Misplaced Pages

User talk:Mathmo: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 19:13, 14 February 2007 editGogo Dodo (talk | contribs)Administrators197,922 edits Re: SOCOM 4: U.S. Navy SEALs← Previous edit Latest revision as of 14:19, 15 January 2025 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,310,540 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to User talk:Mathmo/Archive/2024) (bot 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{User:MiszaBot/config | algo = old(28d) | archive = User talk:Mathmo/Archive/%(year)d | minthreadstoarchive=1 | minthreadsleft =4 | archiveheader =<noinclude>{{Talk archive}}</noinclude> }}
<div class="usermessage"> </div>
{{TOC left}}{{Archive box| box-width=490px |
&nbsp; &nbsp; ], ], ], ], ] <br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; ], ], ], ], ] <br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; ] <br>
}}{{clear}}
<!-- This is an attempt to solve some overflow at ]... and to reallow communications through your talk page ] (]) 10:49, 15 February 2016 (UTC) -->


== ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message ==


<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; background-color: #fdf2d5; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; ">
==Mysterymethod/themysterymethod==
<div class="ivmbox-image noresize" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;">]</div>
<div class="ivmbox-text">
Hello! Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2024|end}}-1 day}}. All ''']''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.


The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Thanks for your note! I notice that Mystery Method has announced that the domain mysterymethod.com is not secure, even if there does appear to be a redirect to themysterymethod.com They've been advising affiliates, advertisers, and so on to update their links.


If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>] (]) 00:08, 19 November 2024 (UTC)</small>
And the book copyright is important - it's a company book and a work for hire, not Erik's book. {{unsign|Clockworkorange101|20:09, 16 December 2006}}
:hmm... once again I've never seen this notification anywhere? Would be curious to read this, but I'm guessing you are possibly right. I'd have to check my copy of VAH as to if and for whom a copy right is mentioned. I'll get back to you on that later. ] <sup>]</sup> 17:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


</div>
Hey buddy - hope your arm is better. Do you have yahoo IM? Maybe we can work on updating these pages together ] 23:42, 23 December 2006 (UTC)Clockworkorange101
</div>
:I do, but last time I used it would have been years ago. Generally those time when I do use an IM it is gchat, address is the same as my username here. Arm still broken.... ah well, whatever. One of the dangers of being a cyclist. I'd guess you are on MM forums? ] <sup>]</sup> 04:24, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
<!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2024/Coordination/MM/01&oldid=1258243333 -->


== ''The Signpost'': 12 December 2024 ==


<div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr"><div style="-moz-column-count:2; -webkit-column-count:2; column-count:2;"> {{Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2024-12-12}} </div><!--Volume 20, Issue 17, manually published--> <div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * ''']''' * ] * ] * ] (]) 21:58, 12 December 2024 (UTC) </div></div>
*Actually the reason given for the block was trolling. ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 16:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
<!-- Message sent by User:Bri@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Wikipedia_Signpost/Subscribe&oldid=1262352523 -->
:claiming i was trolling (which was also absolutely NOT my intention) is a complete about face tactic against me, what ] was causing trouble with is claiming I am a vandal. as such any consideration over if I ought to be unblocked or not should be taking if i was or if i was not a vandal into consideration. ] <sup>]</sup> 17:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
::Vandalism was probably a bit harsh even for such a heated subject, however, you were clearly disruptive with your edit warring and well over the ]. Comments made by others before this block doesn't change the legitimacy of the block. If you are willing to agree not to add the abbreviation to the article any more or edit war over the article, HighInBC might consider unblocking you. ] <sup>]</sup> 17:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
:::thank you, yet another user is seeing that it would be going too far too call it vandalism. i'll concede in other areas i didn't act as well as i should have, but because from the beginning the claims being brought against me by ] were that I am a vandal (which as I've said so many times, I am NOT) my responses and explanations have always been aimed at that. but as nobody brought up any other reasons whatsoever (except at a very late stage when/after i was blocked) there was no reason for me to act in response to that. if they had been mentioned and brought up i'd have seen them and in all probability have comprised as is reasonable. ] <sup>]</sup> 17:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


== ''The Signpost'': 24 December 2024 ==
**You were warned that specifics actions would result in a block, you did it anyways. There is nothing unfair going on here. Your block has been reviewed and found to be correct. Just wait it out, and don't do it again. ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 17:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


<div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr"><div style="column-count:2;"> {{Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2024-12-24}} </div><!--Volume 20, Issue 18--> <div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * ''']''' * ] * ] * ] (]) 00:01, 25 December 2024 (UTC) <!-- Sent via script (]) --></div></div>
==Welcomes==
<!-- Message sent by User:JPxG@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Wikipedia_Signpost/Subscribe&oldid=1263792399 -->
'''First welcome''' is from me, the old fella who doesn't need a ] job (which is what I expect has caused your brief disappearance). As I said on your ], that's a good list of contributions from you (] sport, etc), and I hope we get more soon. Kia ora! ] 08:04, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Argument for "The seduction community cartel" to be chucked of wikipedia


== ''The Signpost'': 15 January 2025 ==
Ah, my disappearance is probably more likely to be related to my utter laziness. Oh, although for the past few weeks I've been a bit busy with the NZ Ironman which I did recently and that went well. ]


<div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr"><div style="column-count:2;"> {{Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2025-01-15}} </div><!--Volume 21, Issue 1--> <div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * ''']''' * ] * ] * ] (]) 07:55, 15 January 2025 (UTC) <!-- Sent via script (]) --></div></div>
== Aquathlon -- more popular than triathlon? ==
<!-- Message sent by User:JPxG@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Wikipedia_Signpost/Subscribe&oldid=1269316164 -->

Hi Mathmo,
Congrats on your Ironman!

I left some comments regarding the ] article that you revised on 06:39, 16 April 2005. You can see them on the ]

--] 21:03, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Cheers!

(did ironman again this month, in terms of rankings I did heaps better. However the weather gods were hardly with us and made it a difficult day for everybody)
] 09:19, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


Note to self, apply for this eventually.

==Vandalism Claims==
Mathmo, please do not make vandalism claims regarding POV edits that were done by various people nearly ONE WHOLE YEAR ago. I see you have done this to several people. It is annoying. ]] 01:16, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
:Err I was offline for a week, and as such looking back at what I put on your talk page I've got no idea at all as to what I was talking about. The link to the edit is perfectly fine it would seem. :s So I'm sorry about what I put on you talk page, shouldn't have. Probably was thinking of someting completely different and got my wires crossed. Probably too tired/stressed or something. Meh, still am because I'm rambling along.... ] 12:53, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

== ] ==

I recommend you remove the ]s you think are less popular. Some of them don't even have articles, and either way, I have created an article for the full list (incuding the less popular ones) to be kept in ]. ] 17:01, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
:I wanted to be more careful about removing ones I think are less popular, because I know there are a lot of rulesets out there which are played a lot yet I barely know about. Plus just because there isn't (yet) an article about a set of rules doesn't mean that they do not have a significant following. So I thought that getting people to vote on them would make sure that I neither remove any that I shouldn't or overlook any others that should be included. ] 06:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

== false claims of vandalism ==
Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, as you did to ], you will be ] from editing Misplaced Pages. <!-- Template:Test3-n (Third level warning) --> ] <small>] &bull; ]</small> 03:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
:What the hell?!? I do NOT vandalise pages, good grief. Try taking a closer look at the page first, then you will see what I actually did is fix it by reverting it back to an earlier edit. ] 03:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
::Hi Mathmo, I took a look at this article and think it is unfair to call what you did vandalism. I created a page for the ''other'' John Ince to disambiguate and restored your text. ] 19:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
:::Glad you agree with me, and I think what you have done of creating a 2nd page probably is an improvement over what I did. (mine was the lazy easy option...) ] 16:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
::::Ha! Turns out now I take a second look at it my original quick and easy approach of reverting will probably turn out to have been the best way too. What an ironic world we live in. ] 17:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

== Maths and Physics ==

Hey man if you are from Auckland and study maths and physics I probably know you... -- ] 01:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
hit me up with an email

==POV edit==
The Helen Clark article is not an appropriate place to discuss the Israeli attack which killed UN observers on July 25. The article ] is. Otherwise, we'll have this battle at the article of every world leader who has criticised Israel over the incident.-] 19:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
:You seem to have completely missed the point of what this editor was trying to add. He was NOT specifically commenting on that one attack, but adding something to do with the PM's general opinion on an important aspect of international politics. Certainly a very suiting thing to have on an article about a political leader. ] 19:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

== ] ==

Basically, that article was nominated for ], and the consensus was delete. Before the AfD was finished, I saw it and was amused, and copied it to my ], and removed the copy from article categories, removed the AfD tag, and added a note that it was a user page, not an encylopedia article. You can see the AfD ].

If you want it to be put back in the main namespace (as an article), my reccommendation would be to try to address some of the concerns expressed in the AfD, by making the article ]-]. You are welcome to work on the version in my userspace, but please don't add it to categories shared by actual articles, or remove the "this is a userpage" notice at the top. One you've improved the article sufficiently that you think the concerns about it have been addressed as much as possible, you can try listing it at ].

— ] (]|]|]) 23:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

cheers ] <sup>]</sup> 14:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

==w00t, I am part of an evil cartel!==
http://www.geocities.com/xaacacacacacacacac/Abbc.htm Argument for "The seduction community cartel" to be chucked of wikipedia
Mathmo {{unsigned|Iyouyou|22:47, 27 November 2006}}
:can you remind me of my swiss bank account number that I must have all my millions stored away in from being part of this cartel? Am feeling poor at the moment. ] <sup>]</sup> 12:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

== Thank you for your support ==

I wasn't going to send thank-you cards, but the emotional impact of hitting ] (and doing so unanimously!) changed my mind. So I appreciate your confidence in me at RFA, and hope you'll let me know if I can do anything for you in the future. Cheers! -- '']']'' 00:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

== Project seduction community ==

If we are going to be accused of having a cartel, we might as well have one. I don't know how to set this up, though. Btw, thanks for your support recently. --] 08:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
:lol, exactly what my thoughts were! Well, one in jest anyway. Was reading up about wikiprojects earlier, seems you don't need permission for them to go ahead. Rather just create them in the same manner as other pages, although people often start them off as a user sub page. Always glad to give support where it is needed and worthy. ] <sup>]</sup> 08:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

== Your edit to ] ==

I noticed that you edited someone else's comment for clarity, spelling or grammar. As a rule, refrain from editing others' comments without their permission. Though it may appear helpful to correct typing errors, grammar, etc., please do not go out of your way to bring talk pages to publishing standards, since it is not terribly productive and will tend to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. For more details, see ]. Thanks, <!-- Template:Notyours --> ] (]) 10:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
:meh, rarely if ever do to that anyway. Just switched a couple of letters around anyway to get a word spelled correctly. Not that anybody else actually got annoyed by it or had trouble with it on the talk page. In the end all that it is I wasted a couple of seconds of my time, which I don't care too much about. ] <sup>]</sup> 12:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

== Vandalism? ==

Whoa. You seem to throw this word around quite a bit; please see ] to learn what is '''actually''' vandalism. The reason I removed the comment and link from ] is because they violate our personal attack policy, which you reported him for in the first place. We do not allow these types of links to be posted. I have a very difficult time understanding why you restored content you reported. ] <sup>]</sup> 12:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
:yeah yeah, sorry about perhaps going slightly over the top. although I'd dispute i throw it around quite a bit! but it did get your attention at least. cheers, hi there! lol Yup, I know it is not vandalism because I assume (hope!) it is a good faith edit. However where reasonable these types of edits ] made should be kept, so that there is an easy record should ] ever try to be unbanned all the facts will be readily obtainable for review. ] <sup>]</sup> 12:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
::There is an easy record - its called . Please do not restore the link again. Thanks. ] <sup>]</sup> 12:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
:::for goodness sake, SLOW DOWN. do you even look at what the page looks like have you have editted it? you are going to be removing it at least do it properly, not half heartedly. please next time use page view, you haven't done it right any of the previous times. ] <sup>]</sup> 12:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
:::::arguably one of edits could be viewed badly , you removed not just ] edit but also a comment I made myself about him/her. that is what annoyed me by far the most at first, you shouldn't do that at all. at least you didn't do it again. but once is bad enough, worse you never even seem to have realised it. it is very dodgy when you are changing my commments ] <sup>]</sup> 12:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
::::I'm not going to continue to edit war with you. There is no need to be at all concerned over the talk page of a banned user - they are typically blanked or deleted. I'm completely confused as to why the subject of attacks would be so involved in restoring them to a page instead of fixing whatever formatting concern you have, but if that's the way you want it, I'm not going to bother with it. Happy editing. ] <sup>]</sup> 12:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
:::::as you just said i'm one of whom the attacks was made on, hence you should assume those who were attacked should have a better idea as to if and how the attacks made of them should stay around. anyway, glad too see you won't continue. thanks. ] <sup>]</sup> 12:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

==]==
The link you added points to a page that does not exist. The article was deleted, and the page protected to prevent recreation. Do not add the link again. ] 14:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
:yes i do realise that page currently doesn't exist. had the link there for future reference should it exist later (after all red links are already highly common through[REDACTED] already, this is a way[REDACTED] grows and expands to become and even better encyclopedia). the page survived vdf SEVENTEEN times, at the very least there is hardly anything wrong with having a statement of what the acronym means. ] <sup>]</sup> 15:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
::Do not vandalise this page again. If you object to the former article's deletion, go here: ]. ] 15:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
:::i very strongly object to being called a vandal! fine, you can have just made a flippant remark but use caution before making more claims. you ought to assume good faith, do you really believe i'm trying to intentionally deface wikipedia?! of course not, that is outrageous. have i said anywhere yet that i object to the article's deletion? because it doesn't directly matter if the article was deleted or not. you are failing to see the difference between the single use of a word in a different page to an entire article about that said word. as i am sure you are aware there many many MANY references to people, events, place, and just in general of things that are not individually deemed worthy of an article yet are more acceptable (nah, even necessary) for inclusion as part of another page. ] <sup>]</sup> 15:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
::::Sorry, but your edit to that page looks like a clear case of vandalism to me. I will also point out that I did not call you a vandal, I called your edits vandalism. Please read my posts again. To answer your question, yes, I do believe your intent with those particular edits is to deface Misplaced Pages. ] 16:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
::::::Oh see, you are going to go ahead and throw ] right out of the window? take a look around, i've been around for a couple of years and never ever been a vandal. A vandal is a person who does vandalism, hence at the very least you implied i am a vandal (oh, or a vandal is a long gone tribe from hundreds of years ago) ] <sup>]</sup> 16:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
:::::This is the last time I will warn you. If you add that link again I will report your actions to ]. ] 16:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
:::::::great, now are you going to resort to threats in an attempt to force your pov onto others? what is not vandalism can't be reported to there. ] <sup>]</sup> 16:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
::::::Thank you for the laugh, Robotman. "I did not call you a vandal, I called your edits vandalism". Geeze, I gotta find somewhere to write that down.--- ] 16:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
::::::::sigh, what is this now? trying to use peer pressure or something? ] <sup>]</sup> 16:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
:::::::Interpret my remarks however you wish. I believe your recent edits to GNAA are vandalism. ] 16:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
:::::::::oh and reverting over content that has been added is in itself vandalism! be more cautious in your own "vandalism". ;p ] <sup>]</sup> 17:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
::::::::good grief, how in the world you think this is true I've got no idea. done some more reading up just to double check my views are correct, and nothing i've seen has suggested to me that in anyway my views are misplaced. i strongly suggest you do the same before you continue your constant removal of my edits. ] <sup>]</sup> 16:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
::::::::Because he's adding viable info to the article? Somehow I doubt it. Their may be no article on it anymore, but I believe that the GNAA troll organization at least deserves mentioning upon that page. Though I will agree with you that an edit battle is not the way to do it..-- ] 16:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
:::::::::thank you very much, you at least have seen that this here is NOT vandalism. If ] holds some kind of personal grudge against GNAA then they should bring if up in some other manner. NOT by making misguided claims of vandalism against me. ] <sup>]</sup> 16:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
::::::::::This looks like an obvious case of vandalism to me. When I see vandalism I do something about it. ] 16:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
:::::::::::yes i can understand that when a person first looks at the edit they might feel perhaps it was vandalism, but once i'd informed you that it isn't did you bother try checking as to if it really is or not? doesn't look like it, rather all you have done throughtout this time is constantly hammer on down the same path of this is vandalism this is vandalism this is vandalism etc... it is ok, you can admit you made a mistake in your initial assessment of this as vandalism. we are all human here and make mistakes. ] <sup>]</sup> 16:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

==Warning==

If you add the link again, you will be blocked. I am watching this talk page, if the user add's the link again leave a message here and I will see it. You need to respect the consensus of the editors here. The consensus has determined that this subject is not verifiably notable, and it's inclusion is giving it undue weight, you may disagree but do not edit war. A contrary point of view is not vandalism, but inserted the same view over and over against the wishes of consensus is vandalism. ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 16:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
*Happened to take a glance at the ] page again, since then a '''lot''' of various different users have been adding back what I original reverted, thus pointing out yet another flaw in your warning comment in that not only was I not vandalising (as everbody but ] has admitted to) but also there is no outright consensus whatsoever for the removal of the earlier link as I fully expected to be the case back then. And for ] to constantly remove this content without clear consensus for it's removal is disruption on his part (look at what he caused!). Frankly he never should have in the first place. ] <sup>]</sup> 03:10, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
::there is no consensus whatsoever that I've have been causing vandalism, this is instead merely the misguided opinion of one editor. i urge you not to encourage him. ] <sup>]</sup> 16:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
:::While vandalism might not be the way to describe it, continuing to edit war to include a link to an article deleted by consensus of the community is still a no-no. ] <sup>]</sup> 17:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
:This user has added the link to ] again and I have reverted. ] 16:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

:::Misplaced Pages admins know about subtle trolling, where one plays the rules to disrupt WP. use the unblock template to complain to another admin if you think I am wrong about this. ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 16:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
:::A) I wasn't trolling, never ever have here or anywhere else. B) You never warned or told me earlier that I was "trolling" (which as I've said before....) ] <sup>]</sup> 17:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I noticed, not sure if 1 minute is enough time for the user to have read the warning, it is at the correct version now and I am watching. ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 16:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

And now you are blocked for 1 week for trolling, vandalism, and ignoring warnings. Once you come back you are expected to work within consensus, not edit war, and not troll. If you violate policy when you come back you will be blocked for longer, or indefinatly. If you feel this is unfair you are welcome to use the <nowiki>{{unblock|reason}}</nowiki> template to ask another admin to reconsider this. ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 16:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
:Was "warned" that I was going to be mentioned on ], which never happened. apparently an empty threat used in an attempt to force his will upon me. And as I've many many many many times stated and explained I am NOT a vandal, have my actions in anyway been typical of a vandal? no, they haven't at all. ] <sup>]</sup> 16:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
::You were mentioned on ], that is how I found you. I am an admin who intervenes against vandalism, and trolling(typical trolling). Also, whether or not you are a vandal is determined by your actions, not your claims. ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 17:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
::::heh, see you are right about that. Just I'd been removed afterwards, so he did do that after all. As for determining by my actions, have I ever ever before in all of my previous hundreds of edits gone on and vandalising rage? Nope, of course not. Because I am not one. Thus my past history indicates it is very very highly unlikely that I would be vandalising at the moment. ] <sup>]</sup> 17:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
::After re-reading the vandalism page, I agree, your stuborness was not vandalism. However it was disruptive. Sorry for saying your actions were vandalism, but I stand by my block for trolling. ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 17:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
::::thank you very much for that. as you could understand then perhaps why i'd find it very offensive to be called a vadalist. is it any surprise i acted in response? of course not. Would be wrong to allow myself to be called a vandal, it is a personal attack against me. So far the one and only person who still calls me a vandal is ], the same person who started this whole entire mess by constantly removing content from ]. ] <sup>]</sup> 18:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
:::::I want to be absolutely clear about something. The way I see it, to call someone a vandal (referring specifically to the user and not the edits) is to suggest that the only reason they are here is to vandalise. I did not call you a vandal, and nowhere have I suggested that you are only here for the sole purpose of defacing Misplaced Pages. I have kept my comments directed at the specific edits to the ] page. I still see those as vandalism. That wasn't just any link you kept adding. You had to have known by the fact that the target page had been deleted and protected that your edits would appear to be highly controversial and disruptive. Considering this and the contentious nature of the page in question, I still think your edits to ] were vandalism. ] 18:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
::::::Does a vandalist in the "real world" have to only be there vandalising? No, not at all. Merely one act of vandalism (such as burning a letterbox or spray painting a fence etc..) is enough for that person to be referred to as a vandalist. I saw the addition of it as adding useful content to wikipedia. As for the fact it went to deleted page, I saw no problem whatsoever for that. In fact that is a GOOD thing, because people could go there are see the deletion archive or why it had been deleted. If a person is to search for this page there is a high likelihood they would search for the acronym due to the length of it's name. Thus they are easily able to see the page has been deleted, thus would NOT end up deleting it on a slightly similar page (i.e. mixing upper and lowercase or whatever). It also completely removes there being a high likelihood of somebody replacing the disambiguation page with an article about ]. But as it stands now what do you think are the chances of having somebody coming across the page and deciding to write the article there? Pretty good I'd say. But with the link there they are able to instantly and easily see why it shouldn't be there. ] <sup>]</sup> 18:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
:::::::My comments and complaints have nothing to do with any form of vandalism outside Misplaced Pages. As for your question, I'm not concerned with such irrelevancies. The current policy of protecting deleted pages seems to be holding up well as it is. ] 19:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
::As I already said I agree it was not vandalism. But given your history I think you would continue trolling. Please wait out your block, or if you really want you can contact another admin, but I don't think it will help. ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 17:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
:::explain why you think I would continue "trolling" based on what you saw of my history? (don't think you have explained anywhere why you believe i am "trolling"? perhaps if you explained that i'd be able to show you i'm not a troll?) where would you put a notice to contact other admins? ]/]? ] <sup>]</sup> 18:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
::::You can use the mailing list unblock-en-l@mail.wikimedia.org if you'd like another option to have the block reviewed. ] <sup>]</sup> 19:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
:::::Thank you very much, I'll do what you suggested. ] <sup>]</sup> 19:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Although am thinking it would be better if posted on ]? Could ] (or anybody else reading this) please post my explanation for the unfair ban (which I have stated underneath this edit, just copy and paste) to ]? Thanks! ] <sup>]</sup> 20:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

==Vandalising/trolling==
A listing of a few reasons why this entire event has caused me to be unfairly banned:
*Was warned that I shouldn't vandalise. But never given the final warning as required before blocking, as is stated on ]
*All editors who have seen this have came to the conclusion that I was NOT vandalising (with the exception of ] who started all this).
*Wasn't warned AT ALL about "trolling" before I was blocked, hence never was given a chance to even consider this.
*By being called a vandal (which has now several times been seen as false) by ] that is a personal attack against me. ]
] <sup>]</sup> 18:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

:My warning not to add the link again was very clear, there was no misunderstanding, this has been review by another admin already. I am done talking with you for today. ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 19:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
#The warning not to edit again was with respect to vandalism, which has been found by both you and the other admin (plus yet another wiki editor on this page) as not vandalism. Hence in regards to that I didn't break the warning to do and vandalising edit. ] <sup>]</sup> 19:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
#Secondly I was not giving a final warning template before the listing on ] or the banning as according to ]. This I'd have expected to see before being banned for vandalism. As I wasn't I was unjustly banned and it should be retracted. ] <sup>]</sup> 19:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
#Thirdly, makes no sense whatsoever for "vandalism" being the only claims being brought up against me beforehand and then for people to say the blocking is for something completely different. (after having admitting the earlier claims of "vandalism" is flawed) ] <sup>]</sup> 02:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
#Fourthly, just in case it isn't clear enough to you already I'll make this explicit statement here: If I'm unbanned then I promise that I will not continue to revert ]'s edits against me, either on ] or anywhere else. (likewise I'd hope he will make the same promise towards me, in not reverting any of my edits that I may do on wikipedia) If either of us has a problem with the other person in the future we should bring it up with somebody else to deal with. 19:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

== Email sent to unblock-en-l@mail.wikimedia.org ==

Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2006 09:50:33 +1300 <br>
From: "david consumer of math" <(my[REDACTED] username)@gmail.com> <br>
To: unblock-en-l@mail.wikimedia.org <br>
Subject: "Vandalising"

Am user mathmo on the english[REDACTED] (same name as this email address).<br><br>A bit of fuss has been kicked up over a contribution I made to the ] page, which gave the internet troll group explanation for the meaning of GNAA. This included a link going to a non-existent[REDACTED] page, saw no problem whatsoever
for that. In fact that is a GOOD thing, because people could go there to see the deletion archive of why it had been deleted. If a person is
to search for this page there is a high likelihood they would search
for the acronym (and NOT the whole name due to the length of it's name). Thus they are easily
able to see the page has been deleted, thus would NOT end up writing it on a slightly similar page (i.e. mixing upper and lowercase or
whatever into the full name). It also completely removes there being a high likelihood of
somebody replacing the disambiguation page with an article about GNAA.
But as it stands now what do you think are the chances of somebody coming across the page and deciding to write the article
there? Pretty reasonable I'd say. But with the link there they are able to
instantly and easily see why it shouldn't be there. Plus there is a world of difference to having a word mentioned on[REDACTED] page and to having an entire page purely about that word. And as such to remove contributory edits I'd been making can be viewed upon as vandalism by ]? Although I'll ] and presume not.Either way if ] is holding some kind of grudge or whatever against GNAA he ought to bring it up in a more peaceful way than calling my contributions vandalism,<br><br>Anyway enough of that, this email is NOT about the contributions I made to the[REDACTED] page so much as it is about the manner in which I was banned.
<br><br><p>A listing of a few reasons from my talk page as to why this entire event has caused me to be unfairly banned:</p>
<ul><li>Was warned that I shouldn't vandalise. But never given the final warning as required before blocking, as is stated on ]</li><li>All editors who have seen this have came to the conclusion that I was NOT vandalising (with the exception of ] who started all this, and still maintains that I was vandalising the page).</li><li>Wasn't warned AT ALL about &quot;trolling&quot; before I was blocked, hence never was given a chance to even consider this.
</li><li>By being called a vandal (which has now several times been seen as false) by ] that is a personal attack against me. (or implied if you wish) ]</li></ul>========<br><ol><li>The warning not to edit again was with respect to vandalism, which has been found by both the admin who banned and the other admin (plus yet another wiki
editor on my talk page) as not vandalism. Hence in regards to that I didn't break the warning to do another vandalising edit.&nbsp;</li><li>Secondly I was not giving a final warning template before the listing on ] or the banning as according to ]. This I'd have expected to see before being banned for vandalism. As I wasn't I was unjustly banned and it should be retracted. <br></li><li>Thirdly, just in case it isn't clear enough to you already I'll make this explicit statement here: If I'm unbanned then I promise that I will not continue to revert ]'s edits against me, either on GNAA or anywhere else. (likewise I'd hope he will make the same promise towards me, in not reverting any of my edits that I may do on wikipedia) If either of us has a problem with the other person in the future we should bring it up with somebody else to deal with. <br></li></ol>Hand a final warning against me in regards to this dispute ] is having with me, and then if it is ever broken ban me from wikipedia. But don't be banning me over a discussion of vandalism which doesn't hold up.<br><br><br>Thanks for any help in this matter,<br><br>David/]
<br>

----
I said ''If you add the link again, you will be blocked.'', that was your final warning. ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 22:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
:You say now that was my final warning, for the first time. Never before had you used the word final. Besides, there is more so than just that. There should have been the warning template from ] as is required before I am even ''listed'' there. Which ] should have done from the very start. However you look at it from the many different angles the due process wasn't properly applied which caused an unfair ban. ] <sup>]</sup> 23:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I think you are misunderstanding the proccess. I don't need to use a template I can talk to you directly, you don't even have to be listed I can block you on my own discretion. You have discussed this with me and a second admin. If a third admin answers your email than you can discuss it with that admin too, I am done. ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 23:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
::unfortunately this whole mess seems to be too complex for anybody else than the directly affect party to bother with explaining. not being warned is only one a many reasons i've listed why this has been an unjust banning.along with the manner of the banning there is also the justification of banning due to vandalism etc... any one of the reasons i've given show why i shouldn't have been banned. ] <sup>]</sup> 01:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
:For the record Mathmo, I did give you a final warning when I said ''"This is the last time I will warn you. If you add that link again I will report your actions to WP:AIV."'' I to did not use templates for this. ] 23:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
::Do any of you read ] as opposed to merely going there? Clearly the zillion times I've linked to it simply isn't enough for you to get the point yourself. As such I'll list below a few of the key quotes from that page ] <sup>]</sup> 01:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

#"'''Before''' listing a vandal here make sure that the vandal has been warned with the appropriate warning '''templates'''."
#"If you '''can't justify''' leaving these messages on a user's talk page, it likely isn't vandalism."
#"Users '''must''' be appropriately warned using a final warning template"
#"'''before''' being listed on this page".
#"Users '''without''' appropriate final warnings will '''not''' be blocked."


You raise an interesting point Mathmo. I had forgotten that WP:AIV talks about warning templates rather than warnings. However, from the first to the last my warnings were quite clear, and I hardly think you can seriously claim that because they were not standard templates that you were not warned. This is a moot point anyway. The reason for the block was not vandalism but trolling. ] 01:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
:thanks, now you too are starting to see one of my points. just is silly how slow this is taking for people to realise what i've been saying. oh well... Back on topic about warnings, people can throw around and talk in a highly loose manner of bannings etc.. (and some of the worst are those who don't even have the power to). Hence you can see why you have to have these measures and formality in place for warnings then later final warnings by way of templates. they even go so far as to explicitly state that a user will NOT be blocked without that happening (which didn't happen with me at all), and stating other stuff too such as shouldn't even be listed here without the template (which as you now know is something you did '''not''' do). As for the other point of "trolling", that was only ever brought up '''after''' I was banned, if this is truly a valid reason for my banning then it surely out to have been brought up many times before and in detail, like was done with the claims of "vandalism". As opposed to not at all. Makes no sense whatsoever for "vandalism" being the only claims being brought up against me beforehand and then for people to say the blocking is for something completely different. ] <sup>]</sup> 02:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

::I just want to clear up some confusion here. There is absolutely no requirement that you use the standard templates when warning people about any particular behavior; the templates are there for ease of use. There is no formal procedure that must be followed when advising other editors. Again, since you were not blocked for vandalism, all of this is moot. Also, it doesn't matter what label was used, you were very clearly asked to stop what you were doing by more than one person. Edit warring is never ever productive behavior. If you're just learning about these types of things now after being here for two years, this might be a good opportunity to stroll through the policies and procedures to avoid further issues. - ] <sup>]</sup> 15:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
#Yes I am aware of various policies, and have been checking up more on them recently just to make sure what I believe is correct. And it is always bringing me to the conclusion that this whole procedure has been unfairly weighted against me. After all clearly what ] did to me is fine because he has not been reprimanded in anyway to the slightest degree, and what editing I did was in no way whatsoever fundamentally different from what he was inflicting upon me.
#Secondly as I elaborated upon on above, a merely typed warning in part of general comment does not carry the same weight as a template does to the slightest degree.
#Thirdly the '''ONLY''' specific claims being leveled at me prior to my warning was of vandalism, so to then be banned for any other reason than that carries very dodgy undertones. After all if these truly are valid claims then surely why in the world where they not mentioned to me at all prior to being banned? As opposed to almost being plucked out of thin air '''afterwards''' to justify the users actions.
#Fourthly, for you to say there is "absolutely no requirement that you use the standard templates" is waaaay off the mark. If you need to read '''again''' my quotes above then please do so. Or alternatively go straight to the source at ] to which I have many '''many''' times linked too. As you can quite clearly see it very explicitly says that the '''appropriate ]''' must have been used before even being listed on ] let alone blocking.
] <sup>]</sup> 18:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

=="Trolling"==
Seeing that ] has recently been keeping on going on just about my supposed "trolling" (which I have at all times denied) I'll have a section here to address that specific fact (but do not be forgetting the many other related issues I've brought up that are all highly related to the matter at hand). Have any of you read the relevant pages related to trolling? For instance go along to Misplaced Pages:Troll, there you can see that it is NOT a policy or even a guideline of wikipedia. Other facts to take note of is that Administrators are '''not''' empowered to block usernames for "trolling". This due to the impossibility of defining exactly what it is to be a troll, which makes it complete nonsense to be able to have comprehensive approach to blocking a user due to "trolling". (even the blocking policy page does not have even one reference to trolling anywhere on it) Is easy to see how over just this '''one''' aspect I am very upset that that I've been banned by ] for this crime of so called "trolling". ] <sup>]</sup> 20:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

==Talk page archiving==

If you find your talk page is getting to long, you may find this interesting: ]. You may also wish to leave it as it is, both are fine. ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 23:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

==''Signpost'' updated for December 4th.==

{| width="90%" cellspacing="0" align="center" style="background-color:transparent;"
! ]<font style="position: relative; top: .3em; font-size: 250%;">'''Weekly Delivery'''</font>
|}
<br>
{| width="90%" cellspacing="0" align="center" style="background-color:transparent;"
|-
| colspan=3 |
----
|-
| align="left" | '''Volume 2, Issue 49''' || align ="center" | '''] ]''' || align="right" | ''']'''
|-
| colspan=3 align=center |
----
|}
{| align="center" cellspacing="20" width=90% style="background-color:transparent;"
| width=50% | ]
| width=50% | ]
|-
| width=50% | ]
| width=50% | ]
|-
| width=50% | ]
| width=50% | ]
|-
| width=50% | ]
| width=50% | ]
|}

{| width="90%" cellspacing="0" align="center" style="background-color:transparent;"
| colspan=2 |
----
|-
| align="left" | ''']''' &nbsp;|&nbsp; ] &nbsp;|&nbsp; ] &nbsp;|&nbsp; ] &nbsp;|&nbsp; ]
| align = "right" | <small>] : ]</small>
|-
| colspan=2 |
----
|}
<small>You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the ]. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. ] 05:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

==''Signpost'' updated for December 11th.==

{| width="90%" cellspacing="0" align="center" style="background-color:transparent;"
! ]<font style="position: relative; top: .3em; font-size: 250%;">'''Weekly Delivery'''</font>
|}
<br>
{| width="90%" cellspacing="0" align="center" style="background-color:transparent;"
|-
| colspan=3 |
----
|-
| align="left" | '''Volume 2, Issue 50''' || align ="center" | '''] ]''' || align="right" | ''']'''
|-
| colspan=3 align=center |
----
|}
{| align="center" cellspacing="20" width=90% style="background-color:transparent;"
| colspan=3 align=center | ''']'''
|-
| width=50% | ]
| width=50% | ]
|-
| width=50% | ]
| width=50% | ]
|-
| width=50% | ]
| width=50% | ]
|-
| width=50% | ]
| width=50% | ]
|-
| width=50% | ]
| width=50% | ]
|-
| width=50% | ]
| width=50% |
|}

{| width="90%" cellspacing="0" align="center" style="background-color:transparent;"
| colspan=2 |
----
|-
| align="left" | ''']''' &nbsp;|&nbsp; ] &nbsp;|&nbsp; ] &nbsp;|&nbsp; ] &nbsp;|&nbsp; ]
| align = "right" | <small>] : ]</small>
|-
| colspan=2 |
----
|}
<small>You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the ]. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. ] 05:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

== Re: ==

See ]. Moving it back into the main namespace as is will get it speedy deleted though. --] 16:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
:yup I know it is likely to be deleted if put into the mainspace, that is why I asked for it to be put into my userspace. probably has a lot of work needing to be done to survive a second vfd, though i'm thinking even that wouldn't be a good idea. mainly just wanted to take another look at it to see if any part of it is at all worthwhile keeping in some kind of form. maybe or then again, maybe not. ] <sup>]</sup> 18:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
==Fair notice==
I'm sorry, but I had to take the issue to the Administrator's Notice Board ].<span class="plainlinks">]&nbsp;(] <small>•</small> ] <small>•</small> <small>•</small> <small>•</small> ]</span>) 04:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

=== Snarky nonsense ===

I was not objecting to "pornography". I listed two very specific concerns ] about things that could cause problems for Misplaced Pages. You dismissed both of them, and called me a censor. Your current that you are being "mis-read" doesn't explain any of it, and in fact continues to portray my objections as motivated by prudery.

Hopefully you'll understand if I seem annoyed by your accusation. &mdash; ] 08:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
:sorry sorry sorry, I don't believe in taking life too seriously. Hang on though, what am I saying sorry for... kidding! Though more seriously.... don't quite even get what you are saying I'm "accusing" you off? Anyway, whatever. Got to run off (or rather cycle to be more accurate, lets be sticklers for accuracy!). Have a nice night (or wherever you are from). ] <sup>]</sup> 09:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

=== ] gainsaying ===
You've already indicated that you just shoot your mouth off in matters like this , you don't wish to be taken seriously , and you don't want to be held accountable for anything you say. I don't really need the exercise of debating policy with someone who maintains that attitude without contributing any useful information.

Perhaps you could just sit this one out. &mdash; ] 22:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
:why are you carrying on? I've already said back on WP:AN I'm not going to write anymore about this mess on WP:AN, and I'm going to leave it at that. As such I'm going to carry on forgetting about this as I said and not reply to what you have just said here on my talk page. You should take my advice and join me in leaving this matter alone for now, take a break from it all. When we come back again it shall all feel totally unimportant. That is my feeling on this matter. ] <sup>]</sup> 22:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

== Amazon ==

Hi Mathmo. I was hoping we could come to an agreement about the images you have added at ] and ] which are captioned as being the "Amazon variant". As I have stated on both talk pages, I do not believe that there is any widespread agreement that the position pictured is called that, so I would like to change their captions. --] 17:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
:thanks for mentioning it to me on my talk page, I've found what you said and now there are responses to both of them in their respective places. cheers. ] <sup>]</sup> 17:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

==''Signpost'' updated for December 18th.==

{| width="90%" cellspacing="0" align="center" style="background-color:transparent;"
! ]<font style="position: relative; top: .3em; font-size: 250%;">'''Weekly Delivery'''</font>
|}
<br>
{| width="90%" cellspacing="0" align="center" style="background-color:transparent;"
|-
| colspan=3 |
----
|-
| align="left" | '''Volume 2, Issue 51''' || align ="center" | '''] ]''' || align="right" | ''']'''
|-
| colspan=3 align=center |
----
|}
{| align="center" cellspacing="20" width=90% style="background-color:transparent;"
| colspan=3 align=center | ''']'''
|-
| width=50% | ]
| width=50% | ]
|-
| width=50% | ]
| width=50% | ]
|-
| width=50% | ]
| width=50% | ]
|-
| width=50% | ]
| width=50% |
|}

{| width="90%" cellspacing="0" align="center" style="background-color:transparent;"
| colspan=2 |
----
|-
| align="left" | ''']''' &nbsp;|&nbsp; ] &nbsp;|&nbsp; ] &nbsp;|&nbsp; ] &nbsp;|&nbsp; ]
| align = "right" | <small>] : ]</small>
|-
| colspan=2 |
----
|}
<small>You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the ]. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. ] 06:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

] This is your '''last warning'''. <br>The next time you ] a page, {{#if:User:Ram-Man|as you did to ],}} you will be ] from editing Misplaced Pages. <!-- Template:Test4 (Fourth level warning) --> A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: . If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. ] 12:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
:oi, take a deep breath and smile first before reverting my work of art! lol Most importantly '''read''' the page first, specifically this part: "I'll revert it myself". So I'll put it back and he can have a chuckle about it (or not!), and he can remove it himself just like he said whenever he feels like it. ] <sup>]</sup> 12:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
::Yes, well-meaning reverting users don't really bother to read my notice at the top of the page. You took great care to leave the lines that I specifically mentioned not to delete! Didn't they even bother to check the diff and find it strange that those two lines would stay with that message while everything else went away? Anyway, if anyone blocks you for editing my page, just let me know and I'll unblock you. -- ] 13:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
:::Thanks man! Was slightly worried he might take it too far and get me blocked, but I knew I was right and if he had persisted in the reverting I'd have just left him with it. Does often annoy me at times how people can be far too trig happy in making their edits without even taking the most basic glance over the context/background. Oh well.... whatever. Liked what you had on your userpage, liked it enough to vandalise it! Might add something similar to my own one day, is good for people to keep a bit of humour in what they are doing and not get too stuffy with the seriousness of it all. Otherwise things can just go downhill from there. ] <sup>]</sup> 13:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

== Multisport-stub ==

Hi - I see you have created a new stub type, Multisport-stub. As it clearly explains at ], and at the top of most stub categories, all new stub types should be proposed prior to creation at ], so that they can be checked for viability, and to make sure they don't go against either the stub category hierarchy or stub naming conventions. In the case of your new stub type, it was not proposed, and unfortunately is incorrectly named - there is no parent category {{cl|Multisport}} - the best parent would be {{cl|Multi-sport events}}, and as such it should have been called {{cl|Multi-sport event stubs}}. Furthermore, there is considerable doubt it would have the required number of existing stubs (60) to be regarded as a viable stub category. The stub type has been listed at ] - please make any comments as to the reasons for and possible population of this new stub type. Be warned that it may need to be renamed and may even be nominated for deletion via ] if it is deemed not to conform to normal stub type criteria. Please, in future, if you wish to create a new stub type, propose it first! ]...''<small><font color="#008822">]</font></small>'' 06:55, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
:Thanks for bringing these various points to my attention, and now that I look at it again I'd be agreeing with what you are saying too. (realised at that time category multisport is missing, but didn't feel like creating it at the time. plus I also felt to call a category multisport events is too restrictive)] <sup>]</sup> 10:59, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

==]==
That's my idea of a grand-unifying title.]&nbsp;(] <small>•</small> ] <small>•</small> <span class="plainlinks"></span>) 05:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
:Don't seem the point of that, or the context of the comment? How would that article be different from an article on voyerism? ] <sup>]</sup> 07:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

::It's more objective - I'm sorry - read the talk page for the article Ed and I are working on. Also, I remove all user talk pages from my watchlist, so if you could either respond on the talk page or my talk page, it would be much appreciated. Since you were mentioned by Ed, I thought I should copy you in my response. Also, thanks for your comment on another matter:).]&nbsp;(] <small>•</small> ] <small>•</small> <span class="plainlinks"></span>) 15:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

==''Signpost'' updated for December 26th.==

{| width="90%" cellspacing="0" align="center" style="background-color:transparent;"
! ]<font style="position: relative; top: .3em; font-size: 250%;">'''Weekly Delivery'''</font>
|}
<br>
{| width="90%" cellspacing="0" align="center" style="background-color:transparent;"
|-
| colspan=3 |
----
|-
| align="left" | '''Volume 2, Issue 52''' || align ="center" | '''] ]''' || align="right" | ''']'''
|-
| colspan=3 align=center |
----
|}
{| align="center" cellspacing="20" width=90% style="background-color:transparent;"
| width=50% | ]
| width=50% | ]
|-
| width=50% | ]
| width=50% | ]
|-
| width=50% | ]
| width=50% | ]
|-
| width=50% | ]
| width=50% | ]
|}

{| width="90%" cellspacing="0" align="center" style="background-color:transparent;"
| colspan=2 |
----
|-
| align="left" | ''']''' &nbsp;|&nbsp; ] &nbsp;|&nbsp; ] &nbsp;|&nbsp; ] &nbsp;|&nbsp; ]
| align = "right" | <small>] : ]</small>
|-
| colspan=2 |
----
|}
<small>You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the ]. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. ] 07:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

== Fake new message box ==

Please do not trick people into clicking on an external links by putting them into a fake '''You have new messages (last change).''' box. I have removed it from your userpage. ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 19:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

== Message at fake new message box address ... ==

Well, Mathmo, seems you are on your way to becoming a former Wikipedian. The link you posted had a virus at the other end. Unbecoming of an officer in the NZ Whatever Force. You should perhaps rethink the reason you have chosen to be a Wikipedian. You have already been blocked for vandalism; what's next ? Somehow you are mad about the Functionality Creep purveryors ? Well, join the conversation, rather than looking infantile and pathetic. BTW: The virus upload was unsuccessful, as with my internets savvy, duh, I, uh, was able to block the thing. <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (]) 21:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->
:Firstly there is no virus there, it is just a joke for everybody to enjoy and bring a bit of light into their day (or not, if the happened to get out of the wrong side of bed). More likely if you are having a problem with a virus it would be due to something at your end. Secondly, I was not blocked for vandalism. That has already been determined, and even though there are still things done wrong about that which I feel upset about I'd rather just leave that in the past. ] <sup>]</sup> 02:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

== Virus absolutely verified by computer expert from HP ==

The "joke" page contained a virus, which was determined by a computer scientist from HP who shall remain anonymous. My computer was cleaned from head to toe as a result, and the site investigated. Thanks for your comments. Users who make "jokes" are not serious about the Misplaced Pages project in my view. Please do not place fake redirects to external pages with viruses in the future. Thank you for your anticipated cooperation on this issue. ] 02:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
:I'll repeat again, it is likely the problem is on your end (either that or you are outright lying and making it up?). Both my brother and I are one of the top computer science students in NZ, and neither of us could see a problem there. There is nothing wrong with having a bit of a joke so long as it is not overly disruptive, it improves the over all mood of the project and can make it more warm and inviting to newcomers and regulars alike in my opinion. See for instance ] and ]. Now smile and have a nice day! It is new years eve.... ] <sup>]</sup> 02:54, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

== Thanks ==

Thanks. I think that's the first time anyone has ever commented on my diaries without being prompted. Are you a PUA btw? Got a myspace profile? ] 06:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
:Replied on your talk page. ] <sup>]</sup> 07:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm doing okay. In fact ever sice I attended a PUA workshop about 2-3wks back I've been avoiding my resources for fear of poisoning what I've learnt. That, and I've been experimenting with some stuff of my own. For example, the fact that women love the word "dork". I'm probably a GPUA myself, but I don't know what the G stands for. By the way, editing a myspace is dead easy. And for that matter HTML isn't too bad once you get to know a few things. Do what most people do: head over to mytheme.com it's dead easy to use to customise your profile. ] 13:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
::G stands for green.Interesting concept there,"poisoning what I've learnt". Wouldn't mind doing a workshop, but don't have that kind of money at hand (going to have to try and see if I can get an overdraft at the bank just to afford my next Ironman race). Plus also there never have been (and probably never will be for quite a while into the future) workshops in NZ (whereabouts are you?). So in the end it doesn't matter if I have the money or not. ] <sup>]</sup> 15:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
:My bad, misread your message. Yeah, I think I need to work on my profile page. ] 14:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
::Yeah.... you seemed to have read the exact opposite. I certainly wouldn't have a problem with creating a myspace page, it is piss easy (I've been to international competitions in programing as the team captain for my University, that gives you an indication of my level of skills). Rather what I see the problem with myspace is that the average person can mess up their page and make it so sheer ugly it is quite a turn off. Meh, but then again it does have it's advantages. There are a bunch of people I'd like to keep in contact with through this. What is yours? ] <sup>]</sup> 15:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

:. While you're on there you can tell what needs to be altered looks-wise. It's a shame that there are no workshops in NZ, and that you can't afford them. The best thing you can do if you want to get better is go out and experiment, perhaps even open up your own school, but from what you've told me you don't seem to be doing too badly. That's sort of the point where I am. I'm trying to experiment with what suits me and my personality best. Anyway, keep in touch, can't wait to see your profile if and when you get one. ] 20:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I think I might have just added the SwingCat link, but take a look anyway. ] 06:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
:You did, as an anon with the IP 80.43.39.235 better watch out you can't hide from me! ;p ] <sup>]</sup> 16:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

== Virus Claim is a Hoax ==

There is something else going on here... I wouldn't trust KK. His empty threats are just more games. However, it would seem he can hack into sites, so be careful.{{unsign|71.211.139.121|11:35, 30 December 2006}}

:Yup, could guess they are just empty threats that he is making most of the time. As for him "hacking into site", so what if he can? Plenty of sites are so insecure a kid can break into them, doesn't really mean much in the end. ] <sup>]</sup> 15:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

::We are the friends of Kreepy krawly. We are Kreepy krawly. Kreepy krawly, as if this even needs verification, does not hack. He is a lexicographer, a writer. He resides in England. We program, he does not. We do not hack. We identify and warn of hackers, and their more troublesome brethren, the crackers. Top computer science student ? Well, that puts our esteemed colleague in an uncomfortable position as being more-than-capable of malicious web crawling. Like the trolling recently observed at the Functionality Creep Talk page. The actions of our esteemed colleague were and shall remain hilarious. Yes, hilarious. Hysterical, even. The diversionary tactic of "warning" others of Kreepy krawly's web habits are also hilarious. He is an esteemed member of our community, and a professor at a local university. Thus his following. Thus our trust in his integrity. Others, such as our esteemed colleague Mathmo, have only themselves to blame for diverting attention to their own behaviour. Consciousness does not imply a "conscience." Interesting conversation. Indeed. Do not post fake addresses anymore with links to viruses. Do not do this again. Thank you in advance for your anticipated compliance with this simple request. We do not tolerate trollers, hackers, vandals, or crackers.
:::I was of half a mind I should just ignore the damage Kreepy Krawly is causing, but then I read a message like yours and I see simply ignoring it is not going to make it all go away. Oh well. ] <sup>]</sup> 02:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
:::: Please don't give up on getting Kreepy Krawly banned from Misplaced Pages. This latest entry from him really indicates that there may be other factors at play here. I also wish he (not They) would stop saying that you linked to a virus - ''from a link to my website!'' There was no virus and you have been accused of something terrible. That requires action against him. <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (]) 00:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->
:::::He hasn't made any more disruptive edits during the last couple of days, if he has just left[REDACTED] and isn't coming back I'll be content with that. ] <sup>]</sup> 03:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

::::::Which "disruptive edits" are those, my esteemed colleague ? We have only made positive contributions to Misplaced Pages, aside from defending ourselves from the persistent onslaught of trolls and vandals. Not to mention hackers and computer science students. ] 00:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

:::::::WHAT?!?! You say that as if computer scientist are something who need to be defended against, absolutely not. Without people like us you wouldn't even be accessing the internet at the moment. And lastly, I'm telling you once again do not be messing with the format of my talk page. It is disconcerting and in extremely poor taste for you to be doing so. ] <sup>]</sup> 07:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

::::::::It seems that you are unable or unwilling to respond the the actual question at hand. "What disruptive edits ?" Check my contributions page and name them, my esteemed colleague. I'm sure that the innovators at ARPAnet are the original innovators of the internet. I would be more than happy to entertain a discussion as to what my esteemed colleague Mathmo has done to provide for the continuance of the internet. Computer scientists, and computer science students, are necessary to the Information Age. Thank you again for "telling me" how Misplaced Pages should be formatted. I appreciate your ongoing constructive criticism into the matter. ] 21:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

:::::::::::Please stop using the phrase "my esteemed colleague", ''Ben''. Obviously you don't hold Mathmo in high esteem, else you wouldn't have accused him of uploading a virus. This isn't some kind of game. You are disrupting a very cool thing with what appears to be total nonsense. Mathmo has asked you to stop re-formatting his page. Why wouldn't your immediate reaction be, "I'm sorry. I'll stop doing that because it displeases you, as I can tell by your repeated admonishing"? I consider you to be a vandal and a disruptive force. Your IP should be banned and all of your pseudonyms banned from this website. I may even register as a user (like you suggested so long ago, Kreepy krawly/Ben/71.210.62.238) Notice the lower-case 'k' in 'krawly'? That's how you want it, right?

::::::::::::My esteemed colleagues: My name, and nobody, in our collective, is called "Ben." Sorry to dissapoint you. In fact, the original Kreepy krawly is named "Dan." I hope this causes extreme pleasure on the part of my esteemed colleagues. You can email me at: dancalliper@gmail.com . Hope to hear from you. My "reformatting" follows Misplaced Pages clarity standards. Space properly, indent properly. Obviously the "Functionality Creep" discussion was fruitless for my esteemed colleagues, so now the discussion has devolved into "how many spaces and colons." Interesting. While you may consider us a vandal, our contributions do not show any vandalism. Such as our edit to the "Pomona, California" page. Was this edit vandalism ? How about the "Mycotoxin" page edit ? More malicious vandalism ?

You claim the virus was a hoax, but my computer logs and registry files indicate otherwise. Claims to the opposite are attempts to offset personal responsibility regarding the flawed discussion on the Functionality Creep Talk Page. Oh, and that is how we want it. We are Kreepy krawly. Thanks for you adherence to the priciples of fairness and constructive dialogue. Our IP is directed to an IP in Montana for security purposes. That is how we like it after the virus attack. And that is how it shall remain. ] 00:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

==''Signpost'' updated for January 2nd, 2007.==

{| width="90%" cellspacing="0" align="center" style="background-color:transparent;"
! ]<font style="position: relative; top: .3em; font-size: 250%;">'''Weekly Delivery'''</font>
|}
<br>
{| width="90%" cellspacing="0" align="center" style="background-color:transparent;"
|-
| colspan=3 |
----
|-
| align="left" | '''Volume 3, Issue 1''' || align ="center" | '''] ]''' || align="right" | ''']'''
|-
| colspan=3 align=center |
----
|}
{| align="center" cellspacing="20" width=90% style="background-color:transparent;"
| width=50% | ]
| width=50% | ]
|-
| width=50% | ]
| width=50% | ]
|-
| width=50% | ]
| width=50% | ]
|-
| width=50% | ]
| width=50% | ]
|}

{| width="90%" cellspacing="0" align="center" style="background-color:transparent;"
| colspan=2 |
----
|-
| align="left" | ''']''' &nbsp;|&nbsp; ] &nbsp;|&nbsp; ] &nbsp;|&nbsp; ] &nbsp;|&nbsp; ]
| align = "right" | <small>] : ]</small>
|-
| colspan=2 |
----
|}
<small>You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the ]. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. ] 07:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


== ] Scheduled - Feb 10 2007 ==

You are invited to Auckland Meetup 2 on the afternoon of Saturday February 10th 2007
at Galbraith's Ale House in Mt Eden. Please see ] for details.
You can also bookmark ] to be informed of future NZ meetups. - ] 08:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
:If you are worried about forgetting, may I suggest you put an entry into your diary now! Or set up an alarm/meeting on your mobile phone calendar to remind yourself early enough that you can make it there. --] 15:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
::I've done that already, was more a reference to that I'm a shocker at being at places on time. Got a very loose concept of time... also never know what might come up before then with a date so far off in the future. But basically, yes I am planning to go. Just stating the obvious perhaps that you can't see into the future though. ] <sup>]</sup> 15:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

==''Signpost'' updated for January 8th, 2007.==

{| width="90%" cellspacing="0" align="center" style="background-color:transparent;"
! ]<font style="position: relative; top: .3em; font-size: 250%;">'''Weekly Delivery'''</font>
|}
<br>
{| width="90%" cellspacing="0" align="center" style="background-color:transparent;"
|-
| colspan=3 |
----
|-
| align="left" | '''Volume 3, Issue 2''' || align ="center" | '''] ]''' || align="right" | ''']'''
|-
| colspan=3 align=center |
----
|}
{| align="center" cellspacing="20" width=90% style="background-color:transparent;"
| width=50% | ]
| width=50% | ]
|-
| width=50% | ]
| width=50% | ]
|-
| width=50% | ]
| width=50% | ]
|-
| width=50% | ]
| width=50% | ]
|-
| width=50% | ]
| width=50% |
|}

{| width="90%" cellspacing="0" align="center" style="background-color:transparent;"
| colspan=2 |
----
|-
| align="left" | ''']''' &nbsp;|&nbsp; ] &nbsp;|&nbsp; ] &nbsp;|&nbsp; ] &nbsp;|&nbsp; ]
| align = "right" | <small>] : ]</small>
|-
| colspan=2 |
----
|}
<small>You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the ]. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. ] 06:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

==Halflife==
Decay shouldn't be a problem if I keep up my ] intake as <sup>23</sup>] is the only stable Isotope23. Must have potato chips...--] 19:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
:errr... yeah, silly me! Is 9am and haven't slept all night, plus I haven't done any serious chemistry since I was 15. Best of luck anyway! (you lucky bugger don't need it anyway... ) ] <sup>]</sup> 19:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

== ] ==

Oh, that makes sense. My leet's a little rusty. —] 22:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

== Re: A handy little note ==
A handy little note for you, I see you have blanked your talk page. While this choice is yours and you kinda can do that it is hardly in good taste to do so without extremely good reason to, otherwise it can look rather ''suspicious''.... ] <sup>]</sup> 19:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
:Oh really? Well, if anyone were ''really'' curious, they ''could'' look in my and see , now couldn't they? =P ~ <font color="#FF0000">]</font> 02:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

== SFD notification ==

This message is to notify you that a stub template and category that you created ({{tl|multisport-stub}} and {{cl|Multisport stubs}}) are up for deletion at ]. Please join ]. Thanks. ] ] ] 15:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


==Nothing much==

Thanks for liking my username. I used it in the days when I used to slum around in chatrooms - people seemed unaccountably keen on it back then as well.

Am yet to meet a kiwi I didn't like - but in fairness, that that's based on a sample size of two. Rgrds, ] 18:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

==''Signpost'' updated for January 15th, 2007.==

{| width="90%" cellspacing="0" align="center" style="background-color:transparent;"
! ]<font style="position: relative; top: .3em; font-size: 250%;">'''Weekly Delivery'''</font>
|}
<br>
{| width="90%" cellspacing="0" align="center" style="background-color:transparent;"
|-
| colspan=3 |
----
|-
| align="left" | '''Volume 3, Issue 3''' || align ="center" | '''] ]''' || align="right" | ''']'''
|-
| colspan=3 align=center |
----
|}
{| align="center" cellspacing="20" width=90% style="background-color:transparent;"
| width=50% | ]
| width=50% | ]
|-
| width=50% | ]
| width=50% | ]
|-
| width=50% | ]
| width=50% | ]
|-
| width=50% | ]
| width=50% | ]
|-
| width=50% | ]
| width=50% |
|}

{| width="90%" cellspacing="0" align="center" style="background-color:transparent;"
| colspan=2 |
----
|-
| align="left" | ''']''' &nbsp;|&nbsp; ] &nbsp;|&nbsp; ] &nbsp;|&nbsp; ] &nbsp;|&nbsp; ]
| align = "right" | <small>] : ]</small>
|-
| colspan=2 |
----
|}
<small>You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the ]. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. ] 05:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

== Warning ==

Don't stalk me again. <tt class="plainlinks">]]</tt> 23:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
:Hey hey, don't go accusing me of being a stalker. Remember ] & ]. ] <sup>]</sup> 23:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

::I'm not stupid Mathmo. It's clear that you found those pages from my contributions. <tt class="plainlinks">]]</tt> 09:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

:::Even so, if true how to you then make the big leap in conclusion to that I'm ] you?!?! Do properly explain yourself, otherwise what else is this than a ] on me? ] <sup>]</sup> 12:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

::::I should've clarified by calling it "wikistalking". From ]:

::::<blockquote>The term "wiki-stalking" has been coined to describe following a contributor around the wiki, editing the same articles as the target, with the intent of causing annoyance or distress to another contributor.</blockquote>

::::There you go. <tt class="plainlinks">]]</tt> 05:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

:::::Ah, but you then left out the following sentance which came after it.
:::::<blockquote>This does not include checking up on an editor to fix errors or violations of Misplaced Pages policy, nor does it mean reading a user's contribution log; those logs are public for good reason.</blockquote>
:::::Did it occur to you that I merely went on to read some articles that I too found to be interesting? Then of course if I read them, it is likely I'll also be interested in editing them too. Do try to not be so rash in making accusations and instead ] beforehand. Cheerio ] <sup>]</sup> 05:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

::::::I have no problem with you reading them, but when you follow my contributions and revert all my edits, that's when I get pissed off. I cannot assume good faith when you do things like that. <tt class="plainlinks">]]</tt> 05:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::::Why oh why are you yet again blowing this way way out proportion? Not only am I not stalking you, but also I certainly did not revert ''ALL'' your edits! You have made how many edits, somewhere in the tens of thousands? And all I merely did is on two other pages I restored earlier edits that other users had made which you had removed. One of them you had removed without any comment whatsoever, it seemed to me like a valid contribution and thus I restored it. The other you had also removed without any comment whatsoever (do please use edit summaries more often, they are very helpful for the other editors of wikipedia), then when I fixed it I did so while at the same time explaining in great detail on the talk page as to why. You can not find any fault whatsoever with my intentions behind my edits made towards the encyclopedia. ] <sup>]</sup> 06:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
::::::::How would you like it if I went though your contributions restoring edits by users you've gotten into conflicts with? Would you like that? I'm done explaining this to you, but people that harass other users ''do'' get blocked. <tt class="plainlinks">]]</tt> 06:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

== Thanks ==

I was looking for an appropriate stub template. By the way I'm not from NZ, I just a slight interest in certain forms of body modification (tattoo). ] 06:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

== Upload ] image please ==
{{unsign|72.49.182.192|16:03, 20 January 2007}}
:Do you mean this ? Am guessing so based on edit. I looked at the link yet I see nothing. Is an empty page.

== List of Battlefield 1942 mods ==

Most of those mods will be deleted if they don't get an article in the short time. So, instead of adding spam, consider creating articles for the mods. -- ] 23:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
*Thanks for fixing the formatting error. It was an accident. I hit an edit conflict and cut and pasted incorrectly. ] 03:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
:*No problem, was no biggie anyway! ] <sup>]</sup> 03:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

==''Signpost'' updated for January 22nd, 2007.==

{| width="90%" cellspacing="0" align="center" style="background-color:transparent;"
! ]<font style="position: relative; top: .3em; font-size: 250%;">'''Weekly Delivery'''</font>
|}
<br>
{| width="90%" cellspacing="0" align="center" style="background-color:transparent;"
|-
| colspan=3 |
----
|-
| align="left" | '''Volume 3, Issue 4''' || align ="center" | '''] ]''' || align="right" | ''']'''
|-
| colspan=3 align=center |
----
|}
{| align="center" cellspacing="20" width=90% style="background-color:transparent;"
| width=50% | ]
| width=50% | ]
|-
| width=50% | ]
| width=50% | ]
|-
| width=50% | ]
| width=50% | ]
|}

{| width="90%" cellspacing="0" align="center" style="background-color:transparent;"
| colspan=2 |
----
|-
| align="left" | ''']''' &nbsp;|&nbsp; ] &nbsp;|&nbsp; ] &nbsp;|&nbsp; ] &nbsp;|&nbsp; ]
| align = "right" | <small>] : ]</small>
|-
| colspan=2 |
----
|}
<small>You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the ]. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. ] 06:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

== Anna Popplewell ==

I have explained in detail on ] why I think the image that you have added to the article violates sections 1 and 8 of Misplaced Pages's fair use '''policy'''. ] 08:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

== Mystery Method redux ==

I see you are making various comments about the fact that the article is not maintaining a ], however, unless you can source what appears to be counterpoints to various criticisms, they should not be added.—] (]) 08:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

== Stablepedida ==

Hey Mathmo.

I have noticed you are interested in from more than one comment you put on talk pages. I am the creator of Stablepedia, and i was wondering if you could give me some comments to improve Stablepedia. I would like to get in touch with you. You can find contact info on my user page. Thanks. ] 15:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

== Wikistalking ==

Shortly after a disagreement on one article, I suddenly found you cropping up on another article that I'd recently edited, inserting a link to a pornographic Website that was both unnecessary and objectionable (in that there was no indication as to what the link led to). Looking at your Talk page, I see that this isn't the first time you've done this sort of thing. I strongly suggest that you rethink your behaviour. It's one thing to see an example of poor editing (poor English, poor coding, PoV insertions, etc.) and follow up on the editor's contributions in order to clean up further examples; it's another to follow the editor as a response to a disagreement elsewhere &mdash; and when your consequent edits are themselves questionable, the accusation of wikistalking is virtually proved. You really don't want to go down that road. --] (]) 12:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
:I don't believe that it was, rather it was a very useful and relevant illustrative example. Neither should anybody be in anyway whatsoever surprised as to where the link went, after all it did say '''pornographic website'''. You have got to be kidding me here, how much clearer could it be than that?! To claim stalking is also equally silly to me, this is but one instance where we both happened to edit a page (other than the obvious example). Stalking must be vastly more extensive and deliberate than that. Besides, user contributions is a better way to browse about than "random article" and I look at more often I expect which people who I've had no disagreement with at all as those who I have had. Just obviously it is only those who have previously disagreed with me who then immediately leap up and shout claims of ''"stalking"''. ] <sup>]</sup> 12:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

::First, the link said nothing of the sort; the context suggested that the link might have been to a documentation of such usages (as most other such links do). (The other link that you added to the references section wasn't connected to anything in the article, so isn't a reference.)
::Secondly, I gave a warning; I didn't immediately convict you, otherwise I'd have taken steps to have you blocked (though I have alerted other admins in case this is your standard way of responding to conflict). Perhaps in future you should follow up the contributions list only of people with whom you haven't just diagreed, in order to avoid the impression of wikistalking. Either that, or don't trawl through the history of such articles in order to see how the editor in question has been editing; interest in the article doesn't entail doing that. --] (]) 12:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

:::How unsurprising it is to see my esteemed colleague Mathmo up to his old tricks again. It seems that Mathmo considers Misplaced Pages a sort of playground where he can stalk, harrass, and excoriate users for his own agrandizement and amusement. We, Kreepy krawly, have been monitoring our esteemed colleague Mathmo's contributions since the unfortunate incident discussed under the title on his talk page: Virus Claim is a Hoax. We have saved the deleted talk page from Functionality Creep if anyone would like to view Mathmo's style of discussion. It is unfortunate and amusing, but neither professional nor serious. Mathmo seems to always come back with absurd denials which amount to "Me ? C'mon, dude ! You're thinking of that other guy !" That of course was not a quote, but a subjective summary of our opinion of his discussion style. In our opinion, Mathmo does not take Misplaced Pages seriously. ] 23:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

== Pimps ==

A pimp lives off the avails of prostitution; it is a lifestyle which typically entails a substantial amount of violence and/or degradation. As such, I block those whose usernames proclaim "pimp", for the same reason I block those whose usernames proclaim "Nazi". ] 04:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
:There are a few problems with what you said, one of which you are projecting onto this your own personal opinion of prostitution by calling it degrading. While prostitution certainly isn't on my own personal list of top 3 job careers (though oddly enough a couple of days ago my girlfriend started discussing with me if I'd ever considered becoming a prostitute), I do leave that behind when discussing on RfC. Another flaw in your logic is that you are assuming there is only one meaning of Pimp, for many people it has a meaning similar to "player". I'll leave you with this little thought, would you block everybody who has the word Maddam in their username? ] <sup>]</sup> 04:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

==''Signpost'' updated for January 29th, 2007.==

{| width="90%" cellspacing="0" align="center" style="background-color:transparent;"
! ]<font style="position: relative; top: .3em; font-size: 250%;">'''Weekly Delivery'''</font>
|}
<br>
{| width="90%" cellspacing="0" align="center" style="background-color:transparent;"
|-
| colspan=3 |
----
|-
| align="left" | '''Volume 3, Issue 5''' || align ="center" | '''] ]''' || align="right" | ''']'''
|-
| colspan=3 align=center |
----
|}
{| align="center" cellspacing="20" width=90% style="background-color:transparent;"
| width=50% | ]
| width=50% | ]
|-
| width=50% | ]
| width=50% | ]
|-
| width=50% | ]
| width=50% | ]
|-
| width=50% | ]
| width=50% | ]
|}

{| width="90%" cellspacing="0" align="center" style="background-color:transparent;"
| colspan=2 |
----
|-
| align="left" | ''']''' &nbsp;|&nbsp; ] &nbsp;|&nbsp; ] &nbsp;|&nbsp; ] &nbsp;|&nbsp; ]
| align = "right" | <small>] : ]</small>
|-
| colspan=2 |
----
|}
<small>You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the ]. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. ] 18:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

== ] ==

"They train people to turn lead into gold" isn't true just because they train people, irrespective of the result; for the sentence to be true, the training must be successful. Similarly for "they train men to become more attractive to women". --] (]) 21:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

== Testing ==

Yeah, just testing some userscripts on myself :) --] ] 07:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

== ] ==

You wrote: "''errr.. don't you mean '''your''' version is constantly reverted?''"

Errr.. no, my version didn't exist until very recently, and Amoruso (who has been edit warring with other editors) was the first ever to revert it, today. So, errr, please read the history carefully. The manner in which you intervened with your 'errr' remark and your reversion to a version that is argued extensively to be against WP policy was a bit disconcerting. Thank you. ] <sup><small><font color="DarkBlue">]</font></small></sup> 15:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

== ] ==

Thanks for contributing to the discussion at ]. I expanded the ] article, and you might want to take a second look at it. --] 03:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
:Thank you for keeping me updated, is nice to see how the article has now been improved. I've made a couple of comments on the AfD and changed my vote as appropriate. ] <sup>]</sup> 03:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

== Thank you for the improvement ==

Thank you for your improvement on ], I have reconsidered the deletion process, but I do not think according to the rule I can withdraw it unilaterally. But I believe more people will post '''Keep''' to keep the improved article.
Thanks again! ] 03:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

== ] ==

Actually, I went ahead and just performed a history merge, since it's easier and preserves the history - you should be able to salvage anything useful from the page history. --''']]''' 05:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
:Hey thanks, that seems like an even better idea. Cheers. ] <sup>]</sup> 06:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

== ] ==

The comment was deleted because, first, it was added after the AfD was closed, and shouldn't have been, and secondly, the article remains deleted until an undelete discussion has been completed. Please don't attempt to add it again; editing closed discussions isn't allowed (not even by the closing admin in this case, and certiainly not by anyone else). --] (]) 11:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
:One of your comments has already beenfound to be wrong, in that if the closing admin changes his mind he doesn't have to go to deletion review. Which is why the deletion review quickly closed, you were merely making a point. As for the other point you raised, I suspect that is wrong. But I won't bother getting into silly edit war with you over anything I'm even slightly uncertain about. ] <sup>]</sup> 11:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Please make new comments at ], not an old archive. -]<small>(]·]·])</small> 00:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

== ] ==

You prodded this article, stating ''"What notability, what sources? What does "Community School of 2006 prize" mean? Is it significant?"'' as your prod reason. The prod was contested by {{user|Daemonic Kangaroo}}; if you feel it still doesn't meet Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines, I invite you to ] it. However, please do '''not''' replace the prod template; once a prod is contested, an article needs to be sent to AfD to be decided, not by another prod. Cheers, ''']''' 11:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
:Yup, I know that is a way to contest it and that the correct procedure afterwards is to send to AfD. Thanks for the note anyway. When I get back I'll see how I feel about if it should go to AfD (possible not, a person has contested it. Might ask them for the reasons first). ] <sup>]</sup> 11:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

== Tankini Page ==

It's clear that you're the only person who wants that transparent headless shot. Why is it so important to you that that particular picture be included? ] 01:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

== Sorry ==

G'day there Mathmo. :) I'm very sorry that I haven't been putting enough work into my nominations, and I'm sorry for the annoyance I've caused. I really want to do the right thing and try to avoid embarrassment and trouble for everyone and I'm very glad that you're willing to help me. I promise that from now on I'll do a bit more research before nominating an AfD, rather than just taking the article at face value. Cheers, --] 11:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
:Hey, it is sweet. Hopefully underneath you can see I was just trying to be nice to a newbie! I can understand where you were coming from before, a few of those did look like to me as well as AfD candidates. But the difference is would have checked and in the end not listed them (and probably have improved the article in the process). Anyway, in future about anything else at all feel free to ask me or another of the many other users I'm sure would be willing to assist you. Hope you enjoy wikipedia! (and don't let the bad parts of it get you down too much) ] <sup>]</sup>

== ] ==

Please review. ] - ] 14:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
:What the... !!! For goodness sake be more specific than making a baseless broad sweeping and unsubstantiated claim. ] <sup>]</sup> 14:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
:: How exactly did you come across ], and why was your first and only act there to engage in a reversion of my edit? ] - ] 14:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
:::oh my, you have got to be kidding! Seriously, are you trying to tell me ] is the reason for this accusation of yours? Why in the world could it be because of that page, have you already forgotten your very badly failed attempt to get the page completely deleted? ] <sup>]</sup> 14:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
:::: No, it is the most recent in an emergent pattern of your disruptive behavior that I am attempting to head off at the pass. ] - ] 14:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
:::::This whole big fuss you are causing has got to be the silliest thing I've seen this year. I've only got that page on my watchlist because '''you''' ''asked me'' to edit that page!! Good grief, and what do I get from this? Nothing but abuse, accusations, and grief. Probably the memory of how the AfD went for you is sore you must have forgotten? I don't know what it is with you that you should attack me like this. Anyway, to help you remember I'll provide a ] and a direct quote from that page of what you said to me:
<blockquote>
:::::''I look forward to your help in making sure that the article reflects what was written in reliable sources''
</blockquote>
:::::Now I really don't want to massively start editing that article, already have more than enough to keep me busy in life! But your request of me did at least persuade me to add the article to my watchlist so I can help out as and when I can. Gee, silly me. ] <sup>]</sup> 19:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
:::::: Your sole contribution to the article is edit warring to include blogs as reliable sources. Worthless. ] - ] 19:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
:::::::Ok fine, change tack by calling my contributions ''worthless'' now that I've shown your accusation of "stalking" to be false. I changed that edit because I disagreed with it (for reasons I've already explained) and naturally it was that edit that I changed because it was the most recent one so it was what I saw displayed on my watch list. As for the blogs, you are failing to appreciate the usuage and context of them in that article. Whatever, I'm doing something else for the moment. Your whole behavior surrounding this I feel has been appalling. Next time you ask for help don't pounce on and attack and editor with such intensity based on merely one edit that you disagree with. Really, was it any suprise to you my edit? You want this article deleted while I voted keep on your AfD, clearly we are not seeing quite eye to eye on this. ] <sup>]</sup> 19:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

<br>
I think that you mean "change tack" &mdash; but he hasn't. he's pointed out that, having followed him to the article (something which this Talk page indicates is a favourite tactic of yours when faced with disagreement) you did nothing useful there, but made disruptive edits (another familiar pattern). --] (]) 19:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
:Am getting sick of this behavior of attacking me, my sense of humour for it is running out. I've explained already in much detail why I was there (in summary, because ] ''asked'' me to edit on that article!). If you don't understand what I said, then I politely suggest reading it again. Oh, and thanks for pointing out my typo. Rather ironic really considering the lack of tact ] has shown. ] <sup>]</sup> 19:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

:::::::: No, your blatent disregard for our policy on Reliable Sources is completly expected by me. You are not here to improve the project. ] - ] 19:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Oh that is just swell, more accusations. "''You are not here to improve the project''"". As for this "blatant disregard" you seem to believe that I have, well... read it yourself: "''Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field or a well-known professional journalist. These may be acceptable so long as their work has been previously published by reliable third-party publications.''" ] <sup>]</sup> 19:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd only remind you that, after I'd suggested that you were behaving in a way that was verging on wikistalking, you sarcastically implied that I was doing the saem thing on an AfD &mdash; an AfD on an article that head been part of the subject of our initial disagreement. Now, given that peculiar accusation, I think that the horse you're trying to get on just isn't high enough. --] (]) 22:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
:Not exactly, these were two different articles we had edited. And then a 3rd yet another one for the AfD. And my comment was to me clearly meant in jest, to make light of the situation at hand back then. If you mis-read it and had taken offense my apology. If it had troubled you so very greatly which you had pointed it out to me earlier and I could have cleared it up with you. ] <sup>]</sup> 22:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

::Well, it's all in the History, so I'll not bother to argue the issue. As for taking offence, there seemed little point. --] (]) 23:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

==]==
Please see new combined deletion debate. ~ ] 20:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

==''Signpost'' updated for February 5th, 2007.==

{| width="90%" cellspacing="0" align="center" style="background-color:transparent;"
! ]<font style="position: relative; top: .3em; font-size: 250%;">'''Weekly Delivery'''</font>
|}
<br>
{| width="90%" cellspacing="0" align="center" style="background-color:transparent;"
|-
| colspan=3 |
----
|-
| align="left" | '''Volume 3, Issue 6''' || align ="center" | '''] ]''' || align="right" | ''']'''
|-
| colspan=3 align=center |
----
|}
{| align="center" cellspacing="20" width=90% style="background-color:transparent;"
| width=50% | ]
| width=50% | ]
|-
| width=50% | ]
| width=50% | ]
|-
| width=50% | ]
| width=50% | ]
|-
| width=50% | ]
| width=50% | ]
|-
| width=50% | ]
| width=50% |
|}

{| width="90%" cellspacing="0" align="center" style="background-color:transparent;"
| colspan=2 |
----
|-
| align="left" | ''']''' &nbsp;|&nbsp; ] &nbsp;|&nbsp; ] &nbsp;|&nbsp; ] &nbsp;|&nbsp; ]
| align = "right" | <small>] : ]</small>
|-
| colspan=2 |
----
|}
<small>You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the ]. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. ] 05:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

==]==
I noticed that you voted early on this, and wanted to let you know that the article has substantially grown (and will likely grow further) into a useful list of evidence for the Moon landings that has nothing to do with hoax sites. I'd like to invite you to take another look, and to consider changing your vote. ] 19:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

== Your Proposition ==

Well, thank you. As I told Nat, I need more mainspace, as well as XfD. Another problem I know someone will bring up in my RfA (even if I wait until June) is that I have 1200 edits to userspace. Those aren't recent (most of them are when I was new), but it's still not going to go well. Thanks for your consideration, and for bothering to leave me a nice message about it. :-) · ] <sup><font color="DarkSlateGray">]</font> · <font color="DarkSlateGray">]</font></sup> 10:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

== ] ==

Hi, thanks for your vote to keep on the article on their children, but they have put this one (]) on AfD as well. -- ] - ] 17:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

== ] and the Pickup Wiki ==

Title sounds like a 70s band doesn't it? lol. OKay, let me start with the pickup wiki. I never really bothered with the Dallas PUA Wiki, I just kept it there as a reference. The pickup wiki I discovered is pretty user-friendly. If you know Misplaced Pages, you'll easily know how to edit this particular Wiki.

As for Joseph "ThunderCat" Matthews, he does indeed spam, but he is important for a number of reasons:

* It is by stumbling upon him that most guys find out about "the community".
* He is connected with most of the PUAs out there, whereas quite a few of them have issues with one another. This is a trend that is starting to change as it goes (as most sciences and arts do) from being something which few can do and do well, to an industry with standards, and codes of conduct.
* Every year he hosts the "pickup artist of the year award". Most people don't agree with it, and I'm one of them, but in response, guys like Attraction Chronicles have started hosting their own "Dating coach of the year award", which asks for the opinions of other people.
* He helped bring "Style" to fame as the number one PUA. Whether you agree or not is up to you, but he has stuck up for AFCs and the community more than any other PUA out there.

Back when hotmail.com was 250MBs I cancelled my account with ], but I've now reopened it under a separate walla.com account which I keep just for PUA related spam; and there is lots of it. More than any free porn websites. Walla give out more space then Google: 5Gigs, plus I have organised that account and it's folders nicely.

Nice hearing from you again, and thanks for the feedback. ] 15:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

==]==

Mathmo: I noted that you weighed-in on the first round of the above proposed deletion. I am the contributor with the clear COI (in retrospect) who created the article. I have not and will not participate in editing it since the COI was raised. That said, I do feel the article’s subject can be written from an NPOV, is verifiable and notable. Unfortunately, the initial references used in the article are burdened by COI and I cannot get other contributors to take note of an extensive list of 3rd Party, independent references to the subject.

The following links which are included in my summary of references at . This link is on the talk page of the article. I think the references below support verifiability and notability along with all the other linked references I listed. I would appreciate your take on that belief, and if you concur, your support in retaining the article. If they not support notability, then why? I need to learn more about WP:notability if I am to contribute fruitfully to Misplaced Pages in the future.










Thanks----] 21:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

: and seem to be the same article? Or at least allbusiness.com is a copy from something in bakingmanagement. ] <sup>]</sup> 23:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

:: Mathmo-Thanks for your support. There is indeed a bit of redundancy in some of the references, but my intent was to show wider coverage than just one instance. I think is happens on a lot of articles where one finds a redundant source first, makes note of it, then later finds the original source and then doesn't remove the redundant source. I will be mindful of that in further contributions to WP.--] 12:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
:::No problem, in future in areas where you have commerical conflict of interest you might want to try and get some support (and help, along with explainations/understanding) ''before'' it is put on AfD. Would make life a lot easier for you I'd expect. ] <sup>]</sup> 12:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
:::: I would agree wholeheartedly. I thought I was trying to do that once the COI was raised, but found the going tough. I am still a bit concerned that COI is a bit of a trump on NPOV and Notability discussions and will follow evolution of those guidelines closely. For a new Wikipedian, this was a tough, but useful learning experience.--] 13:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

== Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Operation Christian Vote ==

Just to let you know, my comments are not personal in the above Afd. The sources still seam to show that the group isn't notable (in my opinion), however, this is just my opinion and maybe other editors will disagree with me. Good luck with finding the sources, and I really hope that you do prove its notability so it can be kept. I'm going to bed in a minute so I'm sorry if I don't reply swiftly to comments. Regards and all the best ]<sup>See ] or ]</sup> 00:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
:Hey don't worry, I'm not taking anything personal! I see it now as merely misunderstanding of policy. Nothing personal at all to me, I'd never even heard of this group before seeing it on AfD! Good to see you also aren't taking what I said personally about checking, I was just asking. Gee, it seems we are all being so overly polite over this! Oh... and while I'm about it.... sorry to be a spelling nazi but this is the second time I've seen you spell seem as seam. If you know the difference then ingore this comment, if not it would help for you to look it up. ] <sup>]</sup> 00:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
::Sorry, I'm a ] student not an ] student so maybe my spelling isn't quite upto scratch. God, if there was an appologetic (hope the spellings right!) barnstar, I think we'd both deserve one! Anyway, back to business......... ] states that they should be the subject of non trivial works, I just feel that the references you've added don't make operation christian vote the major subject and they just briefly mention them, I don't think its misunderstanding of policy, merely interpretation ]<sup>See ] or ]</sup> 00:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
:::lol, I think I need to go check if there is an appologetic barnstar! There probably is. I've had friends doing ], interesting subject. Though I'm a Physics/Math/CompSci student myself (no english there! Wouldn't want to study it myself, well... is at least very low down on my list of favourite subjects to study). I'd have completely ignored your spelling error normally (it did stand out bodly to me the first time I saw it a few minutes ago), but when I see it a second time soon afterwards... for such a simple word too (is only four letters long, sure if it had been ''twenty'' four letters long... that is completely different)! Heh, my perfectionist side and eager to help side comes out. Anyway, am getting extremely sidetracked here. But doesn't matter, because I've already answered your main point on the AfD... ] <sup>]</sup> 00:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

== Evanescence ==

{{WikiProject Evanescence/Invite1}}{{User:Armando12/Signature}} 01:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

:Thanks for that, but then again I did already know about this..... . ] <sup>]</sup> 13:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

==''Signpost'' updated for February 12th, 2007.==

{| width="90%" cellspacing="0" align="center" style="background-color:transparent;"
! ]<font style="position: relative; top: .3em; font-size: 250%;">'''Weekly Delivery'''</font>
|}
<br>
{| width="90%" cellspacing="0" align="center" style="background-color:transparent;"
|-
| colspan=3 |
----
|-
| align="left" | '''Volume 3, Issue 7''' || align ="center" | '''] ]''' || align="right" | ''']'''
|-
| colspan=3 align=center |
----
|}
{| align="center" cellspacing="20" width=90% style="background-color:transparent;"
| width=50% | ]
| width=50% | ]
|-
| width=50% | ]
| width=50% | ]
|-
| width=50% | ]
| width=50% | ]
|-
| width=50% | ]
| width=50% | ]
|}

{| width="90%" cellspacing="0" align="center" style="background-color:transparent;"
| colspan=2 |
----
|-
| align="left" | ''']''' &nbsp;|&nbsp; ] &nbsp;|&nbsp; ] &nbsp;|&nbsp; ] &nbsp;|&nbsp; ]
| align = "right" | <small>] : ]</small>
|-
| colspan=2 |
----
|}
<small>You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the ]. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. ] 05:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
==Your hypothetical question==

==Amazing Race Contestant Deletions==
You asked a question on the ] deletion about ]. The answer may be . --]&nbsp;<sup>(])</sup> 16:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
:errr... yeah, had seen there was that link. Only followed it through just now though. Anyway I don't really want to get involved with that. But that is why I was more cautious with my voting. It just looked dodgy what was happening, wouldn't have minded at all though if somebody else had done the nominating of the articles for deletion. ] <sup>]</sup> 17:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
*Yup. I understand. --]&nbsp;<sup>(])</sup> 17:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

==Re: RfA==

Hi, thanks for you confidence in me it is very much appreciated. I do intend to run for adminship in the near future but I want to make sure I am fully prepared first. I hope you will still feel you can support me when the time comes. Thanks again, ]] 00:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

== New seduction community template ==
In light of the recent nomination of ], I've began work on a new, broader template in my namespace (]). The intention is that it is placed at the bottom of the page. — ] 16:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
:Hey, thanks for letting me know. And happy Valentines day! lol ] <sup>]</sup> 17:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

== Re: SOCOM 4: U.S. Navy SEALs ==

Re : Another admin deleted it again. -- ] 19:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 14:19, 15 January 2025

Archiving icon
Archives

    /Archive/2006, /Archive/2007, /Archive/2008, /Archive/2009, /Archive/2010
    /Archive/2011, /Archive/2012, /Archive/2013, /Archive/2014, /Archive/2015
    /Archive/2016


This page has archives. Sections older than 28 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:08, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 December 2024

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:58, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 December 2024

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:01, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 January 2025

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:55, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
User talk:Mathmo: Difference between revisions Add topic