User talk:Snowspinner~enwiki/Archive 7

Shawn Mikula

My apologies to you. This is twice Anthony has taken advantage of my assumption of good faith. I should have been suspicious about his "thank you."

What is the current status of your template to be placed and protected on VfU undeletion requests? Not that it matters since I don't think anyone but Anthony is currently playing this particular game...

Dpbsmith (talk) 15:30, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think we should bring it up at the WP:AN page. RickK 05:38, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

I've brought it up on the mailing list. RickK 05:48, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

VfU

Feh, what do I get for writing 200 words of turning the original complaint on its head? An edit conflict. Thanks a lot :) -- Cyrius|✎ 16:07, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Arbcom / LLR / majority

While I appreciate your concern for the number of people required for a majority on the case, there are still only nine active arbitrators (arbitors?) hearing the case - Nohat is inactive, and Ambi and mav are away. The majority of the nine arbitrators active on the case, then, is five. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 14:31, 2005 Feb 10 (UTC)

Apology accepted; it just might be a better idea to ask someone before changing those things when an arbcom page is involved. :) -- Grunt 🇪🇺 15:59, 2005 Feb 10 (UTC)

Talk:Winter Soldier Investigation

Get involved, if you wish. I am at a state where I'm uncertain what to do. -- AllyUnion (talk) 15:38, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I've increased two WikiStress levels since unprotecting the articles, by the way. They are still at it on the discussion page. And I have this creepy feeling that someone is watching my contributions. -- AllyUnion (talk) 15:42, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Mr Natural

How long is his block supposed to be for? RickK 21:32, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

But isn't he banned from editing medical articles period? RickK 21:37, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

LaRouche

It's very decent of you to apologize. Thank you. You've nothing to reproach yourself over, though; it was very hard for anyone to see the extent of what he was doing, and no one knew about the sockpuppets until recently. Best, SlimVirgin 00:01, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

38.119.107.72

What makes you think that this is "Mr. Treason"? As far as I can tell, his nonsensical posts on Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy stem from a dispute over French legislation on cult abuses, a subject in which Treason never showed the slightest hint of interest. The IP belongs to PSINet, which Treason never used. I've unblocked it. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 01:17, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

VfD on Jewish ethnocentralism

The logs are such a mess. See Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Jewish_ethnocentrism/Logs -- AllyUnion (talk) 22:13, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Are you around?

If so, please could you come to #en.wikipedia for a moment? I'd like to discuss Anthony. Thanks -- sannse (talk) 21:04, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

OK, thanks - sannse (talk) 21:22, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

WP:VIP

Um... you were listed at WP:VIP by a User:John Gohde -- AllyUnion (talk) 16:32, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration request against Xed

I've abstained for the moment waiting on evidence with the request (though a sub-page like ChrisO did with WikiUser is also suitable) - David Gerard 20:09, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This matter has been accepted and is at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Xed. Evidence to Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Xed/Evidence. It is uncertain whether or not the offlist email can be considered as evidence in this matter, a ruling on that will be necessary. Fred Bauder 14:49, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

User:John-1107

You are going to have to redo your block I removed it accidently when I removed my 30 min block (don't ask). I would suggest that first you read what is going on at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR though.Geni 02:16, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thank you

A very big thank you, Snowspinner, for your contribution to sorting out the LaRouche problem. SlimVirgin 05:12, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

WP:POINT

I have notieced that your RVs and edit summaries are violating the non-guideline:WP:POINT. Please stop them immediately! -- John Gohde 05:29, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Please explain how. Snowspinner 06:18, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)

Also, please STOP stalking my edits. You are not following any list, you are following my edits. If you persist in deleting THE infobox in the same edit that you have added categories: TOUGH! I will persist in reverting your edits. Your last edit of natural health deleted THE infobox despite the fact that your categories were still intact as you last left them. Therefore, I suggest that your re-read Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series_boxes. You wrote most of it, and its failure to mention infoboxes says that that categories and infoboxes are not redundant because they share absolutely nothing in common. The really funny part is that you forgot to delete a few of my infoboxes, despite your addition of more dumb categories. -- John Gohde 13:18, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

As I have said previously, I do not object to the infobox because of the categories, lists, and series boxes policy. I object because it is not an infobox, but rather an attempt to make your categories shinier and more special than everybody else's. Snowspinner 13:21, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

I am not interested in your inability to function by the rules. I follow the rules. And, your rules are not Wikipedia:Categories, infoboxes, lists, and series_boxes. They are Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series_boxes. Ergo, any infobox that follows the rules stays, despite your problems. Have you read any of the articles on pyschology, shrinks, or perhaps stress counciling? I recommended strongly that you take a 2 year leave of absence. -- John Gohde 14:34, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The rules do not comprise an exhaustive list of bad ideas. Snowspinner 17:15, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

User:Anthony DiPierro/Shawn Mikula

I have restored the page for the purpose that it can be reviewed for Arbritration. Please do not delete it until the matter of Arbritration is resolved. Thank you. -- AllyUnion (talk) 14:08, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm glad you're seeking further sanction on this issue. Please be sure that the arbitration committee sees the text of the undeletion discussion, because his shady "explanations" go a great length towards showing his lack of good faith (particularly his patently false claim that it was "completely different"). I think the only solution to his conduct is to permanently block him from editing in the wikipedia namespace. Postdlf 23:09, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

IRC

I've taken off Netoholic's ban on #Wikipedia. I feel (after sleeping and calming down) that it's right to put this down to a misunderstanding -- sannse (talk) 11:44, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Cage Match

It's more along the lines of not disrupting wikipedia for the sake of your own petty battles. You took away his precious template and broke his links, he got pissy and put a TFD notice on a popular template. I personally think that the changes you made to the Alternative medicine project could have been made with more notice and consensus, to avoid antagonizing people, but he reacted immaturely, and the end result was something that could have been settled much more quickly and simply with a couple of folding chairs and a steel cage. Night Gyr 18:07, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Looks like Ms. Pissy will forfeit the match by leaving the building. Yeah, if that Snowspinner violates WP:POINT it is perfectly okay, but if I do the exact same thing, well it is because I am immature. Now, exactly who here does not have a life because they live on Wikipedia? -- John Gohde 17:39, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

John Gohde

Is John Gohde the same as Mr. Natural Health? Has he or has he not been banned? See my Talk page and the comments I made on WP:AN/I. RickK 05:28, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

IRC

Sorry I left IRC all of a sudden. I have something important that needs to be attended to right now. anthony 警告 17:36, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You're leaving!

I'm so sorry that the trolls and vandals have exhausted you so. I feel sure that, when you're awake enough to find the keyboard, you'll be back - David Gerard 15:22, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ah! Taking my advice I see. -- John Gohde 10:17, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sockpuppets

I believe you know something on the subject. Or may know someone who is. I need some advice on the Javier Solana article, and wonderedc if you could recommend someone. --SqueakBox 02:31, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

The Recycling Troll

Somebody editing since 21 September 2004 doesn't particularly qualify as a new user, I would think. While I understand the concern about stalking, that sort of issue should be handled through the normal dispute resolution process, I believe. --Michael Snow 04:40, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hi Snowspinner - I unblocked TRT - there seems to be no reason to block that user under the current guidelines. While I share your concerns, I don't actually think s/he has done anything wrong. Simply editing pages that other users have edited doesn't really seem to be a problem, there is no vandalism or abuse. Let me know what you think, it may be appropriate to file a complaint, or at least discuss it with the user. Best wishes, Mark Richards 03:05, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I hear what you're saying, but really, I don't think that this user has done anything that warrents blocking. If you're right, they will do something that is against policy soon anyway, but the point shouldn't be to try to find a way to block them, they're making good edits right now, why not let it go? I don't think the record of previous users with similar names is relevant, and getting sucked into a debate about how many of another user's edits one is allowed to edit before it becomes harrassment seems fruitless. I think that it is something that we will have to learn to live with - I don't think we can make policy that you can't edit the same pages as someone else, even if you do it systematically. The address for the mailing list, and the suggestion that blocked users take their complaint there, is on the blocking page iirc, but I will check that. Also, they have been here since October 2004, so they're really not a new user, so I don't think disruption blocks are appropriate. Do me a favour and let this one go, I realy don't think there is any basis to block this user. If there'e a complaint about editing the same pages as Rick, I would suggest he take it up with the user or with the arbcom. Thanks, Mark Richards 11:06, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Manual of Style

Snowspinner, you commented recently on the MoS page, and so I'm writing to ask whether you have a view on an issue about which we've reached stalemate. The current MoS says that topics specific to a certain country must be written in the English commonly used in that country. I disagree with this. I think editors should be allowed to write as they see fit, so long as the page is consistent, and that imposing rules about style is nationalist and instruction creep. In the case of an edit dispute over the issue, I'd like the first-major-contributor rule to kick in. However, I'm almost alone in that position. As a compromise, I therefore asked if we could define "topics specific to" to exclude individuals so that, for example, an article about a novelist wouldn't have to be in the style of country he was born in or lived in, and so on, unless they're office holders (e.g. president, prime-minister). That is also being opposed by two editors, Philip Baird Shearer and Jguk. We've been discussing it for ages; and they reverted when I added it. One of them also added the page to the policy category without discussion, though that's now been removed.

Part of me just thinks to let them have their way; but another part of me is annoyed about the nationalism of it, which I see as contrary to the spirit of this project. It would mean when writing about, say, an artist, we'd have to work out the number of years s/he had lived here or there to find out which country "owned" him/her. But maybe I'm wrong to care about this, and I'm probably about to give up as it's gone on too long. Anyway, you seem to have a very clear head and a good sense of what the community wants, so if you have a view on this, it would be much appreciated if you could add it to Talk:Manual of Style. But if you'd rather not, no worries. SlimVirgin 10:30, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

Stop press. We appear to have reached a compromise. But do feel free to leave a comment anyway if you have a view. Best, SlimVirgin 10:51, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

Fashionable Nonsense

I've left this message because I noticed you engaging in a discussion with users who are attempting to spread popularization of the viewpoint stated in Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont's book Fashionable Nonsense and related events. I've begun an attempt to create a repository that will attempt to, ultimately, remove this misinformed position from an ideally-neutral Wikipedia, except to acknowledge the viewpoint in its own context.

This attempt isn't going so well, so I'm contacting people like you whom I've seen discussing the topic earlier than I've intended. See both the intended meta-article and its discussion page for details.

Fashionable Nonsense is not a scholarly work

If you're interested in contributing in any way, please feel free to do so. If not, thank you for your other contributions to Wikipedia.

VermillionBird 00:59, 2005 Mar 6 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback regarding this. I find it valuable, but it leaves me with a question: What distinguishes POV from accuracy? I could certainly cite textual sources that assert that the moon is made of green cheese but that material (that POV?) doesn't belong in an encyclopedia except in the context of literature. I haven't been able to find published Wikipedia policy that suggests a dividing line. Is there such? VermillionBird 16:33, 2005 Mar 8 (UTC)

Why the deletion

SimonP tells me to renominate the article and you have deleted it. Why?WHEELER 21:27, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Wheeler is insisting that his article be linked to from the republic article. I believe that a page that is deleted is also one not worth linking to and that VfU is the only proper method to restore content VfDed. - SimonP 21:47, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

Isn't their a process in place to undelete articles? By deleting the request, you voted for all the Wikipedians. You stole their "right to vote". You acted like judge, jury, and executioner all at the same time. Why won't you let the process forward? I have new information. I can request an undelete for "new information". You did not check the merits of the case; you abruptly deleted. I don't think that is very "Barnstarish" of you and your position. WHEELER 18:28, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Deletion of Anthere's images.

You said: "When deleting an image uploaded by a respected and longtime contributor, you don't delete without asking questions first. Had you asked Anthere, she could have explained. But you didn't. And you offended a good contributor with it."

This is true. Which is why I apologized to her. You can see more details on her talk page.

Also, in the past two weeks, I have deleted over a thousand images. Over 99% of these were done by the book, but in two of these, I made a mistake. (I did list them on IFD. I did ensure they were not used in any articles. I did ensure that they did not have any licensing or source information. But I did not leave a message on the uploader's talk page.) I'm human and I make mistakes.

Wikipedia would be a better place if we all focused on the 99% of things that people do right, instead of the few times people mess up. – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 20:39, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)

Request for mediation

You blocked me without due cause. You were wrong to accuse me of being a vandal because as the policy says:

"Bullying or stubbornness Some users cannot come to agreement with others who are willing to talk to them on an article's talk page, and repeatedly make changes opposed by everyone else. This is a matter of regret—you may wish to see our dispute resolution pages to get help. However, it is not vandalism."

I am not seeking to disrupt Wikipedia. I am trying to build a consensus that includes more views than the majority view you hold. You have falsely accused me of not acting in good faith.

I am asking you to enter mediation with me. I am not going to ask for sanction on you for abuse of your admin powers, although I do believe that you abused them and have forgotten that you are bound by the policies just like any other user. I am hoping to avoid further acrimony by sorting out this issue with you.

I ask you not to further abuse your powers until we have finished the mediation process. If you agree, I will not make the edit you find contentious until the mediation is completed. However, if you do not, I will continue to edit as I see fit. I won't be bullied by an admin who is acting outside policy to push his POV.Dr Zen 01:13, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Anthere

There are a handful of users on Wikipedia where, should you find yourself in conflict with them, it is almost certain that you have done something wrong. Anthere is one of them. Oh, please. Her virulent anti-Americanism is enough to put one off their feed. RickK 06:40, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

Hiya snowspinner, thanks a lot for your comments; They helped me feel bettter. RickK, sorry, but the fact is that I am only slightly anti-american, and only against those who are dumb and nasty. I am also anti-french, for all those who are dumb and nasty. There is just as much stupidity in my nation than in yours. None of us could win here :-)

Also, I could not be really anti-american I guess since it would be against my son :-) He was american long before being french. I would not be against him, nor against actually against any of the americans I met when I lived there. Tssss :-) Anthere

Snowspinner, there have been other users who have commented on your notice to me on my talk page. Just in case you're interested. – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 20:29, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee ruling

The case against Xed has closed. Please see the final decision for details. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 04:04, 2005 Mar 9 (UTC)

Arbitration

You forgot to bother with mediation. POV pushers always go straight to RfC or RfAr, so no surprise. Dude, you're one of the worst offenders against Wikiquette that I've come across. If anyone needs arbitrating, it's you.Dr Zen 05:09, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Snowspinner RfC

I'm new to RfCs, but mainly I was hoping to resolve the argument that was going on at the Noticeboard, and find a way to clarify the blocking policy. You said you would like to see the policy clarified too. Is there a better way to do that than an RfC? Rad Racer 18:25, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee case opening

The Arbitration Committee has accepted the request for arbitration against WHEELER. Please bring evidence to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/WHEELER/Evidence. Thank you. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 20:20, 2005 Mar 9 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee case opening

The Arbitration Committee has accepted the case against Dr Zen. Please bring evidence to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dr Zen/Evidence. Thank you. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 22:24, 2005 Mar 10 (UTC)

Perhaps you should offer as evidence that I offered to mediate with you and you didn't bother answering?Dr Zen 04:57, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

CfD

Hey Snowspinner, I noticed you replied on Cfd for the alt med stubs deletion. It seems that you understand my point in creating CAM-stub (template) --> Alternative medicine stubs (category), so as an admin, could you take care of the deletion? I'd like to start splitting the "alt med stubs" from the "med stubs" as soon as possible. --CDN99 12:25, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Everyking

Upon extensive review, The Ashlee Simpson Show, having at the same an in-depth coversation with Everyking, I came to the conclusion that this change is not a revert, and I shall also explain my reasoning for this. Everyking didn't say he didn't want the link to be featured; he said he didn't think that it was relevant enough to be included as an external link for the entire show, as opposed to one incident. The link is now a citation within the article. I unblocked Everyking because his argument made more sense than the argument that he was simply reverting a change. I will be keeping track of Everyking's subsequent edits, and I am afraid that you have failed to assume good faith with Everyking's promise. Should he break his promise, I will stand right with you and re-block him. --Merovingian (t) (c) (w) 02:59, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

Request for mediation

I'd like to make a formal request for mediation with you. anthony 警告 15:12, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've never been through mediation, so maybe that's why I have better hopes for it than you. It certainly can't be worse than arbitration, which I'm somewhat more familiar with. As for the issues you have with me being broad, I don't intend for you to speak for the community. I just want you to drop your personal campaign against me. What other people do is up to them.

If you'd rather wait for the arb case to finish first I suppose we can do that. But really we should mediate first, and the arb case shouldn't have been brought in the first place. At this point I really don't see what the two have to do with each other. The arb case between me and you is pretty much resolved, what's left is the arb case between me and Mark. anthony 警告 15:43, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Inspiration

"So, in an act of inspired lunacy, I request arbitration against myself." Snowspinner 16:27, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC) LOL! SlimVirgin 16:51, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

thank you for the revert of my user:talk page

• Courtland 17:31, 2005 Mar 19 (UTC)
• Keep up the good work and Happy wiki-ing! Eleassar777 18:41, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration

I have requested arbitration against you. Snowspinner 18:51, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

Make sure you don't write in the other party's evidence section. SlimVirgin 22:55, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee cases opening

The Arbitration Committee has accepted the cases against Netoholic and Everyking. Please bring evidence to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Netoholic 2/Evidence and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Everyking 2/Evidence respectively. Thank you. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 04:06, 2005 Mar 20 (UTC)

Question

I've got a bit of non-trivial evidence for the Netoholic RFA case... Dated October, 2004. What do you — as one of the involved parties — reckon – add to evidence or let it be? — Itai (f&t) 06:34, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You did receive my (slightly long) email, right? As I said, this is ancient history, but it's the best I can come up with. — Itai (f&t) 22:03, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Snowspinner.

We seem to have crossed on our reversion of your almost Doppelgänger's edits. It's strange, because I had no edit conflict — I just found that the result was under your name not mine. I've tagged his page as a sockpuppet, but I don't know whose. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:56, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

your block of User:John-1107

What in the world does "Claiming non-existant judicial legitimacy" mean, and how does that justify a 1 month block? -- Netoholic @ 01:56, 2005 Mar 22 (UTC)

Have you filed an RFC? Did you give him any warning you were going to implement a 1 month block? If the answer to either of these is no, then unblock him and follow those procedures. Do I really need to go to the WP:AN? -- Netoholic @ 02:18, 2005 Mar 22 (UTC)

Arbitration request

As you've indicated apparent interest in having an arbitration case opened against you, I have filed a request for arbitration against you. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 04:24, 2005 Mar 22 (UTC)

CAMInfobox

You deleted an infobox on Acupuncture and Homeopathy with the summary, "This infobox duplicates content from the deleted Template:CAMInfobox." What is this about? If the info is redundant, how do I find it as a user? Or is there a discussion somewhere that comes to the conclusion that such information is not useful at all? Thanks. Art Carlson 06:57, 2005 Mar 22 (UTC)

Is the discussion on the infobox template archived somewhere? Art Carlson 16:01, 2005 Mar 22 (UTC)

No actually, Snowspinner is just engaing in stalking, harassament, vandalism, and making threating messages on my talk page about these infoboxes, as usual. And, I am so tied of this piece of garabage that I am going to AC on this one. -- John Gohde 01:09, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Coolcat DAO request

As you asked, I have investigated User:Coolcat's conduct, and compiled some notes on the case at User:Blankfaze/CoolcatDAO. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 20:07, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thank you

Snowspinner, thank you very much for voting for me in my adminship nomination. I really appreciate your support. SlimVirgin 00:29, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

Fate of DAO

I'm afraid that your worthy enterprise is doomed. The Wikipedia community is reaching a state where division and discontent and rivalries prevent anything productive and helpful from being done. There has not been a time in my tenure here in which I have moreso wanted to leave this project. Thanks for the effort, though. Maybe we can retain the page in your userspace, perhaps? Not sure. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 23:31, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"Thank you, Masked Man!"

I think it would be better all round if Snowspinner...considered why what he is doing is thankless...

jguk 20:49, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

He's right, and something must be done!

Thank you, Masked Man!

1. Calton | Talk 01:31, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Suggestion of Range Blocking a Vandal

A multiple IP vandal has repeatedly vandalised Mari Holden, Sports in Lithuania, Rasa Polikeviciute, and Diana Ziliute which I have subsequently protected after 48hrs of vandalism. Asbestos and Mel Etitis have suggested the possiblity of a range block, since protection is not a long term solution. I have limited expertise in that regard, and as you are online. I was hoping you might advise them. -JCarriker 13:06, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you didn't read my message. The archives are at User talk:Anthony DiPierro/Archive. That's very easy to reach. Now why do you have to continue to cause trouble? anthony 警告 23:17, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The lack of clear sign as to how one would get to the talk page archive is a bit of a problem. Also, things like RFA and RFAr require notification, which requires some publicness. There needs to be a page where people can publicly notify you of something. Snowspinner 23:24, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

I don't intend to make any edits on Wikipedia for the next 3 months, so there is no reason for anyone to publically notify me of anything. anthony 警告 23:26, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Your Requests for comment

Since it appears Netoholic does not wish to avail himself of the second RfC about you that UninvitedCompany created for him, I have redirected it to the original RfC about you. Since this removed your brief statement there, I thought I should let you know in case you object. But since you were the only one to actually post a statement there, and the page didn't seem likely to get used for anything, I figured it was better to get rid of it altogether. --Michael Snow 06:01, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Please see

User_talk:Alex756#Have_a_look. I think you 2 should talk. He is the AMA coordinator in case you didn't know. Cheers, (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 12:11, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee case opening

The case John Gohde v. Snowspinner has been accepted by the Arbitration Committee. Please bring evidence to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/John Gohde v. Snowspinner/Evidence. Thank you. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 19:33, 2005 Mar 26 (UTC)

My reply to your reply to WHEELER

For making this reply, I hereby award Snowspinner this Surreal Barnstar for exhibiting just the right amount of whimsy at just the right moment. JRM 21:29, 2005 Mar 26 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee ruling

The case against Anthony DiPierro has closed. Please see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Anthony DiPierro 2#the final decision for details. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 23:49, 2005 Mar 26 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee ruling

The case against Dr Zen has closed. Please see the final decision for details. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 00:31, 2005 Mar 27 (UTC)

S.O.S

Turkey, Kurdistan Workers Party, and Abdullah Ocalan are constantly being vandalised bu User:Stereotek, also other articles I edot. His dealings with me started after my neutrality request for the Armenian Genocide article and is ona conquest to find any of my work and revert it. The user is "hunting" me down and you must stop that. I do not care about mediation when a user starts hunting me down. I am getting serriously annoyed with this person and his conquest against me. This is an open personal attack. Check history of those articles. User must be stoped otherwise there is no reason for me to contribute to wikipedia since he reverts any edit I make aside from my edits on Ranks and Insignia of NATO. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 20:08, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Unblocking

Hi, I saw that you unblocked Quinlan a mere 10 min after I blocked him re a 3RR violation. I do not think it is very good style to unblock an uncontroversial block without any explanation on the relevant page. If Quinlan had been communicating with you than you could have brought this up there. I am not too upset about you unblocking, but about the way you went about it. Refdoc 08:13, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism

Someone at Klingon Wikipedia who is obsessed with the Autofellatio picture is trying to frame you and other English Wikipedia administrators. → JarlaxleArtemis 23:58, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

Developer needed!

Hey Snowspinner, Do you know a trustworthy developer that can check my IP addresses, and honestly prove that I am not Alex Plank? I am really in need for a good developer. Thanks. --Lst27 (talk) 01:15, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Pope

Pope John Paul II has now been locked by Adam Bishop, --SqueakBox 22:15, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

Category tags on non/semi/official policy

If you remove the templates {{notpolicy}}, {{semipolicy}}, or {{rejected}}, please be sure that you add one of the appropriate category tags in its place so that we do not lose track of the page. This would be [[Category:Wikipedia official policy]], [[Category:Wikipedia semi-policy]], [[Category:Wikipedia policy thinktank]], or [[Category: Wikipedia rejected policy]] in most cases. Please note that with few exceptions I followed the existing category tags when adding boilerplate, and welcome discussion on any recategorization that may be necessary. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:38, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

comments

Re this: Policy should fairly apply at all times. The reason I reported your violation was because you posted John's violation. You have to expect people will look into the page history, and having done that, I spotted your violation. I have done the same very often.

Check this out. On this occasion, Aberglas contacted me on my talk page asking for help dealing with Ambi (I dunno why). I did look at it, and reported them both for the violations.

Please take back your new section, as it is not against policy, posits an incorrect assertion, and was not personal. -- Netoholic @ 03:24, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)

I do not intend to take it back. It seems, on the surface, hypocritical to at the same time demand two different readings of the 3RR for two different people. That's my problem. That you apply different standards for different people. Snowspinner 03:31, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

That is my assertion often when it comes to applying penalties to admins vs non-admins. It is a point of view thing, and a long-standing debate. It isn't something that is fair to add as evidence against me. Even if it was true that I want to "apply standards differently", why would you include that in the case? I could say the same about you, but I can't bring myself to add that as a viewpoint is irrelevant. Is it fair to try to Arbitrate ideas? -- Netoholic @ 03:41, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)

The bad faith you display with your double standard is relevent. Snowspinner 03:46, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

What does "bad faith" even mean? Do you mean "bad intentions"? I've shown above how I am completely against having double standards. Where have you seen me do or say otherwise? Are you drawing this conclusion simply because on occasion I have defended one side and wanted another side punished? -- Netoholic @ 03:54, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)

Policy classification

I see your point for reclassifying RPA. However, given our current methods of classifying policies I find it hard to agree with it. I believe we may need extra classification, or we may need to rethink it. "Official policy" is clear. "Semi-policy" is not, however - in this case, it refers to something that is commonly done but that is subject to substantial controversy (see RPA talk). In other cases, such as style guides, it is something that nearly everybody agrees to, but that doesn't sound 'official'. Similarly, "rejected" can refer to something that hasn't gathered consensus, OR to something that has gathered significant consensus opposed to it. Radiant_* 17:20, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)