User talk:Andrew Norman

This is the best way to communicate with me. I respond to comments here, not on the other user's talk page, to keep both sides of a discussion in the same place. Add a new section

If you're here to complain that I have "vandalised" your user page by removing a userbox which expressed your opinion on a political matter, there is discussion on the administrators' noticeboard, and you have the right to follow the usual dispute resolution processes. I'm not going to debate the matter here.

Archives

1. Archive 1 (up to June 2005)
2. Archive 2 (up to Dec 2005)
3. Archive 3 (up to June 2006)

Reverted

I have reverted you're recent edits to userpages stating "removing various userboxes". I think the request on WP:AN/I in which said to depopulate the deleted category, does not require you to remove the userbox. It only requires removing the category itself. If you would like for me to remove them from the category, I will assist you in doing so. — The King of Kings 00:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, since I recieved no response, I went ahead and did it myself before I went offline. All the pages I reverted, I went back and depopulated the category by removing the category instead of everything. Cheers! — The King of Kings 01:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to revert any of that, but I think it was wrong. There's nothing in Wikipedia policy to say that people are allowed or encouraged to make inflammatory statements on their user pages, or that others can't remove such statements. --ajn (talk) 09:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there's nothing in Wikipedia policy to say that people are not allowed to make inflammatory statements on their user pages, or that others may remove such statements. It's only disruption which is prohibited, which is your fault. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 13:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm

OK, fine, unlock my user page, I DID NOT PUT THAT BANNER ON THERE, the user that put it there is BOCKED, why should I be punished as well? When he added it, I ONLY placed it on the bottom of the page! If you unlock my page I won't put it back, cuz I know you'll just lock it up again, I'm not stupid. You have nothing to lose, just unlock my page, please. -- serbiana - talk 00:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

MichaelIsGreat

Hello. I was just about to cut short this dreadful waste of everyone's time by permanently blocking MichaelIsGreat for exhausting the community's patience. Would you object? --RobertG ♬ talk 09:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Not in the slightest, but I suspect he'll just pop up again under another name. --ajn (talk) 10:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's a point, you're probably right there. Mutze seems to be trying to get him onside; I'll give that a chance, and perhaps implement a permablock later if there really is obviously no hope of progress. Thanks! --RobertG ♬ talk 10:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks for your support. --RobertG ♬ talk 13:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

It is great to see that Wikipedia's admins are as active and as reasonable as this issue has shown. I hope this will put the matter behind us, particularly because many people will now be watching the Bösendorfer and the player piano articles. My best wishes to both of you! Mütze 13:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Being a war refugee myself, I can't see why we should tolerate people making political statements, which are divisive and inflammatory, whether pro or against or whatever. This is an encyclopedia not a battleground. They'd attack me for "censoring" or "violating freedom of speech", but I know it's the right thing to do. Once all divisive userboxes are gone, people may look at each other as what we truly are, human beings. Best wishes, TheCooler

Gibraltar

Hello Norman:

I would like to ask you a favour. Could you please have a look at the talk page and history of the article on Gibraltar. Over the past few months a number of users, including myself, have been in conflict with user:Gibnews. We feel he has taken over the page as his pet project and has imposed a NPOV pro-Gibraltarian point of view. I feel his attitude and utter refusal to acheive any form of consensus is contrary to the rules of wikipedia. He accuses everyone of Spanish propaganda even on issues which are not directly related to the Anglo-Spanish dispute over Gibraltar and reverts pretty much everything which is not written by himself. Although I am not Spanish, I sometimes wonder if I may be slightly biased towards the Spanish perspective. I do not however believe that Gibraltar should be Spanish and I try to remain as neutral as possible. I do not have a problem with Gibnew's views. I simply do not approve of his way of discarding other people's sources, opinions etc... You should perhaps consult other users for their opinions such as user:ecemaml and user:asterion.

That is why I ask you, as an English-man, to mediate or atleast give your perspective on this issue.

Please look at the talk page over the past few months. Conflict with user Gibnews seems to go a long way back.

Thankyou very much for your help. We would really appreciate it. There is nothing worse that when articles are hijacked by individuals with political agendas.

--Burgas00 12:56, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

GoldToeMarionette

It does indeed. The part of the arbitration which PoolGuy says "found no violation" is the part he wrote himself, not anything written by the arbitration committee. PoolGuy:

1. Stop putting unblock templates on this page for GoldToeMarionette or any other sock account of yours.
2. Under the terms of your arbitration case, I am banning you from Wikipedia:Requests for page protection.

--ajn (talk) 06:12, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you could talk to me before taking unwarranted Administrative action, I am sorry that you had to come off with such hostility. There is a reason that ArbCom did not write that they didn't find a violation, that is because it did not occur. They should not have to write down everything that did not occur like "PoolGuy blanked the main page." Since that did not occur they do not have to write it down in the findings of fact. They found just two things, one that I created multiple accounts, and Nlu thought it was disruptive. They did not find a policy violation, no one ever has, and therefore the account should be unblocked.

To start over with a more considerate dialogue, I would appreciate if you would unblock GoldToeMarionette, since the account should not have been blocked. If the GoldToeMarionette talk page were unblocked, I could post the request there. Next, please remove your ban of me from the Request for Page Protection Page. I still need to request that my user page be unprotected, because that should not be protected either. The ArbCom did not say that I could not request pages to be unprotected. I was in the middle of a dialogue with another Admin when you banned me. I don't think that is appropriate.

To maintain a considerate dialogue, I would be happy to answer your questions and disuade your false assumptions. Nlu and pgk are more than willing to block, ban, and pursue me. I would appreciate someone were actually willing to assist me and foster a cooperative relationship reather than a hostile one. Thank you. PoolGuy 20:01, 24 June 2006 (UTC)