User talk:Everyme

" Nooo !! I said 'no rules', not "anything goes"! ” — Bernard Black

Unified login: Everyme is the unique login of this user for all public Wikimedia projects.

RfCs

I see you've raised much the same point I did @ EA, presumably without noticing my remarks. See the section Procedure further up the page, & the link from there. Peter jackson (talk) 10:15, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Tan's comments

I probably would have said something about not pressing Tan when he says that he has some disputes but is supporting anyway. A "support" like that puts me in an odd position, if it is contested (As you did, and the initial question wasn't out of line, necessarily), then I either have to be seen as "putting up with badgering" (perception) or be seen as coming down on you and trying to bury what might be damaging information about me. I posted something to tan's page apologizing for that exchange, but I don't want you to feel like you are being sold out here. Protonk (talk) 22:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject James Bond New Collaboration of the fortnight

WikiProject James Bond Collaboration of the fortnight (two weeks)

WikiProject James Bond:Collaboration of the fortnight The collaboration has returned!! THE COLLABORATION OF THE FORTNIGHT (6 September 2011 - 20 September 2011) is Production of the James Bond films edit this Please contribute by editing this article, in an attempt to get it to good article status For more information see the page here or contact SpecialWindler. Get in and Participate

 The Windler talk  00:43, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Zeitgeist

Ehh.. I figure after someone has been told half a dozen times that something isn't reliable, continuing to insert it at the very least borders on vandalism. I'll warn differently in the future.

Love the juggler, by the way. [ roux ] [x] 18:21, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Inadvandalism is a spectacular word. [ roux ] [x] 18:31, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem

If you notice, I did attach a smiley :-) It's frustrating to try to refocus on the issues at hand with all the driveby comments from editors who have no background on the situation, so I decided to stop banging my head against that particular wall. SandyGeorgien (Talk) 23:31, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Spoilers

Hi! That debate quickly turned quite personal. :) I naturally agree with you, but Darren seems to use the guideline to keep people from polluting Wikipedia with warnings. I wouldn't want to do anything to undermine those efforts. Vesal (talk) 23:06, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey dude

California, home of awesome dudes.

I actually reverted one of your noticeboard posts as trolling before I realized it was you. Try to use your regular account for that sort of thing. I wouldn't want to see you accused of running drama socks. Best wishes, Durova^Charge! 01:23, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Heh, I think I like being called dude. At least by you, ma'am. Ah yes, I haven't logged in regularly over the past few days, mostly because I currently have guests at my place. Sorry for the confusion / any irritation caused (i.e. beyond the irritation I usually cause :-P ) Everyme 09:00, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, here's a quick pronunciation guide to Californian English: Duuuuuude! Durova^Charge! 18:10, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

BTW if you happen to be around, we're doing a NTWW episode in about an hour. One of the topics is inclusionism and deletionism. Would love to have you join us if you're around. Best, Durova^Charge! 20:00, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Please reconsider your wording

I'm wondering whether you might consider rephrasing this [1]. We can discuss the naming of the article, and the meaning hoax. It may well be that my objection is incorrect, and people rightly may point that out, in a civil manner (as other editors have). I'm perhaps even ready to concede that I may have been wrong. But when I read your remarks, I confess to being a little offended. You seem (and I may be misreading you) to be accusing me of "intellectual dishonesty" and of not even attempting to be neutral ("could you at least try to preserve some very basic rest of being neutral.") Plus you seem to be comparing my integrity to that of a woman who has admitted criminal lies, and whom you consider a "racebaiter". That's really rather offensive. I hope I'm misreading you, because that looks like a personal attack, and a rather immense assumption of bad faith. Are you perhaps able to say that you think I was wrong, and to give your reasons why, without using language that seems to attack me. I don't think we interacted before, so I can't imagine we've any quarrel.

Anyway, if you are willing to amend your remarks, I would be grateful.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 23:10, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Is there any flaw in my reasoning? If so, I don't see it, that's why I posted what I posted. Everyme 23:13, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of flaws in your logic, it looks like a personal attack. I'd really strongly suggest you strike it- just the last couple of sentences if you will. ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 23:18, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not a personal attack, it's applied logic. For the record: I was talking about intellectual dishonesty. That is to say that I didn't assume for a second that you, Scott, might actually be dumb enough to believe your own bullshit, like your definition of what a hoax is. But ok, I'll leave the choice to you: Either you are intellectually dishonest, or you're stupid. Or very tired, or momentarily confused for some other reason. I honestly don't see many other possible explanations for what you posted there. And since your other comments on that article talk page go in a very similar direction, namely displaying a greater interest in protecting that woman's self-forfeited privacy than in encyclopedic accuracy, I went with the imho most plausible assumption, i.e. some extent of intellectual dishonesty. Please educate me. Why else would you post an arbitrary and, as you full well know, utterly incorrect definition of "hoax" that just happens to suit your preconceptions about what should be done with the article? Point out how exactly I am wrong, and --more importantly-- how my reasoning is so implausible and far-fetched that it must have been guided by ABF. Until then. Everyme 23:27, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to respond to this. I'm just rather stunned.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 23:31, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Stoned? Ok, in that case I'm sorry. Have a nice one. Everyme 23:33, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Please try to assume good faith here- while sometimes we can't understand why another user acts a certain way, your response is a fairly clear cut personal attack. Calling another editor intellectually dishonest, stupid, etc is a personal attack, it's not okay, and I am asking you to stop. Now, it's a big encyclopedia, there's plenty of other stuff that needs your attention and I really believe that you would be best served by dropping this. I'm sure you understand that continually making personal attacks may lead to a block, and I don't think any of us want to see that. ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 23:35, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Are you not getting it? I did not "call" him anything. I arrived at that assumption as the imho most plausible conclusion of the, so far unchallenged, reasoning I've laid out there and explained in-depth here. Not a personal attack, applied logic. Focus on the logic I used. If there is any flaw in it, I'll happily retract. Otherwise, it's just not in my hands. And yes, I think it's fair game to ask Scott to make a slightly greater effort of appearing interested in what the project is about rather than attacking same. Everyme 23:41, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Suit yourself. ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 23:44, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Hm. I'm not the one ignoring valid reasoning in favour of dropping thinly veiled blocking threats. Everyme 23:48, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

In that case, you may be interested in this: Wikipedia:AN/I#Remarks_by_Everyme. ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 00:25, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

• A discussion regarding the above has been started here. You may wish to make some comments. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:23, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Happy Halloween!

File:Halloween Hush Puppies.jpg

Photograph of my Halloween-themed Hush Puppies plush basset hounds in my bedroom.

As Halloween is my favorite holiday, I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to give me a barnstar or smile at me, supportive enough to agree with me, etc., a Happy Halloween! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 14:46, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you; although, Halloween is not a holiday in my country, so my knowledge of it derives mainly from Hollywood and Treehouse of Horror episodes. 78.34.128.69 (talk) (Everyme logged out) 15:48, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome! And I too have enjoyed those episodes, especially the one with "The Raven." Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 21:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject James Bond New Collaboration of the fortnight

WikiProject James Bond Collaboration of the fortnight (two weeks)

WikiProject James Bond:Collaboration of the fortnight The collaboration has returned!! THE COLLABORATION OF THE FORTNIGHT (6 September 2011 - 20 September 2011) is Production of the James Bond films edit this Please contribute by editing this article, in an attempt to get it to good article status For more information see the page here or contact SpecialWindler. Get in and Participate

 The Windler talk  00:24, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia's Expert Peer Review process (or lack of such) for Science related articles

Hi - I posted the section with the same name on my talk page. Could you take part in discussion ?

User: Shotwell suggested (on my talk page) "I would endorse a WP:EXPERTADVICE page that outlined the wikipedia policies and goals for researchers in a way that enticed them to edit here in an appropriate fashion. Perhaps a well-maintained list of expert editors with institutional affiliation would facilitate this sort of highly informal review process. I don't think anyone would object to a well-maintained list of highly-qualified researchers with institutional affiliation (but then again, everyone seems to object to something)."

We could start with that if you would agree ... - could you help to push his idea through Wikipedia bureaucracy ?

In my view people nominated as "expert reviewers" should be willing not to hide under the veil of anonymity. They should be able to demonstrate some level of the verifiable accomplishment / recognition in the domain of professional science . BTW, I do not see any reason why the anonymity of editors on Wikipedia is considered to be a "good thing". Above is my general opinion, so please don't take my statement personally. There is obviously a choice given for everyone in Wikipedia either to act "in open" or to hide behind meaningless assumed pseudonym and I accept this situation. BTW, I do understand current Wikipedia concept that in order to produce good Wikipedia science article, one does not need to be a professional scientist ... - that is fine with me ... But I propose to have (at least optionally) ability to review/qualify such article by the professional scientist. Cheers, Apovolot (talk) 15:19, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

You are my hero!

I've been a fan for a long time, under your old name (lol). I just wanted to ask you to keep up the good work! 208.245.87.2 (talk) 17:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, will do as long as they let me (or some such). Everyme 20:01, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

ANI posting about you

Hello, Everyme. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. either way (talk) 14:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: Obama

yeah it was unprotected. Apparently, Raul's protection expired at 00:48. Now that would have been interesting.... Thingg^⊕⊗ 01:01, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

 Erledigt I have to agree its only going to get worse.... wheeeooo what a day this has been. And its only just starting... Thingg^⊕⊗ 01:12, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

lol. I finally found the commercial you made me think of: [2] :D Thingg^⊕⊗ 01:23, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Reply regarding ANI thread

You seem to be missing the point. No one is making any connection to ACORN or to fraud. The point of the Chicken Little story is about someone getting very worked up over a minor issue and blowing it out of proportion. The fact that the object in question happens to be an acorn is completely coincidental (and frankly, wouldn't have occurred to most people). Try not to assume that everyone is trying to attack you. It might help your on-wiki work. And it reduces blood pressure. JoshuaZ (talk) 05:14, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I didn't see that part. I guess we're all a bit on edge. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:48, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Obviously I should be the one apologizing since I missed the obvious indication of humorous intent. (I think what happened was that I read it as a dif and so when reading the red text I naturally skim over what looks like wiki-code). JoshuaZ (talk) 00:50, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

RFA THANKS

Hi there. Just to let you know this is 100% not a template :). I would just like to say thanks for you initial support and later neutral vote in my recent RFA which passed. I will look at Balloonman's comments at a latter time and see how I can work on them. If you would like to reply to this message please use my talk page as I do not have this page watch listed. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 23:14, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Blah

whoa i am on wikipedia cool.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.181.139.64 (talk) 17:02, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Barack Obama Related Article Probation

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Barack Obama, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you. -- Brothejr (talk) 13:06, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

What's your problem

[3]. Grsz^{11 →Review!} 02:51, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

People like you? Everyme 02:52, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

My how incredibly clever of you. And you were crying about my civility? Grsz^{11 →Review!} 02:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

No, you were complaining about Landon's civility. Because you're a bigot. And I just called you on it. And just in case you haven't read my editing notice so far: Do so. Everyme 02:56, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

No, I never went crying to an admin about Landon, like you two did. I'm done here. Grsz^{11 →Review!} 03:00, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 weeks in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for attempting to harass other users. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by MBisanz (talk • contribs) 03:04, 13 November 2008

Erm..whoa. Just saw this one come up. Anyone give a sequence of events here? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:49, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey, Casliber. Check the Everyme account's contribs, and the history of Grsz11's talk page for more info. It all began at Talk:Barack Obama. I'd assemble a chronology of diffs, but what good would it do? "Harassment" is a totally overblown allegation. Basically a sissy of an editor complaining about evil me after s/he baited other users at Talk:Barack Obama. I commented there logged out (it was 3 in the morning local time and I really just wanted to check any potential progress in the discussions at the article talk page when I noticed Grsz's idiotic response to another editor, accusing him of "not contributing anything useful". I commented there (via IP), relatively civilly (imho) telling off Grsz11. He then removed my postings as trolling (which I wouldn't particularly mind) and proceeded to place a suspected sockpuppet template on the IP talk page, accusing me of being some banned or blocked editor. That's the point when I realised that Grsz11 is really your typical editing idiot, using anything they can to fight the dreadful prospect of having to respond to and possibly concede valid arguments. Sure enough, another editor chimed in at AN, weirdly saying that "Based on style, I wouldn't assume it's BfP, but it's definitely a sockpuppeting troll, and definitely needs a block. This IP claims to be Everyme. Is it? Because if yes, then maybe it is BfP after all." -- Excuse me? If yes, i.e. if this IP is indeed Everyme (it is), then maybe it is BfP after all ? What. Ever. Anyhow, the actions of that group at Talk:Barack Obama have reached cabal-like levels some time ago, and they are essentially filibustering and quick-archiving their way out of any confrontation with factual arguments. If anything, those people should be banned from the article and talk page for the sake of a more constructive editing climate. The baiting against other editors really upsets me. Grsz did not contribute anything constructive, yet openly attacks another user, Landon, of not contributing anything constructive. And I tried. I tried to civilly get my points across, but to no avail, where "no avail" means: Not even one single straight response to my points. Then another editor makes an effort to get similar points across (where many others, including admins have given up!) and, lo and behold, in response to his reasoning, Grsz11 tells him he's "not contributing anything constructive". It's the typically Wikipedia way of hilarious. Anyhow, I don't really give a fuck about the block, because I will of course just ignore it when it comes to minor mainspace edits. So I wonder: why 3 weeks? why not 2? or indef? Moreover, it will not make the underlying problem go away, which imho is not my own incivility, but the continuing indulgence of harmful behaviour like Grsz11's. Civil, and not quite so civil POV pushing. That's where my incivility comes in. My incivility is a reaction, a symptom. And anyone who honestly believes that getting rid of the symptom solves anything, think again. Or don't. Nobel geht die Welt zugrunde, as we say. Rule one: Be civil. Rule two: Ignore all other rules. 78.34.152.243 (talk) 14:12, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I saw the last little bit...hmm..I spent all of about 4 minutes in Cologne - off a train from Oostende and onto a train to Hamburg from 0105 to 0110 am many moons ago in 1991. The cathedral looked pretty nifty all lit up in the few minutes I looked at it from the train station...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:03, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the cathedral is about the most beautiful thing in the city. 78.34.152.243 (talk) 14:16, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

(chuckle) that makes for funny reading. I agree with your insisting of "referred to" BTW, it was an elegant and succinct way to go, if I weren't being buried alive elsewhere, I'd get more stuck into it but I am well and truly exhausted currently. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:11, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

No way! Stay the hell away from that cesspool, I beg you. It would exhaust anyone, even you, after a while. It's just not worth it. I mean: Fuck me, but you're actually a valuable editor. And what goes on there is really disheartening. 78.34.152.243 (talk) 14:14, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Dammit, it is past 1 am here and I need to get up early and I feel the tickle in the back of my throat which says impending URTI and ... (sigh)..shit I hope I don't feel worse in the morning. I'd offer some witty inciteful/insightful comment but I feel brain-dead and I am one of those who thinks of something witty about 4 hours past the fact. g'night...zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:27, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Get better and let's hope it won't hit you in full force. If it's any consolation (we both know it is...), my recurring Otitis externa is also back and gives me a lot of pleasure. 78.34.152.243 (talk) 17:34, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

Everyme (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Give me at least a valid block reason. "Harassment" is outright ridiculous. I know that MBisanz and many others love that term, but it just doesn't apply here at all. Grsz11 and his clique are making any serious contribution impossible at Talk:Barack Obama and I rightly exploded when, totally out of the blue, he responded to another user's valid reasoning with the vile and untrue personal attack that that user is "not contributing anything useful". It's ridiculous that this behaviour is indulged. If unblock is declined, I expect someone else to bring this matter to AN and place an article ban for Barack Obama and the article talk page on User:Grsz11 and on User:The Magnificent Clean-keeper, both of whom frolic [ here] about their successful baiting efforts. It's disheartening and distressing that the community at large indulges such behaviour. I only reacted, admittedly in a bad way, to Grsz11's outrageous comments. And he's not the only one who needs to be banned ASAP from that talk page. User:Baseball Bugs personally attacks people all the time there, and User:The Magnificent Clean-keeper is simply trolling the talk page without ever having acknowledged any of the various valid arguments he has been presented with, let alone having presented any valid reasoning of his own. It's preposterous. I did not "harass" Grsz11, I made fun of him, and called a spade a spade. It's not my fault how bad he is, my only fault is to call him on it in no unclear terms. Most ridiculous is his silly accusation (which yet another member of the clique agreed to at AN -- weirdly based on the assumption that I am indeed Everyme) that I am a sockpuppet of some banned or blocked user. He than ran off crying, demanding my edit to be oversighted from his talk page. Well, if he's man enough to throw baseless insults at people who make a laudable effort to present valid reasonings, with the clearcut intent to discourage those users from contributing, then he should also be man enough to be called on it. Instead, MBisanz absolves him of any wrongdoing. I'm 100% positive that MBisanz did not look into situation at all. I know that this request will not possibly be granted, but I do care about what happens at Talk:Barack Obama. The editors I mentioned should be banned from there at once. And when I'm blocked, I cannot pursue the issue at AN. But MBisanz and most admins probably wouldn't see anything wrong with anything that clique is doing anyway. Nevermind personal attacks and baiting anyone who dares to present a reasoning that goes against their POV. Nevermind the WP:IDHT-onslaught. It's ridiculous, but at least I've done my best. I've presented my arguments, and the admin community, spearheaded by Matthew Bisanz, decides to ignore core content policy, ignore unacceptable behaviour by an unashamed clique, and goes with certified POV instead. Good luck with that. Well, at least it's going to be a lot nicer, right?

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=Give me at least a valid block reason. "Harassment" is outright ridiculous. I know that MBisanz and many others love that term, but it just doesn't apply here at all. Grsz11 and his clique are making any serious contribution impossible at [[Talk:Barack Obama]] and I rightly exploded when, totally out of the blue, he responded to another user's valid reasoning with the vile and untrue personal attack that that user is "not contributing anything useful". It's ridiculous that this behaviour is indulged. If unblock is declined, I expect someone else to bring this matter to AN and place an article ban for [[Barack Obama]] and the article talk page on [[User:Grsz11]] and on [[User:The Magnificent Clean-keeper]], both of whom frolic [ here] about their successful baiting efforts. It's disheartening and distressing that the community at large indulges such behaviour. I only reacted, admittedly in a bad way, to Grsz11's outrageous comments. And he's not the only one who needs to be banned ASAP from that talk page. [[User:Baseball Bugs]] personally attacks people all the time there, and [[User:The Magnificent Clean-keeper]] is simply trolling the talk page without ever having acknowledged any of the various valid arguments he has been presented with, let alone having presented any valid reasoning of his own. It's preposterous. I did not "harass" Grsz11, I ''made fun of him'', and called a spade a spade. It's not my fault how bad he is, my only fault is to call him on it in no unclear terms. Most ridiculous is his silly accusation (which yet another member of the clique agreed to at AN -- weirdly based on the assumption that I am indeed Everyme) that I am a sockpuppet of some banned or blocked user. He than ran off crying, demanding my edit to be ''oversighted'' from his talk page. Well, if he's man enough to throw baseless insults at people who make a laudable effort to present valid reasonings, with the clearcut intent to discourage those users from contributing, then he should also be man enough to be called on it. Instead, MBisanz absolves him of any wrongdoing. I'm 100% positive that MBisanz did not look into situation at all. I know that this request will not possibly be granted, but I ''do'' care about what happens at [[Talk:Barack Obama]]. The editors I mentioned should be banned from there at once. And when I'm blocked, I cannot pursue the issue at AN. But MBisanz and most admins probably wouldn't see anything wrong with anything that clique is doing anyway. Nevermind personal attacks and baiting anyone who dares to present a reasoning that goes against their POV. Nevermind the [[WP:IDHT]]-onslaught. It's ridiculous, but at least I've done my best. I've presented my arguments, and the admin community, spearheaded by Matthew Bisanz, decides to ignore core content policy, ignore unacceptable behaviour by an unashamed clique, and goes with certified POV instead. Good luck with that. Well, at least it's going to be a lot ''nicer'', right? |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=Give me at least a valid block reason. "Harassment" is outright ridiculous. I know that MBisanz and many others love that term, but it just doesn't apply here at all. Grsz11 and his clique are making any serious contribution impossible at [[Talk:Barack Obama]] and I rightly exploded when, totally out of the blue, he responded to another user's valid reasoning with the vile and untrue personal attack that that user is "not contributing anything useful". It's ridiculous that this behaviour is indulged. If unblock is declined, I expect someone else to bring this matter to AN and place an article ban for [[Barack Obama]] and the article talk page on [[User:Grsz11]] and on [[User:The Magnificent Clean-keeper]], both of whom frolic [ here] about their successful baiting efforts. It's disheartening and distressing that the community at large indulges such behaviour. I only reacted, admittedly in a bad way, to Grsz11's outrageous comments. And he's not the only one who needs to be banned ASAP from that talk page. [[User:Baseball Bugs]] personally attacks people all the time there, and [[User:The Magnificent Clean-keeper]] is simply trolling the talk page without ever having acknowledged any of the various valid arguments he has been presented with, let alone having presented any valid reasoning of his own. It's preposterous. I did not "harass" Grsz11, I ''made fun of him'', and called a spade a spade. It's not my fault how bad he is, my only fault is to call him on it in no unclear terms. Most ridiculous is his silly accusation (which yet another member of the clique agreed to at AN -- weirdly based on the assumption that I am indeed Everyme) that I am a sockpuppet of some banned or blocked user. He than ran off crying, demanding my edit to be ''oversighted'' from his talk page. Well, if he's man enough to throw baseless insults at people who make a laudable effort to present valid reasonings, with the clearcut intent to discourage those users from contributing, then he should also be man enough to be called on it. Instead, MBisanz absolves him of any wrongdoing. I'm 100% positive that MBisanz did not look into situation at all. I know that this request will not possibly be granted, but I ''do'' care about what happens at [[Talk:Barack Obama]]. The editors I mentioned should be banned from there at once. And when I'm blocked, I cannot pursue the issue at AN. But MBisanz and most admins probably wouldn't see anything wrong with anything that clique is doing anyway. Nevermind personal attacks and baiting anyone who dares to present a reasoning that goes against their POV. Nevermind the [[WP:IDHT]]-onslaught. It's ridiculous, but at least I've done my best. I've presented my arguments, and the admin community, spearheaded by Matthew Bisanz, decides to ignore core content policy, ignore unacceptable behaviour by an unashamed clique, and goes with certified POV instead. Good luck with that. Well, at least it's going to be a lot ''nicer'', right? |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=Give me at least a valid block reason. "Harassment" is outright ridiculous. I know that MBisanz and many others love that term, but it just doesn't apply here at all. Grsz11 and his clique are making any serious contribution impossible at [[Talk:Barack Obama]] and I rightly exploded when, totally out of the blue, he responded to another user's valid reasoning with the vile and untrue personal attack that that user is "not contributing anything useful". It's ridiculous that this behaviour is indulged. If unblock is declined, I expect someone else to bring this matter to AN and place an article ban for [[Barack Obama]] and the article talk page on [[User:Grsz11]] and on [[User:The Magnificent Clean-keeper]], both of whom frolic [ here] about their successful baiting efforts. It's disheartening and distressing that the community at large indulges such behaviour. I only reacted, admittedly in a bad way, to Grsz11's outrageous comments. And he's not the only one who needs to be banned ASAP from that talk page. [[User:Baseball Bugs]] personally attacks people all the time there, and [[User:The Magnificent Clean-keeper]] is simply trolling the talk page without ever having acknowledged any of the various valid arguments he has been presented with, let alone having presented any valid reasoning of his own. It's preposterous. I did not "harass" Grsz11, I ''made fun of him'', and called a spade a spade. It's not my fault how bad he is, my only fault is to call him on it in no unclear terms. Most ridiculous is his silly accusation (which yet another member of the clique agreed to at AN -- weirdly based on the assumption that I am indeed Everyme) that I am a sockpuppet of some banned or blocked user. He than ran off crying, demanding my edit to be ''oversighted'' from his talk page. Well, if he's man enough to throw baseless insults at people who make a laudable effort to present valid reasonings, with the clearcut intent to discourage those users from contributing, then he should also be man enough to be called on it. Instead, MBisanz absolves him of any wrongdoing. I'm 100% positive that MBisanz did not look into situation at all. I know that this request will not possibly be granted, but I ''do'' care about what happens at [[Talk:Barack Obama]]. The editors I mentioned should be banned from there at once. And when I'm blocked, I cannot pursue the issue at AN. But MBisanz and most admins probably wouldn't see anything wrong with anything that clique is doing anyway. Nevermind personal attacks and baiting anyone who dares to present a reasoning that goes against their POV. Nevermind the [[WP:IDHT]]-onslaught. It's ridiculous, but at least I've done my best. I've presented my arguments, and the admin community, spearheaded by Matthew Bisanz, decides to ignore core content policy, ignore unacceptable behaviour by an unashamed clique, and goes with certified POV instead. Good luck with that. Well, at least it's going to be a lot ''nicer'', right? |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Cookie!

MISTER ALCOHOL ^{T C} has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

MISTER ALCOHOL ^{T C} 05:33, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! 78.34.152.243 (talk) 13:58, 13 November 2008 (UTC)