User talk:Everyking

I agree

I see you blanked your talk page. I agree with the statement on your user page - it's unfortunate that, for whatever reason, people can't seem to be tolerant and civil all the time. But in this regard, Wikipedia is no different than anywhere else. I've never seen an Internet site or discussion forum without argument. If you want to help change this here, I hope you'll stay. Please try to remember to make yourself an example of the civility you wish to see from other people. Rhobite 23:02, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)

Autobiography

Then we're getting somewhere. :) I'm not too fussed about leaving things the chart data there (though the table form is probably superior to prose in this case), as long as we can start to get some other parts of the article flowing better. Ambi 23:48, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I didn't try to use arbitration to win a dispute. I tried to use arbitration to get you to come to the negotiating table, and based on some of your comments on my talk page from after I went to bed, it seems that you're now willing to do so - and before the committee ever had to hear the case (which was what I was hoping for in the first place). That's good enough for me. Ambi 23:59, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Why would it matter that I'm an arbitrator-elect? I don't have it in for you, and if I did, there wouldn't be much I could do about it. We have recusals for a reason, you know?

You stated on my talk page We can of course remove quotes, provided it can be shown that the information contained in the quotes can be given adequately in another way, or is already given adequately in the text. That is not a major issue for me. What must be preserved in some form is facts such as chart data. Everyking 16:26, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC). If this is the case, then this would be a big step in the direction of compromise, but you seem to be going back on this, so I'm a little confused. Ambi 00:08, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't believe that you should be banned. Christ, even in my arbitration request I specifically noted that that wasn't appropriate in this case.

What I do expect is that you work towards an agreeable solution, rather than being just another seasoned revert warrior. There's a reason why many of the people who practice that, like Gzornenplatz and Shorne, have been severely reprimanded, as much as you appear to disagree with that. You're a better editor than this - but that's the way you've been acting at times lately. I don't think it's an overbearing expectation to have.

I don't know whether mediation is necessary here. I'm happy to work out things between us, without a third party getting involved. I'm hopeful that we can come to some sort of agreement - I've made some comments there, and I'll go into more detail (dealing with this is fairly stressful, so I want to take a bit of a break over Christmas) in a couple of days. Ambi 10:47, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No one is making any threats, and no one is making any personal attacks. I do respect your views, but no one, regardless of their views, has the right to play revert warrior. I've done some good work with some people I strongly disagree with (User:Node_ue comes to mind), but this can only happen if both sides are willing to compromise plenty and work towards finding a solution acceptable to both. I think you've shown signs of this, which is why I'm keen to end this and start working on the specifics of the articles. Ambi 10:59, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Starting an ArbCom case isn't an offence. I felt it was necessary, as I felt all other avenues had been exhausted. I made a last-ditch effort to solve it by negotiation at the same time, and had some luck, so I pulled the case temporarily as a gesture of goodwill. I most certainly don't apologise for that. I'm sorry that it hurts you, really I am, but I'm sick and tired of this ongoing saga.

Please don't twist my words. In hindsight, what I probably should have asked for is a revert parole in this area, rather than a ban, as that's too strong. I don't want to shut you up, and I respect your right to disagree. However, I also demand that you respect the right of everyone else to be able to make good-faith edits to articles on this topic without inevitable blanket reverts. Ambi 11:10, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'd much prefer that we work it out between us, but you do what you will. Ambi 11:18, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've said that I'll accept mediation: under three conditions. I'd appreciate a response there. Ambi 11:44, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Opinions are one thing, but those were patently defamatory comments aimed at poisoning the well. I haven't made personal attacks, and I've specifically refrained from getting personal outside of referring your behaviour in regard to editing these specific articles. I'm quite happy to proceed with mediation, but not if it means that I'm mercilessly slandered with substanceless allegations (which you have so far provided no evidence of). Ambi 11:51, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

All I've said, which I can back up with evidence, is that you've been regularly reverting any changes to this article, and consistently refusing to negotiate in order to deal with the concerns of a significant number of edits. On the other hand, I challenge you to back up your allegation with even one piece of evidence.

I did turn away from the path of arbitration. I pulled the request, and tried to talk it out with you instead. So far that hasn't exactly been successful. Ambi 11:59, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'll certainly grant that you'd made a couple of steps in the right direction in the last day or so (though up until this point, you had explicitly refused to consider removing quotes or material from the article, except if it was moved to other articles, which was irrelevant to my concerns, as I wasn't worried about length). I was - and still am - quite happy to continue along those lines and discuss our differences - which was why I intended to take a break from the article for a couple of days over Christmas, so we could both calm down a bit and start fixing the actual problems. The offer is still open.

I'm happy to talk it out. I'm happy to mediate (as long as you remove the slander). I'm reluctant to arbitrate. It's your call. Ambi 12:12, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

We'd discussed the issue many times, and I had never heard you state that you were content to remove some of the quotes until that message on my talk page last night. If you felt this way, you haven't conveyed it.

I've said it many times, and I'll say it again. I'd rather not see the matter arbitrated. I'd rather talk it out, or else mediate it. I'm willing to do the former without question (in a couple of days, anyway), and I'm willing to mediate if you remove the slander. In contrast, I'm keen to avoid arbitration. The choice is yours - which do you want? Ambi 12:25, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

*sigh* If you insist. Why not just remove the slander, so we can proceed with mediation? Ambi 12:25, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Firstly, banning is never going to happen. Should this get as far as arbitration, I have no intention of requesting it. Secondly, this isn't a content dispute. It's a user dispute. Ambi 12:27, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sword of Damocles. Ha. Arbitration is the final step in the dispute resolution process - it's always there as an option if the dispute gets that bad - just as it is here. I'd still rather solve it by other means, but it's your call. In any case, after tonight I'm going to take the break that I said I would so we both have time to calm down a bit before taking this any further. Ambi 12:31, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

But I cannot deal with threats to my editing rights. I just can't. I would rather be banned than have to go through every day thinking about that. It's Christmas, and all I can think about is how a Wikipedia user wants to get me banned. That can't continue, for the sake of my own mental health it can't. Everyking 12:33, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

What the? I just explictly stated that should this get as far as arbitration, that I have absolutely no intent of requesting for you to be banned (and strongly doubt that anyone would support such a step), then you scream at me about how I want you banned. How does that figure? Ambi 12:38, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, I'll apologise for that one. Ambi 12:42, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It's part of the dispute resolution process, so I don't think it's reasonable to rule out that one section of it won't be used. That said, it's only for use, however, when the previous stages have broken down - so why force the matter? There should still be plenty of hope for negotiation and/or mediation yet. Ambi 12:47, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

One tries negotiation. If that doesn't work, one tries mediation. If that doesn't work, there's arbitration. It's just not feasible to vow that the third option won't become necessary, when there is a possibility that it may well be. That doesn't mean it's desirable or even likely. Please, just let us talk the matter out on the talk page, or remove the slander and let us go on with mediation - and then arbitration hopefully will never even be an issue. Ambi 12:54, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

An overabundance of reverts and an apparent lack of willingness to work with others - this is the dispute. If it goes to arbitration, that will be the reason why - anything else wouldn't make any sense. I guarantee I'll use arbitration as a last resort, but I'm afraid that's all I can do. Ambi 13:02, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I just don't get what you expect of me here. I've been at pains to state that I prefer alternative means of resolution. I've been at pains to state that arbitration would be a last resort. Ambi 13:09, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You said yourself I don't want you to say absolutely that there will be no arbitration, because one never knows. Considering this, I still don't know what you want me to say. Ambi 13:15, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't want you gone. I've said that many times. I just want to work with you on these articles, and for you be prepared to talk a little more and revert a little less. That's all. I just can't accede to that request though - the request I put up last time was what the dispute was about. I do hope that it won't be necessary, but if it wasn't along those lines, there wouldn't be any arbitration request. Ambi 13:23, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Because for now, I decided I'd rather take the moral high ground and give Johnleemk a shot at resolving things through mediation. I'm doing so for two main reasons a) because I'm trying to withdraw from as many controversial areas as I can in the leadup to January 1, and b) because 172 intervened on your behalf, and while I no longer have much respect for you, I have a great deal of respect for him.

But if you do succeed in doing this with every single person who tries to edit the article until it does end up at arbitration, I'll be happy to go through and catalog your poor record on this matter, in all the necessary detail, right through from the beginning, through all the very many people you've reverted and refused to discuss stuff with (and it's becoming quite a long list). In the meantime, good luck with mediation. Johnleemk appears to be more patient than most - maybe he'll have some luck with you. Ambi 11:17, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Come hang out on IRC

Hey Everyking, do you ever hang out on #wikipedia on IRC? If so, keep an eye out for me -- I'd like to see if I can convince you to stick around, and maybe try to understand where the problems are with things. --Improv 04:26, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Rios Montt again

Sigh. Efraín Ríos Montt needs to be protected again. Thanks. 172 06:36, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Your user page comments

Everyking,

You have my support. Please don't go. Wikipedia is emerging as a far-too-important medium to be left entirely to the people who dominate it. We may not be as vocal, but the serious editors and writers (not the kids who want to make this into a social club) support you; and we will be quite upset if you leave.

Keep in mind that I have gone through more of these spats than just about any user; and the attacks on me have been politically motivated and far more vicious. I have learned from much experience that disregarding and ignoring groupthinking cabalists, cranks, and trolls while carrying on with work is the best way of dealing with them.

Regards,

172 20:32, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hey! At long last I've become a "cabalist". Would you mind accusing me personally so I can add it to my user page? I will be delighted to be a troll according to the cabal and a cabalist according to, erm, you.Dr Zen 23:12, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"You don't seem popular enough to be a cabalist". Thank goodness for that! I don't care whether you read exchanges on my talk page. I think an RfC would do you good. You don't seem very interested in consensus and that's not a good thing. This is a wiki, James. It's about the group making something, not individuals doing "work" that they then defend against all comers. You can build an Ashlee website for that. What particularly annoys me is that you claim people are attacking you personally and not being civil to you but you're smart enough to know they're not. People who hide behind the policy instead of engaging in honest discussion tick me off, James.Dr Zen 23:23, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Should articles contain everything "factual and verifiable" that can be found on the subject? No way. This would allow not just word counts for novels but textual analysis at the level of how many times different words are used (which would be original research, unless someone has done it elsewhere) and other "facts" that add nothing beyond their own existence, and articles on every subject would become bloated and unreadable. In any case: "Wikipedia is not a general knowledge base; that is, it is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. Just because something is a true fact doesn't mean it is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia." Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not

At the bottom of every page, when you edit an article, is a notice that says: If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, do not submit it. Edited mercilessly, James. Not left exactly as you put it.

"First, there's control of the article. Some contributors feel very possessive about articles they have donated to this project. Some go so far as to defend them against all intruders.

Well, it's one thing to take an interest in an article that you maintain on your watchlist. Maybe you really are an expert or you just care about the topic a lot. But when this watchfulness crosses a certain line, then you're overdoing it." Wikipedia:Ownership of articlesDr Zen 23:40, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

But every time content is summarised in your article, you shout that "factual, verifiable content" has been removed. You must be aware, James, that because that is the only reason you give for reverting it, it seems that you do think content should be included just because it is factual and verifiable, which is contrary to the policy above. I'm not a policy stickler, James, but I think that's a good one. An encyclopaedia article should be readable and informative, not a bloated monster of factoids and figures.

It remains true that while Ashlee's record might have been number 37, 56, 87 in the Canadian chart, this is not informative. It doesn't tell the reader anything except for itself. It's not a comparative measure with other records (which is the reason for including the peak and the number of weeks on the chart). It's a microfact, a fact of significance in its week of happening but no longer at all significant. It's similar to saying in the JK Rowling article that Rowling had bacon and eggs for breakfast last Monday (verified by her blog). That sort of thing can be true and verifiable but it simply doesn't add a thing. You've never explained how chart positions add anything beyond themselves. Dr Zen 23:56, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm amazed Everyking continues to insist otherwise when Reene, Tony Sidaway, Calton, iMeowbot, Ambi and I have all been saying exactly the same thing in different ways. Johnleemk | Talk 07:16, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Re: Mailing list

Nobody can write in a truly neutral manner; while my statement was not entirely accurate, it is correct in the sense that most edits to the article are indeed reverted by you. I don't expect statements on the mailing list to provide the full picture, nor should anyone expect them to. They should be viewed for what they are: one piece of the big picture comprising two or more opinions. By the way, you still have not responded to my original comment on Talk:Autobiography sales and chart positions. Johnleemk | Talk 07:16, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Music Wiki

Due to the constant conflict, perhaps you'd feel more comfortable putting your efforts in over at MusicWiki. Its a GFDL project strictly on music articles, started about a month ago. In my opinion something like that is a better location for the in depth article you want to write on Ashlee Simpson. Alkivar 06:20, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No dude, i'm not asking you to leave, just suggesting an alternative spot to put the information. It appears to me as if most of your contributions have been music in nature, and not real popular overall (at least the Ashley Simpson stuff). So I figured i'd offer an alternative solution to neutralize the problem at hand. Alkivar 16:11, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Arbitration

I have filed a case against you on RFAr after what you said to Ambi on her talk page. Johnleemk | Talk 15:01, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't want you to leave, I want you to learn. Johnleemk | Talk 16:41, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

On Talk:Autobiography (album)/Archive1 I said:

But your conduct has shown that you prefer that all edits must be approved by you or face reversion, something which I cannot stand for.

You later said:

You said above that my edits are prohibited, which more or less amounts to a threat of blocking, at least as I perceive it.

Also, in response to Ambi, you told her:

Well, he said he wouldn't stand for me reverting anything.

I replied:

I specifically set a condition that I would not stand for your reverts if you insisted all edits must be approved by you. Don't hem and haw and say that's not what I meant. I clearly said I cannot stand for the specific behaviour I mentioned then. If you persist with that behaviour, I won't allow it.

I warn you against setting a restriction that all edits must be approved by you -> You complain I am banning you from editing/reverting -> You imply edits to the article must be approved by you.

QED. Johnleemk | Talk 17:12, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

James, I've asked the arbitrators to refuse your case. I'm shocked and hurt that John has opened a case against you and I had no part of it and want nothing to do with it. An RfC, asking for wider comment from the community, I think might have helped you understand why your behaviour has upset some people, but this is way too much. I don't want you to be "punished" for editing in the way that you feel the article merits, even if that's misguided, and I certainly don't want you to feel driven away from Wikipedia.Dr Zen 22:53, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't think we've not got along. We've had some spirited discussion, both putting their point forcefully. I think you've strayed outside the agreed policy but that's not a huge sin, just something that, in my view, needs discussion and prompting from the community (and not the browbeating and bullying I feel you received from Ambi -- I cannot endorse threats of arbitration. I know I told you I would RfC you, but to my mind this is simply a call for comment, not a punishment for an errant editor). You are defending your view of what Wikipedia should be, not trying to disrupt its creation, so far as I'm concerned. That's a minor matter that, given time and a bit of wikilove, the parties involved would have sorted out to everyone's satisfaction. Dr Zen 23:10, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Oh, you do have a cheek. You've persistently refused to allow others to edit "your article". You've revert warred. You've assumed bad faith. You've personally attacked people, and accused innocent people of doing the same. And then you have the gall to accuse me of taking you to arbitration over an article dispute? I have never, and will never, do that. This is firmly and squarely a user dispute, which has arisen after numerous people have tried time after time to reason with you or get you to compromise, only to be met with blanket reverts. I also believe you're hardly one to be lecturing about civility. Ambi 00:23, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

As for the policies you've violated, read my last message. Because of this, it is a user dispute, at the moment anyway. But as to, as you put it, "make it a content dispute", I think the agreement you proposed with Johnleemk on the arbitration talk page is a pretty good start - and really, all any of us were ever after, I think. Ambi 00:55, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Firstly, I don't have the right to "tell you what to do" (well, apart from to follow policy), but IMHO, that is the way to go. Then we go back to mediation, we resolve the dispute, and everyone's happy. Secondly, you're not going to get an apology, because it was the right thing to do at that point in time. Ambi 01:07, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That's fine by me - I'd always preferred just working things out between the involved users anyway. If that agreement was settled between all parties, and followed, then I can't see any reason why we'd end up back here. I'm not a fortuneteller, though, and if I ruled out that, I may well to have to go back on my word at some future point in time, which I refuse to do - in any Wikipedia dispute, if it escalates far enough and enough policies are broken, arbitration may well become involved. Ambi 01:17, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't think we're getting anywhere here. It's a shame, though - I was hoping that proposal of yours would be final. Ambi 01:25, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Everyone has the right to edit. That's crucial, and I've defended it many a time. There are limits, as Jimbo has acknowledged, where people push things so far that Wikipedia cannot work in their area. After months of blanket reverts, a refusal to discuss, and demanding a veto over edits in their area, I don't think it's unfair to call the Arbitration Committee - that's what they're there for. I'm not trying to "win" this, as if such a thing is possible. I just want you to discuss and try and work towards accomodating other people's views, rather than simply reverting until eternity, but if that isn't possible, then the only proper thing is for the Arbitration Committee to hear the case. Ambi 01:37, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No user has the right to revert until eternity. That's why the 3RR came into being - but you just get around that by waiting 24 hours and then using your next three reverts. I don't have that right, nor does Johnleemk, and nor do you. What about my opinion? What about Johnleemk's opinion? What about Tony's opinion? We're all entitled to ours too, but you refuse to give us the right to have our own opinion. That's why we're here. And please stop trying to use my position on the ArbCom against me, as it has no bearing on your position here, considering that I'm likely to be recused from any further cases involving you whatsoever. Ambi 01:43, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I do hope you'll stay, considering your history of good contributions. However, I maintain that no one has the right to revert infinitely. Not me. Not you. No one. Ambi 01:48, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Could've fooled me. If it wasn't for this constant blanket reverting, we wouldn't be here. Ambi 01:52, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That you do is patently obvious. It's also important to take the general consensus into account, however. The majority do need to make absolutely sure that the opinions of the minority are taken into account, and that they are contented with the result as much as possible. However, when the minority refuses to allow the majority to even edit the article, then we have problems. Ambi 01:58, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Of course you need to be included in the consensus. I've never disputed that. At the same time, if we're going to get anywhere, then we need to be included in said consensus as well. Ambi 02:05, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

A note

My fellow James (if I remember your user page correctly), I'd like to drop you a completely outside opinion. I will say at the outset, I haven't been enlisted on anyone's behalf, I know virtually nothing about Ashlee Simpson, and I am not even clear as to what the dispute is between you and John/Ambi/Tony, etc. All I have seen is a talk page back and forth, but I've seen enough of it that I feel I should step in and say something, since I'm seeing several good contributors become frustrated.

Your core demand right now, if I understand it correctly, is for Ambi and/or John to "state that you have the right to edit and to have an opinion". I have to say, I believe Ambi and John are saying that. What they appear to me to be saying is that the article(s) under dispute is an article that they believe you are unwilling to let them edit and to have opinions about. You no doubt think that a ludicrous assertion. Still, here we find ourselves with everyone feeling very upset, so something (in my opinion) must be up.

If you are willing to consider unsolicited advice from a total stranger (well, near total -- I've seen you around and admired your contributions from afar now and then), here's mine. I'd suggest that, since this is a dispute between several Wikipedians who are generally well known and respected (I think of you, Ambi, and John in those categories, at the very least, no offense intended to anyone else involved), this obviously isn't a case of people trying to troll each other into submission. There must be a fundamental misunderstanding or miscommunication driving much of the frustration you're feeling. I'm not going to suggest that no one's at fault here -- but I think it's reasonable to suppose that the faults in this case may be much less than the frustration all of you are currently experiencing. I don't know if that helps to realize, but I hope it will.

Also, I want to remind you (as a departing member of the AC) that arbitration isn't intended to be used as a hammer to beat people with. Yes, it's serious business. But it's intended to keep Wikipedia running smoothly. If you feel you're being unfairly dealt with, then go to arbitration calmly, and trust in the AC to work things out. I think mediation would be wiser (this doesn't seem like an arbit-able matter to me), but I don't know the dispute well. I do want to emphasize, though, that you seem to be reacting to arbitration as though you're being put in Wikijail, and it's really not what arbitration is. Arbitration is a chance for old hands to try and sort out messes and keep everyone working productively with each other. Most of the time, it involves warnings and guidance, not bans and blocks. Try to relax.

My other advice is, when I'm frustrated (and I have been, especially when I've been in arbitration), I like to take a few days away from the place -- leave a little note on the user page and defragment a little. This time of year, when so much is stressful, I think it's a good idea. I hope Ambi, John, and you all get a chance to take a little Wikivacation, but I especially give you that advice since you seem so upset right now, and I want to help you with that. Sorry if my intrusion is unwelcome.

Best wishes to you and everyone else in being able to calm down and hear what each side is saying. I feel confident that all of you intend to do the right thing for Wikipedia. That's a great thing. And sometimes we need to show others how their good intentions came out wrong (and sometimes we need to recognize it in ourselves -- wow have I screwed up, on multiple occasions, when all I meant to do was the right thing). I advise everyone involved to keep an open ear, give a little grace to others even when you don't feel like it, and try to keep our goal as the furtherance of Wikipedia's goals and the preservation of several very fine editors here. That's my two cents, and if you don't like it, I hope you won't be too troubled by it. I have no idea who's right in this dispute (or if anyone is right), and I don't intend to know. :-) All my best wishes, Jwrosenzweig 02:00, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Millan Astray

What is copyvio?

It's a copyvio because it is a cut-and-paste from [1]. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:53, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)

Millan Astray

Y do u think that?

I need some help on Soviet Union. I think that I'm stuck dealing with the most unreasonable, vitriolic, POV user I've ever encountered. Please take a look if you can. Thanks. 172 07:39, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

3RR block

Someone needs to block User:Libertas. His behavior is getting intolerable. He’s calling users "Stalinists" [2] and rambling and ranting about Stalinists and Moonies conspiring with each other. He broke the three revert rule on History of post-Soviet Russia, which means he is to be subject to a 24 hr block automatically... I don't want to do this because he will come back and accuse me of bias, and probably also of doing it on orders from the Rev. Moon. Thanks. Happy New Year! 172 05:07, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

---

Why did u remove the entry on Toulouse Lautrec's page?

Did you write it yourself? Well, whether you did or not, it wasn't written in encyclopedic style. Everyking 21:10, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Soviet Union

Could you please protect this page? Thanks. 172 05:28, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

James, I would ask that you not protect the page at this time. 172 has persistently reverted users attempting to bring the article within Wikipedia guidelines. He and his associates ignore Talk and just revert blindly, so there is little point in protecting the page. 172 who is subject to an ongoing arbitration case for his misconduct should be counselled for yet another example of doing the wrong thing. Libertas

Hey James

I'm glad you decided to stay and edit. At least you're fighting to keep stuff in.Dr Zen 03:40, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Edit summary

Hello. Please provide an edit summary. Thanks and happy edits. Hyacinth 02:09, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think the specific unsummarized edit I noticed was on 01:38, 4 Jan 2005 to Anthony Davis ([3]). Again, thanks. Hyacinth 03:32, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

English

Ok, I'm not getting into a stupid edit war over a silly spelling!! I'm just gonna agree with you cos it's easier - spelling is my forte (she says) and my grammer isn't usually so bad either! Selphie 11:34, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC) **

Saddam

132.15.225.80 seems to be edit warring on Saddam Hussein. A few of his/here changes have been acceptable. [4] If he/she continues, perhaps we should salvage some of them as a compromise? 172 07:03, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Autofellatio

I wonder if you'd like to join me in giving it a try. I looked at the picture myself and I can't really work out why, in the context, you call it "extreme". The title of the page is such that the user isn't going to type it in or click it expecting to see, well, pictures of bunnies and rainbows. The picture shows a man with an erect penis, but the contortion in question is impossible unless the penis is erect. The picture illustrates the act. The draft policy of offensive images suggests that, while linking may be often be preferable, Censorship should be avoided if at all possible if an image adds something to an article. In my estimation it would be extremely difficult to say that this image does not add something to this article. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:13, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Autobiography (again)

Honestly, when I read that email, I hoped this was over. I meant what I said in that reply. Alas, it's abundantly clear that what you said there isn't happening. I talked to John last night, and he feels that you haven't even come close to fulfilling the agreements made under the standing order. A glance at the article talk page also makes that very clear - it seems that any small change to the article still has to have your permission first, and your conduct in regards to Vague Rant is of particular concern - particularly your explanation of why you reverted all his changes. John, who is a far more patient soul than I, has tried, and tried, and tried, and failed. Tony is fed up. Reene was fed up. I'm fed up.

You've made a lot of promises, but for all that I can see, your attitude and your behaviour hasn't changed a bit. No one at all wants you to stop editing all articles, or even these articles - I, and the others, simply want you to be prepared to work collaboratively on an article, instead of insisting that your opinions outweigh those of everyone else's - in effect, insisting that you own the article. I think John and I agreed that the best way to go from here would be to file a user RfC, for some wider community input. Ambi 09:57, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Do you by any chance use IRC? If you can make it onto the Wikipedia channel, I'd like a word. Ambi 11:10, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

First, you'll need a client - mIRC is an easy one. Once that's installed, enter irc://irc.freenode.net/wikipedia into your browser. Somewhere along the line it'll probably ask you for a username. That *should* get you into the Wikipedia channel. Ambi 11:32, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Gah, alright, bad explanation. Is your email working again? Do you mind if I send you some instructions? I'd rather talk this out in real-time...this shuttle diplomacy bugs me. Ambi 11:44, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Fine. It's just the same as always, though. You just stated that "I'm open to anything. Let's put whatever wrongs we've done behind us and forget the past." You're still not willing to compromise in the slightest - you stated "By saying "edit the article properly", I guess you mean "delete a bunch of content without moving it anywhere". You're still just doing your own damn thing here, regardless of the objections of editor after editor who raises concerns about this - how many times do you have to be told that creating sub-articles in this way does not solve the problem that we're all objecting about, but just spreads it over more articles? The same objections still apply to all of the articles, and it's abundantly clear that you're still not willing to compromise an inch. Further, you're still reverting Vague Rant, even as this has been going on. You tell me time after time how willing you are to work towards a consensus, and then the above just continues. Ambi 12:01, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

VFD doesn't deal with content - it deals with deciding whether the topic is encyclopedic. I've repeatedly told you - as have numerous others - that we were concerned with content, not length, and that subarticles just wouldn't cut it, because the prose - which is where the problem lay - remained the same. So now we have upwards of five articles with exactly the same problem, instead of just one, which still has problems in that area. I'm not just concerned with getting Autobiography featured - I'm concerned with having decent articles right across this area. But it still seems that Everyking does as Everyking wants, and stuff the concerns of everyone else. Ambi 12:23, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

But you'll just revert it. As you reverted Hemanshu, Reene, Johnleemk, Tony Sidaway, Vague Rant, and a long list of other people. Ambi 12:32, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The prose is awful because it is impenetrably stuffed with fancruft - with really interferes with the flow of the work. And that's what you continue to blanket revert - and that's what you completely refuse to work towards some sort of acceptable consensus upon - and that's what got us here.

And yes, you did revert Vague Rant. I think it makes it worse that you did so apparently without looking, and then deigned to re-add some of it when he screamed about it. But we'll leave that for now. Ambi 12:39, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It's not possible to write chart data well in the form of "In the 1st week, it was X, then in the second week, it was X, then in the third week, it was X, then in the fourth week, it was X, and then continuing for twenty-five weeks. It's also become abundantly clear that the overabundance of quotes - I think I counted once and showed you how you used about five times the average for a featured music article - interferes with the flow of the prose (as about twenty people have now told you), and I don't see how this can be gotten around without removing quite a few. Most importantly, though, is that we, like you, have a right to have our say in how this article turns out, and so far, you've been riding completely roughshod over everyone else. And how many times do I have to say this - moving the problem into subarticles does not make it go away. Now there's five, six, seven bad articles with exactly the same problem, and which the same people have exactly the same concerns about. And you'll continue to blanket revert and refuse any form of compromise until we do something, so what hope is there? Ambi 12:51, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Trying to make any changes to this article is like pulling teeth. Going on past experience, you usually revert, and then leave us to scream about it, and make a case for each phrase or sentence we'd like to change on the talk page, and then get your approval. You once said something to that very extent, and it's been shown in all your behaviour since. You can tell me not to describe it that way so far, but it's proven true - even as recently as yesterday, with the Vague Rant incident. And please don't kid yourself that you're moderate on this issue - you've taken it to never-before-seen lengths, in the face of a rare chorus of criticism. Ambi 13:03, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Your article had/has more than five times the average number of quotes for a featured article. Ta-ta moderate claim. As for the rest, time will tell. Maybe this will be the last I hear of this, and you'll work out your differences as you would do and have done on some of your excellent material in systemic bias areas, without resorting to this emotive craziness. I hope so, but I doubt it. Ambi 13:16, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"I nominate an article for FAC, don't you think I expect the concerns of others to be addressed? You have this strange idea that I reject all others' views, and yet I nominate it for FAC where I'm entirely dependent on the approval of others."

Then why did you nominate it three times when the same objections kept coming from up to ten different people, without any serious attempt to resolve them (and indeed, insisting that you were going to try again soon, while the problem's still not fixed)? Okay. Tomorrow morning, I'll go through and make some changes. I just wonder what the response will be. Ambi 13:42, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Wait just one minute here. Everyking, you may not have violated the agreement, but you certainly have violated the spirit of it. It was created to avoid blanket reverts, so what do you do? When reverting, you keep one or two changes just so you can claim you didn't revert at all. It's a despicable gaming of the system. Johnleemk | Talk 06:01, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Moving articles

It looks like when you did a move of English historians (middle ages) to English historians (Middle Ages) the article history (and thus editor attributions) did not move over. Normally when using the "Move" tab this doesnt happen, so I assume the move was done manually? This has the side effect with you listed as the first and only editor of the article. Anyway, before I even loged in this morning I had planed to change the name to English historians in the Middle Ages which is more clear and appros (I have also updated all the 20+ links so as to avoid double re-directs). And you were of course right to capitalize Middle Ages. Stbalbach 14:23, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Messed Up Mossad

An anon user sabotaged a page I was on, so I checked his previous revisions and ended up on Mossad, which he had changed in multiple places to read "Mosssad". I didn't notice, somehow, that the change was old and previously fixed, so I reverted it. Then I saw my error and tried to revert back to the most current page, but it's ignoring my effort, probably due to database/server lag again. Anyway, I saw several edits by you there and thought I'd drop you a line, in case I don't succeed in fixing it. I figure you're probably more experienced and can make sure it works...

Leo Ryan

If you'll reread the article, you'll see that the location of his burial was there twice. I deleted ONE iteration of it. And I thought the date of the newspaper was unimportant. RickK 23:08, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

...great minds...

Rush Holt  :) AlistairMcMillan 05:18, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Everything looks fine to me. AlistairMcMillan 05:47, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ya, but I didn't spinoff Exploding whale :-)

Really, there's no need for a second article, especially on something like this. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:36, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't. I don't think I ever read the whale article before I created that one. - Ta bu shi da yu 22:25, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm glad we can work together on political articles.

Ground 02:20, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

RFC

I have filed an RFC against you. Johnleemk | Talk 19:08, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The RFC has been certified. Please submit a response. Peter O. (Talk) 03:34, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)

Autobiography promotion article

Okay, you can suggest updates, but I edit them if I see fit of course. And if you breach the agreement, I'll list it for deletion myself. I think you should consider similar agreements for at least the other spinoffs and probably for the main article itself. I know it's painful but you've got some people riled up and before you know it you'll be the new CheeseDreams.Dr Zen 00:32, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'd urge you to accept my proposed solution for everything, James. There are two possible outcomes at the end of whichever process is followed:

1. There is an article you're unhappy with but you can't edit it because you have been banned by the arbitration committee.
2. There is an article you're unhappy with but you can't edit it because you promised not to. In this case you will at least be able to suggest changes in good faith. You will have shown your willingness to allow editors to work on the article.

I know, both paths are unpleasant for you. But you have to let it go, James, somewhere down the line. Do it now and I'll try to retain a good portion of your POV. Okay, you know some stuff will go, but this way you have a hope of keeping it within limits.Dr Zen 01:15, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

James, it is not just a content dispute. You can keep kidding yourself it is right up to the point that you're banned for one of the several ways you have stepped outside the bounds, or you can deal with the actual problem. Dr Zen 22:50, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Everyking, one of the things I learned as a tech writer is that you have to take criticism and feedback from your peers. I have written articles to be reviewed by my peers that I thought was perfectly fine, but which was still ripped to shreds. I may not have been on Wikipedia for that long, but the community here is not unlike a peer review for normal articles. As an outsider who knows what it's like to have your own work criticised and edited, I think you have to accept the community consensus, especially when this is no longer your work. Your contributions to this article are huge, and you have obviously put a lot of time into it, so I can understand why you wouldn't want entire sections of it deleted or edited. However, everyone else seems to think that this article is bloated. You don't, and I can understand why you feel that way. After all, you worked on the damn thing, right? Honestly, though, if you feel that the Wikipedians aren't being fair to you considering how much work you put into this article, maybe it's time to consider moving your content into a personal web site (or a fan site) so you won't have other people hack up your work. If it's allowed, you can even provide an external link in the main article to your own wonderful web site. --Deathphoenix 23:45, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Woops, sorry, I forgot to address your (rhetorical?) question about believing that you don't want your work edited. No, you seem to be pretty open to suggestions in other articles, but in this one, based on what I've seen, you appear to take it very personally. I'm not saying that's wrong, in fact, I perfectly understand why (since I've faced the same things outside of Wikipedia). I'm just saying that from what I've seen, you don't want your work edited. You will take some things that you agree with, but others (such as cutting down the article to shrink it in size), you dismiss out of hand. I hope you take my comments to heart without taking it as an attack, because it's not. Let me know if there's anything else you want to talk about. --Deathphoenix 23:51, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

My apologies, perhaps my use of bold wasn't so good. Nonetheless, it's how I've interpreted what I've seen based on your actions in defending your article. The community wanted an outside view (and comments), and as someone who hasn't looked at these articles before now, I tried to provide it. Of course, if you say you will go by the community consensus, then all the power to you. Your actions will show your intent. Talk to you soon --Deathphoenix 02:48, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

In answer to your question, there are two reasons I voted merge (not delete) for the promo article. The first is context. Promotional efforts for Autobiography make little sense outside of the article on the album. The second reason is that I think you would benefit tremendously from trying to do more with less. There needs to be a summary of all the promotion that was done. I realize this is your baby, and you are certainly not the first to be seduced by his own words or wordiness. Stephen King has this problem far worse than you. He has legions of fans who will devour his every word, and timid editors who are afraid to touch the "gold" that is his writing. Look at his more recent works and tell me they couldn't use an assertive editor or two. As for Autobiography album design, it amazed me that you found enough material for that, but cover art for albums is a distinct work of art (visual) seperate from the music (audio) with mostly different personnel, and could well merit it's own page. I will happily vote keep for other breakouts such as criticism and reviews, which focus on the opinions of others. Be aware that if such an article were created, I would push for all quotes, criticism and reviews to be removed from the parent article. The Steve 15:48, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

Inclusionism

C'mon, no inclusionist would vote to delete Autobiography promotion and publicity. The subject matter is far more notable than so many other topics on Wikipedia—you think it's less notable than the Meow Wars, which even I, interpreting notability much more broadly than most, voted to delete? Sigh, oh well, oh well. But it does appear we have something in common, that we're both big Pumpkins fans. Everyking 02:03, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I've actually been feeling torn lately about that. If you want to argue about it, I might be amenable to changing my mind. What do you think about Legal history of Sealand? How about Homespring?

I suppose that as an inclusionist, I feel that every "topic" should be covered here. But that says nothing about how much detail a topic gets. I think you feel the same way—that some details should be left out. The only issue is that with respect to "certain topics", your opinion about the appropriate level of detail is radically different from that of most other people.

Are you familiar with Mary Star of the Sea? I'm disappointed that Zwan only made the one album. Dbenbenn 03:54, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Vocal guide track

Back when I was researching History of SNL:2000-2010 I had to research the meaning of "vocal guide track", an obscure term for those of us who aren't in the biz, and it's now redlinked in the article. Do you know enough about the music business to write a stub, at least? I know wikipedia is not a dictionary, but I believe it would fit in with other music topics. When I did that research I got the impression that such guide tracks are used with some regularity in live performances for backup. Cheers -Willmcw 09:16, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Penda

I was curious about the repeated comment that D. P. Kirby considers that the dates given by Bede may be off by one year. We have no article on Kirby (hint, hint) and neither the articles on Bede or Historia mention this. Also I was confused about the meaning of the small text at the end of Note 6. Rmhermen 15:38, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

Hi

Sorry to bother you... Russian-Polish War needs protection right away... Could you take a look? Thanks. 172 22:30, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Since you listened to 172 side of the story, please also see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#172.2BGzornenplatz_contribution_to_the_Polish-Soviet_War for the other side. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 02:22, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

3RR

You've been blocked for violating the [WP:3RR|3RR]] rule on Pieces of Me. See WP:AN for more discussion. --fvw* 21:57, 2005 Jan 14 (UTC)

Everyking appears only to have two-three recent reverts. Although there were more than two edits, he changed around pieces of various paragraphs, perhaps seeking compromise, so this does not count. He has been unblocked. 172 22:31, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sergei Bagapsh

Mea culpa - you're right on both counts.

I wrote the article as part of a series on the Abkhaz prime ministers, but when I started researching, I couldn't find any evidence of there being a prime minister back before 1995 - rulers.org had Gennady Gagulia as the first entry there, and I couldn't find any evidence otherwise, so I just assumed that Ardzinba had ruled until then. Since I wrote that article, it looks rulers.org has found out who the first two were. I've added them to the list of PMs - thanks for pointing them out! I'll have to go write articles on them now. The second error is a really obvious, and really slack mistake, and thanks for picking it up.

Are you interested in Abkhazia at all? I'd really appreciate any help you can give with some of these people - information about them is so scarce online (although I do have a 100-page text file of stuff I saved off one of those for-pay services, which I haven't gone through yet), and several of my articles (particularly Sergei Bagapsh) are pretty rotten. Ambi 23:02, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm happy to do it, as long as you remind me what to do (every time I have to do this history merge stuff, I have to get Netoholic to guide me through it step by step). I'd like to know why, though. Ambi 14:56, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Steve the Deletionist

Actually, I've always been a minimalist. The truth is that I really don't care how much information makes it into the article. You may have noticed that when I edit, there is usually very little change in content. The only reason I've sided with the smaller article is that the other editors are making progress and you are not. As an example, I've already mentioned that the chart and sales article needs to be summarized. Yet whenever you do a revert or a series of changes, I find that it has grown, despite the fact that you agreed in principle. I also look for certain redundant phrases (your trademark, btw) that every other editor has changed and that I agree with that keep coming back. This tells me that you are not incorporating the other changes at all, and that is when I revert. If you could manage to leave all the current stuff alone and just add your admittedly well-researched information, I might well suppport that version. It may be too late for that, but Carnildo certainly made it easier to sympathise with you. The Steve 01:46, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration

I've filed an arbitration request against you. Johnleemk | Talk 07:49, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Pieces of Me

You've reverted Pieces of Me 3 times in 24 hours. Please don't do it again or I'll have to block you. RickK 23:26, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

Hi. I sent you two emails just now, but I'm not sure if they arrived. Please let me know. I want to try one last chance at mediating the Ashlee Simpson case before it goes to arbitration. Please let me know if you are amenable to this. Danny 01:38, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You're blocked. Please stop editing. RickK 07:12, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)

I have to agree. You're still editing at 08:38, Everyking, when you were given the standard 24 hour block for a 3RR hours ago. Keeping editing in the circumstances, even if you disagree with the block, seems a bit abusive

05:08, 17 Jan 2005, RickK blocked Everyking (expires 05:08, 19 Jan 2005) (contribs) (has now done FIVE reverts in 24 hours on Pieces of Me)

--Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:50, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

FYI, your block is also discussed on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. (No comment yet from you, so I am not sure if you noticed that page) -- Chris 73 Talk 23:57, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)

Middle Ages project

Hi Everyking, you may already know about this - there is a Middle Ages WikiProject, and I recall that you have worked on medieval articles in the past. Hopefully you can help out some more with that period, despite the current controversies! Adam Bishop 07:58, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

After seeing what you've been putting up with on these Ashlee Simpson articles, I no longer think that the trolls I encounter are so unreasonable! It seems like the pop music articles are dominated by a clique of high schoolers, with chaperones (admins) actually encouraging their bad behavior... I'm glad that you've reached the conclusion that this is an unwinnable fight; continuing it will only worsen matters. Dealing with one or two vandals is one thing, but there's no hope when it comes to reasoning with the groupthink on Wikipedia. (BTW, keep in mind my biases. I'd rather see you and the other quailed editors working on the history and political economy topics. Your numbers are dwindling, and the articles need every last one of you!)

You may be able to avoid the Arbcom case. For instance, when I was fighting VeryVerily's attempt to deny U.S. backing for the 1973 coup in Chile last year, the dispute almost landed me with one. The Abcom refused to consider the undeniably of the U.S. role or the straw poll showing that about 30 editors had looked into the dispute and rejected his arguments, making it clear that I would be stuck with the same sanctions as VV. So I just gave it. I extricated myself from the dispute, announcing that I would never edit the Pinochet article or participate again. This move meant that there was no longer any dispute to arbitrate, and it was subsequently thrown out. Perhaps you can do the same, announcing that you'll never edit an Ashlee Simpson-related article in the future or participate in Simpson-related discussions. This'll be understandably frustrating. It's clear that they are mutilating these articles, arbitrarily hacking away at content, without rhyme or reason. But there seems to be no stopping them, while at the same time there are a plethora of other troll-free articles still around in need of your work. 172 09:47, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Just a few more words of advice... You're more likely to avoid arbitration if you commit to permanently extricating yourself from the articles. But if you want to leave yourself with some room to maneuver in the future while avoiding arbitration (likely a difficult balancing act), it may be a good idea to lay out some more specific self-imposed guidelines. Perhaps you can pledge only to return only to certain Ashlee Simpson articles (baring the most contentious ones) after a period of (say) one or several months. The longer time you pledge, and the fewer the articles you intend to edit in the future, the more receptive the Arbcom is likely to be. Keep in mind also that the Arbcom rulings will likely be of far worse consequence than bowing out of these articles entirely and permanently. If you are banned for a period and then put on revert parole, you'll be branded with a most unfair stigma likely to render it almost impossible to return as an effective user. Consider, for instance, the fates of RK, IZAK, VV, Shorne, Ruy Lopez, and Gz. While each of these users in the past has fought for his POV a bit too adamantly (barring Gz, who's a competent copyeditor who doesn't suffer fools gladly, not a POV-warrior), individually each has probably made more valuable contributions than the typical Arbcom member. Now, whenever they try to do practically anything, they're stalked by a bunch vigilante admins who are waiting for any excuse to block them (probably out of boredom more than anything else) for 'violating the Abcom rulings.' Their input on just about every subject goes ignored, with the Arbcom rulings giving just about any user the license to dismiss them offhand without cause just by virtue of the reputations now surrounding them. Thus it may behoove you to be liberal with all the concessions; avoiding arbitration should be your first priority now. 172 10:22, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Dean Scream

Thank you for your contribution. General Custer

Arbitration Committee temporary injunctions

1) Pending resolution of this matter, Everyking is limited to one revert (partial or complete) per article per twenty-four hour period for the duration of this case. Should this be violated, Everyking may be blocked for up to 24 hours.

Passed 6-0

2) Pending resolution of this matter, Everyking is restricted to one edit of any sort per twenty-four hour period on any article relating to Ashlee Simpson or containing material relating to Ashlee Simpson. Should this be violated, Everyking may be blocked for up to 24 hours. Should he use the admin rollback feature to edit such articles while blocked, he may be de-adminned for the duration of the case.

Passed 6-0

- David Gerard 00:55, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It's one edit per Ashlee-related article per 24 hours, not one edit total - David Gerard 01:20, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The wording "edit of any sort" was specifically to avoid "yes it is/no it isn't" debates on whether a given edit counts as a revert or partial revert or whatever. Note that you can still edit frequently on talk pages, explaining your edits or proposed edits and convincing others. - David Gerard 08:05, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Patricio Patrón Laviada

Sorry about that -- I think I somehow reverted your edit when I was going after some mischief by 200.64.63.177. You actually took care of that one, right about at the same time.

By the way, you might be able to make a case for fair use of that image in Wikipedia itself. Or you could ask permission of the copyright holder. -- Kbh3rd 08:29, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Greetings

Hey, Everyking!

Arbitration Committee ruling

The Arbitration Committee has issued its final decision in your case. You are prohibited from reverting articles relating to Ashlee Simpson except in cases of clear and obvious vandalism (as per definition at Wikipedia:Vandalism), with penalties as per the three-revert rule. In six months, if you can demonstrate good behavior on Ashlee Simpson-related articles, you may apply to the arbitration committee to have the revert limitation lifted. The full case, with principles and findings of fact, can be read at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Everyking. Appeals may be made to Jimbo Wales. Warmest regards --Neutrality^talk 04:43, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

Joseph Smith, Jr.

Thanks for helping out with the article. I'm sure you can relate to the disappointment an anonymous new contributor must feel on seeing a lengthy good faith contribution obliterated with nary a comment on his talk page or on the talk page of the article. What I often do is add a cheery note at the anon talk page, which will flag them as having a new message next time they drop by. Even from my point of view, it seems a pity to have such a lengthy contribution reverted without a trace. Hopefully we can find something useful to do with it. Tom H. 20:50, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

Wannabe (movie) and Your Cruft List

I find it interesting you retained Ibrahim Coulibaly on your list, crediting Gzornenplatz for the creation, but decided to redact Wannabe (movie) after I created it! :) —Neuropedia 05:22, 2005 Jan 25 (UTC)

Block

Please clarify what you mean when you refer to the extension of your block. I can find material in the logs which indicates a 48-hour block only once, by RickK, on 17 Jan 2004. -Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 20:41, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• I still cannot find any block log entries which suggest a 48-hour figure anywhere since Jan 17 (and that event was the fault of User:RickK, not myself. My sole blocking action was:

  01:55, 25 Jan 2005 Fennec blocked "User:Everyking" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Violation of Arbcom restraining order (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:AN#Everyking_again))

If you can find evidence of a figure of 48 hours, please provide the URL and/or copy-and-paste the item in question. If you believe the block did not expire when it should have expired, please harass the developers. -Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 00:28, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)