User talk:Gator1/Archives/October 2005

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Good luck. I'm glad you finally responded, good for you, keep it up.Gator1 18:18, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Per community consensus, Arbitration has been requested against BigDaddy777. Please add any details or comments you feel are appropriate. Mr. Tibbs 03:14, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

No thanks. It would only lend credibility to the process in my opinion. I'm content to sit back an laugh at it. Message to everyone: MOVE ON!Gator1 13:26, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

If those who are empowered to make any decisions act with wisdom and temperance they will see that BD was in violation of certain Wiki principles (none of them being "attacking" or "vandalism" man those words have no meaning with some people) when he began but if they judge his CURRENT behavior they will see that it has been toned down considerably and that he is a good editor that just angers many people (like many other users including many of the parties involved) on politcally charged issues and that is just something that needs to be expected with such controversial subjects. Too much thin skin IMHOP.

The fact that he has not responded is inconsequential. The subject of an RFC is AFFORDED AN OPPRTUNITY to respond, they are not REQUIRED to do so or else be subject to some kind of default judgment. Judge him by the change in his behavior and you will see that this entire process has served its purpose and should have been suspended long ago. The fact that it hasn't and that it continues with such ferocity is attributed to the personal vendettas of politically charged users, many of whom (just happen to) have the opposite POV of BD. If you look at many of their contribuitions (good example: Ryan and Kizzle (penis pic vandalism) many of them have blood on their hands as well, but it easily ignored and put aside for various reaosns, including that certain acts were committed when they were new users (like BD). If BD never said the things he said at the beginning, we wouldn't be here based on the HORRIBLE quotes that are being copied and pasted now (most if not all of them elicit the same response from me: "SO WHAT?! GET OVER IT!").

My recommendation: Now a largely content disupte. Warn and watch him. Banning him from "politcal" pages (whatever that means) would be doing EXACTLY what his leftist counterparts would love to be able to do themselves (but don't have the power) and would be an unnecessary/improper remedy. It would send the wrong messsage to those who have strong feelings about controversial topics. On certain pages, more leeway should be afforded to users to express themselves on the TALK pages (which is where he left them).

This RFC as based on SOME good grounds but was quickly taken too far and has evolved into a BD hate fest with EVERY quote (even on HIS talk pages!) trying to be used against him. I will have no further part in it and would prefer that my name be removed as a "party." I am confident the decision makers will see this for what it is and will act accordingly. I am not interested in debating this any further, so do not feel free to respond.Gator1 17:47, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm looking at all of the evidence being piled on the arbitration and I'm struck by one notion. LOTS OF QUANTITY. NO QUALITY. I really hope the arbitrators view the evidence indivdually and don't get swayed by th fact that there's just so much of it. If you do that you see that almost every edit isnt that big of a deal. SO WHAT? I also wonder whatever happened to the notion that this wasn't meant to punish BD. Now that that a punishment is so close that they can taste, it I don't think the complainers can stop, no matter what BD does. This is a railroad job if I've ever seen one. THIS is why I opposed the RFC to beign with, because I KNEW that it was meant to sanction and even ban BD because he hurt people's feelings. You cannot convince that if BD had responded right away that we wouldn't be here. He would ahve said the WRONG thing, it would copied andpasted as more evidence against him and wwe would right here anyway. The RFC was meant to destoy him pure and simple and it looks like that might very well happen. This is a sad day for Wikipedia.Gator1 21:16, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

well, he could have simply said the right thing: i'll respect wikipedia policies. then he could have done it. what could possibly be more trivial? he's not oppressed, lots of conservatives are very well-regarded here. Derex 22:08, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I seriouslt doubt that there is ANYthing that he could ahve said short of kissing everyone's abutt that wouldahve changed anyhting, bnut now it's jsut too late isn;t it? Now he's GONNA GET IT huh? What a crock. Never said he was oppressed, I think you were responding to someone else, because I never said that. Guess what: he's never out and out attacked anyone either, but that kind of clarity isn't required is it? We get hundreds of quoes and have to read between the lines. Being mena is an attack. Using caps is an attack. Calling someone a liberal is an attack....etc. But he needs to CLEARLY express his desire ot follow policy for everyone to be happy. I can give you a quote of my talk page that apologizes to me for being mena to me before and expresses his misunderstanding of Wikipedia in his first days. But THAT'S NOT GOOD ENOUGH. Derex, with all due respect, you're not being intellectually honest with me or yourself and if you were a little introspective, I'm sure you'd see that. I reserve judgment on whether Wikipedia is trying to oppress conservatives. I have no opinion on that. What I am seeing is an outight ganging up on one user by NUMEROUS people and it's just plain ugly.Gator1 00:47, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

i'm sorry that you see me that way -- intellectually dishonest. i'm actually a lot introspective. i always flip positions mentally, and pretend the actors are in the opposite roles. i believe i would feel the same way about bd in that case. i also think that some liberals here behave poorly, and i can think of one involved in this issue though not anywhere near up to bd's level.

the word oppression sprang from bd's long comparison of himself to negros of the 1950's; my heart bleeds for his suffering. and for the suffering of conservatives in general who are oppressed: only holding the senate, house, presidency, and 7/9 current scotus appointments. with those damn liberals running wikipedia, conservatives simply are left with no voice in this country.

i also think that politics will make no difference to the process here, i've seen liberal editors banned for the same stuff. i also feel pretty strongly, based on experience, that it is very difficult to "railroad" anyone here. the arbcom is traditionally quite difficult to prod into action, even against egregiously troublesome rule violators. arbitrator fred bauder is a conservative, fyi. i think that, with longer experience, you will begin to recognize that bd's incivility is at issue, not his politics. as a member advocate, you will acquire that experience rapidly.

frankly, my problem with him is not lack of 'butt-kissing'. my problem is that he seemed much more interested in having a brawl than in simply working towards an agreement. in this talk, i tried to engage him seriously on a paragraph he objected to. instead of simply working with me on it, he went off on an extended tirade about the 'clinton model'. he just changed topics, and ranted, and pontificated. it looks to me like he's much more interested in putting on a big show than in getting changes made. either that, or he just doesn't have the social skill to work with other people. that experience is what made me sign on to the complaint.

at any rate. yes, he could have simply stated that he respected policy, and done so. or, even just done so. if that's butt-kissing, then we could all stand to kiss some butt. Derex 01:21, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

and for the suffering of conservatives in general who are oppressed: only holding the senate, house, presidency, and 7/9 current scotus appointments. with those damn liberals running wikipedia, conservatives simply are left with no voice in this country.

I'm still laughing, that was too funny :) Geezus, this isn't like Wheel of Fortune where he has to guess the exact phrase, just something saying he will respect the norms of civility, and then do so. --kizzle 01:35, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm sure it's all just because I'm in experienced (I love it when people pull rank like that) and I'm sure people are only going after him becuase he doesn't work well with others. If that was the case then why not just ignore the guy and let him rant all by himself. Why engage him at all? He's at most, just anusance...so what?! I'm sure he's not the first person here who isn't easy to work with, so why the RFC? It's more than that, we all know it, you just don't want to see it or admit it. Oh and thanks for the civics lesson about the balance ofpower in the national legislature...i didn't know that and wasn't discussing the oppression of conservatives, so why are we still on that? I'm not here to debate and support EVERY statement BD makes. Conservatives do think for themselves and we don't all walk in lock step. You knew that right? So chuckle like its a big cocktail party if you want Kizz, but it was COMPLETELY irrelvant to the conversation. Derex has atendency to bring fiorth poltical issues when all I'm trying to do is have a discussion about Wikipedia.Gator1 12:25, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

• yes, you are inexperienced. it's nothing to be ashamed of, just acknowledged
• no, he's not the first person difficult to work with ... exactly the point of the RFC process.
• curious, where do you disagree with BD?
• yes, this really is all because he's a conservative. you got me. i confess. i just can't see past my blind prejudices. i hate my momma too, and my dad, because they're conservative. i loathe myself too, because i used to be one. half of my lifelong friends. oh, and my college sweetheart, who i almost married. i hate them all. on the other hand, i do love liberal jerks; i just can't get enough of them. Free Mumia! Derex 12:47, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I do, thank you for helping me. You're a good friend and I bow to your superioressness and you're nto arrogant or full of yourself at all, no matter what people say.Gator1 12:34, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

hmm, i've never heard anyone say that. i'm sure glad that you don't think it. i'm intrigued though that you don't think experience matters. if you ever need some heart surgery, stop on by. i'll enlarge it for free. Derex 12:51, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Experience at Wikipedia.....like heart surgery....ok....hate to break it to you, but you don't put your expericne here on your resume for a REASON. Guess why. Your servant (spelled correctly)Gator1 12:56, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

oh, really? experience (spelled correctly) in a particular field might matter in that field. gosh, who would have thought it. does that apply to wikipedia experience too, in wikipedia? Derex 13:07, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Experience in Wikipedia is as important in REAL life as experience in dungeons and dragons. And it's much more simple, so, frankly, your greater experience here means JACK to me. Could I be more blunt? Is that clear enough for you? Get off your high horse. I was the Captian in the safety patrol too, can I pull rank on you now? lol. (how long are going to go back and forth like this?)Gator1 13:10, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

• certainly, if we were on safety patrol.
• i'm not pulling rank, i'm making the observation that experience matters. you are convinced that bd is hounded for his politics. you have no experience to base that on. you might equally well have stumbled upon a liberal in this situation, would you then conclude that rfc was also due to politics?
• i'm just waiting for my ride, so i'm perfectly happy to entertain myself this way for another ten minutes. but, i'm west coast. aren't you at work now over in the east? Derex 13:19, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Allright you win. Since I've only been here a few months, I can't spot an injustice if I saw one....guess one needs a few more months to be able to say certain things here and should just shut his mouth unitl someone like Derex says it's OK to talk...blah blah. I'm bored with this, so here's what I'm gonna do. I'm just going to respond with the same thing from now on if you keep coming back. I think it sums up my previous responses fairly well and grants adequate perspective on the situation. Here it is: "Dude, it's just Wikipedia. Get off it."Gator1 13:25, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

true enough, it's just wikipedia. but not to bigdaddy, to him it's the civil rights movement. later, there's my ride. Derex 13:37, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Dude, it's just Wikipedia. Get off it.Gator1 13:53, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Dude, you might want to answer Derex's question about where you disagree with BigDaddy. --kizzle 18:53, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't respond to this kind of trolling. It's obvious you're just tyng to get a rise out of me just like with your most recent edits on BD's page. I for one am not falling for it. Well, not anymore. I'm growing. Make room.Gator1 19:12, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

The funniest thing about your response is that you put BD on this pedestal. Are you seriously saying that about 90% of his comments on his talk page aren't meant to inflame the situation? K, removed my comments from BD's page, now go. --kizzle 19:14, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Don't put words in my mouth I'm not as stupid as I look. You're trolling again and are trying to inflame THIS situation and I'm not going to take the bait. GOOD BYE SIR.Gator1 19:18, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

That was a classy move Kizz. I'll give you props for that one.Gator1 19:22, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

...I just had to use it - "They wanted you to change your behavior...you did and they said they wanted you to respond....you did....and now they'll set the bar higher once again and say you didn't respond with the right words and kiss all their butts ("I'm sorry...I suck...please forgive me.....I'll be good, I promise.....etc").....this is a very familiar pattern...Gator1 18:18, 2 October 2005 (UTC)"

Just so you know, I'm not personally troubled by any of these attacks whatsoever. I've been in situatons like this countless times, although not so quite outnumbered. (My guess is that there are 15 liberals/left-leaning libertarian editors for every conservative one.) And liberals have every right to be here and edit. I've read enough to know that Jimmy Wales's heart is in the right place and it's such an ingenious concept, it would be criminal to let it be the sole provincial domain of any one political idealogy. Most of their attacks are so childish and spiteful, it's almost amusing. The only thing that gets me mad...that really makes my blood boil... is when they upload photos of a pierced penis and replace the picture of the President with them in the George Bush article. That's tantamount to child abuse in my mind! Fortunately they've only done that one time...that I'm aware of. Big Daddy 04:46, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, you've been in situations like this countless times? Maybe there's a pattern. --kizzle 05:08, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

There absolutely is. And it's uncanny how predictable those peddling liberal bias are. As far as you go, I'm just glad you don't have a pattern of UPLOADING pornographic photos to the internet and inappropriately placing them where elementary school children are likely to search....

Or do you?...Big Daddy 10:41, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

You know Kizz, you say its not a personal vendetta and that it's all about civility blah blah blah, but you don't seem to miss a beat when it comes to egging BD on whenever you get the chance (see above and ask yourself, was that really necessary and would I have used that against BD on the arbitration if he did that to me or anyone else?). It seems obvious that you really just HATE him with a deep passion. So if it's not personal, what IS your deal with BD?Gator1 15:50, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Yikes, didn't mean to stir the pot. I was just interested in the historical precedent of BigDaddy's relationship with those he works with. No hate there, after all, we're on kissing terms right? --kizzle 22:16, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh please.Gator1 23:44, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

The vandal has been blocked for a week. It appears that he's editing from a school; it makes sense that he'd vandalizing daily.

Feel free to let me know if it happens again. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 20:56, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I permablocked him because he was a troll, but even when one is blocked, they can still edit their Talk page. I'd just ignore him from now on. User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:03, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your words of glowing praise. I'm flattered. :) Jdavidb (talk) 16:34, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

By my counts, BigDaddy is no longer blocked at all. Yet I notice that he is restricting himself to editing only his talk page. That is pretty impressive.

However, he still wants to keep blanking stuff, like everything I've ever posted. Most recently there's this: [1] [2] [3]

Jdavidb (talk) 17:52, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Do you think maybe you can clue him in to the fact that I'd like to be on his side, if he'd let me? Jdavidb (talk) 17:54, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I've noticed.Gator1 17:55, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Add this: [4]

I could replace the edit again. But that would be the fourth time I had reverted his page, which is a bannable offense. So I won't.

However, he himself has now reverted me four times, which is also a bannable offense. As an admin, I could ban him. Jdavidb (talk) 17:56, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I've noticed what's been happening and he reads my talk page, so he knows that now too. Just make sure that you don't accidentally delete his stuff (something about a vacaton?)Gator1 17:57, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Apparently, he's not unblocked. See [5] or your Talk Page, Jd. Eleemosynary 19:10, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Never should have been blocked. The evidence just wasn't there, no matter how much SOME people wanted it to be. My hope in Wikipedia has been restored.Gator1 19:20, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Boy, my faith in Wikipedia has been restored, too. It was GREAT that they kept BD blocked today, based on all the overwhelming evidence. And kudos to Jdavidb for striking his comments on the VIP page; what a swell guy. Gator, I'm glad we finally agree. Eleemosynary 01:05, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

If you'll look at the bottom of my user page, you'll see that I have myself identified in Category:Libertarian Wikipedians. I would like to ask if you'd consider making yourself the first member of Category:Conservative Wikipedians. It would be nice to be able to bring up a list of editors who have so identified themselves. I also think you could be helpful in tracking down people to join. If you like the idea, and if you need any technical assistance figuring out how to do this, please let me know.

Also, you might consider putting yourself into categories for Wikipedia:User categorisation and Category:Wikipedians by location. Jdavidb (talk) 20:24, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I'd be honored to be listed but you would need to join me. I can't do anything alone. Annoying quirk of mine. Especially when I need to use the bathroom...just ask my wife...she hates that. Sign me up along with you.Gator1 20:42, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I'll add Category:Conservative Wikipedians to my user page, if you'll add it to yours. I see you've already joined Category:Wikipedians in Maine. Awesome! (I wish I lived up there.) Jdavidb (talk) 21:04, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Also, I just reverted two edits to BD's page that were just really over the top trolling, personal attacks and vandalism (in my OP) by two anon users. Let me know if I did the right thing and I would appreciate your support if you think I did. I sometimes feel very alone on Wikipedia, like its everyone else versus me. I know that's not always accurate, so your support would be most appreciated. Thanks.Gator1 20:44, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

You're not alone! You are definitely not alone! I personally would let people who go over the top show how out there they are, rather than blanking them. But BD's talk page is such a mess I think it's pretty much a lost cause, anyway, for BD, his friends, and his opponents. Jdavidb (talk) 21:04, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Yeah I can see that, but I hate to pick a fight with anon users on their talk pages. I'm tired of fighting you know. Should I just leave it alone if they revert then? Also, go ahead and set up that Conservative page (I have NO CLUE how to do that) and then I'll list myself if you promise to do the same (that alone thing again, you understand). Thanks.Gator1

I wouldn't chase them down to their talk pages, especially since they are AOL IP addresses reused by thousands of people. I'd just leave them alone. Everyone can see they're just poking someone for a reaction.

You don't actually set up the page until the category exists. Kind of weird. The reason I want you to do this is so you can walk other people through the process later. :) You need to edit your own user page and just type in [[Category:Conservative Wikipedians]] (i.e., make it look just like the Wikipedians in Maine category you added.) Then save it, and you'll have a red-link to the new Conservative Wikipedians category page. Click that link, click edit, and type in "This page contains [[Wikipedians]] who identify as [[conservatism|conservative]]." Jdavidb (talk) 21:23, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

There, I did it. That was cool. You're turn.Gator1 02:29, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

sigh, Gator i imagine you'll take this the wrong way. but it's really easy, just be nice to folks even when they're mean to you. it's awful hard not to end up liking someone who does that. and when you like someone, you're a lot less likely to argue with them about wikipedia nonsense. human nature. see, i don't even know jdavidb, and i think he's a swell guy. i'd be real courteous and listen carefully to his perspective if i disagreed with him on an article. yes, i know you probably think i'm condescending, but i'm truly not. you say that wikipedia has nothing to do with real life, of course it does. the same social skills that you probably use very effectively there will serve you well here. conversely, nothing will sharpen your debate and negotiating skills so well as a bit of time here. so wikipedia does help with real life, at least i've found that to be very true. and yes, i'm just a regular guy with a full life and plenty of friends who likes to have a good time, not some maladjusted geek. even if everyone else does disagree with you, it still doesn't have to feel like they're all against you. i guess that's what i meant about experience here, you learn that it's not all a battleground and that most people who disagree with you are actually real nice folks. Derex 21:17, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Dude, it's Wikipedia...."nothing will sharpen your debate and negotiating skills so well as a bit of time here?" You're kidding? NOTHING? My time as an attorney, 3 years of law school, 4 years of politcal scince and history courses and 4 years of HS debate.. and THIS is what will sharpen my skills?! Wow, get some perspective brutha.Gator1 02:20, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Yeah dude, it helps. James is a lawyer, ask him. That's what wikipedia does, it helps you sharpen your debate skills because you have to cite everything and make sure your arguments are sound because you can't really change them once you post. It sure has helped me. --kizzle 09:19, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

As far as the nice folks comment. That's hardly how you or Kizz have treated me. Otehrs? Yes, some, but not you guys. Hate to break it to yah.Gator1 02:29, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, I started out hating RyanFreisling cause the first time I got into a discussion with her we were fighting, but then I came to be good friends with her. Civility definetely goes a long way, and all relationships don't necessarily end because of some initial bad blood, and these fights happen between conservatives and liberals, conservatives and conservatives (Jdavid and BigDaddy), and liberals and liberals (me and Ryan, me and James). It's one's ability to be self-introspective that enables them to fit into the community, be it conservative, liberal, buddhist, christian, or WWF fan. --kizzle 23:03, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I, for one, am definitely a maladjusted geek. Jdavidb (talk) 21:24, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

well, i'm a geek, just not maladjusted. but you're ok with me anyway. Derex 21:27, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Ah, okay. I'm not actually entirely sure if I'm maladjusted or not. I'm actually pretty happy with life. Jdavidb (talk) 21:46, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

That's all that matters then :) --kizzle 23:03, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Derex and Kizz: Thanks for the advice. It was unsolicited and I'm still confused as to why you felt the need to give it....I never asked you for it...I was having a nice conversation with JDavid...had nothing to do with anyone else...but...thanks? I think I'll be taking my advice from JDavid from now on though, so no thanks in the future. Just keep it to yourselves kay? For SOME reason, I trust his motives a little more than you guys'. Call me crazy, but I've had enough experience with you both and seing your otehr edits to come to the conclusion that neither have my best interests at heart.Gator1 02:20, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Wow, ok, don't worry, i'll stay away. --kizzle 04:08, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

you're skills are certainly not yet in evidence. i've got 10 years experience as a professor at a top university. i've chaired 12 ph.d. dissertations. i have to give seminars all the time at univerities like yale, chicago, berkeley, duke, etc; and twice at your alma mater. i've given testimony before the national academies. these are brutal, hardcore, out-for-blood, prove i'm smarter than you experiences against seriously brilliant people. yes! wikipedia has absolutely made me more effective in these situations; and these are real life, serious, professional reputation on the line deals. i know how to answer questions with just the right amount of information, so as to keep people on track. i know how to ask questions, so that the answerer can't evade them. (i mention my job only to show you i deal with real stuff, not to try to puff myself up.) look how easily that troll random joe worked you over. i read it. attorney jamesMlane could tear your heart out in the courtroom from what i've seen; and some of that is almost surely due to practice here. you could stand to learn a thing or two, and you will if you drop the attitude. so you can check your arrogance at the door, mister bigshot attorney. i'm done now, go be miserable and alone, because no one here is to be trusted. Derex 03:31, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Derex: you are no longer welcome on this talk page. I've put up with your nasty attitude with me long enough and I should havedone this a long time ago. You are arrogant, condecending and just plain rude and I consider you to be a despicable person for the way you've talked to me here. what the hell did I ever do to you? Did I act like BD on any apges I edited? Did I come on your talk apge nad lash into you? NO. All I did was DARE to stand up rto the RFC that was filed against BD and for THAT get the guns turned on ME. Vwery nice. Very tolerant. You should be proud of yourself. I did not deserve that and I consider it beneath even. If BD did that to you, you'd be posting it on his RFC SO FAST. You, sir, are a hipocrite. It was full of low blows and name calling mixed with MORE self important(I'm a professor blah blah blah). GOD, I have never met someone so FULL of themself. Althoug, now taht I know you're a professor, I shouldn't be surprised...I've only know a small number of profs who didn;t think they were better and smarter then everyone else. I don't want to have any contact with you ever again. Stay away from me and stay away from this talk apge from now on. If you do come back here or amke contact with me again I will consider it vandalism/harassment and act accordingly. GOOD BYE. (Kizz: you ARE still welcome, but please tone it down with me. I was just having a nice conversation with JDavid when you two came on in and it really wasn't necessary.Gator1 12:37, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

yeah, i thought that last might piss you off :) so, i thought better and reverted it. you are in no position to "ban" anyone from editing here. anyone can edit anything. i have no interest in talking to you anymore, it's like talking to the thin air. but if you "ban" me, i'll keep editing here on principle. because you don't own this page. respecting your desires is simply a courtesy, and though i have several times been courteous to you, you have never once reciprocated. i give what i get, and as you've seen i'll brawl right back. so, i have no particular reason to respect your desires. you can't ban me from this page. but, if you just shut up about "banning" me, i won't edit here again. kisses Derex|User Talk:Derex 16:17, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Let's be clear here - you didn't stand up to the RFC. You pressed him to ignore the RFC. Why don't you ask your new friend what he thinks about that? Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:46, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Hipo, seriosuly let's be clear: what is your problem? Do you want to fight or what? What is your deal? Stop coming here with your snarky little comments. You don't see me doing that on your page (I;m not even watching your apge) andit just makes you look like a stupid troll. And for the record, 1) you HAVE NO IDEA what advice I have subsequently given BD, you think you do, but you REALLY don't. 2) I seem to remember having a little section with my name on it that attracted some support, so yeah I think I DID stand upo to it and I continue to do so...it's a horrible example of Wiki-justice and continues to be. (Did Fred really need to make that comment about BD being like Ann Coulter, I mean how wrong is it for a judge to be daying something like that before ruling on a case?!) So stop coming here and baiting me. You sound ignorant. You are another example of a person who has just come after me becuase I DARED to oppose the RFC and "defend" BD. I didn't deserve your wrath either. It all started with you on my talk page with "WTF" Remember that? Does that sound civil to you? DOES IT?!?!? You ARE a hipocrite, because the comments you've made on my page alone would be on the RFC if they were made by BD. GO AWY, you are not welcome herwe with your attitude. If you want to come back and be CIVIl with me, you are welcome to do so. If not, then I don't want to see your user name here again.Gator1 14:00, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

So does that make you the bastion of civility when you ridiculed the entire RfC despite inarguable evidence (which you have blindly alleged but not shown to be taken out of context) that he violated several Wikipedia official policies on civility and no personal attacks, and called it a sham? --kizzle 16:36, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I will not apologize for opposing the RFC and no i wasn't uncivil. NEWSFLASH; when people have a differnet opinion than you, it doesn't mean they're uncivil no mater how much you think they're wrong, people are allowed to have different opinion than you and not be condemned for it. GOOD LORD MAN! Please, I'm BEGGING YOU, if you're not going to be polite here and non-argumentative here, please don't come back. And Derex...man, you've got issues and have way too much pent up frustraton. See JDavid's page. I am willing to be cordial with you, if you just knock it off. Stop cming here with that attitude of yours. It's that kind of garbage that make it ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE for me to take any of your advice, no matter what it is. It's not the substance of oyur advice, it's the source. I just don't trust your intentions when it come to me. Please recosnider your approach with me and try again. Seriousy, I'm not being saracastic here, I'm begging you, just be civil towards me and you'll see that I'm easy as hell to work with. If not, then I will blank you're nasty edits and you can RFC me for all I care. Please consider my offer. PLEASE.Gator1 18:25, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

"I blanked it and didn't respond, but I might get an RFC too since I am "condoning" your actions....yeah righ.....Anyway, enjoy the ride, this entire episode is beginning to make me giggle.Gator1 13:40, September 12, 2005 (UTC)" - [6]

I'm done with your charade of civility. Good day. --kizzle 19:25, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Bye. You weren't interested in anything but fighting with me anyway. We could go back and forth with old stupid comments all day, I got plenty from you as you are NO model of civility. Good riddance!Gator1 19:39, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Phew, good thing you avoided talking about my counter-example showing you "giggling" at the RfC. Who knows what woulda happened if you responded to that post? --kizzle 19:42, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

You're a troll. I reached out to you to try and start over and all you want to do is incite me. You're nothing but a troll. Don't come back until you actually want to work together.Gator1 19:48, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

You are SO the man. Thanks for the company. You have brought a smile to my face on an otherwise crappy day. The truth is, I would love to have a civil conversation with users like Hipo, Kizz and Derex, but that just seems impossible with the way they have approached me. Derex, I make you this offer: Choose a neutral page in need of some help , and I will edit it with you and discuss issues in a civil manner. Maybe that would heal wounds between us. I have no problem with that. Thanks for the support J.Gator1 14:05, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Just bumped across the above. Have not been reading your talk page, though. Are you still interested? I'm willing. I'll happily be respectful and courteous, if I receive the same in return. I think if you'll give it a chance, as you indicate, that you'll be pleased with the results. If so, leave me a note. I will be very busy for several days, but can do it afterwards. One article I think could use some attention from a conservative eye, that I largely wrote, is Yellowcake forgery. Actually, the article should really be called Intelligence about Iraq and Niger uranium, with a forged documents subsection. I intend to restructure it in that fashion shortly. But after that, it would be a great place to have a go at it. I don't think it has had a good look-over from a war supporter yet, and I'm guessing you're one. So, I'd be surprised if it doesn't reflect some of my anti-war biases. Let me know, and give me a week or two before we start. Or, if that doesn't grab your fancy, I could suggest another one. Derex @ 23:06, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I was serious, but am hesitating at that particular article. I'm tired of the political stuff right now. Let's do something neutral but something that needs work, or something that doesn't exist. Maybe something historical? If that goes well, then maybe we can go from there. However, if I may offer a suggested edit to that page (without committing to it), the name should certainly be changed, just my OP.Gator1 01:02, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Ok, let me get back to you when I've got a bit more time, couple weeks maybe. I'm a history buff, so that genre sounds good to me.

Yes, I agree about the title, I think the one I mentioned is both more neutral and more appropriate to the scope of the issue. The forgeries actually played a somewhat minor role, appearing late in the game. They just became easy symbols for flawed intelligence. Or, if you have yet another title in mind, I'd be glad to hear it. Derex @ 03:05, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

No, your title seems appropriate. Let's try and do a apge that neither of us knows much or anything about. Or maybe even come up with a new article to craft together. I'll start thinking of some ideas.Gator1 13:20, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I read about your desire not to edit, and I understand where you're coming from. I thought I'd give you a fun suggestion:

Click on the Random article link and take a good look at the article that appears. Then read it carefully, and look for just one small change that needs to be made. It could be simple capitalization, punctuation, or italicization; it may be a poorly worded phrase or a miscast sentence. Just make the change, note it in the edit summary, and go to another random article. If no real changes are needed, don't make any for the sake of just doing it, but keep moving on. But you will find that most articles could benefit from one or two small corrections.

This is a good way to find new subjects to work on that you might not have known were interesting to you. What happens with me is, as I edit article after article, one particular page seems to beg for more research. I do a few Google searches, and after a while I am adding real content. If I lose interest, I move on.

I deliberately do not put any of these pages on my watchlist. That way, I am not tempted to see if my edits are reverted or even care about them. I just find one small way to improve many articles, and keep moving on. You can make a lot of improvements this way, and can accumulate an interesting edit history.

paul klenk ^talk

That's good advice. I have been doing the random article thing, but have just been addignthemt o my watchlist. I like your idea. Thanks.Gator1 13:18, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I think before the page gets unprotected, a mediator would help. I suspect a whole load of meatpuppets are going to start a revert war to the 2003 version as soon as the page gets unprotected. Dominick 19:25, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I already polled and a outside mediator would help. In addition to your ground rules, I think getting everyone to have an equal say works. The person was alone then in the past few days he got on a website and spurred a lot of people here to "fight the good fight", sudden a lot of single edit users came on and complained I was mean. Perhaps having one post per day on one question about the article. I would love to know what the objection is beyond that it wasn't the version that was written in 2003. I hope I did not make you unobjective. Dominick 19:44, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Have at it, good luck. I will look for your invitation. Dominick 21:30, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

No objection on my part to any form of mediation; but I think those who have riled Dominick and whom Dominick has riled (I think there is no doubt about the objectivity of this statement about mutual riling) have confidence in their numbers. Lima 18:03, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

You're kidding, right? It's not vandalism to remove an attempt by a user who's under personal attack parole to disrupt Wikipedia by overturning the NPA rule. It's common sense. Snowspinner 15:28, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

You are not allowed to blank content on an article's talk page unless it is vandalism. You might disagree with the content being there, but you need to respond to it and argue against it you are not allowed to blank it. That IS considered vandalism. Please stop.Gator1 15:37, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

That is the stupidest definiton of vandalism I've ever heard. Removing spurious and disruptive polls isn't vandalism, it's quenching a forestfire. Snowspinner 15:48, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Sir/madam: Please be careful as to what you call stupid on my talk page. It is unnecesarilly hostile. Thank you.Gator1 16:07, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

If you want people to not be hostile, coming out of nowhere and slapping newbie test templates on their userpage instead of engaging in actual discussion is probably not the best way to start the conversation. Snowspinner 16:09, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Also, it should be noted that by the terms of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Njyoder, Njyoder is specifically warned not to ruleslawyer his personal attacks parole - something that trying to invalidate NPA through a spurious poll clearly is. Snowspinner 15:52, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

So those under a personal attack parole aren't allowed to voice disagreement the NPA rule? That makes no sense and isn't supported by any policy. In fact, that is ad hominem, a big logical fallacy. The validity of my argument or survey has nothing to do with who I am. And apparently it's common sense that a single person can overthrow a Wikipedia rule by themselves? Ok. Nathan J. Yoder 15:39, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Feel free to voice disgareement. But there's no plausible way that a consensus to overturn the rule is going to be produced, so starting a poll is straight-up disruption. Snowspinner 15:48, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

So then why not let the poll take place? If you notice, I also added options regarding enforcement and regarding exceptions, not simply getting it flat out overturned. Larry Sanger himself had made exceptions, so your claims are completely without merit. You're engaging in another logical fallacy, a strawman argument, by completely ignoring 3 out of 5 options offered on the survey. Nathan J. Yoder 16:03, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

As a heads up, edit summaries in which you call someone an "insulting jerk" can be taken as personal attacks, and should probably be avoided. Snowspinner 16:20, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the Wikipedia help. [[[User:Rockrunnercard|Rockrunnercard]] 03:29, 16 October 2005 (UTC))

Out of curiousity, why did you create Phyzit?--Scimitar ^parley 17:00, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

LOL I didn't I nominated it for speedy deletion. I can't remember who created it.Gator1 17:02, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

• Hmmm, I wonder what's up then- the history page listed you as the only contributor. Ah well, probably just another glitch with the website, or my computer, or something.--Scimitar ^parley 17:04, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Dunno.Gator1 17:06, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Since I'm here...

Looking at the log, it looks like Gator opened the page to tag it for speedy, the page was deleted, and then he hit save, so Gator made a new page instead of tagging the old one (which had since been speedied). It happens every so often; there's supposed to be an Edit-Conflict-style warning along the lines of "This was deleted in the meantime, are you sure you want to save?" but it doesn't always work. No harm done. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 17:19, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up.Gator1 17:21, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm puzzled by Template:Db-gator1. "subject matter is either not notable or constitutes vanity ." is not a WP:CSD(AFAIK), and it would be an invalid speedy on any page you put it on, so what is the purpose of the template? (Also, BTW, you probably want to mention Template:Testg1 on the Template_talk:Test page, so people who watch those templates will know it is available. Thanks! JesseW, the juggling janitor 17:03, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the headsup. I took care of that.Gator1 17:22, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

• I don't see why you need a personal template for speedies. But if you must have one, please do it properly - with the includeonly and noinclude stuff of other templates that use template:db. Otherwise, don't blame me if it gets speedied itself. -- RHaworth 18:56, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about, could you clarify or instruct me on what to do to avoid deletion? Thanks.Gator1 19:03, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

• I have no idea - how did you create this template? Did you not see includeonly and noinclude sections of othe templates? Simply clone your template carefully from, for example template:nn-bio, preserving all the <includeonly>, etc. tags. Your template is now {{User:Gator1/dbtemplate}} since Template:User:Gator1/dbtemplate was a non-standard name. It expands just as easily from the user namespace as from the template one. -- RHaworth 18:03, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I've already got it. Thanks again.Gator1 18:28, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I made an RFC regarding Snowspinner's actions, you can add a signature to show support: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Snowspinner_3

Thanks for the invite, but other than my one lame attempt to fix that one link, I will not be participating. Good luck.Gator1 17:51, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't think you have to actually participate to add a signature, though I could be wrong. Nathan J. Yoder 17:55, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

No, you're right, but I don't want to become involved. Thanks though and good luck.Gator1 17:57, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you again, but I think since you're one of the people who was complaining I *think* do actually need your signature to certify the basis for the dispute for it to become active. I have someone else, but they wrote in the 'outside views' sectoin for some reason, so I'm not sure if that counts. I'm not entirely sure, but just in case it really would be nice if you just certified it. You can always just take it off your watch page off that, I'd come here and tell you if anything important happened. Snowspinner said he won't be watching the RFC himself, so I don't think he'll bother you. Nathan J. Yoder 00:46, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

No thank you. I really just want to out of this. I agree with you that his actions were wrong and his behavior is juvenile, but if you can't get a second then it's better to just let it drop and try and move on. Good luck.Gator1 01:24, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

PLease be aware that CSD A7 states:"An article about a real person that does not assert that person's importance or significance. If the assertion is disputed or controversial, it should be taken to AFD instead. For details, see Wikipedia:Deletion of vanity articles."

This does not include places or organizations, only people. So things like Molag Amur, while not really notable, are also not CSD, and should therefore go straight to AfD. Best regards, Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 19:59, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate your help. I've modified my template accordingly, because I've used it already and it's popping up all weird with the pages I've uses it on. Thanks!Gator1 20:03, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I think I've got it now. Thanks again for your help. Is there anyway I can make the template so that it's not a candidate for deletion? Thanks.Gator1 20:13, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh, you want to delete it...OK. I think it's agood template, needs to be renamed, but it's based on policy and covers topics not properly covered by the others. I think it's helpful.Gator1 20:28, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

You can create a template in your own user space and then folks might be less likely to want to delete it. {{User:Gator1/dbtemplate}} If you click that link you can throw whatever you want in and then use the page with the same syntax as a template ({{User:Gator1/dbtemplate}} or {{subst:User:Gator1/dbtemplate}}). I've actually built the top of my user talk page and its archive pages out of templates that way.

Templates in the main space probably need to be named to reflect what they are for, since ultimately they may be used by more people than just you.

Thanks for helping out with the deletion-patrol! There is always plenty of work to do in that regard. Be sure to look over the policy pages every so often. You'll never remember everything there (I know I don't). In particular, speedy deletes have a certain limited set of criteria that have to apply, and sometimes it changes, and some folks are stricter about it than others. Have you started an AFD yet? Harder work than a speedy, but it gets you more involved and sometimes has more interesting results (sometimes something you thought should be deleted turns out to be a great article). Jdavidb (talk) 20:33, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks man! Could you tell me how to make it so that it'snot automatically listed for deletion? Thanks.Gator1 20:43, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

• I repeat - clone it from any of the existing templates that call {{db}} - paying proper attention to the <includeonly> and <noinclude> tags. Surely that is not too difficult for you? -- RHaworth 06:23, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Also, can't get it to work when I try to use it to tag pages for CSD. Can you help me?Gator1 20:59, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks!Gator1 16:02, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Please do not add a speedy tag to this article again, it does not fit CSD. See the talk page of the article. If you feel it's not notable, take it to AfD. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 20:45, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Yup, that's what I did. Thanks for your help.Gator1 20:48, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks for removing that tag. It was accidentaly copied with the old page when I put it back. Thanks again. P.S. I'm not too "deletionist" it was an accident.Gator1 18:55, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

My accusation that you are too deletionist was, in fact, nothing to do with Searsport but is based on nominations such as:

• Malcolm Babysits - should have been tagged {{mergeto|…}} and why single out this one episode of Malcolm in the Middle for deletion?
• Shark proof cage - valid stub - tagged for speedy and no reason given.
• Rudolf Goldschmidt - valid stub. (I note your considering AfD for it.) Strangely the interwiki link to de: which helps support its validity is in fact a broken link! You tagged this article for speedy within 12 minutes of its last edit - you may have frightened the editor off from completing it and adding it to de: .
• S.A.F.E. - was certainly not a speedy candidate and why did nominate this and leave The A.M.I.S. Principle untouched?

Please continue to use your personal db tag, so we can quickly see what you have nominated and give them special consideration!

Your misdemeanor in connection with Searsport was slightly different: in the delete tag you state it was moved to its proper location. Now in the specialised terminology of Wikipedia that statement is verging on perjury: you did not move the article, you did a copy and paste. If I had deleted Searsport (town), Maine, I would have destroyed over two years of edit history. What you should have done was to mark Searsport, Maine with {{db|Please move Searsport (town), Maine on to this title}}. Any admin would check that Searsport, Maine was just a redirect and would do the move without hesitation. (The article history is now a bit confusing because I have merged the history of the two articles.) Please read Help:Renaming (moving) a page.

Sorry if my words are a bit sharp - I assume that as an attorney you are accustomed to being addressed robustly at times. -- RHaworth 06:23, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Only in Wikipedia my friend. And only by certain people. Oh and I wouldn't use the word "robustly." "Rudely" "accusatorial" and just plain "nasty" is more accurate. Thanks for the friendly advice and remembering the assume good faith and don't bite the newbies policies. I will think twice before trying to help out with basic Wiki-chores from now on.Gator1 13:21, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I have put these up for AfD - which is what you should have done. I leave you to explain why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S.A.F.E.. -- RHaworth 10:12, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for voting delete for Punk Metal. Jobe6 20:36, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

IRC is Internet Relay Chat. android79 12:36, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for removing that message, if you read it carefully, I believe I said I needed to know where to put my request, but I might have forgotten to include that, as I am new to wikipedia. Could you perhaps explain this prosess(disputing and article removal) to me, I found the Help files on it to be confusing.

Got to be honest with you. I am fairly new too, so I wouldn't be able to tell you. I would ask admins like android79, he is always willing to help newbies. Good luck.Gator1 13:00, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

How would I go about withdrawing the afd? And might a redirect to Incarnation be best? KHM03 18:38, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't know about the redirect, because I don't know much about this stuff, despite being a Christian. All I know is that the term means something important in Christian doctrine.

As far as withdrawing, I've done it a few times. All I did was say 'Nomination withdawn and then removed the tag. I don't know if that's the right way to do it but no one has complained before and if you keep it then there's a CHANCE that it could be wrongly deleted.Gator1 18:44, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Done. KHM03 18:56, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Hey Gator, it's possible it's just a random person puffing himself up, but if the DOB is true it's definitely not a "high school kid." That DOB ('74) is not far from my own and I'm long done with college. Also, the article has an extensive discography and filmography. Again, while it may or may not be accurate, someone would really need to do more investigating before we could just delete it out of hand. That's why I tagged it as needing cleanup. If anything, it should go to WP:AFD but given the level of detail and the fact that the article asserts that this person has been in numerous films and participated in numerous recordings, the article does therefore assert its own significance and so isn't a candidate for speedy deletion. · Katefan0^(scribble) 19:15, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Yup I saw all that right after I posted on your page and I did the research and it seems rather legit. That's why I said nevermind on your talk page.Gator1 19:17, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

thanks for the notice, but if a user has been already blocked, there's no need to mention it at WP:AIV since action has been taken ;) -- (drini's page|☎) 21:20, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

It was the sockpuppet that was blocked, not THAT user name. Both need to be blocked, no?Gator1 21:22, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I've modified AFD:Al-Zubair with facts and references. It would be nice if you can spare some time to read it, and hopefully to reconsider its deletion (or make some comments on my talk page). -- Goldie (tell me) 22:07, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for the first section (now removed), my Mozilla caught fire :-) -- Goldie (tell me) 22:08, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Why the hell did you remove my request for assistance? I wasn't the one to start the debate! I just presented my case! Please, put it back where it belongs! --Anittas 22:04, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

You, or any Wikipedia user, can contribute your suggestions and comments to the /Workshop page of any active arbitration case. Comments on evidence or proposals can help in understanding the import of evidence and in refining proposals. Proposed principles, findings of fact, or remedies may be listed on /Proposed decision and form part of the final decision. Fred Bauder 18:52, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Hey, I removed your CSD from this article because I don't believe it meets the criterion -- it has some meaningful content and isn't incoherent. It seems like a South Park neologism which probably isn't notable and I think it could be easily put on AfD but not speedy. Thanks. gren グレン 01:20, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Texture:

Could you help me. I would like to either change my username or keep my username but have a slightly different name pop up when I do the 4 ~ after posting. I noticed that your username is changed, could you help me? Thanks.Gator1 18:27, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Sure. Go to your preferences (top of the page or [7]) and change your nickname. Mine is:

<font color=red>Tεx</font>]][[User Talk:Texture|<font color=blue>τ</font>]][[User:Texture|<font color=red>urε</font><!-- TANSTAAFL -->

Basic HTML rules apply. - Tεxτurε 19:08, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks!Gator 19:28, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I forgot to mention. There is an assumed "[[User:Gator1|" before your nickname and a "]]" after. If you wanted to you could add "]][[User talk:Gator1|(talk)" in your nickname after "Gator" if you wanted it to look like: Gator(talk) (The "talk" would link to your user page but I can't show you since we are already there.)- Tεxτurε 20:00, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

That was my next question! Thanks!!!Gator(talk) 20:09, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I think the problem with your comment, Republican strength is greatest in Washington and Piscataquis counties, has to do with the NOR policy. If you can document from some reputable source that the number of registered replubicans differs greatly from the state average in just these two counties, then the comment doesn't violate NOR.—GraemeMcRae^talk 15:52, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Take a look at the entire paragraph though, it's full of original research with NO cites whatsoever, so....why is that one sentence inappropriate. It should stay if the other stuff can remain. Just my OP.

Beginning in the 1960s, Maine began to lean toward the Democrats. In 1968, Hubert Humphrey became just the second Democrat in half a century to carry Maine thanks to the presence of his running mate, Maine Senator Edmund Muskie. Maine has since become a left-leaning swing state, but has voted Democratic in four straight elections, casting its votes for Bill Clinton twice, Al Gore in 2000, and John Kerry (with 53.6% of the vote) in 2004. Republican strength is greatest in Washington and Piscataquis counties.

Gator(talk) 15:57, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi. Please make sure that you warn the vandals with the appropriate {{test1}}... before listing them for a block —even if they have been warned this month or this week. Oran e (t) (c) (@) 16:02, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

He was given a final test4 warning numerous times. Are you honestly telling me that if someone has come off of their 8th block that they are entitled to start the process over and get 3 or 4 free vandalism before getting blocked again becuase I have to start over with a test1? I hope not, because he was just blocked for another month (like that will make any difference one month from now).Gator(talk) 16:15, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

That's usually sort of a judgment call. Some admins like the see the whole process run through again (which can be quite entertaining, honestly; look at the folks who vandalized my user page a couple of months ago when I was going after them, before I became an admin), and sometimes the admin decides to just say, "Enough is enough!" and block them on the first vandalism after a block expires.

Either way, indefinite blocks of IP addresses are discouraged because the IP may someday belong to somebody else. I think the preferred method is to give blocks of longer and longer time, up to one year. I'd have to check policy to know for sure. The rationale behind it is that having to block a returning vandal once a year shouldn't be too bad. (Or, at least, that's the story... :) ) As far as I know, the only time indefinitely blocking an IP address is allowed is if the IP address belongs to an open proxy. Jdavidb [[talk • contribs]] 17:23, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Gator. Thanks for voicing your concerns at my talk page. However, please note that I've never been involved with User:BigDaddy777 and therefore don't feel justified to alter his block or assert authority in regard to his case. Also, I am hesitant to use indefinite blocks on IP addresses because, as mentioned above, the IP address could be shared by multiple users. But I do maintain that a persistent vandal should receive longer blocks and less tolerance each time he/she vandalizes after a block expires. And indeed, I did not issue 198.20.32.254 a warning this time before blocking him for a month. If he vandalizes after this block expires, I'll be sure to extend the time. Regards, Sango123 (talk) 20:19, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Gator1,

I have rewritten the article on this band so as to establish their notability. I would be grateful if you could have a look. Capitalistroadster 07:19, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I had voted on that AFD but my vote had been deleted by the vandal. I've restored it (as well as his first vote). --howcheng [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 18:44, 31 October 2005 (UTC)