User talk:WebHamster/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Well spotted

I probably would have missed that Parrot of Doom (talk) 16:05, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Anti-Americanism

Consensus only matters among those making an effort to work toward it. Your only contribution to the discussion so far has been to contradict, and distort the actual points. The refs don't support the statements. Also, the refs aren't neutral or factual. Noloop (talk) 04:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

You require consensus to remove a long-standing and referenced section of text. Refs do not need to be neutral, all they have to do is support the text they are being used as a reference for. They are factual, what they don't do is support your POV. The refs do support the text, you just can't see through your own biases. My contribution, as you call it, is to maintain the status quo against a POV warrior trying to remove parts of the article when he has no consensus to do so. Get consensus and I'll stop reverting you. --WebHamster 09:49, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

What's required is an effort to work toward consensus before you invoke consensus to block changes. Name-calling and refusal to address the basic points shows antipathy toward consensus. Wikipedia should be neutral, which doesn't happen when refs are one-sided. Refs have to do more than support what is said: they have to be reliable and factual. Opinion pieces published by the US military are neither. At the very least, Wikipedia should report opionated refs as expert opinion, not fact. But, the fact is, the refs don't support what is said. Why don't you QUOTE the part of the refs you think support this article, as a starting point for working toward consensus? Noloop (talk) 16:13, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you start an RFC if you think you can gain the required consensus? Whilst you're at it see if you can find another editor that shares your belief that the refs don't support the prose. If it's as obvious as you suggest then you shouldn't have a problem. --WebHamster 16:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you just answer the question? Can you quote the parts of the refs that actually support the statements? It should be easy. Noloop (talk) 16:47, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

It is easy, I just can't be arsed wasting the time on someone like you. The point still remains that you have no consensus. Either go get some or stop fucking about. --WebHamster 17:05, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

There is consensus. Nobody is objecting except you. You don't count as being against consensus, because telling people to fuck off means you aren't participating in the consensus process. Noloop (talk) 15:58, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Which only goes to show that you don't have a clue what consensus is let alone how it works. Currently there is you and I. You don't have consensus on your side. I told you what to do. Open an RFC and let a wider audience decide. You seem resistant to that idea or is it because you are concerned that your interpretation will be discounted as I have done. Now stop whinging and whining all over the place. Go get other editors to support your potty ideas. I'm sick of explaining this to you. --WebHamster 16:09, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

"my" page / "my" talk page

Question of terminology here for you. Here you say there is "no such thing as 'my' page". While I totally agree with you, and have been wondering for some what one should say.

To say e.g. 'See User:SimonTrew' to refer to 'my' user page seems ugly, and could lay false scent since discussions entries are signed at the end, so it may not be immediately apparent I am referring to 'my' page. It is excaserbated that other things on the Wikipedia banner are listed as e.g. 'my talk page', 'my watchlist', 'my contributions', encouraging the idea that it would be 'my user page' (though of course that is simply listed with the user name, not 'my').

I can't see any way around this without excessive circumlocution, and in most cases it is simply a convenient fiction to call it 'my user page', and not controversial.

I should appreciate your views.

SimonTrew (talk) 12:43, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, but it seems you missed the bit that qualified my statement. I said there was no such thing as "my page" in article space. So it doesn't take much to interpolate that sentiment to "my page" in user space. --WebHamster 13:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, perhaps that distinction was too subtle for me. Nevertheless, since "Nobody owns any page" it would appear that it is not "my user page" in any sense of ownership; though it seems the most convenient way to say it. SimonTrew (talk) 19:52, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Please be civil

Hi. Your comment on my talk page did not appear to be civil at all and I have removed it. Your accusing me of such things as "sticking my nose in" was very rude and quite offensive. The situation may not have concerned me, but an incident concerning you was posted at ANI, a place for uninvolved editors to look at a situation and help to resolve a problem. That was exactly my intention, as is every time I have discussed issues with fellow editors on ANI. FYI, accusing me of not knowing the history was quite daft, if I'm being honest, because, as proper editors do when resolving issues at ANI, I did look at the significant history of the situation. And even if I hadn't, there is no excuse for telling an editor that you just can't be arsed wasting the time on someone like you. While it may have been your true feelings at the time, it wasn't a very nice message to leave to that editor. Even if it wasn't intended as a personal attack, it was still uncivil and you were warned accordingly. There was no need to launch at an uninvolved editor who was trying to resolve a problem in which you were involved.

Now, please don't take this message the wrong way. Instead, please do WP:AGF because I like to promote the idea of civil editors working together to help build an encyclopedia. Incivility between countless editors has burdened the growing of Wikipedia for years, and still will in years to come, but the more we are civil to each other, the more we can achieve. When an editor is in need, offer a helping hand. When you are in need, ask around. In other words, as Wikipedia editors we should all try to help each other out and try to get along with each other. I like to get along with everyone. I'd get along with you too if you'd let me...

Hopefully you'll see this message has provided you with words of encouragement, and has strengthened you as an editor. The more civil we are and the more we help each other out, the stronger we are and as Wikipedians, the more we can accomplish. --^{The Legendary}_{Sky Attacker} 21:26, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest that you keep your garbled word salads to yourself, as I doubt that WebHamster is any more impressed with your gobbleydegook than I am. Go play somewhere else. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:16, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Mall, I waould say the Sky Attacker is very well spoken and also well within his right on Wikipedia to ask to be treated with a certain level of respect. Your response to him was uncalled for. Chillum 22:20, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, for God's sake, not you again. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:26, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

That was uncalled for too.Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 22:38, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

What has led you to believe that I care what you think? --Malleus Fatuorum 22:41, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Wow. That was partaialy insulting.a There's also a thing called civilty. Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 22:44, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you might care to explain what "partaialy insulting" means? --Malleus Fatuorum 23:18, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I have left a civility warning on Malls talk page. Any further discussion about him should be on his talk page, not here(imho). Chillum 22:55, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Sky Attacker, firstly leaving a template on my talk page is not going to help any situation, secondly go stick your lecture. I am not going to be lectured by anyone let alone a noobie, not at my age. I also never assume good faith and I firmly believe than anyone who does is far too naive to survive on WP. Now I don't know what you expected to achieve, yet it's pretty bloody obvious you aren't making anything better. You come to my talk page drop a template and immediately start lecturing me on how I should behave. As such I don't feel I owe you any civility so don't expect any from me. So you have the choice of no expectation of civility or fucking off and doing what you came here for, ie editing an encyclopaedia. Your choice. --WebHamster 09:50, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Despite your admitting of never following WP:AGF and your uncalled for incivility here, on my talk page and to that other editor, I am going to forgive you for your recent actions. Also, yes, from here on in, I'll try to leave you alone as requested. But seriously, it is sad and somewhat worrying to see that you admit to never WP:AGF and that you have no intention on being civil towards others on Wikipedia because if fellow Wikipedians aren't civil, and can't work together, how do we expect to build an encyclopedia?--^{The Legendary}_{Sky Attacker} 10:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

How pious of you yet simultaneously displaying your ignorance of what is in front of you and what things are about here at WP. AGF is not policy, it's merely a guideline. As for my civility, well you didn't get it because you didn't deserve it. You weighed into something that wasn't your concern, you did it in an insulting manner (WP:DTTR) and then regardless of the fact that you've only been here 5 minutes you then proceeded to lecture me. For that alone you were lucky you didn't get a "go fuck yourself". As it is I've saved that for your forgiveness. Go fuck yourself. I don't want your forgiveness, I don't need it as such it is worthless, it's also insulting. Now as a time-served regular I suggest you stay away from ANI until you know what the fuck you are doing. I don't know how you expect to "build an encyclopaedia" but I do it by typing into article edit forms. Not by fucking around with things that don't concern me. You're not an admin, though it's patently obvious you want to be one, so keep your lecturing to yourself, on the other hand I don't accept lectures from them either, but the point is; 5 minutes here does not give you the right to lecture anyone. You might also do yourself a favour by learning how to indent! --WebHamster 11:48, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Civility might not be a policy, but Wikipedia:No personal attacks is. Telling another editor to "Go fuck yourself" is a personal attack, regardless of their tenure. I strongly suggest that you dial down the rhetoric WebHamster. — Ched :  ?  23:24, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

"Go fuck yourself" is NOT an attack, it's a very succinct and meaningful instruction. Now I'd be grateful if you took your patronising lecture somewhere else, or would you prefer I use a more succinct and meaningful instruction? --WebHamster 09:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't lecture, and I don't take "instructions" from you. If you feel that you can find consensus that "Go fuck yourself" is not an attack, be my guest. Until then, tone down the language. — Ched :  ?  16:17, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Tell you what then Ched, I wont lecture/instruct you, and you do the same for me. That way we can both be happy. --WebHamster 19:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

An edit comment like "Please be civil" won't do much for a character like this. It's nice you said "please" to his "fuck off," but not effective. As someone who is likely to be a future recipient of WebHamster's contempt for civility, I vote for a block. I don't understand why we have a civility policy specifying things like "Judgemental tone" as a violation, and then do nothing when somebody repeatedly says "fuck off" and "go fuck yourself" etc. What if everybody did that? Noloop (talk) 17:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, Webhamster is a very talented and intelligent editor. He/she is an established editor who has made some valuable contributions to our site. Everyone gets upset at times, and I'd rather not block if it's not necessary. Blocks aren't supposed to be punitive, but rather a measure taken to stop disruption or vandalism. Let's hope that everyone can just get back to editing in a constructive manner, and that this won't go any further. I hope that if everybody will just stop antagonizing each other, we can do that. — Ched :  ?  18:02, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

WebHamster is antagonized by the expectation of civility. I don't see how anyone can stop antagonizing him, until that changes. Noloop (talk) 19:17, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

WebHamster, just like me, is sick to death of hypocrites who whine on endlessly about civility, completely unaware that they are doing precisely what it is that they are complaining about in others. As you have just so ably demonstrated above. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm more than happy to give you the answer you are obviously looking for, but as your blatant trolling is rather amateurish I'd rather get my block for something/someone more worthy. --WebHamster 19:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Can I suggest that all of you screeching about blocking go and actually read what the relevant part of the civility policy actually says, particularly "It is as unacceptable to attack a user with a history of foolish or boorish behavior, or even one who has been subject to disciplinary action by the Arbitration Committee, as it is to attack any other user", and possibly address the mote/beam disparity here. "He started it" isn't a defence, whichever side you're on – A hassling B is just as bad as B hassling A. We don't block for swearing; we block for harassment. – iridescent 19:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I was actually referring to getting a block for my version of calling a spade a shovel with regard to my impressions of noloop. --WebHamster 19:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Civility is as civility does. -Forrest Gump ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:55, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

It's a real shame that admins only ever seem to react to the effect and rarely to the cause. Especially when there's lots of prose following that cause. --WebHamster 19:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

You have to enjoy his Nero complex. Noloop (talk) 16:34, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Well it is better than Roxio, now fuck off troll. --WebHamster 16:40, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Request for Comment

See http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/WebHamster Noloop (talk) 00:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

In which case WP:FUCK applies. You are amusing though with your gift for irony. You didn't bother with an RfC when it was required to get editors to support your POV on the article that started this, but all of a sudden you manage it because you don't like being ignored. Go at it sunshine, enjoy all the typing and wasted time. --WebHamster 08:34, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Notice

Hi. This is just to let you know about a thread concerning your talk page: In light of the recent discussions.... Good day. -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay

I understand that you are probably couldn't care less, but thank you for reverting the vandalism to my userpage.--^{The Legendary}_{Sky Attacker} 20:58, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Having seen various messages of yours on different user's talk pages I thought I should chime in and report that I am not in any list of people pissed off at you. You came here and lectured when you shouldn't have done. I told you to fuck off. You fucked off. End of case, I have nothing to be pissed off at you for. You did as I instructed. I got what I wanted, which, as always, is to be left alone. You left me alone. As for the reversion of vandalism on your page, well that's a no-brainer. I revert vandalism, simple as that. --WebHamster 23:36, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I will never leave you alone WebHamster, not until you finish off Belle Vue Zoo. Doesn't matter how many times you tell me to "fuck off". :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 00:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you kind sir, and you never know, one day I might just manage to get my head in its right place and complete the article. Though as you well know I'm not interested in all that FA guff ;) --WebHamster 13:55, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

You just finish it off and let me take all the credit for the FA. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 14:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Advertising

Ok, sorry i can not get the warning right so i just say, pls see talk page at Living With Fibromyalgia, the order page for the film is not a source. Thx RetroS1mone talk 13:22, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes it is. It supports the statement it references. Learn the rules before you lecture someone who already knows them. --WebHamster 13:23, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Invitation

I invite you to assist with the expansion and sourcing of this article in the hopes that it might go live in a day or two: User:MichaelQSchmidt/sandbox/National Fibromyalgia Association. Thank you. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 21:55, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Concern

Hi Webhamster, i am concerned on your editing at Fibromyalgia for example you said in edit summary you reverted my use of "MUP" it is really MUS or MUPS bc of WP:WEIGHT, but you reverted all edits and put back in unsourced things and removed many medically reliable sources, all reviews or large scale studies. I am glad you feel strong about this topic and are interested in editing but please can we agree to be honest in edit summaries. When this is continuing i think we need dispute resolution but i am hoping, we come to understand, i think WP:MEDRS is important to know for medical articles like fibromyalgia, every thing needs the source and every source needs be MEDRS. MUS is a common term in alot from MEDRS for the symptoms in FM and related illnesses. Do you have evidence against, pls discuss. Thx RetroS1mone talk 00:22, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't so much the references as your wording. It's pretty obvious that, for some unknown reason, it is your intent to trash the basis for which many people are suffering. Your wording that makes FM sound categorically to be a specious malingerers complaint is very much POV. I don't deny that some researchers and medics think of this as a MUPS, but the way you've interpreted the references and worded the prose is very much a fringe theory and you give it far too much weight. This is why I reverted your edit. I suggest you reword it so that it is neutral and not so categorical. --WebHamster 17:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

cheery picking

I would ask you to refrain from accusing me of cherry picking.Slatersteven (talk) 17:23, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Huh? --WebHamster 17:26, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

You stated that I was only using those dictionary definitions that agreed with the point I was making, that is an accusation of cherry picking. Of only using that information that agrees with a point of view.Slatersteven (talk) 17:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Live with it, the swearing too. I use whatever words serve the purpose, swear words will do the job sometimes. Any offence you feel is your problem, not mine, after all you have your values and I have mine, if my values cause you offence then you have to deal with it, I don't. --WebHamster 18:08, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I would sugest that you read wikpedias rules on civility. But if you continue to behave in an offensive manner I will have no choice but to report you according to those same rules.Slatersteven (talk) 18:14, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Go for it sunshine. You are offended because of your own value system, swearing doesn't offend me, that leaves you with the problem. --WebHamster 18:17, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

As I stated I would report you if you continued, not for what you have done in the past. I am trying to be fair and even here and giving you the chance to prove that you are willing to take into account other users.Slatersteven (talk) 18:20, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

What you are actually trying to do is impose your value system on me. That ain't gonna happen sunshine. --WebHamster 18:41, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

No I am asking you to obey wikipedias rules on civility, to be polite and curtious to other editors, no to be verbaly agresive and insultiing. I fail to see how this is such an issue, does it really take that much effort to not swear, and to not make false accusations?Slatersteven (talk) 18:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Again, wrong! You are asking me not to swear, there are no rules on WP that forbid swearing, as such I am going to ignore your request. Yet another civility proponent who just uses it to try to get their own way. Now you can either give up on this train of thought or you can push me to the point when I am truly uncivil. What I would suggest is that you better spend the time practising spell checking and typing and/or learn to read through your work before you press "save page". Now I've made it clear that I have no interest in your perception of what is or isn't civil. For example it could be argued that it is uncivil for you to come to my talk page and threaten me with repercussions if I don't do as you want. Now how you want to proceed is up to you, but I would suggest that you don't loiter here as there is a good chance you will hear words you don't like and probably can't type without correction. --WebHamster 18:53, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:CIV.Slatersteven (talk) 18:56, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Presumably you mean "cherry picking", not "cheery picking"? --Malleus Fatuorum 17:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

LOL (well now I do), but you are correct it should be Cherry Picking.Slatersteven (talk) 17:39, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Edit war

An attempt to drive a user into 3RR is not a very nice thing to do. If you indead do this I will report youSlatersteven (talk) 18:59, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay I'm sick of this bullshit now. You didn't respond to my civil version, perhaps you'll understand this better. Fuck off from my talk page, I am not interested in any of your bollocks about your take on civility, or you lectures on what I should or shouldn't do. Is that easier for you to understand?

I have now reported your incivility http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:WebHamster.Slatersteven (talk) 20:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh for God's sake, has nobody ever told you to "fuck off" before? Is that why you're so upset? If you don't like it here then don't visit here. WP:WQA is where children complain to teacher that someone did something bad; it's not a place where rationale adults ought to be spending time. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:36, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Let's turn the drama knob lower please by avoiding inferences that others are childish or irrational. Nja²⁴⁷ 20:43, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Let's just switch it off altogether, by stopping all of this hysterical nonsense that nobody in their right mind would really give a shit about. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I would also ask why the useer seems to think that another editor does not have to obey the same rules that apply to the rest of us. I posted a jnumber of pposts asking the user to be civil, I recived nothing but insults and claims that iut was not against the rules (which it is). I bent over backwards to convince the user that he actions breached WP:CIV.

I woould like to appoligise for teh badgering that casued you to lose your temper.Slatersteven (talk) 12:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

RFC discussion of User:RetroS1mone

A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of RetroS1mone (talk · contribs). You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/RetroS1mone. -- RobinHood70 (talk) 01:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

POV issue in Asperger's article

I noticed your comment in Talk:Asperger's, that the current article is POV and sources exist which dispute Asperger's status as a disability.

You're wasting your time. Other editors have repeatedly presented such material - the entrenched editors systematically ignore them and refuse to enter into a balanced, competent discussion.

See, for instance, Asperger's not disorder.

The sources include the very founders of the diagnostic catergory like Simon Baron-Cohen.

But those editors 'parked' on that article (you will know them by their speedy replies in talk) refuse to even acknowledge that a debate exists (warranting a POV tag), much less are willing to represent that debate in a balanced way in the article.

A good many editors - upon learning how wikipedia is ruled by edit counts and not by its 'pillars', quit.

It's not that the entrenched editors are anti-Aspie. It's just that they are used to regurgitating DSM chapters into the form of articles. Asperger's is new, controversial and confusing. They don't like having their accustomed modus operandi challenged, and the article suffers as a result.

Waste of time, really.

(updated) CeilingCrash (talk) 04:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Mary Toft - verse formatting

@Malleus and or Parrot of Doom, try this (hopefully you're still watching this page).

<poem>
Most true it is, I dare to say,
E'er since the Days of Eve,
The weakest Woman sometimes may
The wisest Man deceive.
</poem>

Which will give this...

Most true it is, I dare to say,
E'er since the Days of Eve,
The weakest Woman sometimes may
The wisest Man deceive.

Or if you want to italicise it, use this...

<poem>
''Most true it is, I dare to say,
''E'er since the Days of ''Eve'',
''The weakest Woman sometimes may
''The wisest Man deceive.
</poem>

Which will give this...

Most true it is, I dare to say,
E'er since the Days of Eve,
The weakest Woman sometimes may
The wisest Man deceive.

--WebHamster 23:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I think we managed to sort it out. PoD just loves big images, and they were causing the white space. I've rearranged and resized them, so I think the article looks OK now. I think your five-day block was absolutely ridiculous, but I also know that there's nothing I can do about it, the civility police have all the guns. Enjoy your break and come reinvigorated. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:37, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the help WebHamster, I'm sorry I don't watch this page but I've had similar issues with SlaterSteven, thankfully however we managed to resolve them amicably and since then he's been fine about it. I must admit I did laugh at the above argument, sometimes I feel like using the same language :) I too think your block was a pathetic move. Parrot of Doom (talk) 14:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS

Hi WebHamster, medical articles in Wiki have good sources, WP:MEDRS, a good source is a review or medical textbook. Primary study is some times RS when it is many patients and randomized controlled (RCT). Study w 12 patients and not RCT is nonMEDRS. You are right it is a "factoid" and Wiki is not for trivia and review of minor literature in improtant medical articles. Pls ask when you have question about MEDRS. Thx RetroS1mone talk 13:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Don't be so bloody patronising, I have no questions to ask you, I know the rules round here having been around a lot longer than you. This isn't a paper encyclopaedia. If the prose is supported by a reliable source then it's fine to include it. It isn't "trivia", the sleep study demonstrates that sleep disorders are a factor in FM, there's no good reason to not include it, it's not as if we're going to run out of space any time soon. --WebHamster 14:39, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Blocked

Following a report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring I have blocked you for a period of 5 days for edit-warring at Anti-Americanism and for persistent incivility that is far below expected standards of behaviour. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} CIreland (talk) 21:02, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

About fucking time, now I feel able to refer to the fuckwits here by their true descriptions. I'm sick to fucking death of twats wittering on pedantically about their own definitions of civility. Oh, and the same goes for you too. Fucking civility police! --WebHamster 21:05, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

You might want to fucking see the reply on WP:WQA before you say that. You were fine until you directed the incivility at someone. Now, well...we know what fucking happened. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:11, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't get it. If you don't want to participate here, why not just hit "log out" and go do something else? How is it useful or rewarding to go on acting up, in apparent hopes of getting blocked indefinitely? If this is your goal, just save us all some time and log out. Friday (talk) 21:13, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

What I want is to be left alone to do what I do here. What I don't want is pious twats coming to this talk page and lecturing me on what their values are. There are many people in this world who bimble around waiting to be offended and being disappointed when they can't blame someone for offending them and therefore awarding themselves higher morals than others. Whereas I bimble around not giving a fuck and then subsequently not being offended by anything. Today's twat didn't respond to a polite request to go away and trouble me no more with his lecturing. He didn't respond to that so I gave him the alternate version, which he was pre-warned about. The fuckwit kept on, so by his choice I gave him the 'in no doubt' version. So you tell me, he obviously, by his actions, wanted to hear the Anglo-Saxon translation. --WebHamster 21:20, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

You have spent years blocking other people for no other reason than they may have offended you and now you are blocked. Do us all a favour and leave wikipedia alone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.120.232 (talk) 10:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Yet another anonymous fuckwit who can't get things right. I'm not an admin, I never will be an admin and I don't ever want to be one, as such I do not have the ability to block anyone and have never had the ability and never want the ability. Now disappear back into whatever hole you came from (Basingstoke?). --WebHamster 10:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear i think andy is upset that he is too thick to become an admin:-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yiwentang (talk • contribs) 12:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

maybe this is why i am confused/duped into thinking Barry was an admin User_talk:217.44.219.116 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.219.116 (talk) 16:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Quite a happy little conversation... with yourself! Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Yiwentang --WebHamster 17:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• WebHamster - the 3RR was what really crossed the line. Why would you do that? You would have to know that such things make it impossible to rationalize away the rest of the behavior. You have to stop with the reverting like that. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

• Agreeing with Ottava, don't hand out bullets. You know that 3RR is pretty much an automatic block, although it is good to see that your nemesis rightly got blocked as well. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:43, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

That's because I really don't care any more. 3 is just an arbitrary number, pretty much the same as WP's definition of civility, i.e. an arbitrary and subjective viewpoint. As has been discussed before, it's not as if a block stings and it's really no skin off my nose. It's not as if it will stop me editing now will it ;) --WebHamster 22:39, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I was sorry to see you blocked for 5 days WH - but at least it drew me to your page to get a better feel for you! Personally I'm rather fond of the the occasional 'fuck off', and I think there was more than a bit of goading by S - which I hope was obvious to whoever looked at the blocking. I can see how some might take your style to heart - and 'tough shit' may be a reasonable response - but I'd much rather you didn't 3RR so you can keep contributing... just my couple of cent(iment)s for you. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 08:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Hear hear! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:03, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

incivility, no discussion, deleting MEDRS, using nonMEDRS in medical article

Hello, WebHamster. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. RetroS1mone talk 12:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Andy Billups

I have nominated Andy Billups, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andy Billups. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Black Kite 13:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Straight talk award

WebHamster you rule :-) --Goodmorningworld (talk) 14:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Blocked

I have given you a 24 hour block. You have been told many times not to abuse people here, and "Yet another anonymous fuckwit" is pretty abusive. This block is to prevent further abuse to our volunteers. Chillum 13:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Blah, blah, blah. --WebHamster 13:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Don't you have anyone else you ought to be harrassing Chillum? --Malleus Fatuorum 13:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

You can talk to me on my talk page Malleus, I will not be baited into repeating old discussions here. Chillum 13:34, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I have no wish to talk to you at all Chillum. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Chillum although i suspect he will start using his various sock puppets e.g. hoary and the above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yiwentang (talk • contribs) 14:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

For a troll with an agenda (your contrib history will attest to that) and no evidence that I have sockpuppets or there are malware links on the Hamsters' site you are exceedingly noisy. Now perhaps you'd like to put your mouth where your foot is and supply evidence of your accusations, otherwise I suggest you shut the fuck up. --WebHamster 14:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Yiwentang if you think for one second Hoary is a sock puppet of WebHamster you are way off base. Look at their contribution histories. Please, now is a good time to create space between you and WebHamster. Chillum 14:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The comment "It's not like it will stop me from editing" [1], after being blocked, suggests an intent to make a sock. Noloop (talk) 16:39, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Does it really? It sounds more like he's stating that he won't be driven off wikipedia and will continue editing after the block is over. Nev1 (talk) 16:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Noloop being the hypocritical troll yet again, ho hum. Soon WP will be full of editors of his calibre, I'm glad I won't be around by then. --WebHamster 16:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

He's just trying to improve Wikipedia by making sure that the language is cleaner and providing a better environment for editors. -- 科学高爾夫迷(讨论|投稿) 16:56, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

That's rather naive; I doubt his reasons are so noble. It looks more like he's trying to kick someone when they're down by insinuating they use sockpuppets. If he has evidence, he should present it. Nev1 (talk) 17:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion this block was totally unwarranted. WebHamster is being trolled to the point of absurdity. He seems to have let the troll get under his skin, and swears like a sailor, but we're all human. It is Yiwentang and his socks (217.44.219.116, 81.157.120.232, etc) that need their behavior checked, not WebHamster. --Andy Walsh (talk) 17:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

It is being looked into: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Yiwentang. Chillum 17:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) No comment on the block, as I missed the lead up to it. I have, however, filed a SPI report in which Yiwentang is listed as possible sock puppeteer, and both those IPs have been listed as possible sock puppets (only one by me; t'other was added later). (Oh, and regarding the "cleaner language" comment above - civility is important, but remember that Wikipedia isn't fucking censored ;-) ) Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 17:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Block expired

Your block has expired. I acknowledge that you were provoked in this case, this does not excuse your use of personal attacks however it does offer a solution to future problems. If you feel you are being provoked or baited by an editor please seek help from the community. Find a friendly admin, one that you trust and ask for help. Alternatively you can post at one of our many notice boards and get a broader opinion. By lashing out at Yiwentang you played right into the hands of a troll. Just calmly ignore those who seek to bait you into a misstep and seek help from others, this will confound and frustrate the troll instead of feeding it. Yiwentang has been blocked indefinitely and would have been even if you did not take his bait.

While I understand I may not be your first choice, I am available to investigate if you feel someone it attempting to bait you into a negative reaction. I am busy most of the day on weekdays but evenings and weekends I am free. Chillum 14:30, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment

Your incivility and excessive usage of swear words isn't improving your situation; you're just ruining your reputation, and making matters worse. I suggest you just sit in your cage for your block and be a good little hamster. -- 科学高爾夫迷(讨论|投稿) 15:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that you try to curb your evident glee and mind your own business. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

There are younger children that edit the pages on Wikipedia, and I'm pretty certain that it wouldn't be good if they were to read this page. -- 科学高爾夫迷(讨论|投稿) 16:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Good job they didn't log in on 9 July then. Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Poly, 1) wikipedia isn't censored and 2) this isn't a website designed for children. Is that the best argument you've got? Nev1 (talk) 18:32, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. It remains a mystery to me why those who campaign so loudly against a bit of swearing on a talk page are quite relaxed about nonsense like this appearing in article space. No joined up thinking in evidence, just spite and general petty mindedness. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh the poor little children, how forever scarred they will be by seeing four-letter words. Fuck e'm I say. It won't be long before they're using them themselves. As for "reputation"? Do you think I give a shit what people who I'll never know think of me. Your ego may be that shallow, mine isn't. --WebHamster 16:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Please, both of you take your back and forth commentary to one of your talk pages. Chillum 16:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Not you again. :-( --Malleus Fatuorum 16:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Whilst you're passing out the hypocritical advice, why don't you bugger off to your own talk page and leave mine unwatched. --WebHamster 16:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm patrolling this page because your comments posted at other editors seem very offensive and gives a bad example to younger children who edit Wikipedia. -- 科学高爾夫迷(讨论|投稿) 16:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah, so you're one of those editors woho goes looking for something to offend them then? Well look, you won't be disappointed. Now I realise you probably think the universe revolves around your goodself, but the comment was aimed at the superintendent of the Civil Police himself, Chillum. --WebHamster 16:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Polynomial, I think you're doing more harm here than good. Don't kick people when they're down, please. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:04, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Polynomial is now a permanent non-issue. Play on. HalfShadow 17:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Greater Manchester August Newsletter, Issue XVIII

Delivered on 5 August 2009 by Nev1. If you do not wish to receive future newsletters, please add two *s by your username on the Project Mainpage.

Nev1 (talk) Nev1 (talk) 17:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

COI , disclosure, and Aspergers

COI editing is strongly discouraged. When editing causes disruption to the encyclopedia through violation of policies such as neutral point of view, what Wikipedia is not, and notability, accounts may be blocked.

Editors with COIs are strongly encouraged to declare their interests, both on their user pages and on the talk page of any article they edit, particularly if those edits may be contested.

Closeness to a subject does not mean you're incapable of being neutral, but it may incline you towards some bias. Be guided by the advice of other editors --WP:COI

One feature of COI is that the individual is not a good judge of whether or not they personally have a COI; it'd be like asking parents to accurately judge the artistic ability of their own children. For that reason, the best approach is full disclosure, then let the community decide if a COI exists, and if so, if it matters.

This is true for everyone, but particularly for yourself, given that your medical condition makes it harder for you to judge how other people will feel about things. You should probably declare your Asperger's more prominently on your userpage, people might cut you a bit more slack - and you should cut other people more slack too. After all, some of them may have Asperger's too. Regards, Ben Aveling 22:01, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, as you will note in the quote you kindly took time to copy & paste, COI is not forbidden. My job status and who I work for is not a matter for WP. When I worked for The Hamsters I said so, when I didn't work for The Hamsters I also said so. It doesn't get much simpler than that. As far as the AS goes I neither expect nor want any "slack". What I want, as I frequently make abundantly clear, is to be left alone to my thing on WP without being fucked about by every troll, fuckwit and pedantic twat on the planet (and just in case the civility police are watching I am not referring to you personally). Take for example the troll known as Yiwentang. He/she is a disgruntled student of Plymouth Uni with an obvious stalker issue that was catalysed into action by Hoary and I's interaction on the Drake Circus Shopping Centre. They then got it into their head's to fuck me about by having a pop at the Hamsters article because that's the other article I was working on at the time of the DCSC. As a result I get drawn back into having to fuck around with this article, and the Billups one. I haven't worked on it in months. That is not the work of a CoI editor with an agenda. If you don't like that, then tough as that's the way it is. I don't like having to waste time dealing with fucking idiots with mental disorders when I can be doing work on WP that has absolutely nothing to do with The Hamsters or my old job. Does that make it clearer for you? --WebHamster 23:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Dare I mention Belle Vue Zoo again? :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum 23:49, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Of course you may :) The problem is I'm having a lot of concentration difficulties at the mo', which is why I find myself doing hit and run vandalism patrolling on my watchlist. The downside is that it seems to attract the crazies, and whether I like it or not I get drawn into yet more controversy. I'd love to be left alone so I can make inroads into the BVZ article. There is a lot more to be included but I need to be able to concentrate and read the books I have, make notes (an almost impossible task for me due to aspects of the AS) then write it in such a way as to allow you to rip it apart and write it correctly :p. Meanwhile every fuckwit (including ones who think I'm a member of a Southend band even though I live in Manchester!) on the planet seems to feel the need to fuck me about so that I don't feel in the mood to do any of that.

If there weren't so many lily-livered, rose-tinted glasses wearing, naive and emotionally sensitive editors left to make policy then this project would have more material written by editors who didn't give a flying fuck about drama, bureaucracy and/or self-promotion. If this project had been started by someone who had done service in the battlegrounds of the alt. hierarchy of Usenet and understood how the real world is and not how they want or think it should be then these halls of faux-academia would be a much more pleasant and bullshit free place to come to. Who the fuck ever told Jimbo a world-wide commune could ever work? It's almost as bad as the numbskull who thought Communism would work! Why people strive for perfection in projects when there are human beings involved is beyond me. For example what paltroon ever thought WP:AGF or WP:CIVIL were viable concepts? --WebHamster 00:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

But Hamster, old chap, I'm one poltroon who thinks that "AGF" is a viable concept. "AGF" means that one starts by assuming good faith, which is what I start by assuming. It doesn't mean that one then applies blinkers and then a blindfold in order to insist on assuming GF despite an ever-increasing pile of evidence to the contrary. Thus for example I started by assuming GF in the multiply named Yiwentang. I found that the assumption was not justified, and indeed I now assume bad faith in Yiwentang, whose numerous socks and IPs have such a conveniently distinctive prose style. This has little to do with civility, and breaches of civility are usually of little concern to me. Actually I'm rather happy when people I've already inferred are trolls, liars and so on are rude to me; the ruder they are, the stupider they are likely to appear to any interested onlooker. Thus I've no particular objection to your continued use of "fuck", "fuckwit", "shit", and so forth, at least when it's on your own talk page; but I'd point out that the repetitiveness makes it boring, and eventually makes you come off as boring. So I suggest some more variation ("poltroon" was a good start) and also moderation, not for reduced effect but for enhanced effect. As for bullshit, I warmly (steamingly?) recommend this elegant little book. -- Hoary (talk) 01:25, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

There is clearly a problem here though, in that WebHamster has made it very clear that he is not interested in certain aspects of wikipedia's social mores, and to be frank neither am I. So to be blocked for telling some spotty-faced plank to "fuck off" on this talk page is an absurdity. Said spotty-faced plank ought to just fuck off and annoy someone else. But no, down comes the banhammer, because WebHamster has used a naughty word. I'm getting to the point of raising a union of regular editors, as it seems to be the only way to fight this creeping administrator abuse. "One out, all out". Let the administrators have the site all to themselves, until they come to their senses. Individually we're easy targets. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Malleus, old bean, we read below that you are not getting to the point of raising a union of regular editors. This is all rather confusing. -- Hoary (talk) 23:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Confusing for simpletons, perhaps. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:45, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

permitted, forbidden, and the space between

COI is in between forbidden and permitted, and closer to forbidden than to permitted. That is, when COI exists, the community will decide if it is acceptable or not, based on a range of written and unwritten rules and norms. Among the factors considered is the author's reputation and standing in the community. Much the same as with withdrawals from and deposits into an 'emotional bank account', going against a community's guidelines is effectively making a withdrawal from the 'reputational' bank account. When someone has a large positive balance, a 'withdrawal' is unlikely to be challenged. One expression for this is to 'cut someone some slack'. When someone has only a small positive balance or a negative balance, even a small withdrawal is likely be challenged. Put another way, when X takes an action, and Y doesn't under the motivation, Y will extend their existing understanding of X to X's action. If they trust and like X, they will trust that X's action is good; if they dislike and distrust X, they will dislike and distrust X's action. Regards, Ben Aveling 22:01, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I think we're all aware of just how corrupt the wikipedia system is, so I don't really see the need for your sanctimonious lectures. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:52, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't (specifically) talking about wikipedia. This is the way people behave. For most people, it is intuitive that the world is so. As for why it so, it saves time, compared to starting from first principles every time. As for why I'm being explicit about it here, it's the most people part. For some people, it isn't intuitive. Regards, Ben Aveling 05:59, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I am not so aware, although I am aware it's far from perfect. I have no intention of intervening in depth to this unfortunate situation, but I will just say this: if you don't like it, you are not being forced to participate here since the Internet is large enough to accept a wide variety of input. As far as *here* is concerned, there are two options: use the force of intellect to change it, or accept that the force of intellect isn't going to work here. User:Peter Damian found out the latter, and by no means is he the first in that regard. There's a social contract of sorts here that predicates that you accept the rules and try to change the ones you don't like- but if you can't, perhaps you're in the wrong place. As Paul Dirac said, "When it's you against the world, bet on the world". That's all I have to say. You're free to disagree, but AFAIC, that's the end of it. Rodhullandemu 23:03, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I suggest that you keep your opinions to yourself, as I have not the slightest interest in them. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Malleus old chap, do get to the point of raising a union of regular editors, if this seems to be the only way to fight this creeping administrator abuse, corrupt system, whatever. -- Hoary (talk) 23:08, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

It would be MfD'd within minutes, as you well know, so very little point in giving the bastards the pleasure. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Malleus old fellow, I may be a mere simpleton, but it does seem to me that you're disappointingly weak-kneed at the prospect of dastardly acts by unspecified "bastards". What's a little MfD among friends/bastards? Where's your fighting spirit? Look here: after one bastard MfDd Tony's capital new wheeze, a whole pile of other bastards commented and led to its retention. So don't just sit on your arse (or elbow): do something. Or of course you may prefer to remain incorrigibly English and. rather than starting to effect any change, merely whinge ineffectually. (Note to mystified non-British readers: moaning of a peculiarly ineffective kind is a core part of English social life, as ably explained in Kate Fox's Watching the English: The Hidden Rules of English Behaviour, a very readable piece of pop anthropology.) -- Hoary (talk) 00:40, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Whatever. Like WebHamster I think I'm just about done here. Sort out your own pile of shit. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:40, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I see the pubs are shut in the North-West of England. I've no interest in participating in this unnecessary bitterness. How incredibly sad it is. Fix it or fuck off, basically. Rodhullandemu 23:17, 7 August 2009 (UTC) Forget it. Last week I removed an extremely abusive allegation by an anon IP for this page, and so bad was it that it had to be oversighted and the IP blocked for a lengthy period. That took some of my time which would have been better used elsewhere, and is why I watchlisted this page. However, I no longer see any reason to look after Webhamster's interests, or those of his claque. If you need help, please ask another admin- if you can find one that isn't "corrupt". Goodbye. Rodhullandemu 23:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

What I see is that you can't tell your arse from your elbow. Have a nice day. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:43, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Here are some buckets for anyone starting to feel a bit queasy. Go for it Malleus! -- Hoary (talk) 00:47, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I note as well that you, an administrator, feel quite at liberty to make insinuations about my state of intoxication, whereas I get blocked for even suggesting that someone may be sycophantic. You people make me fucking sick. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:18, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

You are obviously lacking a mirror, at least in the metaphysical sense. Rodhullandemu 00:20, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I thought, as you melodramatically pointed out earlier, that you'd taken this page off your watchlist? Nev1 (talk) 00:22, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Rod, Ben, it seems you are confusing me with someone who gives a fuck. Chillum, your sanctimonious words of... "This block is to prevent further abuse to our volunteers", well numb-nuts, you appear to have forgotten that I'm also a volunteer, or rather was one. I don't do bureaucracy, I don't do politics and I don't kow-tow to self-important pricks. Do as you will, I'm off. --WebHamster 00:25, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Responding to your first point, I hadn't even considered whether or not you give a fuck. I was, and am, trying to appeal to your own sense of self interest. You have your strengths, and your weaknesses. On one hand you're smart, on the other, you don't instinctively 'grok' people. You have the ability to use your intellect to compensate for that, if and when you want to. I was, and am, just trying to give you a reason to want to. As for whether you do give a fuck, all I will say is that I suspect that you have spent a long time trying not to give a fuck. Regards, Ben Aveling 05:59, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Hamsters

Thanks! I think I need to get new glasses, and this Beta WP is also confusing me a bit. Or I'm just a lousy proofreader. Drmies (talk) 15:15, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Any chance?

Any chance of this page being promoted to Featured Article? Just thought I'd ask. Skinsmoke (talk) 03:19, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

WebHamster you rock and rule :-)Benmols2 (talk) 09:09, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Noloop

I've started a RFC for Noloop. Could you help with diff gathering and stuff, because I'm not sure if I'm doing it right.

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/NoloopAbce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 21:00, 11 August 2009 (UTC)Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 20:51, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

FYI

It looks like the troll who was vandalising your pages is back in another guise. This time, the person raised the issue at WP:AWN. The account was blocked because of the similarity with the IPs who had vandalised your page, and because they can't decide on the details of their story, it looks like a fabrication. Nev1 (talk) 16:52, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Cheers Nev, that makes at least 3 accounts they've started today to attempt to harass and out me. I find it rather amusing really as they seem to have spent a lot of time on Google looking for info. I really don't have the heart to spoil all their work by telling them that they have the wrong person in mind. So some poor sod is having their personal details spread all over WP and they don't know it. --WebHamster 17:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, WebHamster. You have new messages at Abce2's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 14:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, Noloops at it again. I've gotten more diffs, too. Oh, and he refused to come to his RFC, stating that's it's just a troll potluck. I'm kinda getting tired of that.Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 15:48, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

He seems to be heading for a troll-accusation meltdown. Unfortunately newbies seldom realise that when complaints are brought to places like ANI the complainant's behaviour also comes under scrutiny. For someone like Noloop who believe they are the centre of their own universes it can be a bit of a mind-fuck to realise that other people have the gall to not believe the same things they do. --WebHamster 15:53, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

It seems that you and I are the center of his/her attacks. Wonder why.Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 15:57, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Probably because we disagreed with him the most. One meets the weirdest of people on WP :) --WebHamster 15:59, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. This reminds me of Frei Hans. He kind of went sock crazy, and though the only user who wasn't a sock(beside himslef) was Jimbo.Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 16:01, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

This is one of the problems of vandal and recent changes patrol, you get picked up on the radar of people who are, let's say, running on less cylinders than they should. --WebHamster 16:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

It's a dirty job, but someone's got to do it.Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 16:06, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about the talkpage disappearing a couple of times, I thought it would be best to remove the personal details 86.170.110.16 (talk · contribs) posted but forgot that the most recent edits (the replies) contained the info. I've also blocked the IP for disruptive editing (ie: posting personal details). Sorry it took so long, my computer's a bit sluggish today. Nev1 (talk) 16:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

That's no prob Nev, thanks for doing the necessary. I wasn't in any rush as those details weren't actually mine :) --WebHamster 16:49, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

You should see Noloops most recent post to his ANI.Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 16:45, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, just more evidence of his own perfection. Heheheh. --WebHamster 16:49, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

• In future Nev1, you might just send an email to Special:Emailuser/Oversight and paste the diff. A lot less work (for you, anyway ;>) –xeno^talk 16:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually I had started to do that at WP:RFO before I saw Nev getting stuck in. I didn't want to confuse the issue so left him to it :) --WebHamster 16:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

hehe. Yea, after things are selectively deleted you need to send them a Special:Undelete diff (admin only). At least if you don't want them to complain at you about the extra digging they had to do to find the proper diff to oversight. =) –xeno^talk 16:53, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I was unsure about the oversight process and thought it was best to act quickly. I'll read through the process so that if I see something that needs to be removed such as that again I can do it the easy way. Do you think oversight is still required? As the vandal is using a dynamic IP, I've protect WebHamster's user and talk page. Nev1 (talk) 16:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Typically they respond very quickly (under 10 minutes). It won't hurt to get the deleted revision oversighted (make sure you send them the diff found in special:undelete). As far as the protection - you might want to set an expiry for the talk page one, otherwise, WH should consider setting up an anon talk page. –xeno^talk 17:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I've sent an e-mail with the diffs for both the user and talk page vandalism. I've also set the semi-protection expiry on this page to three days. Nev1 (talk) 17:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

So how is the RFC? Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 17:03, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Strange how Noloop seems to end up on pages in my watchlist. He just failed the article Münchausen by Internet as a GAN.Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 20:29, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

No doubt as a result of his long service on the project and his unassailable belief in his own perfection. --WebHamster 20:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Did I miss anything on the RFC?Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 20:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I added the RFC to the list.Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 21:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I can't see anything you've missed, but to be honest I tend to stay well away from things like RFC as I have a keen dislike of bureaucracy. I would ease up on the diffs though. There's plenty there to get the point across. As he's refused to visit then he won't be defending himself which effectively says that he doesn't disagree with the comments. BTW I've also added my 2¢ to the Munchausen GAC debacle. --WebHamster 22:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay.Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 22:59, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Just a note: I'm not supporting "N" in the ANI - I just think you went over the line on that one comment. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:03, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Sigh, there goes Noloop again, deleteing stuff stating that there's no consensus.Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 15:58, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

You do know Noloop has been stalking you, right?Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 18:55, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Yup. Don't care. All he's succeeded in doing is making himself look like a prat. Every single one of his edits was reverted by others, along with a few minor wrist slaps. He also chose a day when I was away from the computer so I never actually saw any of his reverts until this evening, long after he'd done them. As a result it shows he's even a failure as a troll. :) --WebHamster 00:57, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Notice

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Request for Arbitration Noloop and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requesting Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks,Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 19:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

WebHamster, I've been looking into the background to this, and I don't like what I'm seeing at the two RfCs here and here, and at the ANI thread here. I'm provisionally accepting the request to look at the behaviour of all parties. If there is further background to this that you can provide by making a statement at the request, that would help me and the other arbitrators decide whether a case is needed here. Carcharoth (talk) 00:59, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Further background to what? Normally I'm a person who doesn't 'run to mummy', I'm also someone who steers as far away from bureaucracy as possible. So basically I'm not really sure what you want from me. If you want further info on Noloop, then I've already said what I wanted to say at his/her RFC and at various other locales. If you want me to say more about myself, well all I can say is that I'm not going to deliberately damn myself, neither am I going to defend who I am. I am what you see and that isn't going to change anytime soon. --WebHamster 07:55, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Heads up

User:Abce2 retired a couple days ago but he/she is back. I just thought I would inform you.--^{The Legendary}_{Sky Attacker} 20:16, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Most likely I am a "fucktwit" (based on what Noloop has recently said) to Noloop. As so is everyone else who has ever disagreed with him/her. And so are admins's to him/her. He/she has a huge distrust of people here.Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 17:21, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

That's because they are most probably the only genuine troll amongst those accused. It's a common troll tactic to accuse as many other people as possible so as to increase the disruption they can cause. I'd put money on it in fact. Noloop's behaviour is textbook troll/sockpuppet modus operandi --WebHamster 18:36, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Grammar edit

This change [2] has been made and reverted many times in the past. It's gramatically correct; the sentence is saying "the concept albums (x, x, x, and x), and the rock opera, The Wall". It is not including The Wall among the list of concept albums. It's one of those things that can look wrong at first glance, but when the intent is understood, it's okay, and is not a run-on sentence. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 00:37, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

The Whip

I'm glad to see that you've relented in trying to get the article deleted. In fact, the article seems to be thriving pretty well. Perhaps now, in the face of the overwhelming evidence for the notability of the subject matter (a notability that existed at the time of the articles creation, not one that arose since), you'll be prepared to admit that your attempts to have the article deleted were based purely on pettiness and spite. You know, I'm naturally pessimistic about the wikipedia project, but seeing attempts at destroying good articles thwarted makes me a little more optimistic. I think you owe the wikipedia community an apology for your disgraceful display in trying to subvert the encyclopedic effort and attempting to destroy knowledge, rather than engender it. Antic-Hay (talk) 05:31, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

What the fuck are you going on about? I've not been trying to get any article deleted. --WebHamster 09:06, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Whip_(band) OH REALLY. Not a good idea to lie when there's archived evidence to the contrary. Antic-Hay (talk) 20:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh piss off, that was May 2008 and frankly I really don't give a shit. --WebHamster 21:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Noloop

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Noloop/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Noloop/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, KnightLago (talk) 18:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Affinity (the Band)

I have nominated this article for deletion Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Affinity_(band) because it has ZERO credible references and is a pure promo for a band that fails to meet any criteria for inclusion in this encyclopedia.Michelle-hine (talk) 16:02, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

It's amazing how you've figured that out and have gone to the trouble of screwing up an AfD all on your 2nd edit. Something you managed in a similar way previously under your puppetmaster account of Yiwentang (talk · contribs). Anyway, regardless of your sockpuppetry, Affinity meets the requirements of WP:BAND by some considerable margin. --WebHamster 16:14, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Dsotm20.jpg

Please do not add inappropriate images to Wikipedia, as you did to The Dark Side of the Moon}}; it is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Please refer to WP:NFCC#3, which states "Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information."|, as you did to [[:Please refer to WP:NFCC#3, which states "Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information." Thank you (and apologies for cocking up this message the first time). 81.110.104.91 (talk) 15:50, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Huh? From the file history, it doesn't look like WebHamster's had anything to do with that file and Moe Epsilon (talk · contribs) was the original uploader (although the file history doesn't show it because 14 edits have been deleted, none of which are attributed to WebHamster). I think you've got the wrong person. Nev1 (talk) 15:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh I see, I replied before these edits made it clear what was going on. Nev1 (talk) 16:00, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Consensus decided that it was fair use. Your unilateral decision to declare that it was unfair went again policy. Your wikilawyering is uncool, and don't fucking template the regulars. --WebHamster 18:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

"Consensus decided" no such thing. Our rules are deliberately stricter than fair use would allow, because commercial sites copy us directly. Being a "regular" doesn't exempt you from policy, and correct application of policy is not "wikilawyering". I'm not going to bother reminding you to behave in a civil manner, because it's evident you don't care. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 15:20, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Threadjack - I wondered what you thought of my suggestion about the Pink Floyd article here? Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:05, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

"Your userpage" thread

I'm pretty sure the person that started this thread on Jimbo's talk meant to take it up with you first. – B.hotep •talk• 12:53, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the head's-up, but to be honest I'm not interested. There's nothing new going to be said and it'll be the same accusations about paedophilia etc. I'd rather waste my time on something else. --WebHamster 13:49, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I pointed out that the user was in a dispute with you. Actually, the more I look at that account, the more I find myself looking at my feet. Black Kite 15:26, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I think WH pointed the "footwear" issue out to the user at a recent AfD, which is probably why they went running to teacher... no, sorry, the Headmaster. ;) – B.hotep •talk• 15:35, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes I had my suspicions right at the start, especially as they were keen on using the two favourite methods frequently utilised by Yiwentang (talk · contribs), ie attempting to get musician articles I'd worked on deleted and accusations of an interest in female children. I wouldn't mind so much but I think 35 is too bloody young :) --WebHamster 16:02, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that Jimbo's response was as thoughtful as usual: "Off with his head!" Yours that is. How dare you upset an obvious sockpuppet just because he calls you a paedophile. Added to which you've upset other sockpuppets as well, so you need to be indef blocked, regardless of whatever policies are in place. The man is completely out of touch with reality. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't "off with his head!" but "will someone rid me of this turbulent editor!", and HamsterSandwich nearly stepped in and allowed Jimbo to act by proxy. Not that WebHamster's a saint though ;-) Nev1 (talk) 17:02, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I prefer the old adage, "You don't need a sense of humour to work here... but you're fucked if you do". – B.hotep •talk• 17:03, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

WebHamster's a human being just like the rest of us, some good, some bad. Even the saints weren't saints. Even as a child I found the stories of saints living for years only on the wax from church candles to be more than a little too far-fetched. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:08, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Make war, not love

My friend, your userpage illustration has served its purpose and risks becoming troll bait. Would love to see you change it up for variety and use those image editing skills at WP:FPC. Best regards, Durova³⁰⁶ 19:09, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• Would love to see you doing stuff like this
• 
  Illustration from a sixteenth century grant of arms signed by Philip II of Spain.
• 
  After restoration

FYI

User:Bluescreenofdef posted personal info about you on your userpage earlier. It has been removed and is being oversighted now. User has been indefblocked. Email me if you want to know where he got the info from (you may know already). Black Kite 22:44, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Not sure that posting that is necessarily helpful unless WH doesn't have mail turned on. ++Lar: t/c 13:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks, He's tried this before. I don't know what it was that he's posted but if it's the same personal stuff as Yiwentang has been trying to out me with then it's just old WHOIS info gleaned from info he thinks is correct. What they don't realise is that they've got the wrong person and it's someone else's details gleaned from something like Facebook. To be honest I haven't given over many brain cycles trying to figure it out. I really couldn't care less about what they think they know. --WebHamster 06:26, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Try to mellow out

Edits like this one [3] are not acceptable. Even if you happened to be right. ++Lar: t/c 02:57, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

You'll have to explain to me what was unacceptable. I wasn't uncivil. If it's the use of his first name. Well as far as I'm concerned when a person has a direct link to their personal Facebook page then WP:OUTING is not an issue. --WebHamster 06:28, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

The edit summary of "another troll pokes his head up over the parapet" was far below acceptable standards. As for outing... why out someone not using their real name, regardless of whether or not it's visible externally. Policy here seems to not take into account what is done elsewhere, but focuses on here only... if he doesnt' currently have his real name on his own page by his own hand, it's not appropriate to use it. Which you should know since you yourself struggle with those who wish to out you. Please do better in future, even if you feel you yourself are put upon and wronged. Please note: I picked one edit as an example in hopes you'll take the hint and improve your civility levels, but if you want a detailed analysis of the many more edits I found that also are sadly lacking, please let me know. I suggest you take the hint though. ++Lar: t/c 13:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd likely be a bit upset at receiving a message like yours, with an edit summary of "suggest you take the hint" after having endured what WebHamseter's had to put up with. Admittedly even I can see that he could do more to help his cause though, like removing the picture that causes periodic perturbations in the hearts of more sensitive editors, who then feel obliged to go running to Jimbo Wales in the hope of eliciting one of his famously ill-judged blocks.

But I'm not writing this to in any way complain about the injustice of the point you're making Lar. Rather I'm hoping that by saying it myself it may prevent any further unnecessary escalation, as I suspect that WebHamster's knee-jerk reaction to comments such as you made (which, to repeat myself, I'm not necessarily saying are unreasonable or unfair) would otherwise be inclined to be similar to my own if they were made to me, and would not necessarily make for edifying reading. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your view, Malleus. Certainly I can see how someone might be upset after enduring things, but in general I'm comfortable with my assessment that there's a need for a change in approach. I've said enough, hopefully the hint will be taken and the matter will be dropped. ++Lar: t/c 15:36, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi

Don't let the bastards grind you down. Duffbeerforme (talk) 16:14, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

^ I approve of this, and wanted to offer my moral support. I was pondering a similar userpage about Lady Thatcher, but I don't support Jimbo would approve a picture of a c**t. Keep up the good stuff,  Chzz  ►  13:50, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I just spent an hour and a half reading about your issues with Prester John back in 2008, it was pretty epic. I never realized how much work dedicated wikipedians have to do to deal with vandals. It's your kind of work that allows this encyclopedia to so effectively move forward. Keep it up.Licensedlunacy (talk) 07:47, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

A proposal

Whereas I want Malleus to lose his talk page banner, I would like to be the first to congratulate you on yours. Amen. :) – B.hotep •talk• 01:18, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protected

I have semi-protected this page for 1 week due to the trolling that has been happening here. I hope this is an acceptable solution for you. Chillum 16:31, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

About San Marino

San Marino was a co-belligerent of the Axis, not a member of the group. Only Germany, Italy, Japan, Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary, Yugoslavia(very briefly),Croatia and Slovakia signed the treaty that formed the Axis. Therefore I changed the words.

Thank you.

Vulturedroid (talk) 14:42, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Noloop case extended

As a party to the Noloop arbitration case, I'm leaving you this note to let you know that I've extended the deadline in the Noloop case for the posting of the proposed decision. You now have until 13 September to present further evidence, or start presenting evidence. I've explained further here. If you have any questions, please ask there. Carcharoth (talk) 00:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

James Bond film series GAR notification

James Bond film series has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The Final Cut

I've made a start here. It shouldn't take long to whip it into shape. Parrot of Doom (talk) 16:25, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The only bit I'm having trouble with is the final paragraph in the Background section, which contains some interesting material I'm not able to find a source for. Google Books is sick of me and won't let me read Mabbett's book any more, so I'm a bit stuck now. It'll have to go if I can't find a source for it. The rest of the article is mostly done though, and needs a copyedit to tidy up my writing, and citations for the re-releases. It was a fairly good article to begin with, so I didn't have to do much. I'll copy it across now. Parrot of Doom (talk) 13:25, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Cheers, I'll see if I can find the books. They're all packed away in boxes ready for a move I never made 12 months ago :) --WebHamster 20:35, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, there may be a bit of an edit war coming up unfortunately, see the article's recent history. I didn't bother posting anything on the talk page as the last two times I did so, nobody responded. Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:37, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Manchester Martyrs and Belle Vue Gaol

Sorry WebHamster, I hadn't seen that. That's exactly the kind of article that we need more of. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:02, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

No probs, I was only taking the piss :) As for the article. I was just fascinated as it showed up when I was doing research on BV zoo. In fact the article had mentioned it but some editor deleted the info as irrelevant. Some of the detritus of the gaol demolition was used to line the floor of the lake. Jennison was a canny bugger who used whatever he could get hold of :) --WebHamster 20:39, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Yang Xuefei

Yang is a classical guitarist known thoughout all of Asia which represents 3 billion people so please do not simply vandalise the article List_of_classical_guitarists by simply ripping out her name without any discussion.

So create an article. In Wikipedia terms a red link equates to non-notability. Oh and by the way, the next time you leave a comment here have the decency to sign it. --WebHamster 19:00, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Hang on, what the fuck are you talking about? I didn't remove Yang Xuefei it's still there, what I did do is supply the wikilink to the PRC. Perhaps you should lay off the rice wine and check your facts before having a go at me. --WebHamster 19:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Ahhh, got it. The trolling fuckwit Yiwentang can't even go on holiday without thinking about me. How touching. --WebHamster 19:22, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

A Permanent Lapse of Reason? Or just a bit of Meddling? ;) Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:18, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

yet another example of the incivilty of Kurt Adkins and all his various socks.86.41.81.228 (talk) 09:16, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: Belle Vue Zoo map.png

Yeah, I must of been bit on auto-pilot, I try to keep things with text at legible sizes when it seems like the image is useless otherwise. I'm afraid that one slipped through. You may want to either remove the {{Non-free reduced}} and replace it with a {{Non-free reduce}} or remove it altogether. As it stands, it'll be put into to administrative backlog in 7 days, when it shouldn't be. Thanks for letting me know. RandomStringOfCharacters (talk) 03:04, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

FYI ANI

Hi, you are mentioned in a discussion at ANI here and please stop reverting at the Richard Gere page as you are close to a 3RR violation. Ta. Off2riorob (talk) 20:44, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I already have stopped, although how a 'see also' is a BLP violation I have no idea. --WebHamster 20:46, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, if using common but completely unproven urban legends about a supposed incident between a rodent and an actor is not a massive violation of WP:BLP, I'm not sure what is ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:12, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

It's only a BLP violation if it continues the rumour, not if it reports a very well known urban legend. Next time, please sign any bollocks you wish to leave on my talk page. --WebHamster 20:52, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

You're a silver-tongued devil WebHamster, but if you need any lessons in diplomacy I'll be only too happy to help. :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum 21:16, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Well I was going to ask... ;) --WebHamster 21:18, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Who is it that you want me tell to fuck off then? :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 21:27, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Probably me, hammer-man :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:14, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Richard Gere

(Put a huge smile on my face while I tell you this) We both want, for good reasons, a mention of that urban legend to appear on the page. However your recent behaviour in the dispute and your editing record on the page edge on disruption. I understand you may not think so, but try to err on the caution side. Staying cool is difficult but ultimately rewarding: you usually catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. Pushing your opinion regardless of discussions and making blunt comments on talk pages is only going to backlash and to make other editors angry (including yourself). I'm not telling this to you to "patronize", take it more of an advice to get your points being heard in this and other discussions. Thanks! --Cycl^opia - ^talk 21:04, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice but I can assure you that I don't need it. I am neither angry nor intent on kow-towing to the current crop of wikilawyers. I am however a tad frustrated at the bullshit being spouted by the people with their fingers in their ears. 'Blunt' is the only way I know and I'm far too old to change now. --WebHamster 21:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

• Human communication explained
• Kowtowing
  Kowtowing
• 
  Mooning (see also this superior demonstration by Jello Biafra).

Notice the difference: in order to kowtow it is necessary to raise one's trousers back into the customary above-the-crotch position and touch one's head to the floor. Although the two gestures are superficially similar they carry opposite social connotations. Other options between these two extremes are also available. Thumbing one's nose would be a step up, but unfortunately that isn't an article yet. Perhaps it would make a good entry for Template:Did you know? Durova³²⁰ 22:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

September 2009

This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive comments.
The next time you make a personal attack as you did at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. →ROUX ₪ 23:49, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Go fuck yourself. --WebHamster 23:50, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing. Your recent insistence on flagrantly violating our policy on biographies of living persons highlighted your particularly abrasive response to criticism and feedback. Until such a time when you can convince me or an uninvolved admin that you can edit in a collegial manner, your account will remain blocked. I have no particular problem with the word "fuck" or any of the allied curse words. A problem exists, however, in your use of those words to arouse a response out of other editors or telegraph your unwillingness to edit harmoniously. If you feel this block is in error or you feel that you can edit in a collegial manner, you may request an unblock by adding the text {{Unblock|Your reason here}} to your talk page. Please read the guide to appealing blocks first. A hint: inveighing against the blocking admin with hyperbolic language will probably not do the trick. Protonk (talk) 05:06, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Was this block in response to the comment above, made more than five hours earlier? --Malleus Fatuorum 06:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Let's be reasonable

Previously you've posted things in userspace that have been borderline--as in stuff I wouldn't do with my own userspace but wouldn't stop you from doing. Although I won't remove this one either, gotta comment that it's self-defeating. The subtext of both the message itself and related edit summaries looks like I'm not ready to accept limitations and will continue to be defiant. Nobody is demanding an apology; nobody demands that you stop being yourself. Adaptation would be a good idea. I've served in the Navy; I understand curses in five languages. Yet every sailor knows when and where to keep it clean. To the talk page watchers: please stop trying to remove the template from this fellow's page. You can lead a hamster to water but you can't make him drink. Hamster, I'll be waiting at the email trough if you're thirsty. With respect, Durova³²⁰ 16:38, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure Durova means well but she's wrong. Yes, they are "demanding an apology" from you, and yes they are "demanding that you stop being yourself". It's so bloody obvious man. But don't do it. Don't let the politically correct police censor you. Never let them control you either. Be true to yourself and continue to speak your mind. Caden ^cool 12:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to dismiss Noloop arbitration case

As a party to the Noloop arbitration case, I'm notifying you that I've made a proposal here to dismiss the case. Discussion is here (please reply here if you wish to make a statement or comment). Carcharoth (talk) 03:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Page protected for 24 hours

Due to a dispute over some content on this page, I have protected it for 24 hours.

WebHamster, please email me at xenowiki (at) gmail (dot) com if you need to -

• 1) Request unblocking (you may also email unblock-en-l@lists.wikimedia.org)
• 2) Comment on the motion to dismiss the arbcom case (you may also email arbcom-en-l@lists.wikimedia.org).
• 3) Any other matter that this protection has impeded

Thank you for your understanding. –xeno^talk 14:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Noloop

In light of the absence of Noloop (talk · contribs) and the indefinite block of WebHamster (talk · contribs), the two primary parties, this case is dismissed. If future problems arise (following the return or unblock of either or both editors), those problems should be dealt with by the opening of a new user conduct request for comment on the editor concerned. Requests for the Arbitration Committee to reopen this case would also be considered.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, KnightLago (talk) 19:02, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Identity theft attempt

If any admin has got this page watchlisted I would like to report a serious intrusion into my privacy.

Today I received an email from Wikipedia announcing...

---

Someone from the IP address 86.176.163.251 has registered the account "Hamster of doom" with this e-mail address on the English Wikipedia.

To confirm that this user account really does belong to you and to activate e-mail features on Wikipedia, please open this URL in your browser:

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Special:ConfirmEmail/cb34557660ed9b33600bbedc49cee8c1

If you did not recently register for Wikipedia (or if you registered with a different e-mail address), click the following link to cancel the confirmation:

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Special:Invalidateemail/cb34557660ed9b33600bbedc49cee8c1

This confirmation e-mail will automatically expire at 14:25, 11 November 2009 (UTC).

~Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia http://en.wiki.x.io

---

This means that Hamster of doom (talk · contribs) and 86.176.163.251 (talk · contribs) are the same person, and that person is attempting to imitate me and use my own private email address. I would be grateful if you could block both. The former indefinitely and the latter for a couple of months. I suspect this to be Yiwentang (talk · contribs).

I have been attempting to steer clear of this project due to fucking nutters like this forcing me to waste my valuable time. --WebHamster 18:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for pointing that out. The account has been blocked and I will ask for an explanation, although I doubt one will be forthcoming. Nev1 (talk) 18:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Even when I leave the project I can't seem to get away from these weirdos. --WebHamster 11:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Yiwentang identity

Well enough is enough. I now know who Yiwentang is, what her job is and where she works (the address and the phone number). I also know why this whole stalking business started and why there's a financial motive involved, or at least was at the time this shit started.

Now my first thought is to publicly out her and where she works, but as I'm not the sort of vindictive fuckwit she is I won't. Or at least I won't if she gives it a fucking rest. If she keeps up the stalking (of me and my mates) I will make sure her employer's name is mud all over the internet. If she gets off my back I won't do a thing. I can't say fairer than that. Oh, and in case she thinks I'm bluffing. Here's a clue. SS 12DC. --WebHamster 09:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't rise to it. My advice would just be to add your name and other details to your userpage—it nullifies the problem. Mentals crave a response, so my response would be complete silence. Parrot of Doom 11:47, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Noted at WP:ANI. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 18:25, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate that you're not the sort of "vindictive fuckwit she is," but this is still beyond the pale. There does not seem to be anything that we, on Wikipedia can do for you, and your only seeming use of Wikipedia is as a battleground. I have therefor, blocked talk page access for the time being, subject to the spontaneous reversal by another admin. If you continue to receive these unfortunate e-mails via WP e-mail function, I would recommend that you remove your e-mail from your preferences entirely.--Tznkai (talk) 18:37, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like someone correctly guessed his e-mail and then tried to register an account with it. Of course he's now confirmed that the guess was correct, so he might want to use a new e-mail address from now on. Wknight94 ^talk 18:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Kevin Nealon - banjo

I had added Kevin Nealon to the list of banjo players a couple years back. I am curious to know if you removed him because you think he does not play banjo at all. If so, this is not true. Nealon has played banjo since he was 18, and has been seen playing it in his role on the television show "Weeds". ManFromMars22 (talk) 20:06, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Webhamster hasn't edited in several months and is no longer associated with Wikipedia. If you have an issue with an article, I suggest you raise it on the article's talk page. Regards, Nev1 (talk) 20:49, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Live music DVDs

I have nominated Category:Live music DVDs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for renaming to Category:Live video albums (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:13, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of management consulting firms

An article that you have been involved in editing, List of management consulting firms, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of management consulting firms. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Jayron32 04:04, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Italian fake parties on wikipedia

I think that these 2 pages should be deleted: Lega Padana Lombardia and Lombardy Project. As i've written in their "discussion" these parties don't exist actually and never existed in the past. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.33.133.92 (talk) 17:25, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Marc Ramsbottom

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Marc Ramsbottom. 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 Wikipedia:Notability and "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(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marc Ramsbottom. 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.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:04, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Belle Vue Zoo map.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Belle Vue Zoo map.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:43, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Belle Vue

Just in case you pop in to take a look at this page from time to time, I thought you might be interested to know that your Belle Vue project is now an FA. The organisation is different from the way you had it, but it's basically still your article, so congratulations. Malleus Fatuorum 23:47, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

NTE icon.svg image

I dropped the File:NTE icon.svg into Commons so it is available to all projects: indeed now all of the "Places of interest" icons are available on Commons.

Now, if we only had as neat an icon for the NTS, Cadw, Historic Scotland, the Environment and Heritage Service . . .

Hogweard (talk) 18:53, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

QuickPar Image

You did a great job of obfuscating the QuickPar screenshot over a year ago, but you missed the title.

- 119.224.27.171 (talk) 07:19, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Unblocked

 Done Welcome back. FWIW, I knew TPO was you as soon as I poked through your contributions following that non-free image kerfuffle, but, meh, what's the point of blocking someone who's mostly editing productively? You'll need to make a request at WP:USURP if you want Fred The Oyster back, but it's a bit of an unusual case ... but worth a try. Black Kite (t) 09:09, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Again, thank you very much. I didn't try very hard at all to hide the fact, and if you notice I've never actually denied it, even when accused of it. It isn't in my nature to be deceitful, I'm too upfront and direct about things. As such I'm always uncomfortable working as a sock. The only reason I sock is to be productive, even after my 'mouth' gets me into trouble. It's never been my intention to be deliberately disruptive, unfortunately 'dramah' seems to follow me, not to mention several detractors. Anyway, that's in the past as far as I'm concerned that's in the past.

I just went to WP:Usurp and tried to put in a request but unfortunately my IP is autoblocked on the TPO account (see I'm not even munging my IP!). But thinking about it, I may as well just use WebHamster. On commons I don't hide the fact I'm both even if neither account is blocked. So to save everyone's time and energy I may as well just stay with WH. Cheers, I'm very much obliged for you sorting out like this BK. --WebHamster 09:31, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I sussed you out when you started reverting vandalism on Floyd articles :) Parrot of Doom 11:15, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I obviously missed something here. Last night WH was being villified as a sockpuppet and blocks were flying around like confetti. Yet today he's welcomed back? Nice to see you back (officially) anyway WH. Malleus Fatuorum 13:00, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Never underestimate the powers of bribery and extortion. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:28, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Even I knew from the Belle Vue Zoological Gardens days, some folk are very slow on the uptake. And like MF says that is one incredible reversal but nice to see you've removed the false moustache and dark glasses.--J3Mrs (talk) 13:31, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

And sad to say I'm one of those who is slow on the uptake, as it really never occurred to me; I had to be told only a few days ago (not by WebHamster) that he and TPO were likely the same editor. I don't consider myself dumb though, just that my mind is on higher things. :lol: Malleus Fatuorum 13:48, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

And he stuck a copyedit tag on an article I'd copyedited a few days back! I can spot a sock quite easily on stuff I've worked on. As WH said he didn't make it so hard and others only think they do.--J3Mrs (talk) 14:42, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thank you very much guys, it's nice to be back under 'my' own 'name' again. And yes I didn't make it difficult to spot, after all I was creating images on commons as FtO then immediately adding them to en as TPO, then even announcing the fact at the Illustration Workshop. Then I deliberately gave details of my strokes on commons and here. I even deliberately mentioned commons as a non sequiter during a discussion to see if Off2riorob would catch the bait. He did, but I'm betting he thinks it was his detective skills. But enough of that, I promised to watch my civility. I'm just amazed I got two years out of it. The other socks were throwaways so I could have a little nameplay fun whilst I was waiting for the pasta to boil. What they don't realise though is that I can use up to 3 different IP addresses (2 of which are dynamic and change regularly) simultaneously if I so desired so could easily nobble their sock detectors if I so wished. I chose not to. Strangely enough though I've missed the nomme de plume. And alas I didn't barter my soul, though to be frank, I don't think I have one. All I'm interested in these days is doing the illustrations, I find it very therapeutic, especially the relatively easy ones. That and the fact my word and spelling skills have gone down the shitter. In any case I have either Photoshop or Illustrator open anyway for my work so it's just easy for me to knock off some the easy WP ones whilst I'm taking a break from the more difficult client paid ones. --WebHamster 13:37, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

PS: Mid you though, I still can't edit due to the autoblock. though I don't know if I still have to have a salutary block for the activities of the last few days. Anyway, I do intend to keep my promises. In fact, I can't remember when the last time I deliberately broke a promise was. Ah well. --WebHamster 13:40, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Try posting an unblock request template asking them to "finish the job". That might work faster than waiting for an admin to happen to see your talk page. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:46, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Good idea that man, cheers. --WebHamster 13:51, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind me doing this. HurricaneFan25 14:04, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

No probs mate, you do what you feel necessary. --WebHamster 14:11, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

---

Request reason:

I've been unblocked as WebHamster per the discussion on User talk:The Pink Oboe, unfortunately the autoblock from the other accounts has remained on so although I'm unblocked I still can't edit. Cheers.

Accept reason:

Autoblock should be lifted now, unless I forgot how to do so, hopefully not. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 14:03, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Cheers Snowolf, but unfortunately it's still on, most probably because of the block on User:The Pink Oboe. I don't know if autoblock was switched on for:

• User:Harry Tasker
• User:Fredrick Pearl
• User:Mary O'Nette
• User:J. Worthington Foulfellow
• User:Denis Bloodnok

Sorry for the extras, but last night I didn't think I would be doing this today, sorry. --WebHamster 14:11, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I lifted the Pink Oboe autoblock, try it now. --Closedmouth (talk) 14:42, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Alas I'm afraid not...

"Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "The Pink Oboe". The reason given for The Pink Oboe's block is: "Disruptive editing: Continuation of prior activities, inappr

This block has been set to expire: 14:51, 18 November 2011." --WebHamster 15:00, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

How about now? --Closedmouth (talk) 15:06, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Brilliant, it all works fine now. Could I ask for one more little favour though? Due to vandalism in my 'absence' my user page was protected, so could you please unprotect it so I can do some tidying. Muchos thanks. --WebHamster 15:11, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Unprotected. Nev1 (talk) 15:16, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Cheers Nev, should we ever meet in person that's a pint (or the equivalent thereof) I owe you. --WebHamster 15:27, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Blocked again?

Get your house in order lads, ffs. Parrot of Doom 18:01, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

• For information, Orangemike (talk · contribs) has raised his reblocking for discussion here at ANI. No doubt someone will copy over to that discussion anything that WebHamster says here. Bencherlite^Talk 18:27, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
• Oh well, it was worth a try. Sigh. Black Kite (t) 19:31, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
• Luckily for all, OrangeMike has decided to neatly intersect "blocked user" and "wheel war" into the same thread, thus ensuring maximum input from the ANI drama whores. Brilliant. "You've pissed me off - I'll see you desysopped" is the love theme of the day apparently. You have got to admire it when the admins start bullying each other though (all those cries of admin abuse down the years!). Popcorn please. Pedro :  Chat  20:33, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Well, Black Kite, apparently we're a bunch of pussies ("naive/soft admins"). I'm waiting for the claim that you have received favors from one of the Wikipedian sex workers. Drmies (talk) 20:47, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
    • I'm waiting to see which admin will issue a warning to Off2riorob for this comment. I won't hold my breath. Parrot of Doom 21:04, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
      • Well, I'm clearly invooolved. And yeah, what's the point? Drmies (talk) 21:08, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
        • Clearly it's impossible for both of you to think there might be a middle ground? Well I just asked Rob to think about his phrasing. Obviously this was too low brow a potential solution for you guys to work out? Pedro :  Chat  21:18, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
          • Maybe I should have taken it to Wikipedia:Run to God? Parrot of Doom 21:52, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
            • No you should have asked Rob to refactor. Clearly you felt there was an issue with doing that (I don't know why, a past disagreement or something? I honestly don't know). Pedro :  Chat  22:02, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
              • What difference would refactoring make, which I note that Rob has not done anyway? He's made his position very clear, and evidently feels that civility is for others, not for him. Malleus Fatuorum 22:13, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
                • And he has now had a warning, with my "admin hat" on (stupid self righteous arsehole phrase that it is, I admit). Still at least POD can stop moaning. Pedro :  Chat  22:17, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
                  • I have no interest in conversing with Off2robrio, not after comments like this. Parrot of Doom 22:18, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
                    • You are the people you hate POD.... You bitch and moan right above that "I won't hold my breath" about a warning, and yet when what you want actually happens you deflect the conversation to "I have no interest". I'll tell you straight who the dickhead is around here - me - for trying to mediate a lost cause. You however need to reflect on your stance. Pedro :  Chat  22:39, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
                      • I think that PoD is simply explaining why he didn't request that Rob's comments were refactored. As for myself I don't think I've ever asked for comments to be refactored; it's alien to my nature. You can't take away what's already been said. Malleus Fatuorum 22:44, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
                        • • POD clearly asked above "I'm waiting to see which admin will issue a warning to Off2riorob for this comment, I won't hold my breath.". He has now been warned. So 1) POD's little fantasy bad admin clique is wrong and 2) I responded "he has now had a warning" to which I get "I have no interest in conversing". So either POD cares or does not. I really couldn't give a fuck. The bald fact of that matter is POD's assumptions were wrong, and frankly when he was called on it he seems to have deflected the point. If POD would now like to step up and say "yeah, okay Pedro, he did get a warning, maybe not all the admins are one sided" he's very welcome. Perhaps I won't hold my breath for that .............Pedro :  Chat  22:52, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
                            • Well, whether he does or not, despite what you may believe I do recognise that there are honest and decent admins around, and on a good day I may even be persuaded that they're in the majority. I think it would be a better place here if editors could forget (not forgive, only God can do that) and move on after one of the seemingly endless spats that waste so much time here. Once again, speaking only for myself, with very few exceptions all I remember about an editor is that I recognise the name, but rarely why I remember it. A bit like recognising a face and not being able to put a name to it. Malleus Fatuorum 23:02, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
                              • There is no god, and frankly the mantle of godhead is silly, and offensive to me as an atheist. It's god not God. Luckily I'm not that fussed :)Pedro :  Chat  23:18, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
                                • I only mentioned God as a sop to the Americans. I'm an antitheist myself, which means that not only do I not believe in God, I find the whole idea of God to be ridiculous. Malleus Fatuorum 23:28, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
                            • I'm not sure it's appropriate to thank you for warning him so I'll not. Perhaps you could also warn User:MarcusBritish for making disparaging personal remarks about my manhood (or lack of it) and motives, on the same ANI thread. These people think I'm offended by such nonsense but actually I'm quite pleased to see it, as it reinforces my view that "civility" is completely misunderstood by most people. If you really want to know what offends me, it's comments like this. It's pointed barbs like that, or perhaps this, comments that imply that I'm dishonest or simply thick, that get my goat. But that editor didn't use any rude words, so none of the drama mongers at ANI would ever be interested. Parrot of Doom 23:08, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
                              • I couldn't care less if it is appropriate (though probably not!) but I'm afraid I can only offer a cop out of going to bed as it's quarter past 11. However I'm likely in your camp on pointed barbs. I will look at it tomorrow if we haven't all been blocked. Pedro :  Chat  23:19, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
                                • Ok, well sleep on this Pedro - I've seen you post many times only Malleus's page (and others), and never thought poorly of you. If that's worth anything, perhaps you'll have a nicer kip. Parrot of Doom 23:20, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
                          • Pedro, I for one appreciate your warning, and I think you're a straight shooter. And I could have asked Rob to refactor too--it's just that the thought of that is already too much for me, he rubs me the wrong way. Anyway, I got carried away by my cynicism: thanks. Drmies (talk) 23:22, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
    • I'm intrigued by the concept that I should be de-sysopped for WP:AGF of a user. Oh hang on, I've just noticed who posted that. Heh. Black Kite (t) 21:32, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

The Pink Oboe Talk Page Blocked

That's a great idea Fram. People were asking questions of me on that page, so now how am I supposed to answer them when WH can only respond on this page? Are you trying to cut off any logic suggestions coming from me or something? Have I been disruptive on that page or something? Have I used the page for subterfuge? Everyone on that page knows who I am so it makes no sense to me why you would block my access to it. --WebHamster 08:50, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Responses to various AN/I comments about me

• Why is User:T. Canens bringing User:Noloop into the discussion? Is he suggesting the Noloops is a sock of mine? If he is I can say quite categorically No, it isn't a sock of mine. --WebHamster 09:36, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

• The Double standards of User:MONGO who consistently berates Malleus about civility, yet describes me as an "obnoxious troll" on Jehochman's talk page yet nothing is said or done about it. Yet I get blocked for calling someone a "money manager". Double standards or what? --WebHamster 09:45, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

• User:MarcusBritish "He's clearly not competent". WTF? Competent at what? --WebHamster 09:49, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

• User:The Bushranger "The thing is, I think, that there are more problems here than just the socking". What is he alluding to? Clarity is required for dumping that bombshell without explaining it. --WebHamster 09:54, 18 November 2011 (UTC)