Mr Unsigned Anon

Have an Angry Mastodont brought you here?

File:Neandertaler reconst.jpg

"Whew! No more mastodons."

Damn unluck. They are best avoided.

Sorry

I wish to apologize for my list as it had a number of errors in it including duplicates, proper reversions and places where you just moved material about. I struck the first list and have revised the list and it has only two or three actual reverts on it. The rest I have described as you removing sourced material that was of a positive nature toward Israel, ie POV removals. I put the corrected list here : [1] and hope you accept my apologizes for the mistakes in my earlier version. Stellarkid (talk) 05:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe in apologizing for my mistakes and correcting my errors. I did make a number of errors in that list, making your behavior seem worse than it was. But clearly your edits are not neutral. I made the list because of what I was seeing in your editing. I do think the comments that Juijitsui guy put up at ANI that you put on his talk page were inexcusable, however. And I see what is going on, where you make POV edits and then when someone reverts them, you report him, as non-collaborative. It certainly appears to be an effort to silence those who disagree with you. Hey but that's just my opinion. Stellarkid (talk) 07:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

You are of course correct that one can see another's errors more easily than one's own. You accused me of combativeness in your last post, but it was not until you began with the wikilawyer at various boards that I became less willing to WP:AGF. Prior to that, I excused much of what you said on the basis of my assumption that English was not your first language, which made it harder to understand why you were so willing to revert (without comment) material that rested much of its rationale on English grammar, and WP:NONENG and was being amply discussed at TALK. Looking over your edits more closely and listening to you at TALK, I did come to believe that your removals of material were quite one-sided and thus inappropriate. The chart, which covers only a little over a week of edits, does seem to reflect that. Again, I probably would not have been inclined to be looking so closely at your editing behavior, if you hadn't been running off to "Etiquette Boards" making charges against others when you clearly had a "moat" in your own eye! Stellarkid (talk) 17:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

POV section

If the tag has to satay it has to stay. The section already exists. There are other bullet points besides the massacre concern.Cptnono (talk) 00:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean the clean up template? I think it is important that it stays. The previous lock got part of the lead fixed. Maybe keeping the tag and not letting editors or readers believe in a false sense affirmance will spur continued discussion towards consensus.Cptnono (talk) 00:31, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it is needed for the time being. There is still ongoing on how to handle the massacre line so we'll see what happens. The bullet points are right there for people to see. If they chose not to engage in discussion that is just the way it is. I'll make a mention and see if anything comes out of it.Cptnono (talk) 01:12, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

It is needed because it is disputed and only one RS goes into detail on it. If it were not disputed it would be fine. I would love to be more open to compromise but other editors have not reciprocated that effort. All other attempts pf presenting this information that everyone feels is appropriate and factual have been denied. Even with the ongoing row between you and JJ your effort in fixing the second paragraph was a work of seeking consensus that has become rare for the article.Cptnono (talk) 01:44, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it serves little purpose also but anything to let the reader know that this is not a fact asserted by Wikiedia needs to be done.Cptnono (talk) 01:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry about it at all.Cptnono (talk) 13:11, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Now that I am more awake myself (coffee): I've said dumb stuff while editing hammy so you misreading the situation pales in comparison and is completely OK regardless of sleep or not. It happens. Hell, you can even be a little pissed that I brought it up.Cptnono (talk) 15:24, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Notice

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Gaza_.22Wikipedia_Edit_War.22 and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

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

Thanks, --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions) 21:29, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Cptnono (talk) has mediated the dispute that you and I had regarding the lead. See our respective Talk pages. Do you still want to arbitrate?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 21:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Try disengaging with the conflict. Or go to the IRC to ask for "expert admin help" http://webchat.freenode.net/?channels=#wikipedia-en-help --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions) 21:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration is well needed. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 22:28, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

BTW, did you go to the IRC and ask the admins there? --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions) 23:06, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement

An arbitration enforcement request involving you has been filed. Please comment at WP:AE. Regards, Jehochman ^Talk 13:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Outrageous Conduct

I AM ASKING YOU FOR THE LAST TIME. DO NOT COMMENT ON MY TALK PAGE. CONFINE YOUR COMMENTS TO ME TO THE DISCUSSION PAGE. THIS IS THE SECOND TIME I AM MAKING THIS REQUEST.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 03:48, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually Jiujitsuguy an article Talk page is for content discussions related to that article, while concerns about an editor's conduct should be on the editor's Talk page. Also, writing in all caps = shouting, which is not civil. Cordially, RomaC (talk) 04:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

I opened this. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mr Unsigned Anon. It sucks but JG thinks you are. He wasn't comfy Wikipeida wise completing the page and oddly enough I screwed it up. This conversation started with the Admin's observation at AE and then an admin reccomended taking it to investigation instead of buggin him directly. I have said it before and I mean it, if you are not a formerly banned user then I don't care if you are a sock puppet. You have said some crummy things but that is a separate issue. You have also done good work and I hope we can get the air cleared and stop this back and forth AE stuff. Cptnono (talk) 09:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

C'mon. You know that "you are a fool" is bad. I'm not familiar with the process. I assume checking it out would include running your IP and then running it down the list of banne editors. If it doesn't work it doesn't hurt my feelings that bad but it was important enough to other users and and admin said to go that way. Your recent edit and AE this seem really off. From someone who does it alot: Are you hammy? I'm not trying to be uncivil but your last couple of edits have been pretty pointed. Its OK if you are just don't be mean tommorow. More importantly, if you did lose your password just say so and this can be all squared. Cptnono (talk) 09:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what "keep an eye on my talkpage I give you and anyone who read it somthing really interesting to investigate" means exactly but you peaked my curiousity. Make it good :) Bah... tht could come across as baiting. You do it right enough that if you are not banned, make some quick ammends for some comments and try not to make them again. If you do get banned and come back (legitly or not), be nicer.Cptnono (talk) 09:49, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I loled at number 2 (Urban dictionary) and didn't realize English wasn't your first. Drunk, pissed, trashed, smashed, Alcohol intoxication.Cptnono (talk) 09:53, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Follow-up: hammed (oops)Cptnono (talk) 10:02, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

He can out himself if he wants and you probably shouldn't. Enjoy the drink, though!Cptnono (talk) 10:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey, deleted image for not having a Fair use rationale for a copyright image. I did read it in Cartman's's voice, though. Cptnono (talk) 01:28, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:NPA

I am blocking you for 24 hours for [2] which is a completely unacceptable personal attack. --BozMo talk 22:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I understand. But it was fun. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 22:37, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to block me longer. I guess I lost my interest for the project. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 22:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I will. Enigma^msg 01:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

You better explain whats a personal attack in that?Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 02:05, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:NPA? Enigma^msg 02:08, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

AE

I filed an AE claim against you here [3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jiujitsuguy (talk • contribs) 01:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

other accounts?

MUA, will you provide us with a list of other accounts you've used? This comment certainly implies alternate accounts, whether used together or not. tedder (talk) 06:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

For your info I havnt used any other account in a way thats against WP policy. Just a frindly advice so you dont waist your time. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 01:55, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Indefinite Block

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing Wikipedia as a battleground. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

Your behavior (an example) coming off of your block is concerning. It suggests to me you are more interested in fighting battles than building a collaborative encyclopedia.--Tznkai (talk) 05:33, 15 November 2009 (UTC)