Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Gogo Dodo (talk | contribs) at 19:13, 14 February 2007 (Re: SOCOM 4: U.S. Navy SEALs). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Mysterymethod/themysterymethod

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.

And the book copyright is important - it's a company book and a work for hire, not Erik's book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clockworkorange101 (talk • contribs) 20:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

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. Mathmo 17:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey buddy - hope your arm is better. Do you have yahoo IM? Maybe we can work on updating these pages together Clockworkorange101 23:42, 23 December 2006 (UTC)Clockworkorange101

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? Mathmo 04:24, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

• Actually the reason given for the block was trolling. HighInBC 16:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

claiming i was trolling (which was also absolutely NOT my intention) is a complete about face tactic against me, what Robotman1974 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. Mathmo 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 three revert rule. 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. Shell 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 Robotman1974 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. Mathmo 17:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• • 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. HighInBC 17:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Welcomes

First welcome is from me, the old fella who doesn't need a holiday job (which is what I expect has caused your brief disappearance). As I said on your other Talk page, that's a good list of contributions from you (New Zealand sport, etc), and I hope we get more soon. Kia ora! Robin Patterson 08:04, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC) Argument for "The seduction community cartel" to be chucked of wikipedia

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. mathmo

Aquathlon -- more popular than triathlon?

Hi Mathmo, Congrats on your Ironman!

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

--Tiger Marc 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) Mathmo 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.... Mathmo 12:53, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Miniature Wargaming

I recommend you remove the miniature wargames 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 List of Miniature Wargames. Grimhelm 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. Mathmo 06:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

false claims of vandalism

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, as you did to John Ince, you will be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 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. Mathmo 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. Marasmusine 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...) Mathmo 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. Mathmo 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... -- Perceptual Chaos 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 Attacks on United Nations personnel during the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict is. Otherwise, we'll have this battle at the article of every world leader who has criticised Israel over the incident.-gadfium 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. Mathmo 19:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Nice guy syndrome

Basically, that article was nominated for Articles for Deletion, and the consensus was delete. Before the AfD was finished, I saw it and was amused, and copied it to my userspace, 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 here.

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 well-referenced. 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 deletion review.

— Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 23:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

cheers Mathmo 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 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iyouyou (talk • contribs) 22:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

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. Mathmo 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 WP:100 (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! -- nae'blis 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. --SecondSight 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. Mathmo 08:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Your edit to Template talk:Anti-war

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 Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines. Thanks, SchuminWeb (Talk) 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. Mathmo 12:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism?

Whoa. You seem to throw this word around quite a bit; please see the vandalism policy to learn what is actually vandalism. The reason I removed the comment and link from User talk:Iyouyou 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. Shell 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 User talk:Iyouyou made should be kept, so that there is an easy record should User talk:Iyouyou ever try to be unbanned all the facts will be readily obtainable for review. Mathmo 12:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

There is an easy record - its called the page history. Please do not restore the link again. Thanks. Shell 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. Mathmo 12:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

arguably one of edits could be viewed badly , you removed not just User:Iyouyou 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 Mathmo 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. Shell 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. Mathmo 12:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

GNAA

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. Robotman1974 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. Mathmo 15:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Do not vandalise this page again. If you object to the former article's deletion, go here: Misplaced Pages:Deletion review. Robotman1974 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. Mathmo 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. Robotman1974 16:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh see, you are going to go ahead and throw assume good faith 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) Mathmo 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 WP:AIV. Robotman1974 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. Mathmo 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.--- ABigBlackMan 16:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

sigh, what is this now? trying to use peer pressure or something? Mathmo 16:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Interpret my remarks however you wish. I believe your recent edits to GNAA are vandalism. Robotman1974 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 Mathmo 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. Mathmo 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..-- ABigBlackMan 16:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

thank you very much, you at least have seen that this here is NOT vandalism. If Robotman1974 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. Mathmo 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. Robotman1974 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. Mathmo 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. HighInBC 16:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• Happened to take a glance at the GNAA 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 Robotman1974 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 Robotman1974 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. Mathmo 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. Mathmo 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. Shell 17:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

This user has added the link to GNAA again and I have reverted. Robotman1974 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. HighInBC 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....) Mathmo 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. HighInBC 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 {{unblock|reason}} template to ask another admin to reconsider this. HighInBC 16:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Was "warned" that I was going to be mentioned on WP:AIV, 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. Mathmo 16:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

You were mentioned on WP:AIV, 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. HighInBC 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. Mathmo 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. HighInBC 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 Robotman1974, the same person who started this whole entire mess by constantly removing content from GNAA. Mathmo 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 GNAA 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 GNAA were vandalism. Robotman1974 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 GNAA. 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. Mathmo 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. Robotman1974 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. HighInBC 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? WP:RFI/WP:ANI? Mathmo 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. Shell 19:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much, I'll do what you suggested. Mathmo 19:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Although am thinking it would be better if posted on WP:ANI? Could you (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 WP:ANI? Thanks! Mathmo 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 WP:AIV
• All editors who have seen this have came to the conclusion that I was NOT vandalising (with the exception of Robotman1974 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 Robotman1974 that is a personal attack against me. WP:ATTACK

Mathmo 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. HighInBC 19:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

1. 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. Mathmo 19:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
2. Secondly I was not giving a final warning template before the listing on WP:AIV or the banning as according to WP:AIV. 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. Mathmo 19:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
3. 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) Mathmo 02:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
4. 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 Robotman1974'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. 19:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Am user mathmo on the english[REDACTED] (same name as this email address).

A bit of fuss has been kicked up over a contribution I made to the GNAA 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 Robotman1974? Although I'll assume good faith and presume not.Either way if Robotman1974 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,

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.

A listing of a few reasons from my talk page as to 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 WP:AIV
• All editors who have seen this have came to the conclusion that I was NOT vandalising (with the exception of Robotman1974 who started all this, and still maintains that I was vandalising the page).
• 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 Robotman1974 that is a personal attack against me. (or implied if you wish) WP:ATTACK

========

1. 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. 
2. Secondly I was not giving a final warning template before the listing on WP:AIV or the banning as according to WP:AIV. 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.
   
3. 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 Robotman1974'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.
   

Hand a final warning against me in regards to this dispute Robotman1974 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.


Thanks for any help in this matter,

David/Mathmo

I said If you add the link again, you will be blocked., that was your final warning. HighInBC 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 WP:AIV as is required before I am even listed there. Which Robotman1974 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. Mathmo 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. HighInBC 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. Mathmo 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. Robotman1974 23:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Do any of you read WP:AIV 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 Mathmo 01:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

1. "Before listing a vandal here make sure that the vandal has been warned with the appropriate warning templates."
2. "If you can't justify leaving these messages on a user's talk page, it likely isn't vandalism."
3. "Users must be appropriately warned using a final warning template"
4. "before being listed on this page".
5. "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. Robotman1974 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. Mathmo 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. - Shell 15:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

1. 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 Robotman1974 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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 WP:AIV to which I have many many times linked too. As you can quite clearly see it very explicitly says that the appropriate warning templates must have been used before even being listed on WP:AIV let alone blocking.

Mathmo 18:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

"Trolling"

Seeing that HighInBC 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 HighInBC for this crime of so called "trolling". Mathmo 20:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Talk page archiving

If you find your talk page is getting to long, you may find this interesting: Misplaced Pages:How to archive a talk page. You may also wish to leave it as it is, both are fine. HighInBC 23:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 4th.

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Weekly Delivery

Weekly Delivery

This is your last warning.
The next time you vandalize a page, as you did to User:Ram-Man, you will be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. WHeimbigner 12:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Weekly Delivery

Weekly Delivery

Weekly Delivery

Weekly Delivery

Weekly Delivery

Weekly Delivery

Weekly Delivery

Hi, I've seen you frequently around the article Evanescence and other related articles. Please consider joining the WikiProject Evanescence, an effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage and detail regarding Evanescence. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks that you can help with. Thank you!!!

 Armando.O  01:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Weekly Delivery