User talk:Timmy12

S outhern forest-products and forestry: developments and prospects has been deleted. See Wikipedia:No original research. NawlinWiki 17:01, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

merge to Bioremediation[edit]

Hi,

please consider merging your article Bioremediation. into Bioremediation. Kpjas 08:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Say what?[edit]

To quote your edit on triphenylphosphine "DEAD) converts an alcohol and a carboxylic acid to an ester in carbon respiration." Vandalism or ridiculous or am I missing something?--Smokefoot 21:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saw your note. I just couldnt figure out why anyone would insert a comment about respiration into an article on an organic reagent. It would be unfortunate if you ceased contributing just because of me, because you appear to have a lot to contribute. I am no administrator or anything official, just another person focused on inserting content for the common good. I also am still learning how to interact.--Smokefoot 15:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You again?[edit]

Hello, Mattisse! -999 (Talk) 17:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your unconstructive role on Athanasian Creed[edit]

Dude, if you have have any dispute about anything specific in that article, please question it SPECIFICALLY at an appropriate specific location, instead of adding a generic unspecific blanket "unsourced" template to an article which in fact is moderately well-sourced (certainly more so than hundreds of thousands of other articles on Wikipedia), or mechanically adding a "citation needed" marker to every single fricken section (including to the rubric of the text from the 1662 Book of Common Prayer!!!). AnonMoos 02:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unconstructive[edit]

It is very rude to shout like that, AnonMoos! However, I agreed that Timmy is being a bit of a pest and hope he can get a life elsewhere, soon.

Vernon White 07:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

If he just adds unspecific templates to the whole article (or indiscriminately to every single section thereof) -- when those who probably know a lot more about the Athanasian Creed than he does seem to be moderately well satisfied with the current state of the article -- then he's not using the templates in a way that can reasonably be expected to result in useful improvement of the article. And if he can't tell the rubric of the 1662 Book of Common Prayer apart from the actual article text, then maybe he shouldn't be trying to edit the article in the first place... AnonMoos 11:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree too that Timmy12 "is being a bit of a pest" and I too "hope he can get a life elsewhere, soon". His normal (or abnormal) modus operandi is to insert citation requests throughout an article, usually when they are quite unnecessary or, more childishly still, when they are already satisfied (cf the reference to the work of J.N.D. Kelly, for example)! He has similarly vandalised the article on Billy May, for example requesting a citation for the simple, factual statement that May was signed to Capitol Records. His actions are just puerile. (Sorry, Timmy, I suppose I need a citation for that) For the record, Wikipedia's own guidelines are that "Attribution is especially needed for direct quotes, information that is contentious or likely to be challenged, and superlatives and absolutes." Shouldn't need spelling out, really. I guess that Timmy's rather bitter and twisted comments on his User Page give the game away. Or does his user name indicate his age? Gervius

However, Timmy's interventions led me to improve Davies Gilbert and learn about Creeds from AnonMoos. Perhaps he/she will dialogue with us about his reasons for trying to wind us up (need for disambiguation of this term!).

Vernon White 15:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Timmy12 repeating his mistakes[edit]

Some of the responses to your actions are "unfriendly" in tone because you consistently persist in your inadvisable actions, regardless of what advice or help people try to give you. Instead of constantly repeating your same old mistakes again and again, and ranting away on your User page, why not discuss and try to explain your actions here on this page (your User talk page)??? That would be much more constructive... AnonMoos 13:50, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see the "Sock Puppet" accusation below and also [User:Wikid77]]'s comments. I feel that Timmy77 or whoever he/she is, may be responding to the adverse way in which WP initiates newbies. It's something of a wind up, to use a British slang expression. In my own case, I had spent a lot of time and energy drafting articles and checking sources and then was suddenly accused of being a multiple vandal. This was because I was using a public library internet terminal and some naughty boys on other terminals had been vandalising WP articles and blackened the name of the library service's ISP.

My original Username is now, effectively a "sock puppet" as I was advised to get a different ISP and Username. Eventually my old Username was unblocked but I had already transferred my contributions list to the new Username. The whole process was deeply unpleasant and co-incided with as complicated long-distance house move and job change. Can WP moderate this painful process or will it always be run by uptight thugs who speak gobbledygook? This is a question that Timmy12 and Wikid77 pose. I hope that the induction process can be smoothed and a discipline learnt in easy steps by all newcomers.

Perhaps the best advice is to take a break from editing and do something that is as far away as possible from the Republic of Wikipedia. I'm digging a big hole in the ground. I would particularly like to thank Timmy77 and AnonMoos for reminding me that there are better things to do thank responding pettishly to aggravation. . . BEST WISHES Vernon White 21:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, and I can't force Timmie to do anything, but if Timmie wants to get along, he should work towards cooperating to produce better articles (rather than making a point, or leaving his mark, or whatever it is that's motivating him now). AnonMoos 06:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sometime in the early hours, Timmy12 put a "cleanup" template on my User subpage headed "Draft". He/sh clearly has more spare time than me! Back to digging my hole.--- Vernon White 06:02, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Cole Porter refs[edit]

Hello, Timmy12. I agree with your user page: "Very unfriendly place around here" (amen). I saw your citation recommendations for the article "Cole Porter" and have begun adding references. I have noticed there are some Wiki gangs of cohorts forming cliques ("Cliquipedia"): they got me on the 3-revert rule ("Wikipedia:3RR") and disabled my user-id for 24 hours. I recommend the following tactics (which you might already know):

avoid popular topics: articles where contributions get reverted or twisted by clever edits;
make changes slowly: when rewriting an entire article, spread changes over 2 weeks or so;
beware cliques: if attacked by multiple cohorts, leave the article or try just a small edit;
find a niche: look for good topics that aren't popular targets of edit mania.

I have had many hours of "23" changes erased by flat revert, and also I have had an entire 10-page article deleted (within 9 days) by a collusion of "5 Delete votes" so I sympathize with your user-page comments. Perhaps the Wiki management will change some day to better encourage decent behavior; meanwhile, they haven't deleted all the useful information: feeding Wiki articles to ad-companies is too beneficial to remove all good information from the Wiki world. -Wikid77 00:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry[edit]

Hello, Mattisse. Looks like I'll have to open another sockpuppetry case when I have time. Ciao. —Hanuman Das 13:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case[edit]

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Mattisse (3rd) for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Hanuman Das 13:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stay off my talk page[edit]

I deleted your message intentionally. Do not restore it again. Goodbye, Mattisse. I may not be able to prove it this time, but your "repeatedly" gives you away. I can only repeatedly have accused you of sockpuppetry if you really are a sockpuppet. Doh! —Hanuman Das 02:31, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, the actual giveaway terms were "constant" and "obsessive". I've only accused you once. How is that "constant" or "obsessive", hmmm? —Hanuman Das 02:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Harrassment by Timmy12[edit]

I have asked Timmy12 to stop posting to my talk page. I have stopped posting to his, but since that time he has repeatly posted uncivil messages, at current count, seven times. Please intervene. —Hanuman Das 03:26, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But you only stopped posting today. Give him a little time, maybe. In the meantime, you can delete uncivil comments if you like. I'd bet he'll give up real soon. Herostratus 03:45, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You wonder that I am irritated at Hanuman Das? And that makes a complaint to you? He has put the following on my user page (which is still there and I will probably get blocked or something if I remove it):

It is suspected that this user may be a sock puppet, meat puppet or impersonator of Mattisse.
Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Mattisse (3rd) for evidence. See block log

Notes for the suspect

Notes for the accuser

And the following on my talk page:

--Sockpuppetry case--

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Mattisse (3rd) for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Hanuman Das 13:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then he makes an administrative complaint you you about me because I get a little upset? What is going on? He has singled me out for some reason to harass. Why? I have never done anything to him and don't know why he has it in for me. I would like to complain about him and his behavior.

This Wikipedia is a rough place and not very nice to people who don't know all the ropes. Yes, I am beginning to feel hostile and not very friendly. No one has been friendly towards me here since day one. Timmy12 12:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Am I allowed to remove any of this abuse from my pages, or will this result in further accussations from Hanuman Das and attempts to get me discipled or banned? Timmy12 12:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. again. He also put this on my talk page some days ago so you see his harassment of me is ongoing:

-- Sockpuppetry --

Hello, Mattisse. Looks like I'll have to open another sockpuppetry case when I have time. Ciao. —Hanuman Das 13:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please get him to lay off me and stop calling me names. Timmy12 12:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.S. And this from my talk page earlier:

-- You again? --

Hello, Mattisse! -999 (Talk) 17:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is why I don't read my talk page. Everything is unfriendly and/or doesn't make sense. Calling someone Mattisse is a slur at Wikipedia I can see that.

Please get these people to lay off. Take a look at my talk page. I can't even read it. Are Hanuman Das and Hanuman Das sockpuppets? Timmy12 12:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would advise all parties to cool it, and make no more sockpuppet accusations until there is available Checkuser evidence. In exchange, Timmy12, I'd recommend leaving no messages on Hanuman Das' page. The best solution to this dispute is for all parties to disengage. Captainktainer * Talk 17:16, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Mattisse (3rd)[edit]

See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Mattisse (3rd); note that at least one univolved editor does not see a sockpuppet relationship. Please do not accuse people of being a sockpuppet unless you have substantial and credible evidence, prefereably in the form of a CheckUser. Guy 15:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry[edit]

I re-read the comments and you are quite right, I was not clear enough. My intention was to suggest in the strongest possible terms to those others posting here that one needs decent evidence to support allegations of sockpuppetry. In this case CheckUser shows that there is almost certainly no sockpuppetry.

By way of excuse, one of our recurrent problems right now is blocked users coming back with new accounts and resuming the behaviour for which they were blocked. This tends to erode our [{WP:AGF|assumption of good faith]] and make us (the admins) trigger happy. Mistakes do happen. They are only mistakes, honest errors made by ordinary folks trying to keep the project from being damaged by those with abusive intent, so let me apologise on behalf of the admin community but at the same time ask your understanding. As one of the highest ranked websites in the world we are now probably the top target for trolls, vandals, spammers, scammers and all other forms of lowlife. Guy 14:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop removing references[edit]

Please stop removing references to rosencomet.com. It is not a personal website, but a website of the organization that the articles are about. Thanks. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 18:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, they weren't. Please leave Rosencomet and his articles alone. You are engaging in harassment. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 18:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They are not simply price lists. They are lists of performers who performed at each event, and serve as documentation of the performance. Removing references is not proper Wikipedia behavior. I assume you will be back tomorrow adding "fact" tags. Your behavior disgusts me. Phew! Ekajati (yakity-yak) 18:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

yawn... Ekajati (yakity-yak) 18:31, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reference links[edit]

I saw your comments on JzG's talk page. You don't seem to understand that those numbered links in the article are citations. They are citations for that artist or speaker being present at that festival. They are there because some other editor insisted (by using a {{fact}} tag) that the claimed appearance needed to be documented. That site is the official website of the festival, and documents the appearance. The "prices" are historical, nothing is being sold on that site, there is nothing wrong with using it as a reference. It is wrong to remove a citation from a statement of fact in an article. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 19:47, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Contrary to your assumptions, I am female.

Also, please stop putting your entire lengthy comment into the comment heading. It is annoying and as you can see clutters up the other person's talk page unneccesarily[edit]

Thanks! Ekajati (yakity-yak) 19:53, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of respect[edit]

If you are not going to respect my wishes and post respectfully on my talk page, then please don't post on my talk page at all. Rather, discuss your "issues" on the talk pages of the articles involved. Thanks. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 20:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your tagging spree[edit]

Unless you are going to constructively participate in discussion about the article and how to improve it on the talk page of the article. Thanks! :-) Ekajati (yakity-yak) 22:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Morning Glory Zell[edit]

Is listed on the page cited. Please try to be more constructive. Looking through your edit history, you don't appear to have added one word to a single article. All your edits are tagging, and to articles where you don't seem to be famliar with the person, field, or their importance in it. In other words, your extreme ignorance and anti-pagan attitude is obvious. Please go edit articles about which you are not so prejudicially biased. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 22:03, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Morning Glory Zell-Ravenheart[edit]

FYI, Morning Glory has been a major figure in the NeoPagan community for many years. She definitely qualifies as sufficiently notable for Wikipedia, along with her husband, Oberon Zell-Ravenheart and such luminaries as Isaac Bonewits, Ian Corrigan, Starhawk and Margot Adler, to name just a few. Septegram 22:28, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Policy question (to technical pump)[edit]

A third party just wrote me: Please leave Rosencomet and his articles alone. Can this third party enforce this, especially given that the person in question, Rosencomet, has edited hundreds of articles, perhaps more? Any articles involving certain themes are being considered his, even if he did not originate them.

If this is not the right forum to ask this question, please point me in the right direction. Thanks! Timmy12 18:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is, as you guessed, the wrong forum for this question. Try Wikipedia:Help desk or Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) or Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance). --cesarb 03:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your suggestions above. I tried them but none are appropriate for my problem which is becoming more critical. I need actual help and protection. I need access to a source that can give me some real information. A pattern of harassment is being repeated toward me that started a few weeks after I got an account at Wikipedia a month or so ago. That resulted in me being accused of being a sockpuppet. The charge was ruled false but it was a horrible ordeal for me. The same people have started again. Can you direct me to a source, place, or person before something bad happens. Timmy12 12:24, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't let "Timmy" fool you, take a look at "his" contributions. He didn't try your suggestions at all. Also, talk a look at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Mattisse, especially the note about posting on Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) for help, and Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Mattisse (2nd) for why Timmy perceives this as happening "again". —Hanuman Das 13:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please would you get an email address immediately[edit]

Please provide an email address as soon as you can. I must contact you in a safe place. I see what has been happening to you re Hanuman Das, 999 (Talk), and others. This is not a safe place to communicate, and you will be taken advantage of if you speak honestly here. If you get an email address I can explain to you what is going on. I urge you to do so. Please. Mattisse (talk) 08:52, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Also, Ekajati (yakity-yak). Please, provide email. Mattisse (talk) 08:59, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hanuman Das may want to check out Timmy12's User Talk page[edit]

You and Hanuman Das may want to check out Timmy12's User Talk page, particularly here. Not sure what's going on, but I saw your name mentioned and thought I should alert you.

Septegram 16:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This was left on Ekajati's talk page by Septegram

I wondered how long that was going to take.

I'm not taking sides in whatever's developing here, but if something is brewing that relates to Hanuman Das and Ekajati, I thought all parties should know. If nothing is brewing, of course, there's no reason for anyone (including me) to be concerned.

Septegram 16:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How am I "keeping you in the dark?" I simply thought that since their names were being invoked on your talk page, they might want to know about it. Chill.

Septegram 18:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your newly created page.[edit]

I've moved the page you recently created (Comments from User:JzG's page/My Personal File into your user space at User:Timmy12/Comments from User:JzG's page/My Personal File. Pages like that should be there, not in the article namespace.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit comments vs. talk page[edit]

Please do not attempt to carry on discussions in edit comments. That is not what they are for. If you have something to say to other editors, use the article's talk page. Thanks. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 20:41, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

It is the editor who has the problem with the article who is expected to start the discussion. Drive-by tagging without discussion is considered rude, and since the other editors can't read your mind, will simply be reverted. Most of your tags have been inappropriate. If you took the time to discuss and/or try to improve the article yourself, you would get more respect. So far, you seem only to be interested in tagging articles. Now why would a brand-new user want to do that, and where would they have learned how? Ekajati (yakity-yak) 21:00, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page guidelines[edit]

That's because the link you provide is about a completely different issue. Please read talk page guidelines. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 21:28, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violations[edit]

I noticed that the first few articles you created were all copyright violations from the same academic journal:

Please do not plagiarize other peoples work and try to pass it off as your own. Article which violate copyright will have to be deleted. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 21:38, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well then...[edit]

If you can't write articles, and can't be bothered to take the time to improve them, but simply want to tag them in a misguided effort to force other editors to do the work while you bask in your righteousness for tagging them... well then... maybe you should take up blogging instead. :-) Ekajati (yakity-yak) 22:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let me second Ekajati[edit]

In the case of the article on Joseph Byrd you marked, and Ekajati fortnately reverted, there are tons of sources cited at the bottom which you have obviously never read. In this case, I have known the work of the artist for more than 35 years and am in regular contact with him. He is extremely pleased with the accuracy of the content on this page, which I have fully apprised him of, and have verified directly with him, in addition to other sources cited. This article in fact corrects a widely published mistake about the artist's work. Get a life and do something useful. Tvccs 17:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I indicated originally, there are sources galore at the bottom of the article you apparently have no interest in reading. As far as "friends" go, I have no desire to get into the silly whatever wars you and your "pals" are engaged in, and I'm not a "friend" of either side - your reputation proceeds you, etc. etc. And tags are removed from articles all the time if they are inappropriate, or if an article in fact meets whatever the criteria might be, and it's not vandalism. 99.9% of the articles in Wikipedia are not footnoted at an ideal encyclopedic level, nice as that might be. It doesn't mean, at least in this case, there's a POV involved. As I said earlier, get a life. Tvccs 10:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had zero contact with Ekajati prior to her removal of your inappropriate tag on the Joseph Byrd page, nor do I have any intention of taking whatever side, beyond that of reason and sanity. My comments are my own and reflect an opinion that persons, especially those that don't contribute original articles themselves, should stay away from editing and concentrate on improving actual constructive skills. Said belief applies to anyone on Wikipedia. The mere fact that I seconded Ekajati's thoughts on contributing to articles rather than harassing authors with unneeded tags, especially when you won't bother reading the external link materials, or the already present citations, when they are readily available, and instead claim POV and other unsubstantiated garbage. I see almost no original articles you have actually done, other than the fact you have been repeatedly cited for simply copying material from other web sites as your own, and that several others have been removing it. You yourself say you rarely write and have trouble at it, and I suggest you improve your skills that way rather than chopping away at the work of others. Your comments about a chain through the nose, etc., concerning a person I have never had contact with before your mistaken tagging efforts, for which you have aggravated many other people as well based on your user history, reflect a complete paranoia and lack of reality that suggests you should find healthier things to do with your life. Tvccs 03:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have also reviewed the link you suggested concerning sourcing - here's what it says, from an administrator, which you apparently either do not understand or choose to ignore:

The article in question cited 7 sources, all listed in Robert Johnson#References. The problem here is not that sources were not cited. They were. A citation, giving the author, publisher, title, and date of a book, is a full citation. It provides the conventional information necessary for a reader to locate the source, which is what citations are for. The problem that you are addressing is not lack of citations, but, rather, which part of the content is supported by which cited source.

In the absence of ... Harvard-style notations in the body of the text, there are no explicit links between content and citation. That doesn't mean that the article is unsourced, however. It merely means that the exact source to consult for any specific part of the article isn't being spoon-fed to the reader. In many cases, the article can be improved, by linking sources to specific article sections, or to specific paragraphs, using ... or Harvard-style notations. But, conversely, note that there are cases where sources can encompass wide swathes of, or even the whole, article, and the link between citation and content really is best left at the level of the article as a whole.

Our Wikipedia:Verifiability policy merely requires that sources be cited, somehow. The (minimum) author+publisher+title+date information for (say) a book source, enabling readers to locate the book, must be present, in some fashion. The exact cross-linking of content and citations is a matter of style, some differences of opinion, and (anyway) what the cross-connections are in each specific case. For more information see Wikipedia:Citing sources. Uncle G 16:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The article you tagged had sources galore as well as numerous tags already within the article. Your application of footnotes and citations was misguided, mistaken and misinformed. See above. Tvccs 03:56, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And as I was adding these comments, you were reverting a page that had multiple additional citations to it...THAT is vandalism, and you are being reported. Pathetic. Tvccs 04:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I think you actually care, but your revert on Joseph Byrd was immediately changed back by an admin, who stated the references and citations used met Wikipedia guidelines. I have nothing to do with the entire Rosencomet mess you have involved yourself in, nor do I want to be. You need to, especially as a new user, learn to contribute positively to articles rather than simply posting annoying tags and vandalizing the work of others, as you clearly did in the last revision to Joseph Byrd. Please get a life and learn how to contribute rather than harass. Tvccs 20:13, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome[edit]

You are welcome. --BostonMA ^talk 00:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I should thank you for deleting the link spam in the first place. Thanks and good work! --BostonMA ^talk 01:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stop posting to AN/I[edit]

AN/I is not the right place for you to be posting all that material, please stop.

What is going on here for real, is possibly a serious problem, but you can't flood AN/I about it. People are looking at it now. Please calm down for a bit. Georgewilliamherbert 00:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. As you noted, you should relax for a bit; others are now very aware of the situation and will scrutinize to see if it's meeting our definition of linkspam, and if so, take appropriate action. Georgewilliamherbert 00:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

999 is recommending this[edit]

--Vandalism by Timmy12 --

Go [1] here and add a report of your personal experiences with being stalked by Timmy12. Your complaint will carry more weight than mine. I've probably only seen a slice of it. -999 (Talk) 14:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting look back in time[edit]

Mattisse (talk) 14:42, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[2]

P.S. Read the whole page starting with Rosencomet.com on down. Rosencomet has a long justification for why he is not who he is. Rosencomet.com and including this I have found a nest of interconnecting articles - the kind of thing you are good at

User:Kingboyk[edit]

The person who reverted my User:999 message on your talk page -- I'm beginning to see how he is part of it all. Mattisse (talk) 15:26, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One possibly misjudged reversion - offset by trimming unnecessary links and over-sympathetic prose in line with what Timmy has been doing - makes me part of a conspiracy does it? Well, whatever. --kingboyk 21:22, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratuations on not being a sockpuppet[edit]

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Mattisse has confirmed that you are not a sockpuppet. --Salix alba (talk) 09:04, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rosencomet link spamming[edit]

A more pertinent issue to examine might be the probable linkspamming by Rosencomet (talk · contribs) of his website, often using the claim that they're "citations".

Please stop removing references[edit]

Admin Samir has confirmed that the citations linking to rosencomet.com are valid citations. See his talk page, and don't continue removing them. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 22:35, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um, no. Rosencomet replied to Samir on Samir's talk page. That does not constitute anyone having concluded anything. 23:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Disguised Rosencomet links -- a list is here[edit]

Are the above links found in Wikipedia?[edit]

Are the above links found in Wikipedia? --BostonMA ^talk 00:28, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you finding them by searching through articles by hand? --BostonMA ^talk 00:41, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Anger22,Taking sides is a nasty business - especially on an emotional basis without checking things out[edit]

Your unthinking support of User:Ekajati demotes you in my eyes as an unthingking partician to yourr friends, or whatteveer, and that you bother in no way to check out facts before you spout off. Mindlessly, you tried to pIacate both sides. I think your true colors are revealed. Rejoice if you must. Perhaps you are the "in deniall" sort of peerson. It would be a shame to lose your creditibilty over such as User:Ekajati, althoogh your personal montivation is known to you alone. Somehow I had believed you were above this kind of behavior. Prove me right! I want to believe that, however diffiicult in light of your recent two-timing messages. I realize you are young and "caught up". But being truthful and and upfront is better, don't your thini? Timmy12 03:54, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warning[edit]

In reference to your post on User talk:Anger22: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. —Hanuman Das 18:22, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wierdo link spam on Rosencomet pages[edit]

Poking around on Rosencomet's site, I came accross this link:http://www.freefind.com/. That's where those wierdo links are coming from. He must have signed up for that. Then he sticks the search links as citations in his articles. Mattisse (talk) 00:36, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Ha, ha, ha! . . . the above warning on your page from the master of personal attacks himself. I guess he hasn't read what he put on your page! Mattisse (talk) 00:39, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Check this out on my page [3] from the person who serving up the warnings! Mattisse (talk) 01:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, [4] from the can-do-no-wrong people.

Mattisse (talk) 01:28, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, did you see this?[edit]

[5] It kind of got lost in the shuffle. Mattisse (talk) 01:35, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You Mean [6]?

Timmy12 20:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not violate WP:BLP[edit]

Please read WP:BLP. You cannot put every piece of criticism of a living person that you found in Google into an article about a living person. I refer to the material you keep adding to Silver Ravenwolf. Every critical source has to meet extremely high standards in an article about a living person. WP:BLP says that if the source is dubious in any way, such as being on a personal website, blog, amateur book review, etc. that it should be left out. Please stop assisting in the potential libel of a living person. User:Ekajati has spelled it out quite clearly on the article talk page. If you disagree with her, you should be discussing it with her and the other editors of the article there. —Hanuman Das 13:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons I will not do as you advise:[7].

Reproduced for your benefit below:

Re:Admin Samir has confirmed that the citations linking to rosencomet.com are valid citations.[edit]

I looked and did not see that. Anyway, I am removing either the disguised links that look like the go to a search engine and don't mention rosencomet.com. Or I am removing one citation when there are many in one article, especially when the article has credibility and the rosencomet.com links lower the professionalism of the article. I haven't removed that many for you to become so concerned and upset. Just cool down. Besides, I have put up with much grief from you treating me as Mattisse's sockpuppet. Here is just a small sample, not counting all the damaging messages you have left on other peoples' talk pages about me. Totally irresponsible of you, since you were told by Guy and Netsnipe to use Check User before you sling around sockpuppet accussations.

[8] - Question about importance
[9]- Reverting or removing tags without fixing the problem
[10] - "Citation Needed" on John Lee Hooker
[11] - Stalking, vandalism, possible sockpuppetry evasion of block by User:Timmy12
[12] - Harassment by Hanuman Das and User:Ekajati
[13] Vandalism warning -- question
[14] -- Vandalism warning -- question again!
[15] - Mattisse

You have zero credibility with me. I expect you to leave me alone now. Timmy12 22:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is the reason. And there are more I can list if you want. Timmy12 14:17, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trolling[edit]

Please stop trolling pagan articles. It's getting boring. 999 (Talk) 16:25, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You say it's boring in your last message to me. I say it is exhausting to have you and and User:Ekajati and the people you enlist, User:Anger22, User:Aguerriero the last time, and who ever you manage to get in the future after me day after day.

I don't know what you had against me from the beginning, you and User:Hanuman Das. Really, I have thought about it a lot. Just because I edited a few articles that you felt I had no business doing when I started here? It doesn't make sense to me. And now you leave another flippant message that I get as soon as I log on? To what end? Just to make sure when I log on I will be brought down and put in my place? Just to show you will never stop and can beat me down? just to let me know that if User:Ekajati takes a rest, you'll make sure to remind me in the interium that there will never be any peace?

Well, I concede defeat to you and propose the following:

If I back off of all articles the three of you edit, will that do it? I will do that if you three will just let me alone.

Even though I have dailup connection, I will try to check edit histories of all article (except in Recent Changes) to make sure the three of you haven't edited an article before I do anything. Will that be enough? I concede to the three of you all your articles if you will leave me alone. And if I make a mistake and accidently edit one your (collectively) articles -- including any connected with Starwood -- just let me know without berating me. Lots of times I haven't known it was an article of your's until the ugliness starts.

I will stick exclusively to Recent Changes.

I ask you to consider this. I am willing to abide by this. Please consider this -- the three of you. Timmy12 08:13, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a request to the Mediation Cable about starwood and related pages, and a mediator has agreed to work on the case, have a look at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-11-03 Starwood Festival. I'm not quite sure what the process is so its probably best to wait for the meadiators response. --Salix alba (talk) 08:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to your message[edit]

I don't believe I've harassed you in any way, Timmy. My last message simply give you my opinion about your activities. How have I harassed you.

Looking at your user page, it seems you are keeping track of so-called "harassment" by other people which appears to me to simply be attempts to communicate to you that tagging articles rather than attempting to improve the article yourself is not appreciated. I'd recommend that unless you have a sincere interest in a topic and intend to contribute to an article, that you not repeatedly tag it. By all means tag it once, but if the only reason you put the article on your watchlist is to edit war over the possible removal of the tag, my advice is DON'T. Don't put it on your watchlist unless you intend to contribute. Don't look back to see who has done what to an article you aren't really involved in.

You seem to think I am somehow able to govern Ekajati and Hanuman Das. I can't speak for them. But I suspect if you stop edit warring with them, they will have no cause to "harass" you by disagreeing with your actions.

-999 (Talk) 19:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I don't appreciate your keeping a "file" on me on your user page under the heading "harassments". Neither message in that file qualifies as harassment. You seem to be taking things a little too personally. I'd recommend that you delete your "files" on anybody you want to leave you alone. Such "files" could be seen as intentional provocation. -999 (Talk) 19:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Book sales sites removed[edit]

url=http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0892815590/qid=1139369017/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-8264510-3685728?s=books&v=glance&n=283155 for Selena Fox book at amazon.com

They are harrassing me again[edit]

[[16]] I post crazy paranoia. I never even got a welcom letter from Wikipedia. 999 and Hamanum Das and Ekajati accused me of being Mattisse after I had been on Wikipedia one week. And you helped them. And I was a newbie and still am because I am too aftraid to use Wikipedia. Timmy12 18:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for being out of the loop for a little while, I've had to get on with real life. The whole starwood episode seems to just go round and round. For you it might be better to let it go. Quite a few other editors now seem to be participating in the mediation process, so maybe one day something will happen. One of the beuties of the wikipedia process is that it often easy to walk away from something and others will take over. Unfortunatly you seem to have been caught up in one of the more awkward parts of wikipedia, I hope you don't let this stop editing altogether, there are other less stressful aspects.

Heres a handy tip clear your watchlist. Click OK and many of your problems just disappear! Very refreshing.

Out of interests what are your personal interests? I'm just asking as you may find it more enjoyable to add some content on something you enjoy, its also the best way to get into the positive sides of the wiki process. --Salix alba (talk) 20:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Starwood[edit]

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Starwood. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Starwood/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Starwood/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Srikeit 00:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Starwood[edit]

The above-named arbitration case has closed and the decision may be found at the link above. Rosencomet is cautioned to avoid aggressive editing of articles when there is a question of conflict of interest. If edit warring or other conflict arises, it may be best to limit editing to talk pages. This notice is given by a clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad 16:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Nonpositive data for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Nonpositive data is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nonpositive data until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 11:14, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:18, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]