User talk:Nskinsella

1926:

views working on an article and being unable to resolve their differences. In my case with Willmcw however, the mediation stemmed from a complaint I filed against him for stalking me around Knowledge and generally disrupting and reverting my edits, both major and minor, in a way that was damaging to the encyclopedia as a whole. I sought intervention based upon a high profile precedent with another editor a few months back in which Jimbo Wales personally intervened to stop a stalker engaged in similar behavior. Unfortunately it is proceeding very slowly with quibbles over just about everything in every step of the way (spec. Willmcw wants the mediation to occur in private over email - something I refused due to the privacy vulnerabilities of email and due to the fact that this is a stalker case having extraordinary circumstances). The slow progress has turned out to be a problem itself because in the almost 2 months since I made the complaint, he has only gotten worse in his stalking and more brazen in his disruptive techniques. As to hostility against libertarians, it is definately there among some editors on Knowledge but it is also fairly isolated. I lean libertarian in my own beliefs though I'm not affiliated with any libertarian groups. From my experience though the majority of Knowledge editors are to the left of center. Normally this isn't a problem as most of them are polite and you can work with them, but the ones that aren't tend to create the most trouble. The aforementioned editor is probably the worst case I've experienced of it, and for whatever reason he is VERY hostile to libertarian viewpoints in general (which is probably why you've attracted his attention much as I did). The key is not to let a few bad apples like that run you off of wikipedia - and I've seen it happen to others before including new signups who were stalked and harassed until they quit. Stand your ground against the problem editors and work with the good ones, who are in the majority by far even though its the problem ones that stand out.

2259:, Willow said things like this: "Thanks for amending your copyright notice and giving permission. The necessary GFDL license for all material copied into Knowledge is here: , and a general discussion can be found here: . In general, all material in Knowledge must be available for all commercial and non-commecial use, without further notification. The amended copyright notice seems to limit that ability" See, he is fixating on my own site's copyright notice. But my own site's copyright notice was COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT. Why he insisted on an ephemeral change of the wording there--that I could just change as soon as his little dispute was over--is a mystery. Far better to have an on-the-record statement by me, the author/copyright holder, HERE, on Wiki itself; as I had already done; but which Willow kept ignoring. I am convinced that Willow is one of these people who loves to push the Wiki GNU thing whenever he can; and who has a bias against conservatives or conservative libertarians. This explains his annoying and outrageous attempts to use his power as an admin to make up copyvio accusations to try to twist my arm to put the silly GNU license ON MY OWN SITE. This explains his annoying and petty notice posted after my IP article was referenced in the 2230:

he invents reasons to remove sourced additions to articles on the grounds that the source doesn't meet some arbitrarily and inconsistently applied personal standard of his, e.g. falsely labelling sources he doesn't like as "blogs" or "gossip." Once he even tried to remove a fully cited and referenced quote that I added from a century-old print publication on the grounds that it didn't appear on the internet and he personally couldn't (read:didn't want to) obtain a copy of it through a library! Knowledge makes no such extreme sourcing requirement like that, yet it didn't stop him from attempting to remove the quote while claiming that as a basis. And call it "coincidence" but the material he's trying to exclude with tactics such as these is almost always something to do with conservatism or libertarianism. But even if everything Willmcw's version claimed about you were true (and it does not appear to be so) his own description of the way he responded to your arrival on wikipedia puts him in violation of two very important guidelines:

2248:

entry on Wiki myself, that was similar to what I HAD WRITTEN elsewhere. It is utterly irrelevant whether or not my site has a copyright notice. Willmcw was fixating on the notice. If my site had NOT had a copyright notice--which merely reiterated what is simply federal law--Willmcw would not have been able to whine about it. But this would make no sense: if his complaint was really based on copyright, he ought to complain when there is material similar to that on my site, whether there is a notice or not. But if the complaint is based on copyright, not notice, then MY OWN ACTIONS AS THE AUTHOR OF THE "COPIED" MATERIAL in editing it and re-posting in in Wiki suffices. If I own copyright to material--and look, as I type this little reply here, I come to own the copyright in this material. But since I am typing it on Knowledge which has certain licensing rules, then my material is subject to those rules. Same thing if I re-post here something I wrote elsewhere that I have copyright too.

1955:). I decided to initiate this RfC over the actions of two users who I believe to be seriously impeding the constructive development of this article into an encyclopedia-quality description of the Ludwig von Mises Institute. In one case the editor's behavior was long term. In the other, the editor responded to negotiation efforts I initiated with him on the talk page with unprovoked personal hostility against me, which in turn led me to first warn him of the potential need for an RfC and then follow through as his belligerence continued. I am hopeful that this process will assist in working out the differences that exist on the LVMI article and help to direct the responsible editors toward making their future contributions in compliance with the neutrality mandate and with other Knowledge standards and policies. 1905:

hostility to any topic involving libertarianism and libertarians. It is a common tactic of his to dredge up irresponsible and partisan allegations of racism and all sorts of other nasty smear tactics such as David Duke quotes then insert them into articles for the explicit purpose of discrediting the article subject. What is occuring on the LVMI article is a typical example of this, and unfortunately it not only fosters ill will among other editors on those articles but is also highly disruptive to the wikipedia goal of producing a quality factual encyclopedia. I hope you will continue to contribute here on Knowledge, and please don't let the behavior of a small number of abusive editors such as the aforementioned case discourage you from making positive contributions. Regards -

2096:

comment on the article, which was completely out of place, uncalled for, non-sensical, and unjustified. Then, after he or someone else added on the Mises entry the SPLC critique and charges of racism etc., and I put up some comments by Horowitz that showed that some people bleieve SPLC exaggerates sometimes--he added to it the David Duke comment, in yet another transparent effort to prop up the SPLC critique. Yet more bias and non-neutrality. All the while Willmcw feigns innocence and pretends to be objective about all this. I for one find it disheartening that such an influential and active editor keeps doing this kind of thing. This is just my personal view, from what I have seen. I do not claim to be an angel but am trying to abide by Wiki policies.

2225:

matter. Since you seem to be indicating a willingness to grant permission to the copyrighted material due notice of that in compliance with wikipedia standards should alone suffice. Regardless of what he says to you, Willmcw does NOT have a right around here to impose copyright release requirements on you that go above and beyond the standards required by law and by wikipedia and he is NOT a final arbiter of what constitutes a copyright violation. To me, it looks as if he's simply been trying to make you jump through an abritrary and increasingly narrow set of hoops designed to frustrate your attempts to add or release material that conflicts with his political beliefs.

1497:— we seek "rough consensus". On VfD this is usually taken to mean that there needs, in the closing admin's judgement, to be a 2/3 favouring of deletion or the article remains. Closing admins have discretion to discount votes if they feel they are made in bad-faith however. This is usually applied to accounts of very new users (particularly those with a clear agenda) and accounts which exhibit sockpuppetry. What constitutes "new" varies widely (some admins think less than 20 edits, others less than 100 although this can also depend on the particular case of a given VfD). In some cases, an article is substantially revised during the VfD ( 2091:

caused it to be put up, even though I have denied this. So he is not assuming good faith and is calling me a liar, in effect. Second, during that debate, he kept calling my entry a copyright violation, even though it was taken from mateiral on my own site that I gave consent to. I believe Willmcw was basically trying to harass me and make a tempest in a teapot here, as a means of inducing me to adopt the GNU type license on my own website. This is an abuse, in my view. He also bases a lot of his comments about copyright, in that matter, and on the

1302:. Administrators usually ignore votes that they suspect are sockpuppets. It is common for administrators to ignore votes by users who have not created accounts ("anons", who show up with an IP address instead of a username) and users whose first Knowledge edit is made after the start of the VfD discussion, especially if their first edit is to the VfD. All of these things are judgement calls, not hard-and-fast rules. They mostly come into play when someone gets the mistaken impression that it is easy to take advantage of Knowledge's openness. 395:. Palmer is, like me, just another libertarian. I have published more than he has, but he works for Cato. Willmcv gave as his reasons for Palmer being notable that he is openly gay at the Cato Institute; that is absurd. It is not even mentioned in the entry! Moreover, someone else said Palmer's long list of publications is good enough for the Professor test; but mine is much longer, and I have published several books, not just articles. So I looked into the policy and in my view, I qualify for the biography criteria. Don't you agree? 2323:

Anyway, it doesn't harm. However, I don't think it's a good idea to edit an article about yourself. You can hardly help being biased! It would certainly help the process of having your article kept and established in Knowledge if you personally steered well clear of it. This will allow others to fashion an article that meets all the criteria of Knowledge, which will be much more likely to be accepted generally. In particular, charges of self-promotion can very easily be faced down if you are not involved in editing the article.

887:

against me? I think you have the wrong impression of me. I would like to make a fresh start with you and be on good terms (and no, I don't expect you to change your vote to delete my entry). I am willing to try to make it clear that I am sincere and in good faith. Please let me know what I can do to demonstrate that to your satisfaction. Yesterday I indeed started a few entries, and am enjoying this. I want to do it right, but am an amateur at some of the rules and policies and editing techniques. Sincerely, Stephan Kinsella --

400:

Mises Institute; but I am not. Third, he kept picking on me relentlessly about a stupid copyright issue--I am the damned author and owner of my own site, yet Willmcv kept harping on the use of public domain info from my own website's bio, simply because he didn't like the copyright notice on my site. He was, I believe, trying to force me to adopt the open source or GNU type thing that wiki types like. That is not his right. So I believe he is a bit biased against me because of these issues.

781:

deleted. Had I been aware of these clear rules back then, I would have pointed it out, but the deletion of my entry clearly violated the rules listed above. So I am just putting up a version of what was there before. It's more like an edit of a bio entry by the subject himself, than a brand new autobio entry (the entry is very similar to what was there before, which is now lost down the memory hole; I didn't save it b/c I didn't realize deletion was really permanent).

1477:

others have), I did not even ask a friend to do it. I have even attempted to respect Wiki's guidelines as to bios; if anything, it is Wiki editors who are ignoring the guidelines. So if there is some rule that prohibits me from calling a possible inconsistency or unfairness to the attention of a given Wiki user in his voting, please point me to it and I will be happy to abide by that too. These charges against me are completly unwarranted and unfair.

1800:

be abolished, as I have written (I'm a practicing patent attorney BTW). A utility model would have a shorter term, which is good; and it would presumably not carry a presumption of validity, since it would be examined only for novelty, not for nonobviousness. I believe this would be good too, since granting a utility model patent would be less of a burden on competitors than would a regular patent. The ",me" is what we say in Lousiana, us.

190:. It turns out that autobio is not prohibited, just frowned upon; but given that my first entry, which was a bio not an autobio, should have have been deleted, and I am basically re-creating what was up before (from memory), and it is not vanity-style but mostly facts that can be verified, I don't think I am in violation of the policy--especially b/c I disclose all this and don't take the anonymous way out, unlike the anonymous posting of 2264:

standards require." And it explains his outrageous insertion of David Duke into the Mises Institute entry, in a transparent attempt to make Mises Inst. look racist by "defending" them from a critic by using Duke to "defend" them. Like a typical liberal, Willmcw things he is actually in the right here; the worst problem of liberals is a smug self-righteousness, which is not only wholly undeserved, but pervertedly backwards.

3166: 2927: 3089: 902:. You'll see several different websites have essentially the identical content. Porn sites also take our content so that unsuspecting folks searching on non-porn topics go to their sites. Anyway, they don't take the userpages, just the articles. So any references to usernames will result in broken links. I hope you enjoy contributing to Knowledge. Please read 1653:

decide that your article is to be kept, you should let other people write it to keep it objective. The question whether or not there should be an article for you is far overshadowed by the fact that you should in any case not write it yourself. Several active users believe they merit an article but would wait until someone else writes on them.

2556:"on this forum". Others shorten it to call him "Will". Why does he not object to this? Is it his name? Can I call him Will too? If so, why not Willow? After all, neither one is the same as his handle. Incidentally, I said Stephan is my real name--this is true, but "on this forum", since today is Friday, I insist on being called Hoppemxyzptlk. 2674:

Okay, ___. But others seem to assume your name is "Will"--extrapolating from your cryptic username--and thus call you "Will," and you never seem to object, so I suppose, unless you specify otherwise, I should call you either ___ or Will. I am at a loss here. And of course, humor is in the eye of the

2366:

guideline proposal to reflect that the Arbitration Committee has deemed this to be a bannable offense. I'm trying to get community input to help develop this article. Unfortunately a few of the usual suspects are also trying to disrupt this process and dismantle work being done to better the article.

2247:

Thanks Rangerdude. re copyright: look. DickClarkMises posted an entry on me; it apparently was drawn on material on my site. Once I jumped in and made a few edits, I of course ratified and re-published my own material. So even if it was identical to what was on MY site, it would be like me posting an

2229:

refers to that type of behavior as "gaming the system" and in this case he's essentially gaming the WP rules on copyrights to deter material he doesn't want added for political reasons. He's played similar games before towards my edits using similarly misconstrued "rules" and "standards" - most often

2182:

And why, Willinator, do you ignore the other, more egregious, stuff? Your ridiculous attempt to force me to change my own copyright notice, just because you don't like it? And a similar stunt, when you added the stupid comment after my IP article, to the effect that "though the author opposes IP, the

1799:

What Big Daddy means by that, is this. I think IP is illegitimate (note: many of the Wikipedians, in their monomaniacal zeal for the GNU license, consider themselves to be anti-copyright; but they are not, since the GNU license, like any other license, depends on copyright law itself). Patents should

1610:

had 50,000 hits on Google, I might also have refrained from voting. This is mainly because I am concerned about you putting so much pressure to have your own article. If I was in your position, I would probably keep my distance from the discussion. You are a primary source of information for yourself

1557:

Thanks dpbsmith. I respect that. As you can see I am fairly new but have tried to scrupulosly respect the rules. I undesrtand your comment and I can see that even if it is not against any rules, it is not seemly to lobby. But I have not lobbied. Have I asked anyone to vote keep? I asked for fairness,

1476:

I have simply asked people to consider whether they are being fair, consistent, and non-arbitrary. If someone in good faith votes to delete my entyr, I have NO problem with that. I have attempted to abide by rules. I have never used a sockpuppet or meat puppet, I did not post my entry anonmyously (as

323:

This article is not self-promotion. I originally posted an article about Kinsella, which was deleted (in violation of Wiki guidelines, I might add). After I created the article, and before it was deleted, I mentioned the entry to Mr. Kinsella via email because I needed his consent to release an image

275:

Is there anything else that makes you a particularly well-known or well-regarding attorney other than publications? If you have were in charge of some famous cases, I think your case would be stronger. It is nothing personal against you. I am sure you are a fine attorney and libertarian theorist, but

271:

Your page looks like a Martindale entry and looks to me like shameless self-promotion. I do not think that everyone who graduated from lawschool, published a few articles and practices law should be allowed to create their own Wiki article about themselves. Do you? If you are allowed to, your actions

2555:

Well, Stephan happens to be a real name; and in fact, my real, actual name. People do get it wrong all the time, usually because they are idiots. Which does not offend me--just makes me realize I'll always have a job. By contrast, "Willmcw" is admittedly not this person's name. He says it's his name

2263:

entry, to the effect that "please notice that this author claims to be against copyright, yet he copyrights his own article; what a hypocrite. I, willow, sure wish he would put his money where his mouth is and have a GNU license or something. Even if he has no control over what mainstream publishing

1900:

guideline and you appear to have encountered one frequent abuser of this guideline at length. I've had difficulties of my own with this same user regarding his extensive POV pushing, disruptive behavior, and even wiki-stalking of my edits with intent to harass and disrupt. It appears that he is also

1652:

You might have seen that I had already voted against the Tom Palmer article. I should point out that you're not really helping your case by repeatedly questioning everybody who disagrees with you. I believe you should simply let the matter rest for now and let people decide on their own; and if they

1639:

19,000 is certainly a weak justification. That's why I abstain, which is not equivalent to a delete. I am not blaming you for "monitoring this a little bit", it is probably a bit counterproductive though (I am just guessing). Anyway, good luck with your quest for justice! This turns out to be rather

1459:

P. S. Some other users' talk pages are on my watchlist, and I just noticed that you have been contacting them about this, too. In fact, a glance at your User Contributions suggests a systematic effort to influence the VfD discussion. This Wikipedian doesn't like this sort of thing, and I don't think

1319:

article which appears to me to be neutral and factual. However, another thing you should be aware of is that the disclaimers at the bottom of every edit page&mdash:"If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, do not submit it" and "All contributions to any

1179:

Fair enough. But let me ask you this. Why are NONE of those who voted to delete my entry following the Wiki guidelines for biographies? I have shown that these policies overwhelmingly support my entry; no one has even attempted to show I am wrong or even apply the policies. Everyone just makes a gut

570:

were, my original entry should not have been deleted. Naively assuming that Wiki editors would actually consider and apply the Wiki criteria if it was called to their attention, I put up a new page and decided this time not to stay above the fray. If my entry is deleted, so be it, but it will not be

307:

The criteria for notability and the problem with self-promotion seem like two separate issues to me. You have a vested and self-serving interest in a wiki article existing about you. I don't care whether one exists for you or Tom Palmer. I want the community to be successful. Allowing self-promotion

2514:

Well, I don't know what a "name on this system" is. I am not a relativist. You have a name, and it is probably not "Willmcw". I tell you what. You apparently are operating under the rule that a given person has the perogative to make up whatever name they want and insist on others abiding by it, no

2251:

Think about it. What is the possible problem with material in an entry about me being "copyrighted" by me? That I might enforce this copyright? But how can I do this, and deny the GNU license applicable here, when I am a registered user and indeed EDIT THE ENTRY IN QUESTION? Not to mention that the

2144:

Kinsella has repeated, many times, the charge that I called that first version a "vanity" many times. It may have happened once because when I presumed Kinsella (still an unregistered user) was the same person as the original poster. You said you found that insulting, explained your identity, and I

2055:

disputes is unproductive, and I'd rather not see holes get poked in the very thin veneer of civility there. As a "noted author" on the topics of arbitration, mediation, and conciliation, surely you should know that. Of course, if you're usually paid $ 580/hour for your time, I suppose fanning the

1340:

Wow, thanks for the explanation, dpbsmith. Very helpful. I seriously doubt many if any of the keep votes for my entry are sockpuppets, so that seems good. I am not sure what is the import of your last paragraph, however. Waht is the point of telling me that writing can be edited by others? What are

1165:

If the speed limit is 55 someone who drives 55 probably won't get ticketed. Someone who drives 95 in the presence of a cop will probably get ticketed. Someone who drives 70 may or may not get ticketed depending on many chance factors, but will not find that it is useful to tell the judge that other

1158:

One of the problems with a wiki is that although Knowledge's goals are reasonably clear--to be a) an encyclopedia, and b) free--nobody is required to subscribe to those goals to edit a page or to create an article. So there are constant ongoing issues with self-promotion and with "vanity" articles,

390:

Thanks Splash. I'll change my vote. This has been a distressing thing. I am not a pretentious person. I never asked for an entry. Someone did one, unkonwn to me, someone I dind't even know. Then it was put up for deletion by Willmcv. I never opposed it, b/c i never claimed I was "notable" (I didn't

143:

Thought I should chime and say that I think the above comment is out of line. There is no edit count threshold for participating in VfD, although users with very few votes and a clear agenda routinely see their votes discounted when an admin comes to close the VfD. Do not "let the regulars decide";

2734:

Briefly, I'm making this request because your behaviour is poor. You've been warned–and blocked by another admin–for it before; the reasoning is further up this page. Willmcw probably would not object to informal or lightheartedly needling forms of address under appropriately friendly and casual

2469:

I didn't call him shipdit after you first said "knock it off", then you decided to go ahead and impose a time out anyway. As for "Willow," I have no idea what his name is. He refuses to say. His handle is the unwieldy "willmcw" and others call him "Will"--why? Do they assume Will is his name? What

1925:

Stephan - thanks for the mediation offer, but we already had a volunteer - Andrevan - who is taking up the case. It is unfortunately a very thorny mediation due to it being over a personal issue rather than an article. Most mediations here revolve around disputes between two editors with different

886:

Willmcw: Okay, but I don't undersatnd what you mean about mirrors and links? Could you elaborate, just for my edification? Also, what would you have me do? You are deleting my personal name; so is it okay, if this happens, if I add at least an external link to my site, or do you have some vendetta

780:

is that they are discouraged; but they are not banned. A couple of comments about this. First, the info I put up is easily verified. Second, an entry was originally put without my involvement; given that I satisfied then as I satisfy now several criteria for "notability," it should never have been

565:

Several months ago, someone put up an entry about me, without my knowledge or cooperation--a guy named Dick Clark. Not only did I not know him (and still do not), but I had never even heard of him. When others tried to delete it, I stayed out of it. I did not even care to argue I was "notable"; at

407:

You're welcome. The VfD process can be pretty bruising at the best of times. It is true, though, that you could have avoided the distress by not rewriting the article. I would entirely understand if you did not want to contribute any further to Wiki; I wonder if I can encourage to stick around and

341:

I would recommend that you revisit your extremely verbose comment on the new VfD. Such things do not draw favour. Editors are able to go read and research the article themselves, and the ridiculous amount of space your comment takes up is unnecessary. If you plan to keep the article, I'd recommend

2844:

I am skeptical your note was sincere, as there was no reason for you to insert the gratuitous phrase "that you wrote" in there, knowing I had denied this. Your actions are clearly violating the spirit of the ARb/Com decision, in my view. The ArbCom did not caution me in the way you imply, so your

2095:

entry, based on a fallacious understanding of copyright. He kept trying to insist that mention of my own anti-IP article on the IP entry, have a comment after it stating that the article "was copyrighted" by the publisher; this was clearly an attempt to make some snide, non-neutral critique of or

1727:

You are right about the error in the original VfD and the undelete; I unfortunately have just become savvy about such things. I do not know if DickClark copied my bio verbatim to make the original entry on me. To the extent he did, I guess you can see I wrote it--or it contained info that I wrote

1695:

But the deleters didn't follow Wiki's stated bio policies in doing the deletion. Anyway, yes, it does appear DickClark got the info in the entry from my online bio, which was not vanity in the first place. But I did not cause him to do it, nor ask him to, nor was I even aware of it. i didn't even

700:

Several months ago someone put up my bio entry (I cannot remember who, but I did not know him or have anything to do with it). My page was put up for VfD, and Willmcv, among others, voted to delete it, for vanity, and non-notable. It was not vanity, as I did not publish it. Anyway, autobio is not

412:

of course). It would be wrong of me to answer your question, considering that I have merely completed the nomination and cast no vote. Some editors are of the opinion that having your words in any book or books is enough for inclusion, some are not persuaded unless the book itself is notable etc.

357:

No, those never get read, unfortuntaely. The main trouble is that (whilst being a lawyer means this what you do), quoting the rules at us won't get you anywhere. We know the rules (at least, those of us that prowl VfD regularly do), and the most common reason they are quoted back at us is because

203:

The purpose is to prevent people with no notability writing what we call 'vanity articles' about themselves, because they think the world needs to know about them. You're right it's not an absolute rule, but it's really quite strongly frowned upon. We prefer that articles are written in a neutral

153:

Thanks. I understand my vote not being counted, but why it is moved to the Sockpuppet heading? I am not a sockpuppet and I clearly labeled my vested interest. I am disturbed that Willmcv is using a double standard: he readily deleted my own listing (which I did not put up nor did I oppose having

2817:

Will, the Arb/Com decision admonished you "to extend respect and forgiveness to users such as User:Nskinsella ... who share the burden of being notable enough to have articles regarding them be included in Knowledge." In your comment above, you duplicated the language, but you inserted "that you

2653:

Mr. W, I feel silly calling someone by an unwieldy, meaningless username. You can request where I make my comments, but I am not aware of any rule requiring me to do as you request. It seems odd that you make these meta-comments rather than simply rebutting, or even just denying, the charges. If

2224:

Stephan - Forgive my interuption, but I wanted to express general concurrence with the version of events and problems as you described it. Regarding the copyright matters, I am no attorney and neither is Willmcw to my knowledge thus it would be advisable that both yield to your expertise in that

2090:

Willmcw also has done the following to me. First, someone else posted my entry months back. I had no knowledge of or involvement in it. Willmcw initiated a delete. In the delete he called my entry non-notable (which I did not contest), and also that it was vanity. He has stated many times that I

1915:

Thanks -- I have been becoming a bit exasperated and disillusioned, I will admit. The critiques I read on Wikinfo about constant NPOV battles on Knowledge seem to be true. Sad. We shall see what develops, but I have definitely been discouraged. What's worse, the offending editors, like liberals,

1904:

This is symptomatic of his operating mode around here, and I also suspect you are encountering him at an abnormal frequency after editing contributions elsewhere on wikipedia. It is no coincidence if you are, and I believe that it is driven by his personal political beliefs which exhibit extreme

399:

seems in general to be an active and fair Wiki editor, but he seems to be inconsistent and have an axe to grind here. He continually assumes the worst about me. First he assumed it was a vanity page; but it was not; I didn't even kown the guy who put it up. Second, he says I'm an employee of the

2887:

is currently looking for Campus Ambassadors to help with Knowledge assignments at LSU, which will be participating in the Public Policy Initiative for the Spring 2011 semester. The role of Campus Ambassadors will be to provide face-to-face training and support for students on Knowledge-related

2694:

You have been asked, politely and repeatedly, to refer to Willmcw by his registered username. My understanding is that you are a member of the legal profession; I would imagine that you can appreciate the importance of precision and specificity in discussion things and people using their proper

1719:

Nobody said that DickClarkMises was working on your instructions. However, it is a misrepresentation of the facts to say you didn't write it. If an error was made in the original VfD then you had opportunity to point it out at the time. You also could have legitimately asked to have the article

2322:

Stephan, I voted to keep your article. I don't think you're particularly "notable" but an encyclopaedia of the scope of Knowledge can surely find room for a few borderline cases. The "notability" of those involved in politics tends, I find, to be related somewhat closely to one's own politics.

2070:

Hmm, thanks for telling me my remarks weren't "helpful." Of course, as any good liberal knows, remarks "should" always "be helpful". What other purpose could they possibly have than to be helpful, after all? Thanks also for the advice about the "unproductiveness" of "getting involved in other

2021:

I would recommend against trying to start your mediation career with the dispute between Rangerdude and Willmcw because you have an ongoing dispute with Willmcw on your User page, and because you've already stated an opinion on the issue on Rangerdude's talk page. It might be inferred that a

1966:. A formatted area is also provided on the RfC for the named editors to respond to the complaint. Thank you for your continued work on the LVMI article and for your patience during this process, as it is my hope that we will be able to produce an agreeable quality product upon its conclusion. 553:

Duncharris: Thanks. I am making a good faith effort to comply with wikiquette. Are you? Is your insulting tone and remarks appropriate?--especially for an administrator? I have acted in good faith and have been insulted, treated arbitrarily, and abused. The objective standards for biographies

2134:

That got me checking and I quickly found it to be a copyright violation and flagged it to be either deleted or replaced. Then a revert war began with an an unregistered user removing the copyvio tag. After an unfriendly discussion of the matter, you granted a GFDL so that we could retain the

846:

also probably has too many "his" and "he". --- I have now edited the entry, to have less sentences start with "he" and "his". I aslo shortened it and cleaned it up somewhat, tried to make it more objective; but someone else in the meantime also added some comments, which increased the length

558:

seem to be ignored by the delete-voters. I really don't understand this. If a given Wiki editor makes a good faith effort to apply the existing factors and criteria to my page leads to a delete vote, fine; but there is no attemp to do this, or to rebut my case showing that under the existing

1958:

You are also welcome to contribute to this RfC, and as a participant in the LVMI article development your participation here may be beneficial. To those who are unfamiliar, participants may contribute by endorsing (or declining to endorse) the RfC case regarding the problem users as stated.

324:

from his website into the Public Domain. He went to view the article, mentioned to me that it had been deleted, and became involved--at my request--in helping to restore it. For anyone checking, I did not create the original entry from this account (posted it before starting an account).

358:

there's nothing more substantial for the subject to go on, and I suppose you don't want to give that impression... If you want to put a link in the VfD, copy paste this: ]. I should say that removing your long comment from the VfD is not a requirement, but, personally, I'd recommend it.-

3101:

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

2826:, which included my complaints that you kept falsely accusing me of putting up or causing someone to put up my first entry. So before I accept your apology, can you please explain why you are doing this, if not to jab at me and continue to harass me, flouting the Arb/Com's decision? 154:

deleted), yet he makes up lame distinctions to keeping Palmer's listing. It is clear not an honest, objective, or consistent policy. BTW, if there is an edit threshold, for such matters, I was unaware of it. Curious: what is an admin, and who has the real right to delete an entry?

2515:

matter how out of the ordinary or awkward. Okay. As a human with a similar right, I hereby decree that my name is "Rothbardmxyzptlk" on Thursdays, "Hoppemxyzptlk" on Fridays, "Willow" on Saturdays, and "jumasesad" on other days. Now I expect you to abide by my naming convention.

1877:

topic whatsoever as long as it is factually accurate and not a copyright violation. This would include articles on peoples' pet cats, the intersection of Garfield Street and Pleasant Street in Avon, MA, etc. Jnanabase is an example of an actual Wiki operated on this principle.

1849:

497:

to command. If there are specific parts, or the entire text, of some previous version that you think should be substituted for the current text then the way best way to proceed would be to give your reasons and then make the edit. Let me know if I can be of further assistance,

299:

Kinsella has a large body of articles on libertarianism and legal topics. If you think Kinsella isn't notable enough for a Wiki page, neither is Tom G. Palmer. This is a problem with an open-source encyclopedia: consistency, both within articles and between them. -- David J.

1379:

People are often unclear on the concept that Knowledge pages do not have "authors" and are not owned by anyone. This misconception is especially likely in the case of people who author pages about themselves, and is one of the reasons why we have a policy all but forbidding

180:

I was not aware of this. Where would I find this alleged policy? In any event, if it is true, then it seems anonymous entries about a person should be prohibited too, since that's an easy way around this rule (which I would not do, since I am no coward). But over at the

2597:. I fear that at the present they may not be fully comprehending or reviewing the extent of the wikistalking problem and other bad behavior it entails, and have thus far given undue focus to some of Willmcw's counterallegations while missing the real focus of the case. 1320:

page on Knowledge are released under the GFDL"—are important and are taken seriously. Together, they effectively mean that anything is submitted to Knowledge it belongs to Knowledge, and the original submitter cannot control the content nor revoke permission to use it.

1284:

administrator can choose to act on it. The acting administrator looks at the page and decides whether or not there is a rough consensus in favor of deletion. A guideline used by many administrators is that barring special considerations, a 2/3 majority to delete is

877:

Please don't add your username to articles in place of or in addition to your personal name. We don't add usernames to articles for a number of reasons, primarly due to the fact that our content is mirrored on other sites and username links would be broken. Thanks,

3008:

NSK -- I've done some tweaks to your userpage. Namely adding a userpage banner and adding colons to the various WLs. (As I understand the wikimarkup, the colons will stop links coming into the page.) These measures may assuage (not Assange) some of the concerns. –

308:

is not in the best interests of the community. I prefer that you and others not use Knowledge for this purpose. Rigid consistency about what's in and what's out seems much less important than whether Knowledge is allowed to be used as a tool for self-promotion.--

1422:, a person using the email address monicadebruyn@newyork.com and claiming to be Monica de Bruyn seemed to be suggesting that we did not have any right to say anything about her in wording that was not preapproved by her or her publicist. Or something like that. 997:

As you are very aware, you are Stephan Kinsella. Your comments to me regarding yourself are almost by definition incapable of changing my view on the vanity of this article. I review VfD regularly, and will judge Palmer (and review you as well) in due time.

832:

Note how many sentences start with 'His' and 'He', generally that is not good form. A biography is not important, simply note in a simple and straightforward way the important things the subject has done. If that is done, I will definitely change my vote.

2178:

Willmcw, your and other Wikipedians' copyright understanding is abysmal. Understandable, as you are laymen, but then you act on it. As for when you said this--you said it was "likely" that I wrote it. But I can't remember where you did this. Maybe you

1195:

Not exactly. However, the policies work by consensus. Policies are formulations of what editors actually do. In a VfD it is very relevant to mention them in hopes that statement of the policy will influence votes, but a vote is a vote nevertheless.

204:

way, and it's really quite hard to be neutral about yourself. We generally take the view that "If you are well-known enough to warrent an article, someone else will write one about you". You are of course free to correct an article about yourself.

2720:

Oh, relax. Others call him Will, is this not a permissible inference? He has not shown good grace--in fact he has pestered and wikistalked me. Why are you taking sides? And are you implying there is such a thing as a necessary breach of civilty?

2953:

until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

426:

Thanks Splizzash. I think you will see my entry is not really self-glorifying. I would not mind if others want to severely shorten it; a link to my website gives a lot of info. BTW today I decided to start a few articles, so we'll see how that

1947:

article, I wanted to inform you that I have started a "Request for Comment" (RfC) proceeding over this article in light of continued disruptive and abusive editing behavior by two other participants there. The RfC is located at the link here

169:

Just so you know, it is against policy to create articles about yourself on Knowledge. As it seems your article is relatively neutral, so you may get away with it. I would say "don't do it again", but I guess that's relatively unlikely.

1872:

There is a faction of Wikipedians called "inclusionists." Since I am not one of them I don't know that I can represent their view accurately, but roughly speaking they seem to believe that Knowledge should never delete any article on

1844:

582:

In sum, if you could explain to me why my page is being deleted even though I apparently clearly meet the criteria, I would appreciate it. if you have any suggestions as to improvement of my Wikiquette, I would be open to hearing it.

579:)--again, I had nothing to do with this and didn't even realize these entries pointed to me until a couple days ago. But if my entry is deleted, these other entries will be pointing to a blank page. What possible good can that serve? 771:

Oh, easy. Google turns up hundreds of entries (actually, 19,900, at last count). The info can easily be verified. I'm more well known and more published than the average college provessor, so my entry "can and should be included."

2745:) just doesn't seem to be a bit of friendly joshing. You're a very intelligent man; it would be insulting to both of us to ask me to explain in further detail just what the problem is with your conduct here. The warning stands. 2050:

Oh, I know that you weren't really serious about mediating in that conflict. But your remarks weren't helpful, either. If you've got a problem with Willmcw, take it up with him politely or post an RFC. Getting involved in

2888:

skills (how to edit articles, how to add references, etc.). This includes doing in-class presentations, running workshops and labs, possibly holding office hours, and in general providing in-person mentorship for students.

2071:

disputes". After all, "everyone" knows that "productiveness" is "the" "goal" of "getting involved in other disputes". Right? You Wikipedians are a barrel of monkeys. Woops, is there a Jimbo Wales rule against this too?

1671:

Radiant--Thanks for the advice! I agree, I should not write it. And if Wiki users had not illegitimately deleted my first entry, which I did not erect, and disregarded Wiki policy, then I would not have had to do it.

898:

Under the GFDL, anyone may copy and use the Knowledge content (as long as they maintain authorship info). There are quite a number of websites that make copies of our content. For example, follow this Google search

2957:

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

2780:

TenOfAllTrades, Ten, 'Hey you', or just call me Ishmael. You're welcome to participate fully and reasonably in the Rangerdude ArbCom case, just don't play games with people's names when they've asked you not to.

2131:

When I first found it I NPOV'ed it by removing "interests", added a category, and fixed the photo. An unregistered user, identifying himself as "NS Kinsella", added back the interests, calling it a "correction".

1211:

By the way, I didn't actually do a count, but assuming that there isn't gross sockpuppetry or anything like that, the last time I looked it didn't appear to me that there was going to be consensus for deletion.

1951:. In case you have not participated in an RfC before, it is the first step after the talk page in Knowledge's dispute resolution process for articles in which an agreement cannot be easily reached (outlined at 1895:

Greetings and welcome to Knowledge! I know this is a little late and I only hope your experience here hasn't been too unpleasant. Unfortunately we have a lot of editors around here who completely disregard the

784:

Finally, the policy ought to discourage anonymously-posted biographies even more than it discourages self-posted (auto)biographies, since someone can post an autobio anonymously, without being honest about it.

3129: 2607:

Thanks Rangerdude. Maybe you should post a very short, simple, coherent summary of your case, to ensure they don't just ignore it all due to length, complexity, and spin-off threads. Willow (it's a Saturday)

2950: 185:

entry, where they are voting whether to delete it, the entry is obviously authored by Palmer, via anonymous. So go there and take a look. --- Brief addition: I have put up some info on my discussion page

2186:

And another thing. Your claims that I was an employee of the Mises Institute. And some snide comment about you not being biased b/c you are not in the pay of them. What is that about? What is your trip,

391:

know the standards at the time). But I resented being accused of putting up a vanity page, since I had not. So I did not fight its being deleted. Then I see that the same guy, Willmcv, is voting to keep

213:

That is basically what I have done. Someone else had previously put up a bio of me, drawing mostly on my own online bios. Then it was deleted in abrogation of the rules; so I have basically restored it.

1962:

per the RfC page's instructions and entail the use of a tilde signature in the normal fashion. RfC participants may also contribute by way of discussion of the RfC case and all pertinent materials here

919:

If you want to show good faith it would help if you would stop making personal comments, such as "added link to Pilon's legal publications--he has no Wiki entry due to Willmcw copyvio actions". Thanks,

2654:

someone falsely accused me of something I would not natter about where they said it, I would object to the substance and deny it, rather than retreat to irrelevant technicalities. But to each is own.

1024:

I know you are Kinsella because this user name has admitted as much in the VfD. Of course, you could be lying, or have allowed reckless use of this username, but, consistent with Knowledge policy, I

3113:. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose 2705:

If you wish to discuss Willmcw or contact him in the future, use his username–Willmcw–or hold your tongue. I will impose a block if you attempt to provoke him again. This has gone on long enough.

2698:

He has shown remarkable good grace in responding to your attempts to provoke him. Please stop trying to test his patience—I doubt you will be able to exhaust it, and it is an unnecessary breach of

1227:

Interesting. I was not awarwe of the process. So a page is NOT deleted unless there is a clear consensus to do so? Say, it's 50/50, or even 60/40 to delete, it might not be deleted? Interesting.

2845:

comment is disingenuous: they cautioned me against excessive involvement in my own entry, and I accept that; they did not imply I had written it. And how is one to disprove a negative, anyway?

102:

a copyright violation. And you're identity wasn't clear, editing under two different anonymous ip's (24.175.17.57 and 216.216.209.2). Remember, not all of us are lawyers. You should apologize.

814:. I would be willing to change that vote if you clean up this article and write it from an objective perspective (as if you're not writting it). Perhaps ask a friend to help/write it for you. 2437:

I disagree. My reply was permissible in the context of the discussion about Rangerdude's accusations of Willow's wikistalking, which I support. I am free to elaborate and state my opinion.

2168:

Until you clearly gave your consent the article was indeed a copyright violation, since it was posted it in its entirety without your knowledge or consent. We delete such entries routinely.

342:

doing things in a less in-your-face manner altogther. That's entirely up to you, of course. If I were you, I'd replace all that stuff with a link to the talk page you have copied it from. -

2386: 2289:... Stephen, now that you are a bonafide wikinerd (no offense, I'm quoting you here) maybe you could lend us a hand? There are about eight hundred suspected copyright violations listed at 1294:

Sockpuppets are multiple accounts created by a single user for the purpose of distorting votes or creating a misleading impression about the group opinion on a matter. It is difficult to

493:. Note that it is not "done" to simply revert back to a very old version of an article without good reason. Other editors have now contributed to the recent version so it is no longer 1994:

for further information and the support of experienced Wikimediators? They could advise you on how best to start a career in dispute resolution here on Knowledge. You may also find

2640: 2594: 2539:

Stephan, How would you like it if we called you "Stephen?" Making small errors in someone's name is a common method of needling someone, the more effective because nobody can ever

2622: 2675:

beholder. BTW when do you plan to reply to, or even deny, the charges I've made that support your harassing and unjustified behavior in my case? I'd be glad to be proven wrong.

2835:

You never entered any evidence, and the ArbCom cautioned you regarding your authorship of your biography. My note was sincere and if you do not accept it then that's too bad. -

566:

the time I did not know what Wiki's standards are. This time, when I was investigating and learning more about Wiki, I realized that according to the actual Wiki criteria

1173:

to suggest that an article on a borderline-notable person is a wiki-misdemeanor. It isn't. I'm just saying: I happened to vote on this one, and I called it as I saw it.

739:

yet again, but I have easily exceeded these, many times. A glance at these sites will make this clear. Moreover, there are "Alternate tests" listed that would suffice:

479:**Willmcw--could you restore my original entry as well, in the interest of fairness? Maybe it is better than the current one. I have no idea how to restore something. 2470:

justifies that assumption? Because it's part of his handle? As far as I know, it's really Willow. I'd be happy to use his proper name if someone tells me what it is.

2807:

I extend respect and forgiveness to you, who has the burden of being notable enough to have an articles regarding yourself, that you wrote, included in Knowledge. -

1620: 705: 567: 555: 708:

states who is "notable" enough for a wiki biography entry. Given the critieria, it is clear my entry should not have been previously deleted. Note, e.g., it says:

612:. Maybe you are notable. What is certain is you do not know how to behave, and certainly don't deserve recognition tha will boost your already overinflated ego. 272:

will set a bad precedent for this community, IMHO. I'm not sure why you should be treated as exception. Being previously deleted does not seem to help your case.

684: 562:

What would you have had me do? I didn't want to put my an entry on me anonymously, or ask a friend to do it, that would be dishonest. I was totally above board.

129:), making you inelligible for voting on deletion matters. The more you jump up and down and throw a tantrum the more people are going to think less of you. 536:

I've undeleted it. You can have your 15 minutes of fame until it is speedy deleted again. Now put your rattle back into your pram and learn some bleedin

413:

It's good that you have read policy; few people do before they write autobios. Good luck, and do take a look around to see where else you might help out! -

2235: 2166:

Second, during that debate, he kept calling my entry a copyright violation, even though it was taken from material on my own site that I gave consent to.

1897: 843: 1688:

The previous article was originally written by you and posted by DickClarkMises. It was legitimately deleted according to Knowledge deletion policies. -

2939: 600:

Good faith and wikiquette? Does this involve waging a completely pointless and irritating campaign against your colleague who has an entry already?

2898:

If you live near Baton Rouge and you are interested in being a Knowledge Campus Ambassador, or know someone else from the area who might be, please

1901:

actively campaigning to other users for votes to delete your article, and I thought it only fair to inform you of this in case you haven't seen it.

2899: 2864:

If you believe that Hulsmann's biography of von Mises is notable by WP standards for books, then perhaps you should start a WP entry for the book.

1397:

It's not a warning, because I don't see anything at all about your page that would lead me to expect it to attract edits that would bother you...

65: 2119:"Someone" posted a verbatim copy of material, frankly announcing it as a likely copyright violation, "dump of auto-bio from stephankinsella.com" 3229: 2961:

I didn't nominate the article for deletion but the editor who did was unsure of how to notify you and I agreed to do so on his behalf. Cheers,

1751:. In general, blogs are not considered reliable sources by the Knowledge community. It is especially bad form to add an entry in your own blog 49: 1916:

feign innocence when called on it. I am surprised at the hostility to libertarianism; I thought the founder, Jimbo Wales, was an Objectivist.

1615:

policy (which applies to articles, but probably also to the way the encyclopedia should be created as a whole). I don't know, and I prefer to

2895:

required for the role, as training will be provided for all Campus Ambassadors (although, of course, being an experienced editor is a plus).

2656:

NSKinsella (please call me "Rothbardmxyzptlk" on Thursdays, "Hoppemxyzptlk" on Fridays, "Willow" on Saturdays, and "jumasesad" on other days)

2610:

NSKinsella (please call me "Rothbardmxyzptlk" on Thursdays, "Hoppemxyzptlk" on Fridays, "Willow" on Saturdays, and "jumasesad" on other days)

2558:

NSKinsella (please call me "Rothbardmxyzptlk" on Thursdays, "Hoppemxyzptlk" on Fridays, "Willow" on Saturdays, and "jumasesad" on other days)

2517:

NSKinsella (please call me "Rothbardmxyzptlk" on Thursdays, "Hoppemxyzptlk" on Fridays, "Willow" on Saturdays, and "jumasesad" on other days)

2183:

article is copyrighted." What the hell is that? And then your David Duke stunt? All this is bad enough, but then you feign innocence. Sheesh.

1675:

p.s.: are you hinting to me that you want me to write your article, and that I do, you will change your vote on my entry? JUST kidding! :) --

2505:

How about Will? Can I call you that? Others seem to, and you don't seem to object. And if so, can I assume that is because it is your name?

3143: 1815:

Please be aware of the "Three revert rule." Violations can result in short-term editing blocks. You may have already exceeded that on the

2984:

Hello Nskinsella. Your user page appears to violate WP policy. Please review the following policies and apply the appropriate remedy.

2738:

You, on the other hand, are in the process of arguing an arbitration case with him. A little more decorum is appropriate. Calling him

25:

to Knowledge! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

2390: 1696:

know him. I to this day have never talked to or met him, though we did exchange some emails AFTer he posted my entry. Wikismooches--

1439:

It is all but impossible to use Knowledge to disseminate PR releases. They are either deleted, or edited to a neutral point of view.

1011:

How do you know I am Stephan Kinsella? Maybe I admire him so much I gave myself this user name. After all, are you really Xoloz? :)

69: 490:

I'm not sure which version you are referring to. I've restored the full history so every version of the article is somewhere here:

1537:

There is no rule against lobbying VfD voters. It happens frequently. Some see nothing wrong with it. I personally do not like it.

3233: 3139: 2907: 2643:

page, or keep them to yourself. And please address me by my username. The use of nicknames is not appreciated and is uncivil. -

1612: 1140:

Borderline cases are contentious, and like all human judgement calls are subject to unavoidable variability and inconsistency.

750:-- If the individual is more well known and more published than an average college professor, they can and should be included. 2333:

good idea, Grace note. Thanks. I think I'll do that. I may post comments on teh discussion page if warranted. But good idea.

2256: 677: 121:

I don't care who you are. Let the regulars decide if the guy is notable or not, but don't lose your rag. As one can see by

68:

on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out

2252:

material taken was very short and factual, arguing either for lack of copyright protection (or very weak), or for fair use.

2010: 3061: 1991: 2148:

However at this time I can't actually find a single case of my calling it a vanity. I certainly didn't do so in the VfD.

1784:

Patent laywer, me? Ah, you must be kidding, we are actually a bunch of Martians hacking into a wireless 802.11b network.

3122: 2190:

Willow, Just admit you are on the warpath and have a bias against libertarians. You'll feel better. Just let it out....

1952: 789:'s entry is not being deleted (yet), even though it was created anonymously, and appears to very likely be an autobio. 34: 22: 3221: 3177: 3155: 3134: 2823: 2231: 1047: 1025: 797: 576: 106: 943:

Could you please remove the categories (Libertarians | Scholars | Austrian School | 1965 births) from the user page,

446:

Could you please remove the categories (Libertarians | Scholars | Austrian School | 1965 births) from the user page,

3225: 2903: 2005: 1944: 1816: 1748: 1494: 354:

I am a newbie. Not sure the best way. How about put it on the discussion page for the VfD page, and link to that?

2943: 2015: 1273: 54: 1964: 1960: 1949: 2786: 2750: 2710: 2389:. Please take a moment to look it over. If you'd like to add anything, anyone may do so on the "evidence" page 2061: 2027: 1246:

that if it the vote count were 60/40 in favor of deletion, and there was no evidence of sockpuppetry, it would

725:

who have written books with an audience of 5,000 or more or in periodicals with a circulation of 5,000 or more.

2371:

and make any applicable changes to the article or post any suggestions you may have on the talk page. Thanks!

2883:

Hi! I'm leaving you this message because you indicated an association with Louisiana State University. The

776: 229: 926:

I was not intending to make personal comments, I was trying to explain why I was doing what I was doing. --

3030: 2819: 2149: 903: 408:

use your evident knowledge of things-legal-and-libertarian to enchance other articles (strictly observing

126: 122: 29: 2348:

Please refute that you put kittens into dryers!!! (I responded to your note to me on my page). :-) --

1162:

Everyone who wants an article kept always points to worse article that have been kept. It's irrelevant.

3110: 3072: 3053: 2985: 2967: 2884: 2665:

Please either call me by my user name, or don't refer to me at all. Your nickname gag was never funny. -

2623:

Knowledge:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 November 7#Category:Soviet spies to Category:Aed Soviet spies

2260: 2092: 793: 667: 572: 287: 187: 61: 1276:

under "decision policy." Here's roughly how it works. The page nominated for deletion is discussed for

900: 3014: 2363: 1984: 1611:

and, in that sense, your position might be biased. I am not sure whether your attitude fits with the

1419: 617: 545: 527: 134: 2142:

In the delete he called my entry non-notable (which I did not contest), and also that it was vanity.

260:

Oh, don't worry, it's different, alright. Trust me. Compare it to the original, if you can. Heh heh.

3237: 2997: 2782: 2746: 2706: 2057: 2023: 1995: 325: 236:

forbid autobiographies, but they are deeply frowned upon. Especially when created in retaliation,

95: 2836: 2808: 2666: 2644: 2494: 2349: 2208: 2172: 1820: 1758: 1752: 1721: 1689: 1593: 971: 963: 921: 911: 879: 756:-- Can all information in the article be independently verified now? (some say) 10 years from now? 499: 466: 396: 290:, I appear to meet the Wiki standards for notability. I simply want consistency--if the entry for 91: 3245: 3045: 2873: 2869: 2571: 2547: 2488:

My name on this system is Willmcw, as I've told you before. -Willmcw 19:25, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

2368: 1882: 1657: 1626: 1578: 1541: 1464: 1443: 1324: 1216: 1200: 638: 309: 277: 44: 2293:

waiting for evaluation. We sure could use your help. In particular, what do you think about the

537: 76:

on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --

3204: 3097: 906:

to see our core policies. Also, please don't cut-and-paste material from other webpages. Your

697:

If anyone wants to submit this page for votes for deletion, please be aware of the following.

205: 171: 109:, for which you can be banned for 24 hours. Please don't do this again or I will block you.-- 3208: 3106: 3068: 3037: 2962: 2934: 2918: 2316: 1766: 1607: 1316: 1117: 1095: 959: 671: 462: 84: 3121:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 1600: 1505:

the substantial revision. Of course, all of this is at times subjective and is why we have

3010: 2846: 2827: 2760: 2722: 2676: 2655: 2639:

If you have any personal comments about me then please place them on my talk page, on the

2609: 2598: 2557: 2527: 2516: 2506: 2471: 2438: 2372: 2334: 2324: 2265: 2239: 2226: 2191: 2107: 2097: 2072: 2038: 1967: 1927: 1917: 1906: 1801: 1770: 1697: 1676: 1559: 1526: 1478: 1342: 1228: 1181: 1147: 1103: 1038: 1012: 978: 955: 944: 927: 888: 864: 848: 834: 824: 815: 801: 613: 605: 601: 584: 541: 523: 515: 480: 458: 447: 237: 215: 195: 155: 130: 1506: 1501:

is a current example) and the closing admin may pay closer attention to those votes cast

2991:. If you are unsure as to how to proceed, please seek guidance from an admin. Thanks. 1102:

site, currently under deletion consideration, if you apply your standards consistently?

3118: 2992: 2988: 2157:

He has stated many times that I caused it to be put up, even though I have denied this.

3241: 3191: 3114: 2865: 2699: 2568: 2544: 2531: 2461: 2429: 2411: 1879: 1792: 1788: 1654: 1641: 1632: 1586: 1538: 1461: 1440: 1321: 1260: 1213: 1197: 1113: 1099: 1083: 786: 642: 519: 511: 392: 291: 241: 191: 182: 39: 2714: 2425: 2298: 2290: 609: 604:. Then pestering everyone about your vanity page and acting like a complete arse? 3088: 2301:? Looking forward to learning a thing or two from you buddy :)-- Fellow wikinerd-- 736: 1866: 1838: 1558:

non-arbitrariness, and consistency, as far as possible. What is wrong with that?

3190:

While all constructive contributions to Knowledge are appreciated, pages may be

3173: 3159: 2742:

while implying that he is being untruthful in his statements before the ArbCom (

2626: 2564: 1510: 1098:; but it is your right. Wouldn't your reasoning apply with greater force to the 907: 646: 414: 378: 359: 343: 249: 145: 3044:

Note: alternative spellings or capitalization of valid articles can simply be

1064: 1055: 1051: 1029: 1002: 842:

Thanks, you are right, this will improve it. The Palmer entry up for deletion

732: 571:

because I rolled over. Incidentally, there are wiki entries that refer to me (

144:

this is a Wiki where anyone can join in as long as they do so in good faith. -

1063:

And, in case I forget, it is what happens when I sign with four tildes. See?

823:

I have cleaned it up, and it is objective now. Please give me your thoughts.

94:, he was just trying to look out for your copyrighted page, considering that 1765:

Does it mean I am an especially bad person? Hey, did you like my article on

1728:

elsewhere. I do not konw. I never did a blackline. 00:24, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

1401:

you have the misimpression that you can control the contents of "your" page.

1660: 3214:

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing

2037:

Umm, yeah, I was kind of joking. Is joking, too, prohibited by Wikirules?

1589:, I justified it by writing that "Google returns 13500 hits for the query 2302: 2110:'s recollection of events is incorrect or incomplete in several respects. 1987:

that you might be interested in participating in mediation on Knowledge.

1602:. So on this point, my vote is not necessarily inconsistent (34,900 : --> 1362:

I don't think the following applies to you or your article. But just FYI.

1123:

All of these things are case-by-case, and they are consensus decisions.

110: 77: 3249: 3147: 3125:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

3076: 3018: 3002: 2974: 2911: 2849: 2839: 2830: 2811: 2790: 2763: 2754: 2725: 2679: 2669: 2647: 2629: 2601: 2574: 2550: 2534: 2509: 2497: 2474: 2464: 2441: 2432: 2414: 2375: 2352: 2337: 2327: 2305: 2268: 2242: 2194: 2100: 2075: 2065: 2041: 2031: 1970: 1930: 1920: 1909: 1885: 1804: 1773: 1700: 1679: 1562: 1544: 1513: 1481: 1467: 1446: 1345: 1327: 1231: 1219: 1203: 1184: 1150: 1106: 1067: 1058: 1041: 1032: 1015: 1005: 981: 930: 891: 867: 851: 837: 827: 818: 804: 649: 620: 587: 548: 530: 483: 417: 381: 362: 346: 328: 312: 280: 252: 218: 208: 198: 174: 158: 148: 137: 1832: 377:, however, although the closing admin may or may not count your vote. - 1902: 373:

Ok, that looks better! You are entitled (and almost expected) to vote

792:

Also--note, I and one of my IP publications is mentioned in the Wiki

2385:

FYI - the Arbitration Committee accepted my case against Willmcw at

670:

is deleted, below is reproduced my comments and defense of my entry

645:

too, even when you disagree, and especially when you are an admin. -

1998:

useful, as it discusses the usual mediation practices on the wiki.

2951:

Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Stephan Kinsella (4th Nomination)

1315:

expect this the following comments to have any application to the

1130:

notable don't get nominated for deletion or quickly survive VfD.

1943:

Greetings - as an active participant in the ongoing edits to the

1858:

You might be interested to note the existence of a website named

1831:

You might be interested to note the existence of a website named

1498: 409: 3185:

A single independent reference does not demonstrate notability.

3128:

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review

3025:

A page you started (Natural science (song)) has been reviewed!

2526:

Asking us to do that would be disruption to make a point, see

2493:

Please stop making up names for me. "Willow" is not my name. -

2287:

your and other Wikipedians' copyright understanding is abysmal

2001:

The following links might also be useful and/or of interest.

240:. More importantly, the recreation of deleted content can be 3164: 1629:

if you wish to do so, your talk page is not on my watchlist.

2818:

wrote". Note that this is after the Arb/Com found that you

2428:. When you return, please stop baiting and name calling. -- 1859: 1754:

so that you can then use it as a reference for an article.

1180:

judgment. Are the policies totally irrelevant and ignored?

847:

slightly; I edited this as well as it was somewhat sloppy.

743:

Other tests for inclusion that have been proposed include:

286:

I don't take your remarks personally. But as I noted here

2387:

Knowledge:Requests_for_arbitration/Willmcw_and_SlimVirgin

910:

article is a copyright violation and has to be removed. -

763: 977:

Thanks podnah. I'll just include it as a comment field.

3232:

process can result in deletion without discussion, and

3109:

is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the

2932:

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article

2743: 2455: 2448: 2421: 2408: 2405: 2402: 2146: 2132: 2120: 1865:

Among other things, it hosts a "knowledge base" called

1837:

Among other things, it hosts a "knowledge base" called

1755: 1169:

Now, let me be very clear: the point of the analogy is

1094:

I disagree with your reasoning for your vote to delete

970:

Never mind - another editor already fixed it for you. -

491: 3197:

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the

3040:

just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

2641:

Knowledge:Requests for arbitration/Rangerdude/Evidence

2595:

Knowledge:Requests_for_arbitration/Rangerdude/Workshop

704:

Now, I have since learned several things. First, The

559:

criteria, the biography entry is clearly permissible.

2938:

is suitable for inclusion in Knowledge according to

2904:

Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation

2593:FYI - The Arbcom has begun considering the case at 2022:conflict of interest exists for you in this case. 1137:to be notable can be speedy-deleted without VfD. 248:content or it will vanish before your very eyes. - 1529:I'm sorry if I said anything that suggested that 2117:First, someone else posted my entry months back. 706:Knowledge:Criteria for inclusion of biographies 568:Knowledge:Criteria_for_inclusion_of_biographies 556:Knowledge:Criteria_for_inclusion_of_biographies 2759:Er, I hate to ask, but what do I call you? :) 1112:My answer is: I don't know. I'm not voting on 2460:? I shouldn't need to explain this to you. -- 685:Knowledge:Votes for deletion/Stephan Kinsella 8: 3052:To reply, leave a comment on Animalparty's 2207:I have nothing against librarians. Cheers, - 522:. Thankyou for bringing it to my attention. 294:is notable and not deleted, why should mine? 2621:If you got a minute can you take a look at 951:are not included in those categories- only 454:are not included in those categories- only 3048:to the correct title. I have done so here. 2879:Knowledge Campus Ambassadors wanted at LSU 2236:Knowledge:Please do not bite the newcomers 1898:Knowledge:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers 1298:sockpuppetry, yet it is amazingly easy to 844:Knowledge:Votes_for_deletion/Tom_G._Palmer 60:I hope you enjoy editing here and being a 2362:Greetings - We're currently working on a 2255:As can be seen in our earlier discussion 1280:five days. After five days have elapsed, 1261:Knowledge is not a majoritarian democracy 683:The article was previously deleted here: 2171:The entire history is in the archives. - 1787:What do you mean by "I like the idea of 762:-- Does the subject get lots of hits on 662:Material from Stephan Kinsella talk page 3203:notice, but please explain why in your 2860:Guido Hulsmann's biography of von Mises 2397:waiting, gamecalling, personal winsults 2056:flames could be a profitable habit. ;) 1146:You know, This is a really good point. 1133:Articles about people who are not even 766:or another well known search mechanism? 276:I think your page should be deleted. -- 2859: 2420:You've been given a short timeout for 2902:or leave a message on my talk page.-- 7: 3098:2018 Arbitration Committee elections 2367:If you have a moment please drop by 1599:alone returns 34,900 hits on Google 1259:"Votes for deletion" is a misnomer. 712:Biographies on the following people 125:you have a grand total of 12 edits ( 2940:Knowledge's policies and guidelines 1959:Endorsements should be placed here 1159:and it does need to be dealt with. 72:, ask me on my talk page, or place 3192:deleted for any of several reasons 3180:because of the following concern: 3082:ArbCom 2018 election voter message 1533:suspect you of sockpuppetry. I do 14: 3095:Hello, Nskinsella. Voting in the 2949:The article will be discussed at 1983:I note from your remarks over at 1341:you trying to say or warn me of? 518:. Requests for undeletion go on 244:so make absolutely sure you have 70:Knowledge:Where to ask a question 3087: 2980:Inappropriate User Page Content. 2925: 3132:and submit your choices on the 2295:FHM-US's 100 Sexiest Women 2005 1990:Might I suggest contacting the 1791:, me"? I like them too. Yes. -- 1418:In the case of a blogger named 701:prohibited, just discouraged. 680:- material prior to first VfD. 2560:15:00, 11 November 2005 (UTC) 2257:Talk:Stephan_Kinsella/archive1 1272:The procedure is explained in 1126:Articles about people who are 731:Well. I don't need to list my 678:talk:Stephan Kinsella/archive1 1: 3148:18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC) 3111:Knowledge arbitration process 2850:22:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC) 2847:NSKinsella (Stephan Kinsella) 2840:20:27, 20 December 2005 (UTC) 2831:19:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC) 2828:NSKinsella (Stephan Kinsella) 2812:09:19, 20 December 2005 (UTC) 2761:NSKinsella (Stephan Kinsella) 2755:21:46, 30 November 2005 (UTC) 2726:20:21, 30 November 2005 (UTC) 2723:NSKinsella (Stephan Kinsella) 2715:16:31, 30 November 2005 (UTC) 2680:17:43, 24 November 2005 (UTC) 2677:NSKinsella (Stephan Kinsella) 2670:07:09, 23 November 2005 (UTC) 2658:03:50, 23 November 2005 (UTC) 2648:07:47, 22 November 2005 (UTC) 2630:22:34, 12 November 2005 (UTC) 2612:14:22, 12 November 2005 (UTC) 2602:21:43, 11 November 2005 (UTC) 2575:16:48, 11 November 2005 (UTC) 2551:11:37, 11 November 2005 (UTC) 2535:02:06, 11 November 2005 (UTC) 2519:01:33, 11 November 2005 (UTC) 2510:05:19, 23 November 2005 (UTC) 2507:NSKinsella (Stephan Kinsella) 2498:21:49, 10 November 2005 (UTC) 2475:16:03, 10 November 2005 (UTC) 2472:NSKinsella (Stephan Kinsella) 2465:05:21, 10 November 2005 (UTC) 2442:04:50, 10 November 2005 (UTC) 2439:NSKinsella (Stephan Kinsella) 2335:NSKinsella (Stephan Kinsella) 2266:NSKinsella (Stephan Kinsella) 2192:NSKinsella (Stephan Kinsella) 30:The five pillars of Knowledge 3077:22:48, 8 November 2017 (UTC) 2912:17:04, 6 December 2010 (UTC) 2885:Knowledge Ambassador Program 2791:04:27, 1 December 2005 (UTC) 2764:04:04, 1 December 2005 (UTC) 2433:21:04, 8 November 2005 (UTC) 2415:17:23, 2 November 2005 (UTC) 2011:Knowledge:What is mediation? 1953:Knowledge:Dispute resolution 1495:Knowledge is not a democracy 714:may be included in Knowledge 50:How to write a great article 3250:00:51, 8 October 2023 (UTC) 3236:allows discussion to reach 3217:{{proposed deletion/dated}} 3200:{{proposed deletion/dated}} 2891:Prior Knowledge skills are 2376:18:44, 19 August 2005 (UTC) 2232:Knowledge:Assume good faith 2175:05:39, July 28, 2005 (UTC) 2129:Willmcw initiated a delete. 1823:03:32, July 23, 2005 (UTC) 1795:08:09, July 22, 2005 (UTC) 1761:22:14, July 21, 2005 (UTC) 1743:Using your blog as a source 1724:22:34, July 21, 2005 (UTC) 1692:21:58, July 21, 2005 (UTC) 1667:21:06, July 21, 2005 (UTC) 1644:07:59, July 22, 2005 (UTC) 1635:20:56, July 21, 2005 (UTC) 1577:Thanks for your message on 974:17:15, July 21, 2005 (UTC) 966:17:04, July 21, 2005 (UTC) 882:17:03, July 20, 2005 (UTC) 798:Libertarian_theories_of_law 577:Libertarian_theories_of_law 510:I've speedy deleted it per 502:08:06, July 20, 2005 (UTC) 469:05:58, July 20, 2005 (UTC) 107:Knowledge:Three-revert rule 90:Hi Ns, you were abusive to 3265: 3228:exist. In particular, the 3140:MediaWiki message delivery 3019:19:03, 25 April 2013 (UTC) 3003:13:16, 22 April 2013 (UTC) 2975:10:01, 17 April 2013 (UTC) 2353:12:39, 2 August 2005 (UTC) 2211:07:39, July 28, 2005 (UTC) 2006:Knowledge:Mediation (2005) 1945:Ludwig von Mises Institute 1817:Ludwig von Mises Institute 1749:Knowledge:Reliable sources 914:17:34, July 20, 2005 (UTC) 779:autobiographies</a: --> 721:Published authors, editors 3222:proposed deletion process 2338:04:01, 29 July 2005 (UTC) 2328:01:29, 29 July 2005 (UTC) 2306:13:42, 28 July 2005 (UTC) 2269:13:01, 28 July 2005 (UTC) 2243:07:06, 28 July 2005 (UTC) 2195:06:05, 28 July 2005 (UTC) 2101:18:19, 26 July 2005 (UTC) 2076:05:10, 27 July 2005 (UTC) 2066:21:18, 26 July 2005 (UTC) 2042:20:54, 26 July 2005 (UTC) 2032:20:37, 26 July 2005 (UTC) 2016:Knowledge:Mediation Cabal 1971:00:19, 26 July 2005 (UTC) 1931:19:12, 25 July 2005 (UTC) 1921:18:40, 24 July 2005 (UTC) 1910:18:32, 24 July 2005 (UTC) 1886:23:17, 23 July 2005 (UTC) 1805:13:54, 22 July 2005 (UTC) 1774:00:25, 22 July 2005 (UTC) 1701:22:16, 21 July 2005 (UTC) 1680:21:17, 21 July 2005 (UTC) 1563:04:36, 22 July 2005 (UTC) 1545:20:44, 21 July 2005 (UTC) 1514:20:41, 21 July 2005 (UTC) 1482:19:25, 21 July 2005 (UTC) 1468:18:44, 21 July 2005 (UTC) 1447:23:05, 23 July 2005 (UTC) 1346:04:00, 22 July 2005 (UTC) 1328:20:37, 21 July 2005 (UTC) 1274:WIkipedia:Deletion policy 1232:19:25, 21 July 2005 (UTC) 1220:18:40, 21 July 2005 (UTC) 1204:20:37, 21 July 2005 (UTC) 1185:19:25, 21 July 2005 (UTC) 1151:19:25, 21 July 2005 (UTC) 1107:15:42, 21 July 2005 (UTC) 1068:03:54, 22 July 2005 (UTC) 1059:03:52, 22 July 2005 (UTC) 1046:You also should probably 1042:03:38, 22 July 2005 (UTC) 1033:01:48, 22 July 2005 (UTC) 1016:17:37, 21 July 2005 (UTC) 1006:17:31, 21 July 2005 (UTC) 982:17:25, 21 July 2005 (UTC) 931:18:50, 20 July 2005 (UTC) 892:17:10, 20 July 2005 (UTC) 868:14:34, 20 July 2005 (UTC) 852:03:40, 20 July 2005 (UTC) 838:02:09, 20 July 2005 (UTC) 828:01:30, 20 July 2005 (UTC) 819:22:38, 19 July 2005 (UTC) 805:21:35, 18 July 2005 (UTC) 650:17:57, 20 July 2005 (UTC) 621:17:51, 20 July 2005 (UTC) 588:14:20, 20 July 2005 (UTC) 549:13:51, 20 July 2005 (UTC) 531:12:42, 20 July 2005 (UTC) 484:01:33, 20 July 2005 (UTC) 418:19:20, 19 July 2005 (UTC) 382:18:46, 19 July 2005 (UTC) 363:18:38, 19 July 2005 (UTC) 347:18:26, 19 July 2005 (UTC) 329:21:23, 19 July 2005 (UTC) 313:20:42, 19 July 2005 (UTC) 281:14:40, 19 July 2005 (UTC) 253:02:00, 19 July 2005 (UTC) 219:01:44, 19 July 2005 (UTC) 209:22:16, 18 July 2005 (UTC) 199:21:42, 18 July 2005 (UTC) 175:20:40, 18 July 2005 (UTC) 159:01:32, 17 July 2005 (UTC) 149:01:10, 17 July 2005 (UTC) 138:19:59, 16 July 2005 (UTC) 113:04:45, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC) 80:05:14, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC) 2942:or whether it should be 2874:06:37, 6 July 2010 (UTC) 2689: 1166:people were driving 75. 737:libertarian publications 637:Deep breaths, Dunc. And 3209:the article's talk page 2803:Respect and forgiveness 962:is a subject. Thanks, - 796:entry; and in the Wiki 777:Knowledge:Autobiography 465:is a subject. Thanks, - 230:Knowledge:Autobiography 21:Hello, Nskinsella, and 3188: 3169: 3050: 3031:Natural science (song) 2358:Wikistalking guideline 2159:When have I said this? 2106:With all due respect, 1037:Are you really Xoloz? 904:wikipedia:five pillars 769: 729: 3234:articles for deletion 3182: 3178:proposed for deletion 3168: 3107:Arbitration Committee 3042: 2261:Intellectual Property 2093:Intellectual Property 1613:Neutral point of view 1573:Alleged inconsistency 794:Intellectual Property 741: 710: 668:Talk:Stephan_Kinsella 573:Intellectual Property 288:Talk:Stephan_Kinsella 188:Talk:Stephan_Kinsella 3029:Thanks for creating 1985:User talk:Rangerdude 1591:"Tom G. Palmer" cato 939:user page categories 723:, and photographers 442:user page categories 105:Also, you broke the 2543:it is intentional. 2426:the blocking policy 1996:Knowledge:Mediation 1992:Mediation Committee 775:True, the rules on 674:not being deleted. 96:User:DickClarkMises 3226:deletion processes 3170: 3123:arbitration policy 2690:Willmcw's username 2369:Knowledge:stalking 1460:I'm the only one. 1242:I can practically 748:The professor test 35:How to edit a page 3156:Proposed deletion 3065: 3060:Learn more about 3036:Knowledge editor 2635:Personal comments 1048:assume good faith 1026:assume good faith 117:Sockpuppetry, etc 3256: 3219: 3218: 3202: 3201: 3167: 3091: 3059: 2971: 2935:Stephan Kinsella 2929: 2928: 2919:Stephan Kinsella 2563:Any relation to 2344:Shocking Claims! 2317:Stephan Kinsella 2098:Stephan Kinsella 2073:Stephan Kinsella 2039:Stephan Kinsella 1918:Stephan Kinsella 1802:Stephan Kinsella 1771:Stephan Kinsella 1767:discourse ethics 1698:Stephan Kinsella 1677:Stephan Kinsella 1665: 1625:Please reply on 1560:Stephan Kinsella 1527:Stephan Kinsella 1479:Stephan Kinsella 1343:Stephan Kinsella 1317:Stephan Kinsella 1229:Stephan Kinsella 1182:Stephan Kinsella 1148:Stephan Kinsella 1118:Stephan Kinsella 1116:, I'm voting on 1104:Stephan Kinsella 1096:Stephan Kinsella 1039:Stephan Kinsella 1013:Stephan Kinsella 979:Stephan Kinsella 960:Stephan Kinsella 726: 722: 715: 672:Stephan Kinsella 506:Your vanity page 463:Stephan Kinsella 337:Your VfD comment 242:speedily deleted 85:Stephan Kinsella 75: 3264: 3263: 3259: 3258: 3257: 3255: 3254: 3253: 3230:speedy deletion 3216: 3215: 3199: 3198: 3165: 3163: 3152: 3151: 3092: 3084: 3027: 2982: 2969: 2930: 2926: 2923: 2881: 2862: 2805: 2692: 2637: 2619: 2591: 2399: 2383: 2360: 2346: 2320: 2108:User:Nskinsella 2088: 1978: 1941: 1893: 1856: 1829: 1813: 1782: 1745: 1662: 1650: 1597:"Tom G. Palmer" 1581:. When I voted 1575: 1420:Monica de Bruyn 1088: 1086:and consistency 992: 956:User:Nskinsella 945:User:Nskinsella 941: 875: 724: 720: 713: 693: 664: 508: 475: 459:User:Nskinsella 448:User:Nskinsella 444: 339: 269: 119: 88: 73: 55:Manual of Style 12: 11: 5: 3262: 3260: 3240:for deletion. 3220:will stop the 3162: 3153: 3130:the candidates 3093: 3086: 3085: 3083: 3080: 3069:--Animalparty! 3033:, Nskinsella! 3026: 3023: 3022: 3021: 2986:WP:FAKEARTICLE 2981: 2978: 2924: 2922: 2917:Nomination of 2915: 2880: 2877: 2861: 2858: 2857: 2856: 2855: 2854: 2853: 2852: 2804: 2801: 2800: 2799: 2798: 2797: 2796: 2795: 2794: 2793: 2783:TenOfAllTrades 2771: 2770: 2769: 2768: 2767: 2766: 2747:TenOfAllTrades 2736: 2735:circumstances. 2729: 2728: 2707:TenOfAllTrades 2691: 2688: 2687: 2686: 2685: 2684: 2683: 2682: 2660: 2659: 2636: 2633: 2625:. Thank you. 2618: 2615: 2614: 2613: 2590: 2587: 2586: 2585: 2584: 2583: 2582: 2581: 2580: 2579: 2578: 2577: 2537: 2521: 2520: 2512: 2491: 2490: 2484: 2483: 2482: 2481: 2480: 2479: 2478: 2477: 2401:knock it off ( 2398: 2395: 2382: 2379: 2359: 2356: 2345: 2342: 2341: 2340: 2319: 2314: 2313: 2312: 2311: 2310: 2309: 2308: 2278: 2277: 2276: 2275: 2274: 2273: 2272: 2271: 2253: 2249: 2217: 2216: 2215: 2214: 2213: 2212: 2200: 2199: 2198: 2197: 2188: 2184: 2180: 2169: 2160: 2151: 2136: 2123: 2111: 2087: 2084: 2083: 2082: 2081: 2080: 2079: 2078: 2058:TenOfAllTrades 2045: 2044: 2024:TenOfAllTrades 2019: 2018: 2013: 2008: 1977: 1974: 1940: 1937: 1936: 1935: 1934: 1933: 1892: 1889: 1855: 1852: 1828: 1825: 1812: 1809: 1808: 1807: 1789:utility models 1781: 1778: 1777: 1776: 1769:? Wikikisses, 1744: 1741: 1740: 1739: 1738: 1737: 1736: 1735: 1734: 1733: 1732: 1731: 1730: 1729: 1708: 1707: 1706: 1705: 1704: 1703: 1683: 1682: 1673: 1649: 1646: 1574: 1571: 1570: 1569: 1568: 1567: 1566: 1565: 1550: 1549: 1548: 1547: 1521: 1520: 1519: 1518: 1517: 1516: 1509:to help out. - 1487: 1486: 1485: 1484: 1471: 1470: 1456: 1455: 1454: 1453: 1452: 1451: 1450: 1449: 1430: 1429: 1428: 1427: 1426: 1425: 1424: 1423: 1409: 1408: 1407: 1406: 1405: 1404: 1403: 1402: 1388: 1387: 1386: 1385: 1384: 1383: 1382: 1381: 1380:autobiography. 1370: 1369: 1368: 1367: 1366: 1365: 1364: 1363: 1353: 1352: 1351: 1350: 1349: 1348: 1333: 1332: 1331: 1330: 1306: 1305: 1304: 1303: 1289: 1288: 1287: 1286: 1267: 1266: 1265: 1264: 1254: 1253: 1252: 1251: 1237: 1236: 1235: 1234: 1209: 1208: 1207: 1206: 1190: 1189: 1188: 1187: 1156: 1155: 1154: 1153: 1110: 1109: 1087: 1080: 1079: 1078: 1077: 1076: 1075: 1074: 1073: 1072: 1071: 1070: 1019: 1018: 991: 988: 987: 986: 985: 984: 958:is an editor, 940: 937: 936: 935: 934: 933: 916: 915: 895: 894: 874: 871: 861: 860: 859: 858: 857: 856: 855: 854: 768: 767: 757: 751: 728: 727: 692: 689: 663: 660: 659: 658: 657: 656: 655: 654: 653: 652: 628: 627: 626: 625: 624: 623: 593: 592: 591: 590: 580: 563: 560: 507: 504: 488: 487: 474: 471: 461:is an editor, 443: 440: 439: 438: 437: 436: 435: 434: 433: 432: 431: 430: 429: 428: 421: 420: 402: 401: 385: 384: 368: 367: 366: 365: 338: 335: 334: 333: 332: 331: 326:DickClarkMises 318: 317: 316: 315: 302: 301: 296: 295: 268: 267:Self-Promotion 265: 264: 263: 262: 261: 226: 225: 224: 223: 222: 221: 164: 163: 162: 161: 118: 115: 87: 82: 66:sign your name 58: 57: 52: 47: 42: 37: 32: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3261: 3252: 3251: 3247: 3243: 3239: 3235: 3231: 3227: 3223: 3212: 3210: 3206: 3195: 3193: 3187: 3186: 3181: 3179: 3175: 3161: 3157: 3154: 3150: 3149: 3145: 3141: 3137: 3136: 3131: 3126: 3124: 3120: 3116: 3112: 3108: 3103: 3100: 3099: 3090: 3081: 3079: 3078: 3074: 3070: 3066: 3063: 3062:page curation 3057: 3055: 3049: 3047: 3041: 3039: 3034: 3032: 3024: 3020: 3016: 3012: 3007: 3006: 3005: 3004: 3001: 3000: 2996: 2995: 2990: 2987: 2979: 2977: 2976: 2973: 2972: 2966: 2965: 2959: 2955: 2952: 2947: 2945: 2941: 2937: 2936: 2920: 2916: 2914: 2913: 2909: 2905: 2901: 2896: 2894: 2889: 2886: 2878: 2876: 2875: 2871: 2867: 2851: 2848: 2843: 2842: 2841: 2838: 2834: 2833: 2832: 2829: 2825: 2821: 2816: 2815: 2814: 2813: 2810: 2802: 2792: 2788: 2784: 2779: 2778: 2777: 2776: 2775: 2774: 2773: 2772: 2765: 2762: 2758: 2757: 2756: 2752: 2748: 2744: 2741: 2737: 2733: 2732: 2731: 2730: 2727: 2724: 2719: 2718: 2717: 2716: 2712: 2708: 2703: 2701: 2696: 2681: 2678: 2673: 2672: 2671: 2668: 2664: 2663: 2662: 2661: 2657: 2652: 2651: 2650: 2649: 2646: 2642: 2634: 2632: 2631: 2628: 2624: 2616: 2611: 2606: 2605: 2604: 2603: 2600: 2596: 2588: 2576: 2573: 2570: 2566: 2562: 2561: 2559: 2554: 2553: 2552: 2549: 2546: 2542: 2538: 2536: 2533: 2529: 2525: 2524: 2523: 2522: 2518: 2513: 2511: 2508: 2504: 2503: 2502: 2501: 2500: 2499: 2496: 2489: 2486: 2485: 2476: 2473: 2468: 2467: 2466: 2463: 2459: 2457: 2451: 2450: 2445: 2444: 2443: 2440: 2436: 2435: 2434: 2431: 2427: 2423: 2419: 2418: 2417: 2416: 2413: 2409: 2406: 2403: 2396: 2394: 2392: 2388: 2380: 2378: 2377: 2374: 2370: 2365: 2357: 2355: 2354: 2351: 2343: 2339: 2336: 2332: 2331: 2330: 2329: 2326: 2318: 2315: 2307: 2304: 2300: 2296: 2292: 2288: 2284: 2283: 2282: 2281: 2280: 2279: 2270: 2267: 2262: 2258: 2254: 2250: 2246: 2245: 2244: 2241: 2237: 2233: 2228: 2223: 2222: 2221: 2220: 2219: 2218: 2210: 2206: 2205: 2204: 2203: 2202: 2201: 2196: 2193: 2189: 2185: 2181: 2177: 2176: 2174: 2170: 2167: 2164: 2161: 2158: 2155: 2152: 2150: 2147: 2143: 2140: 2137: 2133: 2130: 2127: 2124: 2121: 2118: 2115: 2112: 2109: 2105: 2104: 2103: 2102: 2099: 2094: 2085: 2077: 2074: 2069: 2068: 2067: 2063: 2059: 2054: 2049: 2048: 2047: 2046: 2043: 2040: 2036: 2035: 2034: 2033: 2029: 2025: 2017: 2014: 2012: 2009: 2007: 2004: 2003: 2002: 1999: 1997: 1993: 1988: 1986: 1981: 1975: 1973: 1972: 1969: 1965: 1961: 1956: 1954: 1950: 1946: 1938: 1932: 1929: 1924: 1923: 1922: 1919: 1914: 1913: 1912: 1911: 1908: 1903: 1899: 1890: 1888: 1887: 1884: 1881: 1876: 1870: 1868: 1863: 1861: 1854:Wikinerds.org 1853: 1851: 1848: 1842: 1840: 1835: 1833: 1827:Wikinerds.org 1826: 1824: 1822: 1818: 1810: 1806: 1803: 1798: 1797: 1796: 1794: 1790: 1785: 1779: 1775: 1772: 1768: 1764: 1763: 1762: 1760: 1756: 1753: 1750: 1742: 1726: 1725: 1723: 1718: 1717: 1716: 1715: 1714: 1713: 1712: 1711: 1710: 1709: 1702: 1699: 1694: 1693: 1691: 1687: 1686: 1685: 1684: 1681: 1678: 1674: 1670: 1669: 1668: 1666: 1659: 1656: 1647: 1645: 1643: 1640:emotional. -- 1636: 1634: 1630: 1628: 1622: 1618: 1614: 1609: 1604: 1601: 1598: 1594: 1592: 1588: 1587:Tom G. Palmer 1584: 1580: 1572: 1564: 1561: 1556: 1555: 1554: 1553: 1552: 1551: 1546: 1543: 1540: 1536: 1532: 1528: 1525: 1524: 1523: 1522: 1515: 1512: 1508: 1504: 1500: 1496: 1493: 1492: 1491: 1490: 1489: 1488: 1483: 1480: 1475: 1474: 1473: 1472: 1469: 1466: 1463: 1458: 1457: 1448: 1445: 1442: 1438: 1437: 1436: 1435: 1434: 1433: 1432: 1431: 1421: 1417: 1416: 1415: 1414: 1413: 1412: 1411: 1410: 1400: 1396: 1395: 1394: 1393: 1392: 1391: 1390: 1389: 1378: 1377: 1376: 1375: 1374: 1373: 1372: 1371: 1361: 1360: 1359: 1358: 1357: 1356: 1355: 1354: 1347: 1344: 1339: 1338: 1337: 1336: 1335: 1334: 1329: 1326: 1323: 1318: 1314: 1310: 1309: 1308: 1307: 1301: 1297: 1293: 1292: 1291: 1290: 1283: 1279: 1275: 1271: 1270: 1269: 1268: 1262: 1258: 1257: 1256: 1255: 1249: 1245: 1241: 1240: 1239: 1238: 1233: 1230: 1226: 1225: 1224: 1223: 1222: 1221: 1218: 1215: 1205: 1202: 1199: 1194: 1193: 1192: 1191: 1186: 1183: 1178: 1177: 1176: 1175: 1174: 1172: 1167: 1163: 1160: 1152: 1149: 1145: 1144: 1143: 1142: 1141: 1138: 1136: 1131: 1129: 1124: 1121: 1119: 1115: 1114:Tom G. Palmer 1108: 1105: 1101: 1100:Tom G. Palmer 1097: 1093: 1092: 1091: 1085: 1084:Tom G. Palmer 1081: 1069: 1066: 1062: 1061: 1060: 1057: 1053: 1049: 1045: 1044: 1043: 1040: 1036: 1035: 1034: 1031: 1027: 1023: 1022: 1021: 1020: 1017: 1014: 1010: 1009: 1008: 1007: 1004: 1001:Best wishes, 999: 995: 989: 983: 980: 976: 975: 973: 969: 968: 967: 965: 961: 957: 954: 950: 946: 938: 932: 929: 925: 924: 923: 918: 917: 913: 909: 905: 901: 897: 896: 893: 890: 885: 884: 883: 881: 872: 870: 869: 866: 853: 850: 845: 841: 840: 839: 836: 831: 830: 829: 826: 822: 821: 820: 817: 813: 809: 808: 807: 806: 803: 799: 795: 790: 788: 787:Tom G. Palmer 782: 778: 773: 765: 761: 758: 755: 754:Verifiability 752: 749: 746: 745: 744: 740: 738: 734: 719: 718: 717: 709: 707: 702: 698: 695: 690: 688: 686: 681: 679: 675: 673: 669: 666:In case this 661: 651: 648: 644: 640: 636: 635: 634: 633: 632: 631: 630: 629: 622: 619: 615: 611: 607: 603: 599: 598: 597: 596: 595: 594: 589: 586: 581: 578: 574: 569: 564: 561: 557: 552: 551: 550: 547: 543: 539: 535: 534: 533: 532: 529: 525: 521: 517: 513: 505: 503: 501: 496: 492: 486: 485: 482: 477: 476: 472: 470: 468: 464: 460: 457: 453: 449: 441: 425: 424: 423: 422: 419: 416: 411: 406: 405: 404: 403: 398: 394: 393:Tom G. Palmer 389: 388: 387: 386: 383: 380: 376: 372: 371: 370: 369: 364: 361: 356: 355: 353: 352: 351: 350: 349: 348: 345: 336: 330: 327: 322: 321: 320: 319: 314: 311: 310:RyanKoppelman 306: 305: 304: 303: 298: 297: 293: 292:Tom G. Palmer 289: 285: 284: 283: 282: 279: 278:RyanKoppelman 273: 266: 259: 258: 257: 256: 255: 254: 251: 247: 243: 239: 235: 231: 220: 217: 212: 211: 210: 207: 202: 201: 200: 197: 193: 192:Tom G. Palmer 189: 184: 183:Tom G. Palmer 179: 178: 177: 176: 173: 167: 160: 157: 152: 151: 150: 147: 142: 141: 140: 139: 136: 132: 128: 124: 116: 114: 112: 108: 103: 101: 97: 93: 86: 83: 81: 79: 71: 67: 63: 56: 53: 51: 48: 46: 43: 41: 38: 36: 33: 31: 28: 27: 26: 24: 19: 18: 3224:, but other 3213: 3205:edit summary 3196: 3189: 3184: 3183: 3172:The article 3171: 3133: 3127: 3104: 3096: 3094: 3067: 3058: 3051: 3043: 3035: 3028: 2998: 2993: 2983: 2968: 2963: 2960: 2956: 2948: 2933: 2931: 2921:for deletion 2897: 2892: 2890: 2882: 2863: 2822:, citing my 2806: 2739: 2704: 2697: 2693: 2638: 2620: 2592: 2540: 2492: 2487: 2453: 2446: 2400: 2384: 2364:wikistalking 2361: 2347: 2321: 2299:WP:CP#Others 2294: 2286: 2165: 2162: 2156: 2153: 2145:apologized. 2141: 2138: 2128: 2125: 2116: 2113: 2089: 2052: 2020: 2000: 1989: 1982: 1980:Nskinsella, 1979: 1957: 1942: 1894: 1874: 1871: 1864: 1857: 1846: 1843: 1836: 1830: 1814: 1786: 1783: 1747:Please read 1746: 1720:undeleted. - 1651: 1638:34,900 : --> 1637: 1627:my talk page 1624: 1616: 1606:But even if 1605: 1596: 1590: 1582: 1579:my talk page 1576: 1534: 1530: 1502: 1398: 1312: 1299: 1295: 1281: 1277: 1247: 1243: 1210: 1170: 1168: 1164: 1161: 1157: 1139: 1134: 1132: 1127: 1125: 1122: 1111: 1089: 1000: 996: 993: 990:Your Comment 952: 948: 942: 876: 862: 811: 810:I voted for 791: 783: 774: 770: 759: 753: 747: 742: 730: 711: 703: 699: 696: 694: 682: 676: 665: 509: 494: 489: 478: 473:You asked... 455: 451: 445: 397:User:Willmcv 374: 340: 274: 270: 245: 233: 227: 206:DJ Clayworth 172:DJ Clayworth 168: 165: 127:I have 16352 123:Kate's tools 120: 104: 99: 92:User:Willmcw 89: 59: 20: 16: 15: 3174:Roger Pilon 3160:Roger Pilon 3135:voting page 3038:Animalparty 2820:harassed me 2565:Joe Btfsplk 2452:(x10)...?, 2381:Arbitration 1811:3RR warning 1648:Tom Palmer? 1250:be deleted. 1090:You wrote: 1050:, but I am 908:Roger Pilon 760:Google Test 639:WP:CIVILITY 166:Hi Stephen 3119:topic bans 3046:redirected 2740:Willinator 2599:Rangerdude 2422:disruption 2373:Rangerdude 2325:Grace Note 2297:listed at 2240:Rangerdude 1968:Rangerdude 1928:Rangerdude 1907:Rangerdude 1891:Greetings= 1819:article. - 994:Dear Sir, 928:Nskinsella 889:Nskinsella 865:Nskinsella 849:Nskinsella 835:Themindset 825:Nskinsella 816:Themindset 802:Nskinsella 585:Nskinsella 538:wikiquette 481:Nskinsella 238:Nskinsella 228:Actually, 216:Nskinsella 196:Nskinsella 156:Nskinsella 74:{{helpme}} 62:Wikipedian 40:Help pages 3238:consensus 3176:has been 3115:site bans 3054:talk page 2994:SPECIFICO 2285:Heh :)... 2179:remember? 2135:material. 1976:Mediation 1867:Jnanabase 1860:wikinerds 1839:Jnanabase 1619:from the 1603:19,000). 1300:recognize 1285:required. 1244:guarantee 1128:obviously 953:subjects. 456:subjects. 246:different 98:'s edits 64:! Please 3242:Apocheir 2964:Stalwart 2900:email me 2866:Bkalafut 2824:evidence 2700:civility 2569:Dpbsmith 2545:Dpbsmith 2528:WP:POINT 2227:WP:POINT 2086:The past 1880:Dpbsmith 1793:Edcolins 1642:Edcolins 1633:Edcolins 1539:Dpbsmith 1462:Dpbsmith 1441:Dpbsmith 1322:Dpbsmith 1278:at least 1214:Dpbsmith 1198:Dpbsmith 873:Username 716:. ... 691:deletion 606:WP:POINT 602:WP:POINT 516:WP:POINT 300:Heinrich 45:Tutorial 17:Welcome! 3011:S. Rich 2989:WP:USER 2944:deleted 2837:Willmcw 2809:Willmcw 2695:names. 2667:Willmcw 2645:Willmcw 2495:Willmcw 2456:shipdit 2350:Cberlet 2209:Willmcw 2173:Willmcw 1821:Willmcw 1759:Willmcw 1722:Willmcw 1690:Willmcw 1672:Cheers. 1617:abstain 1135:claimed 972:Willmcw 964:Willmcw 949:Editors 922:Willmcw 912:Willmcw 880:Willmcw 800:entry. 500:Willmcw 467:Willmcw 452:Editors 23:welcome 3207:or on 2572:(talk) 2548:(talk) 2449:Willow 2424:, see 1883:(talk) 1780:Patent 1658:adiant 1542:(talk) 1511:Splash 1465:(talk) 1444:(talk) 1399:unless 1325:(talk) 1217:(talk) 1201:(talk) 812:delete 764:Google 647:Splash 643:WP:NPA 641:, and 520:WP:VFU 514:. See 512:WP:CSD 415:Splash 379:Splash 360:Splash 344:Splash 250:Splash 146:Splash 2541:prove 2291:WP:CP 2187:dude? 2053:other 1664:|< 1663:: --> 1503:after 1311:I do 1296:prove 1065:Xoloz 1056:Xoloz 1052:Xoloz 1030:Xoloz 1003:Xoloz 735:and 733:legal 610:WP:WQ 495:yours 427:goes. 232:does 3246:talk 3144:talk 3105:The 3073:talk 3015:talk 2999:talk 2908:talk 2870:talk 2787:talk 2751:talk 2711:talk 2627:nobs 2530:. -- 2391:here 2234:and 2062:talk 2028:talk 1631:) -- 1621:vote 1585:for 1583:keep 1535:not. 1499:Bosh 1082:Re: 614:Dunc 542:Dunc 524:Dunc 410:NPOV 375:keep 131:Dunc 100:were 3158:of 2970:111 2893:not 2617:CfD 2589:FYI 2532:Duk 2462:Duk 2458:... 2454:... 2447:... 2430:Duk 2412:Duk 2410:)-- 2407:, 2303:Duk 1939:RfC 1875:any 1869:. 1847:any 1841:. 1623:. ( 1608:you 1595:." 1507:VfU 1313:not 1282:any 1248:not 1171:not 1120:. 687:. 540:. 234:not 111:Duk 78:Duk 3248:) 3211:. 3194:. 3146:) 3138:. 3117:, 3075:) 3056:. 3017:) 2946:. 2910:) 2872:) 2789:) 2753:) 2713:) 2702:. 2567:? 2404:, 2393:. 2238:. 2163:5. 2154:4. 2139:3. 2126:2. 2114:1. 2064:) 2030:) 1862:. 1834:. 1054:. 1028:. 947:. 863:-- 608:, 583:-- 575:, 450:. 194:. 3244:( 3142:( 3071:( 3064:. 3013:( 2906:( 2868:( 2785:( 2749:( 2709:( 2122:. 2060:( 2026:( 1757:- 1661:_ 1655:R 1531:I 1263:. 920:- 878:- 618:☺ 616:| 546:☺ 544:| 528:☺ 526:| 498:- 135:☺ 133:|

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index