User talk:MrMacMan

Please stop. If you continue to vandalise pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did to Template:Infobox National Military Albania, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

Please stop. If you continue to vandalise pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did to Template:Infobox National Military Albania, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

This is your last warning. If you continue to make personal attacks on other people as you did at User talk:Noclador#Albanian Military, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people.

This is your last warning. If you continue to make personal attacks on other people as you did at User talk:Noclador#Graphics, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people.

This is your last warning. If you continue to make personal attacks on other people as you did at User talk:Noclador#PERSONAL ATTACKS, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people.

This is your last warning. If you continue to make personal attacks on other people as you did at User talk:Gon4z#rev, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people.

Woah.... thats not how warning work. You need to warn the user right after they made the edit, not stockpile them. And if you really think i vandalized your user page or have violated the rules so blatantly you should report me for administrators or some abuse board like 3RR or Admin intervention against vandalism... But really, you think I attacked you personally or am claiming that I 'own' the article? MrMacMan ^Talk 02:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, however, this is why we have the 3RR. If there is consensus, someone will come along and revert eventually. If I were to get involved in a revert war for which I just blocked someone, that would violate quite a few policies, probably worse ones then the 3RR too. Prodego ^talk 03:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As per your request - heads up, there was an attempt by a vigilante Sysop to remove votes by anonymous IPs on the vote you voted on on the Commons. Link:[3] . I reverted him. 71.204.133.75 08:34, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I'm not sure how else to say this 'This is me from english wikipedia', I didn't have a commons account before but now I just registered. MrMacMan ^Talk 15:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up, dear Mac :) In fact, I abandoned the maintenance of that subpage long ago, since I mostly upload immages on Commons now, and I can't keep up with all of them. As for that "missing" image, well, I deleted it some time ago, because... let's say it brought me a few unpleasant troubles. I think I'll delete that page altogether soon - thanks for reminding me it existed! :) Take good care, and have a beautiful day, Phaedriel - 06:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What I find hysterical is that she thinks we don't know! She edits the exact same articles witht he same edits and obvious agenda and thinks we're oblivious. She must be very thick. I keep a very close eye on everything she does. I think we all need to keep watch on these IP address editors, they cause havoc. --Brideshead 20:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I don't find it funny. It's actually just a big waste of time and effort. As far as I'm concerned, the IPs should be blocked. We've gone out of our way to be accommodating to her antagonistic approach to editing, yet it makes no difference. As far as I'm concerned, treating an anonymous IP address as your username is an abuse of the system. Nposs 20:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't attack anyone you stupid bitch

I fail to see how that even referenced you

I dunno... it certainly seems like an attack to me... MrMacMan ^Talk 22:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remeber Me? Arnon Chaffin 22:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC) I'm doing pretty good now so far 463 edits in 2 months :-)[reply]

Thank you for reverting that nasty vandalism on my userpage, Mac! :) Sorry I was afk and I missed the party - but fortunately my friend Alison always watches my back! Let me know if I can help you whenever you need, k? Have a great day, and thanks again! Phaedriel - 23:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks man. Good lookin out. Cheers. -- Reaper X 01:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you remove my links form the education page on wikipedia. I am not trying to vandalize, I am a new user who started a local special education ciriculum in my town and thought that itw as relevant to special educaiton, espically sp. ed reform so i posted my link under the section talking about reform. Why can I not do this? And who dictates whether my link is spamming? Is it posssible to leave it on any page with some tlak about it? Also, sorry if I posted this in the wrong spot I am a new user. Thanks, respond soon please I am eager to contribute to wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.248.92.4 (talk • contribs)

replied to on your usertalk page. MrMacMan ^Talk 04:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see you reverted my tags. In reply to your questions, I explained why I placed the tags on the article on the TSSI talk page. Unfortunately, you reverted before you had an opportunity to read my replies. I'd like to put the tags back on the article now. Any objections? Please note that the issue of how the section on COPE constitutes advertisement has been discussed at length on the talk page already. If you think the spam tag would be better placed elsewhere in the article, I can accomodate.

Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)

Smee's been locking horns with me since I came here. I initially signed on with Lsi_admin, not realizing that admin was a reserved username and not realizing that there was actually an entire community here. The page said 'just re-register with new name', so thats what I did.

Smee and Anynobody are on this witch-hunt to find socks and they came across my original username and now they think they have found gold.

I didn't even realize it was still there, or I'd have suggested someone delete it and clean up wiki.

Lsi john 08:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. They already got spanked once for fishing. Ironically, earlier Smee posted a link which contained this:

"When you start accusing everyone of being in on a conspiracy, you shouldn't be surprised if they decide to confirm your paranoia by banding together against you." —khaosworks

He's so caught up in witch hunting, he doesn't even see that he's making his own conspiracy. Lsi john 08:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

-

I asked for help from two admins Seraphimblade:[here] and Krator: [here]

Seraphimblade [stated] that, as he had prior knowledge of myself (and Smee) and the situation, it might be COI for him to be involved in investigating and deleteing the category that smee created and my initial user account.

I will assume that since Krator is also familiar, it would also be COI for him to become involved directly.

I have posted some historical details [here].

Since we have no prior history, if you would be willing to help, I would appreciate it.

As smee is using that category to imply intentional wrong doing, and suggest that further investigation will be done, it creates a cloud of suspicion around my username and my edits which simply should not exist.

I would like a fair and speedy trial (so to speak), in order to have those pages investigated for what they are: (initially innocent) and now (prejudicial inflamatory suggestion) and then have them deleted from wikipedia.

Any help you can offer would be most appreciated.

Thank you. Peace in God. Lsi john 13:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mets501, I've commented in an ANI 2 days ago, the issue went uncommented and went into the archive, I brought it back and since I reposted it another editor has said that they requested for comment on the same user twice before with no one making any comments. I would really, really like to see some comment on the issue. I hope this doesn't come across as canvassing but no one has commented on the issue and I don't want to see it fade away again. It is posted here. MrMacMan ^Talk 03:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MrMacMan. I don't know of any such policy, and it seems as if you've gotten a response now, but if that ever happens again and it's serious you could try other routes such as

WP:RFC. —METS501 (talk) 16:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

I replied to on your talk page. The issue wasn't responded to by an uninvolved party the other editor who i had a discussion with there pointed out to me that they have filed 2 previous incident reports and none have been answered. That's why I'm hoping to get some answer to this issue. MrMacMan ^Talk 23:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you change the number of bunkers in the same edit you removed the source and the entire source list (the source gave 700,000 bunkers you changed to 750,000, but then you changed the number yet again to 1 Million with no source at all. Please help me understand. MrMacMan ^Talk 02:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well the source I presented shows that OVER 700,000 pillow boxes were build it does not include the naval, army and air force bunkers also it clearly states over which means more Gon4z 02:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the source? I don't see it in the article. Can you point me to the source or website? MrMacMan ^Talk 02:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The source has been in the external links all along my good adversary, but I think you were a little sightless so you missed it, because you did not look carefully for it, I guess you were sought after for a quarrel with me, so you did not look that hard. For that reason I have added the link to the section to make it easier for you to twig it

Well I bid you good day my favorite antagonist, from:Gon4z 02:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah exactly source says (BBC)

More than 700,000 of these cement and iron monsters were built between 1950 and the dictator's death in 1985.

This is what the article said before your edits

Albania Built over 700,000

Bunkers during the 40 year communist rule under Enver Hoxha

.

Albania Built over 1 million

Bunkers during its 45 year communist rule by Enver Hoxha

,

So I still don't see where you got your number from and the discrepancy is rather wide. And I'm not your 'antagonist' I'm just trying to make sense of your edits here. MrMacMan ^Talk 02:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hummm I thing you are, since you seen so occupied editing a article you know so little about, I think you have some sort of aversion towards Albanians or me, so you and your companion are prosing slurs with intend to make Albania appear feeble to the world. But if it makes you sleep better at night then I will change that 750,000 to over 700,000 because I anticipate to be the bigger man, also communism did not end in Albania until 1989 and Albania became officially a communist state in 1945 but it was considered communist since 1943 so yes there was over 45 years rule of communism I was right about that and yes there are over 1 million bunks over 700,000 of the pillow boxes exist today there are many others that have been destroyed and that sources does not count the countless arm bunkers that were made for various reason bomb shelters, artillery bunkers, AA bunkers, tank bunkers…etc also the naval and air force bunkers so I am right about this one as weal, I hope now you can resume to sleeping weal at night since I have helped clarify something for you to help you comprehend my edits. By the way I wrote the first article you quoted.

Well good day once again my good adversary, from: Gon4z 03:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'By the way I wrote the first article you quoted' -- Your saying that you are Daniel Howden from the BBC, and 'The Independent' (british newspaper)? MrMacMan ^Talk 03:29, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No bright derrière I’am not, I referred to the article in wikipedia.Gon4z 03:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1) stop calling me names, its against wikipedia rules. 2) I have made further comments to Template talk:Infobox National Military Albania. MrMacMan ^Talk 04:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See the tags placed by AKliman Akliman (talk · contribs) on the article Pluralism in economics. Someone ought to tell him that editing Wikipeadia entries should be about one-upsmanship.

Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)

The editor in question referred to HIMSELF as "the antichrist": indeed, that's how he SIGNED his edits. You can see for yourself if you look at the history of his user page. That topic came up repeatedly in discussions on the TSSI page.

Here are his exact words, taken directly from his user page dated 4/24: "Hi. I am Akliman, aka Andrew Kliman, aka the antichrist". Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)

Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)

I replied to you on your talk page. He no longer uses that signature, it is improper to keep using it. MrMacMan ^Talk 13:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is all rather confusing. Once someone refers to oneself as "aka [fill in blank]" then it seems to me to be legitimate to refer to that person in the same way regardless of whatever additional "akas" s/he chooses to assign to oneself. In any event, it was MOST CERTAINLY not personally abusive to refer to him by the name that he himself referred to himself as. Note, by the way, that since he referred to himself as "the antichrist" others have - outside of Wikipedia -- referred to him with that expression. Once you give yourself a name like that, it's really impossible to take it back. Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)

Thanks for your input. I replied to your latest comments on my talk page. Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)

Could you reinstate the image instead then? Konekoniku 07:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to be quite popular these days! Thanks for keeping an eye out. ... discospinster _talk 13:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Presented to User:MrMacMan for his efforts at keeping my user page vandalism free! ... discospinster talk 13:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My first banstar! Thanks discospinster! MrMacMan ^Talk 13:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have since moved this to a subpage (User:MrMacMan/Ze Banstars) so I can put this on my user page... I'm not sure how my to 'move this' without breaking my own refactoring policy... so I've leaving this here, but it is the same banstar you see on my user page. MrMacMan ^Talk 02:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read what I wrote on the user talk page of J.smith J.smith (talk · contribs). Thanks. Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)

Dear MrMacMan,

I appreciate your quick response to the RfC. However, I don't think that there is any POV dispute or cleanup dispute other than the dispute regarding advertising and spam.

Not true. Many other objections have been explained at enormous length on TSSI talk page. Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)

Watchdog07 regards the provision of information about the TSSI as an advertisement for it, and as spam, and so it is the provision of information about the TSSI--rather than any specific content--that he regards as non-neutral and as requiring "cleanup."

That is a complete misrepresentation of my position. Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)

(Please take a look at his deletion of the International Working Group on Value Theory--which is associated with the TSSI--from the "Groups for Pluralism in Economics" section of pluralism in economics.)  

Please look at AKliman's edits on that page, especially those concerning URPE. Further, note that the IWGVT is listed on that page in the same section as URPE. Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)

In other words, he wants the article reduced to a stub in order to eliminate almost all information about the TSSI and in order to then have the article deleted.

This is directly contradicted by my many attempts at a good faith compromise, all of which were either rejected or ignored by Akliman. Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)

Please note that he has repeatedly threatened to reduce it to a stub (see above).

See above. Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)

If you look at the complaints he's made, there is nothing still at issue that he's said is non-neutral or in need of cleanup other than the alleged facts that the journal section is an ad and the link to my book is spam.

Not even remotely close to being true. Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)

The other specific complaints have been dealt with.

Most certainly not true! Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)

He wanted quotation marks around some words; they're now there. He wanted citations from reliable sources; they're now there. He is, it is true, claiming that exceptional claims are being made that require exceptional sources, but this is not an NPOV issue; it's an RS issue. (Please see

Imagine that I want every Wikipedia article to say "X is a kangaroo," and I don't want it to say anything other than "X is a kangaroo." Frank Sinatra is a kangaroo--nothing else. Finland is a kangaroo--nothing else. The Magna Carta is a kangaroo--nothing else. Etc. So I put NPOV and cleanup warning tags on every article. And nothing anybody says convinces me to remove them. Nothing can convince me, other than eliminating all content other than "X is a kangaroo." Does it make any sense to say that there's a POV and cleanup dispute about everything because there's no "consensus"? Isn't it rather the case that these actions are just sophisticated vandalism that jeopardizes the integrity of the encyclopedia? And shouldn't they be treated as such?

The vandalism was done by AKliman with his edit of Jurriaan's article -

which he didn't even attempt to explain on the talk page. Jurriaan (a long-standing and active Wikipedian who has edited articles on many subjects and created the TSSI page to begin with) wrote that his article was "murdered" by Akliman. Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)

What's going on here is the same thing, but focused on one issue and not so frivolous.

The removal of the neutrality and other tags by Akliman was not an act of someone displaying good faith. This lack of good faith also was displayed on the pluralism in economics page. His actions as editor have been, at best, extremeley inconsistent. Note also his edits of the David Laibman page which resulted in a lock of that page. Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)

justice-thunders-condemnation 06:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what I wrote freed from the constant stream of interjections that serves to interrupt the flow of my argument, thereby rendering it unintelligible:

Dear MrMacMan,

I appreciate your quick response to the RfC. However, I don't think that there is any POV dispute or cleanup dispute other than the dispute regarding advertising and spam. Watchdog07 regards the provision of information about the TSSI as an advertisement for it, and as spam, and so it is the provision of information about the TSSI--rather than any specific content--that he regards as non-neutral and as requiring "cleanup." (Please take a look at his deletion of the International Working Group on Value Theory--which is associated with the TSSI--from the "Groups for Pluralism in Economics" section of pluralism in economics.) In other words, he wants the article reduced to a stub in order to eliminate almost all information about the TSSI and in order to then have the article deleted. Please note that he has repeatedly threatened to reduce it to a stub (see above).

If you look at the complaints he's made, there is nothing still at issue that he's said is non-neutral or in need of cleanup other than the alleged facts that the journal section is an ad and the link to my book is spam. The other specific complaints have been dealt with. He wanted quotation marks around some words; they're now there. He wanted citations from reliable sources; they're now there. He is, it is true, claiming that exceptional claims are being made that require exceptional sources, but this is not an NPOV issue; it's an RS issue. (Please see

WP:RS

.) He's repeated been asked to identify non-neutral content and to supply additional content, but it hasn't happened. Everything specific is about advertising, spam, or RS.

Imagine that I want every Wikipedia article to say "X is a kangaroo," and I don't want it to say anything other than "X is a kangaroo." Frank Sinatra is a kangaroo--nothing else. Finland is a kangaroo--nothing else. The Magna Carta is a kangaroo--nothing else. Etc. So I put NPOV and cleanup warning tags on every article. And nothing anybody says convinces me to remove them. Nothing can convince me, other than eliminating all content other than "X is a kangaroo." Does it make any sense to say that there's a POV and cleanup dispute about everything because there's no "consensus"? Isn't it rather the case that these actions are just sophisticated vandalism that jeopardizes the integrity of the encyclopedia? And shouldn't they be treated as such?

What's going on here is the same thing, but focused on one issue and not so frivolous.

justice-thunders-condemnation 06:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

justice-thunders-condemnation 03:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The restoration of the neutrality and cleanup tags was a necessary but insufficient step. I have presented plenty of evidence and arguments for why the spam and advertising tags need to be on the TSSI article. I will restore those tags. If they are removed again, then I will revert the article to stub. These tags are urgently required to preserve the integrity of Wikipedia and to alert readers of the article to the presence of spam and advertisement. The alternative is to delete the offensive sections and/or reduce the article to a black-and-white factual edit. Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)

Please note my most recent message on the talk page of J.Smith J.Smith (talk · contribs) regarding meatpuppets and a puppetmaster on the TSSI talk page.

M.Posner has reverted the TSSI page in violation of the 3-revert-rule. See comments I made on J. Smith's talk page J.Smith (talk · contribs). Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)

WAtchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)

A the user is 'J.smith' with a lowcase letter s.

B I don't regard the editors as meat-puppets.

C The 3RR, ergo, doesn't apply.

D Your making this very very hard on everyone involved by being rather aggressive in your edits, clams and messagine very party that is involved while blanking useful info on your own talk page. MrMacMan ^Talk 02:32, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied to all of the above on my talk page. It has already been determined that the two editors in question (Alan XAX Freeman and M.posner) are and can be treated as meatpuppets. The conditions by which both can continue to participate have been agreed to by both users. These conditions specifically stipulate that neither user is to edit the article except where it is a simple non-controversial issue such as grammar or spelling corrections. Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)

A

3. A change from "delete" to "change" might have seemed unnecessary, but many of my requests were for edits to change rather than be "deleted". A specific inclusion of the content of articles Marxian economics and Pluralism in economics as issues to be resolved was both important and consistent with the RFM (since both of those articles had been referenced in the RFM), in my opinion.

Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)

1) Yes I read the guidelines too but I don't see a comment section.

2) I've never had a RFM before but you changed the scope of the RFM so I would assume that it isn't proper.

3) I'm not involved in the issues in those articles, so I have no comment on the changes. MrMacMan ^Talk 02:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Temporal single-system interpretation . For the Mediation Committee, ^ [omg plz] This message delivered by contact the Mediation Committee directly .

I responded to your comment on my user talk page on the same page. Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)

Indeed there is no 17th Alpini regiment, BUT there are hordes of other specialized and short-lived Alpini units- have a look here- but be aware this list is not even remotely complete! :-) There were even Coastal (!) Defence Alpinis... Thanks for the accolades fot my contributions- I try my best to make wikipedia the best :-) noclador 17:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been seeing more and more of your edits and I want to thank you for some of the revert work you have been doing. MrMacMan ^Talk 19:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And vice versa. My focus is more New Jersey related, but I grew up on Long Island and lived for a few years in the Great Neck area, so I allow myself to be sucked in if the edit summaries attract my attention. Thanks for all your work on these school articles, as well. Alansohn 19:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Giving me the same warning i gave you doesn't make you in the right. And you also have been blocked for another 48 hours for breaking the 3RR after I posted this message on your talk page. MrMacMan ^Talk 23:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Regarding the

In general, it's best to try other methods of

If you want to request santcions at the noticeboard, just leave a note (similar to the one on AN/I) detailing why you think the editor should be sanctioned. Also best to be specific about what you think would be appropriate (e.g. a topic ban on Albanian military matters, or "revert parole" (restricted to 1 revert per week or such), or a site-wide ban). Also details of why you think the editor is a problem and unlikely to improve, past blocks, etc. You can look at some of the prior discussions on the noticeboard archive to get a sense of how things usually go down. MastCell ^Talk 22:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will not reply to you-know-who on the TSSI talk page as his latest writing is unworthy of a direct response to him. Instead, I will direct your attn. to comments I made today on the user talk page of J.Smith J.smith (talk · contribs). Do you recall anyone on Wikipedia ever having done something similar, or as outrageous, as what he-who-shall-not-be-mentioned did today?

Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)

Excuse me; to ask for an escrow account in the hands of a third party simply cannot properly be called solicitation of funds. This statement violates

WP:Harass. Readers should indeed check out my explanation of why the escrow account is advisable. I am trying to find a way to induce Watchdog07 into mediation. His refusal to directly respond is tantamount to continued refusal to engage in mediation. The record shows clearly who is looking for a solution and who is not. justice-thunders-condemnation 02:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Dear MrMacMan - I have placed another comment on the user talk page of J.smith J.smith (talk · contribs) concerning this matter. Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)

Please see what I wrote on the talk page of J.smith J.smith (talk · contribs). Basically, it concerns the following: Andrew Kliman twice deleted a RFC which I authored concerning the use of the expression "New Orthodox Marxists" in the TSSI article! He also deleted two other RFCs which I wrote! This latest scandal follows yesterday's scandal in which he objected to the use of an expression in the article which he himself introduced into the article and sourced. The latter action (especially his rationalization of it) is ridiculous, self-contradictory and insulting. The former action is an attack on the entire Wikipedia community as RFCs are an important and integral component in the Wikipedia process of dispute resolution. For his repeated acts of vandalism (and his overall pattern of behavior) I have asked that he be indefinately blocked. Watchdog07 12:35, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, a ban is something imposed on a user by the community appointed Arbcom or Jimbo Wales by fiat for whatever reason, and a block is something any admin does to an individual user account or IP address for predetermined reasons (usually vandalism, sometimes immediately if the vandalism is severe or offensive enough, or in the case of continued actions by users blatantly against policy in the face of multiple warnings). They can both be for a set time or permanent. Bans can be permanent, blocks of user accounts can be permanent, but we don't like to permablock IP addresses. As in the case of Jessica, I blocked (what I believe to be) her IPs for 6 mos., so it ever gets reassigned to another computer after that time that computer can conceivably register for a new user account. Known shared IPs are blocked for much less time. Admins are supposed to use Arbcom mandated block ranges to enforce bans, but don't themselves declare bans on other users in order to block or have other admins block. That way, admin actions can be reversed by other admins or even by themselves if they change their minds, but bans "from above" can't be lifted by admins. I don't know why she was allowed to edit for so long, I don't even remember now (incipient Alzheimer's?) what attracted my attention to her editing, oddly since sockpuppet hunting isn't the sort of thing I usually do. My guess is she slipped through the cracks since she is apparently pleasant enough and what she does isn't obvious vandalism. Her

Yes, they were decent photos, but they came from a source we've found we can't trust, a source that will say practically anything to continue on her terms with a project where she has made herself unwelcome to the community. There is debate on the issue of how far to revert banned users, but my take is that leaving (especially) images of dubious provenence could expose Wikipedia to legal liability if they actually originally came from another source; if she didn't actually take them herself, and the (hypothetical) original source happened to see them unlicensed on Wikipedia some day. If we've severed our ties with her, yet leave an image she's uploaded, we can't easily go to her and ask her to prove it's hers if anyone ever challenges the image copyright status. Add that to the consideration of the upshot of the ban being that she's lost the privilege of contributing to Wikipedia, I thought it best to refactor the articles as much as possible. --Fire Star 火星 04:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The burden of proof is on you or Alison to show me One Night In Hackney making edits where he removes relevant content from pages that are not related to Irish Republicans. How am I supposed to show you edits if I am saying they he hasn't made any of these edits? Please THINK before you post on my talk page. Bobby Sands man 20:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

His outrageous actions continue: see my comments on J.Smith's

Yes, I know. It probably means I'll end up an administrator, as I see they are the ones who get their user pages vandalized the most. :-) IPSOS (talk) 22:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No chance, you are too aggressive and indulge in too many disputes. When you learn to show respect for other users then you might be considered after a suitable period of 'good behaviour'. If you really want to be an admin then your home page would be a good place to start i.e. by removing your arrogant and offensive material. 217.42.83.204 (talk · contribs)

User 217.42.83.204 -- I assume you are referring to IPSOS, but its not necessary to express your opinion about this editor here. Thanks, MrMacMan ^Talk 01:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, thanks for looking out - I forget to login sometimes. Zena Dhark…·°º•ø®@» 04:24, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your advice. I can see that there may be fault on both sides. However, so far Watchdog hasn't been able to support his claims. I don't know if he is capable of doing that. What do you think? Sunray 08:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Correction - I have provided exactly what you asked for on the Marxian economics talk page. You asked for succinct reasons and I have given them. Watchdog07 13:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MrMacMan - 5 exclamation points is a bit excessive - not to mention the use of CAPS which you have critisized me for using. Watchdog07 13:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At the time I posted in both the

WP:ANI and Talk:Marxian_economics You had not yet given succinct reasons. You, since that time, have. Thank you. MrMacMan ^Talk 17:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC) _{I will not acknowledge your response to my edit summary when you continue to make use of bolded words in your actual text.}[reply

]

Sorry, I didn't see the above until just now. I will try to minimize the use of bolded words, but will use them when I think they are necessary. By the way, the quote that I reproduced from

WP:AGF was in bold in the original. Watchdog07 02:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

If we can get some agreement on how to proceed (based on WP policies), perhaps we can actually improve the article. I've suggested some groundrules on the talk page. We shall see. Sunray 17:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. We shall see. I have explained my feelings about those ground rules on the article talk page. If others are committed to increasing the neutrality of the article, it can be done and should be done rather effortlessly. Unfortunately, after a couple of months discussion I know that nothing that seems like it can be done effortlessly has been done without enormous (time-consuming) effort. You wouldn't believe how long it took and what had to be done to get another editor to agree that a quotation should be placed in quotation marks. Please read today's edits of the article by Andrew Kliman. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, right? Have you ever seen edits like that in an encyclopedia? He has a hard time with writing edits based on fact rather than his personal opinion, or so it seems to me. By the way, are you familar with the literature on the subject of Marxian economics?Watchdog07 02:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the revert... apparently a lot of people have a problem with me. Whatever.

Thanks again.

Stealthrabbit ^{Say it, baby, say it!} 16:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey thanks, I think they are pretty stable now. Feel free to put them on, I don't think I need to change them any more. Any suggestions? Just let me know if you do. Thanks again, though.

Yes we are the same person. Mindys user page redirect to ajwc and the talk page redirects back to mindys. I edit under the mindys account to keep the same history. But I would like to have my account name changed to Adam.J.W.C. I am still waiting on approval.
Thanks.

Ah, i should have checked that first. Silly mistake, sorry. MrMacMan ^Talk 06:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How did you notice this.

Strange as it sounds I actually patrol the Special:Recentchanges, specifically under recent changes to users. I often find that userpage vandalism is much harder to spot and usually harder to find than article vandalism so I have to try and weed out changes by editors using different accounts and such. I saw a bunch of edits in relative succession on the page and here I am. Anyway, sorry bout' any confusion. MrMacMan ^Talk 06:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thats ok, thanks for looking out for mi.

No, I have 1 account, gbgg89. those are my friends' accounts, and we all like to get cool userboxes from each other and things like that. Gbgg89 13:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I reported him today to administrator Prodego as he had to deal with Gon4z more than once too. Gon4z is currently editing unsourced material into articles and accuses anyone that does not agree of “vandalism” or “racism”. I think a longer ban is required. You can find my report about Gon4z (and a list of “deeds”) to administrator Prodego here. If you have any negative experiences with Gon4z or an opinion to add I would welcome your contributions. Thanks and best regards noclador 01:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear MrMacMan,

Please see my reply to user:sunray's query about translations of articles from other language Wikipedias, posted on his talk page. Comments are welcome and I have suggested to Sunray that these are posted on his talk page - he may have another proposal. I am endeavouring to contact other active editors who might be interested in these proposals and would welcome your suggestions on who these could be. I intend to post this identical message on the user talk pages of andrew-the-k, Haemo, Watchdog07, and M.Posner

Alan XAX Freeman 08:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've been impersonated by

Are you sure it's Jessica Liao? bibliomaniac15 Join or die! 22:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Same pattern of disruptive edits and confrontational talk page discussions. I was going to add the "suspected sockpuppet" template myself. Nposs 01:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

She also seems to have taken on a look-alike of MrMacMan's signature. bibliomaniac15 Join or die! 04:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is what happens when i take a few days off wikipedia... I get impersonated? This is an outrage. MrMacMan ^Talk 09:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your impersonator was a sockpuppet of banned

User:Jessica Liao and has been indefblocked. What tipped me off to look deeper was that she impersonated you, who had dealings with her before. --Fire Star 火星 21:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Hey there MrMacMan! Thought you'd be interested in this discussion. It be nice to get your input. Best, aNubiSIII ^{(T / C)} 18:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As much as I don't like to make accusations... User:Nitsirk edits the same articles, already tried to change all of the infobox's to 'senior high school' out of style... I haven't been active editing in a while, but it smells fishy to me, what do you think? MrMacMan ^Talk 23:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Sure smells like it. I don't understand the perceived distinction, but I am keeping an eye on these Great Neck school articles. Alansohn 23:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• You might like to take a look at User talk:Dekimasu and Talk:Grade retention. Dekimasuよ! 13:10, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that I forgot to "wikilink" senior high school in the

Nitsirk has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thanks for your comment, MrMacMan. I'm glad you approved of my edit. Tim Ivorson 2010-01-10

Do plan on working on that? I want to change the front-end clients table to a add version details etc. Some of the clients are bound to get deleted as separate articles. Look at

Hi, if you are active on Wikipedia and are still interested in helping out with urgent tasks on our large Schools Project, please let us know here. We look forward to hearing from you.

Sent to project members 13:58, 29 August 2021 (UTC). You can opt of messages here.