NOTE: IF YOU POST ANYTHING ON THIS PAGE WITHOUT A SIGNATURE, YOUR POST WILL BE DELETED WITHOUT CONSIDERATION.

Thanks for dealing with the Calles loco vandal. Thank you again. - Ken Bogan 22:36, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Block User:Tj raza - Ken Bogan 22:48, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think Dr. Zoidberg is extremely silly in that he gives people the right to vandalize his user page. What do you think?? Georgia guy 23:01, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Why did you remove the "Gay, lesbian or bisexual people" category from the Paris Hilton page. She's clearly bisexual, therefore belongs in that category. -- TrojanMan 23:59, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You were too quick to just delete the paragraph on the Chicken Kiev speech. A simple Google search turns verifies the information provided about this speech, so why characterize it as nonsense? If you disagree with its portrayal of the event, maybe add another perspective, don't just delete. -- Kevin Saff 15:25, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Monicavereana

User:Monicavereana e-mailed me this morning saying that you blocked him for vandalism. I cannot find this block on the block list, nor anything on his talk page about his vandalism,b locking or possible unblocking. He probably e-mailed me because I sent him a welcome message when he first came here a few weeks ago. His edits seem fine, and some have not even been reverted. I am thinking that he was never actually blocked and may be joking. Do you know anything about this? Academic Challenger 20:07, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You're working very hard. If you want to discuss this, please email me. (Click my sig.) — Xiong熊talk 07:50, 2005 Apr 16 (UTC)

HenkvD 11:29, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My apolagies. Somebody else is vandalising user talk pages in your name. HenkvD 11:32, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Very funny. Thanks. --Roo72 11:29, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

... could you think that I did that vandalism & block me!! Look at mny history on this thing; one of reversal of vandalism, never adding any sort of "attachments" like that, and of discussion and reasoning. For these reasons I was nominated and accepted as admin. It should be obvious to you & everyone else that I am being "spoofed" and would never do such a thing. Please help me in determing who this vandal really is and stopping him?her, and block anything that you need to do in the process, but please do not assume that garbage was from me! Sincerely, Rlquall 11:32, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Rlquall, I left a message on your user page regarding this. -- John Fader (talk | contribs) 11:35, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Good show. I shouldn't have bought into your being spoofed, andwill be more careful in the future.

Rlquall 11:40, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

why was my question deleted from the wikipedia NPOV page before it could be answered? and can you asnwer it? [[User:GabrielSimon|GabrielSimon]

so ill assume you know not what the acashic record ( spelling) is?

GabrielSimon

just because your prescious sceince can not see or explain something , it HAS to be fiction yes? if thats how you think, then your really not as open minded as you wish to be.

Gabrielsimon 23:43, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Gained knowledge isnt faith, it is practicality.

Gabrielsimon 00:17, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Rick, old pal, what in the heck can we do about this? Another of his articles is on VfD and he's been nominated for administrator status by a brand-new user, as you know. I have been on this site too long. - Lucky 6.9 00:38, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Thank God for some small favors. I went through hell three times on that page and if this guy would have made the cut, that would have been it for me. Cold turkey. Glad you're up late. Android suspects that a new user, User:SuperDude115 may be a sockpuppet. The very first edit from this account was a bizarre comment on SamuraiClinton's talk page. After I warned the user off from making such comments, he replied on my talk page in a writing style very much like Samurai's. Add to that a brand-new user running him up the admin flagpole and you have all the element of a real stinkfest. - Lucky 6.9 07:08, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You may be right about the admin nominator, but did you sneak a look-see at SuperDude115's comment on my talk page? Classic Clinton. Even if Level Check and Samurai aren't the same person, there's either some duplicity going on between the two to make Samurai look better...or s/he is the worst possible kind of troll who nominated him in order to humiliate him. I'm ticked off at Samurai, but I won't allow anyone to step in and humiliate the guy. - Lucky 6.9 07:15, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I concur with Lucky. SuperDude115's contribution history is very suspect, and his writing style even looks very similar to SamuraiClinton's. Also, the timestamps match up just right – SuperDude starts editing when Samurai stops. I have a strong suspiscion that there is sockpuppetry afoot (and if it's not that, it's some very stupid trolling). android↔talk 15:18, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, for the word of advice, I wasn't sure how long the block should be set, this gives me a good reference point--nixie 08:11, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have re-written Justin Sofio as you suggested. Hopefully you will now be willing to change your vote. Hedley 21:32, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• See [1]. It appears that he has just won another event. Hedley 18:47, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for looking out for us, but the Gregory Jbara article was submitted by me, his official site webmaster. It is perfectly okay for it to be here. Thank you.

- webmaster, GregoryJbara.com

OK. I read that the article would have to be deleted. So, let's delete it after discussion.User:SNIyer12.

Hey. Something funny happened and I just was wondering if it has something technical to do with how I'm using a template I made. It seems like you were trying to leave a notice for Ecvjackass on his discussion page about a copyvio and it seemed to have ended up on my template for copyvio notices on my user page. I'm not quite sure how that happened and wondered if you knew if its some kind of technical bug? On a related note this seems to be Ecvjackasses second copyvio violation. — oo64eva (AJ) ^{(U | T | C)} @ 23:03, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

The entire thing. A few days ago I left that ecvjackass a notice on his talk page about copyvio using my template. Then as I was adding a notice to a users talk page about five mintutes ago I noticed your message to ecvjackass showed up. It turned out to be on the template, you can see in the page history that all of it was left. I'm concerned this is some kind of technical bug. — oo64eva (AJ) ^{(U | T | C)} @ 23:08, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

Okay I just figured it out. Since the header is generated by my template, clicking on the edit tag next to it edits underneath my template. I guess I'll have to fix that and just add the header myself to each talk page. Sorry for that. :P — oo64eva (AJ) ^{(U | T | C)} @ 23:16, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

RickK

Hi. This is ecvjackass, but please call me Tim.

You left me a message, so I thought I might reply.

There are numerous mistakes.

You wrote: "There are also chapters in Nevada and other Western states." - Western should not be capitalized here.

"The organization's name is in Dog Latin" - this is not true. The origin and meaning of the name is secret and mysterious. ECV has never made a public statement as to what the language may or may not be. So, to state that as a fact is incorrect.

"Clampusus" - this is clearly a typo. Should read 'clampsus'

"Absurdium" - another misspelling. Should be 'absurdum'

"take nothing seriously unless it is absurd" - that is not the correct translation. It should read 'I believe it because it is absurd'. This, actually, might be called 'dog latin', because the correct translation of 'I believe it because it is absurd' is 'Credo quia absurdum est'.

"Morgantown, West Virginia" - Ephraim Bee lived in West Union, not Morgantown, Virginia. During the civil war, the western region of Virginia secceded from the state and founded West Virginia. By the way, many of those legislators who voted for the creation of West Virginia were members of the Order.

"Caleb Cushing, the American minister" - Cushing's title was United States Commisioner, not Ambassador or Minister.

"wearing your tin" - a stylistic difference. 'Wearing of the tin' is probably more appropriate.

"red miner’s shirt" - I'm not sure what a 'miner's shirt' is. We wear red shirts today to symbolize the red long johns that the old clampers paraded in.

"Lord Sholto" - You use this twice. It would be like saying 'President George'. Unwieldly

"The Arroyo Grande chapter" - as another contributor pointed out, this is properly called the 'De la Guerro y Pacheca' Chapter

"There were chapters in British Columbia and Hawaii, but they no longer exist." - This is another unwieldly sentence. It gives information without proper context.

The plate of brass paragraph lacks depth.

"There are currently forty ECV chapters" - there are more than 40.

"proposed chapters in ... Colorado" - Colorado now has a full fledged Chapter, number 100, named after Alferd Packer.

"often those sites such as bordellos and saloons" - this statement is misleading. Although plaques have been raised at locations such as those, it is hardly the focus of our Order to only plaque bordelloes and saloons.

"after is plaque" - not sure what you were trying to say here.

The initiation paragraph is poorly written. You site instances from one certain initiation (lifted, no doubt, from copyrighted sources) and have no context for the meanings behind them.

The links that you insist on putting in are bizarre choices. The ECV Gazette is a fine clamper website, but as a link? There's no history or much of anything there that would help support the article. The Cyber whang web address brings you to an entirely blank page, and the Mtn Charlie site, while another damn ffine clamper website, doesn't do much to support the article either. The 2 links to Ken Castro's and Dr. Shumate's history seem to me to be much better sources.

By the way, You said in your message to me that I dumped a copyright violation in the middle of the article. Yes, I used information from Ken Castro's article. However, if you had taken the time to read everything I had written, I clearly cited the source at the beginning of that 'dump'. I even used quotes around the entire section that was 'dumped' in. I inluded that section to that emphasize that maybe Joseph (or Joel) Zumwalt was NOT the first clamper to reach California. The Zumwalt story needs further illucidation.

Oh, and I read the section on style (that you so kindly gave me a link to) before I started my first post. There's nothing in there about contributing an unmodified text dump.

I would like to know exactly what is wrong with the article the way I had modified it?

And, lastly, I am from Los Angeles, but am writing to you fom Mexico. I apologize for not having a proper signature, however the keyboards are arranged a bit differently here and its not possible for me to hit those little squiggly things that I'm supposed to hit in order to leave my name etc...so, I'll try to leave you as much info manually as I can.

ecvjackass 1:59, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Someone claiming to be you started a vote for deletion at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Joseph Ratzinger, Sr.. I just wanted to check that this was indeed you becuase, if it wasnt, then its page vandalism and the vote may need to be discarded. If it was you, then thats fine. Please, read, though what I said about the family of Adolf Hitler. If we delete articles on the Pope's relatives, by rights Hitler's relatives (at least some of them) should go to. -Husnock 20:48, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer. Thats fine. Sorry that I deleted it, it should be back now. I am new to the rules about VfD. Once its over, can a person simply put it up there again and start up a whole new vote? Also, if an article does get deleted, can someone simply write it again? Just curious. Im sure the vote will go fine and we'll do what the people (and the admin) want. -Husnock 22:42, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If an article is deleted, and someone recreates it, it falls under the speedy delete status, and any admin can and will delete it rapidly. If it is kept, there is no formal policy concerning renomination, but it is generally frowned upon. There is a current VfD of an article which was re-listed less than 24 hours after the keep vote had closed, and even those who voted delete on it previously are voting keep because of the inappropriateness of recrating the VfD. Generally, three months is concerned a minimum time to relist something, but that's not official. RickK 22:49, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)