User talk:Fovean Author

License tagging for Image:FoveanCover.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:FoveanCover.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 05:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't copyvio

Please be more careful with your contributions. The last paragraph of this edit of yours was a copyright violation of the LA Times article you were citing. You either have to directly quote (as you did in the paragraph before) or write in your own words. As an author yourself, you should understand. Wasted Time R 03:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. The material was cleaned up and relocated to Hillary_Rodham_Clinton_presidential_campaign,_2008#Other_irregularities, where it belongs for now. If this turns out to be a story with legs, it can go into the main article.

Your edits....

I'm not going to revert your most recent reverts of Reid-Limabugh Letter and Hillary Clinton. I'm going to let someone else do that, and hopefully you'll see that your edits go against consensus. And hopefully someone will explain why they violate WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT, etc. If no one explains this, maybe I'll take it up, but I don't have time to right now. Maybe you could save everyone a little time by reading these policies yourself, and then reconsider your edits.

I also suggest reading wikipedia's guideline on conflicts of interest, as your editing of Fovean chronicles appears to run afoul of it. Also on the topic of Fovean chronicles, note that it does not appear to meet wikipedia's notability standards for books, and unless the article is improved to demonstrated the notability of the books, then it is liable to be nominated for deletion. Finally, your username might be inappropriate: "Usernames that match the name of a company or group, especially if the user promotes it" are considered inappriate.

I suggest reading up on what wikipedia is and is not and consider changing your editing style accordingly. The articles I've linked above would be a good place to start. Yilloslime (t) 01:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reid-Limbaugh letter controversy

I have removed your most recent addition(s) to the Reid-Limbaugh letter controversy, for two reasons. First, the (unnecessarily) lengthy quote you inserted is not properly cited. The Boston Globe article that is linked contains no such quote; please familiarize yourself with wikipedia's verifiability policy. In addition, you've included editorial opinions slamming Reid in a strident, biased tone completely unsuitable for an encyclopedia. Please familiarize yourself with wikipedia's NPOV policy before continuing to edit on wikipedia.-Hal Raglan 04:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Reid-Limbaugh letter controversy. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Tvoz |talk 08:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well over 3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Hillary Rodham Clinton. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. You have repeatedly inserted POV wording that has been reverted by several editors. You do not have consensus and are well over the 3RR limit. Please stop now. Tvoz |talk 08:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Fovean chronicles

An editor has nominated Fovean chronicles, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not"). Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fovean_chronicles and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. Yilloslime (t) 16:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this edit: if you are accusing me and Hal of being the same person I can assure we are not. If you'd like persue this more, you could file a report at WP:SSP or a request for checkuser, but I assure that you it wouldn't get much traction, and in the end it will only draw more attention to your problematic editing, and in particular your conflict of interest. And believe me, this in not a "vindictive effort." Why would I need vindication? After all, your edits to Reid-Limbaugh letter controversy and Hillary Rodham Clinton have been roundly rejected by the WP community, so there is really nothing for me to feel vindictive about. The reason I've AfDed Fovean chronicles is because the article doesn't belong here on WP. The book is simply not notable enough yet. Seeing your edits to Reid-Limbaugh letter controversy, I checked your edit history, and that's how found the Fovean article. So that's how I found it, but I would have AfDed it had a stumbled upon it some other way, and I would AfDed it even if we were friends. If I were on vindictive witch hunt against you, I wouldn't have notified you of the AfD nomination, I probably would have canvassed Hal and other users that you've clashed with, and I also would have reported you to the Conflict-of-interest Noticeboard and the Username Noticeboard. Instead, I brought these various violations of wikipolicy to your attention, hoping that you might realize the error of you ways, and change your editing. So far you have only proven me wrong. The bottom line is that wikipedia is not a battleground or a forum to promote your book. If that's all you've come here to do, then I'd invite you to leave. If on the other hand, after reviewing our five pillars, you decide that you'd like to make appropriate contributions to WP, then I'd invite to please stay and do so. You might want to change your username and stay away from Fovean related articles (including the AfD--it's not too late to recuse yourself, and strike your vote). I can help you do both these things if you don't know how. Yilloslime (t) 23:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:FoveanCover.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:FoveanCover.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 18:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation

Please do not add copyrighted content to articles on Wikipedia as you did here. The content you added seems to be a direct lift from here. If you continue to add copyrighted material to Wikipedia you may be blocked from editing on Wikipedia. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 02:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:HillaryDrudgeReport.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:HillaryDrudgeReport.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 03:10, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To follow up on the above, you indicated that this picture was public domain and taken from the drudge report. However, the original was a copyrighted photo taken by AP. As such, it's not public domain and we can't use it under that rationale. Images from the internet are rarely public domain; you may want to take a look at Wikipedia:Image use policy.--Kubigula (talk) 04:26, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barack Obama

Regarding your reversion of edits to this article, please be aware that you may be in or nearing violation of WP:3RR. →Wordbuilder (talk) 21:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

March 2008

Constructive contributions are appreciated and strongly encouraged, but your recent edit to the userpage of another user may be considered vandalism. Specifically, your edit to User:Scjessey may be offensive or unwelcome. If you are the user, please log in under that account and proceed to make the changes. Please use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do. Take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thank you. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:22, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Editing someone else's user page like you did is a major no-no. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey - I'm not the one who put that picture on there. Fovean Author (talk) 17:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That comment is an attack as well. You really should step back. →Wordbuilder (talk) 17:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About consensus

Hi, Fovean Author. I noticed that in an edit to Jeremiah Wright you said, "consensus isn't a Wikipedia criterion." I'm not sure where you got this idea from, but it is completely incorrect. Consensus is a core policy of Wikipedia, and has been since its founding. Without getting into the details of the discussions on Jeremiah Wright, I just wanted to point out in my capacity as an administrator that consensus is the backbone of Wikipedia's collaborative editing process, and should be granted due respect. Of course, consensus can change, but that doesn't mean that reaching consensus isn't the ultimate goal. Please take some time to refamiliarize yourself with Wikipedia's policies. Thank you. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fovean, thanks for helping make Jeremiah Wright more neutral. I see a biased editor is trying to bully and threaten you in his "capacity as an administrator". CarlosRodriguez (talk) 16:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The comment above was neither a threat nor a bullying tactic, but a reminder about a core Wikipedia policy which Fovean Author seemed to have forgotten. If you have a problem with my edits or my administrative actions, please let me know on my talk page. Thank you. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 01:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Jeremiah Wright, without explaining the valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Grsz 11 00:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Barack Obama. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 04:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obama and Patraeus

You might want to watch this if you really think Obama didn't ask questions. Grsz 11 04:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wright

There's a difference between not liking something, and deleting a bunch of unnecessary demographics used to try to push your POV. Stop now. Grsz ^talk 02:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Attacks

Please do not attack other editors, which you did here: Talk:Barack Obama. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. ([1]). MastCell ^Talk 23:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

- for 24 hours for edit warring across numerous articles including Barrack Obama. Please use the {{unblock}} template if you wish to contest this block. Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 16:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been temporarily blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Fovean Author (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Doesn't constitute an edit war

Decline reason:

See the definition of edit warring: "Edit warring is not necessarily characterized by any single action; instead, it is characterized by any mindset that tolerates confrontational tactics to affect content disputes ... The 3RR metric is not intended as an exemption for all conduct that stays under the threshold. For instance, edit warring could take the form of 4+ reverts on a page in a day, or three, or one per day for a protracted period of time, or one per page across many pages, or simply a pattern of isolated blind reverts as a first resort in response to disagreeable edits ... Edit warring is the underlying behavior, not a simple measure of the number of reverts on a single page in a specific period of time." — Daniel Case (talk) 02:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

It's 3 rr's to be a war, not two.

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Kossack4Truth for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page.

June 2008

This edit[2] was extremely unhelpful. It is very uncivil. By accusing people dealing with your misbehavior on the project as "Obama apologists" and "slavish attitude of admitted left-wing Wikipedia administrators who support them" you are assuming bad faith and simply trying to provoke people. You are accusing Jossi, one of Wikipedia's most prominent administrators, of lack of integrity, and accusing another user of "harassment." I'm not sure that this is blockable behavior in itself, but in considering future blocks based on your pattern of edit warring, this attitude towards the project may come into play as indicating that you do not mean to edit constructively. If you have something constructive to contribute to the article, or the sockpuppetry allegations against you, please go ahead.Wikidemo (talk) 03:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits, such as the one you made to Barack Obama.
If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing. Edit warring,vandalism, and general disruptiveness,STOP! Xp54321 (Vandals Beware!!!,Contribs) 03:36, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism is adding slander or something that's not true. Look up Obama Gaffes if you can figure out how - he said every single thing I quoted him on. Fovean Author (talk) 03:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This comment, and your recurring disruption, may only result in further blocks. Any further such disruption will result in one week block, escalating to one month and so on. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks

Comments like "You need to let some honesty drip down onto your messiah" are unacceptable. Please stop. If you continue to make personal attacks on other people as you did at Talk:Barack Obama, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Thank you. Shem^(talk) 03:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

You are edit warring [3] in an effort to add disputed content to Barack Obama. This is not going to be tolerated, and it's not about 3RR. New content should be discussed on the article talk page, particularly when it's a fairly trivial campaign detail that you are trying to add to a politician's biographical article. At the very least, if you add new content and it gets reverted, take that as a sign that there is not agreement and you need to talk it out and refrain from efforts to edit war it back in. Consider this your only warning on the matter.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have things backwards.

Your most recent edit summary, "If you don't like the information, discuss its removal," shows a clear misunderstanding of how consensus-building and Talk pages work on Wikipedia. We don't insert controversial material via edit warring while demanding others argue with us on Talk; it's you who carries the burden to discuss the addition of material, not the other way around. Shem^(talk) 02:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Barack Obama

FA, I'm taking a 30-day Wikibreak from the topic of Barack Obama, but I'd like to continue visiting you on your Talk page. Rely on moderators like Bigtimepeace. If there is breaking campaign news, I see no reason why it shouldn't be added to the article immediately, but be careful to do it using strictly neutral language. And be prepared to discuss and modify afterward. For any other addition of material that is not breaking news, always discuss it first on the Talk page and obtain consensus.

We have a truce based on an initiative started by Wikidemo. The truce agreement is here. Please sign on as I have done. Right now the only edit warrior who hasn't signed is User:Life.temp, and I can argue that he/she is headed for a topic ban. Please do not allow anyone to put you in the same category as LT. Sign on for the truce and let them be the ones who break it.

JJB has an excellent initiative based on the Ron Paul article and he deserves your consistent, calm and non-combative support. Kossack4Truth (talk) 11:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have a correction. The actual initiator of that truce was User:Shem. Kossack4Truth (talk) 11:04, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not make accusations against admins lightly. User:Bigtimepeace could become part of the solution at Barack Obama but you must not alienate him with these accusations. Give him/her some time to show what he/she can do. Kossack4Truth (talk) 13:29, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Fovean Author for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Shem^(talk) 02:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been temporarily blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for 6 months, for sockpuppetry, disruption, personal attacks, incivility, and tendentious editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Fovean Author (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Clearly an effort to remove someone who's opinion the administrator and plaintiff don't agree with

Decline reason:

A review of your block takes into consideration only your actions, not those of the blocking admin or others - and, in this case, you provide no reason whatsoever explaining why you should not be blocked for the abovenoted offense (sockpuppetry). The reason for the unblock template is partially to give you a chance to defend yourself, and I recommend that you do so without making accusations against other editors or admins. Please discuss your conduct and why it does not merit a block. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 02:49, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

If I were trying to post under an IP and a user name as a sock puppet, why in God's name would I IMMEDIATELY post, after using the IP, "Whoops - sorry, forgot to log in" and identify myself? Isn't that specifically the effort of someone trying NOT to be considered a sock puppet (which is why I did it)? Based on the remarkable speed with which this block was begun and completed, I assert that jossi and shem got together and said, "Let's work together and remove this person so that we don't have to hear his counter-arguments." Clearly I was given absolutely no time to defend myself (exactly 1 hour). Fovean Author (talk) 02:38, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Fovean_Author#Evidence. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:46, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - it is an accusation of sock puppetry. Sock puppetry is an attempt to disguise myself as one ID. Disguise implies that I don't want you to know that I am both persons. Explain to me how I am doing that, if I say, "Whoops - sorry, didn't mean to post under the IP, here I am as the actual person." The other accusation that I'm posting under the IP to insert negative material would imply that I behaved differently when logged in, which just isn't true. You, josi, clearly went to Shem, told him to enter the complain, then immediately (within an hour) approved it. Fovean Author (talk) 02:54, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Fovean Author (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

No basis to call me a sock puppet. The block seeks to ban me for posting under my log in name, and my IP address. When I did this, per the accusation, it was because I posted under the IP address, noticed that I'd done it, then IMMEDIATELY logged in and posted my identity, in order not to be discerned as a sock puppet.Fovean Author (talk) 02:57, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You are also blocked for disruption, personal attacks, incivility, and tendentious editing. You do not address these reasons here. — Sandstein 05:46, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

It seems to me that his behavior has been improving lately, although clearly there's still some work to do in that regard. No repeat of the vandalism on a User page on March 19. The circumstances here do suggest that action was taken with undue haste, and Jossi's judgment may have been affected by his/her recent encounter with Andyvphil. The only alleged sockpuppet incident is in an AfD vote back in March (which had absolutely zero chance of affecting the outcome) and FA may have simply forgotten that he had already voted. Despite Shem's careful scouring (I'm sure) of the edit histories of both FA and the IP address, he/she could find no repeat of this incident. It is now three months later.

I suggest that a six-month block is overkill, and that it should be reduced to one or two weeks. Kossack4Truth (talk) 12:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocks are preventative, and not punitive. As such, I am willing to reduce this block to two weeks, with one caveat: Any further disruption, be that a personal attack, tendentious editing or any other disruptive behavior, shall result in an indef block. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:44, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not volunteering for the job, but I would recommend getting a more neutral observer than Kossack4Truth to comment on whether the other reasons for the block are valid. Tvoz/talk 17:56, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Tvoz, Jossi. User:Fovean Author has shown zero willingness to contribute anything other than personal attacks and disruption to the project. Just look at Fovean Author's immediate response to being blocked -- he admits nothing whatsoever wrong with his behavior, opting to accuse you of persecuting him for his POV and engaging in fraudulent collusion. Fovean Author can take the election season off, and if he truly cares about the project, he'll be back to contribute in six months. Shem^(talk) 18:38, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Tvoz and Shem, too. I encountered this user months ago at Media Matters for America and Phony soldiers controversy and have had this talkpage watchlisted every since. His behavior was problematic them, and it seems to only have gotten worse now that he's moved on to Obama related pages. As far as I can tell, the only lasting content contribution he has made is this edit to USS Truxtun (CGN-35). This user doesn't see why his behavior is problematic, and seems to view WP as a battleground, even after being warned and blocked repeatedly. 6 months is justified—we can only be so patient and give people so much slack... Yilloslime (t) 19:12, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<< Tvoz, Shem, Yilloslime, I hear you. But I will still consider reducing the block to two weeks, if Fovean Author makes a commitment not to persist with his past behavior, and with the understanding that of he does, he will be blocked permanently after the first re-occurrence. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:34, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After my experience here, I think that I can honestly say that I've lost any respect that I might have had for Wikipedia as an information source and, should I ever decide I need to post here again, I'll simply do it under a different IP and user name.

Persons like those who gathered here to engineer a block for me, and persons like 'slime,' could care less about the factual accuracy or integrity of the articles here, simply want to push their agenda, and they have the free-time resources to do so. Persons like myself, with jobs and lives, will NEVER be able to compete with them.

I do regret that I once, in a moment of pique, changed scjessey's user page - an action which was beneath me - but even that tells me of the potential of this 'community' to draw one in to its immature nature and irrelevancy.

So, in a nutshell, josi, take your block and your forgiveness and shove it up your severely puckered rectum, if you can find room for it, and continue with your left wing cabal to maintain Wikipedia as irrelevant and pointless as it curently is. Do nothing to prevent obvious Obama supporters to sanitize his appearance here, and then go on to your other liberal icons to do the same thing. My time actually has a value to it, and yours clearly does not. Fovean Author (talk) 15:41, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"I'll simply do it under a different IP and user name"

I'm glad to hear that you now regret vandalizing my user page and I accept your apology (as Colbert would say), but are you now signaling your intention to engage in sock puppetry in the future, possibly by spoofing your IP address in an attempt to avoid a checkuser request? -- Scjessey (talk) 15:57, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fovean Author can edit under a new name or anon if wants, but he needs to be aware of Wikipedia:SOCK#Clean_start_under_a_new_name and what does it mean. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:47, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read and heed

See this closing of the socking case. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Phony soldiers controversy for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Phony soldiers controversy 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/Phony soldiers controversy until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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.

MelanieN (talk) 16:34, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]