User talk:OnceBitten

Post what you will, but...

Post what you will but be advised that if that the words you speak generally tend to reflect the user, ie. "kind people say kind things" rules apply. If you are so inclined to leave a post which is less than civil, over time, insulting posts don't show what horrible person I am as much as they build the case about you. Insults will not be met with insults. If I don't respond, it means I have better things to do with my time then feed your mania for creating chaos. OnceBitten 23:13, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your work on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Antidote, every contribution is welcomed. Arniep 23:56, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You are most welcome. OnceBitten 02:05, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unexplained deletion on Methodist page

Hi; Well, that's all just kind of odd. I don't think I entirely understand the purpose, unless it's just that the guy wants to change his username. I think I read somewhere that Andrew Jackson was impeached, but the impeachment was expunged; I thought, 'it wasn't expunged very well, now was it?' It looks like you have an interesting project going here. Thanks, Tom Harrison ^(talk) 23:22, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: OWU Fixes Make Sense

I agree that what's written should stand, so I won't argue with you if you're making sure that what was up stays up, but let the name change go. It's the product of a lot of discussion.

Just as a request, however: please don't stalk anyone. I have a fairly good idea of who you were, and while I respect that you felt "bitten", nothing is helped by bringing up old fights. I believe the user pretty much stays away from controversial editing now anyway.

Yours, — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 14:14, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Then you remember what he put me through a year ago last October and in his Request for Comment. I am not stalking him. But I do monitor his activities, which isn't very hard because he seems to have a one-track obsession. I don't want to engage him. But I also don't want his slate wiped clean either. The user in question will expose himself again for what he is; pathologies are pretty predictive - you know, past behavior indicating future behaviors.

I'm more concerned with the RfC process (in total) and busying myself with documenting IP edits in those proceedings. Peace, OnceBitten 22:47, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Monicasdude RfC comments

I note your comments on that page, and think they are quite misguided. I would ask you to address three particular points here:

1) Why do you believe that accurately reporting a 3RR violation by another editor is appropriate to list as an example of misconduct in an RFC? (link 1 in the RFC)

2) Why do you believe that explaining an objection under the Wikipedia verifiability poicy is unacceptable "lawyering" that is appropriate to list as an example of misconduct in an RFC? (link 8 in the RFC)?

3)Why do you believe that setting out substantive factual objections in detail is unacceptable "provokation" of other editors that is appropriate to list as an example of misconduct in an RFC? (link 18 in the RFC)?

Monicasdude 01:40, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Its an outside opinion. By the way, you have just validated my observations on your behaviors. Thanks! OnceBitten 19:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please watch Nightline tonight, Feb. 15

Nightline is going to report on the "Saddam Tapes."

Reportedly armed with 12 hours of Saddam Hussein's audio recordings, the organizers of an upcoming "Intelligence Summit" are describing the tapes as the "smoking gun evidence" that the Iraqi dictator possessed weapons of mass destruction in the period leading up to the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.

U.S. House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence has already authenticated the tapes. These are the same tapes mentioned in Duelfer's Report that had not been translated at the time of the report. For some reason, the tapes were released through a very unusual manner - possibly because some in the intelligence community did not want the truth to come out. Read news story here. [1]RonCram 15:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help

Monicasdude (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) keeps harassing me. 1. He accuses me of being a sockpuppet, 2. He wiki-stalks me and votes against me at AFD's such as Chris Faiers', 3. He reverts factual information at McGill Redmen. He's already had 2 RFC's against him, and I don't feel the WP:DR methods work with him. I'm feeling very frustrated and don't know where else to get help. Ardenn 19:45, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't email you, it says your email address isn't specified. Ardenn 04:04, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Monicasdude

As Monicasdude doesn't appear to be taking much from the two RFCs against him, I have opened a Request for Arbitration. Feel free to make a statement at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Monicasdude.

You were contacted because you endorsed a previous RFC against Monicasdude, please accept my sincere apologies if this message is not of interest to you and feel free to blank it. Stifle 15:47, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Haizum

I am having a conflict with this user that has stemmed from his comments on the talk page of Bear community. This user seems to have a history of making edits and comments on topics that he has a fundamental opposition to, and/or doesn't understand, and when people step up to the plate to challenge his ignorance, he is rude, arrogant and sarcastic. I went to file a RfC only to discover one had already been filed around six months ago. I need your advice on what to do next. Please review my comment on his talk page, and his response on my talk page, to understand. I really don't think this user belongs on Wikipedia anymore, and I have dealt with some pretty darned confrontational Wikipedians before. Pacian 05:01, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]