User talk:Mrmiscellanious/Archive12

Active discussions
ARCHIVED TALK PAGES
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6
08/12/2005 | 10/03/2005 | 10/24/2005 | 11/27/2005 | 12/23/2005 | 01/27/2006
ARCHIVED TALK PAGES
Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12
02/17/2006 | 03/12/2006 | 03/21/2006 | 04/07/2006 | 04/23/2006 | 05/07/2006


quite harsh language

"I'm not even going to respond to that low-grade comment you just made, International. Last time I checked, I didn't need your approval for everything I do here." "This is typical of you. Try to change the subject, and further ignore my objections. Well, they stand. And as another little note, I will never ask permission to edit here. No one has to, and for you to suggest that I, or any other users, need to is deeply troubling."

You are very aggressive and your language dont make anyting good. Why dont ask yourself why as I suggested and dont act defensive. international 19:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure that its me and others to blame for you acting defensive? international 20:17, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

re:Internet bill

I responded to your post on my talk page within the context of thread being discussed there. But I also wanted to explain myself here.

I think ArbCom has gone as far as it should go in the case regarding you, which is to say that it has currently reached a finding that personal attacks aren't acceptable.

As one of the four panel members active in the issue (2 are inactive), I'm probably the only one that would work to try to make a case for a 'remedy' against you, but I'm not going to pursue that.

I thought it might be appropriate that I should post to Wikinews' Administrative Action Alerts that you attacked me by saying, "I know you don't respect a thing anyone does here but you," which couldn't be further from the truth.

Really, you are incorrigible. You are the one who says you have no respect. Take that elsewhere, and stay there. -Edbrown05 07:59, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I responded to your post on my talk page there. -Edbrown05 18:20, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
ditto my previous post. -Edbrown05 08:26, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

MrM's trap

I suppose MrM laid a trap by putting an edit on my talk page and inviting me to "[insert Wikinews username here"]; since his edit was in a humourous vein I assumed he was playing around and, for healing purposes, decided to join in by accepting his suggestion to insert a user's name. He complained on admin alerts and so I reverted my edit[1]. It is quite shameful and hypocritical how MrM was so verbose on the admin alert page while he was blocked in stating his POV while non-admins can not be editing there at all while blocked; but it's also hilarious in the extent of its ludicrousness. I'm actually smiling about it. Neutralizer 20:54, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Well, you violated the policy - the very same policy that you were blocked for - during your block. I'll mark that in the "stupidest events ever" book, and laugh at you for life for doing it. What a sad case you are if you can't even follow a simple policy like not changing what other people say. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 00:18, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, you violated your block by whining at admin alerts about it while you were supposedly blocked; that goes into the "most psychotically insecure events ever" book. I'd rather be in the "stupiest events ever" book, myself. Also, by putting that open invitation to insert a puppet master's username, you might just qualify for the "stupidest ever events" book too:) Neutralizer 01:16, 1 May 2006 (UTC

You are blocked for four hours

Hi Mrmiscellanious .. I've blocked you for four hours for a violation of Wikinews:Etiquette. Please see WN:ALERT for justification. I will monitor your talk page if you would like to discuss the block with me. - Borofkin 03:06, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, as the block time had expired, I cleared the alert... here's a link to a revision of the page with the block information. --Chiacomo (talk) 21:14, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

an invitation:

I will at some time be starting to add to a 'findings of fact' on ArbCom to the section here. If you have other thoughts on that, I'd like to know them. -Edbrown05 09:41, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Request for interview from candidate for US senate

Hi Mrmiscellanious... I'm bringing this to your attention because you have recently contributed to an article related to US politics. There is a request for interview up from Pete Ashdown, a candidate for the US Senate. Any Wikinews contributor is welcome to conduct the interview, if they think it is worthwhile. There is a discussion area on the request an interview page. I thought you may be interested.... - Borofkin 00:55, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

You are blocked for 24 hours for violation of Wikinews:Etiquette

Hi Mrmiscellanious. I have blocked you for 24 hours. The justification is provided here. I will monitor your talk page if you would like to discuss the block. - Borofkin 01:13, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Then block International for ignoring my contributions. Besides, calling a user's edits childish is not a personal attack - when users ignore other users' edits - that is childish behavior. This is just too old, I probably will never return to this wiki ever again if this sort of bull continues. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 01:16, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Wikinews:Etiquette is quite specific on this: Don't label or personally attack people or their edits. It goes on to give examples: Terms like "racist," "sexist" or even "poorly written". "Childish" could easily be added to this list as a label that is innapropriate for a contributor or a contributors edit. This is not some obscure and technical policy argument - this is basic politeness, something we should all do both on and off the wiki: be nice to each other. - Borofkin 01:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Politeness? Be nice to each other? Where was that when International reverted me three times and didn't even respond to my comments? The whole policy of WN:E also states:
Quote

*Be polite.
Quote

*Don't ignore questions.
  • If another disagrees with your edit, provide good reasons why you think it's appropriate.
Quote

*Work toward agreement

.

All items International didn't do on the article - review the history of that page. I believe he is blocked now for violation of WN:E, and rightfully so. However, you have just offended me by not looking at all sides of a case. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 01:56, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm very sorry that you are offended. I'll be reviewing International's block shortly, however you should note that provocation is not a defense for making personal attacks. - Borofkin 02:01, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but provocation is also considered an attack. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 02:03, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
What's your point? - Borofkin 02:10, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
I never said anything about a provocation - you were the one who said it. All I'm saying is provoking a user to make a defensive comment is an attack. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 02:18, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Block is now 12 Hours, I have Shorted the block, slighly to long IMO. Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 02:25, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Cowicide

Hi, I am wondering whether you know how long Cowicide is blocked for and why? Also, it might help if you can believe that even though I've been here a long time I still am learning all the little nuances to the norms and mores...and some things may look like they are inciteful which were really not meant to be at all; like that thing with [insert user's name here]...I only did it because I really thought you wanted me to. You know there was a great book on communication by Hyakawa which premised that almost all conflict is a result of faulty communication. I think that's true. Neutralizer 03:55, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the conflict with MrM over the "insertion" issue

Mrmiscellanious , my advice to you here is to disengage. The issue is no longer causing a problem, admins have given their opinion that a block is not appropriate, so it would be best to just ignore any further comments by other parties. I have given the same advice to Neutralizer. - Borofkin 04:15, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


and now for something completely different ...

Hi, Mr.M. via IRC I was told, that you are the one I should contact to solve my problem.

I first try to explain it as good as possible: When I record newsbriefs, and upload them to wiki, the upload is done automaticly, without any chance to interfere. The resulting adress is for example like this: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Newsbriefs_May_3rd_2006_UTC_1830.ogg

First of all, I don´t understand, why an audio-file is called an "image". But, apart from that - since it does not cause any probs, when it comes to audio files, unless when it comes to news briefs - , when I add this file to the news-briefs list, it is not possible to open it with java player. It is possible though, to download the file and listen to it.

But this is not what it is originally intended to be, as far as I understood. Why do other news-briefs contributers files can be listend easily, and mine can not? Where do I find the correct help-page? I´ve read lots of them, but still, my problem remains.

It must be a tiny little thing I´m doing wrong, as far as I suppose. I´d dearly appreciate it, if you could help me "out of that corner". ;-)

And now, that I´m asking this question, I might add another one straight away: You´ve told me via my talk page, that it is supposed to be called "Creative Commons 2.5 Attribution License". Are you sure of that, or should I reformulate my question: Shouldn´t it be "Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License"? I admit, I´m slightly confused, because all over Wikinews I see and hear the second version.

Thanks for your support in advance g. multiple unsigned comments by User:Gumboyaya

Just for a FYI, it was my dumb idea that you'd be able to help this user with the audio stuff, I know you take more than a passing interest in it. --Brian McNeil / talk 20:38, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
And it was a good idea, ´cause Mr.M. has helped me. I know now what to do. Thanks for your help!
Btw, I will get used to sign my questions and comments with Gumboyaya 07:20, 4 May 2006 (UTC), I´m sure of it ... :-)

A first step to sort out the reasons and initiators of the 24 hours block of me (international)

I like to now about your part of the dicussion on irc #wikinews-en when the subject of blocking me was discussed. The discussions resulted in Messedrockers block of me 01:38, 2 May 2006. Messedrocker acted as a neutral part based on the information and concensus (?) on the irc and didnt checked up the fact himself. Did you propagated for blocking me or did you encourage Messedrocker to block me?

international 23:39, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Im happy to contribute to your amusement. As I asked you on WN:Alert, are you the initiator of the block made by Messedrocker? Messedrocker is refering to you among others. international 00:23, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
It is a question not a allegation. I have to have someone to ask about the reasons of the block, not to mention evidence for alledged violations against policy that cause block for 24 hours. international 00:32, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi MrM, I've been stepping through 'recent changes' and noticed International made the same post here that was made on Amgine's and Jason's talk page...
... so, I'll repeat here the follow up comment I made to International's post to them:
I'd like to add, I've been noticing weighty edits pop-up that seems to based on something occurring elsewhere. I really have no objection to IRC. I don't use it much because I find that it divides my attention. But if it is being used to discuss issues of concern, and policy interest of the entire community, then it misses it's audience.
-Edbrown05 01:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Your concern about Cowicide

Ok, I just adjusted the entire edit. Is that ok now? Neutralizer 01:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

soft drinks

MrM, there is a note on Talk:Soft drink companies to stop high school soda sales saying that the author released his story under Creative Commons for wikinews. I don't know much about copyright, can you check to see if this is good and comment or just remove the copyvio tag if it is appropriate? --vonbergm 03:07, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

I just not you that I have asked for a mediation with you involved. Please look at WN:MA international 18:28, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

re: your IRC comment

I thought you would notice my reply to your recusal request which came before you posted your reply to my question. I wondered if it would have good to note that answer here on your talk page after I made it.

In fairness to myself, I wasn't dodging your recusal request for a week as you seem to suggest. I was engaged in responding to it daily, in an effort to understand it. -Edbrown05 00:49, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Print Edition

I am going to be away for the weekend, if you get a chance it would be great if you could do the print edition for tonight and Saturday --Cspurrier 14:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Evidence

"I've provided sufficient evidence to this user that warrants his block. This mediation is ridiculous. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 21:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)"

Mrmiscellanious, Is this what you are refering to abowe? If so, have you written anything more that I should take as your provided evidence somewere? Please show me if so. Messedrocker:s provided difs in minde. international 17:01, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

You've been TEA'D!

international 09:00, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Cindy Sheehan urges Canada to welcome U.S. deserters

Hi Mrmiscellanious... when the 15 minute block expires, I think it would be a good idea to hold off on editing the article, and try to seek some input from the wider community, by leaving messages on peoples talk pages inviting them to review the conflict, or perhaps a water-cooler message or a "community attention" tag. I have given the same advice to Neutralizer. - Borofkin 00:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


Re: Please add to Transcripts

quote: "Could I please ask you to add to the transcripts, though?" ´Cause you can, Mr.M. I wasn´t aware of this Category. Thanks for the advice. Advices and suggestions are very much appreciated. Gumboyaya 11:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Proposed injunction

I have proposed an injunction regarding you and Neutralizer's contributions on Wikinews. Take a look at it and make your comments present on the Water Cooler. If you would like to ask me any questions, please leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you for your involvement in dispute resolution! —THIS IS MESSED OCKER (TALK) 21:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

can you explain please!

"Updates" do not occur if an article updating it is older than the one it is replacing." I see no indication of that. international 19:46, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

And according to sources date this story is newer. international 19:48, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
So you prefer older news on lead just for that? Though my update is of other reasons explaind on my last editmessage. By the way some stolen dynamite is just not big news. international 19:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
"I'm no longer conversing with you on any matters. Do not attempt to contact me anymore. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 20:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)" You just have to collaborate with other users here. This was just a argumentation about diferent views. No big deal. If you cant stand that I dont know what to say. international 20:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Related news- povpushing

I dont think you shall edit away links to relevant wikinews articlesinternational 02:23, 11 May 2006 (UTC).

Cowicide has something to say,

perhaps you MrM are the one not listening, per your comment history on the 'Administrative action' page:

I believe a lot of users have had frustration with the IP [Cowicide] above. I sometimes feel like doing what Brianmc did every single day here. But since you bring up Cowicide (and, it's actually ironic that you do), perhaps you didn't realize what the vandal did last night, or how many socks the vandal created, either. Your defense of a vandal and cursing of a contributor here (who obviously was frustrated with you) is more insulting to Wikinews than your frequent complaints. As to your per RfDa, I say "no". You ignored Brianmc's suggestions that this is not the water cooler, and continued to do so, and are now mad because he is fed up with your crap? Why should I care? I can dig up hundreds of names and expletives that you have called me, and even more of what Cowicide has called me. As per your suggestion, I respond by stating my own opinion, which consists of me seeing you as more of an insult to the Wikinews community than Brianmc's actions. For once, grow up, would you? You're not the only one here, and admins aren't your puppets. Your actions of "do now, f**k what others say" is exactly why no one can take you seriously. For once, listen to what others are saying. Perhaps you would actually get along with others here if you did. As for the block, I'm aware of it. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 02:47, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

If what Cowicide says is true, meaning the block by you came shortly after the vote on DF (round 1), then what was the explanation for that block? -Edbrown05 05:28, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Amgine saw to burying your block MrM, with some 7000 proxy blocks a couple weeks ago (see blocking page). Bawolff removes the post of yours that I cited above with this edit. I don't dispute the Bawolff removal of your text, I simply wonder why you blocked Cowicide to begin with. I reviewed the user 'contributions before the blocks started, and thought they were extremely internet savy (oops, maybe I meant to say liberal). So what's with this? -Edbrown05 06:03, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and finally, meaning me, doesn't think as you do that, "I believe a lot of users have had frustration with the IP [Cowicide]". Something stupid with a China comment and an irregularity with Karen.... so what. -Edbrown05 06:08, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
If this is the stuff that gets spun out of these little internet "sewing circles" that get stitched off-site and then sown into Wikinews... and pushed to the water cooler... and pushed to oblivion. Question, is editting here a prviledge or a right? -Edbrown05 06:34, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Don't mean to butt in here, but, much like Wikipedia, editing Wikinews is a privilege, not a right; there is no right to edit Wikinews. As difficult as it is to accept, and as harsh as it sounds to say it, there are only two rights on Wikinews: the right to fork and the right to leave. --Chiacomo (talk) 21:24, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Nice of you to butt in Chiacomo. It would also be nice if MrM would butt in... this isn't evil dispute resolution MrM, why did you block Cowicide? -Edbrown05 05:25, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Neutralizer

The recent events between yourself, Brianmc and Neutralizer have twigged my interest. I believe there has to be something we can do to sort this out. Do you have any sugegstions? - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 08:27, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I understand the situation you are in but at the same time believe that the current situation can't continue. I will see what I can figure out (if anything) - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 00:13, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Re-confirmation

I wish to make you aware that I have listed myself for re-confirmation Wikinews:Administrators#Cartman02au. Basically I am concerned that the community may have lost faith in me as an administrator and instead of doing an RfDA against myself, I would rather be re-confirmed. I am not sure if it is the way to do it, but basically if after 7 days I am not re-confirmed I will step down as an administrator. As someone who is sometimes vocal about me I would like to invite you to have your input on this process - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 00:13, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

talk archive

I've notice the implementation used by Eloquence to archive old posts. It occurred to me that links from other pages that point towards your page would be broken by the implementation you use (and mine too, for that matter), where the archival usage employed by Eloquence would preserve to other-pagely-created links. -Edbrown05 05:50, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

In other words, this archiving procedure breaks links. -Edbrown05 05:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Amnesty Report 2006: disadvantaged pay price of war on terror

Hi MrM.... I've reviewed this article and I wanted to say that I agree with you. It completely lacks any POV except for the one presented in the Amnesty report. I also agree that it would be easy to find other POV's to provide some balance. My question is, why even argue about it with the othe contributors? Surely it would take less of your time to just grab some quotes for US or other governments denying the offences of which they are accused, and sticking them in the article? - Borofkin 02:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I figured that was what you were doing. I don't think it is necessarily a bad thing, especially with new users, however with the contributors to this particular article it is clearly pointless. In cases such as this the best way to achieve neutrality is by collaboration, and by that I mean multiple people with different points-of-view editing the same article, putting their own point-of-view into it, so that it becomes balanced. If your intention really is to see this article become balanced and be published, it may be best to just do it yourself.
The other thing to think about is that you are the resident expert on the point-of-view that is missing from this article. You could probably achieve in a very small amount of time an improvement that would take the other contributors combined much longer. - Borofkin 02:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks.

Thanks for sparing the time to vote on my RfA. This is a link to my Contributions page. I forgot to add a link to the latter on my RfA, and instead added only an edit-count! PVJ   (Talk) 02:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Violation of 3RR on Amnesty Report 2006: disadvantaged pay price of war on terror

You have been blocked for 24 hours after violating the 3 Revert Rule in the above named article. Reverting articles is not helpful in developing articles -- in the future, please collaborate with other editors on article talk pages. If you have questions about this block, please leave a response here; I will monitor your talk page for replies. --Chiacomo (talk) 03:03, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

MrM, please also consider involving other members of the community next time. There are no doubt others who shared your opinion on this article - getting them involved may have diffused the situation. - Borofkin 03:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
(Sorry if this sounds a bit agitated/ranty, but I'm a little annoyed and confused over this) What was that about? You're an admin. You very well know the 3RR, and that it doesn't matter weather the other side is justified or not, that you don't revert them four times. You even said in your edit summary that you knew it was in violation of 3RR. Why did you do that? Bawolff ☺☻  04:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Simply put Bawolff, if an article is not up to Wikinews' standards, I have no issue in preventing them from sacrificing the integrity here. If it means I will be blocked because others won't collaborate, then so be it. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 19:30, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Honestly I find that a bit disturbing. if the article was so bad and un-netrual, someone else would have came along and reverted it. (rough quote from WN:3RR). You wouldn't tolerate it if neutralizer thaught the article was not up to some standard, but you and others thought it was, and he violated the 3RR by himself. You can't Write all of Wikinews alone. Bawolff 23:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Bawolff, I don't mean for you to agree with my edits. You will probably always disagree with them, and I could personally careless. But what difference does it make if I reverted the article, compared to if others reverted it? Your claim of Neutralizer is only asking for trouble, so I won't comment on it, only other than to state to look at all of that user's complaints on articles, and the reasoning (I believe you'll find them along the line of "Western governments lie..."). In what way do you think I did not provide sufficient reasoning? And how can you even say that last statement? When there is an article that can severely damage Wikinews' integrity, I don't care what others would do, I do what I'd do. In this case, it was to tag NPOV and provide a very lengthly and detailed description of what was wrong with the article, and why it is wrong according to Wikinews policy. I'm going to leave you with this comment, and ask you why you are still continuing this obviously pointless conversation only meant to smite me, when you could be setting an example and showing users what is and what isn't acceptable here according to policies. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 23:46, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Chiacomo's comment when informing you of this block (he said: "in the future, please collaborate with other editors on article talk pages"), I just wanted to observe that the problem here was not a lack of collaboration on the talk page, but rather a lack of collaboration on the article. I think your collaboration on the talk page was excellent, but ultimately you can't force other contributors to make a change that you want made. That is the fundamental principle of Wikimedia projects: if you don't like it, fix it. - Borofkin 23:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Bawolff, tell that to Neutralizer. MrM and I and a few others are ignored by him and his tag team constantly. If they do not want to follow policy and abide by the terms of a Wiki then let me show them the door. Jason Safoutin 23:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Bawolff, that's all fine for short-term solutions - but I'd rather there be long-term solutions, so that users would actually care to be more neutral on their own, and in turn, these disputes would be virtually eliminated. I suppose you can't force an old dog to learn new tricks, but I have been complained at for not editing articles, editing without discussing on talk page, editing and discussing on talk pages that leads to people complaining I have a control over the whole site, and plain not doing anything at all. In every single action, I am criticized for my actions. I frankly don't know what to do here anymore... I'm accused of everything for anything that I do, so I honestly don't know how I can make these issues go away. But I would hope that users here are at least willing to learn more sides of an issue, rather than count on other users to edit it later. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 00:02, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Df: Neut's been told, blocked, and the whole shebang on several ocassions. MrM: I see where you're coming from, but if your being criticized for doing an action, no matter how you do it, isn't that a sign that maybe a different action should be taken, or you are taking the wrong action? How does violating the 3RR, which will undoubtedly makes everybody mad help the situation, or contribute to the goal of learn more sides of an issue. No matter how many times you revert it, if no one agrees with you, then it won't stick. Whiley on wheels has moved thousands of wikipedia articles on wheels. How many do you notice still retain the title of w:blah on wheels!!!!? (Note I am not comparing you to whiley on wheels, or vandal, or saying you neccesarily took the wrong or right action (with exception to my first sentence) I'm just more talking about general food for thought, about how a wiki generally works, and what stays and what goes.) Bawolff ☺☻  00:24, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • You should read my section below, Bawolff. These lectures are better off saved for the next contributor/admin who screws up editing, because in a few days, I'm not going to be present here. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 00:28, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Friendly reminder about arbcom ruling

Just a reminder that your reconfirm vote will start on may 26 00:00 UTC thats in 7 daysBawolff ☺☻  05:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

  • I just want to state that is not just a reconfirmation of my sysop status, but that it is also a reconfirmation of my contributor status. That is, if consensus is not reached for myself to retain the sysop status, then I will voluntarily depart from Wikinews. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 19:58, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


Bitter Attrition

Mate, I don't find any "joy" in your leaving the Wikinews project. As I've said before somewhere, your NPOV stance is admirable. There needs to be constant checks n balances here. And I thank you for that. However, anyone who displays the agressive tactics, for what seems to me, the pursuit of a personal agenda, is behaving in a disingenuous fashion. Its the manner in which you operate that is under criticism. Nevertheless, there is no need to bail if/when you lose "sysop status". You can still contribute articles, make edits and tag stuff. Shortly I'll be back to contribute articles myself. I spat the dummy because I was pissed off at your behaviour. As much joy as I get from publishing decent news here, its a pity this project gets caught up in a perpetual administrative quagmire. Cheers, --elliot_k 05:24, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Leaving

I know we have had our differences in the past, but I will acknowledge that you do a heck of a lot for the site and community in general. I am just curious as to why you are leaving and if there is anything that can be done to make you reconsider - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 10:44, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to reply to me. I think it is a shame that you are leaving and it will be a loss to the community. I agree that most of the issues I had were to do with your contributor status, although I have this notion that an administrator needs to set an example (which may or may not be valid). I think in some ways, you and I are alike, hence the reason we clashed at times, we are both opinionated and both intelligent. Is there not some way you can regain the community's trust? The community (and project) deserve someone with the energy and experience that you have devoted to the project. I also regret not getting to know you better, I believe that at times I was way too harsh on you - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 03:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Email via Wikinews

How does it work? FellowWikiNews 02:27, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Do you get it on Wikinews? FellowWikiNews 21:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Your contributions

MrM, I would like you to know that I make a clear differentiation between contributor and administrator. On Wikinews we seem to give much more status to adminship than we really should. As a contributor, I think that you've got passion, an eye towards enforcing our policies, and a great lot of experience on Wikinews. As an admin, I think that you let your passion guide you towards some actions that aren't just. In not reconfirming you as an administrator, it's not my intention to reconfirm you as a contributor; only you can do that. I hope that you change your mind and remain — albeit in a different role, but with just as much energy and success. -- IlyaHaykinson 03:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikinews

I've always enjoyed envolvement at wikinews a the level of writing news. How that changed and somehow I ended up on ArbCom I don't know and don't like it. Your stinging comments that you will never see me as an admisistrator, actually, aren't that stinging because I don't and never will see myself as one.

If you discontinue your involvement here, the loss would be not only to wikinews, but yourself. News is as important to you, i'm sure, as it is to me.

Stay.

I'm an idiot, we all are, that's why there's something good going here.... -Edbrown05 02:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

RIP User:Mrmiscellanious

Rest in peace User:Mrmiscellanious. Hopefully one day this user will be resurrected - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 13:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Bye!

In the meantime, you can become active on Wikipedia. Hopefully I will be seeing you there! —THIS IS MESSED OCKER (TALK) 23:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

So long and thanks for all the fish..or scoops, or stories.... whatever.

Although, you're most likely not reading this, I must say, I enjoyed our time working together, Jason and It was great, I'm sorry things had to turn out this way. It seemed somewhat over-zealous if you ask me, I cling to the hope, that maybe someday, you will return. --TUFKAAP 03:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "Mrmiscellanious/Archive12".