User talk:194x144x90x118

Disclaimer------*Canceled

This talk page should remain BLANK, so any message here would probably be deleted without being read. To prevent this, I recommend you to post your comments according to the indications below.

1. Comments related to article content

This is not the place for them. Every wikipedia page has a Talk Page. If you are unhappy with what I've wrote, you want clarification or you want to suggest improvement, press discussion on the top of the respective page and express your concerns. This way, more people will see your comments and maybe they will be able to help you more.

2. Warnings

Don't put it here. Choose a random page (preferably a talk page) and put your warning there. Admins will consider I have been warned anyway, so why ruin my Talk page?

3. Blocks

If you're an Admin and you have blocked me, don't note it here. I'll surely notice it when I try to edit an article. If you want to show others how strong you are, there's always my Block log. In case you want to give me the chance to ask a review of my block, don't bother. Other Admins will most probably agree with you, and even the ones who think the block was not fair will do nothing about it. So why waste your time?

4. Personal comments

If you want to tell me something important, but not related to one of the categories above, don't write here. Keep it for yourself. Of course, if you want to warn be about a imminent nuclear attack against South Eastern Romania, you could send me an e-mail. But only then. So please, no personal comments here.

5. Vandalism

Why vandalise this talk page that few people watch when you can vandalise the page of a country, a city or a president? More people will see you and you'll gain a better reputation.

IHO User:Anonimu

Sincerely,--194x144x90x118 (talk) 01:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

haha! --

Arrrr! 16:54, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

• Canceled: This disclaimer have been canceled due to the apparent lack of interest from other editors of following the guidelines listed in it and therefor no longer applies to the editing of this talkpage.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 13:14, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for abuse of multiple accounts. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:27, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

]]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

194x144x90x118 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

WTF? I aint nobodies sockpuppett this is outrageous and insane.

Decline reason:

Quack quack — Daniel Case (talk) 23:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Hi 194x144x90x118,

I don't know who you are, other than your commentary in the

Markacohen (talk) 06:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In hindsight this has to be the most hilarious Welcome section ever made on Wikipedia, very welcoming and such.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 14:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok lets go over this shall we? Or shall we not? Any and all answers to that question would be greatly appreciated but until someone answers that question I want to tell the readers of this page a little something about myself and my activities here on Wikipedia.

So who exactly am I? Well I'm not Markacohens sock puppet that's for sure, my user name refers to an IP address that I used to edit from prior to adopting this account. My first edit was on the 17th of April 2007 if I am not mistaken and a good edit it was, if you'll be so kind as to view my contribution history from this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/194.144.90.118 then you'll probably see that an edit did indeed take place from that IP adress on that date. I'd like to point out that it looks like Markacohen appeared on the 11th of January 2009 so if there is indeed sock puppetry taking place then it would be I who was Markacohens sock puppets master and not vice versa since I would clearly be the older user, I however have very little to do with Markacohen, he wanted a link to a report on an article here on wikipedia, I too thought that it was reasonable to have such a link, he however wanted to link to warezsites and hatesites I strongly opposed that, other editors however wanted to link to a somewhat neutral site but it was my honest opinion that linking to that site didn't fully meet set requirements or normal standards for a page of this sort. In other words, Mark wanted links A and B, me and the other guys didn't want them, the other guys wanted link C to the same thing but I didn't even want that link to be in place there. I can not see how me and him were working towards the same goal regarding that matter so it would have been highly strange for me as his sock puppet to express an opinion that so radically opposed his. I'd also like to point out the fact that my edits and my IP adress strongly suggest that I am Icelandic and I want to ask if those who believe that I am Markacohen believe that he too is an Icelander?

Now a good question can be raised and that is "Am I really the IP user 194.144.90.118" and well I have to say it certainly does seem that way, the IP user showed a great deal of interest in the Bobby Fischer article and so have I and from the last few edits of that IP user you can see that he/me is given a reason to register a username and that reason is that the Dreamhost talkpage was protected after participation from that IP user. Now I would like to tell you why I exactly want so desperately to participate in the discussion regarding that article, I was looking for a good hosting company to deal with and came across dreamhost, I was just about to swallow the bait when I came across the Wikipedia article which seemed pretty standard really but then i looked at its discussion thread and I was simply amazed at what I saw "All out war" which sucseeded in doing what the article didn't, namely to make me realize that Dreamhost was a big no no, so I thought I'd say thanks to the people who have devoted their time to attempting to edit that article http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ADreamHost&diff=283471510&oldid=283308163 but that thank you of mine was used as an excuse to archive the articles discussion thread meaning that those that come after me may not see an obvious truth cause it has been buried away so I thought that well I owed it to the article to have a positive impact on it and so I tried, seeing various personal attacks there and alot of bs I tried to deal with it but a biased admin Sarekofvulcan probably a dreamhost employee used that as an excuse to lock the discussion thread making it much harder for people to tell the truth about dreamhost so in short while all I really wanted to do was to say "Thank you" I ended up doing others a great disservice since an extremely biased article is going to become much better cloaked now thanks to my efforts. It is therefor my duty I believe to continue my work related to the article and to undo the damage that I have caused. And there you have the reason for why the IP user 194.144.90.118 created the User 194x144x90x118, I chose the Username cause I really didn't want to create a user it was just that I had to.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 19:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to ad that the behaviour of wikipedias admins and users is very diappointing and I want to ask, where is the propper forum to complain regarding admin behaviour? --194x144x90x118 (talk) 19:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): Additional information provided by this user and checkuser shows that this is not a sockpuppet. Request handled by: FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:55, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

" Reporting as requested. ;-)

           Having looked into this, I have not seen any IP evidence that would support Markacohen and 194x144x90x118 being the same person.
           James F. (talk) 21:32, 29 April 2009 (UTC)"

The text above can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Markacohen_disruptive_editing_and_forum_shopping as well as nonsens from some guy calling himself WilliamH claiming that my behaviour is suspicious.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 00:13, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 194x144x90x118,

I don't know who you are, other than your commentary in the

Markacohen (talk) 06:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Markacohen and thanks for the effort to be honest I've never really had a great deal of faith in wikipedia and I intend to try my very best to do positive things in other areas instead, this latest bs only makes me that much more sure that wikipedia is not the way to go. I do however have 3 or 4 things which I will still attend to here on wikipedia 1. The Dreamhost article and talkpage, I've got unfinished business with it, 2. Fisherqueen, I must find a proper way to complain regarding her actions, interferance of this sort is extremely negative. 3. Bobby Fischer, I still have the drive to make it a better article. and 4. You buddy, I'm gonna keep an eye on you, they'll be accusing me soon of being your meat puppet but that's simply aokay with me really, it's as if the rules are Only supposed to apply to you and what you say and that everybody else has the greenlight to just shoot, fuck that shit. Best regards buddy.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 20:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your question, you can report me at

diffs which you think show that I have behaved in a way that requires such action. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I appreciate the checkuser looking at this, and thank you for sharing the data from your ip (I am not a checkuser, so I don't have access to ip addresses). I apologize for my incorrect analysis, and have unblocked you. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:42, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Far from over love. --194x144x90x118 (talk) 20:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): Block of 194.144.90.118 lifted or expired. Request handled by: FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

I think I've cleared the autoblock; can you try editing the

Welcome to Wikipedia! I am glad to see you are interested in discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:DreamHost are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. Scjessey (talk) 22:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not use talk pages such as Talk:DreamHost for general discussion of the topic. They are for discussion related to improving the article. They are not to be used as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. Thank you. Scjessey (talk) 22:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My words are related to improving the article and differ in no way from the remarks made by others before mine. And you don't get to play this game saying thank you to me while using personal attacks and threats against others on the page.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 22:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The 'thank you' is part of the Twinkle template. Once again, you need to AGF.

talk) 05:40, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Please do not edit war, and consider self-reverting your edit. It appears that your comment violates

assuming good faith. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Good faith can not be assumed from you.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 22:45, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi and thanks for your comments, fact is though that if personal attacks are going to get people blocked then he should have seen one a long long time ago. I don't care too much for personal attacks really so don't worry I'm not gonna go on any personal attack spree or anything of the sort. He isn't an admin though fyi and if an admin truly were to block me for using that one word then that would just be the most hypocritical thing ever. Take care.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 23:44, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I didn't realize he's not an admin. The process would be the same though, it's better to bring up concerns in an RFC or at ANI. Dayewalker (talk) 23:51, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for WP:NPA. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:17, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This wikipedia stuff is good shit, next rounds on me aye.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 01:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Category:Premature wrestling deaths (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Darrenhusted (talk) 08:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I really don't have any problem with the category being deleted but I suggest that you take a close look at the articles behind the men listed in it, maybe you'll come to see that the category does indeed stand for something.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 08:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To know a death was "premature" you would need to know two variables. First, the life expectancy of the country the wrestler lived in. Hawk was 46, in a lot of countries 46 is not a young age to die. Second, the family medical history and whether the wrestler outlived their expected lifespan, if Hawk's grand-dad dies aged 40, and Hawk's dad died aged 40, then living to 46 is not premature. As you cannot say exactly when a wrestler would have lived to then you cannot accurately say the deaths were premature. If Owen Hart had not died ten years ago would he have died from a heart attack a year later? You don't know and so the category parameters are too vague. Drug related deaths (the Von Erichs), suicides (Benoit, the Von Erichs) or early deaths (before the age of 40) would need, and do have, separate categories. This category is subjective, therefore cannot stay. Darrenhusted (talk) 09:35, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I respect your opinion I do however not agree with it. Perhaps there is no better way to put these men into a category together but if there isn't then I think that it's best that this category stay. Best regards,--194x144x90x118 (talk) 09:48, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If there isn't a better way to put them together then the only course of action is to delete the category, not keep it and hope that some criteria arrive in the future. Darrenhusted (talk) 12:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The template you are placing on your userpage is not a toy; it is a tool to be used for a specific purpose. If you are indeed operating multiple accounts, please list them here and explain why. If you are not operating multiple accounts, please do not use the {puppetmaster} template on your user page. Thank you. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC) This is harassment, I've had enough of your bs, what exactly are you doing on my userpage? Have you not bothered me enough already with unjustified blocks and such? Please leave me alone and also read the disclaimer aye, comments of this sort are not allowed on my talkpage.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 16:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again: You were not blocked four times in 2008. Please don't use Wikipedia templates as toys, and don't place inaccurate templates anywhere. Thank you. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who says that I am obliged to reveal the identities of my alleged sock puppets or to explain my reasons for using them? Where is the wikipedia policy for that? Not a normal request when you consider the numerous admitted sock puppets and sock puppeteers operating out there.Now please stop the harassment.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 16:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to reveal the identities of your sockpuppets, but if you continue telling me that they exist, I will

assume that you are being truthful, and act accordingly. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Alleged sockpuppets.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 21:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an appropriate edit. User:Scjessey is allowed to remove things from his talk page if he chooses; it is considered an acknowledgement that he has read the message. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:05, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a disclaimer at the top of my talkpage which states that you are NOT! to leave messages like this here, please respect the written guidelines for this talkpage. Thank you, --194x144x90x118 (talk) 11:47, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The 'disclaimer' is a funny joke, but that's all it is; your talk page is for other users to communicate with you. You should be warned that continuing to insist that no one is allowed to post on your talk page is likely to be perceived as disruptive. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And disrupting other people's talk pages again could result in blocks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:36, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have no business talking smack on my talkpage claiming that I should be blocked for this or that, you are the two most incompetent and insane admins that I know of on this site, Fisherqueen the lady that somehow came to the crazy conclusion that I was that guy Markacohen and Permanently blocked me even though I took a position completely opposite to his, VERY LOGICAL. And our good friend Sarekofvulcan who Ignored Scjesseys personal attacks on the dreamhost talkpage for AGES!!!! just LOOK at the damn thing it's full of various personal attacks made by him against a number of users BUT!!!!, BUT!!!!!! when I! Dared to complain about those personal attacks well then of course those were valid grounds for blocking me.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 16:22, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are, obviously, not permanently blocked right now, by me or by anyone else. If you were wise, you would remove the 'disclaimer' from your talk page, because it is disruptive and nonsensical. You do, of course, have the right to choose to leave it there, which is why another user restored it for you already. "Incompetent and insane' is an example of a personal attack. Personal attacks and disruptive editing are two of the most common reasons for blocks. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's pointless. If anyone wants to warn you they probably won't even read it. If I or any other Administrator block you, we will almost certainly leave a message.

talk) 16:44, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I said he had a right to leave it there... he does not, of course, have a right to expect anyone to actually follow it. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:45, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't guess there's a specific policy about that disclaimer, however, it pretty much negates the concept of good faith. Furthermore 194x, you need to realize that you don't own your talk page, and anyone can post here to contact you. Whatever is posted here, whether warnings or block notices, it will be treated as if you read them whether you actually did or not. No one is an island on wikipedia and if someone needs to talk to you about wiki-related matters, they'll rightfully bring it here. Dayewalker (talk) 17:08, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorta the guy that has a lot to do but doesn't really get it all done in other words a somewhat busy guy so while I would have liked and actually will at a later time respond more clearly to these comments and remarks I want to write a reply that I would really have liked to see among the replies that came:

I just viewed the talk page of the dreamhost article and I can see that 194x makes some valid points regarding alleged strange behavior of the admin Sarekofvulcan, like 194x says that talk page is rather clouted with personal attack from the user he mentions and I for one find it strange that the admin finally chose to block both 194x and Scjessey at the same time as if they were somehow equally guilty especially seeing as 194x had mainly been reacting to Scjesseys personal attacks and nothing had previously been done about them whatsoever.

I also took a look at the block by Fisherqueeen that 194x mentions and I have to say that the only things that I can think of that could possibly have led Fisherqueen to come to that conclusion are A. the fact that 194x stated an opinion, something not strictly prohibited by wikipedias rules and B. Wishful thinking. Also these "if you were wise" and "right to expect" remarks it's hardly appropriate that a wikipedia admin make such remarks so perhaps it would be best if Fisherqueen left matters relating to this user for someone else to deal with in the future.

Sincerely, Someone else --194x144x90x118 (talk) 00:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have called me 'incompetent and insane,' which any reasonable person would call a

personal attack. You have done that for a block which I undid and apologized for nearly three weeks ago. I blocked you three weeks ago because I genuinely believed you to be a sock, and when I realized that I was wrong, I undid the block and apologized to you. You have no such good reason for having insulted me, but I invite you to apologize to me in one of your next three edits. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Incompetent, I question your competence to serve as an administrator on this site. Insane, I could have used some other word sure but insane isn't such a grave word and if you want to misinterpret it fine but if you are trying to lure me into saying other things about you which would perhaps be more offensive but also more accurate then I am truly am sorry for I just don't feel like it. If you really want to claim some moral high ground then please do as I ask and stay away from me completely, there are plenty of admins here on wikipedia, there is no reason for you to have anything to do with me, wikipedia will survive without you doing anything regarding matters related to me. Please let me know if you accept this request.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 01:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I was the one rv. his/her "disclaimer", not because I like it or find it amusing but strictly because of talk page guidelines  ;) but besides that, I agree 100% with your comments. Unless s/he provides an apology for the personal attacks above soon I would suggest to get another admin involved regarding some advise or even a block as some could/would see any further admin action, (not talking about your comments here of course), as "bias and involved". Some close eye should be kept on this editor at least for now especially after his/her latest comment.--

talk) 01:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

That was not quite the apology I was looking for. Rather than becoming further involved, as you've asked me not to do anything regarding you, I've requested that other administrators review your contribution history and ongoing

incivility at the Administrators' incident board. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Beautiful this will give me the opportunity to discuss your choice of words and actions with a larger audience.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 01:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I may have said Beautiful regarding that ANI report before but to be honest I don't really like that it was filed or the fact that I have to deal with these two immature admins but what can I do? Options I have considered have been A. Voluntary permblock, that would be a sure way of ending this headache of mine. B. Filing an ANI report about these two admins but that's alot of work really, my english isn't the best and I don't know too much about making all these links and all that and besides I don't really have alot of time. C. Just moving on, at this rate I am sure these adminis will come up with some excuse for blocking me for a long time and D. Well I acctually was gonna make some more noise over there at ANI and write a reply that surely would have gotten those two reprimanded for their actions but now that it's been archived I guess that's not possible.

Another thing that could end this matter and allow everyone to just continue with their wiki editing would be if Sarekofvulcan could possibly apologize for his immature behavior and promise to try and do better in the future and if Fisherqueen were to promise me that she'd just simply ignore me all together, there are plenty of other admins on this site, she has no need to bother me none. Would accepting this request really damage the wikipedia project in any way?

I don't know really we'll see what happens, I'm not really a confrontational type of guy and I don't feel like getting blocked by you guys in some weeks time for any bs reasons so please just accept my request and lets leave this in the past.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 19:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that you feel unable to open an ANI thread against myself and Sarek of Vulcan yourself, and I'd like to show that I mean well by you, so I've opened the thread on your behalf, linking to your comments here and clearly saying that I'm open to correction regarding my behavior regarding you. I hope this is helpful; I don't want you to think that your concerns have not been fairly addressed. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One thing is opening the thread, another is filling it with all that text and links and information and all that, well maybe I can get it done, we'll see.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 20:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is standing in your way of accepting my request? What would be so hard about it?--194x144x90x118 (talk) 21:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was in meetings all night, not at my computer. It seems to have concluded now on its own. At your request, I am removing your talk page from my watchlist; I'll only see what you do if it comes to my attention in the course of my normal activities at Wikipedia. If you continue relating to other users using

personal attacks, other, less kind administrators will be the ones who deal with it. Of course, that doesn't mean that I won't address any problems if I do happen to encounter you breaking rules in the future. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 10:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks for your message. I appreciate your concerns, but I believe there's a world of difference between biting a newcomer and blocking a new(ish) editor who is here to push a POV. The editor knew they were editing against policy ([2]) and had been warned about their edits (including a final warning). I have enormous patience for new editors who are keen to contribute to our encyclopedia and just need a little friendly guidance along the way, but very little for those who are here for the wrong reasons. As a community I believe we often grant far too much leniency to disruptive editors, to the overall detriment of both the spirit of the community and the efforts of our most valuable commodity - our article builders. They really don't need to be wasting their time chasing down disruptive nonsense like this or feeling they need to jump through all the hoops of

I think that's the best way to look at the situation. There seems to be support for the block, but I respect your generous stance and we do have a few excellent editors who've returned from justified (at the time) indefblocks and become productive members of our community, so there is perhaps a glimmer of hope. If they respond, {{2nd chance}} might be useful. Regards, EyeSerene^talk 09:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you Googled him? Have you found his website? He's been on the Internet a long time, and I haven't seen a change in him.

talk) 18:13, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I do apologise, I'm often not very active here at the weekend (and had to attend a former colleague's funeral on Friday) so I've only just seen your note. It looks like the matter has been archived on ANI; I haven't trawled through the archives for it, but I hope it has been satisfactorily resolved. If I can be of help with anything else please feel free to drop me a note, and again I apologise for missing your post. All the best, EyeSerene^talk 20:23, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Man I was like thinking, "hmmm maybe it's a good idea to start taking one of my sons to chess lessons and such" but WOW I'm like engaged in this edit dispute with these total fucking morons over on the Bobby Fischer article and those fucking losers well they're obviously chess people and well how did they become this way? Perhaps Chess is dangerous and damaging.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 20:16, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also I'd like to comment that I don't know this wikipedia stuff is addictive and time consuming and such and it's a real shame that one has to deal with such ignorant people while editing this online dictionary.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 20:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you'd like to make that comment, but one more of them, and you'll be blocked for being unable to remain

WP:CIVIL. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Having fun viewing my talkpage aye?--194x144x90x118 (talk) 15:20, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's quite entertaining. Seriously, though, admins often end up with user pages on their watch lists. Personally, I've been wondering if there's some way I can help at Bobby Fischer but I haven't seen a way - and I have to agree with Sarek that your outburst above just isn't the right way to react. We all have to rise above that stuff, difficult as it may be. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I know and there is some regret on my part but these chess people that I am dealing with they're not easy to deal with so to say and there defiantly seems to be a reason to question good faith on their part taking everything into account.

It is obvious now that the consensus is for that edit not to be included in the article yet they keep reverting it, that's edit warring and disruptive behavior, if you could kindly explain that to them then that would be very nice of you.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 17:47, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have a curious way of determining an "obvious ... consensus". The count on your RfC is at best (from your perspective) three in favor of the edit in question (Philcha, Brittle heaven, and me) and three against (SunCreator, Elmmapleoakpine, and you). 3-3, by any reasonable definition, is not a consensus at all, let alone an "obvious" one. Perhaps since the three of us opposed to your position are by your account "total fucking morons" you feel that our views shouldn't count. Note also that you are the only one at this point reverting to your version of the article; in a little over 24 hours you have four times made the identical revert of Philcha, Brittle heaven, and me. It mystifies me how you can conclude that our actions are not in good faith, while yours are. Krakatoa (talk) 18:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, now Academic38 has voiced support for the edit, which makes it 4-3 against your position. But I suppose you would toss him (like anyone else who disagrees with you) into the "total fucking moron" camp. Krakatoa (talk) 18:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks 194x144x90x118: the personal attacks need to stop. Please read my message in the thread you posted to ANI. Thank you for understanding that this is an environment where we are going to require you to engage in a dignified and respectful manner, because you will be quickly shown the door if you do not refrain from calling your fellow editors "fucking morons", or anything to that effect.

If you have any questions, please do let me know, and if you find that you are being attacked at any point, please be assured that you can approach me, or any of hundreds of other admins, and we will take precisely the same stance regarding attacks directed your way. Good day. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of DreamHost

An article that you have been involved in editing, DreamHost, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DreamHost_(2nd_nomination). Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Judas278 (talk) 17:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you editing Anatoly Karpov without signing on?

Why are you editing the lede to Anatoly Karpov and the corresponding talk page without signing on? P.S. You're wasting your time in trying to lecture me. Quale (talk) 05:01, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration request filed

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#DreamHost

and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requesting Arbitration
  ;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide
  .

Thanks,--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:39, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Beautiful man, you're a goner.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 09:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you can come up with evidence that I'd prefer didn't make it into the case. I just ask that you remember this is a case about the DreamHost article, rather than generally about my actions as an admin; therefore, bringing in the IECOLL dispute would not be appropriate.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you could show me some link that states that one is supposed to respect the intention that the arbitration was filed for then I'd have to take your request under consideration if not then I am afraid that it is very difficult to consider it seeing as this request for arbitration is directed against me specifically and a criticism of my actions/request that actions be taken against me.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 16:37, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also what's IECOLL?--194x144x90x118 (talk) 16:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was mistaken. Sorry. "Arbitration is not a court case - All actions and general conduct (not just the direct issue) may be taken into account; arbitration is not a legal process with fixed approaches to problems. A person's general manner is probably evidence of their likely behavior going forward, old incidents may not be actionable but can sometimes show a persistent history of problems, and insightful impressions by reasonable people may be valuable, even if just "impressions"."--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AN/I. Again, sorry for my confusion.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Suggestion

The conflict surrounding your account is helping nobody. May I suggest that you archive your talk page and start with a clean slate. Go about your editing, but do avoid reigniting past conflicts. On the other side, editors who were in conflict with you would hopefully let you be. I am sorry that your start here was rough, but Wikipedia is supposed to be a friendly place. Jehochman ^Talk 04:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion noted but then all that would remain would be my block log and I don't know that could give people a false impression regarding my participation here on wikipedia and I've never really deleted any material from this page and I don't somehow feel that doing so while it's of such a small size would be the correct thing to do. Regarding a friendly start well I stumbled into this Dreamhost article by accident where dreamhost customers and a would be employee were residing and well no soft starts can come from starting by editing that article.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 12:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is acceptable to remove content from your own talk page. Best practice is to set up an archive bot that automatically moves conversations older than X days to a separate archive page. The material is available in the page history and visible on the archive page in case you need to refer to it. If you'd like help setting that up, let me know.

On my talk page you asked about when to respond to arbitration. No response is required, but if you want to have a say on whether there should or should not be a case, then you can post a statement within the next few days. At this point it is best not to cast blame. Rather, identify the issues in dispute and the necessary parties. Once the case opens there will be an evidence page where participants can post evidence, and there will be a workshop page where the participants can propose principals, findings of fact and remedies. As a relatively new user I'd expect that even if you did something not-quite-right, the most that would happen is you'd receive a warning (unless there's something more that I don't know about). Jehochman ^Talk 13:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stop making attacks

194x, I have removed your comment in regards to SarekOfVulcan at Requests for Arbitration as a blatant ad hominem attack. While you are welcome to your opinions about Sarek, outright insults are

a/c) 16:52, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

And what about discussing issues with the user before they are posted to ANI, that's of course not something whihc one is supposed to do and there is no need to comment on that such procedure was not followed?--194x144x90x118 (talk) 17:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also calling the section you removed trolling is not at all appropriate, it wasn't attacks either per The truth can't be an attack and removing it wasn't appropriate. And if trolling is viewed so negatively here on Wikipedia then how come you have not spoken to Sarek regarding his "Rouge" remark and link, and why does that article exist? Either trolling is allowed or it isn't and the very existence of that article shows that trolling is indeed allowed. The sort of nasty trolling that is displayed in that article is obvious trolling while what I wrote were really just a lose collection of remarks written.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 17:16, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note the categories

WP:ROUGE is in... J.delanoy^gabs_adds 17:21, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

1. Considering the attack you made against Sarek, I'm not surprised he didn't talk to you first. If someone said I was an "incompetent admin who should be desysopped", I probably wouldn't waste my time trying to reason things out either.
2. The section I removed was trolling. If you're "glad to see them go", then as I said, that's your opinion and you're welcome to it. However, posting it here in a storm of invective clearly intended to provoke is not allowed.
3. Sarek's remark was not over the line, and as J.delanoy pointed out, mostly humor; he was merely saying he knows policy and wouldn't go blocking you. You should be pleased to hear that, I would think.
   a/c) 17:27, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
   ]

I made no attack against Sarek I only stated a valid opinion that I specificly stated that I intended to show had its merits, it can't be a personal attack per "WP:Thetruh. The link that Sarek pointed to may be labeled humor but any reasonable individual would see it for what it is or namely Nasty trolling. "I'm not surprised he didn't talk to you first.": So in other words when it comes to him or other Wikipedia administrators then they can just pick any reason from a seemingly endless list of reason to Not follow procedure but when it comes to me then I am of course supposed to follow all policies rules and guidelines to the letter without exception. That's what you call a double standard, such standards are almost without exception not fair and applying them is seldom productive.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 18:30, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah btw man. You're in BIG! trouble, Sarek has in the past spoken of it as justifiable to block me for deleting text sounding even harsher then the one I wrote, he ended up simply protecting the talkpage instead forcing me to register a username but since that's not possible in your case I'm sure he'll use the banhammer on you. Now who knows, perhaps you disagree with such action being taken but if that is the case then wouldn't that support the opinion I stated earlier regarding Sareks access to the admin tools?--194x144x90x118 (talk) 18:45, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, (or madam) Hersfold is acting in his capacity as an arbitration clerk: he's attempting to maintain a basic civil decorum, and you are wasting your time and his by arguing the point. If it wasn't for the clerk's responsiblity for maintaining civil tone, I'd advise him to ignore you and your comment outright, because I have it on good authority that the Committee couldn't care less about a random user asserting someone is incompetent and they should be desysopped. I have it on good authority they take well to calm, and reasoned arguments with evidence done in a civil manner. It is entirely possible, even easy, for you to rephrase your opinion with specific and calm reasoning that will actually be read and valued, or you continue with this argumentative nonsense.--Tznkai (talk) 18:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

194, surely you can make your claims through the presentation of evidence and description of actual behavior. There is no need to give your criticism in the form of an attack. If your goal is for the situation to receive scrutiny and a fair resolution found then that is fine, but if you are out to demand blood then that is not really acceptable.

Chillum 19:05, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Who said I was out to demand blood? I didn't give any criticism in the form of an attack. What I want to see happen is for Sarek to get demoted cause I believe that would likely be positive for wikipedia considering his past conduct.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 19:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, you need to show evidence of this past conduct that you feel is so terribly devastating to the project as a whole. Simply stating that, without anything to back it up, is harassment. As I believe has been said on this page, in some form or another, at least three times now. If it has to be stated a fourth, you will need to present this evidence in the form of an unblock request.

a/c) 00:00, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

DreamHost talk page archive period

Hiya. What's up with the archive period debate at DreamHost? Do you want the period extended for transparency purposes? Anyone wanting to review the history can always view the archive, it doesn't disappear, and 28 days seems reasonable for hashing out any topic discussion. An extension to 90 days is way to long, I would think. Thoughts?JavierMC 21:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, 90 days seems like the perfect archive rate to me, 45 days is a bit too short, perhaps we could come to some sort of a compromise 65 days or something like that?--194x144x90x118 (talk) 23:31, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a compromise.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 00:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where did Fischer seek assylum?

In the spirit of providing information to those that it might benefit or those who seek it I'd like to inform the readers of this talkpage that Robert James Fischer World Chess Champion from 1972 until 2008 sought and was granted assylum in Iceland from US an Japanese persecution NOT! in Norge.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 23:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk, not revert

Please discuss disagreements and objections you may have about

Wikipedia:Don't revert due to "no consensus" -- Scjessey (talk) 01:30, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Listen man. I've had enough of your disruptive edits and time consuming pointless bs, if this continues then I'll take these matters elsewhere and that might have consequences for you here on wikipedia. Also it irritates me to see you of all people write here on my talkpage and especially with something as disingenuous as this stuff. Please do not edit my talkpage again.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 03:22, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please, please, please "take these matters elsewhere". I would absolutely delighted if you would do that. Also, it is perfectly acceptable for me to leave the above message on your talk page, because meta discussions about user conduct are inappropriate on article talk pages. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Editing advice

Hi 194x144x90x118, in regarding to your conduct on the

edit war, or a stale talk page debate, and for helping the debate move to better approaches by discussing their differences constructively. PhilKnight (talk) 12:40, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Rejected per this diff .--194x144x90x118 (talk) 23:00, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RFC/USER discussion concerning you (194x144x90x118)

Hello,

this list, and the actual discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/194x144x90x118, where you may want to participate. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:03, 20 July 2009 (UTC) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:03, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Block me till I love you

The Wikipedia administrator that performs that one last indefinite block on me gets a special prize, namely a bunny, how's that? Surely a bunny will make any man happy, couldn't ask for a better prize. But also consider this, only one more block is going to be performed on this account and some admin is going to make it sooner or later, do you Really want to miss your chance to block me? This is the last opportunity that you have to finally block the vermin that has been bothering you, do not let it slip from your fingers, grab it with both hands and HIT!!! that block button, you'll feel simply great after wards.

(It should also be noted that other Wikipedia users will fear and respect you after your exhibition of power) (It also needs to be noted that I won't be supplying a bunny to the admin that makes that final blow but he/she can treat her/himself to one as a prize no doubt without much of a hassle)

So long everybody.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 23:13, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your edit at my talk page. Why not just work collaboratively with others? Wikipedia isn't about fighting and winning; it's about cooperating. -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah you're a little bit right there, I am sorry I was intoxicated when I wrote that so I'll go ahead and write up a proper request regarding the issue I wanted to discuss with you.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 19:22, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes. Posting under the influence can lead to some confusion. It takes a steady hand, but how to steady that hand is not always clear. ;) I'll reply in substance(!) at my talk page. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:37, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I replied to your last post at my talk page. I'm sorry it took so long; I've been busy with travel and studying, and I just noticed the thread again after I was informed of the ArbCom case. Please seriously consider my advice, if you want to keep your editing privileges. This is not a threat; it's a sincere plea that you take your head out of the noose, and step away from the gallows. I'd rather see you editing freely than not.

ArbCom might come down hard on you. The best way I know out of that is an actual perspective shift. Are you prepared for one of those?

If you want to win, you'll lose. If you stop wanting to win, you'll win. Seriously. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

July 2009

inappropriate discussions you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Saddhiyama (talk) 08:05, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

August 2009

three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Scjessey (talk) 00:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

stuff it.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 00:20, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, 194. It makes me cringe when you make statement like that. Could you possibly address the merits of the warning if you think it is improper, or else confirm that you'll avoid edit warring? Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 01:39, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well it also made me cringe when you drove off user Judas278 and then when you either didn't realize your error or simply decided not to apologize for it. I am not edit warring and it's inappropriate that user Scjessey warn anyone regarding anything really, take a look at this diff and tell me if you think that it's really appropriate that he continue to edit the article? Are Wikipedia admins not expected to act in any manner against such tedious editors that so clearly violate NPOV?--194x144x90x118 (talk) 23:10, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy 194x90x118, I've noticing your disruptive behaviour lately. Recommend you change your ways 'or' you'll end up getting blocked. GoodDay (talk) 15:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive? Take a look at this diff(Not a complete list)That guy acts like some sort of a barbarian here on wikipedia, clearly violating NPOV in an extreme manner and I'm just supposed to swallow it if it's alright? He gets the dreamhost customers "wikistalker" Daywalker and Sarekofvulcan who seems to disagree with him according to the talkpage but still voices his support for the edits just cause I have a problem with them and I am just supposed to swallow this and act all civil and such?--194x144x90x118 (talk) 23:10, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RFAR

A request for arbitration to which you are an involved party has been filed at

talk) 05:22, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

If you are planning to respond to the request for arbitration, please do so soon. If you do not plan to respond, please let us know. Thank you, Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:06, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RFAR opened

A request for arbitration to which you are an involved party has been opened at

talk) 16:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Re: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/194x144x90x118

Hey, saw your post on Seddon's talk page. For allowing evidence to be presented, I can give as much time as needed, provided that it's not too outlandish enough. how long do you think you would need to compile the necessary evidence, in your opinion? Wizardman 23:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you could give me two weeks then that would simply be just great, I realize that it's not exactly a short period of time but it isn't an eternity either and if this request can be granted it can also be granted on the note that if it doesn't come within two weeks from today then it's never going to come. Thanks again, --194x144x90x118 (talk) 01:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I'll likely post a proposed decision either August 31 or September 1 then. I'm going to hold you to that limit though, so hopefully you can get it in. Wizardman 02:13, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fischer

Hello,

I think the fact that he lived in the house of his spokesman and friend, whose wife later cared for him, better fits in the section on his Iceland years than in the section on his death, since it concerns the former and not the latter. I also find the friendship with Skúlason remarkable, especially since it is sometimes said that he didn't have friends in his final years. Skúlason reports a number of facts about Fischer from their conversations in the cited reference, and I think some people might find this last aspect of Fischer's life interesting. I don't see how removing the sentences would help our readers. Cheers, AxelBoldt (talk) 02:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

I see you raised the block of Domer on the page of the admin who blocked, I have raised the matter on ANI here. BigDunc 21:23, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finding it

There's this little request for arbitration ongoing regarding alleged and admitted misconduct by me and it's possible that if I don't waste even more of my time doing something which I do not enjoy that I'll recieve some sort of sanctions such as editing restrictions or blocks but I am sorta having a hard time finding the drive to pursue this matter to its end but I do sorta feel like commenting a little bit further on the situation, the parties involved and the complaints.

Lets start with the unfortunate part an edit to the Bobby Fischer article was made by wikipediauser Krakatoa which I felt and still feel doesn't belong in the encyclopedia for a variety of reasons. After a few reverts with ignored edit summary offers to discuss matters and one annoying reinstatement with a wrong and disrespectful "Anonymous IP" summary accusation I got a little bit angry, I hadn't participated very seriously in the project until recently before this where I had been involved in all sorts of nastiness over at Dreamhost article and had enlarged my "Wikiarsenal" and gotten into a sort of "Wikibattle" state of mind with these newly acquired things at my hand I figured undoing the edit would be a piece of cake all it would take would making the wikiexperience less enjoyable for the other editor who obviously didn't make positive contributions to the article and he'd back away. I couldn't have been more mistaken the editor in question is one of the largest if not the largest contributor to that article and my acts probably turned a simple lame edit into a larger thing involving pride that will be a hundred times harder to eventually resolve than it would have been originally had I only gone about things the right way.

Now lets discuss a more amusing part really, this wikipedia administrator of all people Sjakalle from Noryeah this fellow he gets all riled up due to those Fischer edits and goes on a sort of a rampage which I have discussed here (if you want evidence then just take a look at the pages mentioned and the users edit history it's a piece of cake but don't be fucking with me with remarks like "provide diffs for your serious accusations), the attention which this user is showing me and the determination he has in striking back at me are fascinating and it's sorta amusing that a wikipedia administrator would just break the rules as if they simply did not exist and get away with it so easily without any criticism at all from other editors and administrators, this leads me to believe that wikipedia is suffering from Serious administration issues that need to be dealt with.

Then there is Dayewalker a user that obviously has serious mental issues that while amusing are most probably unfortunate for other reasons but that user well he didn't like that I commented on the article regarding the webhosting company that he uses so he decided straight away to try and deal with the matter so he took me to ANI for making those innocent comments of mine and then I subsequently got blocked by dreamhost custmore Sarekofvulcan, much simpler measures than simply leaving my comments in peace but the story doesn't end there, this guy Dayewalker he didn't like that I wasn't on his "Dreamhost bandwagon" so he decided to become a negative part of my Wikipedia experience reverting me where ever I went the Leifur Eiríksson article, the European Union, commenting on Bobby Fischer related matters, to Thatchers talkpage and probably elsewhere.

Then ofcourse we have Scjessey I could spend alot of powder discussing his behavior but it's all too obvious if anyone familiar with these matters doesn't understand his behavior then they never will and if anyone is unfamiliar with the matter then they can just take a look at the dreamhost talkpage archives, Endless complaints for over 20 months regarding this editor. And then there is also the editing restrictions to the Obama articles that this user is currently subject to, prior and present conduct perhaps have their similarities?

And then we have Sarekofvulcan the administrator that made the call, there were two users ducking it out, one had stepped up to the plate due to the others conduct and this is when Sarek decided that the match needed a referee Sareks first decisions was that A comited a far grave crime in removing B's personal attacks and complaining about them than B made in acctually making those personal attacks the solution was simple and had no effect on Sareks fellow dreamhostcustmore Scjesey but eliminated the other party from the discussion, Sarek semi-protected the article removing the IP editor from it completely without having to get his hands dirty with a block. ROUND TWO user A and user B exchanged blows on the article, Sarek realized that this was a good time to further show of his power to user A and blocked both users regardless of the action reaction nature of the matter, Sarek followed this up with a serious of unrefined and offensive remarks made to or regarding user A and inappropriately interacting with user A on his talkpage keeping that banhammer aloft without throwing it down all in the name of his precious webhosting serivce Dreamhost, later Sarek opened up an RFC regarding user A complaining about edits made by user A that if judged from article talkpage content Sarek agreed with.

And then ofcourse we have the wise Jehocman that accused 194 of being a sockpuppet and reccomended running checkuser. Jehocman also respectably decided to overstep the authority of the Arbitration committee during the Dreamhost request for arbitration taking matters into his own hands and making an offer to a Judas278 of permanent blocks and other such pleasantries for stalking user Scjessey something which was simply ridiculous to claim, this lead to user Judas278 retiring from the project. Admin Jehocman never responded to my comments requesting that he apologize to Judas278 for his inappropriate harmful behavior.

Finding it?

Seeing as I discussed this matter here and given my opinion on it perhaps I should dig up them diffs and refine my work some more and then present it to the arbitration committee if I don't I'll never know how things would have gone if I had.

Swine flu

Ouch. Hope you get over it soon! --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:10, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

:) No you don't.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 21:18, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I did up to about 2 minutes ago. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:20, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: actions

To answer part of your question, I didn't see anything in your evidence after looking over the talk page that would fall under your concerns. You're welcoe to add diffs to your evidence, though seeing as how you said "...but don't be fucking with me with remarks like "provide diffs for your serious accusations)" in your statement, it makes it far harder to find anything that'd be sanctionable. Also, note that I was the drafter on the Scjessey-Obama issue too, so obviously if i had found an issue on the others I would've looked closely at it. Wizardman 00:01, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sarek

I have had similar dealings with Sarek and couldn't agree with you more--Johnny Spasm (talk) 17:00, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My experience with Sarek was over

Everlast (musician)

. Eminem fans have a tendency to reedit that site and add unnecessary information to the section about their feud. In dealing with an unreasonable Eminem fan who absolutely REFUSED to accept the fact that the information he added was not beneficial to the article, I ended up in something of an edit war. As a result, I ended up getting blocked by Sarek

A halfway reasonable person would have seen that I was the one trying to do the right thing, but I didn't find Sarek all that reasonable. Sad to say about some one with a name like "Sarek of Vulcan."

I took all the following off my talk page. I don't find it necessary to archive old conversations. Anyway, this is part of the exchange. I'm pretty sure there is more on Everlast's page, and possibly on Sarek's and the other user's talk pages. Good luck

Please note that the above was gracefully written by user Johnny Spasm.

I removed some further text that he put on my talkpage since it wasn't really stuff that was written on my talkpage and it was all signed so it didn't really belong here but I did appreciate his efforts.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 04:16, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/194x144x90x118/Evidence

Please do not use case talk pages to make statements to attack other participants in the case. Personal attacks will not be tolerated. If you feel the other users in the case have shown conduct that is not allowed on wikipedia then I suggest you place the appropriate evidence backing up a statement in your section on the evidence page for evaluation by the arbitrators.

Seddσn ^talk|^WikimediaUK 23:26, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question at arbitration case

Hi there. I've asked you a question at the arbitration case. The question is here. If you have time to look at it and answer it, that would be great. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 02:02, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've now posted some new sections at the proposed decision in the case. Given the late posting of this, I'm notifying you on your talk page so you can respond at the talk page if you wish to do so. Carcharoth (talk) 15:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/194x144x90x118

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above.

194x144x90x118 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned for a period of one year. All editors of the DreamHost article are reminded to abide by Wikipedia's policies of neutral point of view, using reliable and verifiable sources; to engage in civil discussion on the talk page to resolve editorial disputes; and to use the relevant noticeboards and dispute resolution processes to seek external opinions on coverage of matters where the current editors may lack objectivity.

194x144x90x118's account has been blocked for a period of one year pursuant to this case.

For the Arbitration Committee

Seddσn ^talk|^WikimediaUK 03:00, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

September 2009

I feel that this is a victory of sorts and am acctually rather pleased with how these matters ended, after I log out now in a couple of miniutes I feel very strongly compelled to never log back in or to return to editing Wikipedia ever again, the thing about Wikipedia is that it is terribly run and there is no glory in editing it and there most probably never will be. I am off to bigger and better things now but before I leave I want to extend my gratitute to all the people that I have interacted with here on Wikipedia and thank them for all the good times that we've had together. So long everybody, --194x144x90x118 (talk) 04:16, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I meant what I said here. I firmly believe that you can be a productive Wikipedian if you put your mind to it, and I hope that you will consider appealing your ban in a few months and then contacting GTBacchus to discuss mentoring. I apologize for any comments that I have made toward you that have been uncivil and unreasonable, and I wish you all the best in the future. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ban expired

You ban has expired. Kindzmarauli (talk) 02:16, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]