User talk:OwenX/Archive 9

Israel

I am so sorry! I realised soon after I edited what I did and scrambled to fix it, I swear that almost never happens.Therequiembellishere 00:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Ugh, I it's one of the only downsides of Mozilla, and I refuse to use bloody "IE".Therequiembellishere 01:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Listen You Little Prick!

You would have to be a total idiot to deliberately screw up somebody else's personal page while your logged in. On my personal page history "YOUR THE ONLY OTHER PERSON TOP MAKE EDITS TO MY PAGE BESIDES ME! You rotten motherfucker, I don't give a shit what your reasons where for doing it, but if you ever touch my personal page again, I will make it a daily ritual do what ever it takes to screw up your page or what ever page you have worked on. I don't know you, I've never even spoken to you on line and after 3 hours of work you have the fucking balls to erase a 3/4 of my page. You piece of shit, I hope you die of cancer of the eyes! I've had my differences with other people on the site, but I'm not a low class piece of shit who would stoop to vandalizing another person's work, what is this the local sandbox, are you a 5 year old? Your actions says alot about your character, only a pathetic loser would do something like that to make themselves feel better, and I still can't figure out why because like I said I don't know you and I've never had any contact with you, but that's gonna change if you ever touch my again!

I see that you have your personal page protected because of past vandalism, your obviously a real dirt bag who's done this to others, assholes like you should be spat and pissed on for thinking you have the right to destroy another person's work. Don't even think of of trying it again asshole, you wanna answer me, that's fine, I expect it, but stay the fuck away from my page, you got it cocksucker! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Little Joe Shots (talk • contribs)

• Wow. That's quite a tirade. Andre (talk) 23:16, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Losplad, User:Chris funk bass

The content of these user pages is well within the allowed limits for a User page.

Reality check:

• User:Losplad: 1) advertises band. 2) not an individual, a role account 3) Account created in May, but this is its only edit. Really, pretty obvious.

• User:Chris funk bass: 1) advertises band. 2) No edits since August 2006 3) Only edits (11) are this page and attempts to add self or his band to other pages in July & August 2006. Really, pretty obvious.

The "G" in CSD:G12 stands for "General"; i.e.; ALL pages. User pages aren't exempted, and spam disguised as user pages is deleted all the time. This batch is just from the last fewmonths. FYI. --Calton | Talk 01:19, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

"Spam"? "Advertising"? How can an unlinked userpage advertise anything?

!) Perhaps you've heard of this thing called "Google"? It's what's known as a "search engine": I understand all the kids are using it these days. 2) Also, did I miss the "incompetent" exception clause in the spam prohibitions.

Yes, G12 can be applied to any page, but review WP:USER--the standards for a userpage are very different from those of the article namespace.

Looks like you missed the meaning of the word "General" (i.e., everything) and also the first words of WP:USER. Let me refresh your memory:

Wikipedia provides user pages to facilitate communication among participants in its project to build an encyclopedia.

Was that difficult to follow?

By deleting their user page, we are making it more likely that they never will.

That's already been established. See here for a list. Check their "contributions".

I know similar userpages are being deleted--incorrectly--all the time.

I used the phrase "reality check", but perhaps that wasn't strong enough phrasing, since you couldn't be more wrong if you made a deliberate effort to do so, both on policy and pure common-sense grounds.

I'd appreciate your help in stopping this practice.

Don't be ridiculous. When you return to Earth, let me know. --Calton | Talk 04:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you've heard of this thing called "civility"? It's very popular among Wikipedia users

Oh, grow up. If you don't like being contradicted, don't whine about it. If providing you with evidence is "condescending", I'm wondering how you deal with debate with the real world. And spare me the condescending, mindreading lectures of your own -- or is your talk about "civility" only for the little people? -- as a way to avoid actual evidence and actual debate on actual evidence and actual policy. If you talk nonsense about how "similar userpages are being deleted--incorrectly--all the time", you should expect such a claim to be treated as the nonsense it is and asking me to sign on with such nonsense doubly so. --Calton | Talk 23:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

A mutual benefit to Wikipedia and banned user.

Hey there, I was contacted recently by Little Joe Shots, a user who you banned temporarily for making threats, via another site. Now I take issue, as a once active member of Wikipedia, with one element of this situation. It is not the banning in question but that there was some very valuable information of one of Little Joe Shots' user pages regarding the Buffalo crime family. I do not know how to retrieve it and was hoping that if you have time perhaps you could help me. I checked the history for Shots' page that was there but i think there was an original one somewhere (an original user page) and in its history it would have all sorts of information about the Buffalo family which would be great for me, and for Little Joe, and in turn for Wikipedia because of the continued cycle of research on the internet in regards to organized crime. I have acted for a while as a go between of sorts with Wikipedia and the Real Deal Forum, an organized crime discussion group housing such notable authors on the subject as Scott M. Burnstein (Motor City Mafia: A Century of Organized Crime in Detroit) and Scott M. Deitche (Cigar City Mafia: A Complete History of the Tampa Underworld and The Silent Don) both of whom have been used by Wikipedia editors, and up-and-coming authors such as Little Joe (yes, he can write exceptionally well on organized crime - not so well or diplomatically on Wikipedia issues). I eagerly await your response. Alexbonaro 03:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Alexbonaro 13:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Bureaucratship again

Hello! In September 2005 you said, "Sorry it didn't go through... I was surprised that what I thought was reasonable campaigning was misinterpreted as "pimping for votes" (sic). Oh well...please let me know when you run again!" As per your comment, I'm letting you know that I'm up for bureaucratship for the third and final time at Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Andrevan3, and your opinion would be welcome. It has been a while, so if you're no longer interested, I apologize and understand. Cheers, Andre (talk) 22:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

My talk page

Someone pasted a block notice on my page masquerading as you. Chubbles 18:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Chubbles 18:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thanks in part to your support, I am Wikipedia's newest bureaucrat. I will do my best to live up to your confidence and kind words. Andre (talk) 09:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Will Pyatt

Hi Owen

My article on Will Pyatt was immediately deleted and also the article which another user prepared on Ivor Talbot has also disappeared- could you tell me why?

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joy.estelle (talk • contribs)

Reverts

I genuinely appreciate your effort in counter-vandalism, but please refrain from making rash, ill-judged reverts such as the one you made on the User:Ehren Thompson userpage. As it turns out the user does actually identify as a homosexual, and the userbox was added on my request. One could question the possibly of a homophobic bias in the actions of an administrator who immediately assumes "vandalism" when changes are made to a Wikipedia page that suggest homosexuality.

With no patronism intended, I remind you of the Wikipedia code of conduct, one of the five Wikipedia pillars (which I am sure you are well acquainted with) in which it is stressed that all editors keep a calm, cool, clear mind and assume good faith at all times whilst contributing to Wikipedia. Jason McConnell-Leech 12:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Nothing to do with homophobia. Any comment on a user page about that user's sexuality made by anyone other than the user him/herself is generally considered vandalism. This is not an exception to WP:AGF, but based on a specific guideline, WP:USER#Ownership_and_editing_of_pages_in_the_user_space:

Other users may edit pages in your user space, although by convention your user page will usually not be edited by others.

The only cases where such edits would be acceptable is when they are clearly done at the user's request or to their benefit; this was not the case with your edit, as far as I can tell. I'm not a fan using Wikipedia to declare one's political affiliation or sexual preferences. If Ehren wanted to use his user page to out himself, he should have done so himself; he is certainly well-versed in using those userboxes. If you can show me where Ehren Thompson asked you to make that addition to his user page, I'll gladly undo my revert. Until then, I'll treat this as vandalism. Owen× ☎ 13:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Recent block

Hi OwenX. You just blocked an anonymous user User:72.196.232.174 for vandalizing a user talk pages. I just did a traceroute, and it resolves to dc.cox.net. There was a recent community ban for User:Rbj, who utilized a few anonymous sockpuppets that resolved to the exact same address. I think, but I'm not sure, a checkuser was done for Rbj, and it showed that the other anonymous vandals of my page (and others) were using the same IP address. I'm not sure if a further action is required, but I just wanted to give you a heads up. Orangemarlin 16:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Will Pyatt

Hi Thanks for your reply - however Will Pyatt is a notable magician in the Peterborough area and I am neither family friend or partner, neither is this article to be used for financial gain. Is an entry completely forbidden in the case of local/national magicians?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joy.estelle (talk • contribs)

So, Joy, there's absolutely no relation between you and the Joy Talbot that Will is dating? In any case, performing in weddings doesn't make one a notable magician. Have there been any newspaper articles about Mr. Pyatt? Is there any independent source we can verify his notability? If you bothered to read the two guidelines above, you'd see that Mr. Pyatt hasn't reached the point where he deserves an entry in an encyclopedia. Owen× ☎ 16:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Need help

Owen,
I consulted you for creating a disambiguation page a few weeks back for the two topics:
Social Software - our page, and
Social software

Our page got attacked again and this conflict will stay unless we have a disambiguation page in place!
Please let us know if you can help solve this problem.

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cs-cuny (talk • contribs)

I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how things work here. Firstly, check out WP:OWN--you may be the editor who created that page, but it isn't "your page". The fact that you refer to it as yours only serves to amplify the suspicion of a conflict of interest. The page was not "attacked"; you received some legitimate, valuable feedback from other, experienced editors, who told you that the article reads like an original-research lecture made by someone related to the researchers. Whether you are in fact related to the researchers or not is immaterial; it is the content of the article being criticized, and rightly so. Please spend some time familiarizing yourself with WP:NOR and standard writing style here.

Regarding a disambiguation page--the recent comments from other editors only proves that there is no consensus about the notability of this topic, so a disambig page would be a wrong approach. I suggest you work with the other editors to improve the article, not against them. This would also improve the chances of this article surviving a proposed deletion, if that ever comes up.

A couple of unrelated comments: Please sign your posts on Talk pages using ~~~~, and please do not erase other people's comments on your Talk page. I took the liberty of restoring our previous thread here, since it is on the same topic. If the page becomes too long, you can archive it (I'll show you how), but it is considered poor etiquette to blank your Talk page. Owen× ☎ 13:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow Owen! You are doing really poor antivandalism work
I completely agree with User: Makemi below that you are not doing a good job. You are not helping but creating more problems with your comments. If you care the least to help other unexperienced users, then atleast attempt to see what the hell is going on before you type a long message that does not make sense a bit! Our page was completely erased by vandals multiple times. This time they chose to categorize our work as being unpublished work. If you had cared to go down the page you would've seen 25 references to published work on Social Software and therefore, would not have agreed to it blindly.

Regarding clearing my own talk page, I do not consider clearing my own talk page vandalism in ANY WAY! I am starting to get the feeling that you have nothing better to do but to intimidate new wikipedia users. It is very clear that you are the real VANDAL here!

Hello

I would just like to vompliment you on your rollback speed, I am in awe of you Tennekis 02:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Black hole cleanup

The objective is to cleanup the black hole article by creating sub article templates this will save a significant amount of space on the database server. Monmnom 21:51, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I undid the "cleanup" in Black hole, and I started a discussion at Talk:Black hole, where you may want to comment. This seems like a really horrible idea, as it makes it difficult to reorganize the material in the article (or even rename sections). Please let me know if the templates are nominated for deletion. Dr. Submillimeter 22:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

great antivandalism work

although i could have already reverted at least three vandalisms while writing this message, i have to inform you that i admire your anti-vandalism work. you're always faster then me. consider this as a barnstar :) West Brom 4ever 22:56, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Poor antivandalism work

Oh dear. Look: "Policy does not prohibit users from removing comments from their own talk pages, although archiving is preferred." from Wikipedia:User_page

And you have chosen to block me, user:195.137.30.238, simply because I prefer to delete my own old messages! How rude, and what a waste of time. Don't you have something better to do? You are the only vandal here - look at my other contributions and see how much of a vandal I am. This is very disappointing indeed. Very disappointing of you to behave in such a disruptive way. I will keep my talk page as empty as I like. User195137 00:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow, seriously. I've unblocked. Blanking an old DYK message? That's not vandalism. And blanking one's own talk page isn't an acceptable reason on its own to block a user. Mak (talk) 00:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Me

Not to be uncivil, but you know that I am Bibliotheque. My username is now changed, but you cannot say that this is vandalism. I did it as humor to my own user page. It was quite uncivil of you to delete the page User:68.224.239.145. I don't see why not logging in constitutes as vandalism, especially since I have admitted to being vandalous in the past, but now trying to revert vandalism in wikipedia. Not to be rude, just saying. ionas68224|talk|contribs|email 02:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

When exactly did I accuse you of vandalism? The fact that I never reverted your edits should make it clear that I didn't consider it to be vandalism. All I did was ask you to log in when you edit a user page--I don't see how that can be seen as uncivil. Using IP user pages as redirects is frowned upon--this IP may belong to you today, but even "static IPs" aren't permanent. Please use links rather than redirects. Owen× ☎ 05:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

You said that not logging in causes users to think the edits were vandalism. As for the redirect, I have now done an indirect redirect. Please see User:68.224.239.145. Thank you. ionas68224|talk|contribs|email 06:17, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for removing the redirects, and my apologies if anything I said made it sound like you were suspected of vandalism. I added bigger notices on your IP pages (User:68.224.239.145‎ and User Talk:68.224.239.145‎). Feel free to change them to whatever is your personal style (or remove them altogether), and let me know if there's anything I can help with. Owen× ☎ 15:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

"You have recently made changes to the user page of Kwork. If this is your own user page, please log in before you make any edits to it. Edits by anonymous IP accounts to pages of registered users are often treated as vandalism. Please help us avoid this mistake by logging in. Thank you. Owen× ☎ 22:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)"

Thanks for the attention. I did make the change without logging in. I sometimes also edit articles without logging in. I don't intend to, but just forget. (I know that editing without even a user name is allowed, but wish it was not.) Kwork 11:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

What have I done?!?!

What have I done? I can swear it is not me who has done such a thing. CSKA Sofia is my favourite football team and I would NEVER do something like that. I guess it is impossible that there is a mistake or something like that and I cannot imagine how that has happened. Anyway, I apologise, though the "contribution" was definitely not done by me. From my computer - maybe, but by me myself - definitely not. Long live CSKA! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.36.9.144 (talk • contribs)

That edit was done four days ago; dynamic IP addresses get re-assigned fairly often, so I'm sure it wasn't you. This is why you should really get yourself an account--it only takes a few seconds to set up, and then things like this incident cannot happen. Read Wikipedia:Why create an account? if you're still not sure. Owen× ☎ 16:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

An apology and explanation

Owenx,

I apparently made some content change to List of serial killers by number of victims.

First, I apologize for the change.

But second, I must tell you it was completely inadvertent. I clicked the "Edit" link, changed the spelling of one word, clicked the "Minor Edit" checkbox, and saved the page. I did click on the "Minor Edit" link before I saved the change, just to make sure what I had done was a minor edit. But I never changed any of the formatting, which seems to be how the page got messed up.

And I certainly wasn't experimenting on a content page!

Anyway, I just felt the need to explain myself. Thank you for reverting my inadvertence.

MitchS 17:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

No problem at all. Happens to everyone. Owen× ☎ 17:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Esztergom

Yes, it was my fault, it was not intentional, I tried to restrore my last change, but you deleted my last 10 edits for the last few MONTHS. Please bring back my edits for that period. (HUN)Villy 00:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I see you already did, sorry (HUN)Villy 00:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks, OwenX, for catching the mistake on my Interesting Facts page about spiders. And also, thanks for fixing my spelling error on led. (lead) Thanks again, and thanks for reading my facts, (I didn't really thought anyone read them). :-) -- Penubag  21:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Pilotjokes

He has all the signs of banned User:His excellency. I filed a checkuser request but no action has been taken. Are you familiar with that case at all? Arrow740 23:44, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! If the block expires and he continues with the edit wars before we have an answer on the sockpuppetry, please let me know. Owen× ☎ 23:51, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

The goal appears to be to push others over 3RR so that a naïve administrator will block established users along with the socks, which are completely disposable and created all the time. At the very least, a few minutes of labor on the sock's part will mean lots of work for a number of editors over here as we debate what to do. It always has the same result anyhow, the only question is how much time is wasted, and if anyone else's record is stained, along the way.Proabivouac 23:59, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I am not familiar with this case, but this one doesn't seem to be a very sophisticated editor, tripping himself over the 3RR. I'd look for the simple thoery before suspecting a plot, but I wouldn't be surprised if you're right. Owen× ☎ 00:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Question regarding CSD:A7 applied to software products

hi OwenX, i have a question for you... you recently posted the following note on the Doom 2D deletion page:

Note: CSD:A7 (speedy deletion due to lack of notability of person/group/web-site) does not apply to software products. I removed the speedy notice; let's let this AfD run to completion to decide. Owen× ☎ 20:47, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

i recently noticed that the A7 rule has been applied to many software products where the speedy deletion seemed capricious and *poof*, the page just disappears... is it true that the A7 rule doesn't apply to software products? if so, then apparently many of your fellow admins didn't get that memo...

up til now i have just watched as the software product pages have been mowed down, but recently i had to act... a page was created for Tranche (Tranche (software)), a distributed storage and transfer program like BitTorrent which is used internationally by medical researchers... i personally pulled the speedy delete tag off the page (which i now realize was wrong but i had to act), and an admin changed it to AfD... i have argued on the discussion page that this is notable software, but how do you argue against an admin who just says "no it's not"?

anyway, i would appreciate any insight you had regarding your comment about A7 not applying to software products... as i said, there seems to be a ton of admins out there, none of whom seem knowledgeable about the field, who are wanting to hold software products up to the same standard as Gordon the Gopher... and their conclusion seems to be that Gordon is encyclopedia material, but something like Tranche is not... one of the admins on the AfD page even said that "this article is not nearly as well sourced as Linux or Emacs"... what? are they serious? have the admins on here lost all sense of proportionality and reality??

they even cite the Crystal Ball rule which is silly, because from what i could find out Tranche is being used by major research organizations... Tranche is still undergoing development which is probably confusing to these admins, thus citing the Crystal Ball rule, but as far as i know Tranche is currently being used in production mode

thank you for your time and any light you can shed on this... i have seen too many articles on good software programs just disappear off of Wikipedia without a trace, and with speedy delete there's no way to revert it or even find out what had been in the article they deleted... and speedy deletes happen way way fast (that's why i pulled the tag meself)

oh, and the admins who do this deletion are way sloppy, leaving dead links and references to the deleted software products strewn throughout other Wiki pages

anyway, thanks again

(i guess i'll look for your response here on your talk page... please feel free to throw in your two cents on the Tranche AfD page... i'd rather somebody with your background give it a thumbs down legitimately than have some deletionist just whack it for edit points)69.235.255.45 05:15, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I see CSD:A7 being misused all the time. In cases where you are not the creator of the article, you're allowed to remove the speedy tag or replace it with a Wikipedia:Proposed deletion tag or start an AfD. In all cases, be sure to include a clear explanation in the edit summary.

If you believe an article was speedy deleted improperly, please give me the exact page title and I'll review the deleted content and undelete if neccessary. Owen× ☎ 14:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

"db-nn" -v- "db-corp"

Thanks for your pointer in the Tranche (software) discussion. It seems from reading the guidelines (WP:WEB and WP:CORP) that a software product is covered by "db-nn" if its only available online and by "db-corp" (whether it's free or not) if it's available in bricks and mortar outlets. Nightmare, huh? Anyway, it has clarified something for me: that schools are covered by db-corp and not db-nn. Thanks for that. --ROGER ^TALK 15:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Not exactly; "db-corp" only covers articles about companies, not their product. The product of non-notable companies would, naturally, also be non-notable, but--alas--cannot be speedy deleted under the existing CSD:A7. Please note that WP:WEB and WP:CORP are not part of CSD; the CSD criteria were deliberately written more stringently to prevent deletion in all but the most obvious cases. Owen× ☎ 15:45, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

So we could have a situation where the company is non-notable and is speedily deleted on those grounds whilst their products individually work their way through the AfD process? --ROGER ^TALK 15:53, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I know, it is ridiculous. There has been plenty of discussion about adding lack of notability as a speedy criterion for any subject. The consensus in all cases was against doing so, although CSD:A7 has evolved over the years to be more and more sweeping. Let's work on improving the policy rather than working around it. Owen× ☎ 15:59, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I'll post something later unless you'd like to dive straight in now. --ROGER ^TALK 16:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Done it. It's here. --ROGER ^TALK 16:52, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Calton

Just wondered if you'd noticed the links to User:Losplad and User:Chris funk bass turned red. Seems Calton went back and re-tagged them with {{db-spam}}. There's nothing really that needs to be done; I just felt the need to mention it...declined by three admins and he goes back for more. Amazing. - auburnpilot talk 03:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

F-E 07

Thank-you for reminding me, I thought i was logged-in already. user:Falcon-eagle2007 10:48PM(UK)

User:68.34.34.61

Umm, what?

3RR

If you are not, please make youself aware of the Three Revert Rule. You are one edit away from violating this rule. The Jade Knight 05:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.152.175.114 (talk • contribs)

Please don't try to fool me with faked signatures. Your edits to the user page of User:Jade Knight are vandalism, not a legitimate content dispute. Unless you can log in under that username, they'll be treated as such. Owen× ☎ 18:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Nobody tried to fool you with faked signatures. It was tongue-in-cheek humor..since Jade Knight had lectured someone about the 3RR rule when he was violating it himself...and you jumped in to 'protect' Jade Knight from a legitimate complaint, I thought it would be funny for "Jade Knight" to remind you about the 3RR rule. To my knowledge, no one is going to revert Jade Knight's userpage again, because the complaint/protest is in the page's history. It would be truly nice and 'valiant' of either of you to not go throwing your weight around, and instead, just resolve the problem. The link that Jade Knight keeps adding to a certain Wikipedia article is a gross violation of 'biographies of living persons' guidelines, and Jade Knight is making an ignorant "edit war" out of it. Every time he explains his rationale, he demonstrates how unaware he is of the dynamics involved. Ignorant kids need to 'step away from the vehicle,' this isn't a game. And I've told him that, three times now. If you are wiser than Jade Knight (and it appears that you are) please wield your administrative authority to take care of the root problem here, and it isn't me. Thanks! Piledoggie 18:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Had I been approached to help in a 3RR or contents dispute issue by someone with clean hands, I'd be more inclined to help. As it stands, I'll limit myself to dealing with a foul-mouthed belligerent vandal who harasses other users and wastes my time with games. Owen× ☎ 18:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

(see my reply to that on my talk page). Before you posted that, I had already composed the following:

To illustrate what I mean about Jade Knight trifling with a serious complaint, check out his garbled logic, and then compare it to what Wikipedia guidelines say:

Jade Knight:

Including that link in the article does not violate WP:BLP as you suggest, regardless of whether or not the content in the link is libelous or not (if libelous, the offended party could easily sue for reparations; I am thus inclined to believe that the linked article is not libelous).

"...regardless of whether or not the content in the link is libelous or not???" WTF?

Wikipedia:

Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles,[2] talk pages, user pages, and project space. An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is "do no harm." Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. Biographies of living persons (BLP)s must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy.

Jade Knight is showing no regard for someone's privacy, and I was letting him know on his userpage what it must feel like....the difference being, I neither posted nor linked libel/slander/defamatory/false information on his userpage!

I'm not going to endlessly tussle with you or Jade Knight about this. If it persists, it is not an editorial dispute, it is a criminal matter. THAT IS WHY THE GUIDELINES ARE SO STRICT AT WP:BLP.

To repeat:

or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles,[2] talk pages, user pages, and project space.

or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles,[2] talk pages, user pages, and project space.

or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles,[2] talk pages, user pages, and project space. Piledoggie 19:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		I'm awarding you this RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar for your great contributions to protecting and reverting attacks of vandalism on Wikipedia as well as removing problematic editors.. Wikidudeman (talk) 18:59, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Page revert

Thank you for the user page revert. Silly vandals. :/ Moonriddengirl 20:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

For the userpage revert! Giggy _U^CP 22:27, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Blocking 210.185.68.28

210.185.68.28 has been continuously vandalising his own talk page, and I suppose we should block him for a longer period of time. Regards, --Hirohisat ^Talk 00:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, what comes out of your mouth

I thought you might be interested to know that User:Piledoggie has changed your comments on his talk page: [1] The Jade Knight 02:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

By the way, thanks for reverting the vandalism on my userpage. The Jade Knight 02:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. Yes, I saw he edited my comments, but couldn't be bothered playing these games with him. Owen× ☎ 03:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)