Hey there; I noticed that you left the comment on my talk page:
:Mind if I work with you on this?--[[User:Amerique|Amerique]] 02:48, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Are you asking if you can work with me on the Google bomb AMA case for Seraphimblade? It's just, you left the comment under the post for "Welcome to the AMA, Anthony cfc" which seems wrong.
Can you clarify? Cheers.
--Anthonycfc (talk • c • ama) Saturday, 21/Oct/2006 (UTC)
Hey; I've replied to your comment on my Talk Page. Cheers. --Anthonycfc (talk • c • ama) Sunday, 22/Oct/2006 (UTC)
To Amerique - I've replied to you in here for reasons of my own, I trust that's alright.
Amerique -> I've had a look over your case description and the contested edits, and I don't think you have a substantial case here. One cannot "prove" the intentions of a nation, much as one cannot "prove" the intentions of the US, for instance, in invading Iraq. All you can do is provide documented evidence to say such and such a thing has happened, and what the consequences were. Providing quotes from soldiers saying they want to "smash Lebanon" does not support the claim that this has "always been the intention of Israel." At best, you could provide quotes from particular Israeli statesmen suggesting they would like to do this, but stated intentions of this sort would not necessarily carry over or translate into "national intentions," as even in Israel there is typically organized (if ineffective) resistance and political opposition to such campaigns.
Amerique -> I suggest focusing further editing on "things that happened" rather than "national intentions," as the later would be very difficult if not impossible to prove and would almost certainly be ridden with WP:NPOV problems from any angle, no matter what source you used. Discussing concrete goals of particular Israeli campaigns would be a more effective way of addressing the same material without getting into the problems of national abstractions. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions or would like further advice.--Amerique 00:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi Amerique I just recognized that Excellentone has made the Ama request, kindly you mentioned my wiki-break, I changed it to a semi-wikibreak now, because I got an email someone was telling me the article will maybe deleted. However, please leave your comments also at the NKT talkpage so that other people maybe be able to follow that discussion too. Regarding Kay: his research is highly achknowledged among scientists. Whereas Cozort (I put now more of him in the article too) is mainly relying on NKT sources without questioning them much, Kays fieldresearch is the first time a unbiased study of the subject because he also interviewed former members and people who are critical to NKT and did not only rely what NKT has published or told him. His research shed light on the NKT history which he said himself has been always repressed by NKT. Waterhouse notes rgarding Daniel Cozort: "He discusses this with exclusive reference to NKT internal sources that describe the movement as "an association of independent centres with a weak center" (p. 240). However, fieldwork based accounts of the NKT produced over the last decade consistently find that, regardless of the movement's rhetoric, it is highly controlled, at least in the UK where the majority of its centres can be found. The essay would therefore have been more rounded with reference to academic analysis published in the UK, especially the work of David Kay." (see Book Review : Buddhism in the Modern World: Adaptations of an Ancient Tradition.) Instead of deleting the article we can include futher researchs as I have still suggested at the talk page:
What do you think on that? --Kt66 23:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Dear Amerique, I do not feel it fair that this article should be deleted. I do not see a reason for this as Excellentone and Marpa do not do much effort to change what they criticize besides crying for deletion. Marpa is much busy with his personal attacks against kt66 and trying to press him to stop as an editor and trying to undermine the authority of Kay. That is what is called argumentum ad hominem. When you cannot compete with arguments, slander your opponent. Excellentone asked that he wants to delete all passages up to Nov.1 where there are no quotes. So kt66 delivers that quotes from his sources which is again criticized by Marpa , claiming kt66 is too much obsessed with the article and pressing him again to stop editing and insulting him ,that he need professional help and spreading rumors about personal matter like “his Shugden psychologist” (which is untrue). Marpa or Wiki007 as I suppose he names himself on Wikipedia Germany is stalking kt66 and attacking him personal. Excellentone criticizes that the article is too heavily based on the sources of Kay, so I named another source which states the NKT as “ one of the newest and most controversial Buddhist movements” , which Excellentone takes as reason to want the article deleted. There are other sources about NKT, but I am only allowed to name than , when pro-NKT editors perceive them as “right”? Although kt66 repeatedly asked both of them to edit, bring new sources, or correct him if there is something wrong I do not see that much effort of them to improve what they criticize. There are other articles like “Scientology” which deals with a similar controversial topic, so I am convinced that it is possible to create an balanced article about NKT too. I hope for your mediation, instead of this article to be deleted because of the pro-NKT party limited only on criticizing and doing nothing to improve. In my view, the article now is quite unreadable because of the many quotes. It comes from the past, as long there was a lack of reliable sources,that kt66 did extensive research to find these sources, so this article now looks like it is now. As it is more an collection of sources than an article, so it is definitely not finished, but still a source of valuable information about the topic. So I kindly ask you not to nominate this article for deletion, and instead ask you for your help to mediate from a neutral point of view. --BoboLuna 08:22, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
I left my opinion at the talk page: I think we have to acknowldge that it is hard to balance the article because we have different perpectives when writing on NKT and have to keep them in mind, being open also for other perpectives.
Hi Amerique, maybe you can leave your comment at the NKT talk page. Although it may not be easy to make a "clean up", I think the way user:Excellentone now took, making substential changes without discussing it, I can not agree with. What do you suggest? (Please see history.) I would suggest to ask for a mediation on this "clean up" process or a "neutral editor" to do this. If we follow mediation I think we should go step by step through the article and its passages. I felt user:Robertect is quite willing to do this and I agree to the "clean up" process as well. Thank you, Regards, --Kt66 15:03, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi Amerique, I'd be really glad of your help/advice either formally as my advocate or informally if the former is not possible. I'm happy to take your advice regarding the Rfc on article content - one thing that came up during the Afd debate was the situation where kt66 made numerous substantial changes to the article while this process was taking place - obviously this makes it difficult for others to comment as the target is always moving... as soon as I make changes and request comment from other editors the same happens... do you have any advice here? Thanks once again Excellentone 12:47, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Informal is fine by me - I'm grateful for your advice in whatever form it comes. If you have time could you take a look at the Rfc? cheers Excellentone 16:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
We have created this site to compile all the information available on the web about the NKT We need more translators and artciles, please come and help us!! Thank you.
Subversive element first appeared as an IP editor around September 20, making wildly inappropriate edits to Circumcision related articles, edit-warring like mad, and attacking various editors, User:Jakew in particular. His IPs included 87.78.178.102 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 87.78.148.84 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 87.78.184.150 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 87.78.153.226 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 87.78.158.212 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 87.78.150.238 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and others; when the IPs were blocked (not by me), he'd get another, insisting that the blocks were invalid. Eventually the articles in question were all sprotected. He then came back a few days later as User:Tit for tat, and started tagging User:Jakew's comments as those of a "Single issue editor". When this userid was blocked as well, he again insisted vociferously that the block was invalid - that he realized what he'd done wrong before, but that he was a changed person, and should be unblocked. After he posted on all sorts of boards and Talk: pages, and after lengthy discussion on WP:AN/I, he was not unblocked. He then returned as User:Subversive element, for some reason campaigning to have his Tit for tat userid unblocked, insisting he'd learned his lesson. He harassed me for a while about it; I finally told him that I wasn't going to unblock the old account, and that I wouldn't block the new one unless he got into similar mischief. He bitterly assured me that he wouldn't, but then proceeded to campaign to get a specific editor made an administrator based on his putative anti-Circumcision views, contacting every anti-Circumcision editor he could think of, even avowed neo-Nazis. After I blocked the latest account, he again resumed his campaign of posting on any page he could think of, trying to get unblocked, on the grounds that while the previous blocks might have been valid, the latest one certainly was not.
This editor is clearly unable to edit in a reasonable way, and continually plays the game of unreasonable behavior, followed by a block, followed by complaints that the block wasn't reasonable, campaigning to get unblocked, eventual re-appearance as another editor, promises that he is reformed. Rinse, wash, repeat. He views Wikipedia as a battleground on which to fight the anti-circumcision battle (as he has stated outright), and continues to try to find new ways to do this. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me. This is his third round of this, and I don't think Wikipedia needs a fourth. Jayjg (talk) 23:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know, Amerique. Jayjg (talk) 23:07, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Please help resolving the disputes at Al-Aqsa Mosque and Dome of the Rock articles. You may have a look at the discussion page to have an idea on what has been going on recently. Thanks! Almaqdisi 07:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the notification, I'll take a look! Count Iblis 12:22, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I've just written my (rather long) opinion. Count Iblis 13:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Amerique, many thanks for this remark of yours. Almaqdisi, I am willing to represent you in my capacity as an advocate against any charges brought against you as a result of activities pertaining to this AfD.--. I really appreciate it. Maybe a comment at [3] may help. I also responded to your comments at my talk page. Best wishes..... Almaqdisi 02:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Dear Amerique. I was surprised to find that you have some experience as a WP editor after your listing of New Kadampa Tradition on Articles for Deletion. I had expected to find that you were a newly registered editor who was simply acting on POV over this article. In the future please duiscuss edits on controversial pages by joining in the discussion on talk pages before taking such radical action as nominating the article for deletion. Billlion 17:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
![]() |
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar | |
I've been going through the open AMA cases list, and have noticed how many you've got open, so I though I'd give you this barnstar, for helping so many :D Martinp23 15:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC) |
Thanks! Nothing has really changed since I filed the request. We've started discussing things again on the Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy (DDP) page, but that discussion seems to have turned into a constant restatement of opinion. The medcab case regarding Advocates for Children in Therapy seems to have gone stale for the last few days. I would greatly appreciate some help with framing my concerns in terms of policy. I am most concerned with the DDP page, as it seems rather promotional. I really appreciate your help. shotwell 16:11, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
It seems to me that we can't easily handle the high volume of cases while maintaining a quality program. It seems to me that we can greatly reduce the inflow of cases by setting some standards as to the cases we will accept. I was thinking the most obvious way of doing this would be to only accept cases that are obviously going to be or already are in some stage of the WP:DR process, which would mean a controversial restructuring of the AMA I know, but it seems to me that the multitude of low level cases that simply require minor "helping hand" interventions would be much better served by an organization like Esperanza.
We should also develop some process for notifying users who submit advocacy requests that haven't been picked up in, say 10 days, as having been declined by the AMA. New cases of varying interest pile up all the time, and it would be better to formally decline old cases we couldn't get to than to let them sit without action. Best,--Amerique 07:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I have communicated with The Ungovernable Force regarding the proposed anthropology project which you indicated an interest in, and have gotten the OK from him to move the project into wiki-space and make it active. He indicated that he is busy in school right now, but will be as active as he can be given that. The project page as it now exists is only a minimum page, and could use the input of interested parties such as yourself. Personally, I did noticably poorly in the one cultural anthropology class I took in college, so I'm bowing out of this one, but wish you and the other members of the project the best of luck with it. Thank you. Badbilltucker 21:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
I've decided to walk away from the disputes. They were taking up far too much of my "wiki time". I consider this to be leisure time. Moreover, the dispute has been disruptive and I think I was probably pushing the issues too hard. Your rational assistance was greatly appreciated. Thus, I think that the case can be closed. I'd like to strongly thank-you for giving me assistance on this matter.shotwell 22:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
You are probably looking for the article on the Great American Boycott. It was on the front page on May 1 of this year.--Rockero 01:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
I want to thank you for your welcome note and advice regarding the sockpoppet accusation. An IP check was performed and I was cleared, of course. Almaqdisi has informed me that there was a second attempt for AfD for the third holy site article. But when I checked it, I noticed that the discussion page was locked with a "SPEEDY KEEP" by the admin Naconkantari. I find it very doubious that this artile got this speedy response where all the discussion was in support of deleting the article, and some of the links that were provided turned out to be faulty! How can this happen? Aboosh 23:34, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm on it! I appreciate it! Aboosh 04:07, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Third time aint no charm :-|.. seems we need to start laying gold eggs to have our logic and reasoning heard! Aboosh 03:11, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Message for you on my talk page. - Mugs 21:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Chimed in. Though I am not sure you will agree with my opinion :D
--iFaqeer 01:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
![]() |
The Barnstar of Diligence | |
For your extraordinary AMA work and insight. thestick 11:17, 24 November 2006 (UTC) |
Thanks for uploading Image:Ucr logo cmyk.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. 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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).
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 fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Fritz S. (Talk) 12:36, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:UCR logo.JPG. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. 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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).
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 fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Fritz S. (Talk) 12:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Hello. I noticed that you signed up for WikiProject Anthropology and thought that you might be interested in participating in the Collaboration of the Month. This month's article is Marvin Harris. Thanks. Stilgar135 19:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
I'd be delighted if you could help me with this. At the Quran Desecration Controversy article, I have been trying to add a cross-reference to the Piss Christ article, which speaks about a similar incident where a Crucifix was desecrated with urine.
The change is additive, small, and relevant, yet it's been met with bullying behavior from a couple of editors, including repeated wordles reverts.
Any help you can impart would be greatly appreciated.
67.175.216.90 20:50, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi Amerique I like to know your or another experienced Wikipedian member's opinion on inclusion of a critical link at the Michael Roach (Buddhist) site. See also the talk page sites. I am not sure what according WP is to do now and feel maybe u:ekajati is not neutral towards the decision. Thanks --Kt66 09:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I would to thank you for helping out in article and general monitoring of the UC Riverside article. As far as OCDpatient is concerned, I'm pretty sure that he's gonna be taken care of. I'll just make small edit reversions that have been discussed before.
Thanks again for your help and knowledge in settling disputes and compromising in situations. :)
Cosecant 23:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
The Barnstar of Authoritarianism | |
As a result of your work, I award you the Barnstar of Authoritarianism Insert-Belltower 22:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC) |
Hello and thank you for contacting me. You did well in reporting this user, but this case was more indicated for WP:RFI. Users reported to WP:AIV are usually simple vandals, or sockpuppets easy to identify as such. More complicated requests require some investigation, thus WP:RFI. Regards, Húsönd 01:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I just slapped together a very incomplete framework for the WikiProject home page, at User:Szyslak/WikiProject University of California, with ideas on the scope of a UC WikiProject. Though many of the UC campus pages are not getting the TLC they need, most of them have a small community of users who watch and maintain them. I'm fairly active on the UCSC page, and there are at least three other users who at least keep it copyedited and watch for POV. I think this project will help bring the disparate groups of UC editors together, along with facilitating an expanded role for the community that's developed around the UCR page. Plus we'll be better prepared for dealing with another POV or trolling situation, with us veterans from the battles with UCRG. szyslak (t, c) 10:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
You should add a request to WP:RFCU for this person and the sock. TheQuandry 02:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Can you take Wikipedia:AMA Requests for Assistance/Requests/December 2006/Thuringowacityrep. If so change the status to Open, if not to New. Geo. 19:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
hi mate things are ok but i still don't agree with some of the things that have been done but i have held off until the AMA case, so if ther is anything you can do to help it would be great thanks Thuringowacityrep 05:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
hi thank you my main are aof concern is what he has said in the electoral districts part on my talk page and the way he will alway use Townsville/Thuringowa and not Townsville and Thuringowa my point it people dont know what Townsville/Thuringowa is unless they are from the area so i made some changes to say Townsville and Thuringowa so people know that there is 2 cities up here not 1. thanks again if you need any more info please let me know Thuringowacityrep 10:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thanks again i feel that it would be better coming from you as if i said that the Towwnsville/Thuringowa should be how i said it would start things over again so it would be great if you could let him know and i will let you know how things go thank again Thuringowacityrep 01:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thanks mate will let you know if i see any and again thank you for your help take care Thuringowacityrep 01:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to annoy you again mate but I also feel that these pages need to be addressed as when I tried to make changes he changed it all back first is the Category:Townsville/Thuringowa, Queensland I think this needs to be Townsville and Thuringowa (remove the / ) next is Electoral district of Mundingburra here he says "The seat is one of four within the Townsville-Thuringowa urban centre in North Queensland" and this is not it is in Townsville and has nothing to do with Thuringowa city. the next one is of the most concern to me as it is misleading Electoral district of Thuringowa here he says "The division encompasses suburbs of the City of Thuringowa on the western edge of the Townsville–Thuringowa urban centre" if you have a look back at the edits I tried to do you will see that I made a good point as his ref is from a reporters POV and mine is from the Gov's website Thuringowa is a city (LGA) and has it's own voting system we don't vote for Townsville so Townsville should not be listed here but I will leave it up to you. the next page is Electoral district of Townsville again he has "The seat is one of four within the Townsville-Thuringowa urban centre" as with the others the urban area is what he says is the "city" but the Electoral district also is rural so it is not just part of the urban area so I feel that on the Townsville one it should have Thuringowa removed and on the Townsville one have Thuringowa removed (please see my edits and you will know what I mean)...you will also see that he has said on the Townsville one that the "Townsville Electorate is bordered by the Hinchinbrook (North), Burdekin (South), Mundingburra (South and West) and Thuringowa (West) Electorates." but yet he has put Townsville-Thuringowa on all the pages. also please see the list of pages below as he has put Townsville/Thuringowa on them and it should read Townsville and Thuringowa due to the page being about places in both cities or the places in Thuringowa should be removed from this page or changed to Townsville and Thuringowa, List of medical facilities in Townsville
List of schools in Townsville, Queensland
Shopping in Townsville
Media in Townsville see Print Media
but this one he has almost correct just to show you how it should be Suburbs of Townsville the only thing i would change here would be Townsville and Thrunigowa not just Townsville, sorry about this but I have tried to edit these pages so that they are not misleading and almost every time it gets changed back if you have time have a good read of mine and Alec's user page. thanks again for your help Thuringowacityrep 04:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
ok thanks that all sounds good to me, and he is not my "mate" but up here in North QLD it is a way of being friendly and I call everybody Mate, thanks again for your help Thuringowacityrep 23:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
hi I will leave it up to you all I can say is that Townsville and Thuringowa are not one city they both have central business centres Townsville has the Townsville CBD and Thuringowa has Thuringowa central it is common in the Twin cities to see it written as Townsville and Thuringowa like on the front page of the Sun newspaper or on the BOM website it has "rainfall for Townsville and Thuringowa" plus a lot of others I do agree that Thuringowa is less known than Townsville and this is part of what I am trying to fix and by people reading Townsville/or-Thuringowa it is misleading and not really letting people know that there are 2 cities here please look at some of my edits and im sure you will see that it in no way affects the article but does allow people to see that Townsville is one city and Thuringowa is the other. and just one other thing about this phase "those phrases are not used commonly outside of North Queensland" is not true I was at a concert in Sydney a while back and a lot of people I spoke to used the term "next time we are in Townsville and others said "we heard Kiss Chasey is going to Thuringowa" and some friends in the real-estate business said "there is a building boom in Townsville and Thuringowa" but like I said before I will leave it up to you, if you would like any more of my thoughts please let me know. thanks Thuringowacityrep 02:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
this is why I asked for help he wont even listen to you... now this comment is incorrect "TCR is the first person I have ever come across who seems to feel that the borders should have remained where they were one hundred years ago" I never said that is how it should stay but I did say that Townsville and Thuringowa should NOT become one city,plus why bring that up it has nothing to do with what this is about... and the survey in the Townsville Bulletin is not something that I ever seen but I am aware of a survey the Townsville city council did that found 67% of respondents were in favour of amalgamation and of course they would, that is what Townsville people want. I know Alec wont agree to this but hey I have to ask ...why do I make the changes that I feel is needed you both have a look at them and Amerique can make up his mind if my edits are correct and if not Alec can change them back ...sound fair.... oh one more thing this comment "the urban center should either be referred to as "Townsville" or less favorably "Townsville/Thuringowa" as the city is sometimes referred to as locally" that should be RARELY referred to the most common term used is "the Twin Cities" or "Townsville and Thuringowa" so i will leave it there for now Thuringowacityrep 10:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
hi i will make the edits sometime today and then i will let you both know when i have done them so you can have a look and give you view, again if there is a problem just let me know and i will see what i can do thank you both Thuringowacityrep 22:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Thuringowacityrep"
hi mate i have made some edits today when you get a chance would you have a look and see if the edits i have done are along the lines of what was said in the discussion. thanks Thuringowacityrep 08:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
hi that you for your views I have fixed up where I think I needed to but I want to wait until Amerique has his say on the matter but what I will add is,
edit 1:
you said "there are no health campuses within the two LGAs but outside the urban centre" you have lost me here because the Kirwan Health Centre is in Thuringowa city and Thuringowa is a LGA so that makes it within one of the LGA's and is not outside of the urban area.
Edit 2:
again you say "any local would presume that it is talking about a list which includes Alligator Creek and the Northern Beaches" well there is a large shopping centre at the Northern Beaches as Woodlands is a part of the Northern Beachers area of Thuringowa so I can't see how this is misleading.
Edit 4:
now you lost me with the (first) and (second) I only made 1 edit ...but when you say "Your trying to tell me that the Townsville Bulletin has two focuses? anyone who has read the Bulletin would see that it's primary focus is on Townsville and the rural surrounding area of both LGAs plays a distant second" you are wrong ..Sorry...but I have read a lot of storeys in the Bully about Townsville and Thuringowa I can remember a front page story about Thuringowa some time back plus it looks like you have used your POV in the comments above,as for citylife you say "Townsville would be the more appropriate term as "Townsville and Thuringowa" infers a business distribution of a huge amount of North Queensland" how can that be is says Townsville and Thuringowa, nothing about the rest of the state and if people think that by having it like this it means a huge amount of North Queensland then they have a problem.
Edit 5 and 7
I'm not going there yet because everything you have said makes no sense, edit 5 was about the electoral district of Mundingburra
I would like to wait now until Amerique has his say but I would like to thank you again for your views Thuringowacityrep 23:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thanks ok....when you can thanks again Thuringowacityrep 00:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
hi just looking in to see how things are going as we haven't heard from you in a while and for some reason Alec started on me again today and even issued threats to me. would be grateful if you could help in closing this case thanks Thuringowacityrep 11:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your message. It is my position that my username is not in violation of Wiki policy.
If you desire, you can file an Rfc. However, I think time could be better spent doing more productive things.
Thank you, Insert-Belltower 22:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Cold day today, eh? Still many ppl were out on State St. walking about. In this weather, ppl have such vigor. I thought about that as I walked from S. University across town. In the same way, editors here the strength to hold on. I think that describes both of us....
What I will say is both an appeal and contention. Let's put the past behind us and move-on. I won't bother you, and you don't bother me.
What do you say? Insert-Belltower 03:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Ok, deal. Insert-Belltower 15:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
So you know the status of my username change. Here Insert-Belltower 00:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Done deal. DelayedRectifier 01:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Sean D Martin (talk) (contribs) is in fact involved in a lawsuit Stephanie Adams filed against his friend who posts derogatory, defamatory blogs about her, filled with lies and false, libelous comments.
- I, among several editors, googled his name along with hers and found the actual proof. Other editors noticed his involvement with his friend she is suing and commented in the edit history. We all think he should be banned from editing the article or blocked from editing entirely.
- First he questioned valid information that was clearly valid, then he removed valuable information and lied by stating that it was not a fact when it actually was according to hundreds of article all over the news media (with at least three of them referenced).
- Even in his reply to a COI posting, he stated that previous edits were more "self-serving" for Ms Adams", suggesting she is editing this, which is false. This article is a project and product of Wikipedia by which several people edit.
Due to his personal vendetta against Adams (and his name listed as a witness to the defendant in the case she filed against an amateur blogger) his intervention in editing this article is personal and begrudgingly biased. This needs to stop, which is why several are suggesting he no longer edits this article. At best, it's conflict of interest and at worst, it's vandalism.
- bbl
Sean Martin, why are you wasting time here? And please stop lying. I did a search on the internet using your name along with Stephanie Adams and found that you are in fact involved in a lawsuit Adams filed against your friend for posting defamatory comments about her online. Wikipedia is not a place to post personal attacks and comments about the people in the articles. Please refrain from defending yourself here and save it for the lawsuit you are involved in. Now in regards to the mediation request some time ago, perhaps someone should take a look at the Wikipedia discussion page for Stephanie Adams and start banning people (including Sean Martin) who have posted more than their share of inappropriate comments. 162.83.205.36 03:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Hello there! It's being a while since the last time that I left a comment here. Anyways, I'm once agains stuck with User:Bdean1963. The main reason now is that in both articles (War of the Pacific and Tacna Region, he attempted to introduce information that has no relation whatsoever to the articles. Now, as you can expect there was a HUGE revert war and eventually we were both blocked for a day. Now, I have attempted to force him to discuss this issue on the talk page, but he has not showed any type of interest in solving this problem as long as the current version of both articles are there with his POV. What should I do? I have already attempted to talk with him and the only thing that he does is chasing me and asking for my permanent ban in Wikipedia (with the help of his comrade User:Descendall). Should I revert the articles to their original state? Messhermit 20:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
User:Bdean1963 8 February, 2007
hey did you forget about us ??? where did you go ??? guess you never got the message asking what was going on hope you can relpy Thuringowacityrep 03:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
On 17 Nov 06, you mentioned helping me, but never heard from you again. Still interested? - Mugs 13:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Dear Amerique,
I am having serious issues with User talk:JzG.
I will start from the begining:
I left a message on his talk page, he then replied in an incivil manner, I left the discussion, later that day, I edited the 'Policy in a nutshell' for WP:Sockpuppetry, this read "This page in a nutshell: Do not use multiple accounts to create the illusion of greater support for an issue, to mislead others, or to circumvent a block. Don't ask your friends to create accounts to support you or anyone else." before I edited it, I changed it to "This page in a nutshell: Using a sock puppet to evade a block will result in the block counter being reset, and time added. Don't ask your friends to create accounts to support you or anyone else", in my opinion, a better description, this was reverted by him, and the given reason was "That I had distrupted wikipedia to illustrate a point"
I dont know what to do anymore, he is just so vindictive, please help. 1B6 10:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
im having a dispute with user -Urthogie hes really frustrating me.
Are you still an AMA member? --CyclePat 03:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
I recently constructed an attempt at a more organized WikiProject Theoretical Linguistics open tasks template, but I haven't received any responses on the project talk page. If you could take a look at the test: User:Mitchoyoshitaka/WPTL todo and comment on it, I'd greatly appreciate any feedback or criticism! mitcho/芳貴 02:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Amerique,
I hope you don't mind, but I'm going to reach out beyond the usual community in the Taiwanese/Chinese area and ask you, an Anth. guy, to have a look at the lede for Culture of Taiwan. It seems to be too much for some people, but it seems to be a potentially volitile issue that could be easy to politicize by competing nationalisms, so I tried to make it work with a good Anth. definition. Thx!Maowang 07:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Amerique.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 ((GFDL-self)) tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as ((non-free fair use in|article name)) or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See 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 criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 23:30, 30 June 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 23:30, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi, your work at the UCLA history article is phenomenal. Thanks for putting so much effort into it. How much do you plan to finish? ALTON .ıl 10:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)