User talk:Gene Poole/archive 4

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

btw vandalism saw you had omment abut nu disuccsen edit thing so had this idea abut the artickl since did comment somboduy else somwher else on wikipeida .

carbian new nation discussen

hi look like you edit new utopia artickel in discussen at least but why if it is fraud dont you /yours make in info on what happen to the citizens and lawsuites agisnt new utopia that is rumerd to be made ? and if sombody raise that worrys in the discussen pages abut new utopia why do quastibn linke that delted? i mean if its a scam should not sombody guive information abut what who wher abut lawsiutes or things happen in if he get sued by a citizen in virgin island, germany or hounduras ? or (as it look like ) some of the govonouers jump the ship and keep ther citizens infomation/network/adressbok informtaion as a eh way to make a new project in buy island /gated comunity/re? or for fraud ?(if they hade 3200 citizens its a lot of peronal infoamtion that can be abused .. just look on what have to be written in the passport papers...) just a think from sombody that live outside the texas/fbi/sec area

think info that can be abused .. just look on what have to be written in the passport papers... or setup a malinglist/website abut the whole thing ? more dynamic disucssen thwn wiki stuff becuse wikipeida i think is suposed to be epoilykidca not a dynamic weblog rant abut the monthly living of of new country projects ?--61.7.165.135 10:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

How exactly was what I said vandalism in the drop bears article? Mattabat 11:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Your edits here constitute vandalism. Drop bears are not allegedly fictional. They are completely fictional. The rest of what you added is pure fiction. Don't do it again. If you want to add content to WP, ensure you can cite appropriate 3rd party references. --Gene_poole 12:02, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

If drop bears are fictional, why didn't provide a third party reference? When and where were they made up, for instance? - The rest of what I added was not pure fiction, it was not cited, there's a difference. I might point out there entire article is not referenced. You are merely voicing your opinion by labelling what I added as vandalism and deleting indiscriminately. I can provide references to aggressive behaviour in koalas towards people when disturbed and handled, however I am discouraged when you are prepared to label others who add as vandals offhandedly and delete their additions. Merely to say something is allegedly fictional is not to say they are real; I mean by saying that although drop bears have been said to be fictional, proof of their non-existence has not been provided. Mattabat 04:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, just wanted to let you know that Johnski is testing again. Although all he has done was a spelling correction, it won't be long before he's back at it. Please keep an eye out on the DOM page. Thanks... Davidpdx 13:12, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Just to let you know to be on the lookout. Johnski is at it again, he left a message on my talk page as well as on the DoM talk page. Both have been reverted, but if you go into the history you can see them. Don't report him just yet though. Let's wait and see what he's up to. Davidpdx 12:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

It looks like it needs an admin to properly restore it. I have put a flag up for that but it may take a little while. Georgewilliamherbert 08:43, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Because you're a member of the Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians, I'm notifying you that the inclusionist proposa

Hi there GP, just wanted to point out the additions I made to the DoM article. Let me know what you think? Can you guess what I'm up to? Davidpdx 11:59, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Got you archived all the way up to my notice that it's time to archive. The links are at the top of this page, the edit history for whatever is in the archives is still with this page. Cheers! bd2412 T 01:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Gene. My name is Claudio de Castro. Just saw your post on my discussion page (claudre). Please add me to your MSN: [email protected] . Let us defend micronationalism against its enemies in the wiki. Yours, Claudre 00:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Gene Poole, I hope you know that the Kingdom of Talossa is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more legitamite than your Empire of Atlantium. Many more newspapers state Talossa than Atlantium. Also, try to stop calling almost every micronation (except for Atlantium, of course) a fictional nation. There's a difference between a fictional nation and a political simulation. Anyway, thanks for supporting me on that page! Kitia 14:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Some time ago, you uploaded an image Image:Meroe pyramids 01 x600.JPG, indicating that you had permission from the author to release it under the "Creative Commons Attribution NoDerivs 1.0" license. Unfortunately, licenses that bar derivative works are no longer considered free on Wikipedia. Did the permission exactly specify the permitted license, or, did he just say something like "use it as long as you credit me", meaning that a free CC license would also be permisable? If not, would it be possible to seek a more free permission from the original author? BigDT 12:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

(In reply to [1]) Please take a look at {{Attribution}}. Does this sound like the permission you received from the copyright holder? If so, please edit the page and replace the image templates there with {{Attribution}}. If not, do you still have the ability to contact the owner and request a particular license, such as {{Cc-by-sa-2.5}} or {{GFDL}}? Thank you. BigDT 11:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The definition of ambient music that you edited in 2003 is merely crap. Please tell me man, did you study music theory or physics at university to come here and rant about such music genres? And why do you harrass people that try to improve that article or other articles in general? You should be indefinitely blocked.--Avenger 05:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I forgot to suggest you to make your English "less German", it sounds like you actually are from Austria, not Australia.Avenger 05:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

That's rich, coming from a self-declared space cadet who can barely string two coherent words together. --Gene_poole 04:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I have restored the comments that were not made by you. Please help to hold users accountable for their comments by preserving them, unless the comments are destructive, nonsense, or spam. Removing warnings is considered a form of vandalism. Ref:

Your edit summary hereis a major violation of Wiki etiquette. {{

I blocked Mr. Avengers indefinitely. If someone does this to you again, I'd suggest listing it at on

WP:PAIN. --Woohookitty^(meow)

09:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

This is so farcical I can only presume that it is some sort of elaborate jest. - brenneman ^{L} 09:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

No, he's actually a full-blown psych case.

WP:OR on Ambient music resorted to legal threats (which got him banned) and other general hysteria of which this is a typical example. He also posted what might best be described as a psychedelic stream-of-consciousness rant on his talk page in which he accused everyone who opposed him of being in the pay of the House of Windsor, who are apparently the world's most insidious drug cartel. Funniest thing I've read in years. Unfortunately it seems to have been removed from the page history. --Gene_poole

00:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Johnski is at it again. His sock Whatsupdoc has been blanking his user talk page. He then posted a templet to unblock himself, which I reverted. Please make sure he is on your watch list and keep and eye out for him. Thanks.. Davidpdx 09:09, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Johnski has been reverting his talk page again. Here is the 3RR report I filed against him: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR#User:Whatsupdoc_reported_by_User:User:Davidpdx_Davidpdx_09:53.2C_21_August_2006_.28UTC.29.28result:_.29 Davidpdx 10:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing in

03:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule on Conch Republic . Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

The duration of the block is 24 hours. Jonathunder 03:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

{{unblock|Deliberate misrepresentation by the blocking admin of actions addressing vandalism as a content dispute}}

My reversion of persistent vandalism of Conch Republic by Fairhair does not contravene the 3RR. Vandalism may include the deliberate introduction of false or misleading data into an article, which is precisely the nature of Fairhair's reversions. Should his reversions be allowed to stand, much of the article content will be rendered nonsensical. I have outlined why this is so on the article talk page. There has been no response from any other editor. Multiple third party references cited in the article support my position. There are no reference sources supporting Fairhair's position. Finally, as an editor who has been involved in content disputes with me on the same article in the past, Jonathunder should properly have recused himself from involvement in the present instance. Instead he has abused his admin powers by falsely presenting an instance of vandalism as a content dispute, and instituting a block against me. --Gene_poole 06:18, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm looking this over as we speak. - brenneman ^{L} 06:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

This is painful. Clearly if we accept that the "was" edit is vandalism, you're blocked poorly. However, I think that some possibility exists for interpreting this as a content dispute. Focusing for the moment only on your perception of the events, did you report FH's edits between your note on his talk page and him being blocked anywhere? That is to say, if you listed him on AIV or its ilk, you're obviously in the clear.
brenneman ^{L} 06:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I also know how painful being blocked and hanging about waiting to see what's happening is, so I'm trying to be as responsive as possble. If you're going to log off/go away/have a cup of tea please do let me know so that I don't think you're staring at the screen in impotent fury.
brenneman ^{L} 06:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• Ok, I'll take the silence as meaning that you're not "hot" on this issue. I'll take off the "unblock me" note for now, just pop it back on when you're around again. - brenneman ^{L} 08:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Post block talk

Copied from User talk:Aaron Brenneman

Hi and thanks for taking the time to respond to my unblock request yesterday. Unfortunately I'd already logged off by the time you responded. I'd still like the block dealt with on principle; I've been editing here since 2002 and this is the first block I've ever received. The fact that it was applied as a naked revenge attack by an admin who has related disagreements with me is disturbing. --Gene_poole 08:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

(I moved this back here since I like to keep discussions together, so I'm happy for you to respond here and I'll watch the page.) I always like to try dealing with things at the lowest level, so if you'd like some informal mediation on my talk page I'm willing to take the time. I'll be offline in a very few miuntes, but when I return shall I ask Jonathunder to saunter over to my talk page for, well, a talk? - brenneman ^{L} 08:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Fine by me. Thanks. --Gene_poole 08:42, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• I've created an area for discussion at User_talk:Aaron_Brenneman#Opt_in and asked Jonathunder if he's happy to chat. - brenneman ^{L} 02:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I've heard nothing back, so I'll poke him again. - brenneman ^{L} 12:01, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for persisting, but I wouldn't be holding my breath if I were you. --Gene_poole 12:05, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey GP, long time no see. How's my sock puppet?

Guess who's reared his ugly head again? Yep, he's back. I made a notation on the IP's user page in terms of marking it as a sockpuppet of Johnski. I also went back and added some of his old sockpuppets that weren't in that category, just in case he starts to use those. We might as well tighten the noose now and keep him on a short leash, that way when he starts his usual revert war, we'll know what he's up to.

Anyway, please keep an eye on him. I'm still around pretty often, but I've stopped editing for awhile. You can always send me a message through Wikipedia that will goto my email if you need to get my attention. Davidpdx 11:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Just a quick update on the Johnski situation. He has been blanking his talk page again in an attempt to whitewash his bad behavior. If you'd keep an eye out on both things I'd appreciate it. Thanks.. Davidpdx 09:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Is this you, (4th picture in the row of 4 pictures, below the main stories?) [2] -- Chuq 04:37, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes it is. Thanks for letting me know. --Gene_poole 08:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I have reported you to the Wikipedia administrators due to your constant vandalism and reverting of valid and properly sourced corrections to the article Conch Republic. In reverting to previous versions, you are not only changing the first paragraph of the article, but are wiping out valid corrections and additions elsewhere in the article (removing valid category tags, spelling/grammatical corrections, etc.) This is a violation of Wikipedia policy and will not be tolerated. Any more removal of valid corrections will be grounds for account deletion. - Marc Averette 13:29, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'd go that far at this point. (and I don't see it on

WP:AIV, the places where such reports would go). Gene is a valuable contributor. But comments like this one "educating the incurably stupid - and yes, I mean you." really ought not to be made, Gene. At this point if I see another outburst I see a cooling off block for both of you in your futures, because you guys are egging each other on and I suspect you both know better. Mark, I'd dial down the account threats, I'm not sure you're an admin anyway. ++Lar: t/c

16:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I may be a valued contributor, but I also have a finite amount of patience and a low tolerance for people who can't accept that their position is wrong. And by wrong I mean entirely unsupported by anything approaching a reliable third party reference source. --Gene_poole 12:14, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

The Conch (pronounced "conk") Republic was a short-lived micronation in the Florida Keys. Here's some information from their Web page:

Conch Republic (U.S.)

- Marc Averette 13:42, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Marc used a secondary source quoting one paragraph from the Conch Republic website out of context, where it uses the past tense describing the secession. The primary source website uses the present tense, of course. Georgewilliamherbert 19:23, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

No, the first sentence I cited is primary. It then refers to the Conch Republic page (secondary). - Marc Averette 19:52, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

More misquoted nonsense from Marc Averette. Note the quote from the "Honourable Peter Andersen" Secretary General - dated 1998. Strange how they can be quoting him if the Conch Republic doesn't exist. --Gene_poole 08:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

How can I possibly use past tense and say "I lived in Miami last year" when I still live in Miami?

How can you continue posting what appear - for all intents and puposes - to be the "so far off topic we've moved to another dimension" ravings of a lunatic on my talk page - and expect me to take you seriously? --Gene_poole 08:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

How can I possibly say "Key West was a city at the turn of the century" when it still is a city?

Yes, George, you've been involved here on Wikipedia and in the Micronation movement much longer than we peons at Vikesland have. I'll give you that. Second, not that it matters a whole a lot to anyone else beside you, but I can prove my pedigree claims. You deleted them, I've left it as stands, end of story. I'm not sure why you'd care to make an issue of it now unless of course it rubs you the wrong way, which it seems to profusely. Your problem, not mine sir. Finally, I really don't have much patients for the remainder of your nonsense. You're friend FairHair followed you to the Vikesland page and created the AfD based primarily on the fact that he thought you had a self-interest in it. Regarding Prince Christopher Beyette, you and Atlantium would have been better served by attempting some sort of good relations, as it is his documentary that will bring much attention to the micronational movement. Regardless of what you may think, it's not the other way around. Your other statements, accusations, absurdities in making any claims or comparisons of your apartment over Vikesland deserve no further response. Good Luck with your interests.--DukeofAntwerp 16:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Seeing as you're deleting my coments from my talk page I'll respond here.

1. I don't give a flying fig about your pedigree. I removed it from the

Principality of Vikesland

article because it's totally irrelevant to that article.

2. I have precisely zero interest in establishing any sort of relationship with yourself, Mr Beyette or anyone associated with you, as you lack respect, maturity, knowledge and credibility. --Gene_poole 12:15, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Why do I get the siniking feeling that this FairHair is "He Who Must Not Be Named?" OK, I'll say it: Gzornenplatz. You should contact one of the bureaucrats and have the sysops run an IP check. And yes...I voted to keep the article. Damn this site sometimes. - Lucky 6.9 04:17, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake. It still reads oddly to my British eye, but, having found it on the BBC, I suppose it is not just an Americanism and an Australianism. Thanks for the correction --Estrellador* 08:22, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

If you think any of these items are essential to the article, please link them from within the text of the article. Another option is to create a template for pyramids. You should also substantiate your premise that there is some sort of connection between last month's media trick in Ukraine and the world wonder in Egypt. Listcruft looks slovenly and will be deleted, if not by me, then by others. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 07:06, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

In case you haven't seen the message left for you at Elonka's RfA, I strongly suggest that you read it. Time zones and all - I'm giving you 12 more hours to comply. But I suggest you not make any other edits first. DS 16:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Funny how I was just thinking about him, too. Compared to the horrible, race-baiting troll I blocked the other day, ol' Wik seems pretty tame.  :)

I don't have the ability to run an IP check on the account, but it should get done soon when Jimbo looks into it. If it really is Wik, it's amazing how he keeps on skirting blocks. He's probably had an account with every IP in Germany by now. Will you please keep me posted? I've seen this account around here before, but I've never interacted with it.

Thanks, pal. Keep up the good work. - Lucky 6.9 05:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your support in my RfA. Unfortunately consensus was not reached, and the nomination was not successful. However, I do appreciate your comments, am still in support of the Wikipedia project, and will continue to contribute without interruption. Thanks again! --Elonka 19:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi George, it's time, this has been dragged on long enough. I'm sure you're aware of

As you well know, I have one account, and this is it. Whatever other accounts you think may be mine, aren't - so you can stop your "song and dance" about it. --Gene_poole 00:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Hiya, in order to help conclude this matter, would it be alright with you if I submitted a CheckUser, to settle things once and for all? --Elonka 01:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the efforts, but he's known that people have known about his alternate accounts for long enough that checkuser would not be useful. Besides, checkuser is not to be used for obvious cases of sockpuppetry. For the record, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. - Taxman ^Talk 19:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Elonka, thanks - but as you can see, there's obviously a gang of admins and bureaucrats here with serious power issues. No amount of evidence or good faith discussion is going to convince such people to call off the dogs - they seem intent on prosecuting a personal crusade and that, it seems, is that. Taxman, your actions are a disgrace for someone in your position. You have no evidence of anything - merely bad faith assumptions which you keep repeating as though they are facts. I'm no longer willing to humour you. Get the hell off my talk page - and stay off. If you post any further personal attacks they will be deleted. --Gene_poole 01:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Gene, I am doing my best to assume good faith here. I assure you that I can understand the frustration that can be generated from feeling unfairly "ganged up on." However, I must strongly urge you to cease personal attacks on other editors. The more that you succumb to the temptation to be rude, the more that people are convinced that any accusations against you must be true. And to be honest, I have to admit that every time I see you indulge in name-calling, I lose respect for you as well.  :/ Please read

WP:CIVIL. --Elonka

22:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

And integrity would dictate that you consider the questions I posed to you in response to your "warning". You don't really have to answer, because considering the questions should help point out the extreme disconnect between what you are willing to consider as an attack by others and what you are willing to not consider as an attack when you make it. - Taxman ^Talk 15:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Integrity would dictate that you refrain from making unprovoked attacks on other editors, and then accuse them of attacking you whenever they try to defend themselves. The term for that, as you well know, is

spin. --Gene_poole

21:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, well if you still think you're the one being attacked, and you're not making personal attacks, then why didn't you answer the questions? They are copied below to make it easier and lightly edited to fit the context of this page. Also, as mentioned by others you really should stop editing from various IP addresses to evade the block. A group of admins has come to the consensus that the evidence I gave was compelling, so evading the block is not an appropriate response. - Taxman Talk 03:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• The discussion on AN/I is not what you claimed was an attack when you removed my response here. I'd still like to know how you justify that as an attack while claiming "gang of admins and bureaucrats here with serious power issues" and "Taxman, your actions are a disgrace for someone in your position." is not. In fact my duty as a bureaucrat requires that I deal with RfA disruption.
• On AN/I I posted strong evidence of disruption and a history of people noticing said disruption. If you define that as a personal attack, just how would you deal with a situation with said strong evidence of disruption?
• Finally, you have multiple times made claims about other people being problem editors and sockpuppets. How do you claim those are not personal attacks if this and this are? - Taxman ^Talk 03:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh come off the grass. You've assembled every editor who's ever been on the wrong side of a discussion with me (at least the ones who haven't already been hard-banned or self-destructed) gotten them to agree to a conspiracy blancmange of biblical proportions, and then blocked one of my closest collaborators for the sin of sharing my opinion on issues that your little gang just all happen to strongly disagree with. And, less than 24 hours after that - hey presto! Wik reappears and starts vandalising articles like he had a license to do so. You then have the hide to flutter your eyelids coyly at me while pretending innocence. Seems to me you're the last person around here who should be lecturing people on "integrity". --Gene_poole 04:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

In reference to your third question, perhaps you should consider this: the only people I've ever accused of being disruptive, or sockpuppets have all - without a single exception - proven to be so, and were either permanently blocked, or self destructed. The list speaks for itself:

• Wik - psychotic troll blocked by the Arbcom.
• Gzornenplatz - sock of Wik hard banned by Jimbo.
• Samboy - anally-retentive stalker who left Wikipedia in frustration after failing to get me "punished" for imagined abuses.
• IndigoChild - raving nutter who left Wikipedia in a rage after I and others prevented him from publishing his original research.
• Sealand
  . Left Wikipedia in an insane rage after offending dozens of editors with his monomaniacal POV-pushing.
• Johnski - puppetmaster and self-promoter permanently blocked by the Arbcom.
• Harvardy - indefinitely blocked as a sock of Wik.

Pretty good record, don't you think? --Gene_poole 04:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

One among a number of the problems with your theory is that I didn't "assemble" anything. I made the one post to AN/I and notified you and no one else. A number of very well respected admins showed up and agreed the evidence was compelling. If you've had problems with that many good contributors that should tell you something. And I'm not a bit surprised you didn't try to actually answer any of the questions. - Taxman ^Talk 05:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I think we have a Wik infestation (assuming that's who Harvardy really is), but I think there are two unrelated sets of things here, Gene. The admins aren't Wikpuppets. Even I have had my suspicions over time that you and Centauri are just one you. As I said elsewhere, if you really aren't, then there are ways to verify in real life (to the Foundation, or someone else that everyone will trust) that there are two of you.

Attacking everyone who thought you might be a sockpuppet pair is not reasonable. This seems to have brought Harvardy out of the woodwork, but he wasn't one of those admins. The two problems are of completely different nature and completely different solution; the block may have provoked the vandalism, but that doesn't mean that they were both caused by vandals. These are good people here (who happen not to entirely like you, but they aren't WP vandals).

If you're going to defend the sockpuppet allegation, the medium has to be some sort of real world verification which they will believe.

Please don't go attacking everyone over this.

Thanks.

Georgewilliamherbert 03:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Anyone could get one of their friends after the fact to claim they are a given user. Your proposed method isn't robust to abuse GWH. The evidence has been considered, lets just let it go and go work on some articles. Otherwise good points. - Taxman ^Talk 04:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

More flippant warbling. If you think I'm going to "let it go" after having my integrity attacked so openly, you've got another thing coming kiddo. Better get comfortable; it's going to be a long night. --Gene_poole 21:45, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Gene Poole: I recently removed a link to Category:National flags from the page of

I've blocked those two obvious socks as Wik impersonators/socks. That, my friend, is one sick little monkey. As far as Mike Harvardy is concerned, the best thing for you to do at this point is to have someone like Fred Bauder or even Jimbo cross-reference the IP's between his and Wik's. That's beyond my reach, I'm afraid. I'm personally not convinced that Mike and Wik are the same person, but that's just conjecture on my part. I don't want to make the mistake of reblocking an innocent user. Thanks for turning to me. Always glad to help. BTW, send me an e-mail if you haven't yet. That way, I'll have your new address. - Lucky 6.9 03:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

No prob. Had a bit of slow time here at work, so chalk it up to good timing. The edit summaries the socks left are classic Wik. After what that guy did to me, it's a pleasure to blow him out of the water on sight. - Lucky 6.9 03:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether he is or not. I just happened to see the edit. Haven't been around much, but I do keep an eye on it. Davidpdx 22:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

GP, could you do me a favor and add this page to your watchlist Morris R. Jeppson. This article is about my grandfather and someone is vandalising it. It's really pissing me off. If you could keep an eye on it, I'd appreciate it. Thanks.. Davidpdx 09:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Well he has now begun to vandalise my user page. Can you put this on your watch list as well. I'll send a note to Tom Harrison and see if we can get rid of him. Davidpdx 03:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Done. If you could do the same for me I'd appreciate it. He used the Fairhair sock to vandalise my user page over the weekend too. --Gene_poole 03:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I got the figure of 9,007 from the [3], 1,842 of whom were visitors, leaving a resident population of 7,165.

Do not keep tagging a contributor's page as a sock unless you actually have some evidence of this. Jonathunder 14:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

And for future reference, if you're going to get into a revert fight, perhaps you'd like to bring the affair to the attention of someone who can block or protect? --Golbez 00:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I did. I listed it on vandalism in progress. I'm still waiting for someone to respond. I note the account still hasn't been blocked despite the fact you believe I'm right. --Gene_poole 00:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I think you're right about warnings not being removed. I haven't examined the content behind them, nor do I intend to at this point - especially since he's already banned. --Golbez 01:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

GP, how do you feel about the that has been added to DoM. Also someone is calling for the article to be locked for a month (although it hasn't). Davidpdx 04:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I have deleted your Wikipedia:Third opinion request because:

• It involves more than two editors
• WP:3O
  is not the place to resolve this dispute; try instead:
  • Wikipedia:Personal attack intervention noticeboard
  • Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism
  • Also look at
    Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#Templates to tag a confirmed or suspected sockpuppet, if applicable. =Axlq
    04:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes I'm aware of that policy. I've been contributing NPOV content to the article - mostly citations and references - for over 4 years, so there's no demonstrable conflict of interest. Other than that I merely rollback obvious trolling and vandalism. All the people who have done that have now been banned, so it's no big deal. --Gene_poole 23:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Darn you. You've stolen my username. Only, not really, because you had it first. Still... I started using the moniker Gene Poole on USEnet in 1999, or something like that. And you beat me to it here, obviously, because I just started fiddling with wikipedia the last year or so.

So, in summary: waah! —The preceding

Actually I started using Gene Poole on bulletin boards in 1992. So double checkmate with chocolate on top... and nyah ni nyah ni nyah nyah for good measure! :-) --Gene_poole 12:02, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

An image you uploaded,

I just checked out your user page. Anyone ever tell you you're a dead ringer for Brent? --90.240.34.177 18:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Except he's half as good-looking, and 10 times as wealthy. --Gene_poole 02:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Place names considered unusual, I have now protected the article from editing, please discuss you concerns on the article talk page. Thanks/wangi 23:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The link to this article from your user page wasn't working, so I created a redirect, but you may wish to take a look at where you want your user page to link. I also added the Category:Micronations to said article, because I knew it was out there and that I had seen it a few times before, but I couldn't figure out how to get to it! PubliusFL 23:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

An editor has nominated

With regards to your comments on User talk:Doktor Who: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. PeaceNT 10:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Our fighting gets us know where so I would just like to end our large disagreement, we can peacefully coexist and contribute to Wikipedia. At least we are both argumentative. Sloveniaiscool 19:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The only one doing any "fighting" is you, and you can stop it any time you feel like it. You're also welcome to make a positive contribution to Wikipedia any time you like. --Gene_poole 05:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Gene, I saw that you reverted my edits on a couple of pyramid related pages to include links to the pages on Ukrainian and Bosnian pyramids (and for links to the pyramid category as well). I just wanted to clarify why these links do not belong. The Bosnian "pyramid" is considered a hoax. If the digging on the Bosnian hill does eventually reveal a pyramid, then the links are justified. However, until proof of a pyramid is found, the site remains a hill, with an archeologically significant medieval village on top. In the case of the Ukrainian pyramid, the press simply carried a wrong impression of the site into the popular culture. This innacuracy was soon clarified by the archaeologist in charge. Hiberniantears 12:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Please do not revert the external links sections of pyramid articles again. I am well aware that the Bosnian and Ukrainian "pramids" are not really pyramids, and that the scientific consensus supports this - however that is entirely beside the point; the main reason they are known by most people is because some people claimed they were pyramids; it is not for us to make value judgements concerning those claims; our job is simply to provide links to all pyramid-elated articles and let people read those articles and decide for themselves. The "see also" list is a list of related subjects - it is not merely a list of "legitimate pyramids". --Gene_poole 01:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I think when something is either falsely called, or accidentally called, something it is not, no reasonable source of information would list it said entity under the misleading heading. For example, when a toddler calls a car a boat, the rest of the world does not have to amuse the toddler by now considering cars as boats "because some people claimed they were" boats. I realize you're taking an inclusionist stance on this, and I respect that. However, I think the fact that the articles themselves are already improperly named is inclusionist enough. Including the Ukrainian and Bosnian "pyramids" in a list of legitimate pyramids is very efficient way to undermine any intellectual weight this encyclopedia has. I think making lists of things which are entirely opposed to the scientific consensus (and in the case of the dig site in Ukraine, against the stated clarification by the archaeologist leading the dig) is irresponsible. To that end, I am once again making my reverts, but in the interest of fairness, I am also moving this conversation to the talk pages of the articles. Hiberniantears 12:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Gene, I'm trying to avoid a revert war. Move it to the article's talk pages rather than reverting without discussion. It seems clear that we are both willing to revert each other ad infinitum, and that is pointless. ThanksHiberniantears 21:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

"Stop it"? I'm going to lengths to engage in debate about the very validity of the removed content. Linking an Egyptian pyramid to a Bosnian hill is not NPOV. As an example, I have left the Bosnian link on the Ukrainian page, as they are both not examples of pyramids, but things which (as you point out) someone has called a pyramid. Therefore, the Bosnian page and Ukraine page are both relevent to each other, but not to the other pyramid pages. My intention here is not to supress content, but rather to see that it is placed appropriately based on fact, and proven, credible research. Hiberniantears 21:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you for adding discussion to the talk pages of the articles in question. I will respect your current revert for at least a period of days in an attempt to create some debate on the topic. Hiberniantears 22:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Gene, can you avoid throwaway sockpuppet allegations on these articles? If you really think they're socks or long term problems, file a WP:RFCU, or make a similar-editing case, but just making the acusation on article talk pages is not civil. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert 04:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and not

Real96

02:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what your message means. I'm opening an RFC on an editor with longterm issues abusing multiple WP policies. What is the problem? --Gene_poole 02:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

IMHO, RFC/U is a little slow, because there is a backlog of RFCUs since January. If you want to file a sockpuppet case, then file a

Real96

02:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

(reduce indent) Thanks for your response. Frankly I'm at my wits end with this matter.

I tried a limited RFCU about a month back, and it ended in chaos when the puppetmaster bombarded the request with such a huge volume of obfuscatory nonsense that the original request got completely lost in his avalanche of barely coherent multiple sockpuppet postings - which is obviously exactly what he intended. This is part of his established pattern of behaviour, and it's been very successful to date.

A broader RFC, dealing with all the puppetmaster's socks (that I'm aware of) seems like it has a greater chance of resulting in a more useful outcome. --Gene_poole 03:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Could you respond on this talk page when we are engaging in conversation, per my talk page rules? Thanks!

Real96

02:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

If you wish to find out about the TourEgypt.net situation, you can visit this site at WimiMedia. [4] You have to sign in before you can give a response, however. I agree that TourEgypt is one of the best sites on the WWW; it is unfortunate some unknown administrator on a Wikipedia board suddenly decided to blacklist the site without bothering to ask the opinion of Wikipedia's own registered editors here! The way the decision was made just smealls of elitism. Leoboudv 23:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi. It's generally not a good idea to post uncivil comments and engage in unsubstantiated personal attacks against someone when making similar accusations against them. It tends to detract somewhat from your credibility. More so, when the subject of your attack hasn't actually done anything wrong. I refer you to

Here, swallow you own advice. You can dish it out but can't take it. I come to Wikipedia for the intelluality, not to read your attacks against others who actually have something substantial to offer. Cricket02 06:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I had the exact same idea during the recent discussion over the move of the Sealand article to Principality of Sealand. I was thinking that following the same naming convention for Seborga wouldn't work because the article covers both the micronational principality and the municipality -- unless Principality of Seborga covered just the micronation. I would support such a split. PubliusFL 00:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Apparently User:Harvardy is back again as well and has messed up the article quite a bit in the last day or so. Tom Harrison has Semi-Protected the DoM article as some of the edits were done by Harvedy before he was logged in, which pretty much outs his IP address. I've reverted back the edits after TH did once a day or so ago. My guess is we're going to see quite a bit of this for a couple of months. I hope your around to help. Davidpdx 00:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Noted. I see he's been vandalising my talk page to. Thanks for the heads up. --Gene_poole 21:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw part of that already, but that is pretty funny. He left a message on my talk page and I told him to refrain from ever writing on my walk page. He called me a "dick" on a message on his talk page. Davidpdx 08:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to spam you if you aren't interested. See Wikipedia:Meetup/Sydney#April 25th for more info if you are interested. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what the hell the situation is, but cut it out. If you have suspicions that the user is sock, write up a

GP, I'm going to send you an email. Sit tight and take a look at it before doing anything else. I think some of our questions will be answered quickly if it plays out like I think it will. Davidpdx 09:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

You might want to look here [5] please don't post anything there until you get an email from me. I need to tell you something. Davidpdx 10:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, please remove it for now and then take a look at my email. Davidpdx 10:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

It looks like I'm not going to have a problem with you know who after all. I'll continue to redouble my efforts on the Johnski matter and let you know if I get anywhere. You might also want to take a look at the recent changes I've reverted in which he mentions an SEC decision having to do with fraudulent stocks. In one of the footnotes it mentions DoM as a "virtual nation" and he's been trying to get that into the article. Davidpdx 00:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

In terms of the Hutt thing, I'm going to stay out of it. If he starts posting that drivel other places, then I'll cut in. Davidpdx 01:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

GP, yes in fact I'm way ahead of you. It's already done. We'll see if anything come of it. I've gotten no response on the other complaint regarding the Arbitration violation. Davidpdx 01:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

There are a total of 3 complain reports on him at this point. We'll see if any of them actually work. Davidpdx 02:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

GP, I have asked the admin who protected Harvardy's user page to unprotect it and allow me to readd the sockpuppet warning since he has been banned indefinately. Davidpdx 09:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

GP, you might want to look at my user page. I added something pretty funny to it. Davidpdx 10:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Can you explain to me why you removed the info box and material at

• No problems - I thought that was probably the case. Cheers!--VS ^talk 03:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

As a sockpuppetry followup, I would be interested in your opinion on the evidence that I have collated at ANI, as to whether you think that this is the same person as DreamGuy/Victrix from your sockpuppetry check last year.[6] --Elonka 23:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but this has nothing to do with me. On cursory examination the edit descriptions look like classic Wik, and if so, both accounts should be blocked. --Gene_poole 21:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Would you be willing to post that at the ANI thread? --Elonka 22:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Done. If it is Wik, I'll take great pleasure in seeing him banned for the fourth time. --Gene_poole 22:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm a part-time editor who has had problems in the past with Mr "Who". See my talk history (revision of 18 Oct 06) for the sort of nonsense I had to put up with. He disappeared for a few months after I shook him down but I now see he is back (hence I have become aware of your interaction with him). I know nothing of Wiki complaints proceedures but am available for input on this fellow's history should you require. RichardJ Christie 12:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[7] [8]
These comments, especially the latter, are really out of line. See you in 24 hours. –

What the hell are you talking about? kingboyk openly threatened me, and repeatedly vandalised the articles exactly as I indicated. --Gene_poole 12:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Diffs...? –

Steel

12:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Go look at his edit history. --Gene_poole 12:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

• In addition, please refrain from
  WP:CANVASSing and vote stacking in the future. Doing so is disruptive to consensus building. >Radiant<
  12:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I cannot agree with your comments at Wikipedia talk:Micronations. Wikipedia does need notability guidelines, and verifiability is not enough; otherwise, I could make a scan of my birth certificate, my ID card, and create an article about myself. (For another extreme example, see Notice posted on the corridor of the ground floor at Hietalahdenkatu 7A, Helsinki, Finland - which could easily be verified by photographing it.) By on the other hand, you have a point; notability overlaps with verifiability, to an extent. If a topic has non-trivial coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources, it can be considered notable. (See Wikipedia:Notability.) Regards, Mike Rosoft 12:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi,

I've watchlisted every article I've touched today, and you're appearing all over it like you're flavour of the month. It's not just micronations it's the monarchy list too, so presumably you're working your way through my contribs rolling back my work... --kingboyk 00:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Block has been made under false premises. Kingboyk's edits are part of an ongoing, concerted 1-man campaign to remove, obscure and otherwise make invisible a wide range of content concerning micronations - a subject about which he is personally dismissive. His actions in doing so are unilateral, and are unsupported by talk page discussions or any other attempt to achieve prior consensus. They also go against the long-established consensus that properly-referenced micronation content should be included in WP. I rolled back some (certainly not all) of his edits, (stating my reasons for doing so clearly in the edit summary in all cases), as it is customary in situations where one editor whishes to make controversial changes to an article for the article to be left in its default position, until the minority position can be supported by consensus. --Gene_poole 03:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I know it can be frustrating when you are on the opposite side of a content dispute with an administrator. It can certainly seem like he/she is throwing his/her weight around. However frustrating it may be, you must still remember to

be civil. You raise good points, and I might not have blocked you under the same circumstances; however, quite frankly, edits like this suggest that you could use a day to cool down. I am going to deny this request and I hope you resume editing (sans hostility) in 18 hours when the block expires. If you have trouble again, I or any number of others would be happy to mediate. Please feel free to contact me if you feel I can be of assistance. — Selket ^Talk

05:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

---

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.

Thatcher131

00:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Please note that over the past 72 hours kingboyk has been engaged in a campaign to delete from WP as many references to micronations as he can lay his hands on. His actions include listing numerous articles on AFD which have already survived multiple AFD attempts, listing numerous images for deletion which are correctly tagged, and for which no copyright issue exists, and redirecting pages without discussion. His actions are unsupported by reference sources or consensus, and I and others have rolled them back accordingly. The block applied in response is unjustified and should be removed. Thanks. --Gene_poole 00:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

You can use {{unblock}} for an independent review. In my view, if the situation is as you describe, you should try mediation or a centralized discussion rather than edit warring.

Thatcher131

00:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll take your advice. --Gene_poole 02:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grand Duchy of Avram

You may have a better chance getting the article to stay if you can present additional sources that discuss the topic. JoshuaZ 00:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. The issue is not "getting the article to stay". The article is not going to be deleted because there's obviously no consensus for that. The problem is the fact that it's become caught up in a highly disruptive 1-man crusade to delete, merge or otherwise make inviusible as much

WP:OR. Unfortunately, he doesn't appear to see the irony in complaining about the "loss" of his "hard work" while attempting - in a single day - to wipe out a huge amount of hard work and valuable content contributed by many dozens of other editors over the past 5 years. --Gene_poole

02:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Coats of arms of micronations

Please note that the above article has been improperly deleted, and will accordingly need to be restored. The AFD result was "no consensus", with 8 votes supporting deletion, and 7 votes supporting retention. --Gene_poole 03:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Micronation flags

Ah, I understand the sentence now; I hope you won't mind that I tweaked it a bit. —ScouterSig 01:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Change looks good to me. Thanks. --Gene_poole 02:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Micronations

Hi Gene, Is there such a creature as Wikiproject:Micronations, or something similar? If not, are you interested in starting one? I have no idea what the process is for creating a Wikiproject, but would be interested in participating if such were formed. --killing sparrows ^(chirp!) 21:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Giorgio Carbone

I should be grateful if you would watchlist

Giorgio Carbone since it is being regularly vandalised. BlueValour

14:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Images without a source

Hi, I tagged three of your images as having no source. Image:Aurora islands x640.JPG, Image:Sedang marie 01.JPG and Image:Bumbunga map 01.JPG. Please add the source otherwise these images will be deleted. Thanks, Garion96 (talk) 15:51, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I hate it when people are not notified when their images are listed on

Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images

.

• pd-old
  }} would work. However it needs a source to confirm it is indeed in the public domain. In what book was that map? When exactly was it published? Which country?
• pd-old
  }}, again needs more info. When did the photographer died? Although with this one you could assume he did.
• GFDL-self-no-disclaimers
  }}

Regarding the other images. For example the coin, the image of a coin is copyrighted by someone. The fact that you made a picture of it doesn't mean you can release it under the GFDL. The same counts for flags, stamps etc. Obvious example: I can't scan an image of Mickey Mouse from a comic (even if I own the comic) and release it under the GFDL. Hope this helps, Garion96 (talk) 23:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

It depends on how much of the image is your own work. A sole scan of Mickey Mouse from a comic, no. A photo of 20 coins neatly arranged with captions included, I guess also no, but don't know for sure. Since you would incorporate someone else his copyright in your image and release that under the gfdl. Either way, on wikipedia the image would fall under fair use (non-free content). The image must have a non-free content tag (see

Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Non-free content and pass the Wikipedia:non-free content criteria. Garion96 (talk)

00:16, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Arms Aramoana.GIF)

Thanks for uploading

You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media

).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 22:33, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good :)

I'll be happy to support it. Orderinchaos 01:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Funny

(random comment) The genepoole is evil bit on your subpage is really funny --Munkee madness 16:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Arms Aramoana.GIF)

Thanks for uploading

You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media

).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 23:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Adding name to project

Then add away.New Babylon 2 05:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:Arms Melchizedek.GIF

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Arms Melchizedek.GIF. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our

Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot

19:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I have made my comments on the discussion page. The entire page you have published is a front loaded slander. It contains every piece of negative writing on New Utopia and nothing about the current work or effort being made to bring off this huge undertaking. Building a nation in 65 feet of water is extremely difficult and incredibly expensive. To see the efforts of this group being slandered by uninformed outsiders with no clue of the day to day goings on with this Government is intolerable.

New Utopia has government representatives and agents near Sydney Australia who would be happy to meet with you to discuss the validity of this project with you in person if you like or by phone if more convenient. The Principality of New Utopia consul for Australia would be the contact person. There are thousands of people who are citizens of this nation. This is taken very seriously by many of them. Seeing their efforts mis-characterized is disheartening to say the least.Vortexentity 03:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)vortexentity

micronation project

What does 'signing on' entail? What would I be signing up to do? How actively involved would I be expected to become? Bo 15:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Really now

What part of "templates aren't created by voting on them" don't you understand? >Radiant< 08:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

What part of "straw polls are a legitimate consensus-building exercise and if you don't like it that's just too bad" do you not understand? --Gene_poole 06:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

What part of "Radiant! is a highly respected administrator and could crush you, a user with a hefty block log, for being a

Captain Wikify ^Argh!

17:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

What part of "Admin threats are generally not considered helpful in discussions, even by proxy, do you not understand"? Admins are supposedly like any other editors, but with more responsibility and custodial roles, not with larger sticks. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 10:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

And Gene is generally being a

Captain Wikify ^Argh!

03:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh come off the grass. The problem here is not and has never been me. The problem here is a tiny group of admins who simply

don't like my contributions to WP and, having failed repeatedly and consistently to obtain anything even remotely resembling a consensus for their POV, have made it their personal crusade to make life as difficult as possible for me out of a sense of sheer bloody-mindedness. Their attacks are now becoming increasingly desperate as their influence wanes, and my response is simply to get on with the job at hand, which is to continue my 4+ year history as a respected contributor to the project. --Gene_poole

00:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

You are pushing Radiant's buttons back, and clearly pushing Captain Wikify's buttons back, too. It does take two to tango in most hostile arguments. Georgewilliamherbert 00:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your attempt at injecting some moderation here. Personally I think it's entirely reasonable for me to point out a few home truths to editors who I've never heard of before - like Captain Wikify - when they suddenly appear out of nowhere on my talk page and post infantile threats and personal abuse. As for Radiant & Co, we all know what's going on there - but as I can't say anything nice I'll follow my mother's sage advice and say nothing at all. --Gene_poole 02:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Please don't wander off to Captain Wikify's talk page and do there what is upsetting you here. The rules work both ways. I'll block you if you abuse him unprovokedly, too. Georgewilliamherbert 18:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Note

You are kindly reminded of our policies on

personal attacks. You have been blocked for incivility and harassment in the past, so it would be prudent if you were to avoid such behavior in the future. >Radiant<

10:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Gene Poole/genepooleisevil

WP:WMD. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate User talk:Gene Poole/genepooleisevil itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2

19:33, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

My removal does not constitute vandalism; if anything, your repeated adding of it does. Go ahead. "Report" me. I daresay you'll have trouble finding an administrator who agrees with you. --

Captain Wikify ^Argh!

23:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

You really do seem to have major issues understanding and adhering to basic WP policies. I've been very patient in the face of your unprovoked attacks, but it ends here. Do not post on my talk page again. --Gene_poole 00:07, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Gene, Please stop provoking CW. There's too much going on to assign blame for "starting it". Both of you are violating the civility and personal attacks policies now. Just let it lie for a day and let things cool down. Georgewilliamherbert 00:08, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

I have seen that you have accused

wikipedias poliices on vandilism states, "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." If there is evidence of thsi intent, please provide it. Otherwise, an apology may be in order. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider)

01:43, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I know. I'm waiting form him to post one. As he's on wikivacation I suspect I'll be waiting a while. --Gene_poole 01:46, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

YOu are waiting for him to vandalise you in some way? That appears to be what you ar saying. If I have misinterpreted this, please clarify. If this is the case, then your vandalism warning is innaproproiate. Again, if he has vandalised your page in some way, please provide a diff for it? This would be very helpful. Thanks! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 01:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I have speedy deleted a subpage of yours. This page was unencylopedic and served in NO way to help with this project. In fact, this was actually very disruptive and antagonized editors who stood strongly and perhaps in the heat of the moment became

uncivil. Keeping a record of this does no good and only caused trouble. Please refrain from creating such articles in the future and good luck with future editing. Thanks! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider)

02:02, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm waiting for his apology concerning the unprovoked threats and abuse he posted about me, for which he's already received 2 admin warnings. I'm also waiting for him to apologise for repeatedly vandalising the user page which you just deleted. Apparently he didn't like having the personal attack he made against me quoted verbatim there. Boo hoo for him. He and those like him should learn some manners and develop a sense of humour, then they wouldn't have to worry about being held up to public ridicule. --Gene_poole 02:20, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Please understand that I do not condone any such behavior and actually very reguulary engage in mediating flame wars and

incivility. I think it is improtant to move on! His removal of stuff from your page was not vandalism. He has no ill or nefarious intent, however realized he had made a mistake and wished to recant. Denying him that right was fairly pointless. Hes removal was far from vandalism just removal of something he did not want around. THanks for understand and good luck! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider)

02:28, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I appreciate the need to maintain civil discourse and believe that my actions in this matter have been remarakably restrained. However, I see no evidence whatsoever in his actions of any desire to recant. I see only frantic attempts to remove comments he found embarrasing because they showed him to be a complete hypocrite - accusing me of being some sort of evil serial abuser when in fact it was he who breezed in out of the ether and attacked me completely without provokation or justification. This was in fact the main purpose of the genepooleisevil page; I believe it to be entirely justified of me to hold hypocrites up to public ridicule by quoting their own words back at them - particularly so as there is not a single example within recent memory of my ever having resorted to crude name-calling of sort which others feel free to hurl at me with gay abandon.

Captain Wikify had no business coming to my talk page in the first place, and as long as he stays away from me and it in future there will be no further issues. --Gene_poole

02:39, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Holding other users up to "public ridicule" is unacceptable editor behavior irrespective of any incivilities committed by the other user. If an inappropriate edit or comment is made, the best thing to do is to address the underlying dispute and then move on, not to perpetuate the sense of grievance on both sides indefinitely. Newyorkbrad 02:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Great. Then you can start helping out by deleting all the abusive coments that have been posted about me and we can move forward from there. --Gene_poole 02:54, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Moving forward! A great idea. Show me an abusive comment when it happens and I will address it! Glad we could work through this. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 03:10, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

It's a deal. --Gene_poole 05:13, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:New Utopia 01.jpg)

Thanks for uploading

You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media

).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 07:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Space music

I took a look at the talk page. Seems like a whole lotta trolling going on there. It might be best to ignore it and focus on the issues as you see them. Could you start a new section that briefly describes the problem with your proposed solution? That would make it easier for others to contribute. Also, if there is a preferred version of the article, could you link to some diffs? If you can just outline what you see as a resolution to the conflict, I can get a better handle on the problem. Thanks. —Viriditas | Talk 08:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Help with a project?

Gene, you might be the perfect person to help with a little project, if you have the time and interest. A while ago, I wrote an article about my great-grandfather, stained glass artist John Radecki, but what that article really needs is a photo or two of his works. Would you be interested in taking a couple of photos and submitting them to Commons? You being in Sydney, and your interest in architecture is why I thought of asking. In the Mitchell Library, there is a major window that Radecki created, and there are some in a couple other buildings (especially the Commonwealth Savings Bank, Martin Place) in the downtown area as well. Thanks for considering this request! AKRadecki^Speaketh 01:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Parzival418

Gene, putting aside your past history with Parzival, he has, in my opinion, made an honest attempt to try to resolve this dispute to the best of his ability. I know that the space music article is important to you, and I acknowledge that you could be considered an informed "expert" in this area based on your experience, but I would like for you to make an effort to take a conciliatory tone with Parzival and less of an aggressive, confrontational demeanor. I understand that past conflicts between the two of you and other involved parties have made this difficult, but I think we need to put the article ahead of any petty conflicts. In turn, I will also hold the other editors to these same standards. Let's work together to expand and improve this article. I think we are very close to resolving this dispute, so I'm asking you to work with Parzival as a colleague. —Viriditas | Talk 10:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Gene, take a look at

Chill out music and help turn Space music into a similar article. Note the genre infobox that should be added. —Viriditas | Talk

13:33, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Unless you have actual checkuser evidence that confirms sockpuppetry, it's a waste of your time to speculate. I can understand your frustration, but if we focus on improving and expanding the article we'll be more successful. The personal attacks from both sides aren't productive. —Viriditas | Talk 14:33, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Gene, I forgot to ask you the same question I asked Parzival418: if you could resolve the dispute on space music, how would you do it? Please try to refer only to content, not editors. Thanks. —Viriditas | Talk 11:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Whether you agree with him or not, Parzival418 is making a great effort to resolve this dispute. Please support him in this endeavor by offering your informed opinion on the topic when you have time. —Viriditas | Talk 03:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Gene, just letting you know that I got your message and I will review the article as soon as I am able. I've been really busy, so please excuse my delay in getting back to you. —Viriditas | Talk 12:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I've done a few copy edits, but it would help me greatly if you could review the entire article in its current form and post a very brief, numbered list, addressing just the problems that you perceive, remembering to leave all comments about editors out of your post. That way, I can directly address your points, and solve this conflict. The shorter your statements, the easier the problems will be to fix. —Viriditas | Talk 22:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Gene, I saw it. I would just let it go for now. Warning tags in situations like these don't really improve or solve the problem. Just ignore it. After you review the article, can you post your review on my talk page if you aren't going to use the article talk page? It might help if we work together on this. —Viriditas | Talk 02:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

And Gene, remember WP:NOFEEDING. —Viriditas | Talk 02:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Gene, was he being serious about John Tesh? I'm assuming he was being sarcastic. —Viriditas | Talk 02:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Gene, arbcom won't accept the case unless adequate dispute resolution methods have been attempted. I'm trying to informally mediate this dispute, so you may be able to claim that as justification, but I would like to resolve this problem before it gets to that point. Can we just focus on the article and not the personalities? Is there some long, historical dispute between the two of you that I'm not aware of, or is there a particular reason you are constantly sniping at each other? —Viriditas | Talk 13:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

No worries. The single use account was obviously created to harass you; it should probably be blocked. As far as space music goes, you addition of Many commentators use the term interchangeably with ambient music and new age music is problematic due to the nature of this dispute; any content that is challenged must be verifiable with a good, reliable source, otherwise it may be removed per policy. I'm not saying that the material you added is right or wrong; I'm saying that it has been challenged by other editors, and unless you can provide a good source that explicitly states that the term has been used this way, it may have to be rewritten. From what I can tell, the term has been used to refer to ambient and new age music, but we need to be precise. For example, which commentators use the term interchangeably? —Viriditas | Talk 11:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

And Gene? There's no reason to contribute to the animosity. I haven't a clue what this Shadow person was talking about nor do I care; but don't contribute to the drama. You're an intelligent person who knows a great deal about the topic. Help improve the article any way you can, but don't feed into the anger and resentment. You're better than that. —Viriditas | Talk 15:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Gene, I can appreciate your sharp wit and sarcastic sense of humor, but keep in mind, others will see it as personal attacks upon your opponents. If you want my continued help, simply give me key points to address (one at a time), and I will do my best to mediate and represent your position. —Viriditas | Talk 01:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know who you want to see blocked, but my door is open to you. Like I said, I'm willing and able to act as mediator on this topic and fully represent your view, arguing for inclusion, etc. The problem is, you need to give me a list of your issues with the current version so I can address them. —Viriditas | Talk 02:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Enjoy your holiday, Gene. Best wishes, —Viriditas | Talk 03:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Gene, your anger feeds these guys. Release it and they will disappear, like smoke from a flame. —Viriditas | Talk 04:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Karitane Shoal

Hi there. I reverted your edit to the above because (a) it's an underwater reef, not an island, and (b) I think it's important to mention DOM in the article to show how idiotic their claims are. --Gene_poole 04:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

GP, that's fine. Thanks for letting me know. Davidpdx 21:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

List_of_songs_about_masturbation is in it's 5th AfD

List_of_songs_about_masturbation is up for it's fifth AfD. You participated in an earlier one. If you wish to participate again, please go to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_songs_about_masturbation_(5th_nomination) -- Lentower 03:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Meroe_pyramids_01_x600.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Meroe_pyramids_01_x600.JPG. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{

Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on

48 hours after 17:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. OsamaK

17:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Space music update

Hi and welcome back. :-) Let me know how I can help with the space music article. I'm not sure Parsifal is around, but I would like to see they two of you work closer together; He's been talking to the Doc in your absence, and he's had to deal with the good Doctor's abrasive, bedside manner. —Viriditas | Talk 14:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:RFM. —Viriditas | Talk

03:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Will do, but I'll brb after an hour or so. —Viriditas | Talk 07:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Gene, I'm running into a major

sleep deficit. I'll try and give it a fresh look tomorrow. —Viriditas | Talk

09:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Parsifal may have screwed up his edit summary, but I've done that before as well, and I would hate to be accused of being dishonest simply because I forgot to add something. And Gene, keep in mind that my last edits to the article were reverted. I think we should hammer away at some kind of compromise and keep things civil. I think you and Parsifal could be friends if you wanted to go that route. There's no need for the continuing antagonism. —Viriditas | Talk 09:54, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that. Would it be ok to talk to Parsifal about trying to patch things up? —Viriditas | Talk 10:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

And Gene? Sometimes we inadvertently make things worse. I'm not blaming the victim here, but in disputes it often takes two to tango, and there are things we can do to mitigate bad situations if we consider our choices and move forward with the best interests of both parties. —Viriditas | Talk 10:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I love you

I love you, Gene Poole. MGlosenger 21:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Idea

Gene, do you have any interviews related to space music in your podcast archive? If you do, we could cite them in the space music article. —Viriditas | Talk 12:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

You used it to describe UT 653.  :-) —Viriditas | Talk 13:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

So clue me into some of the backstory: Why are Parsifal and Milo so vehemently opposed to classifying space music as beatless ambient? Your position actually makes a lot of sense. —Viriditas | Talk 13:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I think Milo opposes the ambient classification because the term was invented after spacemusic, but I don't see that as relevant. We can still classify spacemusic (and many do just that) as ambient even though the term came later, and considering that spacemusic has evolved along with ambient, it would almost be necessary to classify it as such. I agree that spacemusic is just another term for beatless ambient. Can one actually argue against that? —Viriditas | Talk 14:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your insight. I can see why you feel you have been harassed. It's unfortunate that experts like yourself aren't treated with more respect, but that seems to be an endemic problem on Wikipedia; I think it's safe to say you know more about ambient music than the average Wikipedian. Hopefully I can make some constructive edits to the space music article in the next day or so and alleviate some of the problems. Hang in there. —Viriditas | Talk 14:38, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Unfortunately, the community doesn't give a damn about this type of thing; they are much too busy fighting vandalism (because they allow anyone to edit) and dealing with copyright problems. I think your best strategy is to help me understand your position so I can help mediate and resolve this conflict. Parsifal appears reasonable and is willing to compromise with anything you come up with. I don't know Milo all too well, so I can't comment about him. The Doktor doesn't seem to be around all that much. —Viriditas | Talk 01:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Good points. You've actually given me some helpful tasks to work on here, which may move us forward towards resolution. Based on your last reply, I should first put together a list of the current sources in the article and sort by authority and currency. Second, I should highlight the links between the sources to find the shared attributes. Third, we should construct good arguments by basing claims on reasons, reasons on evidence, and adding acknowledgments and warrants when necessary. I really think this overhaul will solve the problem once and for all. —Viriditas | Talk 02:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I hear you. :-) Check out: User:Viriditas/sandbox#Reference_review. Can you place a brief indented comment about each numbered reference in the first section when you get a chance? Or any reference in the review section? —Viriditas | Talk 03:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Gene, if you have time, please try to edit the article portion in my sandbox (in the references in context section) to reflect the version you would like to see in the live article. —Viriditas | Talk 12:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

You Know Who Has Been Quite

How have things been down under? I'm in Oregon now, headed back to Korea next month to start work again.

Someone has been really quiet lately. Have we seen the last of our fine feathered freind's edits or is he still lurking? What do you think? Davidpdx 20:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Removal of Music of the spheres

I agree with your removal of this material from space music. I would ask, however, that you try to show a bit more patience with other editors. Your harsh words on Parsifal's page only make working with him difficult. Let's try to work together without the animosity. We all have strengths and weaknesses that we bring to the table. —Viriditas | Talk 12:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. The problem is, you can be blocked for personal attacks and incivility, and I wouldn't want to see that happen to you. Be nice even if you don't want to, and it will benefit you in the end. I agree with you about the ownership and OR issues, but you aren't making a good case by being impolite. Would you be interested in contacting Tony Sidaway to help you deal with Milo? He has developed somewhat of a rapport with him, and may be able to lend a helping hand. As for Parsifal, who I think has demonstrated that he is a good and competent editor, he can make mistakes just like anyone else, so please be a bit more forgiving. Like I said before, we are all at different levels, so there needs to be a bit of flexibility built-in to our communications. —Viriditas | Talk 22:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Look, I agree there are problems, but I think we can work them out. All you are doing with bad behavior is giving your "enemies" ammunition to use against you. I don't want to see that happen, because I know you are a valuable contributor. —Viriditas | Talk 22:29, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, the first thing you can do is confine yourself to polite, clear, and unambiguous communication. My personal belief is that you are being trolled into losing your temper so that a request can be made to block you. I want you to be aware of this. —Viriditas | Talk 23:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, so don't keep falling for it. Ignore him, or find a way to stick to the topic without getting personal. Because eventually, they will take all this trolling and show it to an admin who has no idea what has been going on, and it will look like you are the problem child, not them. I speak from experience on this, Gene, as I've had disruptive editors do this to me. —Viriditas | Talk 23:40, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

hello

Hello, I saw the email you left on my discussion page. Thank you for the welcome. I don't think I understand some of it though, like original research/POV-pushing issues. Why would someone want to attack me? - Tikilounge

Micronations

Both actually still exist, at

User:JRG/Flags of micronations and User:JRG/Coats of arms of micronations, although some of the specific images seem to have been deleted on the basis of inadequate copyright info. My guess would be that, considering the comparative lack of "size" of both articles, they might either be recreated separately or as one article. The major question that comes to mind is whether combining them in this way realy enhances encyclopedic content. Maybe the best way to recreate would be to change the existing List of micronations to add the images to it, or otherwise alter the existing list to enclude a short summary of each micronation, with the images included with the summary. We'd probably also want to check with User:JRG as well, as the person who now has the articles in his userspace. Other than the question above, which I honestly can't answer, I don't see that there could be much problem with recreation, though. John Carter

14:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Self referential content at space music

Per your suggestion, please rewrite this torturous section asap. I would recommend attributing the statements to specific authors so as to avoid any semblance of OR left over from the last editor who graced us with such painful craftsmanship. —Viriditas | Talk 10:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I am beginning to think that the Emperor is a bit of a masochist and actually enjoys being trolled by the royal court jesters. ;-) —Viriditas | Talk 02:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Head's up: I had trouble navigating from your external message board back to your website. You might want to add a new link or make it more obvious. If given the chance, I would like to cleanup Empire of Atlantium. To begin with, it seems like the third paragraph should replace the first. I don't know who added the "claims to be" phrase but that needs to go. —Viriditas | Talk 13:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you are proceeding in the right direction, but I have an interesting solution that you may find interesting - or not; Milo and Parsifal can both participate as well. Backstory: In 2006, User:Chaiken interviewed Douglas Engelbart on KFJC and posted it in five parts to Wikipedia (see Part 1), licensing it under the Creative Commons license. There is nothing stopping anyone from transcribing the interview and citing it in an article. Since you are a notable radio personality who has contacts with the space music/ambient community, it would be great if you (or anyone else) could interview/record/transcribe an interview with some of the members of this community (Stephen Hill, etc.) and allow editors like Milo and Parsifal to formulate unambiguous, non-leading questions in addition to your own. This would help resolve some of the problems facing the article. This could also be done in conjunction with other editors on Wikinews who write reports based on interviews with notable subjects. We wouldn't necessarily have to use this material in the article, but it could help resolve outstanding issues that remain at an impasse, and at the very least, we could link to it. —Viriditas | Talk 09:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

When you have some free time, take a look at the Wikinews Interview Archive. —Viriditas | Talk 11:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Forget to mention - UT 678 kicked some serious booty. Nice work. —Viriditas | Talk 12:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Can you recommend the best sources to rely upon for Atlantium? —Viriditas | Talk 12:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a reference to your broadcast television appearance(s) in the article. It might be a good idea to discuss that in the article, no? There's also some great screenshots we could add to the article, but unfortunately the quality of the YouTube video is pretty low. —Viriditas | Talk 13:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Check out: {{Cite episode}}. —Viriditas | Talk 13:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

HoS

Thanks for the heads-up. I'll take a look. BTW, if you can scan in any archival media clippings and e-mail me them as OCR or images, it would greatly help me improve and expand the Empire article. —Viriditas | Talk 09:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Great. Looking forward to the show on Sunday... —Viriditas | Talk 10:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Gene, it's best to let the argument with Milo and Parsifal die a quick and painless death and focus only on the facts. Don't get involved with personalities. I will always be here to help with composition, research, and anything related to encyclopedic content. I prefer not to get involved in disputes involving editors, although I admit I have been dragged down into the mud several times by editors who choose this path. Don't get caught up into it. —Viriditas | Talk 01:46, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Less, not more should be said about personal disputes, and the more you work on improving the article, the better off you look, while your detractors can only be described as "whining". Be open and willing to address all problems on the talk page. If and when it becomes necessary to defend your integrity, let us rise to that occasion; until then, let us bide our time improving Wikipedia and composing great articles; leave the hand-wringing and complaining to those who can't. —Viriditas | Talk 02:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Aramoana stamps 01.jpg

Thanks for uploading

Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline

is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 07:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation

Gene, please review

this page. —Viriditas | Talk

09:37, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

FYI...the prerequisite for formal mediation was met here. —Viriditas | Talk 09:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Gene, it might be a good idea to just walk away from

User talk:Steel359‎ for a while. You said what you had to say, and there's not much more you can do. It's a very bad idea to revert war on another users talk page, especially when that editor is an admin. Word to the wise. —Viriditas | Talk

12:38, 27 October 2007 (UTC)