User talk:A little insignificant

Shoutbox
Instructions Template:G has been used for the following templates in the past: {{G1}}, for speedy deletion as patent nonsense {{Spaces}}, for non-breaking spaces Template:G on Wikimedia Commons Below is a shoutbox where smaller comments and rapid notifications are posted. Comments here are erased within some time (perhaps a day or a week), this useful tool avoids the over-flooding in talk pages and makes ease coordinations. You are more than welcome to add a shoutbox to your self by putting: {{subst:Shoutbox}} in the top of your talk page. It's suposed to be in the talk page, so the user receive inmediate notification of a new message.
By the way, My museum has been updated. Wana see? - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 04:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC) Template:G has been used for the following templates in the past: {{G1}}, for speedy deletion as patent nonsense {{Spaces}}, for non-breaking spaces Template:G on Wikimedia Commons Please make comments at the top. Click here to shout!

Ah, nice clean page. :) Too blank. Please fill it up.

Wikipedia ads	file info – #1

Re Lepidoptera#Morphology & Physiology

Hi A.L.I.,

The whole section is disbalanced, I am currently working mostly on Lepidoptera morphology. I thought that once both these articles come upto some standard and then we could summarise them in the Lepidoptera morph & physio. Whats your opinion? AshLin (talk) 15:35, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi A.L.I., Thanks for the thumbs up. I'm really looking for feedback and help with Lep Morph. I'm basically a combat engineer not a biologist so while I understand the stuff I have no domain knowkedge, So its a mish-mash of cut & paste in truth. Any kind of help will be great. In truth the higher Lep articles will/should be deveoped as a cluster. Each article done in depth giving to Lepidoptera its precis as a section or subsection. AshLin (talk) 16:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:NODRAMA/2

Just a quick reminder that the Second Great Wikipedia Dramaout has begun. Please log any work you do at Wikipedia:The Great Wikipedia Dramaout/2nd/Log. Good luck! --Jayron32 02:01, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Rocky Point

hi, i appreciate your attempt to make things right, but redirecting my page on Rocky Point was inaccurate, as i was attempting to create a page on Rocky Point on the coast, as part of the Palos Verdes peninsula, not the inland city.

The secret page (class 4)

Congratulations in being clever enoug to find it, just if you don´t know:

First

There are clues for them at my secret page

Second

None of them violate or break the wikipedia's guidelines (maybe bending them a little)

Third

There's a reward for that, and here it is:User:Damërung/Rewards/The Ultra Hidden Barnstar

Fourth

Sorry for the delay again

- ☩Damërung ☩. -- 01:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion converted to PROD: Faceabotage

Hello A little insignificant. I am just letting you know that I have converted the speedy deletion tag that you placed on Faceabotage to a proposed deletion tag, because I do not believe CSD applies to the page in question. Thank you. Olaf Davis (talk) 18:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi again. I've replied at my talk. Cheers, Olaf Davis (talk) 18:06, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

190.241.40.138 (talk · contribs) - use of uw-4im

Hi. I don't think your uw4-im warning to this user was justified - at the time. I admit they did carry on vandalising and had to be blocked, but at the time you gave it, they had only two edits since November, and those were silly vandalism rather than malicious. uw4-im is "appropriate for severe vandalism and defamation only" - I would have given uw-v2 here, working up the scale if they carried on. Keep up the good work, though! Regards, JohnCD (talk) 19:18, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I use 4im in cases where the vandalism is unambiguous, therefore, I tend to use it often. I make almost no exceptions as to the severity. In a situation where I can AGF and reasonably speculate it was a test edit, I leave uw-test1. But uw-4im has always worked for me in that it shuts up most vandals quickly, without having to sit and watch them and work may way up the list of warnings. In that respect I do not follow policy, I follow common sense.

(By the way, this is what I mean when I say 4im is successful: See my warning here and their edits here. ALI ^{nom nom} 23:18, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

(moved from section)

hello. thanjs for moving my disscusion to the correct article. i would like if you could please support me in my campaighn for adminship. Bminer1397 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bminer1397 (talk • contribs) 15:35, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

i am using the recemended link to better myself. i have not found an adopter yet but i only recently posted. Thanks. Sorry about placing my comments in the wrong section but i could not find a space anywhere else.

                            Bminer1397  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bminer1397 (talk • contribs) 17:50, 2 March 2010 (UTC) 

Wikicookie!

I hereby award you a Wikicookie for receiving and giving so many barnstars! Yay!

70.171.224.249 (talk) 22:21, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Ommed and nommed! T'was delicious. Yay, thank you! ALI ^{nom nom} 22:55, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Only warning

Isn't this overkill? It was a single edit and was just a silly tribute to a girl. Though not what we're here for, I think just a CSD tagging notice would have sufficed, or a most a level 1 warning. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 01:47, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

No Prob. Dlohcierekim 02:04, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

John Patrick Bedell Pentagon Shooting

Hello "A little insignificant" or (ALI?)
Thanks for warning that vandal.(71.56.134.189)
Now another, 97.119.97.118 is adding stuff from blogs. I have removed once, they have now restored it.DIFF
Not sure about it, but if you could have a look? Thanks!
Had a quick peek back. Someone may have beat you to it! : ) --220.101.28.25 (talk) 19:00, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Michael Peter Woroniecki

I'm concerned about Joshua Woroniecki's edits to his father's biographical page. In the process of many justifiable edits he has removed clearly and reliably sourced "contentious" material. O'Malley's conclusion of her chapter 8 on Woroniecki and his influence was removed. It highlighted Woroniecki's belief that he and his family are very narrow in their thinking about how many peope will be saved from hell. This had a detrimental effect on Yates, she concluded, and possibly led her to ruin, she said. he also removed the sourced fact that he believes he and his family are likely the only 8 people saved that he knows about. This is brought out on O'Malley p.109 as well. A college article substantiated what O"malley reliably stated in her book. That source was removed too.

He removed the reliably sourced characterizations O'Malley made concerning her research into W's education and career failures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.251.183.240 (talk) 02:07, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

He removed "cultlike and dangerous" from the lead text which was languaged used in the articles cited, and only mentioned that he removed an unsourced paragraph which clearly was sourced. This is a clever stealth edit.

He removed a quote from a newspaper that documented the exact hopelessness and despair that characterizes their teaching and was pointed out by O'malley as having a severe effect on Yates (p.109).

The sources from the Grand Rapids Newspaper that supported Woroniecki's history and expulsion from Grand Rapids, his return to preach there in violation of his agreement to leave the city was also compromised, despite the many good sources provided. Any citations to Grand Rapids papers must be reinstalled and if the text is appropriate to the article, restored or revised, not deleted.

The video that was archived by the Texas Courts was referenced in a picture that he also deleted saying it was "irrelevant". They are likely trying to remove evidence that the video even existed. Out of sight out of mind.

Do not allow JW to classify his father as a non-public person. This man is an open air preacher that has been in and out of the news whether in print, radio or television since 1980. His publicity (not his "Non-publicity") more recently has been about his negative ministerial influence on Yates. That is the exact characterization the media has made, yet JW deleted that adjective from the article too. He is using the classification of non-public person to qualify him under certain wikipedia rules that work to his agenda's advantage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.251.183.240 (talk) 01:43, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

The family has gone too far. To allow these vandalistic edits to go unnoticed is a crime to the better part of this article. You shouldn't allow it. You might as well let Scientology back on Wikipedia if you allow this family to vandalize the most reliable documents and statements of this story.

Also, JW's reaching accusation that only one person has been editing this article over 6 years under various IPs and sockpuppets should be stricken on the basis it is pure speculation.

I would prefer that the changes be revoked and someone like you rather than someone like Woroniecki's son access the article and revise it. There is clearly too much accurate information and reliable sourcing being lost because of a reckless Woroniecki family agenda which is bent on undermining the press against them.71.251.183.240 (talk) 23:54, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The Woroniecki's like Scientology cannot be trusted to revise pages about them. A third party must be employed. The page must be revised until neutrality is resolved and the page closely watched for future edits. The Woronieckis recently were found in violation of self promotion and conflict of interest in the creation of a page about their family on Spanish Wikipedia under the article Woroniecki They deleted the promotion template and were severely warned against vandalism. Usaurio: ReporteraRed (A Woroniecki sockpuppet). Their page was deleted after attempting to solicit private recourse through email instead of appropriately on the discussion page or talk page. This was documented on the talk page of usuario: Sarah W. Sarah W. Discussion page 71.251.183.240 (talk) 00:20, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

In response to your comment on the talk page of this IP-- I surrendered the article to third parties yesterday. I will no longer be making edits. My hope was that any errors made by 3rd parties would be inadvertent, not based on an agenda, but private conversations user: Kevin is having with JW destroyed any confidence I had that the edits wouldn't become biased through silent manipulation. Then JW came on and ripped the article to shreds without engaging first in neutrality discussion because he wasn't satisfied they were happening fast enough, citing rules he only sees from his point of view and subverts with a falacious wiki characterization of his father--non-public person.

I prefer that you revoke his edits on HIS admission that he was biased (as revealed by Kevin who said he was in email discourse with JW) and step back earlier to the time even before Kevin, who inadvertently deleted many legitimate citations as well because they were adjacent to links of now dead personal pages (documentation sources not opinions), then carefully remove personal page links without removing corresponding legitimate citations those links were intended to verify. Then carefully scrutinize text for non-encyclopedic language and revise, not delete, relevant material that is reliably sourced, more notably O'Malley's and Spencer's research, ABC, Grand Rapids Press and many university papers that reported on his events. Woroniecki's message and it's characterization by O'Malley and Spencer is VERY relevant to how that affected Yates. O'Malley's book "Are You There Alone" is accessible through Google Books. Most pages can be reviewed there, Same with Spencer's Breaking Point. Many of the college papers are still available online. If the verification link is broken, use archive.org to examine an archived copy of the link if needed. Terms like "cult" and "dangerous" and "negative" can be found in the articles sourced. Eaglizard was the one who made the lead paragraph sentence, not me. Yes it's true, there is more than one person editing this article, contrary to the wild speculations of the Woroniecki son.

I've stepped out of this editing process. I hope JW and his family will see the sensibility of doing the same.71.251.183.240 (talk) 03:22, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't concern yourself with the raise the mother from the dead thing. That wasn't sourced. It was on a primary source, but that was never cited. My primary concern is with the material he is deleting about his father's beliefs and characterizations of his teachings and influence on Yates made by prominent researchers of this story.71.251.183.240 (talk) 05:10, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

The following citations supported the use of words describing Woroniecki's "obnoxious, beligerent evangelical style", yet Joshua removed those adjectives and substituted "controversial" in its place in blatant disregard of the sources.

^ Suzanne O'Malley, Are You There Alone? The Unspeakable Crime of Andrea Yates, Simon and Schuster, c. 2004, p. 106; Tanda Gmiter, Ken Kolker, Did Preacher Sway Texas Mom? Grand Rapids Press, Januart 23, 2002 Article; Steve Grinczel, Woman Prefers to See Street Preacher Tried, Grand Rapids Press, October 12, 1981

This article linked below supports the article cited in the opening sentence that contained the language "obnoxious"/"belligerent evangelical style". That was removed by Joshua on the basis it's hard to check old newspapers from 1981. You can see the 2002 article that repeats the language from the 1981 paper that was removed and the word "controversial" was left in place.

http://www.apologeticsindex.org/news2/an020124-08.html

The article reads: "While his belligerent evangelical style had some supporters, others complained it was ear-splitting and obnoxious."

The article is from the Grand Rapids Press, and it is verified at the link above. It was originally cited as the support text.

The other Grand Rapids Press article is about a woman who was harrassed by Woroniecki in 1980. The original citation has that two officers witnessed him in pursuit following the woman for almost two city blocks, "accosting" her verbally as she tried to walk away, breaking into tears, so they arrested him. This incident was reported in the article with the same citation and I believe it is removed now as well. This was the trial coming up on Monday Oct 5, 1981, that Woroniecki finally agreed on Friday Oct 3, 1981 to leave town if the city dropped all charges against him. The citation in the article had more information about this that I alluded to. The date given as Oct 5, 1981 is actually the court date, not the arrest date:

The last arrest came in October 1981, when Woroniecki was accused of accosting a woman who had gone to the Grand Center to buy tickets for the Shrine Circus. He allegedly told the woman she was a sinner who was going to hell, berating her until she was in tears.

Faced with jail time if convicted, Woroniecki agreed to an offer by the city attorney's office: stop preaching and leave town in exchange for the charges being dropped. The deal ousting Woroniecki from Grand Rapids made national news.

P. 106 by O'Malley was used because the word "arrogance" was used by one of his teachers from Catholic High School to describe his former student's behavior on the streets.

These characterizations are relevant because it highlights his insensitivity in his interactions with Yates, particularly the time in Florida when he confronted her and told her she was "going to hell". She was showing outward signs at the time of becoming run down. In fact, MW turned to her husband at that time and berated him saying,

There was an everyday confrontation and sharing. Just telling him, Rusty, look, you know? Quit being a hypocrite. You know, look at your wife, OK? She needs your love. Where's your love?" --NBC Dateline Interview with Michael Woroniecki

What is even more interesting is Charles Gibson on GMA (Mar 27, 2002) pointing out Mike's insensitivity to Yates regarding her mental condition when he rebuked her. He and his wife then lie and tell everyone that there were no clues to her appearance that suggested she was becoming ill. But Suzy Spencer highlights in her researched book Breaking Point that at this time, everyone concerned in the trailer park they lived at was noticing signs of her becoming "exhausted" (Spencer, 144). When compared to what Woroniecki said above "look at your wife, where is your love?" it makes sense that he was refering to her run down appearance and that Rusty wasn't loving his wife enough.

I am not making these things up to maliciously defame Woroniecki. These are the accurate media portrayals of the preacher. This is the genuine fact of Michael Woroniecki's behavior as reported in quality media sources. They stand regardless of any ad hominem attack (i.e. "Cyber Bully") the Woroniecki family musters.72.64.46.234 (talk) 14:54, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

You said: Check out the talk page of the article. Urgh... I need to turn this over to someone else, have them review JW's actions and act appropriately. (Virgina, right? :D) ALI ^{nom nom} 15:08, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

The proxy server of my internet provider which rotates IPs is located in VA for the entire US customer base.

I'm really tired of this. I'd like to see the article retain its media accuracy. Granted there several non-encyclopedic or properly sourced entries, but so much legitimate sourcing and text has been flushed out with those in clever stealth edits. I honestly think this is going to turn into a Scientology full scale edit war or discussion war, if you will, and I have better things to do with my life. I have already relinquished edits to third parties. Now the discussion with its "cyber bully" defamations from JW and snubs from Kevin, who is admittedly in private discourse with JW and was originally solicited by them to edit the page, is really starting to become a drag. It is unfortunate that people will be picking this article to death without a comprehensive understanding of the story. So much will be lost for that one fact alone because the media's reporting was very negative toward Woroniecki, and at first glance, that presentation doesn't seem encyclopedic. If push comes to shove on the old Grand Rapids Press articles, consider that they are available from Grand Rapids Central Library, and that they are verifiable despite JW's assertion that they probably aren't--wishful thinking. There are also some copies online at apologeticsindex dot org under Michael Peter Woroniecki, and I believe there are a couple at RickRoss dot com. All of the GRP articles were formerly on line at an ex-follower archive, but the AOL hometown community was shut down in 2008 when AOL discontinued hosting websites. Woroniecki's blog, the only external link at the bottom of the page now, highlights Woroniecki accusing this cyber bully of having lost his AOL account due to his reckless defamations, and that wasn't the case. What a twisted irrational world it is ALI. I envy the dead.72.64.46.234 (talk) 15:48, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Two 1981 and two 1983 Grand Rapids Articles in Woroniecki Dispute

This is an article cited in the lead paragraph that highlights his "belligerent" (Exact word used in a 2002 article mentioned in section above) preaching style and reveals he followed and harrassed a woman to tears according to two police officers who witnessed this event and arrested him. Woroniecki feared he would go to jail so he offered a deal which the city accepted. The last sentence is key to understanding why the dispute is even taking place now. Please delete this if copyright is a concern, but save a copy for yourself for reference.

Woman Prefers to See Street Preacher Tried Steve Grinczel The Grand Rapids Press October 12, 1981

Boisterous street evangelist Michael Woroniecki hasn’t even left town yet, and a Kentwood woman misses him already.

The informal deal Woroniecki claims he made with the city attorney’s office—to leave Grand Rapids in exchange for dismissal of pending court charges—angered Janice VandenHoek, 31 of 4885 Marshall Ave SE.

VandenHoek isn’t interested in defending the controversial evangelist, who has admonished people for their sinful ways at nearly every notable event in Grand Rapids in the last 1-1/2-years.

Rather, VandenHoek, who alleges she was harassed by Woroniecki in January, wanted to put the preacher on the defensive in the Grand Rapids District courtroom.

“I wasn’t in on the deal,” said Vandenhoek. “I guess they’re really not my charges but the city’s charges.

“I didn’t get my fair day in court.”

Woroniecki, 27, has six charges—primarily disorderly conduct—pending against him. In previous cases, he has been convicted twice and acquitted once; another trial ended with a hung jury.

Fearing he would end up in jail, Woroniecki decided he would be better off moving to Atlanta in a couple of weeks. In return, the City Attorney’s office is “considering” dropping the remaining charges.

Downtown merchants and pedestrians have complained about Woroniecki’s loud, brash and frequently insulting sermons.

VandenHoek, who said she is a “Bible-believing Christian,” was planning to appear in court Oct. 5 when her case against Woroniecki was to begin.

“They (court personnel) called on Friday just before and they said the city attorney made a deal with Michael and there would be no charges,” she said. “I said, that’s fine for Mike, but he violated my civil rights.”

VandenHoek said she was accosted by Woroniecki while waiting for her husband to pick her up after buying tickets for the Shrine Circus at Grand Center.

“Michael was telling everyone to sell their televisions, and that everyone going to the circus was a sinner,” VandenHoek said. For some reason, Woroniecki singled VandenHoek out.

“He told me I’m going to Hell and to lay down my monetary possessions,” she said. “Finally I got to the point where I was in tears.

He said he was going to vomit me out of his mouth, or something like that, and that I was a wishy, washy Christian and he wanted me to pick up the cross.

“I said, ‘Hey, don’t bother me.’ I walked in the opposite direction and he followed me.”

VandenHoek said Woroniecki followed her all the way to Monroe Avenue and Lyon Street where two police officers saw him and arrested him on the spot.

The confrontation with Woroniecki brought back bitter memories of VandenHoek’s former husband who had similar, staunch fundamentalist beliefs.

“My daughter’s biological father literally tried to beat the devil out of her 4½-years ago, “ she said. “It was a reminder and the fear rushed in; this could happen to me.

“My daughter (who is now 9,) was not with me, fortunately, but she does have occasion, such as the Santa Claus parade, to run into Mike Woroniecki and his followers. It has a real emotional effect on her.”

VandenHoek said she could pursue Woroniecki in a civil suit but isn’t sure she would even be able to collect damages because Woroniecki is impoverished.

“I think the Christians of this town are going to be glad he is going,” she said. “I wish he could have stayed so I could have said what I wanted to say.

“I wanted to say that he was doing more to hurt the cause (for Jesus Christ) than to help. He doesn’t tell you how (to be a good Christian), he just tells you how to go to Hell.

“It seems like Mike can say whatever he wants, but nobody else can say what they want to say about this guy.”

Here is another article that supports some deleted content in the article:

Lifelong Friend Looks at How Street Preacher Changed Steve Grinczel The Grand Rapids Press June 6, 1981

Editor’s Note: Mike Woroniecki has been canvassing Grand Rapids’ streets for the past year spreading the word of God, but in a manner which many passersby find repulsive. Press reporter Steve Grinczel, who grew up with him, interviewed Woroniecki, reflecting on their childhood and giving an insight into the street preacher’s beliefs.

One un-amplified but nonetheless powerful voice will compete for attention with buffalo meat sandwiches and stage players at Festival ’81 this weekend.

Mike Woroniecki’s act hasn’t been booked to appear on center stage by the Festival Committee. In fact, he won’t even be acting. The ragtag evangelist sincerely believes in what he says, and he undoubtedly will make many of the half million people expected to show up at Calder Plaza uncomfortable with his preachings.

Some will comment with disgust from the sides of their mouths about Woroniecki’s loud pontifications. Others will ridicule him for being a biblical eccentric. Only a few will listen to his message with respect.

The police have been instructed to arrest this extreme fundamentalist preacher (deleted adjective from article) only after he has been given a warning for being too disturbing and only after two people say they are willing to appear in court to testify, after placing their hand on the Bible Woroniecki can quote in a second’s notice, that he’s a public nuisance.

Those of us who have known Woroniecki will probably feel embarrassment. He’s not the same person we remember at West Catholic High School or St. Adalbert’s Elementary School.

His first salutation to someone he hasn’t seen for a while won’t be “Hi, how are you? It will be something like “Barb, you can’t go on living the way you do. You have to give up your life for Jesus.”

I’ll admit, the new Woroniecki took me off guard the first time I saw and heard him in action on Monroe Mall last winter. It seemed as though he was basically the same egomaniac trying to be the center of attention. Only now, instead of being destructive, he was using the guise of a holy man. (Steve was onto something here)

His voice, which always sounded like two steel plates rubbing together, slashed the still December night.

In a way, it hurt to listen to bystanders remark on what a nut my friend was. On the other hand, I really didn’t condone what he was doing. Like the time as 11 year olds, when I couldn’t jump after him from the roof of his parent’s garage on Lake Michigan Drive, I wasn’t ready to follow him downtown either.

I’m afraid our spiritual philosophies still differed the sunny afternoon we talked on the corner of Monroe and Michigan, the heavy timber cross he drags through downtown hovering above my head, and more recently when we talked over the telephone.

But conversing with him one to one, no shouting and no condemnations, I became reacquainted with someone I had known since we were first graders. It wasn’t a bad experience.

He wasn’t the same intimidating figure that gave the nuns such a hard time in grade school. He wasn’t the same arrogant, muscle bound hulk whose slow, deliberate walk down the school hallways seemed to say “Look at me, I’m cool.”

He surely wasn’t the same Central Michigan University sophomore who tried to expand his dorm room by knocking a hole through the cinderblock wall. (biographical fact from his college days explaining his "Crazy War" nickname deleted from article) Or the same one who would “borrow” a pizza delivery man’s car and eat all the night’s orders before abandoning the vehicle behind a tavern. (believed to be deleted from article)(Steve surmised above, only his outward approach to feeding his ego changed)

Woroniecki, 27, his blond hair thinning and his face gaunt, is, as he says, a dead man – devoid of all earthly aspirations other than to serve Jesus.

While standing on the corner, a young passenger in a passing car yells, “Hey, I’d be happy to nail you to that cross.”

Such vented anger is common to Woroniecki, who says he’s been spit at, punched and mocked since returning to what he calls “the city of churches” to preach about a year ago. Since then he has been arrested and thrown in jail, publicized and criticized for pushing the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech to its limits.

Given the chance to speak rationally, Woroniecki is a fascinating person.

“I see the hatred,” He says. “People get down on me. They say it’s my techniques or methods. But it’s what I’m saying that bothers them. I just love him. I want to preach him.”

Sometimes it’s a bummer. I get depressed a lot. The world basically hates (Jesus) and they’ll hate you (for preaching Him) like they hate Him. But it’s a blessing.”

“Do you ever talk about anything other than Jesus?” I ask.

After a short pause and thoughtful glance, the answer is “No.”

“He’s the only one I talk about because that’s all there is. All I can do is live for Him. Of course, I have to talk about practical things, just like anyone else.”

Woroniecki began his journey to become an evangelist while still in college. He was influenced by the Charismatic movement and even taped a cross on his football helmet. Nagging injuries kept him from ever developing into a prominent football player and he interpreted that as a message from God.

After graduating from college, he tried to become a Franciscan and a Dominican – the order of preachers – priest. Both orders rejected him for being overly zealous. (deleted from article, also supported by O'Malley on p.104)

I wanted to preach Jesus, not their sacraments and rituals,” Woroniecki says. “At that time, I didn’t really understand the full revelation of the Bible. I understand now. It was God protecting and leading me.

Woroniecki went to school in California to further his Charismatic education, which he says is not as significant as the development of his personal relationship with God. He returned to Grand Rapids to preach “The Word.”

Woroniecki’s views of topical things is quite interesting.

His father – Woroniecki says his father, who is a devout Catholic, will certainly go to hell if he does not renounce his religion[9] and become born again. “It grieves me,” he says. “I witness to him all the time. He thinks his religion is going to save him. Jesus clearly says you must be born again. It’s not a matter of sacraments and rituals and being a good guy.” His mother, a born again Christian, died and went to Heaven, Woroniecki joyfully hails. (He renounced this belief in 1996 to a man who married his niece Kathy--O'Malley mentions his mother as a "maybe" not a certainty in her book on p.109)

Television evangelists – “It’s the American sensationalist gospel that has no price tag to it. They change the word ‘materialism’ by calling it ‘prosperity.’ They say, ‘Well, God wants to give you everything you want.’ That’s an abomination. You have to give up everything. God’s not some granddaddy in the sky giving into lustful desires.”

Careers – To truly be born again, people must give up all their worldly possessions, and all sinful desires, he says. “Jesus calls on you to lose you life. You can’t serve two masters.” (Can't have a career and be a Christian, cited in the article, might be deleted on basis it came from a college paper but is supported as well on p.105 of O'Malley)

Athletics – Woroniecki, a former All-City football player, no longer has anything to do with sports. He was at the Old Kent River Bank run telling competitors they were running for vanity’s sake. Yet he says, “I loved football. It was my idol. I learned a driving discipline.” He now focuses that discipline he developed to serve Jesus.

False prophets – The Bible says beware of them. Woroniecki says he’s not one of them. “You have to examine what I am saying and what is in the Bible and if (what I am saying) is consistent or inconsistent.

Woroniecki has no church, but he belongs to what he calls a fellowship of about 10 devotees (“Please don’t call them followers,” he says). Two, Greg Kowalczyk and Leonard Karpowicz, are old school chums. (Rejected by churches and priesthoods, O'Malley agrees on p.105, he started his own church. This supports the description of "unordained" in any church, which was deleted from the article by JW)

Woroniecki, husband and father, has fasted and prayed for God’s judgment on Festival, another thing he calls “an abomination.”

“You see the exact same kind of things happen in the time of Noah,” Woroniecki says. “Jesus says they wouldn’t listen because they were eating and drinking and partying. They were so caught up in secular activities, they couldn’t hear the judgment of God.”

Whenever I part company with Woroniecki, after bumping into him in the street at the Hall of Justice or talking to him on the phone, he says he’ll pray for me.

I hope he feels the same way after he sees me biting into a Buffalo Joe sandwich at the festival. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.64.46.234 (talk) 19:41, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Here are two articles that were citing relavent history of Mike's preaching career in Grand Rapids, but it was deleted by Joshua. You can kind of see how he set up a snub for the city. He offered a plea that he would leave Grand Rapids in exchange for the 10 charges being dropped. 1-1/2 years later, he comes back and cites an old "rule" that the police were requested by the Attorney to abide by for arresting MW. Mike's mistake was thinking leniency was the law. His rational was that he had "get out of jail free card"--he could violate his plea agreement--cite the old "rule" --then leave town, doing a chuckle Santa Claus style. In a way, it's sort of a childish rasberry launched at the City Attorney--from a 29 year old. He was arrested and fined $105, after returning to preach in violation of his plea agreement. I think the key in understanding what he was think is based on what he was thinking, he said he didn't expect to be arrested (despite blatantly violating his agreement).

Street Preacher Pays Fine and Moves On in Search of Respect Mike Woroniecki’s Return Home Was Marred by His Arrest at Festival ‘83

Julie Ridenour Grand Rapids Press June 8, 1983

Street Preacher Mike Woroniecki has a biblical answer for his repeated encounters with the law in his hometown.

“The Bible says, “A prophet is not without honor except in his own hometown,” Woroniecki said, paraphrasing a Bible verse.

Woroniecki plans to leave Grand Rapids today for parts unknown to continue the traveling ministry he began nearly two years ago when at his suggestion, the Grand Rapids city attorney agreed to drop six charges against him if he left town.

Woroniecki returned to Grand Rapids approximately two weeks ago, and kept a low profile preparing “gospel tracts” until Saturday, when he visited Festival ’83 with his nine-foot wooden cross.

According to police reports, Woroniecki was arrested Saturday evening for creating a disturbance when he interrupted mimist Ron Reider with his “continual verbal harassment.” Woroniecki’s response to arresting officers Sgts. Michael Lennon and Larry Irons, was that they “couldn’t arrest him without warning him first, and that he (Woroniecki) would leave if asked to.”

Police hauled Woroniecki and his large wooden cross to the Hall of Justice, where the street preacher posted $100 bond and was told to return to court Monday.

The traveling minister pleaded no contest Monday to the charge of creating a disturbance and was fined $105 by Grand Rapids District Court Judge Carol S. Irons.

Woroniecki has a different version of the events that led to his arrest.

“I was just preaching the word when he (Reider) came out of the crowd to mock me. He lost his crowd when I started to preach,” the street preacher said.

Woroniecki contends he never expected to be arrested Saturday.

“If I‘d known I would, I would have not gone down there,” he said.

The city kept Woroniecki’s cross, he said. “I’ve lost a few…I thought I’d leave it as a very costly gift to Grand Rapids.”

Woroniecki doesn’t have hard feelings about his numerous arrests for disorderly conduct in his hometown.

“Mercy triumphs over judgment, the scriptures say. If I didn’t have mercy and love in my heart, I wouldn’t have been out there (Saturday).”

Chilly Morning Didn’t Stop Festival Dancers

Matt Gryczan Grand Rapids Press June 5, 1983

<snip>…While Festival ’83 was a celebration of the arts, it was not without some touches of religion and politics.

Street preacher Mike Woroniecki was back and spent part of his day in the Hall of Justice.

Police said Woroniecki was arrested Saturday afternoon and charged with creating a disturbance. He posted a $100 bond and will be arraigned in 61st District Court on Monday according to police.

Woroniecki had been shouting admonitions to the crowd in Calder Plaza while holding a Bible in one hand and a nine-foot cross fashioned from 2 by 6-inch boards in the other.

Festival goers would listen to Woroniecki for a few moments.

Few stayed long to hear his message.

After about a year of street preaching and several arrests for disturbing the peace, Woroniecki made an agreement in October 1981 with the Grand Rapids city attorney’s office that all charges would be dropped if he left town.

During his exodus, Woroniecki said he visited New Orleans at Mardi Gras, Port Aransas, Tex., and college football bowl games. The 29-year-old preacher said he does not plan to stay in Grand Rapids long…<snip> 72.64.46.234 (talk) 20:33, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

IP Editor

Oh, I see what he meant. Lay off of me, haha. Got it.

Comparison

You are reading too much into my hitler ted bundy statement. That isn't fair to me. Making it a comparison is something only you are responsible for. The context is JW said it's been 9 years since the Andrea Yates story, why is he still continuing this agenda? It's old! There is no reason to keep talking about it! And I pointed out that people are fascinated with pathological individuals. Hitler happened in 1932-45. Yet people are still talking about him. Ted Bundy happened in the 70's and people are still talking about him. Woroniecki happened in 1981 and 2002, but Grand Rapids Press is still talking about him. Extremist Street Preacher is Still At It . You simply read too much into that statement. I was defending my position as to why people are still talking about him, not making an attack. The worst you can get out of that statement is that I said Woroniecki is pathological which is suggested by O'Malley and Spencer. A lot of people believe that. That's why it is newsworthy.

As for Offtoriorob, if you will look at his edits, you will see he deleted several high quality news articles as citations recently simply because verification copies of the articles were linked at rickross.com. The citations are high quality sources whether they are on rickross or not. Delete the link to the cult site, but not the newspaper footnotes! How reckless! This is exactly the thing I complained to Kevin about and he has ignored me as well. he is allowing his emotions to interfere with his judgment. Many reliable sources have been deleted through this mistake, and the text behind them will soon vanish as a result. I pointed this out to both of them but they didn't restore the citations. understand my frustration here. It is ridiculous.

I'm tired of this as I said. I know I can't win against people who are getting emotional over this. That kind of hopelessness is frustrating. Don't allow your emotions to control your judgment like a cop who works outside the law to serve justice. Circumstantial evidence is no basis for judgment. You do not understand what you are dealing with here. I believe this man is dangerous, the media is aware of it, the cult sites are aware of it, psychology and psychiatry experts are aware of it and you will be watering down accurate reporting and facilitating their facade if you allow these careless citation edits that I mentioned to stand.72.64.40.60 (talk) 15:39, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say Woroniecki was "a" Hitler. I said people have a fascination with people with pathological traits and cited examples of people that are still talked about to refute the idea that 9 years means no one should be talking about MW anymore. You have lost touch with reason.71.251.179.222 (talk) 18:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Portknockie vandalism

Thanks for watching the Portknockie article. It seems as if the same person is vandalising the article from several different computers. It's not frequent, but it is persistent.--MacRusgail (talk) 15:00, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

March 2010

Related edit

No, Excirial, that wasn't vandalism. That was a mistake on my part, and I was trying to restore it, but the edit conflicts... My bad. Sorry for interrupting your work. ALI ^{nom nom} 14:02, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

No problem at all, mistakes can always occur. Just look at my edit history, and you will see a couple of bad reverts as well :). Besides, reverting it only took half a second. And the timing couldn't have been better, because it seems we actually have an overcapacity of patrols today. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 14:15, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Ha! That's a first. Good to see it. Well, keep up the good work- I'm off. ALI nom nom 14:15, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you could take action against user 99.158.165.209, who vandalized Natural logarithm earlier today (I just undid it), and to whom you gave a final warning earlier this month. Thanks. --Glenn L (talk) 21:25, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Stub Sorting.

Hello A little insignificant,

I noticed you marked an article as a stub using the {{stub}} template. Did you know that there are thousands of stub types that you can use to clarify what type of stub the article is? Properly categorizing stubs is important to the Wikipedia community because it helps various WikiProjects to identify articles that need expansion.

If you have questions about stub sorting, don't hesitate to ask! There is a wealth of stub information on the stub sorting WikiProject, and hundreds of stub sorters. Thanks! This was for Helme, West Yorkshire. Keep up the positive contributions! ^Avicenna_sis @ 20:33, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, A little insignificant. You have new messages at WP:AIV.
Message added 17:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

In two sections Dusti^SPEAK!! 17:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Final warnings?

Hi there, there was a little discussion going on at WP:AIV about the 4im warnings you've been handing out. I just think it's a little excessive for an IP's first vandalism; warnings are supposed to be incremental. Would you mind removing that warning on User talk:199.164.68.146? In User:Tnxman307words, "While I definitely appreciate ALI's vandalism fighting efforts, a 4IM here is using a Buick to swat a mosquito." Thanks for your time and contributions. —Mono·nomic 16:27, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I missed that discussion, but was just coming here about the same issue. I also appreciate your vandal-fighting efforts, but level 4im warnings are appropriate for severe vandalism and defamation only, not for typical vandalism like this. Yes it is obnoxious, but it doesn't rise to the level of "severe vandalism," especially as the IP is likely a shared address. Keep up the good work, but please back off a bit on the warnings. Thanks —DoRD (talk) 17:36, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe that was the only "only" warning I have issued for while now, and I did so because I believed the vandalism was ugly and disgusting and warranted it. I feel it's a little ironic that, having finally succumbed to these complaints and made the changes to my vandal-fighting style, this bloody thing crops up again.

Talkback

Hello, A little insignificant. You have new messages at Mononomic's talk page.
Message added 16:48, 25 March 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hope my advice is useful. Cheers! —Mono·nomic 16:48, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:A little insignificant/hidden page

User:A little insignificant/hidden page, 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:A little insignificant/hidden page and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:A little insignificant/hidden page 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. Cunard (talk) 04:39, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

I have received SPAM with your name on it citing Ali Spears or some such person of no import. I believe SPAM is illegal under Federal law and carries stipulated penalties. Please stop. If you know everyone you send e-mails to, please disregard. If you send e-mails blindly without knowing where they are going you are sending SPAM. It may make things simplere for you but carries penalties.

Hello, A little insignificant. You have new messages at Avicennasis's talk page.
Message added 20:19, 6 April 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

^Avicenna_sis @ 20:19, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Well I came from

Hello and thank you! :D To let you know, I've done a lot of anti-vandal patrolling last year before taking a break, I'm now back on it. And my return compliments to you, great job. QueenCake (talk) 20:03, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

I received SPAM from you regarding Ali Speras or some such person of no import. I believe SPAM is illegal under US law and carries stipulated monetary penalties. If you know who you send e-mails to, please disregard. If you do not please stop - Your convenience in using mass e-mailings is not a good excuse for that practice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hkerfoot (talk • contribs) 17:03, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello, A little insignificant. You have new messages at Hi878's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hi878 (talk) 03:19, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello, A little insignificant. You have new messages at Hi878's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Me again. :P Hi878 (talk) 17:57, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I got an e-mail from Wikipedia, triggered by you, about so-called "vandalism". It was sent out without an addressee and therefore constitutes spam or junk e-mail. The hallowed 'Wikipedia' is no excuse for spam! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hkerfoot (talk • contribs) 14:22, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

On vandalism only accounts

As Peter (talk · contribs) blanked the discussion without bothering to transfer it elsewhere, you may have missed my reply to your question: "Is there any reason to suppose that the account will make constructive edits? It is probably a throw away account designed to cause disruption, but needed to be blocked as soon as it was raised here to limit potential damage. Sure, it stopped, but there was no guarantee it would and issuing a warning merely gave the account more time for vandalism. With what was clearly a one purpose account meant it should have been a straight forward block without unnecessary hand-wringing over whether we gave the person enough warnings. Nev1 (talk) 6:35 pm, Today (UTC+1)" Nev1 (talk) 17:46, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you that the account hadn't done anything constructive, and there's no way to know what they would have done later. But there were a couple of problems with blocking: the account had stopped at the second warning and has not edited since.

"A block is intended to be a preventative action, not a punishment." That's how it was explained to me. I'll admit it doesn't really work out that way, but unless we think the account will continue to vandalize unless blocked, we can't. ALI ^{nom nom} 21:18, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Your speedy deletion tag to Panda Day

The speedy deletion tag you put on this article was removed by me, because it is not a hoax. I made a Google search on this article to show whether this day exists or not, and there are a couple of sites which show that Panda Day is on April 16th. Minimac (talk) 16:46, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

327 results. Yeah, I know. I did the check. But a "holiday" like this falls into the same category as "Hug a Russian Day"- it's not an actual holiday. I suppose the more relevant tag for it would be WP:MADEUP. I should have tagged it with that, rather than as a hoax. ALI ^{nom nom} 16:50, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion for I Guess This is Goodbye (Desperate Housewives)?

Hi, ALI.

I got your message about your speedy deletion nomination for I Guess This is Goodbye (Desperate Housewives). But I don't know why it should be deleted. It's a page for an episode of Desperate Housewives that is yet to air. I think it's a page that can inform fans more about the episode. I don't see what the big deal is. I'm sorry if I sound rude, that's not my intention. ;)

-Manar —Preceding unsigned comment added by DesperateManar (talk • contribs) 17:32, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Reply

Please, don't worry about. ;) It's totally okay. And I get what you're saying about the speculations. Although the one I posted does have a source, I guess I should take it out, since I think it might ruin for some fans who'd rather be surprised.

Thanks, again, ALI. :D

Oh, ok. Well I guess I'll put it up later. I do have a source, fortunately. :) Thanks again for your help. :D

I gotta ask, are you fan of Desperate Housewives? :)

-Manar —Preceding unsigned comment added by DesperateManar (talk • contribs) 18:08, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

-Manar —Preceding unsigned comment added by DesperateManar (talk • contribs) 17:56, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Haha, well obviously I'm a huge (x100) fan. :P Once again, thank you for informing me. :)

--DesperateManar (talk) 18:19, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

User:VerballyInsane/TB VerballyInsane^t|c 20:08, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion converted to PROD: The paratrooper

Hello A little insignificant. I am just letting you know that I have converted the speedy deletion tag that you placed on The paratrooper to a proposed deletion tag, because I do not believe CSD applies to the page in question. Thank you. GedUK  20:43, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify, A7 only applies to real people, animals etc, not fictional ones. GedUK  20:44, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, it is a comic. Nevertheless, unless it's a webcomic, and I don't think it is, A7 doesn't apply to books and publications. GedUK  08:20, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Webutation

Hello A little insignificant, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Webutation has been removed. It was removed by UninvitedCompany with the following edit summary '(rm prod, article was previously deleted and is therefore ineligible)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with UninvitedCompany before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 08:36, 28 April 2010 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages) 08:36, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Greece is in PIGS

Why do you insist on removing this without comment?? Why?? PIIGS is a real article!! I didn't write it. The Greece article says "Greece, Portugal, Spain and other countries", the EXACT countries described as PIGS. I link to an existing article that's relevant, you call me a vandal and revert?? I post a response to your accusations on your talk page, you remove it! My god man! --38.126.215.45 (talk) 15:56, 28 April 2010 (UTC)