User talk:Woohookitty

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, vfd comments

Happy New Year

Go out and enjoy it. WP will still be here when you get back. novacatz 07:12, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What you aren't doing protection stuff anymore? So who am I going to rely on to be a fellow nazi against those who over-use semi??? :) :) :) Anywayz, hope you reconsider your position -- but if you decide to end looking at protection stuff then I respect that. Hope you find something in WP that keeps your interest. Take care, novacatz 07:20, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know Wikipedia can be frustrating as hell sometimes, with some individuals finding any old excuse to knock professionalism and high standards. I have been so close to quitting a couple of times but am hanging in there (just). Please don't leave. We need people like you to try to pull WP up to acceptable standards. Don't let the all too common crap pushers drive you away. There are a host of top class contributors on the brink of leaving in frustration. If we go, all our work in trying to uphold standards will have been in vain and the lunatics really will have taken over the assylum. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 12:43, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hear hear! Besides which, if you leave, who'll be my wikibuddy? (Nothing like an appeal to emotion ;) ) · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 05:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hank Williams dips into the surreal

Thanks for your previous comment on my semi-protection of Hank Williams. The issue with the vandal has now taken a surreal turn--the guy posted on the article's talk page that he witnessed these events and that I'm part of the conspiracy to cover up the facts he keeps inserting into the article (he also made a comment that I'm a "very stupid hillbilly indeed" but I can't help but laugh at that). Anyway, could you please advise me what to do. This is no longer a clear-cut vandalism case but instead a case of no original research. Since the user can't be blocked b/c he keeps using sock puppets, how do you suggest dealing with this? I have no desire to keep reverting the page several times a day, which is what previous experience with this user suggests will happen when the page is unprotected. Best, --Alabamaboy 16:20, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Purpose of RFArb

Just out of interest I was wondering what you hope to achieve out of the RFArb against Benjamin Gatti? --Chazz88 22:18, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Slightly edited: Chazz88 22:54, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotecting Islamist Terrorism

The article was protected because the likes of our racist crowd including Yuber, Farhansher, and LeeHunter think they "own" it and continually delete sourced material they think reflects badly on Islam. You've just reopened the problem.

Sockpuppeting - DisposableAccount , Paulcardan, Llbb, Bbll

The technical evidence indicates that User:DisposableAccount, User:Paulcardan, User:Llbb, and User:Bbll are all the same editor. I've blocked Llbb and Bbll, but I wasn't sure which of the other two to block, since DisposableAccount is the older one, but Paulcardan appears to be the real one. They should both be blocked, one permanently, and one temporarily to discourage sockpuppeting; I leave it to you as to which. Also, I've permanently blocked User:Marx marvelous; though the technical evidence tying it to the others isn't strong, it's still obviously a sockpuppet created for the purpose of policy violation. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked User:DisposableAccount. --JWSchmidt 01:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense, the account was disposable. ;-) Jayjg ^(talk) 02:16, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please go to User_talk:Jayjg and read my response? As I said on User_talk:JWSchmidt if we accept this definition of sockpuppetry then User:Memenen (i.e. the administrator User:JWSchmidt) is also a sockpuppet. Paulcardan 06:20, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Injunction Cleanup

I'll do it tommorrow. Its 5AM and I'm about to goto bed. --05:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Charmed

The article you put the speedy tag on is an episode of the show Charmed. [email protected] is posting a whole slew of badly written episode summaries. I'm just slapping the wikify tag on. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 15:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

And actually, we've discovered that they are ALL copyvios from http://charmed.tktv.net/ I get to delete all of them. oh goodie. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 15:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

- thanks for the info, appreciated, they were complete out of context, looked like gibberish. --Oscarthecat 15:12, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...

Yeah, I saw it. I moved it. Just creates extra work, but whatever. · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 17:50, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you find a better place for this than my talk page please

It would've been nice if you would've asked me for my opinion directly. I'm a he. I wouldn't call myself the main complainant. I am just the most vocal one. I didn't get involved in this until a month or so into it. As for the motion you put up, the arbcom is taking it's time on this one. So putting another motion up isn't necessary. You'd be delaying the delay. :) Just not point to it. Again, if you are going to get involved in this, I have no qualms, but I'd appreciate it if you ask my opinion directly, Chazz, as opposed to acting Ben, who is just a bit biased. And yes I am biased on the topic of him, but still. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 12:00, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thank you

thank you for showing me where the Wikinternet:Introduction template for pages 2 and 3 were. You rock ! I'm also starting a wiki site, it's dedicated to everything that has to do with internet, including sites that aren't allowed on wikipedia. It's http://wikinternet.org Not trying to spam you, just a heads up ! Sniggity 03:17, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gatti RFAr

Huh. I thought I had added 35 of his diffs. Did I not do it properly, or is it just the choice of his diffs you think was poor? Basically, I'm just trying to get the ArbCom to do something about his persistent and unrepentent disruption and wikilawyering. The Literate Engineer 03:50, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just recently proposed a general probation as a remedy. I haven't ever read or edited any nuclear power articles, so I don't have any comment specific to your proposal - not that I'm inclined to think it's inappropriate! Anyway, I have a headache, it's 1:30, and using dial-up on my aunt's laptop is kinda tedious, so... goodnight. The Literate Engineer 08:27, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Death of the Virgin (Caravaggio)

Hi.

I don't think it's a good idea to move the entry Death of the Virgin (Caravaggio) to Death of the Virgin - there are literally hundreds of paintings with this title, and Caravaggio's was just one of them. Can you move it back? PiCo 04:04, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :) PiCo

Charmed

Thanks for the thanks! Erm ... 'cept it wasn't me. I was still adding the finishing touches to Andrew Ziolkowski and Gabrielle Harrison at the time. Sorry :-) fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 08:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note

Hey I added some FoF proposals to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Benjamin Gatti/Workshop. Take a look if you want. Or don't if you're still taking a destressing break :). (Though I saw you on RFPP today!) Good night, Dmcdevit·t 09:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, thought about trying to frame a gaming FoF too, but the evidence wasn't framed in a way that I could find the diffs much more searching, maybe later. I reverted Gibraltarian on a few talk pages, and the short block is good I think. I really have to figure out how to do range blocks... Going to bed now, though :) Dmcdevit·t 09:33, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you do me a favor?

Take a look at this: [1] and his contribs: Special:Contributions/212.120.226.210. Here's the link for you: Special:Blockip. ;) Blackcap (talk) 20:23, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A port in the storm

· Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 22:49, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So you're suggesting...

To never try to teach a pig to play the violin, it only bores the pig and frustrates you? - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 01:32, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Was this intended for me? - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 01:46, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, I think it was. No, I just saw the badly formed RfC and was trying to smooth the waters. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 01:47, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Louis Braille

The article has been improving greatly since being featured at Google. It seems to me to be a mistake to protect it. Since the semiprotection would have screened out IPs, which were the most troublesome, I wonder if you wouldn't reconsider your complete protection. - Nunh-huh 09:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand protection "in case" people have dormant accounts. If they do, and use them for vandalism, we are better off finding out and blocking those accounts. I don't see any evidence that such accounts have been used on Louis Braille, which has now - because of the protection - become "forked", with a version or two on the talk page that will have to be reconciled once edits are permitted. Nunh-huh 09:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reconsidering. I'll keep an eye out for vandals. - Nunh-huh 09:37, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BG

Looks good, but there's one point I'd like to clarify... the two pages (UBOR and UP) are actually the same. UBOR was moved to UP because someone thought that was a better name. Then someone else (BG or SEWilco, not sure) did a rather sloppy cut/paste job to "undo" the move, thus creating two identical (and divergent) discussions and confusing everyone. That's what I've (hopefully) fixed. The current version of UP (that BG objects to) is in fact a rewrite of the original UBOR containing rights that are actually supported by consensus. Yours, R adiant _>|< 10:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, there wa no discussion about that. Just a bunch of revert warring by BG and company, who accuse the other party of "redirect vandalism" when they in fact moved the page to another title. Radiant_>|< 10:18, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. R adiant _>|< 10:27, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no, not again!

Pedelec. Enough said. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 22:44, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion.2FTimeline_of_motorized_bicycle_history · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 23:05, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well if you two or three have issues with my conduct, then what are you waiting for to raise the user-rfc? --CylePat 23:13, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Woohoo, would you be interested in going on record regarding ...

... my alleged "harrassment" of you cited on this RfC? (hey, maybe this message is another harrassment!) or any other comment on the merit of Karma's charges? r b-j 05:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Gatti

Thanks for your input. However I would rather see him get a fresh start. Probation depends on administrators taking an interest in what he is doing. If he continues to act out in a serious way you should be able to interest administrators in what he is doing. If not, it is probably not that serious. General probation is designed to deal with those who "think they did nothing wrong". Simple probation allows any administrator to ban a user from an article for a year. Fred Bauder 12:26, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Our remedies often do not work in the sense that the person straightens up. They do work in the sense that they can be blocked if they don't. Fred Bauder 12:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Baseball on Wikicities

Hello Woohookitty, Googie Man here and I want to ask you something as a fellow baseball fan on Wikipedian. Jimbo and Angela have made a new webstie called Wikicities. This link in particular will take you to the baseball Wikicity. As you'll see it's similar to Wikipedia, but my hope is this will allow baseball fans to do more and different things, like reporting on games, in depth statistics, create mulitple pages for pictures, and whatever else baseball fans care to create. You've done great work on Wikipedia and I was hoping you could help get this baseball Wikicity off the ground. Please let me know what you think either at my talk page, or you can email me at [email protected]. Thanks! Googie Man^(Talk), 14:08, 5 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

(Sorry, Woohoo, for interjecting on your talk page.) Wow. I was the one who actually created that. I had forgotten about that, though I had told a few people, and it never got off the ground. I'm glad to see that people are actually paying attention! Play ball. —BorgHunter (talk) 14:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

wow

i guess desperate times call for desperate measures, but hey, i don't judge ;) --kizzle 16:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Troll was here

Some guy threatened to sue you with his only edit. See NohFsffu888 (talk · contribs) and unblock if you feel this was too heavy-handed. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 19:12, Jan. 5, 2006

I have an image downloaded from somewhere, but it'd probably be a copyvio if i posted it, but the caption says: "If people you don't even know HATE you, you MUST be the shit!" :) --kizzle 21:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

quick note

Mike, With much hesitation, I have decided to introduce the rather unflattering email - not because I care, or was offended, but because I want the Arbitration to be level handed, and to avoid choosing content (by sanctioning editors) on the basis on the popularity of the facts involved. Please do not take it personally, you realize I have asked several times not to engage in a mudsling, but to prevent (or expose) a one-sided outcome, it is fair and necessary. Benjamin Gatti 23:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Emails are confidential and aren't admissable as part of arbcom. Ask them if you'd like to verify this, but I promise it won't be accepted, and all you'll have done is engender more ill will. · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 23:16, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the thing, I feel that the Arbcom has had the opportunity to avoid a mudbath (by changing the name to Price and dealing with the issue of including the government study over Simesa's objection based on original research and some kiddie power point. As they have not, my next move must be to show some balance of "incivility" - and to appeal to treat the holders of all views equally, which if they do not, and decide to punish one view-holder, but not the populist view-holder equally then they expose themselves as partisans. Benjamin Gatti 23:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No offense intended, but it really doesn't matter. You can talk all you like, but arbcom doesn't admit emails as evidence in an arbcom case. · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 23:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have checked with two of the ArbCom and it appears that these e-mails will be admitted. --- Responses to Chazz's Benjamin Gatti Arbitration Comment Page. Signed by Chazz @ 00:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum:' Ben is a party to the e-mails in question and his consent will suffice. --- Responses to Chazz's talk page. Signed by Chazz @ 01:14, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great! So then I can include my apology too. And please Ben. This is not against your will. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 03:57, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing I would prefer more than to see a bilateral de-escalation of personal (and irrelevent) attacks. The option remains open. Have a look at Simesa's arguments for excluding a congressional record related to risk - follow it and you will find it is supported principally by a nuclear youth club power point presentation - not even peer-reviewed, then see if you continue to think that personal attacks are really the best way to exclude valid information. You've still got time. Benjamin Gatti 04:10, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't respond to threats. That's all this is. Come on Ben. You know the arbcom is not going to throw out the user conduct case because I swore in confidential emails to you. You are trying to use it as leverage and it isn't going to work. This is up to the arbcom now. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 04:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

help with old username

i have an old username which i need to remove. i foolished used the same username i have used in employment and it is rather unique. my identity may be exposed and cause me trouble at work. is there any way to alter my old username or remove my old edits? this is fairly urgent.

thanks OnceUponATimeInChina 03:56, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow.

Wow. Thanks! The Literate Engineer 06:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can re protect Palesatinian exodus ? thanks.

Zeq 08:21, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

can you ask Zero and Ian to use talk and respond to the lengthy explnation there ? Please re-protect. Zeq 11:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have protected the vesrion that Ian and Zero want to keep. So...

They never responded on talk to my explnation and now they don't have too - this is how they want the article and this is how it will stay until it is unprotected. They won the edit war. Zeq 12:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Keep following on it. Let's wait 3 days, howver the only insentive for them to cooerate is when the page is not as they want it (which is how it is now) Zeq 12:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Woohookitty, please don't take Zeq's claims at face value. In fact there is already about 20,000 words of discussion about this issue on the Talk page, and that does not include the archive. You can check for yourself whether we have "replied to his claims" or not. Since November he has been repeatedly deleting a large vital section of the article contrary to the wishes of most of the editors who are interested in the page. That's what the problem is. If you unprotect the page he will immediately delete it again. Cheers. --Zero 13:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]