User talk:Thekohser/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Will Beback and new articles

Will, you seem to have an urge to protect the GFDL sanctity of new articles in Wikipedia. I have created two new articles in just the past few days. I have looked through several thousand of your most recent contributions to the encyclopedia project, all the way back to April, and I am hard pressed to find a single new page that you've created on Wikipedia that was not a User, Talk, Category, Wikipedia space, redirect, or move exercise, except for this odd page that doesn't conform to any of Wikipedia's standards for article structure. Given this imbalance in article construction between you and me, might I ask you if you are deliberately trolling my Talk page to create an "issue" out of a non-issue? Because even if I am to assume good faith, it would appear to me that you are not expert in article creation, and therefore seem a bit out of place in a discussion of attribution rights. Please point me to four or five of the most recent main space articles you have generated from scratch, and I will happily withdraw my assertions just made. -- Thekohser 13:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

There are many jobs at Wikipedia. Creating articles, improving them up, deleting inappropriate ones, resolving disputes, etc. Adminsitrators have the self-deprecating subriquet of "janitors" because we often go around cleaning up messes. The situation appears to be that some number of articles were improperly plagiarized from another website without the requirements for GFDL fulfilled. You wrote these articles on that website in exchange for money, and you caused them to be uploaded here. Now you refuse to reveal the identity of those articles because you're afraid that they won't meet Wikipedia standards and will be deleted. That doesn't seem like a good situation. This issue could easily be resolved by releasing the list of the Wikipedia articles you were paid to write.   Will Beback  talk  19:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for providing us a list of the new articles you have recently created, Will. The community appreciates your dedication to this important issue of "improperly plagiarized" content and your undying loyalty to the requirements of the GFDL. Your hard work in the area of LaRouche movement sub-pages is especially exemplary. We now look forward to your review of the plagiarism cited above that took place on January 2, 2008, as well as your participation in the public review of the articles I have provided above, which only Iridescent has taken the time thus far to review (one of the four) and comment. In the meantime, while you are working on these aspects of improving Wikipedia, I will be preparing my list of paid articles for release sometime in the future. -- Thekohser 20:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Could you clarify the difference between the plagiarism problem on Jan 2 and the plagiarism committed by the editors who uploaded your writing without attribution? Regarding my work on Wikipedia, it is open to scrutiny. That is the way Wikipedia works. Avoiding scrutiny is inimicable to Wikipedia norms, and is one of the activities prohibited by WP:SOCK.   Will Beback  talk  21:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Will, I don't see how this is so hard for you to grasp. I feel sorry for you. Everybody else here seems to "get it". When JzG opted to come back to the Arch Coal article, while I was blocked/banned, it was FIFTEEN MONTHS after our initial dust-up when the article was created. Off site, at a place called WikBack.com (I think you're familiar with that defunct forum?) you see, I had pointed out that the edit history showed evidence that JzG hadn't actually re-written from scratch the article about Arch Coal. JzG on WikBack boasted that he had written the article "ab initio". As I prepared to show the edit differences that proved he retained elements of my original article, he elected to willfully and deviously use his admin tools to delete from public view the first two edits to "his" article about Arch Coal. It was a reprehensible action. And, after I produced my original text and allowed the WikBack community to see how JzG was lying about his claim that his version took nothing from my version, several Wikipedia administrators called out JzG for his affront to Wikipedia's policies and culture of respect for attribution -- but none would revert his sinister cover-up. I pushed privately to Jimmy Wales that an injustice had been done, and finally after a couple more days of deliberation, Wales restored the original edits, proving to the public that I was the originator of the content that evolved into today's article. This was important to me, Will, because in dozens of places across the Internet, I had showcased the Arch Coal article as an example of the unfair characterization of it as "corporate spam" and "PR puff" by some of Wikipedia's elite.

That's the one hand. Using the terms of the GFDL license attribution requirements to right a gross and deliberate injustice that very nearly went unrecognized and still goes formally unreprimanded.

On the other hand, you have my personal decision to, in a few other cases, relax the terms of the GFDL license attribution requirements, because I feel the moral high ground belongs to the preservation of good quality encyclopedic content on Wikipedia (as with Arch Coal), in the face of a vengeful mob that has been shown to delete quality content using as weapons terms like "corporate spam" and "PR puffery". My content. My choices.

If you wish to discuss this topic further, Will, I strongly suggest you do so on a sub-page of your own User space, or out in the Wikipedia project space, because I have grown tired, if not frustrated, trying to educate you on the hard line differences between premeditated revenge against a blocked editor and the expedient preservation of one's creative work. -- Thekohser 02:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your replies. You'll have to excuse me for not having followed your editing career more closely, and so not being in on everything you've done or said here or on Wikback.com, but there's no need to feel sorry for me. I've stayed plenty busy writing and improving content, and dealing with special problems, including serial plagiarists. You've asked to return to this project, a project which does not allow paid editing. I hope your efforts here will further the project towards its own goals. Now that your contributions will all be under your own name I look forward to them.   Will Beback  talk  17:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Will Beback, your claim that "this project [...] does not allow paid editing" is inaccurate. WAS 4.250 (talk) 20:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, WAS 4.250. "Your" correct with "you're" rebuttal of Will Beback. I note that Will still has not provided links to any main space articles that he has ever created, and I also note that he deals with "serial plagiarists", but I guess "one time in January 2008 plagiarists" do not fall under his jurisdiction. -- Thekohser 23:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The articles that I've written can all be found in the contribution lists of my accounts. It's unfortunate that the names of articles created under contract are being kept private, away from the scrutiny of the community. On the other hand, it maybe just as well since paid editing brings the project into disrepute. Regarding plagiarism, if there are any current examples of it in Wikipedia please let me know. Instances that have already been fixed aren't in need of attention unless it's a address on ongoing problem with a user.   Will Beback  talk  00:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Will, if my paid articles were disclosed, the only thing brought into disrepute would be the illogical obsession against paid editing of factual, encyclopedic content. Until then, "a address on ongoing problem", and keep up the good work. Also, remember -- opinions are like butt holes; everyone has one, and most of them stink. -- Thekohser 00:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Without endorsing either side in this argument – since quite honestly, I don't really care very much about a single subject in which Will has an interest, and certainly not enough to comment on accuracy – these are the pages to which Will has made the greatest number of changes, and these are all the non-redirect articles Will Beback has created. (The "created" list only includes those created from redlinks, not those where the article replaced an existing redirect.) – iridescent 00:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Will, as this is getting a bit heated, and one person being possibly hounded about this is unhelpful and inappropriate. If you have more concerns with Greg's actions or views on GFDL, given this is all under the auspices of Arbcom authority, please take this to somewhere for wider review with a fairly balanced introduction in your posting. If Greg ultimately wrote the content in question, and is releasing it freely, that's our only concern. Rather than pursue Greg over old matters, why not just let him start over? Please take this somewhere wider if there are additional concerns that you think need intervention or use of tools from an uninvolved admin. You and I are both involved here, of course, now, so neither of us should use tools in regards to Greg. rootology (C)(T) 05:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not heated. Nor am I involved just because I've discussed this issue. I don't see any need to administrative action regarding Thekohser. If there are editors who repeatedly plagiarized information and violated GFDL, then they may need to be reminded of the policies and values of this project. But that's not Thekohser, according to his own remarks.   Will Beback  talk  06:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

---

Will Beback, you are in luck, my friend! I have discovered an entire article on Wikipedia that was plagiarized from a GFDL source, but without proper attribution according to the terms of the GFDL license! You will find that the improper plagiarism took place on July 16, 2007. Note, to satisfy the attribution terms of the GFDL, To re-distribute a text page in any form, provide credit to the authors either by including a) a hyperlink (where possible) or URL to the page or pages you are re-using, b) a hyperlink (where possible) or URL to an alternative, stable online copy which is freely accessible, which conforms with the license, and which provides credit to the authors in a manner equivalent to the credit given on this website, or c) a list of all authors. I hope you will spend as much time chastizing the editor who failed the terms of the GFDL when he plagiarized content as you have spent here with me. -- Thekohser 01:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Plagiarism requires that you pass off the copied text as your own. Given that Will wrote "move from Cumberland article" [1] in the edit summary, it's obvious that he made no attempt to pass the text off as his own and so your example can't be plagiarism. It's not a violation of the GFDL either. While the source of the text you quoted (the Wikipedia:Terms of use) does include a link to the GFDL and a statement that you must agree to the GFDL license, the text you quoted is actually from those Wikipedia terms of use rather than from the GFDL and so, on the basis of the text you quoted, he can only be breaking the Wikipedia terms of use and not the GFDL. He's not breaking the terms of use either though, as the text you quoted is referring to re-distributing text from Wikipedia to outside of Wikipedia. In any case, the edit he made [2] does include a hyperlink to the page he was re-using; it's the fifth and sixth words in the edit, it says Cumberland, Maryland and it links to the source, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumberland,_Maryland. Ha! (talk) 02:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

That's great, because the people who copied my GFDL content into Wikipedia never attempted to pass the text off as their own, either. They were using non-meaningful account names that couldn't possibly be attributed to any living individual or entity. So, it can't be considered plagiarism. This subject is CLOSED! -- Thekohser 03:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

undelete userspace?

User:Thekohser/monobook.js and User:MyWikiBiz/monobook.js appear to be the only pieces of your userspace which are still deleted. Do you want those undeleted? Feel free to email your response to an admin to avoid affecting your 2:1 ratio. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:19, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

No, they're fine to keep deleted. -- Thekohser 23:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Citation

Hello, I was looking a the Jack Pierce page and noticed you want a citation. In every bio that has ever been wrote or documented, Jack has been known to have a stern personality. All who have worked with him know this. The links provide all the information.

Electric Japan (talk) 01:01, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

So, fix it. It should be trivially easy to construct an in-line citation for something so well documented, no? I'm not an expert on Pierce, so I chose not to search for and add one myself. -- Thekohser 02:08, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Beth Littleford

You may find the reference you're looking for here or here. I don't know for sure, because it's paid access. 207.34.229.126 (talk) 21:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

My first name

Since you asked on meta to know my first name I thought the least I could do it point you to my user page where it has been in plain text for a long time. Be warned though, now that you've asked people may say we're lovers ;-). Cheers Brett 16:25, 10 July 2009 (UTC) (  «l| ?romethean ™|l»  (talk))

So, you are the guy behind Portal Hosting, which merged with a wiki farm website, similar to Wikia? I'm curious how you would explain the inherent conflict of interest of you bashing MyWikiBiz (an alternative wiki) at the same time you have a stake in a competing commercial wiki service? -- Thekohser 16:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Do I also have it correct that you have never created a Wikipedia main space article that was not simply a redirect or a move? That's almost shameful, that you would be dictating to me about article ethics, when you have created nothing here (but trouble). Articles I have created here from scratch serve tens of thousands of readers every month. -- Thekohser 16:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Those are quite good questions. Firstly your concerns about a COI between myself and MyWikiBiz is quite moot given that we are not in the same field of biz, your goal is to host a single wiki to provide business a place promotion and business related info. Where as YourWiki, a site where I do unpaid work, is in the business of providing non-commercial users wikis. We are a wiki farm focused on providing the best possible wiki's possible whilst MyWikiBiz is a single wiki with a completely different mission and purpose. One would think if I was COI about anything I would be about Wikia, though this is also moot given that I defended on of their staff's right to a good reputation on meta, as you are all too aware. Secondly, I don't do much work in the article name space as for it is not what I'm best at, I interest my self in the more technical matters of wiki administration such as abuse reports, open proxies and counter vandalism which is just as important as writing articles. On another note I have taken the time to make a mentor page for you and it seems that a user by the name David thinks that you being somewhat uncivil towards me. Whilst I think it could be better described as a teenager testing his parents (or in this case, mentor) and won't act on it, I think that for better public perception you need to be more careful about your choice of words in public forums. Cheers, Brett 17:11, 10 July 2009 (UTC) (  «l| ?romethean ™|l»  (talk))

Courtesy Notification

Given your recent conduct and confirmation that you knowingly attempted to feud with me, I have made an Arbitration Enforcement thread accordingly and I invite you to participate   «l| ?romethean ™|l»  (talk) 18:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Please comment regarding this [3], I feel that it would help make any enforcement mo0t if you did as suggested. Thanks   «l| ?romethean ™|l»  (talk) 22:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

• Quick question for Thekohser: Would you please clarify if by your apology and willingness to drop the issue if you are truly intending to drop the whole thing and not take this to other forums (as I believe was mentioned earlier)? Thanks. Shell ^babelfish 22:57, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I refuse to be censored in venues not controlled by the Wikimedia Foundation; however, I am all too happy to envision a future where Promethean is forever appearing smaller and smaller in my rear-view mirror. If he can do it, I certainly can. -- Thekohser 02:40, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Hermann Frommherz

Ah, now you see why I am revisiting my very earliest articles for Wikipedia. Uh, I could plead that my background knowledge pretty much mirrors the info given by the althistory site.... but the crux of debate is reliability of source rather than validity of info, so that's a copout.

Guess I am going to be spending some time revising Herr Frommherz in the near future.

Georgejdorner (talk) 04:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

DVRs

Wouldn't this be the most common search (23 million), or people searching simply for Tivo, which has the brand recognition (and 14 million hits)? I know people could search for the system that push out content over the network with things like DRM controls the like (like a Comcast DVR) but I'm for the life of me can't recall anyone ever talking about a "network DVR" in any context, except in the context of pulling saved video from their Tivos or AppleTVs to their PCs to burn or push to laptops, or in the context of watching something like Netflix streaming on their Xboxes. I'll be honest--most people probably don't even realize that some of the boxes like the Comcast and Cablevision ones don't actually store some of the media locally, but pull it via services like OnDemand, if I understand correctly how they do it myself. rootology (C)(T) 20:17, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, rereading those articles I think we're thinking of different technologies somewhat here. This is actually pretty cool stuff that is tempting me to write it... rootology (C)(T) 20:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Root, I don't mean this with any sort of offense, but it doesn't sound like you have a firm grasp on DVRs versus OnDemand, and I would advise that you really ought to read much more about the technologies before you try to unify and expand an article about Network DVR. I'd write the whole thing myself, but as I said, I have a severe conflict of interest, and I'm thinking more in terms of my employer than about Wikipedia. This is not easy-to-understand technology, and the legal implications are monumental, thanks to complex licensing laws and agreements (at least in the United States). I feel as if I have finally personally experienced the proverbial Wikipedia article that really ought to be left to a panel of experts, but we're shunned away thanks to various COI guidelines around here. (And I'm hardly even an "expert" on this, but I do know more about it than probably 99.5% of other Americans.) -- Thekohser 20:30, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I usually don't even start work on articles I already know about without drumming up a ton of sources, material, and reading them at length a couple of times, before I'm comnfortable enough to begin pulling them apart and synthesizing them for wp. I'm just thinking of putting it on my todo, since it's so interesting. rootology (C)(T) 20:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to tell me if you don't want me to post on your talk page but I've redirected NPVR to Remote storage digital video recorder since I saw nothing of value in the first article that wasn't in Remote storage digital video recorder and they were about the same subject. As for COI, since you're probably as involved in this on a professional level as anyone else would be and as long as you're just adding factual stuff I see no reason why you can't edit it. I'll be happy to copy anything you want into the article if you aren't comfortable editing it yourself but I honestly don't see the problem. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 21:16, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

You can post on my Talk page, you Basterd. My concern about authoring a much better article about Network DVR (or whatever we decide to primarily call it) rests not with what's best for Wikipedia, but what is best for my employer. -- Thekohser 01:38, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: Devious, shadowy, and unethical

I just knew that comment would get a response from you -- only not for the reason you gave. Concerning "shadowy", at this point in time, paid editting on Wikipedia has a shadowy reputation: people suspect it exists, but few people actually have direct experience with any of the details. And to get paid content into Wikipedia, one has to be devious -- like Nichalp was, sad to state. And as Bob Dylan once sang, "But to live outside the law, you must be honest" -- many people living inside the law aren't that honest.

No, I expected you to comment about mentioning your name as if you introduced paid editting to Wikipedia, the snake who introduced the apple to Eve. Which was not what I intended, but I didn't know any other way to present the contrast. (And the LaRouchies & Scientologists have been far more of vicious threat than any other group -- unless you were the one who vandalized my Mustang convertible ten years ago. :-) -- llywrch (talk) 04:35, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Rollover Minutes

Hello, Just for curiosity - do you know if your editing throttle has rollover minutes?

Mainspace:other throttle: In pursuance of (1), you may edit with a 2:1 ratio of mainspace:other editing. You may not make "other" edits until your mainspace edits give you the credit to respond. For the purpose of calculating "other" edits, one comment is one edit.

Was it intended to be a day-to-day throttle?

So when you wake up each day at midnight - you start fresh and need to make 2 mainspace edits before you can make 1 "other" edit for that day and any unused "other" edits do not carry over to the next day

Or was it intended that you could rollover your unused "other" edits?

So when you make 1000 mainspace edits - you can make 500 other edits any time in the future

Maybe someone could code up a user box widget for your user page that would show your available "other" edits. Example text:

"Thekohser has 230 unused non-mainspace edits available for discussing Wikipedia improvements"

"Thekohser has 0 unused non-mainspace edits and will not be able to discuss Wikipedia improvements at this time, please check back later"

Uncle uncle uncle 18:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Excellent question, Uncle x 3. Because of how smoothly and non-dramatically the Arbitration Committee interacted with me during our secret private discussions, I have been acting under the assumption that I do have a rollover plan, so that, as long as my mainspace edits are at a ratio of at least 2:1 during my probationary unban, I am free to make edits in non-mainspace space. I also saw that a provision has been suggested that edits to my own Talk page do not count "against" my mainspace edits.

I think the user box widget is an excellent idea. But, I am clueless in such coding tasks, and I doubt there are any good Wikipedians who would be so moved to assist me with such a complicated assignment. Because I am not carefully tallying my ratio, I do live in constant fear that at any moment, and ArbCom review will swoop down upon me and re-ban me, for tallying at (for example) a ratio of 1.98:1. -- Thekohser 20:57, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Greg, has it occurred to you that you may be a reincarnation of Franz Kafka? -Pete (talk) 22:24, 15 July 2009 (UTC) (p.s. Don't feel compelled to respond to my offhand remark, lest it drop you into the 1.98 ratio zone!!) -Pete (talk)

Your "Counter-Protest"

I'm not entirely sure what you're doing. From your message on the NODRAMA page, this appears to be some sort of revenge stunt against the ArbCom? Forgive me if I'm wrong, but the logic in place here confounds me. What is this "Counter-Protest", how are you enforcing it and why? a little insignificant 17:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Please stop trying to stir up drama on my Talk page. The MAXDRAMA period has not even begun yet! -- Thekohser 18:44, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

It is very important that this no-drama movement be given proper attention. Therefore to promote no-drama it is essential to create as much drama about no-drama as possible. Wikipedians at their finest! WAS 4.250 (talk) 19:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I came here expecting a show. I want my money back. -Pete (talk)

WP:NODRAMA reminder

Thanks for your comments at Great Wikipedia Dramaout. Wikipedia stands to benefit from the improvements in the article space as a result of this campaign. We appreciate your commitment to "mind the shop" while other Wikipedians are busy working on article content. The non-article areas of Wikipedia are vital for the good of the community, and the work you do there is much appreciated, especially during this campaign while other Wikipedians are busy abstaining from them to work on articles. --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 22:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Your userbox

Sorry - no non-free images outside of article space. I've made a substitution that seemed appropriate to me, though of course you're welcome to change it to an image you find more suitable (as long as you balance it out with a couple of article edits, of course!). Cheers, Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 00:08, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Thekohser/MAXDRAMA

User:Thekohser/MAXDRAMA, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Thekohser/MAXDRAMA and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Thekohser/MAXDRAMA during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 00:31, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

July 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although we invite everyone to contribute constructively here, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did with this edit to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Thekohser/MAXDRAMA. You may wish to read the introduction to editing for more information about Wikipedia. Thank you.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 03:08, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

How is a "404 - Not Found" page a "personal attack"? -- Thekohser 03:16, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

He meant [4]. He swapped "diff" for "oldid", so the link didn't work. MBisanz ^talk 04:11, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I have seen some of Thekohsers comments, and I have not seen him to be mean spirited. I would assume that he did not know that the picture on Jeff G's page was a recent picture of Jeff G and was trying to be humorous. Many (probably even most) people have pictures on their user page of someone other than themselves. I think that the picture looks a good bit like Tom Selleck [5]. When I was in college I knew a guy with a mustache, and although no one made comments about it, I always thought that rude comments would have been mean. Don't you agree? Uncle uncle uncle 04:53, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm so confused. Why do people like Greg and Jeff even bother talking to each other, or interacting at all? They seem to be from different planets, and entirely uninterested in learning from one another. What's the point? </rhetorical -Pete (talk)

Delete Review

I don't know where to post this - so I'll post it here and elsewhere. If you read it elsewhere - no need to read it again. I see that in the closed deletion review here [6]

The text states: "The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. "

Why does it say that no further edits should be made to the page, but that subsequent comments should be made in a deletion review? It is already a deletion review - it makes no sense for it to request that future comments go in a deletion review.

I don't know wiki language very well and a heap of editors are taking part in the WP:NODRAMA avent and are therefore unable to work on this for the next couple days. Do you know how to edit the template or whatever the wiki thing is that is adding that confusing text? Uncle uncle uncle 05:07, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Lemme spare Greg the need to answer this -- a deletion review is distinct, in Wikipedia jargon, from a deletion discussion. A review happens when somebody thinks the initial decision was incorrect, or similar. (Sort of like a court of appeals.) So, basically that note says: this discussion is over, if you have something worth saying, start a new discussion. See WP:DRV for a more complete explanation. -Pete (talk) 05:15, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Got it - so your third discussion refers to a review type discussion, but the first two discussions refer to discussion type discussion. Uncle uncle uncle 05:31, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah - now I understand. Prodego said the same thing as Peterforsyth (thank you Peterforsyth). A deletion review [7] is different from a deletion discussion [8]. A deletion discussion would come first and then possibly a deletion review. I was confused because in some cases a review is a discussion but here a review is a discussion, but not the same kind of discussion as the original discussion. Uncle uncle uncle 05:26, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikivoices Invite

Hi Thekohser,
On behalf of Wikivoices, a community podcast based on the English Wikipedia, I would like to invite you (and all the other Board of Trustees candidates) to a round table interview on Skype to be held at 10:00:00 p.m. Friday July 24, 2009 in UTC. The format of this interview will be question-answer style whereby interested members of the community will pose questions to one or all of the candidates involved. If you would like any further information about the process or Skype, please contact Durova or myself on the English Wikipedia. Please be advised that spaces are limited and the sign up page can be found here. We look forward to your attendence at this event. Cheers   «l| Promethean ™|l»  (talk) 05:46, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Thekohser, I wanted to thankyou for signing up and we look forward to seeing you at the event. Perhaps 24 hour time could have been better but that is a cosmetic thing, as I'm sure all the candidates are smart people :)   «l| ?romethean ™|l»  (talk) 14:52, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

revert

Just to explain this I was looking through your contributions and was scrolling down with the wheel in the middle of my mouse and accidentally clicked a rollback link with it. Pzrmd (talk) 02:12, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Just don't let it happen again, you understand? -- Thekohser 02:51, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

You're saying that jokingly aren't you? I can never tell. Pzrmd (talk) 02:58, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know. What do you think? -- Thekohser 13:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I just saw I reverted another edit. When I click things with the scroll wheel it opens it in a new tab which is why I reverted two things without knowing it. Pzrmd (talk) 18:49, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

You are truly testing my patience and my ability to assume good faith. You really expect all of us to believe that your "stalking" and "harassing" me is attributable to a mere scroll wheel? Harumph! -- Thekohser 19:13, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to report your incivility if you continue to attack me, you jackass. Pzrmd (talk) 06:53, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

You forgot your "humor tag", Pzrmd. Be well. Have a great day. This was fun. Good times, good times. -- Thekohser 10:34, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

It is so disappointing when people mistake jokes for something else on the internet. Sometimes I think we should have a contest for who is the greatest clown on Wikipedia. WAS 4.250 (talk) 17:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

SD of Bob Bain

I left a comment when reverting your edits to Bob Bain, saying that you can't blank and redirect the page to a disam page where he doesn't feature. Looking further I see that you are the author, so i have therefore listed the article for speedy deletion (see WP:CSD#G7) as author request. I thought this would be a better alternative, otherwise it would just get confusing. Contact me if your unsure. Thanks Patchy1Talk To Me! 21:07, 20 July 2009 (UTC)