User talk:Will Beback/Old Archive7

• User talk:Will Beback/Old Archive1
• User talk:Will Beback/Old Archive2
• User talk:Will Beback/Old Archive3
• User talk:Will Beback/Old Archive4
• User talk:Will Beback/Old Archive5 July 2005
• User talk:Will Beback/Old Archive6 August 2005
• User talk:Will Beback/Old Archive7 September 2005

Frankfurt School permission

When you get a chance, would you please look at what I did on the Frankfurt School page, under References, and see if it seems OK to you? Jeremy J. Shapiro 21:07, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedians with articles

Hello there. Let's, at the outset, acknowledge each other as relatively dedicated and good faith editors, shake hands, and now thrash out this disagreement with all due efficiency. I've made a suggestion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedians_with_articles#Purpose and will not remove any further names until we sort this out.

--bodnotbod 09:34, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

As they say in my hometown, "Awesome, let's thrash." -Willmcw 09:47, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

OK, I've edited the header text to accurately introduce the list. Please add the other purposes for the list to it and soften if you really must ;o) --bodnotbod 10:59, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

Hi there. Well, I'm content with the page now. Good working with you. (doffs cap and goes back to attending to articles about comedy...) --bodnotbod 20:24, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your involvement. Many hands make light work. Cheers, -Willmcw 01:28, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your support

Hi Will, just a quick note to thank you for your support on my RfA. I was pleased to see so much support, especially from people such as you who I do not know very well, if at all. Now that I am an administrator I will do my best to please the community’s expectations. Best regards, Sam Hocevar 17:13, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Bureaucratship

Hi, Willmcw. Thank you so much for your support and kind words on my bureaucratship nomination. Unfortunately, it didn't pass, but I intend to run again soon. If you'd like to be informed next time around, please let me know on my talk page. Thanks again! Andre (talk) 05:16, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Zephram Stark

I have filed Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Zephram Stark. Please contribute to it. – Smyth\^talk 18:53, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Sun Yat-sen

Thanks for clearing that up. A bit of a bummer that that piece of text had gone undetected for a year; most of the wikipedia mirrors have that piece of propaganda now. Borisblue 02:55, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Santa Catalina Island, California

I deleted your sarcasm at Talk:Santa Catalina Island, California. If you had taken time to actually read the Catalina article, you would have seen that section was very unclear on the status of the Bison and needed clarification. BlankVerse ∅ 14:37, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

I've ocassionally gone over the boundaries of civility, but I try to save my cynicism for regular editors instead of relative newbies (see here for me at my most cynical and sarcastic). Most of the times, however, I behave myself.

Recently I have gotten very discouraged about the level of discourse on the Wikipedia, and with seeing very good editors leave and new editors get bitten (see the comments on my user page for further amplification). Because of that, I've started occasionally playing Miss Manners in the little corners of the Wikipedia where I do most of my editing. BlankVerse ∅ 15:47, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

24.141.149.226

Congrats go out to Wilmcw, for reverting a large number of correct edits without any real purpose or motivation.

JEZZZ Willmcw, besides the "Jewish Americans" ones, what exactly was the point of taking out "Polish" from Chloe Sevigny? Her mother is Polish ("my mother's family is Polish" - http://www.latinoreview.com/films_2005/foxsearchlight/melinda/chloe-interview.html) and her French ancestry is minimal at best. You just assumed I was wrong and took it out on principal. Well, I am never wrong about the family background of famous people. Ever. Get it?

Don't ever revert any of my edits unless you can provide explicit and reliable proof that I am incorrect - and that is something which will be near impossible for you to do, obviously. I hate it when people don't check their facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.141.149.226 (talk • contribs) 06:09, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

If you used the wikipedia:edit summaries and supplied sources, then your edits might be easier to decipher. Some of your edits seem based on the concept that people cannot be Jewish and Latvian at the same time. -Willmcw 05:49, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Well, since I edit so many articles, both large and small size, it would take a tremendous amount of time to re-research all of the articles containing "sources" or "proof" and post it in the history of every article, especially many of the articles are almost never edited by anyone else, and most edits I see by other people don't contain sources. If you have a question about a specific edit (or a few) tell me (especially now that I have an account) and I will give you a source. They're not that hard to find.

Now, narrowing this down to the "Jewish Americans" thing. Well, all the "??-American" categories refer to, in my understanding, the cultural/ethnic heritage of whoever. (I am not getting into an argument over whether "Jewish" is an ethnicity or not with you, in case you say it isn't - I will state that it absolutely is and that the Wiki article for Jew mentions the term ethnicity in the first sentence).

Anyway, all of the people to which I added "Jewish American" are Jewish by ethnicity, the large majority are also Jewish by religion, and all of them are culturally Jewish. Most are the children of early 20th century/late 19th century immigrants to the States (I notice most famous 3rd or 4th generation Jewish Americans simply refer to their background as "Jewish", and don't even specify "German Jewish", etc.). Historically speaking, most Eastern European Jewish immigrants from that early time period lived in isolated all-Jewish villages, had little to no contact with outside culture, and a large majority didn't even speak the mother tongue of whichever country (i.e. Latvia) they were born into - I sincerely doubt the majority of these people would consider themselves to be "Latvian Americans" - they are Latvian only by nationality, really. "Latvian" is usually not their cultural and definitely not their ethnic background. I guess it's OK to list people as "Latvian Americans" if they were born in Latvia, but when it comes to 2nd or 3rd generation immigrants - they would have lost any trace of Latvian culture that their ancestors may have had, and would pretty much be "Jewish" in most senses of the word.

To use some of the examples that I did on the Scarlett Johansson board - you could list half of the Jewish population of the States as "Russian Americans" because some of their ancestors may have been from Russia - but obviously any connection to anything Russian is minimal - and they aren't Russian ethnically, either. And again I use the example of ethnically English people born in India, Ireland, wherever - they would be "English Americans" - it'd be pretty silly to list them as "Indian Americans".

I think it's best to keep the categories as tight as possible - notice how confusing it got with Johansson's various categories (and hers is one of the simpler backgrounds). It is much more authentic to list, under say Russian Americans, people who are ethnically and culturally Russian (or part Russian) - i.e. Natalie Wood, Michelle Trachtenberg who I recently added to that category (she has a Russian Jewish father and a Russian-Russian mother). Or at least people of whichever ethnicity who were born in Russia and have lived there for several generations. V 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for correcting falacious and slanderous vandalism to my talk page and elsewhere. I honestly do not know what to do about Steve espinola :-/ All I did was revert several hundred of his vandalisms to the cleanup process about a month ago and now he's just outright attacking me. Is there a way to limit him — only — from editing my page or is this not possible in the site's current implementation? I was just ignoring him but what's next? — HopeSeekr of xMule (Talk) 16:29, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

I blocked the latest two abusive sock puppet accounts. However the person behind the effort is not banned. I am not aware of any way to keep him from editing a certain page. The best solution may be to revert any mischief. Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia, I'm sorry about the behavior of others. -Willmcw 16:53, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Spamming talk pages?

I don't know what the protocol is regarding deletion of inappropriate information from article talk pages, but I want to point out that barbara Schwarz has posted a defamatory press release to Talk:David S. Touretzky. The press release is bogus; it's signed by a non-existent group with no email address, and a physical mail address (found in another copy of the press release) that turns out to be a Hilton hotel. Just the latest in Scientology's ongoing smear tactics. But the entire press release doesn't seem appropriate to the article talk page. -- Touretzky 17:41, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

No, it is not appropriate. Since there is a functional link, there's no need to copy it on the talk page. Thanks for pointing that out. -Willmcw 17:47, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

los angeles

why did you delete my entry Originally named "El Pueblo de Nuestra Señora la Reina de los Angeles del Río de Porciúncula", as a native angeleno i feel everyone should know the origins of the city name.

I deleted it because that information is already in the article, and does not belong as the first line of the article. Nobody has called it that in 200 years, so it is trivia. -Willmcw 20:09, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

PS, compare with New York City, where the reference to its original name is handled in the history seciton. -Willmcw 20:10, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the barnstar, minor though it is. Everyking 11:10, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. :)

Thank you for your welcome and for the helpful links. :) Grandiloquos 16:33, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

My apologies. This was a double post. I received an error message after posting the first "thank you" and didn't think it went through. Grandiloquos 16:40, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar!

We are getting these controversial topics filled out pretty nicely lately! I am heartened to see so many differing viewpoints working together as well. Jokestress 18:05, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Just a thought.

Will, I was wondering. Since we're having this edit war with some anonymous user regarding "The Nordish Portal" and "Skadi," do you think it's a good idea if we temporararily locked up the White supremacy article? Again that's just a thought. Regards, --Gramaic | Talk 21:49, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I've thought about the same thing. This anon doesn't show signs of giving up, but perhaps a few days of not editing the article would make him lose interest. If you want, why don't you add an entry to wikipedia:requests for page protection. I wouldn't be able to protect it since I'm an involved admin. -Willmcw 02:14, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Just added an entry, like you advised me to. Here it is;

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Request_to_protect_White_supremacy. Let's see what happens next. Thanks, --Gramaic | Talk 06:44, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Espinola

If you don't mind, I'll post all replies on HopeSeekr's Talk. Cheers, --Sn0wflake 03:08, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the support on my RfA. I was very pleasantly surprised to see so much support throughout the week. Please do keep an eye on me and my logs, especially while I'm learning the ropes with the new buttons. Thanks again! -Splash 23:59, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Biff Rose

Hello, Willmcw! Recently, Jonah Ayers left me a message seeking my opinion on the Biff Rose page. Here's my thoughts on the article:

First, Jonah claims that you revert him on sight. If so, please stop doing that. While you may not agree with his edits, the point of a temp page is so that you all can discuss the changes on the talk page. The very point of a temp page is to have meaningful discussion and avoid edit conflicts and edit wars. While I can see both sides would want to remove or add material, I strongly recommend all the involved parties not remove any content, and instead discuss any major additions or deletions of text in the talk page first.

In addition, I reiterate my encouragement to all of you to discuss things before adding or removing any text (or quotes). Also, it might be good to cite your sources; the first step is to prove that they are valid quotes. If they are, then all the editors should discuss whether they add to the article, and whether they should be included.

Finally, I urge all of you to tone down your arguments; remember that you should avoid all personal attacks. Stay civil, even if the other person may seem hostile. Remember that being antagonists will do nothing, and will not help toward creating a successful article.

Hopefully you all will start having productive discussions, and create a wonderful article. Thanks! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 01:10, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

RfA

Will, my RfA nomination has become a platform for some editors that are discontent with my performace to criticize me as an editor (I am really trying hard to use nice words to describe this...). We have had our discrepancies but I think that we have managed to overcome most of these in an attempt to make articles better, so I will appreciate your vote be it for support, oppose or neutral, and some feedback from your experience in dealing with me. Thanks in advace. --ZappaZ 17:29, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

My RFA

Thanks so much for supporting my RFA. It meant all the more coming from you. · Katefan0^(scribble) 21:56, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Good faith

Yes, I agree that it's funny -- particularly coming from an unregistered user writing as "TS". Seeing the humor in such situations is the only way to stave off Wikiburnout. JamesMLane 05:28, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Magdoff

Sorry to bother. I have posted a Request for Comment for the pages Talk:Harry Magdoff and espionage and Talk:Harry Magdoff. Endless revert wars and edit conflicts. Input welcome. --Cberlet 22:28, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

LaRouche

Hi Will, I saw the Duggan edit but didn't even notice it was that IP address. It's clearly right that he should be blocked. I'd probably advise against you being the one to do it, because you were in a content dispute with him and took him to the arbcom, and I shouldn't do it for the same reason. I was always happy to block Cognition because I didn't feel he was H, but that IP address is almost certainly H (or Weed Harper if they were different people). Perhaps Snowspinner could be contacted? As for the IP address, we're not supposed to block any IP address indefinitely, as I understand it. A month block might be safer there. My recommendation would be to unblock both, and ask Snowspinner to look into it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:30, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm sure you're right. -Willmcw 07:36, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Did you speak Snowspinner? I see H is still editing. [1] SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:01, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

No I hadn't. I undid the blocks and rationalized (hoped) that the activity was a fluke, though the anon IP edit to Jeremiah Duggan was pretty bad. This latest talk of "WikiCliques or POV posses" seems to be rather pointed, though he won't cite any specifics. I'll go ahead and drop Snowspinner a note. The ArbCom decision was unequivocal about the IP being an unpermitted sock/meat puppet of HK. -Willmcw 00:09, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

There's no doubt about that being one of the two main IP addresses used by H/WH/CC, but particularly the first two. I believe it was thought to be their home address, so that they were either the same person or living together, but that's from memory: I've changed computers since then and all my H stuff is on the old one (though I can retrieve it quickly if I need to), and some of the info should be on the evidence page. El C might be prepared to do a block. He was online when I last checked. As for POV posses, yes, I saw it. ;-D SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:15, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Karl Rove

Will, if you have time, pop by Karl Rove won't you? A very new and very aggressive editor is making some questionable edits backed up by such inflammatory rhetoric that it's difficult for other editors to concentrate on content, and has been difficult for me to steer the discussion toward a more fruitful goal. Understand if you don't have time, but if you do, your presence would be much appreciated. · Katefan0^(scribble) 20:30, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Gold Watch

Thanks, Will. That's the nicest thing anyone's done for me here for as long as I can remember. (-: sniff, choke, sob :-) --Uncle Ed 01:33, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

That was nice. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:38, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

math

Why, silly old me, so it is! I don't know nothin' 'bout dividin' no numbers! .... If you have any thoughts on the unrelenting attempts to get AR's article to read as though AR wrote it, I'd be anxious to hear them. - Outerlimits 22:07, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

edit summaries

I will try to use them. :)

signed CD

info

I preemptively blocked the editor you mentionned on my talk page, on wikicommons and wikiquote. I did not do so as a steward, who is not allowed to do it by himself. I did it as a board member. For now, the consequences are 1) that the editor reverted my messages on his talk page; 2) that the editor send me mails, calling me a fucking bitch; and 3) that Aphaia is questioning the validity of the block on wikiquote and might revert it in a few days. If you feel like leaving a message over there, you are most welcome. I will be away (and offline) for a week, leaving tomorrow. Cheers. Anthere 12:03, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Your view is requested

I am contacting logged-in users who have taken an interest in, or edited, Wikipedia_talk:Assume_good_faith, and asking them to respond to a question I have placed on that page which goes to the policy of WP:AGF.

Thanks in advance. paul klenk 23:47, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

from Paul

Willmcw, thanks for stopping by to say hi. I was giving Jonah, a newbie, a hand to ease his peace of mind and bring an outside view to the situation. I do recognize your user name, but don't recall any correspondence with you or anyone on the page; I also kept my view of the Biff matter very focused.

It does seem a bit odd to me that an article with such a small body of text has so many disputed external links. I would think it would be easier to work on the article by harvesting some Google searches and compiling a nice profile on this guy. He is a bit obscure, but I say, if you're going to include him in the Wiki, then go ahead and really document everything you can, and make it interesting.

I left Jonah messages on his page which may be of interest to you. Also am happy to help you out in any way I can.

One more thing: Going over the reverts is time consuming, and I now understand why many times in a 3RR violation no one takes the time to actually review the reverts. I have some ideas, software wise, that could make it easier if I knew of a developer. Let me know if one springs to mind. paul klenk 09:40, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I just read some remarks in the history of the talk page that indicate there were reversions going on there, too, in the form of deleting comments. If you think I should review that page for violations as well, let me know. paul klenk

You said, "The peripheral issues seem to be multiplying, but they are all based on one article so it doesn't seem to be a major problem for the project." I agree. I have found, however, that if I can sharpen my own skills and help other users, that is incentive enough for me to do some evaluations such as the one I made on Biff. By the way, I would appreciate any criticisms or error-identifying of my evaluation. I don't claim to be an expert, but I think I'm getting a firm grasp on reversions. It really isn't that complicated. paul klenk 10:15, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Gross Discrepancies

I find the article Pensacola Christian College to contain discrepancies with what actually goes on within the campus of PCC. I am currently a junior there, and there are things said here that certainly do not happen. I will certainly protest these inconsistencies, and will edit them myself. Pensacolaboy 00:33, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Nobs Redux at Talk:VENONA project

Someone, not I, has consolidated the discussion over the Venona documents and how to represent them (prompted by the tect written by Nobs on many pages) onto a single page: Talk:VENONA project. I hope you will join us in trying to resolve many of the issues that keep cropping up across Wikipedia in this matter. Thanks.--Cberlet 12:52, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Toxic Waste

Why did you delete

It can also relate to waste.Yeast die from the waste they produce (alcohol). Humans also die when their numbers produce too mush waste.

By George

The "Melissa Joan Hart"/"Sayville" anon is back...

He's re-adding poor-quality external links to The Amityville Horror (it may be him, or one of his friends, who also added and re-added links on how to actually find the house) and he's back to his old tricks of trying to stir up Zappaz against me[2]. (I just have to ask, how is it that every weirdo with a bug up his butt finds his way to Zappaz's page and starts pouring out complaints there?) However, this time he pulled something new, by starting a vague RfC against me here. While I am not overly concerned with the effect an anon's vague allegations will have on my reputation, I do not want this to hang around forever. Could you make sure it gets handled appropriately? ("appropriately" would seem to me to be deleting it as invalid, as the anon clearly did not follow the required steps for user-conduct RfCs; however, I want it to be clear that I didn't just ask "delete this for me" or for anything else out of process.) -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:17, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

The Butchering Bastards

It's fine that you took it off. I was just trying to somewhat advertise, so I was pretty much mis-using wikipedia. I am extremely sorry, therefore if you think I should be blocked, then I guess you should do so. The Fascist Chicken 23:03, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Well thanks, and also I want to tell you. That I'm the writer of the screenplay, I just use a different name when I write screenplays. I'm sure you assumed that, but yeah, I thought that maybe someone would read it and then rate it at its site, because I need to know what's wrong with it so I can rewrite it. I am working hard to get it made into a movie, but right now, I'm beginning to think it has no chance. And thanks again for understanding. The Fascist Chicken 23:19, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Okay well I guess I might not re-write it then, since it seems pretty pointless from what you've explained to me. I'll just figure out something else to do with any "talent" I could have. Since I'm sure that my screenplays suck anyway. Well thanks for enlightening me about that. The Fascist Chicken 23:45, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Since I guess I'm done with screenwriting. I would like you to atleast read and rate my most likely final screenplay. It is 8 pages, I made it short, so you wouldn't have to waste too much time reading it. It's somewhat based on something that has happened to me. It'll be up in a few days. It's called "Stephen and Steve", It has bad language, incase you care. If you want to read it I will tell you the address once it is on the website. But if you don't want to see it, just tell me. The Fascist Chicken 21:31, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Fairness

Willmcw: in the interests of fairness, after this edit [3], I humbly request you, as a neutral & fair third party, to remove usernames from the heading here Talk:Harry_Magdoff#Nobs_has_once_again_misrepresented_sources_in_his_espionage_paragraphs. Kindest regards for being fair. nobs 17:05, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

I looked, but you'd already made the change. -Willmcw 21:50, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Image:Telegraph Cucamonga and Ontario Peaks.jpg

Hi Willmcw. If you are the author of Image:Telegraph Cucamonga and Ontario Peaks.jpg, would you mind changing {{PD}} to {{PD-self}} to make that clearer? Mike Dillon 16:26, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Our friend

Willmcw, I have noticed User:216.175.112.9 has a "suspected sockpuppet" tag on his page, identifying him as (possibly) Jonah Ayers. I believe this can now be changed to "confirmed," and thought I'd run it by you and get your opinion.

Jonah has come to me for help in the past. I tried my best to do so, but he increasingly ignored me, when I didn't take his side (I guess).

Today, when Jonah made a very substantial edit at the Biff page (logged in), he marked it as minor and failed to make a note in the edit summary. I caught this, and gave him a lesson on the "minor" on his talk page, and left it on the article's page as well. (It turns out it was a reversion, but it still shouldn't have been marked as minor.)

He left a message on my talk page, anonymously, taking credit for the edit, and chastising me for my remarks. Do you think this statement constitutes enough of a confirmation to change the tag from "suspected" to "confirmed"? paul klenk ^talk

Well, the puppet has now been blocked. What about the puppeteer? paul klenk ^talk 21:54, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

By the way, I removed both mentions of my name from Jonah's talk page, as they were personal attacks (listing me under "trouble makers and vandals"). I don't take changing another's user page lightly, but I checked policy on this, and believe I am entitled to do this. paul klenk ^talk 22:57, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Category Removal, Edit Summaries

Willmcw, thanks for your note about including edit summaries. I realize that I should do so, and I will be more diligent in the future. Just in case you are wondering, an administrator told me that the policy for Categories is not to include an article in both a subcategory and its parent category. I had previously made the mistake of doing so and wanted to correct the errors. While I was at it, I corrected a few others that I found in error. Logophile 07:08, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

That's actually only part of the policy; there are exceptions to that rule. You can check the policy for yourself at WP:CLS. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:45, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Castro Cult dispute

You've been active at Talk:Cult of personality#Fidel_Castro. After a long discussion I've now written an abbreviation that, in my view, settles the matter. Maybe you'd like to have a look and have another say on the subject. I've written a text for the article on 16 September, but that keeps on getting removed and put back again. So some more input is needed (possibly a vote?).

I've also sent this message to the other previous contributors to the discussion, Cryptnotic, TJive, Mihnea Tudoreanu and Joolz DirkvdM 09:08, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

screenplay

This is the link to my long screenplay http://www.scriptbuddy.com/community/?p=4291529028&t=&pg= , my other short screenplay which I said something about, hasn't shown up on the site. So I don't have a link for that one. Private Butcher 02:07, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

24.0.91.81 and sockpuppets

Hi. 24.0.91.81, along with a seires of new accounts, has been inserting a dispute tag in the Cold War article for days without offering a single explanation on any talk page. I just found out that you had to warn this editor about using sockpuppets about a month ago. [4] Since it seems like this account has been associated with a fairly long pattern of sockpuppet activity, it's probably worth an admin's attention. If you have time, could you please take a look? Thanks, 172 | Talk 00:47, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the help! 172 | Talk 20:42, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I've added the sockpuppet template to User:24.0.91.81 --Viriditas | Talk 06:09, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Concerted and vociferous personal attacks :-//

Hi! xMule and aMule have been at odds since the aMule project was started on the day in 2003 when my internet access was blocked by the MPAA due to my development of xMule. I have largely moved on with my life and the war has largely ebbed since January of this year. Today I noticed on Talk:xMule a very vitriolic attack of my character among other disturbing things.

First, a person emailed me about 2 weeks ago asking for xMule screenshots and wondering why xMule appeared dead. Now, this letter (posted by Kry of aMule (it's leader)) has been posted on wikipedia as a personal attack on my character. How Kry got the email is beyond me, why he felt it appropriate to post on wiki as an attack is typical if yet egregious (it's worse than the main page says it is).

I don't know what I did to deserve being called "a demented freak" in the eyes of that guy but I find it very unpleasant and stopped reading from that point on, so it's likely it just degrades from there. I seek to have him and Kry banned for personal attacks on me (Kry personally attacked me on wiki before just when I was an anoynmous user).

I really want that talk page comment stricken from wikipedia too because of the libel it employs. — HopeSeekr of xMule (Talk) 21:10, 29 September 2005 (UTC)