User talk:AndreJustAndre/Archives/11

	Andre🚐's Talk ☎️ Page Archive 📇 Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66
☕ Threads archived by ClueBot III after 72h ☕

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start or revisit a discussion, please do so here.

🌳 🍀 🌳 🌿 🌳 🌱 🌳 🗄️ClueBot Detailed Index Archive #AndreJustAndre/Archives/11🗄️ 🌳 🌱 🌳 🌿 🌳 🍀 🌳
1	Help me	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	529	User talk:AndreJustAndre/Archives/11
2	Thank you	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	186	User talk:AndreJustAndre/Archives/11
3	Romath re RE-EDITED page	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	2184	User talk:AndreJustAndre/Archives/11
4	hopeful problem is solved--	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	432	User talk:AndreJustAndre/Archives/11
5	Regarding the Romath entry AGAIN	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	60	User talk:AndreJustAndre/Archives/11
6	Re the ROMATH page	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	621	User talk:AndreJustAndre/Archives/11
7	REGARDING THE ROMATH PAGE --- JULY 2 /05	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	1446	User talk:AndreJustAndre/Archives/11
8	External links	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	131	User talk:AndreJustAndre/Archives/11
9	Mediation	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	1893	User talk:AndreJustAndre/Archives/11
10	Request for immediate mediation	2005-08-14 07:25	2005-08-14 07:25	1	2033	User talk:AndreJustAndre/Archives/11
11	Image question	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	563	User talk:AndreJustAndre/Archives/11
12	Ben W	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	597	User talk:AndreJustAndre/Archives/11
13	User:Eclipsed Moon	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	46	User talk:AndreJustAndre/Archives/11
14	BenW	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	1292	User talk:AndreJustAndre/Archives/11
15	Melnorme and double-spoiler.	2005-07-21 21:04	2005-07-21 21:04	1	2826	User talk:AndreJustAndre/Archives/11
16	Thanks for your vote on Talrias' RFA	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	183	User talk:AndreJustAndre/Archives/11
17	Captain Olimar VfD	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	1160	User talk:AndreJustAndre/Archives/11
18	Hatemail	2005-07-10 06:06	2005-07-10 06:06	1	1912	User talk:AndreJustAndre/Archives/11
19	Complaints	2005-07-10 20:23	2005-07-10 20:23	1	1882	User talk:AndreJustAndre/Archives/11
20	Peace Dove	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	390	User talk:AndreJustAndre/Archives/11

Hello dear. You are a wiki admin and I need your help. Can you explain about this changes to my page? [Insulting, abusing and vandaling language!] He is flooding page Kourosh ziabari with under-18 langauge all time and I don't know what to do 70.52.6.147 He uses many IPs and Wiki IDs and I don't know what to do. 70.52.6.147 is his last IP. and also visit this comparation page that shows the changes of main page to the insulting content [1]

O.K., my friend, I changed my signature and you are going to have the honor of being the first one to see it. take care Tony the Marine 29 June 2005 19:23 (UTC)

Yesterday I contacted you reference someone repeatedly editing my entry. You told me to change some areas, which I did.

I placed THIS: QUOTE: ROMATH is the originator, mover and shaker of the Usenet newsgroup alt.romath. Having asked her ISP to create the newsgroup (with "romath" meaning "Registered Owner' and part of the surname) so that she could investigate spam and pornography, it was finally created on December 24th, 1997.

Romath's strongly expressed views on alternative lifestyles and certain behaviors attracted a group of detractors who (for a short time} invaded and tried to overwhelm the newsgroup. False accusations, lies and libel were all attempted against Romath, all to no avail.

They accused Romath of having porn on her website, of promoting porn, of having sexually-explicit things on the site, of being a fetishist, etc.

Romath won the battle, and finally stopped even using the newsgroup for investigative purposes, thanks to other programs that made the group rather redundant.

Later, a group of French-speaking friends posted to the group for a few months, but the invaders tried to chase them off. Romath refused to participate in the chase, instead telling these people they were more than welcome to post there, even posting some messages in French back to them. After a few months, these people decided to leave, thanks to the efforts of the ones invading the group.

In the interim, Romath has put up an excellent website: http://www.romath.com It features many documents including a special page developed by Romath's cats, called The Kitty Pages. It also features a live chatroom, a special Christian Encouragement section, a Guest Book, bulletin board area, etc.

---

A copy of this has been sent to romath, considering how someone else has AGAIN edited this entry June 30/05 to make it falsely appear that the invaders 'won' anything.

EOQ.

^^^^I trust this is acceptable for Wikipedia?

Moments later I decided to go back in and check the entry again - only to find someone had changed it AGAIN, using my real name, etc...

Why is it that everyone can edit someone else's entry? And why is it my entry is STILL FLAGGED? Romath

Andre:

I found it necessary to again re-edit the romath page.

Minor edit this time, yes.... but still many impoirtant things I found had been removed by someone.

However, I trut what I entered this time will hopefully correct the problem, but who's to say someone won;t come back in and re-edit my work all over again, rendering it useless?

Is there any way other people can be prevented from editing other people's entries?

WHO keeps altering my page?

This is totally ridiculous.

WHY ARE YOU CONTINUALLY RE-EDITING MY PAGE AND ENTERING MY REAL NAME THERE ????

Because of problems with a stalker, i DO NOT want my name used.

The ONLY name I want uses is ROMATH.

WHY do you insist on constantly changing my entry and putting my real name in every time I correct the thing?

I even tried to cancel the entire page, and every time I go to re-check it's still down, I find the thing back up and MY NAME INCLUDED.

Thiw is a violation of my rights.

RENMOVE THE PAGE PLEASE.

If you cannot or will not cooperate, I'll have no choice but to conatact a lawyer. This has gone on LONG ENOUGH.

ROMATH

Itr appears you insist on re-editing MY page and inserting my real name.

I left several messages yesterday asking that my real name NOT be used, with a very valid reason, be3cause of a STALKER hwo has been harrassing me for years.

WHY DO YOU INSIST on re-editing my page?

If you cannot or will not co-operate, then why not DELETE the thing if you find it so 'offensive' or 'inaccurate'????

If this doesn't improve, I will haven o choice but to contact MY LAWYER and give 'wicipedia' PLENTY of free advertising - of the negative kind.

THIS is how I would like my small page to appear:

Romath is the pseudonym for a Canadianwoman who originated the Usenet newsgroup alt.romath. The newsgroup was created on December 24, 1997 so that she could investigate spam and pornography. "Romath" is named after "Registered Owner" and part of Romath's surname.

Romath's strongly expressed views against alternative lifestyles and certain behaviors attracted a group of detractors who (for a short time) invaded and tried to overwhelm the newsgroup. Romath finally stopped even using the newsgroup for investigative purposes thanks to other programs that made the group redundant.

Romaths' current effort is a website, "romath.com." It features a special page about Romath's cats called "The Kitty Pages", a live chatroom, a special "Christian Encouragement" section, a guest book, and a bulletin board area.

• http://www.romath.com

Category:Usenet Category:Canadian people

What is so terrible about this entry?????

romath

Yes - please let me know your terms for mediation and we can establish parameters and a location for it. The problem has intensified severely in the last 24 hours and Willmcw has been stalking me nearly constantly this afternoon at three separate articles. I've detailed the major stalking incidents and some other improprieties by this editor towards me in a log here [2]

Today he resumed stalking me at the articles on Claremont Institute, where he has repeatedly attempted to insert POV and pejorative characterizations of sources I've added, removed sourced material I've added, and intentionally diminished content about Robert Bork that I included - all for seemingly political and POV reasons, and all to the detriment of the article itself. He also stalked me to DeBow's Review today after I did a routine redirect of a duplicate article stub to it, and has repeatedly tried to reinsert unsourced, POV, and redundant material from the redirected stub. When I relocated some of that material to James Dunwoody Brownson DeBow for biographical purposes as a solution, he again stalked me there for tit-for-tat edits to the very same thing he was trying to add at DeBow's Review. I truly believe this guy has some obsessive compulsive problem with me or something, as I cannot even make routine edits to general articles on wikipedia on any variety of subjects without him showing up moments later to deconstruct, twist, or needlessly rearrange it. Thanks for your help. Rangerdude 2 July 2005 20:33 (UTC)

Anytime you can start mediation, Andrevan, would be fine. Thanks for volunteering. Cheers, -Willmcw July 2, 2005 22:09 (UTC)

PS, I have made a short response to Rangerdude's allegations in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rangerdude.

Andrevan - will you be initiating the mediation shortly? I ask because the situation with Willmcw is worsening by the day. He has engaged in stalker behavior that has followed me to at least seven different articles just over the weekend alone, most of them for the explicit purpose of harassing, deconstructing, and vandalizing my edits. I have tried in good faith to contribute developments to wikipedia on all sorts of different subject matters, but it seems that no matter where I go to develop articles he stalks me there and begins more of the same. Given this case, I urge you to proceed as soon as possible. Otherwise I will be evaluating my options shortly by seeking further intervention against this user and, if necessary, an arbitration case. Thank you again. Rangerdude 5 July 2005 05:18 (UTC)

Personally, I'd prefer doing the mediation in a separate publicly viewable mediation page on wikipedia. I will request that it be closed to participation to yourself, myself, and willmcw and the latter two of us limited to statements and replies in designated posting sections. Please let me know if this is acceptable.

Thanks - I consider this approach to be the best way to keep a neutral record of the proceedings. Also, since this case involves allegations of stalking and since the other user has at least once falsely speculated or implied my identity to be a sourced name in an article[3], I have privacy concerns with the other editor and believe that this would be the best way to protect them. Thank you again for taking on this case Rangerdude 5 July 2005 22:37 (UTC)

---

Shall we proceed with this mediation? Rangerdude is back. -Willmcw 23:10, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Ready when you are. My stipulations for the mediation's procedures may be found on my talk page. Thanks! Rangerdude 07:25, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know what happened to the Image:Gamepad Icon.png, which was used for Template:cvg-stub? It used to be this one from Wikipedia commons, but now it's been changed and there is no history or reason why? K1Bond007 July 6, 2005 21:27 (UTC)

I figured that, but I was curious why the file history was wiped out? Is it because the file was on commons and not uploaded here? Thanks for looking into and fixing it though. K1Bond007 July 6, 2005 23:58 (UTC)

I would like to make a complaint about Ben W. He has posted some libelous comments on Wikipedia about me and he sent me an email saying that I am a fraud and a liar. He has also taken it upon himself to delete articles, and I think that someone like that should not be allowed to make any entries on Wikipedia. One day he is going to say something about someone who is in a position to sue, and Wikipedia will be in a lot of legal trouble. Thanking you from banning this individual from the site for making libelous comments about me.--TracyRenee 7 July 2005 17:36 (UTC)

She says she's sorry. Please forgive her.

I disagree with you re BenW's behaviour. He has sent 2 hatemails into my email account and I do not think that is right. I am not even reading the page that he posted on anymore because some people have posted some really nasty comments that were directed at me personally. I would like to point out that if an individual uses Wikipedia to commit crimes, such as send hatemail or make libelous comments, then Wikipedia will be vicariously liable for the offence. One well known case is project Landslide in the US and project Orr in the UK. The guy who ran the Windfall (I think is the name) clearing house for adult websites was sentenced to over 1000 years in jail even though he personally was not involved in any child pornography. I also think that a lot of very unhappy, angry, and disturbed people join Wikipedia because they can vent their rage, make all kinds of nasty comments, and do not have to pay any consequences for their behaviour. Until the Wikipedia organisation ensures that the people in Wikipedia do not send hatemail to people, make libelous comments, and try to harm people with the things they put on the forums, I am afraid that this organisation is not going to have a lot of credibility. Regards,--TracyRenee 9 July 2005 09:08 (UTC)

Hi, and sorry to be a bother. I inserted the second spoiler warning to the Melnorme article some three months ago to see how it would do. It made sense to me: The standard spoiler warning divides an article into a section for the uniniated and another for those familiar with it, but it's entirely possible for spoilers that ruin things for those who do know the topic to exist.

To use the Melnorme article as an example, the casual gamer would be spoiled by reading the section under the spoiler warning, but the part with the double warning, while a valuable addition to the article, is not something that can be learned in the game itself and is be a spoiler for all but a handful of fans.

Since you removed it with the terse justification of "not appropriate", I'd like to ask for some feedback. Why wasn't it appropriate? Do you think the concept could be useful in some form, and do you have any suggestions for improving it? --Kizor 9 July 2005 12:51 (UTC)

The nature of a spoiler is that it reveals plot or ending details that would be unknown to people who haven't finished consuming some form of media. If you've finished playing Star Control II, you're finished with the plot exposition. There's no intended avenue for the Mael-Num/Melnorme link to be revealed to you: it was revealed in a chat interview with the game designers, not in the actual game. So the link may be unknown to a lot of people, but it's not spoiling a plot or ending because it's not revealing any details that were supposed to be found out another way. It's a spoiler to the uninitiated, but it's not to players who have finished the game.

And, aside from that, it just doesn't make sense to have two spoiler tags so close together on the page. The first tag clearly still applies: anything beyond it is potentially a spoiler. Andre (talk) July 9, 2005 18:47 (UTC)

You make a strong case, as expected. What rebuttal I can muster is that in the particular case of Star Control II (are you a fan?), the consumption doesn't necessarily end at the completition of the game. The game is very open-ended and leaves a lot of plot points hanging, and the fans do a lot of speculating and theory-spinning. In a sense not knowing things is a part of the fun. This could be compared to Blade Runner, where whether or not the main character is a true human is left unanswered, and the director (or was it writer?) has since mentioned how things are. Someone who has seen the movie could see the answer while dipping below the spoiler line without even wanting to. In fact it can well detract from the experience. As for the second point, that's a good one. --Kizor 21:04, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your supporting vote! Talrias (t | e | c) 9 July 2005 13:24 (UTC)

I was wondering if you could input on the VfD nomination for Olimar. While it is somewhat short, the Olimar page is well-written and has plenty of information, far more than some of the articles that survived VfDs, like Blargg. They say that it shouldn't be there because it's a duplicate of Pikmin Series' info, but you could simply delete THAT information. And then there's the argument that the storylines shouldn't be there; Olimar IS the core of the storyline, after all, just like Link, which features a rather large section devoted to telling the stories of each game. If it can do that and still be a featured article, it must not be that wrong, so that's no grounds for VfD. Now, don't do it because I'm sorta spamming you, do it if you agree with my argument. I don't cheat, I just try to win people over. -- A Link to the Past July 9, 2005 19:12 (UTC)

• Forgot to link. >.>; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Captain_Olimar This really sounded like I was trying to sell you something. o.o -- A Link to the Past July 9, 2005 19:13 (UTC)

I hate deleted the emails from my inbox, but made hard copies of them to save for future reference. I do not care to pursue the matter because unlike the person who sent me the hatemail, I am not a malicious person. I think that Ben is probably just really young and immature, and was never taught how to behave over the internet. A lot of people do things over the internet that they would never dream of doing in person, and I believe that Ben is one of those individuals, and that is why he sent me the hatemail. When he has to go out to work he will be fired instantly for sending mail like that, so I am sure that if and when he finds himself in an employed position of responsiblity that problem will be corrected. I do not agree with you that Wikipedia is made up of rational people because some of the emails that I have received in the past have been really hateful and spiteful, Ben-W's being the worst. I know from the way that you worded the reply that you were trying to imply that I am not rational in some way, and that is certainly your opinion, if not a bit prejudiced considering the fact that you have been given a position of responsiblity and should have investigated the matter properly instead of sending me emails trying to make it seem as if I was the one who acted with impropriety. In your opinion I may very well not be rational, but at least I don't go around sending people hatemail. You made a comment that Ben W is a productive member of Wikipedia, and I think the statement should have been correctly worded as destructive because making libelous comments and sending people hatemeail is cleary, in my humble opinion, not productive. I would also like to state that if the authorities receive enough complaints about the libelous comments and hatemail that are put on this website then they will close it down.--TracyRenee 06:06, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Andre, based on your previous messages to me, such as implying that I am not a rational person because I have an interest in astrology, I would certainly not direct it to you. I would find a more suitable element to direct any complaints to, such as the Charities Commision or any internet regulatory agencies. Contrary to popular belief, it does not take a clever person to try to put someone down politely, in fact, quite the opposite is the truth. I am too busy at the moment to make a complaint because I work full time, study for my accounting exams, and pursue in your opinion unrational interests such as astrology. I am sorry that I bothered you with my concerns about the fact that one person in Wikipedia has sent hatemail to me and I am sorry that you have such a prejudiced attitude and feel that Wikipedia will not be closed down no matter what because if enough people get fed up with receiving beligerent messages and hatemail they might decide not to donate and then the site will be closed down all on its own. No need to respond to this because I know from your previous messages that you are quite prejudiced and suspect whatever you have to say will be just another veiled insult.--TracyRenee 20:23, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! I was told you're one of the frequent welcomers of new users. I was wondering - since this is a rather frequently asked question, would you please add a link to Wikipedia:Merge to your welcoming template? Thanks. Radiant_>|< 20:40, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Here is the link from Slashdot. I will add it to the Revolution Page. http://nwizard.com/web/index.php?itemid=68

Its from a few days ago on Slashdot, so you wont see it on the main page. Its July 12 news. Cheers, Omega21

To all participants of the WikiProject Kindness Campaign: There is a proposal on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Kindness Campaign for the Peace Dove. Please comment as you see fit. Thanks, Sango123 16:00, July 14, 2005 (UTC)