=Contributions= Okay here we go with some of my contributions. Most of the time I haven't bothered to log in, and Internode apparently gives me a new IP every time that I log in. But, just so that people don't get me confused with anyone else, here are my contributions: ==New pages== * Ljdrama * Joe Vialls * Port Arthur theories * Ivan Milat * Backpacker murders * Redline Coaches * Hobart Coaches * Tigerline Coaches * Arrente * Luritja * Central Arrente * Eastern Arrente * Western Arrente * Anangu * Mutitjulu * Bradley John Murdoch * Joanne Lees * Arrente Council ==Major edits== * Peter Falconio disappearance ==Major edits that were subsequently reversed== * Martin Bryant * Port Arthur Massacre Note: These 2 pages reference a total of 2 web sites combined, other than the amounts that I have included, whereas my reference for these, plus the Port Arthur theories and Joe Vialls references, referenced over 100 different links. Yet it is my articles that are being deleted, not the ones that are in many cases completely nonsensical. Seems a little strange. ==Major edits that were reversed, reinstated, with abuse and personal attacks thrown in== * Alice Springs - abuse by AYArktos ==Articles that were nominated for deletion with personal attacks thrown in== * Anangu - abuse by Tannin * Pathological Schizophrenia - abuse by The Anome ==Articles that were deleted, and reasons== * Rob Edwards * Cymbaline * Leigh Thompson * Training for Rob's murder spree - reason is because it referenced evidence only available to Australian residents, and only through a police station, which would require filling out forms etc. I agreed to have them deleted. "Nomination of page for deletion" (which was combined) made many personal attacks, most notably from longhair, and used words such as "patent nonsense", "hoax", "unverifiable conspiracy theory", "vandal" and "troll" to justify the deletion. When references were added, they were subsequently deleted by clarkk, in the name of adding a "vfd" tag that I didn't even know existed. My account was banned for trying to include these references! Of course, I was later told that the reason was officially for deleting the "vfd" tag, but I find it difficult to believe that they would honestly believe that. ==Accusations of vandalism== I have regularly been accused of vandalism, of being a troll, and so forth. Here is the rationale: * ''Clarkk'' accused me of vandalism for removing his tags off the Rob Edwards page. My reason, of course, was because I was in the middle of editing the page when he included the tags. Because it wouldn't let me save my pages, I had to cut and paste what I had written. Since the tags were not there when I was editing, therefore I was not aware of them. * ''Clarkk'' accused me of vandalism for deleting the Rob Edwards page. I had been the one and only contributor to that page, and 20 people had written often abusive comments saying why it should be deleted, most notably the abusive comments from longhair. As it was now 2 weeks since they had started hurling abuse, I considered that they were using the page as a way to personally attack me, and hence deleted it. * For replying on user's talk pages in relation to their abusive personal attacks on my own talk page, as well as in history sections, "nominations of pages for deletion", and on talk pages on other places. * For being banned! * For being abused by other Wikipedia members! * For having my pages vandalised! ==Request== * That Wikipedia remove all references of me as a "vandal", "troll" or any other kind of nuisance user. * That ''Longhair'' apologise publicly for the abuse. * That ''Longhair'' pledge never to again launch personal attacks against me. * That the references used in the Port Arthur theories page be removed from the Wikipedia spam filter, so that that article can be properly referenced. * That ''Tammin'' cease vandalising the Port Arthur theories page, and instead look to merely edit it. * That both the Martin Bryant and Port Arthur Massacre page be corrected, as suggested in the Talk:Martin_Bryant page (I will not do it myself, as too many people vandalise my edits). * That ''Longhair''s attempts to get "every page I create be nominated for deletion" be ceased. * That administrators treat me as they would treat anyone, and leave me alone. * That exceptions to the Wikipedia rules not be allowed with regards to how people treat me, such that those who have launched personal attacks against me and vandalise pages that I have created or made major edits to, or who make snide comments in history remarks or "nominations for deletion" be treated correctly. * That I not be punished for things that I did not do (such as vandalism). * That a public apology come from Wikipedia administrators who publicly stated that I was vandalising Wikipedia. The most important of those is to correct the Martin Bryant and Port Arthur Massacre pages. Fix them and the rest I don't really care about too much. It's really bad that such nonsensical, biased and unreferenced statements be allowed on such important pages.
Your user page has some interesting discussion which I'll be giving my opinion on shortly. -- User:Longhair | User talk:Longhair 04:28, 22 May 2005 (UTC) == Your approach to Port Arthur-related articles == I have read the comments on your user page, and would like to add some comments of my own. Firstly, I suggest you read Wikipedia:Ownership of articles, an official policy. The articles you have created or edited do not (as you claim) belong to you. It is not vandalism to edit the contributions made by another user, and a user is not entitled to "defend" their edits against all other editors. However, some edits are vandalism. Wikipedia:Vandalism does state that to edit articles in Wikipedia:Assume good faith is not vandalism, even though the edit may introduce errors or mistakes. Repeatedly introducing WP:NPOV and conspiracy theories in the minds of most, if not all Wikipedians, does at least constitute editing in bad faith, if not vandalism. I also suggest you read Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a soapbox. There is a place in Wikipedia for an objective discussion ''about'' different points of view on a subject. It may be appropriate to discuss some of the theories about the Port Arthur massacre in Wikipedia. However, this does not give editors license to introduce content which is blatantly incorrect or WP:V. **Good point. That whole nonsense on Martin Bryant about "child guidance centres reporting him of bullying his sister and torturing animals" is a blatant lie, and I have searched through every report I could find and not a single one mentions it. I did find one report, however, which references his ex-girlfriend linking him to Child's Play, and I included that. There's a whole lot of nonsense lies on that page. So why do you let it stay there? They've included all of 2 references, which accounts for about 4 lines of the 2 pages combined. The vast majority of it is a blatant lie. **Oh, and did you notice that I had 47 different references on Port Arthur theories? Unfortunately, your spam filter got rid of them, so I had to temporarily disable them. The constant vandalism by Tannin has meant that I haven't taken the time to wade through which ones are supposedly considered to be spam, so I haven't added them in. I make links to a history site that has all of them included. Let's see, 47 references on Port Arthur theories vs 2 references on Martin Bryant. Remind me again which version is the most accurate. The following is a quote from Jimbo Wales, as appearing on WP:NPOV: *If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts; ** Done *If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents; ** Done *If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not. ** Its hardly a minority view. Just look at the talk page on Martin Bryant or Port Arthur Massacre, or look on google, or at all of the millions of other places. It's a majority view. I would encourage all parties to read the relavent policies before editing further. --User:Thebainer 04:49, 23 May 2005 (UTC) * Thanks. I would like to report Tannin as a vandal. See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Port_Arthur_theories&action=history. Wanton destruction of a page. It very neatly fits Wikipedia's definition of vandalism. There is nothing wrong with that page, nor how it is displayed, and it fulfils all of the criteria of a valid Wikipedia article. Please point out to me if there is a problem with it, and I will edit it. Deleting it is vandalism. User:203.26.206.129 10:25, 23 May 2005 (UTC) ::The problem with most of the content on the Port Arthur theories page was that although many sources were given, there were only sources for some of the claims. For example, there is no source given for the claim that "all bar 1 of (the witnesses) have stated positively that the official version of events is not the truth." And indeed there is no source, because this claim is incorrect. The court transcript, which you yourself cite, disproves this. The second problem (and the reason why I quoted Jimbo) was that while some of the theories have support from people like Joe Vialls, or shooter's lobby groups, most of the claims are ridiculous (such as the Jewish terrorist theory). Putting these claims into Wikipedia articles is not appropriate. --User:Thebainer 11:12, 23 May 2005 (UTC) :::The reason why I removed the sources is because your spam filter removed them, and secondly because of constant vandalism from Tannin, who continues to delete the entire page and write abusive comments in the history. The statement that all bar 1 of the eye-witnesses have stated positively that the official versions of events is not the truth is a true statement, and has been referenced. The only exception, as you no doubt realise, is Walter Mikac, who shouldn't really be considered to be an eye witness as he was too far away. User:203.26.206.129 09:02, 24 May 2005 (UTC) ::::The spam filter applies only to occurrences of certain domain names that are related to advertising spam - you can read the whole list yourself at meta:Spam blacklist. There is no direct reference to a source to substantiate the claim about the eye-witnesses anywhere in the article that I can find. It should be directly alongside the claim, but it is not. --User:Thebainer (User_talk:Thebainer) 13:53, 24 May 2005 (UTC) ==Your user page and my wiki activities== Having read your rant on your User:Internodeuser, I've come to the conclusion it's hardly worth debating you point for point. I suggest to remove Wikipedia:No personal attacks and the like from your user page or I'll be seeking remedy elsewhere. If you insist on keeping the information there as it currently stands, please back up each claim with factual evidence. Wikipedia is not your soapbox and I don't intend to waste my time debating unfounded claims. -- User:Longhair | User talk:Longhair 08:11, 23 May 2005 (UTC) I'd suggest that you remove the countless abusive articles you've put about me, including in comments as to why you removed entries. Do you really want me to link to them all? You're up over 100. You'd be pretty freaking stupid to try to claim that they don't exist. User:203.26.206.129 10:14, 23 May 2005 (UTC) :Can we get back to reality here? I create articles on topics of interest, not you. What the hell are you talking about? Call me freakin' stupid. I'm not really interested. -- User:Longhair | User talk:Longhair 11:08, 23 May 2005 (UTC) ::Then do you pledge not to continue to engage in abusive behaviour? Hope so. I think that clarkk said that he'd stop, so it'd be nice if you could too. If you really are honestly trying to do something worthwhile, then prove it. User:203.26.206.129 09:35, 24 May 2005 (UTC) :I wish to bring your attention to Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Internodeuser at the Administrators Noticeboard. -- User:Longhair | User talk:Longhair 12:26, 23 May 2005 (UTC) ::So why are you doing such a thing? I would consider that your creating that request borders on abusive behaviour, in "trying to get me banned", as it were, through deceitful conduct. I hope that you don't continue to do such things. User:203.26.206.129 09:35, 24 May 2005 (UTC) :::Here's a free clue. Tone down, stop accusing others of wrong, and furthermore, back up your wild claims in articles with fact. In case you hadn't realised, we've all been editing here in a civil manner for some time now on Australian crime related articles without a stir. :::Focus on the article namespace, and the quality of your contributions to _that_ primarily, and you'll find you won't meet any resistance at all. From what I can tell, it's not only myself you're doing a good job of annoying. Why sound so surprised? -- User:Longhair | User talk:Longhair 14:23, 24 May 2005 (UTC) ==Longhair== You may of course disagree with Longhair, but calling them a liar - you said "Initially, I incorrectly thought that longhair was an administrator, but it turned out that he was not. It seems that he is just a very good liar." - is counterproductive and causes a hostile relationship between you two. Wikipedia is a collaborative project. If you want to convince someone, please back it up with sources and references. User:MacGyverMagic|User talk:MacGyverMagic 09:01, May 23, 2005 (UTC) Whose user page has sources and references? Go look up contributions for longhair if you want to check. You'll see the snide little comments he made on edits. Not to mention the ones on talk pages and the like. I'm sure you're smart enough to know how to check it out for yourself. User:203.26.206.129 10:17, 23 May 2005 (UTC) ::Please advise where "snide little comments" were made in edit summaries, or anywhere for that matter. -- User:Longhair | User talk:Longhair 13:25, 23 May 2005 (UTC) Look, you have an interesting story. Maybe one day it will be proved true, and you'll be able to point to some evidence outside of your own stories. Until that day, however, these theories stay out of Wikipedia - we have a very clear policy against Wikipedia:No original research, which was intended for precisely this sort of situation. User:Ambi 12:46, 23 May 2005 (UTC) ::There's facts, which you should have looked at with the references on Port Arthur theories. Remove the spam filter, and I'll be able to put the references back in. Or simply look at an older version. They prove everything that I've said here. Again, a reason why Tannin deleting that page isn't good. Took me over 100 hours to make that page. Not something I want to have to do again. User:203.26.206.129 09:18, 24 May 2005 (UTC) ==Your behaviour== You should read this official policy Wikipedia:No personal attacks. If you continue to engage in peronal attacks against other Wikipedians you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.--User:Petaholmes 00:43, 24 May 2005 (UTC) ::Once again, I have only ever responded to people, never initiated any attacks. Look at what AYArktos wrote on Alice Springs for an example. Look at what longhair and clarkk wrote on their user page. The list goes on. I think that you are very misled about what is going on here. User:203.26.206.129 09:16, 24 May 2005 (UTC) *It doesn't matter if you initiated an attack or just responded to one. You should still remain civil. If he's lying report him by posting an RFC and back it up with evidence. No one has the time to check all his edits. User:MacGyverMagic|User talk:MacGyverMagic 14:46, May 24, 2005 (UTC) ==Attack content not character== I note the recent update to your user page. I must say it's a vast improvement. I've got no interest in attacking those I don't even know or anyone for that matter. We're building an encyclopedia here, not running for election. I suggest you reconsider the content of your user page once again. Again, if you insist on using your user page to insist I've been making slanderous comments, by all means, back them up with evidence. -- User:Longhair | User talk:Longhair 07:43, 24 May 2005 (UTC) :: So you are denying them? Seriously? I think perhaps you should stop contributing if you can't understand that. User:203.26.206.129 09:14, 24 May 2005 (UTC) :::Any further comment will be submitted to the arbcom if accepted. I'm not wasting any more time here discussing fruitless encounters that never occured. -- User:Longhair | User talk:Longhair 09:50, 24 May 2005 (UTC) :that's ditto for me. I, like Longhair would be interested in seeing any actual examples of "abusive comments". I have been trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, but it doesn't help things if you start accusing just about every user you've interacted with "abusing" them, because they were following wikipedia policy. we managed to successfully work on the Ivan Milat page together (if you check the history). regarding the vfd tags, i can't tell if you are removing tags because you don't like them, or because you saved over them. the simple thing to do is then to reinstate them, or alternatively use the
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
Words begining with Internodeuser:
Internodeuser
Internodeuser
Internodeuser
=Contributions= Okay here we go with some of my contributions. Most of the time I haven't bothered to log in, and Internode apparently gives me a new IP every time that I log in. But, just so that people don't get me confused with anyone else, here are my contributions: ==New pages== * Ljdrama * Joe Vialls * Port Arthur theories * Ivan Milat * Backpacker murders * Redline Coaches * Hobart Coaches * Tigerline Coaches * Arrente * Luritja * Central Arrente * Eastern Arrente * Western Arrente * Anangu * Mutitjulu * Bradley John Murdoch * Joanne Lees * Arrente Council ==Major edits== * Peter Falconio disappearance ==Major edits that were subsequently reversed== * Martin Bryant * Port Arthur Massacre Note: These 2 pages reference a total of 2 web sites combined, other than the amounts that I have included, whereas my reference for these, plus the Port Arthur theories and Joe Vialls references, referenced over 100 different links. Yet it is my articles that are being deleted, not the ones that are in many cases completely nonsensical. Seems a little strange. ==Major edits that were reversed, reinstated, with abuse and personal attacks thrown in== * Alice Springs - abuse by AYArktos ==Articles that were nominated for deletion with personal attacks thrown in== * Anangu - abuse by Tannin * Pathological Schizophrenia - abuse by The Anome ==Articles that were deleted, and reasons== * Rob Edwards * Cymbaline * Leigh Thompson * Training for Rob's murder spree - reason is because it referenced evidence only available to Australian residents, and only through a police station, which would require filling out forms etc. I agreed to have them deleted. "Nomination of page for deletion" (which was combined) made many personal attacks, most notably from longhair, and used words such as "patent nonsense", "hoax", "unverifiable conspiracy theory", "vandal" and "troll" to justify the deletion. When references were added, they were subsequently deleted by clarkk, in the name of adding a "vfd" tag that I didn't even know existed. My account was banned for trying to include these references! Of course, I was later told that the reason was officially for deleting the "vfd" tag, but I find it difficult to believe that they would honestly believe that. ==Accusations of vandalism== I have regularly been accused of vandalism, of being a troll, and so forth. Here is the rationale: * ''Clarkk'' accused me of vandalism for removing his tags off the Rob Edwards page. My reason, of course, was because I was in the middle of editing the page when he included the tags. Because it wouldn't let me save my pages, I had to cut and paste what I had written. Since the tags were not there when I was editing, therefore I was not aware of them. * ''Clarkk'' accused me of vandalism for deleting the Rob Edwards page. I had been the one and only contributor to that page, and 20 people had written often abusive comments saying why it should be deleted, most notably the abusive comments from longhair. As it was now 2 weeks since they had started hurling abuse, I considered that they were using the page as a way to personally attack me, and hence deleted it. * For replying on user's talk pages in relation to their abusive personal attacks on my own talk page, as well as in history sections, "nominations of pages for deletion", and on talk pages on other places. * For being banned! * For being abused by other Wikipedia members! * For having my pages vandalised! ==Request== * That Wikipedia remove all references of me as a "vandal", "troll" or any other kind of nuisance user. * That ''Longhair'' apologise publicly for the abuse. * That ''Longhair'' pledge never to again launch personal attacks against me. * That the references used in the Port Arthur theories page be removed from the Wikipedia spam filter, so that that article can be properly referenced. * That ''Tammin'' cease vandalising the Port Arthur theories page, and instead look to merely edit it. * That both the Martin Bryant and Port Arthur Massacre page be corrected, as suggested in the Talk:Martin_Bryant page (I will not do it myself, as too many people vandalise my edits). * That ''Longhair''s attempts to get "every page I create be nominated for deletion" be ceased. * That administrators treat me as they would treat anyone, and leave me alone. * That exceptions to the Wikipedia rules not be allowed with regards to how people treat me, such that those who have launched personal attacks against me and vandalise pages that I have created or made major edits to, or who make snide comments in history remarks or "nominations for deletion" be treated correctly. * That I not be punished for things that I did not do (such as vandalism). * That a public apology come from Wikipedia administrators who publicly stated that I was vandalising Wikipedia. The most important of those is to correct the Martin Bryant and Port Arthur Massacre pages. Fix them and the rest I don't really care about too much. It's really bad that such nonsensical, biased and unreferenced statements be allowed on such important pages.
Internodeuser
Your user page has some interesting discussion which I'll be giving my opinion on shortly. -- User:Longhair | User talk:Longhair 04:28, 22 May 2005 (UTC) == Your approach to Port Arthur-related articles == I have read the comments on your user page, and would like to add some comments of my own. Firstly, I suggest you read Wikipedia:Ownership of articles, an official policy. The articles you have created or edited do not (as you claim) belong to you. It is not vandalism to edit the contributions made by another user, and a user is not entitled to "defend" their edits against all other editors. However, some edits are vandalism. Wikipedia:Vandalism does state that to edit articles in Wikipedia:Assume good faith is not vandalism, even though the edit may introduce errors or mistakes. Repeatedly introducing WP:NPOV and conspiracy theories in the minds of most, if not all Wikipedians, does at least constitute editing in bad faith, if not vandalism. I also suggest you read Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a soapbox. There is a place in Wikipedia for an objective discussion ''about'' different points of view on a subject. It may be appropriate to discuss some of the theories about the Port Arthur massacre in Wikipedia. However, this does not give editors license to introduce content which is blatantly incorrect or WP:V. **Good point. That whole nonsense on Martin Bryant about "child guidance centres reporting him of bullying his sister and torturing animals" is a blatant lie, and I have searched through every report I could find and not a single one mentions it. I did find one report, however, which references his ex-girlfriend linking him to Child's Play, and I included that. There's a whole lot of nonsense lies on that page. So why do you let it stay there? They've included all of 2 references, which accounts for about 4 lines of the 2 pages combined. The vast majority of it is a blatant lie. **Oh, and did you notice that I had 47 different references on Port Arthur theories? Unfortunately, your spam filter got rid of them, so I had to temporarily disable them. The constant vandalism by Tannin has meant that I haven't taken the time to wade through which ones are supposedly considered to be spam, so I haven't added them in. I make links to a history site that has all of them included. Let's see, 47 references on Port Arthur theories vs 2 references on Martin Bryant. Remind me again which version is the most accurate. The following is a quote from Jimbo Wales, as appearing on WP:NPOV: *If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts; ** Done *If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents; ** Done *If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not. ** Its hardly a minority view. Just look at the talk page on Martin Bryant or Port Arthur Massacre, or look on google, or at all of the millions of other places. It's a majority view. I would encourage all parties to read the relavent policies before editing further. --User:Thebainer 04:49, 23 May 2005 (UTC) * Thanks. I would like to report Tannin as a vandal. See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Port_Arthur_theories&action=history. Wanton destruction of a page. It very neatly fits Wikipedia's definition of vandalism. There is nothing wrong with that page, nor how it is displayed, and it fulfils all of the criteria of a valid Wikipedia article. Please point out to me if there is a problem with it, and I will edit it. Deleting it is vandalism. User:203.26.206.129 10:25, 23 May 2005 (UTC) ::The problem with most of the content on the Port Arthur theories page was that although many sources were given, there were only sources for some of the claims. For example, there is no source given for the claim that "all bar 1 of (the witnesses) have stated positively that the official version of events is not the truth." And indeed there is no source, because this claim is incorrect. The court transcript, which you yourself cite, disproves this. The second problem (and the reason why I quoted Jimbo) was that while some of the theories have support from people like Joe Vialls, or shooter's lobby groups, most of the claims are ridiculous (such as the Jewish terrorist theory). Putting these claims into Wikipedia articles is not appropriate. --User:Thebainer 11:12, 23 May 2005 (UTC) :::The reason why I removed the sources is because your spam filter removed them, and secondly because of constant vandalism from Tannin, who continues to delete the entire page and write abusive comments in the history. The statement that all bar 1 of the eye-witnesses have stated positively that the official versions of events is not the truth is a true statement, and has been referenced. The only exception, as you no doubt realise, is Walter Mikac, who shouldn't really be considered to be an eye witness as he was too far away. User:203.26.206.129 09:02, 24 May 2005 (UTC) ::::The spam filter applies only to occurrences of certain domain names that are related to advertising spam - you can read the whole list yourself at meta:Spam blacklist. There is no direct reference to a source to substantiate the claim about the eye-witnesses anywhere in the article that I can find. It should be directly alongside the claim, but it is not. --User:Thebainer (User_talk:Thebainer) 13:53, 24 May 2005 (UTC) ==Your user page and my wiki activities== Having read your rant on your User:Internodeuser, I've come to the conclusion it's hardly worth debating you point for point. I suggest to remove Wikipedia:No personal attacks and the like from your user page or I'll be seeking remedy elsewhere. If you insist on keeping the information there as it currently stands, please back up each claim with factual evidence. Wikipedia is not your soapbox and I don't intend to waste my time debating unfounded claims. -- User:Longhair | User talk:Longhair 08:11, 23 May 2005 (UTC) I'd suggest that you remove the countless abusive articles you've put about me, including in comments as to why you removed entries. Do you really want me to link to them all? You're up over 100. You'd be pretty freaking stupid to try to claim that they don't exist. User:203.26.206.129 10:14, 23 May 2005 (UTC) :Can we get back to reality here? I create articles on topics of interest, not you. What the hell are you talking about? Call me freakin' stupid. I'm not really interested. -- User:Longhair | User talk:Longhair 11:08, 23 May 2005 (UTC) ::Then do you pledge not to continue to engage in abusive behaviour? Hope so. I think that clarkk said that he'd stop, so it'd be nice if you could too. If you really are honestly trying to do something worthwhile, then prove it. User:203.26.206.129 09:35, 24 May 2005 (UTC) :I wish to bring your attention to Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Internodeuser at the Administrators Noticeboard. -- User:Longhair | User talk:Longhair 12:26, 23 May 2005 (UTC) ::So why are you doing such a thing? I would consider that your creating that request borders on abusive behaviour, in "trying to get me banned", as it were, through deceitful conduct. I hope that you don't continue to do such things. User:203.26.206.129 09:35, 24 May 2005 (UTC) :::Here's a free clue. Tone down, stop accusing others of wrong, and furthermore, back up your wild claims in articles with fact. In case you hadn't realised, we've all been editing here in a civil manner for some time now on Australian crime related articles without a stir. :::Focus on the article namespace, and the quality of your contributions to _that_ primarily, and you'll find you won't meet any resistance at all. From what I can tell, it's not only myself you're doing a good job of annoying. Why sound so surprised? -- User:Longhair | User talk:Longhair 14:23, 24 May 2005 (UTC) ==Longhair== You may of course disagree with Longhair, but calling them a liar - you said "Initially, I incorrectly thought that longhair was an administrator, but it turned out that he was not. It seems that he is just a very good liar." - is counterproductive and causes a hostile relationship between you two. Wikipedia is a collaborative project. If you want to convince someone, please back it up with sources and references. User:MacGyverMagic|User talk:MacGyverMagic 09:01, May 23, 2005 (UTC) Whose user page has sources and references? Go look up contributions for longhair if you want to check. You'll see the snide little comments he made on edits. Not to mention the ones on talk pages and the like. I'm sure you're smart enough to know how to check it out for yourself. User:203.26.206.129 10:17, 23 May 2005 (UTC) ::Please advise where "snide little comments" were made in edit summaries, or anywhere for that matter. -- User:Longhair | User talk:Longhair 13:25, 23 May 2005 (UTC) Look, you have an interesting story. Maybe one day it will be proved true, and you'll be able to point to some evidence outside of your own stories. Until that day, however, these theories stay out of Wikipedia - we have a very clear policy against Wikipedia:No original research, which was intended for precisely this sort of situation. User:Ambi 12:46, 23 May 2005 (UTC) ::There's facts, which you should have looked at with the references on Port Arthur theories. Remove the spam filter, and I'll be able to put the references back in. Or simply look at an older version. They prove everything that I've said here. Again, a reason why Tannin deleting that page isn't good. Took me over 100 hours to make that page. Not something I want to have to do again. User:203.26.206.129 09:18, 24 May 2005 (UTC) ==Your behaviour== You should read this official policy Wikipedia:No personal attacks. If you continue to engage in peronal attacks against other Wikipedians you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.--User:Petaholmes 00:43, 24 May 2005 (UTC) ::Once again, I have only ever responded to people, never initiated any attacks. Look at what AYArktos wrote on Alice Springs for an example. Look at what longhair and clarkk wrote on their user page. The list goes on. I think that you are very misled about what is going on here. User:203.26.206.129 09:16, 24 May 2005 (UTC) *It doesn't matter if you initiated an attack or just responded to one. You should still remain civil. If he's lying report him by posting an RFC and back it up with evidence. No one has the time to check all his edits. User:MacGyverMagic|User talk:MacGyverMagic 14:46, May 24, 2005 (UTC) ==Attack content not character== I note the recent update to your user page. I must say it's a vast improvement. I've got no interest in attacking those I don't even know or anyone for that matter. We're building an encyclopedia here, not running for election. I suggest you reconsider the content of your user page once again. Again, if you insist on using your user page to insist I've been making slanderous comments, by all means, back them up with evidence. -- User:Longhair | User talk:Longhair 07:43, 24 May 2005 (UTC) :: So you are denying them? Seriously? I think perhaps you should stop contributing if you can't understand that. User:203.26.206.129 09:14, 24 May 2005 (UTC) :::Any further comment will be submitted to the arbcom if accepted. I'm not wasting any more time here discussing fruitless encounters that never occured. -- User:Longhair | User talk:Longhair 09:50, 24 May 2005 (UTC) :that's ditto for me. I, like Longhair would be interested in seeing any actual examples of "abusive comments". I have been trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, but it doesn't help things if you start accusing just about every user you've interacted with "abusing" them, because they were following wikipedia policy. we managed to successfully work on the Ivan Milat page together (if you check the history). regarding the vfd tags, i can't tell if you are removing tags because you don't like them, or because you saved over them. the simple thing to do is then to reinstate them, or alternatively use the
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
I
IA | IB | IC | ID | IE | IF | IG | IH | IJ | IK | IL | IM | IN | IO | IP | IR | IS | IT | IU | IW | IX | IY | IZ |Words begining with Internodeuser:
Internodeuser
Internodeuser
These materials are based on Wikipedia and licensed under the GNU FDL
YouTube.com videos better site than Turbo Tax 2007
