Netoholic, you wanted to know what the outcome of the arbitration would be. What I would like to have you do is talk more on the discussion pages, for you to stop shifting comments, for you to cease making more unilateral edits (for instance, don't blank a controversial page you don't agree with and redirect to a similar article) and for you to keep stuff on your talk page for longer, even if it is critical of you (the last one is only a request for courtesy). OK, now this has probably got you seeing red, and that's not my intention. I figure you'd want me to tell you flat out so we can work out a solution rather than go through a whole messy arbcom decision.

On my behalf, I'm willing to delete the copied talk pages, speak up for you at the arbcom (yes, strange I know) and be willing to go a little more easy on you than I have been (I'm not perfect either). You know, I did say that you were a good contributor on your election page, and I meant this. Its just I saw some of the ways that you edited really annoyed people (myself included, as I'm being honest with you). I didn't mind you voting VfD on the election controversies article, by the way, and in fact I agree with a whole ton of your points (especially the CNN screenshots - ugh), but the whole issue could have been dealt with a lot better. I also am willing to say that I put "fuel on the fire" so to speak.

One last thing. I asked for a temp injunction on you, but I'm going to put an emphatic request that this be withdrawn, regardless of the outcome of this talk. I guess I'm doing this because you didn't push me to talk to you on IRC when I was feeling down, and I've noticed you don't really make personal attacks. I have also noticed that you have made some extremely valuable suggestions to articles (even if I've disagreed with some of your suggestions before). The whole dispute with you is not pleasant for me, and I'd say it hasn't been pleasant for you either. Its regrettable it happened, but I suppose things like this can happen on a website like this one.

So what do you say? Can we work things out? Can we (gasp!) talk to each other like adults? :-)

Ta bu shi da yu 08:32, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Oh, P.S. I'm reviewing my usage of the rollback function. You are correct, I am a bit hasty with this very handy tool. I've taken your comments on board, and I think on balance you are correct on this one. This isn't easy for me to say, btw. I don't like admitting I'm wrong! - Ta bu shi da yu 08:34, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hey, I'm interested in hearing your ideas. Do you think that my statement here has been fair? I'd like to know so I can try to mend some bridges. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:30, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I've been meaning to ask somebody this, and I figure you may know: is there any for an admin to view the last active IP of a non-anon user? Many thanks. -- ClockworkSoul 23:04, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No, only a system administrator (Tim Starling comes to mind) can find that out. -- Netoholic @ 00:38, 2004 Dec 10 (UTC)

Ah, okay. Thanks. -- ClockworkSoul 22:17, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

CWS, why do you need to know? - Ta bu shi da yu 02:25, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

In reading recent accusations of sockpupperty and watching recent vandals rotating usernames, it seemed to me that the ability to cross-reference IP addresses would render the former moot, and the latter somewhat easier to deal with. -- ClockworkSoul 22:17, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It would make it easier, but not foolproof. Two users who happen to share the same ISP and similar interests may use the same web proxy, and then they may be mistaken for sock puppets. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 22:31, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yep, but it would definitely make for a more reliable indicator than the current system of well-educated guesses! - Ta bu shi da yu 22:34, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Heya, seeing as you're one of the editors who's been active trying to improve our deletion system, I wonder if you could have a look at my proposal. It still needs some fleshing out, so I'm not quite moving it into Wikipedia: or announcing it officially yet (it's hard enough to get people to eyeball these proposals once, I'd rather they do so when it's done), but I would like to get some comments from other people working with the current deletion system. Feel free to edit to your hearts content, as long as you leave the general idea behind it intact. Thanks in advance! --fvw* 20:16, 2004 Dec 11 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the references, there's me looking silly duplicating the proposal alredy on meta. Has this ever been put up for a vote on en:, that you know of? Despite the fact that my brilliant ideas have already occurred to everybody else, I'd still like to work on getting them accepted. --fvw* 23:14, 2004 Dec 12 (UTC)

The article In Flames used to be a "good stub", but it was replaced with a copyvio. The copyvio got deleted — containing history, including the good stub. Can the deleted "good stub" be read? The article has a small, worse stub atm, AFAIK. Also see the talk page. (I can also be reached in IRC) --kooo 12:09, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Netoholic 2. I have been forced to certify, which I wouldn't have done had you shown me the courtesy of replying to my truce message. I thought you wanted a truce on IRC, evidently I was wrong. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:53, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

OK, fair enough then. I'll remove my certification. But why on earth didn't you respond? - Ta bu shi da yu 08:51, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Gah! I've been sick for quite a while now with no opportunity to get to IRC. Now I understand your reluctance to respond. Sigh. I'll remove my stuff from your RFC. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:02, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

OK. Removed. But please consider keeping your comments on your talk page for longer! If I may request it, will you wait at least 36 hours before removing them? It makes it hard to talk to you if you remove them too quickly. Incidently, I've given it some thought and I'll get around to removing your archives soon. The bad blood between the two of us is just too great for such a small thing. - Ta bu shi da yu 16:28, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No worries. Give me a little while and I'll remove those archived pages and all links to them. - Ta bu shi da yu 16:38, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The following has occurred

• Ta bu shi da yu reverted Historicity of Jesus 3 Times
• In order to bypass 3RR, this user then left a message at User talk:Viriditas to get Viriditas to continue the revert campaign
• After I had been fighting viriditas, Rhobite (another accuser of mine at the RfC organised against me) blocked me

I consider tag-team reversion wars to be wholly unfair and inappropriate I do not consider application of 3RR against me valid, The tag-team had made 5 reverts before I had even made 4.

Also, please see WP:AN on the validity of the non-reverted version

CheeseDreams 18:09, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Netoholic, can't you see this is a little unfair? Check out how much material from other editors that was removed! Almost the entire article has been removed and replaced with CheeseDreams version. Besides which, I've been talking to other editors about what to do with the page as it got massively changed. Just check the edit history. - Ta bu shi da yu 16:38, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If I take up your suggestion, I have to maintain two watchlists and two contribution lists (which is confusing - and also means no-one would see a complete contribution list for me, which is also confusing). I fail to see that what I'm doing is disruptive (I think it's pretty obvious what I'm doing). And as you note, it's hopefully only short-lived to the name change request goes through. Kind regards, jguk 09:05, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

WP:CSD says that obvious vanity is a proposed case. Anyway, it's de facto policy right now, if not de jure. You can revert it if you wish. Vacuum c 18:51, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)

I request that you revert it to the December 5th version. We already have Template:vanity. If you don't like it, I suggest you put it on templates for deletion. Vacuum c 18:59, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)

I responded to your revert at Template_talk:Wikiquote. Here's a copy of my response there:

What is wrong with most of the text being a link, especially given that the effectively sole function of this template is to direct a user to another URL, which is accomplished by, unsurprisingly, a link? The only extra information conveyed is that the page linked to is part of another site, but most users clicking on this template will presumably be primarily interested in the link itself rather than the larger collection its part of. Zyqqh 02:24, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm still of the strong opinion that the changes I made should stand. Could you please explain your reasoning as per above? By default, I'll revert back to my version in a couple of days if I don't hear from you. Thanks. Zyqqh 01:44, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Go ahead. I don't believe it will appear anything but vindictive. You told me to raise an RfC if I wished. As you said on that RfC, users can manage their user space as they see fit. I haven't been flaunting this publicly, nor 'harassing' you with it; only you, I, and Tony Sidaway (who expressed an interest in keeping this RfC) know of its existence. Vacuum c 02:33, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

Well, you shouldn't have tried to get out of the corner at all. If you had just not bothered me about it in the first place, the copy would be private to you, me, and Tony. Instead, your course of action leads to a VfD palava with probable non-deletion of the page. I simply made a copy, for my own reference, of GFDL licensed content. Let me reiterate: I did not keep the RfC to taunt you. You are the one drawing it out into the open. Let's end this debate. Either nominate it for VfD, or file an RfC on me. Vacuum c 06:35, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)

Could you let your bot run to replace the coding of signatures messed up because of the MediaWiki update. New signatures can be changed, but a lot of signatures before the signature coding fix are now changed and fixing it all manually would be a major pain in the you-know-what.

If you can, I'll give you the exact request for my signature and ask some other people for theirs. Mgm|^{(talk) 09:50, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)}

I'd like to see all instances of [[User:MacGyverMagic|[[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm]]|^{[[User talk:MacGyverMagic|(talk)]]}]] changed to [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm]]|<sup>[[User_talk:MacGyverMagic|(talk)]]

Yep, for some reason I thought that having the <sup> tags inside the brackets wouldn't work. Oddly enough, not closing the tag gives no problems so far. So all existing instances of [[User:MacGyverMagic|[[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm]]|^{[[User talk:MacGyverMagic|(talk)]]}]] should be changed to: [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm]]|[[User_talk:MacGyverMagic|^(talk)]]. I'll fix it in my preferences to your suggested code with the <sup>-tags. There's no page where you can request fixing yet, but I'd be happy to set one up if someone (you?) is willing to perform the fixes. Mgm|^{(talk) 16:41, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)}

• List of pages with multiple sigs of mine:
  • Talk:Atheism
  • Talk:Patricia Cornwell
  • Wikipedia:Help desk
  • Wikipedia:Reference desk
  • Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
  • Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates
  • Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard
  • Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress
  • Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance)

Some User talk pages I often use may follow, but these are by far the most important. Thanks for the help. Mgm|^{(talk) 19:50, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)}

• Thanks for the help! Mgm|^{(talk) 21:59, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)}