User:Poorman

"Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of melissadolbeer" does not exist.
Please use this link to create the category page
(The page will be pre-loaded. All you need to do is save it)

Having fun??????????????

Hate to spoil your fun but be careful of Ril!-- Melissa

Authentic Matthew

Yes — I'm afraid he's a loose cannon, to put it mildly. I suspect that, if he doesn't mend his ways pretty quickly, he'll be banned. His actions on this article and Gospel of the Hebrews are contradictory, in fact (see [1]).

By the way, always remember to "sign" your messages (using four tildes: ~~~~; you can just click on the "signature" tab — second from the right of the icons above the editing box); it makes it much easier to find and reply to you. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:08, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

User name Ril confusing

Please note, I am not User:Ril

If you wish to hail abuse at me, please go here

Ril Talk

See his page

Please do not make any more drastic changes to articles when you cannot cite an actual verifiable reference for the things you claim. DreamGuy 17:35, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

No, I definitely wrote them down during lectures, rather than just think I did. I have the notes in front of me. They are very definitely material and existant. ~~~~ 17:39, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No, the point is, you CLAIM to have references, but you didn't supply any. We don;t know if you didn't write the info down properly, if you had a lecturer making things up off the top of his or her head, if they discussed theories that you got into your head as if they were proven facts, or if you invented things on your own. OR, frankly, that you are lying through the skin of your teeth about the whole thing. For the kinds of statements you are adding to these articles, references are absolutely mandatory, and "the dog ate my references" excuse does not cut it. Again, please do not make additions to these articles to the extent you have been without actual REAL references. DreamGuy 05:26, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

I don't have a dog. *-Ril- (talk • contribs) 21:25, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I could, of course, mention hypocrisy, since you made this edit [2], but failed to give sources, for example. ~~~~ 21:33, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And, one final thing, if you check what I did to Bes, it is quite clear that most of the changes were simply re-arrangement to make the article clearer, rather than "drastic changes without verifiable justification". ~~~~ 17:35, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ril

1. Do not add the template again unless you can give a good reason for doing so. Continued unexplained edits of this sort begin to look like vandalism. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:18, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

NOTE: If you add the PoV template to this article again, I shall block you from editing for 24 hours for violating the Wikipedia:Three-revert rule. I shall also report your behaviour at the Administrators' Noticeboard to get agreement to block you from editing for a period for persistent vandalism if you behave in the same way after your block expires. This is your last chance. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:49, 2 Jun 2005

Well, I went to bed before you put that notice up, so I didnt really intend to do that. Please don't threaten me, though, otherwise Ill raise a question over your manners. ~~~~ 17:51, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ril

The statement on your user page attacking me is a violation of Wikipedia policy, specifically Wikipedia: No personal attacks. Please try to be professional and follow the rules of the site. DreamGuy 05:21, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

As I understand the rules, one may say whatever one wishes on one's own user page. Including personal attacks. Note also the disclaimer, which clearly indicates that it is a statement of my opinion. I.e. a factual statement. It is my opinion that those things are true. It is a fact that that is my opinion. ~~~~ 09:19, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You have misunderstood the rules, but in any case, simple courtesy would suggest that you remove that section. A strange whiff of self-reference floats across the screen... Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:54, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I had thought that smellovision hadn't been invented yet. ~~~~ 19:56, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ril

What is nad? I am assuming you don't mean testicles (which is what nads means in the UK).

P.p.s. stalking someone's edits is extremely bad faith.

~~~~ 19:46, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

1. See Wikipedia policy on varieties of English.

2. Making comments about simple typos is very unwise when one's own spelling and grammar is as poor as yours — but then, so is "copy-editing" articles.

I'm dyslexic. What's your excuse? ~~~~

If I were dyslexic, I shouldn't copy-edit articles. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:57, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

But your not, so why don't you? ~~~~ 19:59, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

3.Your reference to stalking is plain silly. I placed the "copyedit" template on the article; unsurprisingly, it was on my Watch list. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:51, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm curious. Why did you not just copyedit it yourself if it bothers you so much?

Why do you think there's a "copyedit" template? While on "New pages" patrol, I came across it, didn't have time to do the work, so tagged it. That's what responsible editors do. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:56, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Its not why you did it, so much as why you did it and then get so bothered about it not being to your own personal specifications. ~~~~ 19:59, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ril

Hostile approach

Hi -Ril-. I'd like to kindly ask that you review Wikipedia:Assume good faith, and Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers. Slike2 19:29, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Firstly, Karl Scherer has been using Wikipedia since at least 2002, via another IP, that I have mentioned on the VFD concerning his mass spamming, so is 4 times less of a newcomer than me. Secondly, if you thorougly reviewed his edits, rather than failed to assume good faith with regards to me, you would realise how much of an issue he is. ~~~~ 20:41, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Being here a long time does not mean he is aware of policy as well as you are, which makes him more of a newbie. I did assume good faith: my manner was polite, and not hostile. I understand that you're trying to do what's best, but if you act hostile towards someone, they'll leave, or act hostile in return. If you do the opposite, the opposite will occur. He may be a problem, but assuming good faith will stop his behaviour, the opposite will make him leave. Slike2 20:46, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Given that, having spent 4 hours checking all his edits, over all 2.5 years, under all his IPs that I can determine, I cannot see a single edit that complies with Wikipedia policy, I don't see that his leaving will be a loss to Wikipedia. ~~~~ 20:48, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If after being made aware of policy his edits do not improve, then I'd agree with you. Until then, I think this is a terrible stance to take up. I've replied to you at my talk page as well, if you're interested. Slike2 21:00, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ril

Please stop reverting, you are in danger of breaking the Three revert rule - SimonP July 1, 2005 21:55 (UTC)

As are you. ~~~~ 1 July 2005 23:24 (UTC)

Ril block

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:02, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

I put it to you that you have been itching to do something like that since you first mistakenly accused me of being User:Ril. ~~~~ 23:22, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

Not having fun

I am not guilty