truth award to Merecat

**the truth, justice and all around goodnesss award**

Hey To Merecat, the editor with the best heart and the steadiest and truest and keenest of vision..You are hereby awarded the truth, justice and all around goodnesss award, by noneother than the infamous and much misaligned Maggiethewolfstar who delivers it to you directly from the heart, and in much respect and love.

We are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor to tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.
Thomas Jefferson

thewolfstar 06:22, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

Hey I check it out looks like the AFD wil go through this time. Also Hope you recover from the 'crash' soon. Aeon 14:43, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Accusing you of having a sockpuppet

Here's the discussion--Tbeatty 16:43, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merecat

I'm so sorry about everything these low lives are doing to you. I didn't even know you were blocked last night, never mind all the horrible stuff they are doing to you now. I have some friends in here, you have a lot of friends, plus there's a lot of help I can get you in other ways. They're not going to get away with any of this. I have enough dirt on them now to hang them in a court of law. It's that bad. We'll get you out of here. Hang in there, friend. Maggiethewolfstar 21:22, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not make legal threats, they are a bannable offense. Thanks! -- User:RyanFreisling @ 21:26, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. thewolfstar 23:00, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Off-wiki personal attacks poll

Since you have previously participated in discussions about the off-wiki NPA policy, I wanted to let you know about a quick opinion poll that is now posted on the Talk page there. Your input is appreciated!

Wikipedia_talk:No_personal_attacks#Poll:_Off-wiki_Personal_Attacks

Strom 21:56, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- A discussion concerning editors and especially admins that lie and pull dirty tactical maneuvers to hurt people is underway now too. thewolfstar 22:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sam Spade

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sam Spade. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sam Spade/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sam Spade/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 00:40, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the invitation Tony. However, right now I am all talked out. I am going to wait and see how this Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rationales to impeach George W. Bush (3rd nomination) concludes, and based on what happens with that, I'll likely step back and re-evaluate my role here. Typically, I have better serenity when I avoid going to every fight I'm invited to and I'd like to do that here. I think Rodney King said it well when he said "Can we all just get along?" [1] and I wish that were the case here. Still, I did not appreciate you and Cyde blocking me for "talk page spamming" aka "vote stacking" and it's got me in a sourpuss mood. I'm going to take an extended weekend and see if I can get myself to take a fresh look at my incoming talk messages here some time before the end of next week. Merecat 01:17, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Check this out

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents See Ryan trying to sideline you by making false accusations. Morton devonshire 07:22, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merecat - if in fact you're not Rex/Anon Texan, please say so. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 13:21, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan, as my "away message" above (posted for tony) makes clear, I am not here until later next week - and that's especially true for controversies. However, so as to me sure precisely what it is you are asking me to deny, I've made a page for you here: User talk:Merecat/ryan. Please post for me with reasonable specificity, precisely what is you are asking me to deny. Frankly Ryan, based on the treatment you've meted out to me so far in our dealings, I have little enthusiasm for you leading me around by the nose and I am particularly interested to know how it is you've accreted to yourself a role of inquisitor towards me. That said, even though I am only peeking at this page once a day or so (if that even) until later next week, I frankly want to deny you any opportunity to point a finger of blame based on me making a delayed reply or answering with silence. So even though you are clearly disregarding my away message, I made that sub page for you. Please show me enough courtesy to accuse me with specificity on the page I have provided and also show me the courtesy of respecting my away message. Later next week, after the AfD closes and my head has cleared, I will address all reasonable complaints or inquiries you have posted for me at User talk:Merecat/ryan. This invitation extends only to you - my regular talk page stands as my in box for everyone else. I hope this compromise suffices for you. Thank you for leaving me the right to be away from my keyboard here until later next week. I appreciate your consideration. Merecat 16:15, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will respond here, not on your subpage. I accuse you of nothing. I asked you whether the checkuser results are accurate, and whether you are indeed Rex. Just answer the question. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 17:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realize that you had such authority to demand answers of anyone. --Tbeatty 19:17, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No more than any other editor. Do you have a point besides attacking me for asking a simple, and easily answered, question regarding the likelihood that this is a sockpuppet employed by a blocked user? -- User:RyanFreisling @ 19:23, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I attacked you?--Tbeatty 19:25, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not taking the bait. My question implied no authority. Don't imply I'm acting inappropriately when I am not. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 19:27, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I implied nothing. You have confirmed that you have no authority and that Merecat can simply ignore your requests without consequence or peril. --Tbeatty 20:29, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious - of whom on Wikipedia is that not true? -- User:RyanFreisling @ 21:02, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. But I thought someone might have thought it was you after the question you asked. Thanks for clarifying!.--Tbeatty 22:06, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be snarky, if a checkuser finds that merecat is Rex, she has a right to ask that. --kizzle 03:23, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

im a little bit upset what is happing around you catching my attention since have you seen monitoring the wolfstar.you are kind person and i dont believe you are vandalizing some pages. i hope they fix this problem soon.be bold Felisberto5May2006(Utc)

Blocked

I have blocked you for a week for violating your arbcom parole on editing John Kerry. · Ka t efan0 ^(scribble)/poll 20:44, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now that a request has been filed to reopen the Rex case, I've lifted your block so you can respond to it on the arbitration pages. · Ka t efan0 ^(scribble)/poll 00:18, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom request to reopen

I am notifying you of my pending request to reopen your 4th RfAr ( [2] ). Please keep an eye on [Requests for arbitration]] and I will notify you again when I've made the actual request (I'm trying to be absolutely certain of the process, in order to ensure the issue is addressed fairly). -- User:RyanFreisling @ 22:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have made the request [3]. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 00:14, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

from thewolfstar

Hey, Merecat there's a vote going on concerning Wiki admins being able to censor what editors say off Wikipedia, and possibly use it punitively against other editors. Please go here to vote on this policy. Thanks Maggiethewolfstar 23:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...

are you rex? if you are, you know we had a good chat right before you took off last time, don't ruin it. i want to know the truth. --kizzle 00:12, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

if you are rex i am going to be so pissed off at you. --kizzle 20:13, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hey you again from thewolfstar

Hey Merecat, I'm sorry you're so bummed. I know the feeling well, believe me. And I'm sorry I wasn't there for you a couple of nights ago when you were blocked. I was on Wiki part of the time and off it a lot, too. You know if I knew you were blocked I would have been here talking to you calmly. Yesterday, after all the bad stuff that happened to you I went a little ape shit and got blocked myself twice in one day. I am starting to listen to all the good guidance you gave me, though. It is beginning to settle in. Please don't let a few snivelling spoilt children drive you away from Wikipedia. Wikipedia needs you. I need you. And many many people here need you, as well. Some of them know it and some do not, I'm sure. Remember how you told me once that truth is a self perpetuating force?

The depth of your statement is just beginning to sink in.

Damn the torpedoes.
Please don't leave us, Merecat. We need you. love and peace from Grasshopper.. Maggiethewolfstar 03:42, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merecat

Hey Merecat, I know you never wanted to communicate through emails, but I don't know how else to let you know how important to me you are. You are my best friend on Wikipedia. You're my mentor. You're a great power of example to everyone you meet, I would imagine.

I know you are a good trusting person and a true Christian. That much is clear. Sometimes and many times, I have trusted people, groups, that I shouldn't have trusted. And I got burnt bad. There is something really wrong going on here but I know in my heart we can fix it. A lot of people are starting to speak up now. There is a real strength beginning now. Many people have been abused by the system and are getting royally pissed.

We have a lot of back up now and it will only get stronger. Remember what you said about truth..how it is self perpetuating? And it is. And it is happening as I write this.

Don't give up the fight. Don't let them win! Here's a song that Jerry G. Sweeton Jr. left on my page for me yesterday while I was blocked.

Don't Quit

When things go wrong, As they sometimes will, When the road you're trudging seems all uphill, When the funds are low and the debts are high, And you want to smile, But you have to sigh, When care is pressing you down a bit Rest if you must, But Don't You Quit!

Life is strange with its twists and turns, As every one of us sometimes learns, And many a fellow turns about When he might have won had he stuck it out. Don't give up through the pace seems slow You may succeed with another blow.

Often the goal is nearer than It seems to a faint and faltering man Often the struggler has given up When he might have captured the victor's cup And he learned too late when the night came down How close he was to the golden crown.

Success is failure turned inside out The silver tint of the clouds of doubt, And you never can tell how close you are, It may be near when it seems afar So stick to the fight when you're hardest hit It's when things seem the worst That You Mustn't Quit!

~unknown~

Remember what you said to me, also, "If you quit now they win.".

I really love you, Merecat for your good and true friendship to me, for your unfaltering love of your fellow man, and for your dedication to truth and love and God. Please don't leave. Your friend, Maggie thewolfstar

Thanks Maggie. Please be assured that I have not quit. As stated above, I do not want to be involved in interpersonal controversy and I am away from here until next week sometime - and at least until this Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rationales to impeach George W. Bush (3rd nomination) is resolved. Frankly, if that article does not get deleted, then I'd take it as a ratification of the proposition that biased/controversial articles are immune to problem resolution. In any case, if and or when I edit, I'm likely going to avoid where possible those editors who take the approach of accusatorial confrontation that I see from some here on this talk page and also on that article talk page. To me, it's odd that some editors who post here expect me to respond to accusations which they base on "likely" evidence and frankly, I do not see any evidence presented here which would warrant "blocks" or "bans". For that reason, I obviously disagree with posters on this page who seek my banishment or block and I deny that what's being thrown at me here is in valid accordance with the way the wiki works. Oh well, I do not have any power here, so if I get blocked by people like Katefan0, then I'll just have to wait until the blocks expire. I am simply not going to give Ryan the satisfaction of thinking that I have duty to dance to his/her tune. Who is this Ryan anyway, to be chasing me around the wiki, trying to tag me with accusations? I can only guess that one of more of my edits has deeply offended Ryan and she/he has become unbalanced towards me. Certainly I'd say that Nescio already is that way and Prometheuspan is too. Oh well, you know what they say "it's easier to wear a pair of slippers, than to try to carpet the whole world". I am going to keep focusing on keeping my sleepers clean and dry. If and or when a duly authorized party demands answers of me regarding wiki related accusations, I suppose I'll have to reply at that point. Other than that, I'd say that my advice to you still stands: Focus on patient WP:NPOV editing, polite reparte and WP:AGF. I also think that Wikipedia:No angry mastodons and WP:COOL are good to read. Also, the arbitration case filed against me by User:Prometheuspan was rejected (See this link). Maggie, keep in mind what I recently told you: The wiki is not the Borg and will not subsume you. Peace. Merecat 09:58, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Merecat, Thanks for your comments to me here. I am so happy that you are not leaving Wikipedia. I was never a Star Trek fan and therefore am ignorant of it's story, etc. I went to the Borg article and Borgs look like a complicated issue to me. Here is the definition of subsume found at (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=subsume)
To classify, include, or incorporate in a more comprehensive category or under a general principle: example “The evolutionarily later always subsumes and includes the evolutionarily earlier” (Frederick Turner) I read this definition and still don't understand what you are getting at with the 'Borg' or the 'subsume' comment. I apologize. I just don't get what you are trying to tell me. Yours in peace and freedom, Maggiethewolfstar 17:28, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, your block has been lifted so that you can respond to the request to reopen the RfAr (a duly authorized body). You can post a statement there anytime. Cheers.-- User:RyanFreisling @ 18:26, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFAr

Merecat -

Just some hopefully helpful advice, offered in the best of faith.

Although I have criticized your tone in the past, I must admit that your contributions don't fall on the wrong side of policy, and in some cases, have provoked some useful research. For what it's worth, I think you might focus on doing more research yourself and adding content to articles more often than you revert or remove.

However, you need to own up if you are Rex071404 - and as far as I am concerned, based on a close reading of contribution histories - you are.

As far as the 'sockpuppet' thing goes, if you 'transferred' to this username in order to avoid the 'stink' of the previous RfC, and 'turned over a new leaf' as it were - there's nothing wrong with that. Although it was technically wrong to edit John Kerry if you knew that you were banned, it doesn't appear that your edits were as divisive as they apparently previously were, so I think that's a technical and forgiveable transgression, as long as you own up to it.

But if you were to lie and claim you're not someone who you are, or avoid the question - that would be disappointing, and it would show a very low opinion of others. And theoretically, you might go off and create yet another account and get away with it for another 6 months, but you wouldn't be right or righteous in any way - just running away.

Tell the truth. Take responsibility for who you are, and be proud of what you feel you've done right, but listen to the community. If you have no respect for the community's opinion of you, then the community is not obligated to show you one whit of good faith.

Best,

KWH 06:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

to KWH

Just wondering, who is considered to be part of the community? Am I Morton Devonshire, and Tbeatty, for instance considered part of the community? Or is the community only made up of editors like Ryan Freisling, Nescio and Kevin Baas? Can newcomers at Wikipedia be considered part of the community? Does one have to be left-wing, Democrat, and so-called progressive to be considered part of the community? Is there an economic class range involved or a level of college education expected? Is the community perhaps one who closely watch certain unpopular dissenters and newcomers in general, this done as a spying effort for certain power hungry and abusive admins? To be a part of this community does one need to do certain despicable actions like start rfc's and then go around collecting support for these horrible Purantistic rites? Is the community only made up of the people who collaborate to ban or block certain undesirable people like the young Iraqi boy I have mentioned on my talk page, the one who saw his family and friends tortured and then said some angry "offensive" things to an admin and who was blocked for a month for it? (I kind of think the use of torture, bombs and depleted uranium are just a tad more harmful to others than words.)

Is it possible that at times, because of the inclusive and nasty atmosphere here at Wikipedia, with the use of abusive biased admins and their accompanying spies, people are forced to do things at times, that they would not ordinarily do just to survive, and that the wrong actions of these "community members" is fully sanctioned here?

Is it possible that people like myself, Merecat, Hogeye, Sam Spade, theungovernable force, Morton Devonshire, and many others is not the real problem at all? Is it possible that there is something fundamentally wrong happening here at Wikipedia and that the community you just spoke of is the real problem?

I am asking you in as civil a way as possible to take a real look at what is happening here at Wikipedia. A reminder..this is a community that came up with the idea that people's Off-Wiki comments should be monitored and used for consideration in using punishment against them. yours in seeking fact and in seeking the truth Maggiethewolfstar 16:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who edits here
Of course
Of course not, that's ridiculous
Of course
Absolutely not
Absolutely not
Absolutely not
That would be ludicrous
No
No it not possible to be "forced" to engage in bad behavior, you have a choice.
Of course you guys aren't the problem, unless Merecat is Rex, where he is violating a previous finding against him. There are rules here, you know.
There is bias on Wikipedia, however I don't know about a fundamental problem of the community being the problem. Even if there is, you can fight it by being civil and properly citing your passages or raising issues with passages that are badly cited.

Hope that clears up some things :) --kizzle 17:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]