Archives Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

Your remark on books whose authors hold the copyright was interesting. Could you tell me more about this through my talk page? Whatever the publisher (Elsevier, Springer Verlag or others), I've always been asked to sign a copyright transfer form when I published scholarly content. I've always resented this. David.Monniaux 22:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Mantanmoreland! I've just opened an RfC on myself for my conduct in a dispute that you were involved with concerning the Gary Weiss article. The RfC is located here and I welcome your comments or questions. CLA 21:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WikiProject Biography Summer 2007 Assessment Drive!

WikiProject Biography is holding a three month long assessment drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unassessed articles. The drive is running from June 1, 2007 – September 1, 2007.

Awards to be won range from delicacies such as the WikiCookie to the great Golden Wiki Award.
There are over 110,000 articles to assess so please visit the drive's page and help out!

This drive was conceived of and organized by Psychless with the help of Ozgod. Regards, Psychless ^{Type words!}.

Sure I'll pitch in, but 113,385 unassessed articles? You don't need editors, you need members of the cast of "Mission Impossible" ;) --Mantanmoreland 03:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you -- am moving to my main page right under the barnstar from....err....--Mantanmoreland 21:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See also, another board that isn't getting the attention it deserves...User:Bishzilla/Dispute Resolution Board And Swedish Massage Parlor...--MONGO 22:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have just made use of it, so let's see what happens.--Mantanmoreland 22:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You may revert my changes if you disagree, but personally I feel that this article is a vanity piece and should be roundfiled accordingly. Burntsauce 19:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd appreciate your guidance concerning this article, since you have knowledge of finance. In your opinion is this a neologism? I have only rarely encountered this term of usage and I am dubious about devoting an entire encyclopedia entry to it.--Samiharris 17:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'll file this under "no s--t, Sherlock."--Mantanmoreland 18:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You may want to take a look at [1]. --Agha Nader 23:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Planning something? [2] Piperdown 04:14, 23 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see your point on the Notable Wikipedian thing, that template is always problematic in situations like this. My basis was the licensing on Image:M Keiser.jpg - do you think that image should be flagged as possible copyvio pending WP:OTRS verification of source? Videmus Omnia 16:18, 23 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It was inadvertent ... in the process of adding a section on off-wiki harassment to WP:HARASS, I mistakenly cut that out. Happens when you just get up ... Blueboy96 15:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I threw up a few tags on your created pages. Some of them are questionable notability, but I think in general they are written from from a fair point of view and are informative. Many of them have improper citing, as I'm sure you know. I won't throw tags up on all of them, just giving you a head's up.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gwynand (talk • contribs)

Hi Mantanmoreland. Thank you for your support and kind words in my RfA, which passed with 95 support, 1 oppose, and 1 neutral !votes. It means a lot to me to have your individual support and the collective support of so many others. I truly will strive to carry myself at a level representing the trust bestowed in me as I use the mop to address the never-ending drips of discontent in need of caretaker assistance. Jreferee (Talk) 08:09, 30 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

After Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plot of Les Misérables closed as a deletion, I'm challenging the way the closing administrator acted as in violation of Wikipedia rules. Your participation is welcome at that discussion, Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 July 14. Please keep in mind that only arguments related to either new information or to how Wikipedia rules were violated or not violated in closing the discussion will be considered. It isn't a replay of the original AfD. I'm familiar with WP:CANVASSING and I am alerting everyone who participated in that discussion to the deletion review. I won't contact anyone again on this topic, and I apologize if you consider this note distracting. Noroton 04:39, 14 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looks good to me, as long as Microcap stock fraud is the acquirer.--Samiharris 22:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for clarification. Article is deleted. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 21:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Borgnine_as_marty.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MER-C 13:15, 11 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article was recently deleted and I am submitting it for deletion review. As I see you supported keeping Yale in popular culture - an article almost exactly the same as NYU in popular culture - please support me in restoring this page. As the creator of the page I plan on bringing it to the level of Wikipedia in culture should it be restored. Please comment on the process here: Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_August_14#NYU_in_popular_culture. Your support is appreciated. Thanks. -- Noetic Sage 23:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi,

I just was wondering why you were reverting my change. David Rockefeller is a central figure in a lot of conspiracy theories, so I think the category "Conspiracy" fits into his entry.

Lord Chao 00:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Paul burke in naked city.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free 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 for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Durin 13:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey, thank you. Your support has been unwavering throughout this, and it's meant a huge amount to me, particularly as you've been laboring under the same situation yourself. It's these messages of support that put it all in perspective. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have requested arbitration regarding WP:BADSITES and its derivative in WP:NPA, and named you as a party in this case. Phil Sandifer 00:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Since you seem to have an opinion on this proposed change (based on your removal of the text thrice), could you please join the discussion on the talk page? Picaroon (t) 00:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Mantanmoreland. The arbitration case in which you are listed as a party to has opened. Please provide evidences on the evidence page for the Arbitrators to consider. You may also want to utilize the workshop page for suggestions.

For the Arbitration Committee,
- Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 20:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

10-4.--Mantanmoreland 23:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As a Catholic proud of his Jewish heritage, I think you would enjoy reading Daniel Boyarin's dense and very scholarly - but well-written and very thoughtful - A Radical Jew which is about Paul (Boyarin is a Talmud professor at UC Berkeley) Slrubenstein | Talk 19:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ah, an occasional humorous edit summary works wonders[3]. JFW | T@lk 23:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I take your word on it (the non-necessity). In was just concerned that this article not duplicate Martin Luther. I certainly agree that this is an article on a Book, not on Martin Luther.

On an other issue, shouldn't "their' begin with a capital, so: "Their"? That really bothers me, as I pay careful attention to Book titles. The alternative is to change "Lies" into "lies" (Library of Congress Format - but I don't like that.

Best, User:Ludvikus

PS: Get my point? So why's the above NOT Red? --Ludvikus 18:02, 20 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Biography WikiProject Newsletter Volume IV, no. 4 - September 2007
Project News The three-month long Summer Assessment Drive, organized by Psychless, was a huge success! It ran from June 1 – September 1, and reduced the backlog of unassessed articles from 113,385 to 56,237. In all, over 100,000 articles were assessed. Over 60 people contributed in some way. A barnstar has been created for exceptional work on Wikipedia biographies and for assisting the project. The Biography Barnstar is listed with the other WikiProject awards and can be awarded easily with a template. See the template page for more details. Member News Congratulations to the editors who worked on the newest featured biographies: Augustus; William Shakespeare; Adriaen van der Donck; Alfred Russel Wallace; Alison Krauss; Anne Frank; Anne of Denmark; Asser; Bart King; Bill O'Reilly; Bobby Robson; Bradley Joseph; CM Punk; Ceawlin of Wessex; Colley Cibber; Cædwalla of Wessex; Dominik Hašek; Elizabeth Needham; Frank Macfarlane Burnet; Georg Cantor; Gregory of Nazianzus; Gunnhild Mother of Kings; Gwen Stefani; Hannah Primrose, Countess of Rosebery; Harriet Arbuthnot; Harry S. Truman; Henry, Bishop of Uppsala; Héctor Lavoe; Ine of Wessex; Ion Heliade Rădulescu; Jack Sheppard; Jackie Chan; Jay Chou; John Martin Scripps; John Mayer; Joseph Francis Shea; Joshua A. Norton; Kate Bush; Kazi Nazrul Islam; Kevin Pietersen; Martin Brodeur; Mary Martha Sherwood; Mary of Teck; Maximus the Confessor; Miranda Otto; Muhammad Ali Jinnah; P. K. van der Byl; Penda of Mercia; Pham Ngoc Thao; Rabindranath Tagore; Ramón Emeterio Betances; Red Barn Murder; Richard Hakluyt; Richard Hawes; Robert Garran; Roman Vishniac; Ronald Niel Stuart; Ronald Reagan; Roy Welensky; Rudolph Cartier; Samuel Adams; Samuel Beckett; Sarah Churchill, Duchess of Marlborough; Sarah Trimmer; Sargon of Akkad; Shen Kuo; Sophie Blanchard; Stereolab; Sydney Newman; Sylvanus Morley; Tim Duncan; Timeline of Mary Wollstonecraft; Uncle Tupelo; Waisale Serevi; Wallis, Duchess of Windsor; Walter Model; William Bruce; William Goebel; Yagan; Zhou Tong; Æthelbald of Mercia; Æthelbald of Mercia New Members Congratulations to our 225 new members	From the Editors The newsletter is back! Many things have gone on during the past few months, but many things have not. While the assessment drive helped revitalize the assessment department of the project, many other departments have received no attention. Most notably: peer review and our "workgroups". A day long IRC meeting has been planned for October 13th, with the major focus being which areas of the project are "dead", what should our goals be as a project, and how to "revive" the dead areas of our project. Contribute to the discussion on the the new channel (see below) We decided to deliver this newsletter to all project members this month but only those with their names down here will get it delivered in the future. This is your newsletter and you can be involved in the creation of the next issue. Any and all contributions are welcome. Simply let yourself be known to any of the undersigned or post news on the next issue's talk page New irc channel Lastly, a new WikiProject Biography channel has been set up on the freenode network: #wikipedia-en-bio Our thanks to Phoenix 15 for setting it up. Contributors to this Issue Psychless (talk · contribs) Phoenix 15 (talk · contribs)
Complete To Do List Write an article Expand an article about: a person an actor an animator an artist a bishop a businessperson a diplomat an educator an engineer a lawyer a military person a musician a photographer a saint a politician a scientist a sportsperson a writer Improve an article by: adding references adding categories Review an article Romano Volta • Suzanne Carrell • Mullá Husayn • John Gilchrist (linguist) • Thomas Brattle • Answer requests for comments Work on the Portal Portal:Biography Assess an article Assessment requests Unassessed articles Assessment Progress Biography articles by quality and importance Quality Importance Core Other ??? Total FA 34 1,582 1,616 FL 188 188 A 94 94 GA 42 7,946 7,988 B 92 36,141 36,233 C 35 155,999 156,034 Start 2 725,924 725,926 Stub 1,030,242 1 1,030,243 List 7,402 7,402 Category 2 133,981 133,983 Disambig 8,010 8,010 File 27,365 27,365 Project 1 196 197 Redirect 3 41,405 41,408 Template 12,546 12,546 NA 236 236 Assessed 211 2,189,257 1 2,189,469 Unassessed 33,882 33,882 Total 211 2,223,139 1 2,223,351 WikiWork factors (?) ω = 10,560,031 Ω = 5.39
We couldn't do it without you!

To receive this newsletter in the future, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. This newsletter was delivered by the automated R Delivery Bot 15:47, 7 October 2007 (UTC) .Reply[reply]

The above named Arbitration case has closed.

You may refer to the case page to view the decision.

For the Arbitration Committee, - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 20:38, 17 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:John mcloughlin -- publicity photo from yahoo.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add ((di-replaceable fair use disputed)), without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, fair use media which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. High on a tree 20:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah, but I'm not sure it'll be acceptable to you. Please see Talk:Lyman Ray Patterson#christian/baptist?. I'm not sure if this fellow went to the same school as Patterson, but I'm fairly sure the motivation for my action was pretty much the same motivation. John Carter (talk) 15:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Noticed the link to a foreign language template, assumed it wasn't a translation of your user page, deleted it. John Nevard (talk) 07:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for your support in my RfA. It was definitely a dramatic debate, that landed on WP:100! I paid close attention to everything that was said, and, where possible, I will try to incorporate the (constructive) criticism towards being a better administrator. I'm taking things slowly for now, partially because of the holidays and all the off-wiki distractions. :) I'm also working my way through the Wikipedia:New admin school and double-checking the relevant policies, and will gradually phase into the use of the new tools. My main goals are to help out with various backlogs, but I also fully intend to keep on writing articles, as there are several more that I definitely want to get to WP:FA status! Thanks again, and have a great new year, --Elonka 05:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Edits like this are entirely inappropriate. Please don't import crap from WR. Corvus cornix_talk 04:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Maybe post a link to WR without a hyperlink? Corvus cornix_talk 05:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah, that could work. Corvus cornix_talk 05:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Try http://www.yahoo.comWjhonson (talk) 05:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks! I just omitted the "http" but I'll do that.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 05:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No big deal. Let the comments stay. That creates less drama. Jehochman ^Talk 20:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I wish to thank you for being supportive of my effort to regain my adminship. Though it was not successful, your support was still very much appreciated. Let me know if there is anything I can do for you. Thank you!--MONGO 06:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I guess I'm one of the people who've noticed your good work on articles before. Good luck avoiding the stalkers. John Nevard (talk) 05:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mantanmoreland. Cool Hand Luke 06:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment directed largely to you: Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Mantanmoreland#I'm done gathering evidence. Cool Hand Luke 08:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re this comment you made - [4]. Who is Sara, please? Neıl ☎ 17:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wait, never mind, I figured it out from context. Neıl ☎ 17:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please note I have filed a Request for Arbitration about the current dispute. It is available here. SirFozzie (talk) 20:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, — Rlevse • Talk • 22:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

[5] I was wondering if you could either (1) explain to the community what happened to you in October 2006, or (2) explain why you've lied to all of us so long. Cool Hand Luke 22:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So I take it you have no intention of explaining? Cool Hand Luke 20:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An IP reverted your posting here. At first impulse, I wanted to restore, but then decided against because it goes too much into the direction of WP:NLT for my taste. User:Dorftrottel 14:40, February 18, 2008

Imho, the ArbCom should decide about it. User:Dorftrottel 14:51, February 18, 2008

Shouldn't have used that language. It was over-the-top. Feel free to explain what happened to you in October 2006. Cool Hand Luke 03:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Borgnine as marty.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 23:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Spencer tracy.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 23:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re your email to me...I don't think it's a threat, but a warning you should heed. Did you talk to Lar about it? — Rlevse • Talk • 23:07, 1 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I thought it would be polite to let you know that there's a(nother) discussion about you at the admin.s noticeboard at the moment.

I also noticed that you haven't edited in over a week, and thought I'd ask you if you did plan on continuing working on the wiki? There's obviously a presumption that you wouldn't like to be banned from editing, but I thought I'd come to the horse's mouth so to speak! A short note about your intentions here would at least let everyone know where you stand, I guess...... best, Privatemusings (talk) 03:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Events overtake me, as so often they do.... you'll know by now that you've been indefinitely blocked from editing, which in some ways actually makes the answer to the above question even more relevant! - I think it would be helpful to know - would you like to return to editing? Privatemusings (talk) 04:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Better question is one that asks you, Privatemusings, if you want to continue editing. You were fortunate to get only a 90 day break as far as I am concerned...so don't go stirring up drama.--MONGO 08:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

MONGO, this is not helpful. Please don't escalate matters with block threats. Carcharoth (talk) 10:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Mantanmoreland.

I have blocked your account and that of Samiharris (talk · contribs) pursuant to the AN thread mentioned above. Despite there being some significant dispute about what, exactly, is a proper response; there is overwhelming consensus that you have abused a sockpuppet account, despite having been strongly admonished not to so in the past by an arbitrator.

Please note that this is, very specifically, not a ban. If you can convince the community that you intend to contribute productively and within Wikipedia policy, you are welcome to make your case for unblocking this account. Placing the ((unblock)) template will attract administrator attention to your talk page, although I expect it will be closely watched for the foreseeable future. — Coren ^(talk) 12:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Seconded. I myself am watching your talk page in case you do decide to post an unblock request ... but bear this in mind. Your trust with the community is hanging by an eyelash--now the ball's in your court. There are quite a few admins' opinions on where to go with this (including mine) which bear on your explanation. Blueboy96 12:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

I am not Samiharris, and in any event I have edited only sparsely in recent months and I will comply fully with the arbcom decision.

Decline reason:

already unblocked so nothing to see here. I can't accept as I didn't unblock so this is simply to remove user from CAT:RFU — Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the ((unblock)) template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Maybe you want to edit that unblock request: "Although there may be substantial appearance that I am Samiharris, I will comply fully with the arbcom decision, including to only use one account and to avoid all editing that represents an actual or perceived conflict of interest." I think that repeating the denial without providing a credible reason is unpalatable. Jehochman ^Talk 13:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see Doc glasgow has already unblocked, and suggested the matter be taken to arbitration. OH WAIT, IT WAS JUST THERE, WASN'T IT. - David Gerard (talk) 13:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Regrettably, it was. And due to the lack of a conclusive decision, there is now wheel warring. How regrettable. Folks, please stop playing block pong with this account. Jehochman ^Talk 13:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

One block and one unblock is not yet ping-ponging. It falls into that grey area where not everyone agrees it is wheel-warring. If someone reblocks, that will be clear wheel-warring. But as Jay Jay has said, the water from the burst dam is moving too fast at the moment for calm discussion. Carcharoth (talk) 13:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I note that you have not been participating in the arbitration case for the past several days and before that had participated to only a limited extent. If you have any additional information or evidence to present that may be useful to the Arbitration Committee or the community, including any explanation of the actual or perceived relationships between this account, Samiharris, and any other present or former accounts, please present it as soon as possible. Thank you. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. Wikipedia's role with respect to serious off-wiki or "real world" controversies and disputes is to provide encyclopedic coverage of such matters from a neutral point of view where they are notable and sufficiently documented in reliable sources. Neither Wikipedia's mainspace article content, nor its administrative and dispute-resolution procedures culminating in Arbitration, are intended or may be used as a vehicle for off-wiki disputes such as those involving the financial markets or legal or regulatory issues. Actions related to the articles involved, including naked short selling, overstock.com, Patrick M. Byrne, the (now-redirected article) Judd Bagley, and Gary Weiss, have been repeatedly disruptive and have had serious implications both on and off wiki. Any current of future editor making substantial edits to these articles is direct ed:

(A) To edit on these from only a single user account, which shall be the user's sole or main account;

(B) To edit only through a conventional ISP and not through any form of proxy configuration;

(C) To edit in accordance with all Wikipedia policies and to refrain from any form of advocacy concerning any external controversy, dispute, allegation, or proceeding; and

(D) To disclose on the relevant talk pages any circumstances (but not including personal identifying information) that constitute or may reasonably be perceived as constituting a conflict of interest with respect to that page.

Any uninvolved admin may impose reasonable restrictions, after warning, upon involved articles or editors. Knowledgeable and uninvolved editors are urged to review these articles to ensure accuracy, fairness, and adherence to wiki policies. User:Mantanmoreland, under any current or future account, is banned from editing articles related to Gary Weiss, Patrick Byrne, Overstock.com, Naked Short Selling, and other mainspace articles in the area of dispute, broadly construed. He may make suggestions on talk pages, subject to the requirements of remedy 1 in the decision. User:Mantanmoreland is directed to edit Wikipedia from only a single user account and to advise the Arbitration Committee of any change of username, and to edit only through a conventional ISP and not through any form of proxy configuration.

For the committee, — Rlevse • Talk • 21:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I consider this statement a constructive move forward on your part, and I thank you for making it. Noroton (talk) 16:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agreed, that is a step in the right direction ... almost enough, in my view, to take a ban off the table. Blueboy96 17:13, 15 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, you still need to apologize for your past, bad-faith behavior. Right here on your talk page is probably the best place. Cla68 (talk) 07:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As suggested by Wikinews, posting a link to this post there[6], which was indeed by me.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 13:45, 17 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have renamed the impostor to "Impostor of Mantanmoreland" - the account was already indef. blocked. And renamed the account you created on Wikinews from Mantan to Mantanmoreland to avoid futher impersonation. --Brian McNeil /^talk 14:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FYI... Al Copeland claimed he named the Popeyes Chicken & Biscuits chain after the fictional detective Jimmy "Popeye" Doyle in the movie The French Connection, whose nickname was unrelated to the cartoon character Popeye the Sailor. The chain later acquired rights to use the namesake cartoon character for marketing. The company's early brand became deeply tied to the cartoon character with its sponsorship of the "Popeye & Pals" children's show in New Orleans, and the character appeared on items from packaging to racing boats. As of 2006, the Popeyes' online history omits any reference to the cartoon, though some international markets, notably Puerto Rican restaurants, continue to use the Popeye's (cartoon character) theme. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.3.128.3 (talk) 20:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If that can be sourced, fine. However, the Popeye logo is the same as the typography of the cartoon.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 20:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, after the chain was founded, it partnered with whoever owns the license to the Popeye cartoon to use the character in its advertising. But the chain was initially named for the movie detective, not the cartoon sailor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.3.128.3 (talk) 13:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for uploading Image:Carol baker in baby doll.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Ricky81682 (talk) 07:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for uploading Image:Something wild 1961.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Ricky81682 (talk) 07:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, you may not recall who I am but I am the user who originally started the Dominick Pezzulo article about the September 11th hero. Unfortunately it was speedy deleted before I could react recently, and I have uploaded my old backup page. There is no history before the revertion, so I am requesting your help to clean and edit the page. On the original Dominick Pezzulo page you were kind enough to show me some mistakes and flaws about my editing and helped me change it. I ask of you to lend a helping hand once again and clean up this article to meet wikipedia standards. (and to ensure it doesnt get "deleted" again). Thank you. - Penfish (talk) 22:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have blocked you for two weeks, and User:Bassettcat indefinitely, for abusive sock-puppetry or otherwise being in breach of both puppetry policy and the remedies of the case Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland. The relevant details can be found at WP:ANI#Mantanmoreland and Bassettcat.

This should also be considered a final warning on some matters in that post.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 21:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Due to a very strong community consensus at the AN/I discussion FT2 linked above, I have reblocked you indefinitely. Unless the community changes its mind, consider this a formal community ban. krimpet✽ 18:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive426#Mantanmoreland and Bassettcat for the complete archived discussion. See also the subsequent discussion on that page about what to do with the targeted articles. - Face 23:15, 20 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Mantanmoreland#Jimbo_expressed_a_suspicion_that_Mantanmoreland_is_in_fact_Gary_Weiss.

I guess it explains why this account was blocked, but the discussions are far more interesting. The Gary Weiss page is so blocked up you can't even edit the talk page. It is completely misleading, of course. --Intentionally unsigned 01:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.175.18.130 (talk)

ICHTHUS

January 2012

In this issue...

• From the Editor
• What are You doing For Lent?
• Fun and Exciting Contest Launched
• Spotlight on WikiProject Catholicism

---

Ichthus is the newsletter of Christianity on Wikipedia • It is published by WikiProject Christianity
For submissions contact the Newsroom • To unsubscribe add yourself to the list here

Dear fellow wikipedia editor or administrator,

Greeting to you my fellow contributors and friends. I trust that you are all well and in good health and spirits.

I am a continued and consistent user of our open contributor forum. I have edited several articles and have worked with each of you in at least one or two instances. My most contentious edits and requests have been Jose Baez's birthplace and The Capeman BLP.

As you can see, I have continued to use my anonymous IP address in place of a regular user id or moniker. This is a personal choice and one that I most likely will continue.

My reason for contacting you is I request your assistance and input in relation to a BLP that I believe has the potential to continue to draw a very large number of readers and potential editors and others. The article in question is Adele, the singer. The article has many inconsistencies and errors contained within it. The article has been locked down and several edits reverted that have 1) validicity and potentially correct/new iinformation 2) Absolutely no talk page entries or discussion taking place whatsoever and when someone does use the talk page it is ignored or easily dismissed without a single opinion or answer to the person proposing the discussion.

I must state that I have personally not made one change to this article at all! I feel it is important to state I have no knowledge of this BLP subject whatsoever. In fact, I know nothing about her other than what is contained in the article itself. and the cited references contained within. My only contributions to anything regarding the subject is to the talk page for the article and a registered editor's user talk page.

My first entry was dated May 11, 2012 when I contributed to the talk page detailing specifically the inconsistencies within it and at the least opening a discussion and at the most requesting article editing. I also included one or two small constructive suggestions to hopefully clear some confusion I experienced in the article. No additional discussion by anyone was offered at all. (It was like I was the only one who knew that a talk page even existed). My next entries were 7 days later. and true to my mo, I become contentious and somewhat aggressive in an attempt to provoke any response whatsoever.

I am a constructive user and sometimes editor in subjects that I know are correct and I possess the knowledge and information to challenge constructively. I must apologize for my contentious tendencies and state once again I am nearly always a reasonable and fair person.

My problems with this article is outlined in the talk pages. The claim that the vandalism is persistent, I must question this as I see no persistance, nor a reason for an editor to assign a 4 month lockdown. Also, currently the last edit has reverted causing the removal of an inclusion that this artist is a pop artist when the article itself states this fact in a number of paragraphs and references within it.

I only request that you please offer a little time and review the article, talk page and recent edits and reverts. I would not ask this of you, if I did not know that this article was in need of such drastic assistance. In addition, due to the huge fame of this artist, I believe this article should really be helped by those I know are fair, just, caring and competent to the wiki community.

I have also requested the assistance in the wiki chat portal this morning outlining my concerns there as well. Unfortunately, I have much less confidence in that forum than I can say I do have in you all. The only response that I really received was nearly a dozen users immediately exited and left after stating the facts as I have here.

Any and all assistance and aid you may render, I am sure the wiki community will be the better for.

Best regards always.

Mark R65.8.151.206 (talk) 16:42, 18 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]