AFUSCO 19:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In doing clerking duties, I have moved your checkuser request to the "outstanding requests" section (requests awaiting checkuser action). Technically, the request is non-compliant because of improper coding but I have not placed it under the "non-compliant requests" section. This message is FYI, no response is required or requested. VK35 17:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't you just block Mrfggc88west for vandalism only edits? Checkusers' time is valuable because they get so many requests. Some requests take a long time to do. Again, no response is requested, just an idea for you. VK35 18:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at some of Mrfggc88west's edits. This is just terrible!VK35 18:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The May 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 14:52, 9 June 2007 (UTC) [reply]

I noticed you restored Brown's gas although the AfD clearly stated it was meant to delete HHO gas and its equivalent Brown's gas. Since both are not supported by WP:RS I am confused as to why you think the AfD did not specifically address both articles because of WP:NN, WP:RS and WP:OR.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 20:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is conflating HHO and Brown's gas. Brown's gas is a longstanding chemistry term of the art, with clear historical background, and it's also still used in some materials processing industry. HHO is pseudoscience crap, if you'll pardon the mild profanity. If Brown's gas needs proper sourcing et al, then it should be sourced. Tarring Brown's gas with any HHO feathers is a mistake and a majority of the AFD voters seem to clearly realize that.

That they happen to refer to the same physical thing doesn't make both pseudoscience.

Anyways, that's my reasoning. We should fix/reference Brown's gas, sure. But it's not pseudoscience. Georgewilliamherbert 21:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that simple. Both have aspects of legitimate science, aspects of protoscience/pseudoscience, and aspects of a hoax. Look at the Brown's gas claims of nuclear transmutation, for instance. (Oh wait, you can't; the article was deleted out of process...)

A lot of the bogosity like "sublimation" (actually oxidation) of tungsten has been claimed for both gases.

The welding part is perfectly legit, though not very useful in reality, according to some of the things I have read. (Can weld aluminum great, but can't weld steel...)

The water-fuelled car part is an obvious hoax. (Though this is mostly claimed by the reporters, and not the proponents themselves. Never trust a journalist when science is involved.) — Omegatron 01:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I see that I was blocked last month by you and requested unblocking, it was declined by Viridae (here) stating that "the sockppuppetry alone is well worth 48 hrs". If you will look at this (copied from [[1]], no 84) you will see that a) I had explained away the alleged sockpuppetry, b) it had already been dealt with (and no ban was felt necessary), c) after I took steps to prevent usage of my wi-fi by other user/neighbours, it stopped, and in any case d) it had happened weeks before this ban. In your blocking of me you did not mention sockpuppetry. As for the incivility, I think I made good points, although should have made it clear I was quoting. Is there anyway to remove a block from the system after it has expired? L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 12:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are apparently one of those people who yells "abuse" immediately something happens they don't like? First, process for the sake of process violates WP:NOT. Second, despite your claim, after thirteen discussions already, this is in no way a "no consensus" issue. Third, removal of other people's comments is bad. Fourth, false accusations of abuse is also bad. Fifth, despite your claim I used no admin powers here. And sixth, you are an involved user with respect to this issue. All in all your actions here are highly inappropriate. >Radiant< 19:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• And your right to randomly accuse people you disagree with of abuse ends at the preview button. WP:CIV exists for a reason. >Radiant< 16:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Georgewilliamherbert, your recent edits to Double hull are in violation of wikipedia policy. Uncited-tagged passages may be removed at any time and are NOT subject to reversion WITHOUT providing the required sources. Please see the talk page at Talk:Double_hull. Alvis 06:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know, you're right. This is ridiculous. I refuse to participate in something so juvenile, and Gene obviously isn't going to listen to anything anyone says. Consider me out. --Captain Wikify ^Argh! 19:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One more comment, though: User talk:Gene Poole/genepooleisevil is nothing more than Gene attempting to justify abuse of other editors. There are something like two people on the page who have actually been blocked for incivility, so chances are good that Gene initiated the arguments in the first place. And everything on the page s taken completely out of context; for instance, he keeps adding (and I keep removing) a section that says " 'a dick'- Captain Wikify ". I did not call Gene a dick, I said that he was acting like a WP:DICK. There is a clear difference, yet Gene continues to add my name and make it look like I'm an abusive vandal. Honestly, I think the page shouldn't even exist - most of the people on it are legitimate editors who said one thing that was made to say another by Gene when he took them out of context. --Captain Wikify ^Argh! 20:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just took a while to type it out. --Captain Wikify ^Argh! 20:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know... It's terrible timing, as the dispute hasn't even ended yet. But from what I'm seen, Gene is stubborn enough to continue adding my name to the page, and I know for a fact I'm stubborn enough to continue removing it. We'd both be in serious trouble because it would escalate to one of us blatantly attacking the other or me breaking the 3RR rule over and over and over; I figured that I'd try and MFD the page as quickly as possible to prevent this by getting rid of the page completely. I would appreciate your comment on the MFD. --Captain Wikify ^Argh! 20:42, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is why I MFD'd it. I absolutely refuse to allow him to leave that there. --Captain Wikify ^Argh! 23:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, courtesy blanking is a rare but recurring event. We even have {{afd-privacy}} to use when it is done. It should be done when the blanked AFD content is privacy invading and harmful or is libelous. It should not be done lightly; WP:CBLANK (a section of Wikipedia:Deletion policy) says as a final caution "Courtesy blanking is extremely rare, and should not be performed lightly." GRBerry 15:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But I apologised in advance. Besides I wasn't attacking, I was trying to make a valid point. T_T

I'm leaving things as is. I was planning on just letting the MFD run its course and opting out any sort of argument, but Gene has been pushing my buttons all day, and it's getting ridiculous. You've seen my comments on Radiant's talk page, the AN, and the MFD, so you know where I stand. Other than that, I've had it with Gene and his childish actions. --Captain Wikify ^Argh! 23:52, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only "childish actions" here are yours. You attacked and threatened and name-called me. You did so entirely without provocation. Had you not done so I would not even be aware of your existence, yet you chose to do so anyway. You were warned for doing so, yet you continued and still continue to do so. When you stop it and apologise the matter will be dropped. That's all there is to it. --Gene_poole 23:56, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[2] I'm no expert, but if you ask me, this constitutes as abuse. --Captain Wikify ^Argh! 01:25, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Taken to AN: [3] --Captain Wikify ^Argh! 03:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your level-headed response to GP and CW. Cheers, >Radiant< 11:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response at Wikipedia_talk:Unreferenced_articles#Deleting_articles_is_wrong_approach Jeepday (talk) 03:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that Macfan93 has been deleting contents from Mac OS X, however, I am just wondering what is the blocking policy. As Macfan93 was first given warning at 00:15, but his/her last edit was 00:14. It would be great if you can verify for me so that I would know when to report user next time. --Cyktsui 07:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another IP (Special:Contributions/149.4.108.51) has popped up this morning, in the same block of IPs in the sockpuppet report. I've reached the end of my 3RRs on a few of the articles already. Is there a better place to report this? Neier 23:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's blocked, and for a while. I've also asked Netsnipe to please do another range block, since the previous one only seemed to make Ron ornier. We shall see... *sigh* -Ebyabe 00:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have access to the books cited for other facts in the article, by "Poulsen et al" as you write - did you mean Paulson? Since you reverted my tag saying the books clearly confirm the detail in question, can you please add to the article with the appropriate citation tag for this sentence? I can't add it myself, for I do not have access to these works. I'm putting the tag back up in the meantime, but please remove it as soon as you can confirm which book contains the citation. Alvis 07:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad 23:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]