no problem with removing it from an article until its copyright status can be established. Just make sure to mention the issue in your edit summary. Fernando Rizo T/C 23:34, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:171.66.199.122

Hi there,

Sorry, but what happened to the "Please do not bite the newcomers" quidelines? What was the problem with placing our external links? It was a pretty harsh welcome, or rather a rude way of turning us away from using and contributing to Wikipedia.

(

Hello, anonymous user. Sorry if you feel that I was biting you; I think that I was being polite, actually. In any case, I meant no offense, I was only trying to enforce Wikipedia guidlines.

I've already referred you to Wikipedia:External links, but since you still don't see the problem, I can be more specific.

Wikipedia:External_links#What should be linked to states that external links should generally be references or articles that represent other points of view for a contentious issue. Your link was none of those things, and was essentially an advertisement for a television program.
Wikipedia:External_links#What should not be linked to clearly delineates that links placed for advertising purposes are not allowed.

Every single edit that you have made, excepting the above comment here on my talk page, has been to place an external link to your website on Wikipedia articles. This behavior is consistent with advertising spamming.

Once again, I'm sorry if you're hurt, but it is everyone's responsibility to maintain a high level of quality for Wikipedia. If you disagree with my actions or have further questions, feel free to contact me again or bring the matter up with another admin. --Fernando Rizo T/C 04:15, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fernando, some more guidelines on relevant external links

Hi Fernando,

I am writing about the conversation you had regarding relevant external links, vs. advertising spamming- and just trying to get a clearer picture on how some of the articles, for instance 'solar ovens' have links to many solar oven companies out there.

Please excuse our earlier misunderstandings, it's just that our public television cooking series is a non-profit organization that also highlights and features other worthy non-profit organizations in everything from sustainable agriculture, to organic/fair trade markets, and alternative energy to name a few.

So we assumed that it was ok to place an external link on relevant articles, as we provide a lot of resources on these subjects as well.

Thank you in advance for your thoughtful consideration,

James

James,

I'm as strong a supporter of public radio and television as there ever was, and I certainly sympathize. However, I'm sure you can agree that if every worthwhile cause added a link to their websites to Wikipedia articles, it would get pretty chaotic around here.

So what can be done for your show? I would suggest that a public television program that is broadcast in a major market and thus has a large number of viewers is notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. Why not write an article for it? Put up a good draft, and I'll help you out with it. Fernando Rizo T/C 20:35, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

about vandal

" (User:69.212.207.35 is being watched; please use warnings on the user's talk page before bringing it here) "

I was going to do that, but I don't think he has a user page. I didn't see any way to leave him a warning. Bubba73 16:07, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

No sweat, Bubba. Everybody, even anonymous IPs have a talk page. The format is [[User talk:XX.XXX.XXX.XX]] or [[User talk:Username]]. So the vandal in question is User talk:69.212.207.35. If you click there, you can edit his talk page. There are templates that you can use to warn a vandal; there's a whole sequence of them in increasingly strong terms that save you from having to type out warnings. You can find those at Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace. Thanks for your effort, and happy vandal-fighting. Fernando Rizo T/C 16:13, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not happy fighting vandals. :-) I was going to add one of those because this was the first time I had seen a repeater. But there was no "talk" in the page history and when I clicked on the IP address, there was no discussion page, so I didn't see any way to do it. I don't see any point in having 4 or so warning levels. One warning should be all they get. Bubba73 17:13, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

I don't think warnings do much good. If they have a different IP address next time, they won't even see the warning. If they do see it, they are unlikely to heed it. Giving them a warning just accomplishes what they want to accomplish - do something that takes them a few seconds that takes us several minutes to respond to. I think that only users with accounts should be able to edit. Bubba73 (talk) 17:54, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Janelle Pierzina vote

I am a bit confused as to how you called the Janelle Pierzina page. I count 8 votes for redirect, 2 for delete and 12 for keep. How does this become a conclusion of redirect? That just doesn't make sense to me, nor does it jive with what I've seen on some other votes. Please let me knnow how on earth you came to this conclusion.--Firedrake 00:02, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the keep voters had less than 300 edits and their votes were disallowed; this is pretty standard. If you want more detail than that, I can go through the whole tally with you. Fernando Rizo T/C 00:12, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Ahhh. I see. So if you haven't been around here long enough or done enough edits, you mights as well not even vote. You really should post that rule under the voting process guide so new users will know not to bother participating. --Firedrake 00:22, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If I'm not mistaken, it's spelled out in Guide to AfD or in the deletion policy; I don't exactly recall where but it is rather explicit. Sorry if you're hurt, but the rationale behind the policy is quite sound. Fernando Rizo T/C 00:24, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- It does say that established users carry more weight than new ones, but it just says new users recommendations MAY be discounted, especially if they seem to be made in bad faith. I'm not hurt, it's just eye opening to see how things really work around here. I'm certainly not seeing much reason to hang around. --Firedrake 00:38, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote "This does not mean that you should not participate in debates; your argumentation could well sway the opinions of many other users. But the fact remains that you have less than twenty edits to your name."

In other words, I, and other new users, should spend our time arguing in hopes to sway the folks whose votes REALLY matter. That's encouraging.

"This is not something that you should take personally. Wikipedia allows anonymous strangers and new users such as yourself to do almost anything at all here, but some activities are a bit more guarded than others."

What does it matter if we write an article, when it can get wiped pretty much at the whim of an admin?

"Hang around and get a few more edits under your belt. I'm sorry if you think this is cronyism, I assure you that it isn't."

Uh huh. Explain then how pages exist for other BB6 players this season that have FAR fewer accomplishments and less popularity than Janelle? Not that I'm advocating their removal at all, but the whole situation cerrtainly does look dicey.

"Clearly our system can't be all that disasterous, as Wikipedia continues to attract new users, many of whom stick around."

Well, you pretty force folks to stick around if they are get taken seriously apparantly. Sorry, but what I've seen here doesn't really give me much reason to stick around and waste my time trying to break into some clique. After I stop being pissed off at this travesty, I might try contributing again, but it certainly won't be because of anything I've seen in this whole debacle.

Sorry you feel that way. Fernando Rizo T/C 02:48, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you are. Just so you know, Janelle has as of tonight guaranteed herself a spot in the final 3 and is pretty much assured of winning a record setting 2nd America's choice. What happens if she does manage to pul out a win? Do you think Zoe will let her have a page then?--Firedrake 03:25, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Firedrake, I don't have cable, and can't remember the last time I watched any television above and beyond some SportsCenter and CNN at my friends' houses, so I haven't the foggiest notion what you're talking about. I really don't care about the television show that Janelle is on, all I was doing was executing what I considered to be the result of the AfD debate. If you really feel this strongly about it, why don't you file a Request for comment about my alleged misuse of admin privileges? I honestly think I did the right thing, and holding a grudge over something so trivial seems like a waste of calories to me.

I really hope that you can get over this; I don't have anything against you. Fernando Rizo T/C 03:30, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure it makes me feel any better knowing you have no clue as to the whole root of the argument to delete/redirect the page. I'm fairly certain now you don't know why Janelle's page was picked for deletetion over other contestant with fewer accomplishments. I more than likely will try the request for comment thing, as I do not believe that the page should have been deleted. I do realize you have nothing against me, but do not find your ignorance of Big Brother and why Ms Pierzina is notable to be comforting. I do thank you for pointing out to me where to go to attempt to fix this mess. I don't hold any grudge against you, I just feel the decision to delete the page to be frivolous and your call in the AfD to be unfair and unwarranted.--Firedrake 03:50, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to be condescending here, Firedrake, but you've got some serious misconceptions about how things work here.

The fact that I don't know anything about Big Brother has nothing to do with my ability to close an AfD. Not the slightest thing. I can close AfDs about Chinese medicine or knitting or anything of the sort. My opinion and knowledge of the subject have nothing to with anything. All I do is look at the votes, decide which ones are valid, tabulate the results and execute the consensus. That's it. Big Brother my be my favorite show in the world, and I would still execute the AfD the same way. Someone who knows nothing about the subject and therefore brings no personal POV into the matter is the perfect impartial executor of the consensus.
The page was not deleted. If you click on the "history" button, it's all still there. The current text of the page is # REDIRECT [[Big Brother (US series)]], but if you go back to the prior edit you'll see the whole thing as it was prior to my redirecting it.

If you hang around Wikipedia longer, I suspect you'll see that what I did was not only par for the course but fair. I invite you to look through my contributions and talk page archives; I pride myself on being level-headed and fair-minded. I'm sorry that you think otherwise, but I'm glad that you can at least see that it isn't anything personal. By all means, puruse an RfC if you think it's necessary. Fernando Rizo T/C 04:03, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that ignorance of the topic is hardly necessary to tally votes (although, as you may guess I disagree with the criterea you used to toss out some votes). My main point had to do with why the page was up for deletion/redirection in the first place. But that was the whim of another admin and not really your fault. (one question though, how can you know much about Aqua Ten Hunger Force without watching tv? <g>) I do realize the page isn't deleted, just harder to get to, expecially if you aren't all that familar with the history tab. Someone took the wikify things off Janelle's name, but I'll replace those. As for this being par for the course, I'm sure you can understand how I might not find to be comforting or any incentive to stick around. I do think you are trying to do your job fairly, I just don't think the result is worthy of a good encyclopedia. I actually think you are less deserving of an RfC for this than the person who put the page up for deletion in the first place. I do thank you for your time.--Firedrake 04:18, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to Aqua Teen, I buy the DVDs as they come out. :) I hope you change your mind about Wikipedia. Take care, Fernando Rizo T/C 04:23, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Janelle Pierzina afd

The proper result of the Janelle Pierzina afd was no consensus, not re-direct. A simple 50%+1 majority is not the standard used generally. --rob 00:06, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rob, the majority of established users voted to redirect. I'm the first guy to admit when I'm wrong, but I stand by my decision in this case. Fernando Rizo T/C 00:12, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll trust your judgement about who's disqualfied as an anon or newbie. But, I would like to know what threshold you used. From reading many conversations, it seems that typcial threshold is 2/3, not 50%+1. If the qualified "re-directs" met that threshold I have no objection. But, if not, I think admins should discuss setting some sort of standard on this issue. Maybe there's a link that shows how I'm mistaken about policy. --rob 00:27, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rob, I'm in the middle of enuemerating my rationale on the article's talk page. Give me a couple of minutes. Fernando Rizo T/C 00:30, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rob, I've posted a detailed guide to my thought process regarding this AfD over at Talk:Janelle Pierzina. Fernando Rizo T/C 00:57, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree with your decision to discount my vote. This vote seemed like a bit of no brainer that was likely to go 'keep,' but aparently it was not. I've always thought that when in doubt, admins tended to err on the side of including a vote from users. I'll make sure to explain myself in the future and will include a note about how to avoid disenfranchisement in any upcoming votes to restore this article. Youngamerican 13:34, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, for all the sandwiches!

Hiya Fernando! I don't really know who is doing the shenanigans concerning copy-cat accounts. I havn't really had a WP conflict, outside of one individual at the London, Ontario page, but as Splash pointed out, it's not really his style. Its probably just someone who's jealous that I have such a groove-a-licious nickname. Everyone knows, a sandwich can be very satisfying! Peace! Hamster Sandwich 04:23, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm glad I had the chance to say thanks for bagging the Un-Sandwich. See you when you get back brother! Take care, now! Peace! Hamster Sandwich 04:43, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thanks for the support on my RfA. I was very pleasantly surprised to see so much support throughout the week. It means a lot to receive such strong support from editors whose posts I respect so much — and your earlier encouragement played no small part in my deciding to take the plunge this time around. Please do keep an eye on me and my logs, especially while I'm learning the ropes with the new buttons. Thanks again! -Splash 23:55, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Janelle Pierzina

Hi, Fernando. Just to let you know, I'm looking at it, although I haven't decided what to do. Hope your Real Life stuff is the good kind of exciting, and going well! FreplySpang (talk) 00:30, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

Hi Fernando, thank you for your time, honest explanations of your decision, and the note you left me about the re-vote. I'm very sorry about the unjustified rude comments/insinuations others directed at you. --rob 11:29, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's not for you to be sorry, as you made no rude comments, but I certainly appreciate the sentiment all the same. Fernando Rizo T/C 11:34, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again! I think maybe an RfC would have been slightly better than AfD, because hardly anybody actually wants to delete the article. But re-AfDing should be okay, and I'm voting now. FreplySpang (talk) 14:34, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

Hi Fernando. Dude, what you've done is just messed up! I'm a cynic by nature and fully expect the worst of people and then you go and crush my misconceptions. That's just not right! <g> Seriously, thanks for the second chance. As to the other things you mentioned, I've changed the message on my page. By no means did I wish to be rude to you (with Zoe I can't honestly say that, but am going to back off a bit) and while I hearily disagree the method used to tally votes, I would like to state for the record I don't feel your actions to be misconduct. I realize I did come off rather harsh and will try to do what I can to correct that in the future. I thank you again, whatever the result of this.--Firedrake 16:04, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

where's the RfC?

Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Terri_Schiavo is a red link. Where's you post that RfC, Fernando?--GordonWattsDotCom 11:30, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon, the RfC is right here. So far as I am aware, only user RfCs get their own page in the syntax you posted above. Fernando Rizo T/C 11:32, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:202.7.176.134

When I went to the page I saw it had (on August 4th) already gone to {{test3}}.- brenneman ^(t)^(c) 12:19, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I totally understand where you're coming from, Aaron. Most admins (to include myself) won't block an anonymous IP that hasn't been warned today about their vandalism. This particular case is even more delicate because it's known to be a multi-user address. Don't sweat it, I know you're not a rogue. :) Fernando Rizo T/C 12:26, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for that. Next time I'll know. ^_^; - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 13:58, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Terri Schiavo

Regarding the paragraph here that says:

In April 2000, in the midst of the guardianship challenge, Schiavo, widely described as the "brain-damaged Florida woman" [25] at the heart of this legal battle, was admitted to a Pinellas County, Florida hospice [26], a facility, which in her state of Florida, is typically only legally allowed to admit terminally ill patients. [27]

Gordon says he is willing to delete the paragraph and replace it with whatever the consensus is.[6] Considering how POV this paragraph is, could you delete it rather than leave it in the article while the page is locked and we're still trying to find some sort of agreement? FuelWagon 13:27, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

FW, I'm going to have to politely decline this request. That deserves a thorough explanation.

If Gordon agreed to the edit, I'd normally have no problem with it, but the protection policy is pretty explicit about areas where editing a protected page is allowed, and this proposed edit doesn't fall neatly under any of the stipulations provided. I don't think its a good idea to make any edits at all to the page for the time being; what I will do, however is put a POV disputed tag on the page.

I hope you don't think I'm being unfair, I just want to tread lightly around this article until we have a good consensus. If Gordon had approached me with a similar request, I would of course reject it for the same reasons. Let me know what you think, FW. Fernando Rizo T/C 18:06, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you can't, you can't. Unfortunately, the article was equally problematic a week ago, so that isn't an option either. I added a subsection in the talk page to explain the NPOV flag. FuelWagon 16:30, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

~---> Talk:Terri_Schiavo#THE_Voting_Booth_on_SEVERAL_POINTS_OF_CONCERN--DISPUTE <---~ Bringinig order to disorder: Uncle Ed was my role model for this idea -whether he realized it or not.--GordonWattsDotCom 22:21, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Cabals!

Nick, can I join the Cabal? Fernando Rizo T/C 17:57, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course you can! We'd be delighted to have you! :-) Just add your name to the list on Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal, put the page on your watchlists, and help out on anything that interests you. It's as simple as that! Thanks for helping out, Fernando! :-) Best, --NicholasTurnbull 23:21, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Not enough discussion for consensus, reposting"

You seem to have added the line "Not enough discussion for consensus, reposting" to a couple of AfD discussions with only a few votes. Is this an official Wikipedia policy? If there is not enough discussion for consensus, then shouldn't the AfD be closed with a result of "no consensus"? Am I allowed to delete articles whose every AfD vote was "delete" but which only received a few votes? — JIP | Talk 07:24, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you don't hang out at VfD a lot, JIP, but it's pretty standard procedure. Tony Sidaway does this 10 or 12 times a week. Maybe mine just stand out more because of my eye-catching use of red fonts. :) Fernando Rizo T/C 07:41, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- It's true that I don't hang around AfD a lot. I only started closing AfDs two days ago and do not have much experience yet. So an AfD discussion with only a few votes should be treated as "no consensus" even if every vote is the same. But should those discussion just be closed with a result of "no consensus", or should they immediately be relisted? I previously asked about "no consensus" on Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion and got a reply that a result of "no consensus" should be effectively treated as a result of "keep". — JIP | Talk 07:46, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, "no consensus" effectively results in a "keep" vote. But let's look closer at the ones I reposted.

Seng: Nomination, one vote and a comment. That's not a good consensus there.

Kenyatech: Nom and one vote.

The Racial Compact: Ditto.

York Plug:Nom and comments, but no votes.

Rottentomatoes Monday Photoshop Contest: Nom and three votes, but one of them is a user with less than 100 edits, and that vote may or may not be discarded by the eventual closing admin.

Basically, the thinking is that it takes more than one or two votes to make for any kind of consensus. Here's a good example of this same methodology being used by Tony Sidaway, as I mentioned above. Basically, if you don't feel comfortable closing an AfD due to lack of discussion, post it again.

Don't hesitate to bring up questions like this; this is how we learn and how we all stay honest. Fernando Rizo T/C 07:57, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sylvia Browne

Sorry, I meant to leave a note here, but forgot. Yes, he'd violated 3RR, as well as all the PoV-pushing, so I blocked him for that. I hope that that cools things down a bit. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:47, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To mr. Rizo

I'm in a bit of a situation here, (I dont want you in the mix of this) but it all started when me and User:Paul Klenk, "bumped" into each other while editing Dirty Jobs. We got in a little argument that lead me into being a sockpuppet, impostor and all that good stuff. He started teaming up with other users like User:BlankVerse, User:Lucky 6.9, It was gettig me mad because all they wanted to do is post articles that i contributed, for deletion. (you cant tell when you're mad, when you type) so when, User:Paul Klenk asked me for help, I actually provided some help,(I never got help from him), but then he started getting an attitude once he got his helpfrom me. (all I said was,"I think it's O.K", meaning it wont get deleted) he responded with ("It's not if you care, I only follow wikipedia's polocies."). Now I regret ever helping him. that's when this user named "wiki brah" told him that he was gay, me and this other user, TheDeletator agreed, because to me he seemed "gay" from the beggining, and The deletator said that, User:Paul Klenk wanted to chat with him on yahoo messenger, and Paul Klenk showed him his errected penis, I replied in his talk page, but I think I went overboard,(I was overreating). Now they blocked me for 48 hrs. And its irritating because these users(User:Lucky 6.9 User:Paul Klenk User:BlankVerse User:Bishonen) teamed up and bloked me. They call me names too, since before this began. look at their talk pages. They call me "jerk"(Paul Klenk) "I've weighed in over at the admin's discussion page regarding this crackpot"(user:Lucky 6.9) I would like to award you the Order of the Flaming, Dancing Hellpot for your ability to sniff out troublemakers (like our logo-loving friend from L.A.) and your willingness to send them where they belong.(Paul Klenk) Im from L.A, and been downloading logos they threaten to ban me, and I dont want to loose my contribs counts. [7]

What do you recommend?

Unsigned comment By User:Imdaking

Tread lightly

Fernando, just a note to you as an admin who may or may not have experience with Imdaking: Be very careful not to let him bait you with his whining into doing something that you will kick yourself for later. You may have a sharp nose for these types; I don't know. I have watched more than one admin flush their credibility into the toilet by falling for Imdaking and others like him.

Imdaking is not a serious editor, but knows enough about WP to game the system. He uses it as a plaything, and does not respond to coaching. He currently has several more articles tagged for copyright violations; lifting text whole-hog from Web sites with only the slightest alteration. When I have tried to actually improve an article in the past (instead of putting it up for deletion) he started his campaign of harrassment.

Users like Imdaking suck up a lot of editing time and resources from serious writers and editors, not merely due to his poor work, but his bullying, vandalism, whining and gaming.

I am strongly urging you to keep your eye on him, please, and if you have any questions, feel free to let me know. paul klenk 23:39, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Yahiye Gadahn

Great news find, and speedy. Makes Current Events look good. I did rewrite with some additional info. Kyle Andrew Brown 23:53, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome! Thanks, Kyle.