User talk:Taxman: Difference between revisions

Note: I strongly prefer to keep conversations intact. I'll usually respond only here to comments made here unless you request me to do otherwise. Likewise I will respond on your talk page to any comments made there, and I'd request doing the same. Thank you, and happy wikiing.

For older discussion see: Archive1, Archive2

Request

To anyone reading here, please peer review an article to help it reach a higher quality level. Keep in mind the featured article criteria and consider some featured article advice, both of which should help give you ideas of where an article needs improvement. Thanks - Taxman ^Talk 13:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Strike sock vote on RFA/Elonka

I suppose you must have good info on Gene Poole/Centauri to do that? Did you do a checkuser? Centauri is IMO an abusive account anyway, and if it's an unacknowledged votestacking sock to boot, it should surely be indefblocked. And Gene Poole given a block, too? Centauri has been trying to run DreamGuy off the wiki for months with his harassment, and has a flamethrower routinely trained on me for trying to stop it, so it's not ideal for me to be the one to impose any blocks. But this is very bad behavior altogether, isn't it? Bishonen | talk 19:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC).

I've seen enough that I'm very confident it is a sockpuppet. But I'm also not interested in taking the time to pursue it beyond making sure he doesn't disrupt RfA. As you know checkuser is easy enough to evade if you're trying. I'm of the opinion that at times we all focus way too much on things that don't matter as much here as they seem to – articles are the only thing that really matters. The rest is just fluff in the end. But as far as friends go that part's worth it, so I'm glad to see someone's still talking to me. :) But also if you think his behavior is disruptive enough that it's damaging articles or your efforts to work on them, start up another RfC or add an adendum to what I recall was an old arbcom case. - Taxman ^Talk 03:27, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

You people amaze me. I've been quietly and uneventfully contributing to dozens of articles for years, and somehow I'm a problem. Yet DreamGuy can go around swearing, blanking content, abusing others, harrasing people and making all sorts of bizarre accusations and according to you, that's just fine. You need to take a good long look at the damage you're doing to Wikipedia by endorsing that sort of behaviour. --Centauri 23:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

A complete red herring. I don't endorse that behavior and I'd prefer you don't claim that I do. I can't fix everything on Wikipedia, but I can work on some of the things I see. It becomes a problem when you try to violate WP:SOCK and distort consensus gathering or votes. As far as I was aware of before this you had avoided doing that. - Taxman ^Talk 23:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The only red herring here is DreamGuy and his handful of suspiciously supportive admin friends accusing me of being a sock every time I draw their attention to how disuptive he is. It isn't me who calls people "psychotic", or describes blanked text as "fucked up spam", accuses everyone he disagrees with of "harrassing" him or "impersonating" him etc etc. If you wish to give validity through your actions to snide rumours about me that have been promoted almost entirely by a handful of editors who might charitably be described as slightly unbalanced (and most of whom have either been permanently blocked, or who have left the project after pissing off so many people that their continued participation became impossible) then that's entirely up to you - but I simply don't care because I know I haven't done anything wrong. On the other hand, by failing to address editors who openly abuse Wikipedia standards over a period of many months, you implicitly endorse their behaviour, and that is completely unacceptable. --Centauri 23:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Pretty entertaining (sorry, easily entertained I guess) that you follow the claim that you're not using a red herring with furthering the red herring. Dreamguy's actions don't have anything to do with your violating WP:SOCK. And no that's not just been mentioned by people who fit your personal attacks, it's pretty obvious in fact. I'm not sure why you persist in thinking anyone doesn't notice. It must get tiring carrying on the charade with two different accounts for so long. - Taxman ^Talk 03:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The reason I "persist" is that there's nothing to "notice". You can continue spinning this as long you like, but nothing's going to change. As for accusing me of making personal attacks - that's just silly. There isn't one example of my ever doing that. --Centauri 05:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

History of Tamil Nadu peer review

Hi Taxman, In the past you had helped me with the review of Chola dynasty. I have nominated another article for peer review. Can you please take a look at History of Tamil Nadu and comment? Thanks - Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 02:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC) Seems pretty solid on first glance. I'll see if I can't give it a good review soon. - Taxman ^Talk 03:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Elonka sockpuppetry

I noticed that you removed User:Centauri's vote in the Elonka RfA. Centauri has just re-voted, and some other strange votes are appearing there. Wryspy 06:21, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka

Thank you very much for your efforts, and for your advice. I will indeed do my best to take encouragement from those who supported my nomination, listen carefully to learn from those who had good faith opposition, and ignore the rest.  ;) And yes, I still firmly believe in the Wikipedia project, and plan to continue contributing in as positive a manner as I am able. --Elonka 21:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Hiya, I could actually use some advice, if you have a moment. I've been trying to figure out if there's any way that I can "bury the hatchet" with a few of the people that were opposing my RfA. I did post thank you notes to everyone, and have gotten some positive responses. In the case of DreamGuy though, I made (what I felt was) a good faith offer, but his reply has me scratching my head as to how I can continue the conversation in a good faith way (as it seems to violate WP:NPA and WP:AGF). Do you agree? And do you have any suggestions on whether or not I should pursue communication? Thanks, Elonka 21:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

You can disagree with what he says, but I have a hard time finding anything in there that violates NPA against you. Maybe that's not what you were referring to and in the allusions he makes to other users there is certainly some there that isn't terribly helpfully worded, particularly without evidence to back the assertions. But the truth is you don't need to bury the hatchet with anyone, just let your contributions do the talking. That's probably more important than anything else. I haven't dug into the situation, but it seems there is a grain of truth in at least some of his comments. The same seems true for those that point out the problems DG causes (or adds to) of course. How disputes flare up and get out of control is people failing to find common ground and only harping on the worst that others do and exaggerating it. But just to answer your question, it is possible to continue that in a good faith way if you so desired, by being unfailingly polite, and asking for clarification on statements he doesn't provide evidence for to your satisfaction. That doesn't mean it will be a productive conversation because you can't always change people, but I'm just stating that it is possible to not lower yourself to someone else's level. You have to maintain a higher level of civility, and that's not always easy, but it is possible. If you believe he may have valuable insight that will help you, pursue it. Otherwise, just make great contributions that undeniably help build an encyclopedia. Working on Wikipedia:Vital articles is a bulletproof option :). - Taxman ^Talk 23:04, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

What the hell?

I don't know who made you king of Wikipedia, but randomly deleting people's votes is pretty damned sad. --Centauri 22:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

You and I both know it wasn't random. As part of my role as bureaucrat I am charged with preventing disruption of RfA. Please don't use this account to vote on anything and you'll otherwise be free to edit. - Taxman ^Talk 23:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

From Trödel

Thx - I'll let you know - see my thank you project here: User:Trödel/RFA --Trödel 13:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

thanks!

When I started my second editor review, I had no idea how greatly helpful it would be to me. Here are people from across the world who I've never met or laid eyes upon, taking their personal time to think about me and offer me valuable criticism and advice. And the stuff I've learnt is more helpful in real life than just on Wikipedia. This is an experiment I will never forget. I thank you most sincerely for your kindness, for helping me be a better person. I am very much in your debt. Rama's arrow 15:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Glad I was able to add in helping. - Taxman ^Talk 13:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Resquest for changing my pseudo name

Can you rename my pseudo Bigorneau to Grondin. Thank's.--Bertrand GRONDIN 03:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

That name's taken, sorry. Please see WP:CHU and search for an open name using Special:Listusers. Also, it would be great if you would add links to your other language and project userpages on your userpage here. - Taxman ^Talk 13:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll do that :-)--Bertrand GRONDIN 20:51, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for supporting my RfA

Thank you for supporting my RfA that I have passed with 73/2/1 and your promoting me. In response to your recent message to me, yes, I know that different Wiki sites may have different policies. For example, I know that fair use is permitted here and at Chinese Wikipedia, but formally or de facto prohibited at Wikimedia Commons and Wikisource while their roles to host full (not partial) works cannot practically claim "fair" use on others' copyrighted works. In case of doubts, I will check the policies before actions as I do elsewhere.--Jusjih 09:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Copyedit

Sir, I have been recommended to request you for a thorough copy edit of my article Hoysala architecture before I submit for peer review. Please find time to go thru this article (and the sister article Hoysala Empire that is linked to it). I have worked on these two articles for over 3 months to bring it here.Please respond on my talk page. ThanksDineshkannambadi 19:35, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Hoysala empire/architecture

Thanks a lot for your advice. I shall look into your tips carefully and try to write more on the imbalanced sections among other things.You are right. Not only have I researched the matter from my sources, I have also travelled to all the locations mentioned (as a hobby). Most of the photos are mine.Dineshkannambadi 23:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Ganeshbot

Taxman, Thank you so much for helping out in merging the Indian town articles. Could you please tl the state-wise stub template too? Like for example, {{Goa-geo-stub}} to {{tl|Goa-geo-stub}}. Thanks, Ganeshk (talk) 04:18, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I didn't think about that template too, I'll have to clean up after myself. :) - Taxman ^Talk 04:22, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello

Heloo Taxman sir. I would really appreciate if you could please check your email and reply to me at your earliest convenience. Thank you very much sir. Sincerely, Anupam^Talk 18:58, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Your vendetta

This can be summarized as "I think its a sock, so therefor I'm blocking it". Most of your assertions are not even close to being true. Identical articles? Total fantasy. I know Wikipedia isn't a democracy, but your vendetta against me is just ridiculous and sad. --Centauri 22:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Typical response of cranking up the emotional rhetoric. I'm actually 100% confident, it's not based on nothing. How did you even know about it except that I let Gene Poole know? Oh yes, it's because you're the same person. - Taxman ^Talk 23:42, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Cranking up the emotional rhetoric? Couldn't have done it better if I tried. Has it occured to you that I actually agree with him on some issues? Far-fetched that 2 people might possibly agree, I know. Better to just go out on a limb and call them socks. Particularly when most of the time they edit dozens of different articles that aren't even slightly related. Hell, they don't even vote on the same articles the vast majority of the time - but no, you know best - they're socks. Oh and I'm here because several people were kind enough to email me the link to your rant. --Centauri 06:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, can you name even one poll, such as on AfD, where the Gene Poole and Centauri accounts voted in opposite directions? There were many where both voted. Jonathunder 23:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

So I guess that makes everyone else who also voted the same way socks too - and there are lots and lots of them. --Centauri 22:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

So there has been a previous inconclusive checkuser request on me, has there? Please provide a link to the archived request you're referring to. And then maybe you should go run one one me today. Or are you too scared your accusations won't stand up to scientific scrutiny? Go on. I dare you. And I look forward to the apology you'll be posting on my talk page afterwards. --Centauri 01:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I recall a previous claim of an inconclusive CU. Perhaps before they were filed, I don't know. And again, CU is not to be used for obvious cases and can only confirm, not deny. Scientific scrutiny, nor pixie dust is CU. - Taxman ^Talk 01:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

So, translating that into English: there was no previous checkuser request, and you know if you do one today you'll be proved a fool, and are trying to cover your ass. How lame. --Centauri 01:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: Vivian

Well, if you have a diff for that admission, I'd endorse a block. But simply having 2 accounts doesn't automatically violate WP:SOCK, so far all I've seen from is an admission to having 2 accounts. --W.marsh 16:23, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

But if they are unwilling to tell us what other accounts they edit under we cannot confirm they are not violating it every time they vote. Their option as I see it is to not vote in anything with the account, or confirm what other accounts they edit with. - Taxman ^Talk 16:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Inactive Bureaucrats

I think the active/inactive list needs to be updated at WP:BCRAT. I was going to do it myself, but I figure you'd be better off taking a look at it. Thanks --Jay(Reply) 23:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead if you like, just run through all the logs. What did you see that needs updating? - Taxman ^Talk 00:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

It was mainly UninvitedCompany (talk · contribs · rights · renames) who has no bureaucrat activity since April 18, 2006 – I don't know how y'all divy up the duties, but it looks like you and a few others bear the load. --Jay(Reply) 00:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I tend to feel that unless they are particularly important, all the meta, organizational edits we do around here are just overhead and a distraction from improving articles. The information is already in the logs anyway. I'm not sure why we maintain an active vs inactive separation anyway. But you've already noticed it and looked it up, so there's no harm in going ahead if you want to. - Taxman ^Talk 00:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Stream

Hi Taxman - could you please take a look at this essay of mine - particular reference to the "ACG" idea. I thought it was a good, fluid method to improve admin work efficiency, teamwork and promote some accountability. I'd like your advice on how to make it practical. Rama's arrow 02:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I didn't have time to read it all, but my general feeling is that more Wikipedia space pages just take the focus off what we should be here for which is writing articles. That seems kind of what you're getting at, but I think the solution is just working on articles, not creating more overhead. I believe all we need to do is get out of the way of people creating content along with enforcing and teaching the content policies and removing editors that detract from our efforts. If we focus on the content being of the highest quality possible, with reliable references we'll do just fine. Higher quality content will draw more participation which will improve content quality. But I applaud your efforts, keep up the good work. - Taxman ^Talk 15:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Warning

I've told you not to post further comments to my talk page. I won't repeat myself a third time. If you don't understand how I might find your posting of a direct personal attack like this to be offensive, you're either attempting to be duplicitous, or else a fool. --Gene_poole 05:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Well for starters as long as I'm posting politely and responding to comments you've made in error about me, I am free to leave messages on your talk page. That's how the project works, but for the sake of politeness that you yourself are not willing to observe, I'll not for now.
• Also, the discussion on AN/I you link above 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 have 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 06:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Your user and talk pages belong to the Wikimedia Foundation and are not your property. They will be used for the furtherance of the cause of Wikipedia. Taxman is an established an a responsible member of the community. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 16:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Re:Ganeshbot suggestions

Replied here. -- Ganeshk (talk) 20:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Centauri reincarnated as 125.253.33.180

Can you block this IP address? Harvardy 02:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Why is Wik here? --125.253.35.155 03:02, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

What makes you think that I'm Wiki, other than your attempt to make Lucky think so? Are you allowed to edit while you are blocked? Looks like a lack of respect for the our policy here. "I'll be editing anonymously until the block on me is reversed, so I won't be keeping as close an eye on things as before. --125.253.33.180 02:58, 6 November 2006 (UTC) (Centauri)" Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Georgewilliamherbert" Harvardy 03:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Wik. In case you've forgotten, you're permanently hard-banned and are not allowed to edit. Ever. I'm going to be making it my business to see the ban enforced on every single one of your socks from here on in. --125.253.33.65 03:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Good luck with that as there couldn't be a shred of evidence to indicate so, but you surely deserve to be hard-banned from the little I have observed of your behavior. Looks like this entire range needs to be blocked and thanks: 125.253.33.65 Harvardy 03:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Not a shred of evidence. Quite. That didn't stop your cheersquad blocking me - so shouldn't prove too much of an issue with you. Again. How many times is it now? Have you broken the century yet? --125.253.33.65 03:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Another IP address being used by Centauri to vandalize or push George's POV agenda needs to be blocked: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=125.253.32.222 Can you block George now? Harvardy 20:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification keep them coming, but I'm not going to support you by making a one sided edit war. You need to start substantiating and discussing your edits instead of just reverting or else you'll be facing editing restrictions too. Use the tools of WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:NOR. - Taxman ^Talk 21:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, but the only edit that is at issue at this moment involves adding two words, the first cinderalla from which I made a link to a Wikipedia article and the other the word "purportedly" to George's coins as he provided nothting to support the existence of things that could just be pictures on his computer and not actual coins or bills. Can you revert back to my last edition, because I really don't want to fight with him. Harvardy 21:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

No, I won't, but I gave you the content policies that you can use to substantiate your position. If he can't substantiate his and you can, then you have something.Discuss on the talk page, don't revert. - Taxman ^Talk 21:29, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

No problem, please take a look and see if I did it correctly at Atlantium talk and then please let me know how long do I need to wait to include those changes? Harvardy 21:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that's about right. But you probably need to tone down the POV in your edits too, it detracts from the strength of your position. You need to back your position with references and can ask that he does also. Give it a couple days and try to avoid bickering as much as possible so others will be willing to participate. In other words, don't take the bait. Then when you get consensus that can be enforced. - Taxman ^Talk 22:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Ganeshbot

I have added templates to all articles list on the Not created page per your suggestion. It is getting quite a response. :) Thanks, Ganeshk (talk) 07:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you for participating in my RfA discussion! I appreciate you contributing your voice to the debate and its outcome. I hope how I wield the mop makes you proud. Thanks!

— Saxifrage

Excuse me?

What on earth makes you think I "wasn't willing to look into the case more carefully" on the Centauri/Gene Poole sockpuppet allegations?

I've been working with both of them (singular him? I don't know) on various stuff, and had my own suspicious that it's merely a harmless sock pair, for a year. I am as aware of the details of the case as anyone else.

1. There's nothing wrong with asking that longtime contributors get a fair shake.
2. A CU was done, which showed ambiguous results (different ISP, both in Sydney), but at least it was done. It could have convicted, or potentially cleared (two different geographical locations) them unambiguously, though it was not unlikely that all it would do is produce an ambiguous result as it did.
3. There's no defense if they are socks and were voting together on stuff, or 3RRing stuff together.
4. Centauri needs to stop editing "anonymously" while he's blocked, and I've told him so.

I suggested to both Gene and Centauri that if they are in fact two people, they should send copies of their drivers licenses or the equivalent to someone at the foundation to verify that they're not the same person. I haven't heard anything since (not a good sign for their possible innocence).

I think they got the nominal fair shake, and I haven't been protesting the block anywhere or complaining about the people who did it. IF they can prove to someone at WMF that they're distinct people (or via some other acceptable alternate method), THEN I would argue for an unblock review, but that has not happened and shows no sign of it.

The admins who brought the sock case up were right to do so. I have tried to be careful on that point in the discussion.

You're free to vote on the RfA however you want, but this particular situation was not that simple. I advocated for treating him (them?) fairly, because they (he?) are people I've been working with on the project. It was not out of ignorance that I chose to ask for fair treatment; as I said, I had my own suspicions, which is part of why I have not objected to the result. But he (they?) deserved the consideration of a fair discussion on it.

I invite you to look at the case more carefully 8-) and reconsider. Even with this, there are clearly plenty of people who have other objections, but I ask that you give the specific points you appear to have mis-stated here a fair review.

Thank you.

Georgewilliamherbert 03:23, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I improperly focused my comments on that case. The bigger issue pointed out is the problem, and that there are so many examples. It isn't needed to spend a ton of time helping the underdog if the reason they are the underdog is they are causing the problem. Instead focus the efforts on helping the people that are building the project without causing harm. - Taxman ^Talk 04:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for your help with Medical assistant. -THB 20:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Review

Hello Taxman. You seem to have a talent for reviewing material. If you can spare some time, can you take a look at my investment wiki (www.ValueWiki.com)? We've customized mediawiki and added features (like voting, and greater categorization), but we're still in Beta. Would love to have an experienced Wikipedian who knows finance come and take a look at the site. You would be the first Wikipedian to check us out - your opinions and expertise would be very helpful. We're trying to build a wiki where investors can write NPOV coverage for all stocks, funds, and other investments. Thank you, Taxman! Jonathan Stokes 21:13, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Promotion thanks

Thanks Taxman to promote me and your words on my talk page. I would try to handle new tools in best possible way I can. Thanks for congratulations, Shyam ^(T/C) 05:53, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Allow me to thank you for promoting/congratulating me as well. I shall use these shiny new tools wisely. :-) Best regards.--Húsönd 19:49, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Possible new CSD

I'm floating around this proposal I've written for a new CSD regarding unsourced articles: User:Dmcdevit/CSD addition. There's quite a bit of explanatory fluff there that I think explains my thinking on the matter. Right now, I'm soliciting input from people before deciding how to go about implementing it. Any thoughts on the talk page would be greatly appreciated. :-) Dmcdevit·t 05:31, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Marking Thijs!bot as bot at Hindi Wikipedia

Were you able to contact any steward to flag user Thijs!bot as bot, at hindi wikipedia?

--Mitul0520 16:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually the bot's owner requested it, but maybe a steward didn't act on it because there weren't enough people agreeing with the need for it. Can you ask a few people to comment in support, in English ideally at least for the word "support". - Taxman ^Talk 17:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

RFA Thanks

Thanks!
Thanks for your input on my (nearly recent) Request for adminship, which regretfully achived no consensus, with votes of 68/28/2. I am grateful for the input received, both positive and in opposition, and I'd like to thank you for your participation.
Georgewilliamherbert 05:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: Congratulations

Thank you very much. I will do my best to improve Wikipedia, will use these tools in the most reasonable way, and will ask before acting, at least during the first months. Thanks again! -- ReyBrujo 17:45, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Re:Availability

Hi. Yes, I'll be around. I can close them both, no problem :) Cheers, Redux 19:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:AN content removal

I will gladly consent to this. However, the problem here is that User:Husnock continues to ratchet up the assault. I was thoroughly alarmed that today he has ratcheted it up to include accusations that I slandered him. This isn't just flirting with WP:NLT. If he continues the ratcheting, the next step from a legal threat is legal action. I now stand on the verge of being personally, off-wiki, threatened if he continues his onslaught. This is intolerable. Somebody needs to reign him in and get him to back off on the rhetoric and the constant, continual ratcheting up of the situation. I tried to remain calm and cool under fire while an agreement was hammered out. It was. But, subsequent to that he has continued his relentless attacks. How much am I supposed to put up with? Will I have to be in a court of law as defense from him before someone here says enough is enough? Where's the line? Hmm? Where? I've had it. My patience is shot and I refuse to consider the possibility of having to legally defend myself against him. He's now accusing me of revealing personal information about him in the real world (see User:Husnock/Durinharass#Original_actions item #9). Where does it stop? There's no sign of it ending. If I can't be permitted to defend myself here, then somebody else had better see to it. If nobody does, what choice do I have? I am quite happy to let this drop at the agreement of having Zscout370 mediate. He obviously isn't. This needs to stop. now. Now. NOW. --Durin 17:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ian Thorpe

Hello Taxman. I've finished a round of prose revamping. Please do have another look. Thanks for all your help so far, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:40, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately I do not have Phelps' biography. That would be helpful for the early years. Also, is a formal support required? I guess when Raul feels the article is OK, he will pull them off the list, correct? Blnguyen' (bananabucket) 01:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)