User talk:Jupiter Optimus Maximus/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Welcome!

Hello, Jupiter Optimus Maximus, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 18:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to my talk page. Feel free to bask in my glow, who knows, you might get a tan! 19:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, the recent edit you made to Talk:Lord Voldemort/Archive 4 has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 18:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

How do I edit my userpage? That's for me to know, and you to find out! Actually, I got sick of endless vandalism, so it's really for would-be vandals to find out...

Also I have a talk page for a reason, please do not edit my user page unless you have a legitimate reason. (like a typo)J.delanoy^gabs_adds 20:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

If you accidentally posted on my user page, why didn't you get rid of it after you realized your mistake? The reason I used the tone of voice above is because, like I said, I attract a lot of vandalism on my user page, so I probably jumped to conclusions. I apologize for being an idiot. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 18:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Lamia (Stardust) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 18:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

No, any editor can & will remove article categories wrongly placed on user pages. Johnbod (talk) 16:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Johnbod (talk)

Heya, i Noticed you asked Jimmy Wales why you couldent create a new page, you said when you search you yet a list of options (but no Create Page link!), go to the EDIT tab then wright down the name of the page you would like to create put a internal link on it click save. when you you back to the page the new link will be red, click on it then start editing. don't blame me if this dosent work because i'm not certin it will, fingers crossed! Theterribletwins1111 (talk) 20:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Could you drop by the Voldemort talk page and give your reason for including Voldemort in the Fictional Immortals category? We seem to have a revert war almost brewing, and the "Summary of changes" is probably not the best vehicle to make one's points. I've put my own opinion on the matter there, but I hardly consider it the final word. Cheers. Magidin (talk) 18:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

And not adding to the heat by calling people 'sweetheart' or calling it a fight doesn't really help. In fact, using those sorts of cheap tactics will get your ass (editorially) handed to you by someone much, much better at tossing taunts than you. Not saying I am the guy who would do it (six months ago, I would have unequivocally been the one wearing the ass-handing gloves), but throwing down a gauntlet like that invites a lot of hassles you simply don't need, as they would pretty much harsh your buzz. So, dial it down some, okey-doke? Consider it friendly advice from another Oxie.- Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Boy, you don't know how glad I am to hear from you, Jupe. I was so worried that I had done something in the past to piss you off. I had looked at your edit history and was mightily impressed, which made the perception all the more disappointing. I am glad you were kidding. I totally missed it. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:33, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi! You've added "Adam Susan" to Category:Fictional emperors and empresses. I'm not convinced about this; the comic mentions "Queen Zara", so technically Susan isn't the Head of State, merely the equivalent of Prime Minister. Also - I'm not convinced that there's any evidence Britain has any kind of empire during V for Vendetta's time period: Europe has been turned into a thermonuclear wasteland, as had North America, and I can't recall any mention of overseas territories. Do you know something I don't? Anyway, thought it best to ask you because it's a while since I read the comic and I don't have it to hand.

Cheers!  This flag once was red  19:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

No worries, and thanks for getting back to me. Susan was quite different in the comic - much more introverted, and with an insane trust in "Fate", the government computer. I've left the cat in place as I suppose the film version ("Sutler") could be an Emperor? I've only seen the film once (whereas I've read the comic too much, bought the graphic novel as soon as it came out to stop my comic collection falling apart in my hands, etc...!)

Cheers

 This flag once was red  18:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

NrDg blocked him an hour ago. Yes, he's obsessed, or at least obsessive. See [1] for some history, been going on a long time now. Bazzargh (talk) 14:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I know - I revert his stuff several times a week, my watchlist includes all his current targets, several other editors do the same. As for the insults, well, I don't feed the troll. Bazzargh (talk) 15:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I've been trying to avoid giving that guy any recognition recently. At one point last week he did try to get more serious about his attacks, registering multiple sockpuppets from multiple addresses; but usually just revert, warn is enough. He seems to have got the message that if I'm the one warning him he'll get blocked for continuing, which takes the fun out of it; but my warnings are plain uw1,2,3,4's now with no comment about sockpuppetry. Bazzargh (talk) 10:55, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Sanctuary (Skulduggery Pleasant), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Tren Krom, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 00:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you mind telling me where he spends a lot of time unconscious? Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 22:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

He doses off after drinking tranqueliser in champagne in the first book although we can let that one pass. He is however easily incapicated by Holly Short in The Arctic Incident, immediately after waking up he is again easily incapacitated. He was unconscious an uncountable amount of times in The Eternity Code (at one point he's just asleep for no reason!) and The Opal Deception but he seems to be awake an uncharacteristic amount of time in The Lost Colony. Nevertheless he spends most of the series out cold which speaks volumes for the sheer dullness of the character in my opinion. But if you want me to then I'd be happy to leave him out of the offending cat. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 23:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The definition of narcolepsy is a disease that causes you to fall asleep during the day. Artemis doesn't have this - he's just out cold a lot (different from asleep). Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 23:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey there Jupiter. I was browsing through CfDs when I saw your question about salting. Salting is basically putting a protection from creation on an article, or in this case category, to prevent it from being recreated after it has been created and deleted multiple times. If you need any more information, you can read about it here. Have a great day, Mastrchf (^t/_c) 21:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanky you, likewise. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 10:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Er... was there a specific reason that you needed to test that out using these pages? Wouldn't it have been simpler all around just to make a test page for it or something? Just curious. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 14:33, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jupiter, may I suggest that it would generally be helpful to track down then add a link to past CFD discussions when referring to them in discussions or new nominations? No hard feelings! :-)   Fayenatic (talk) 16:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

(Reference to the Monty Python sketch). You might want to throw in the occasional smiley; I am assuming, that is, that you were being funny. Remember that it is extremely hard to convey tone. Regards, Magidin (talk) 20:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Rest assured, you did not upset me. My point was that a passerby reading your last comment might easily mistake it for an out-and-out insult, instead of what it was intended to be (or for that matter, if I were having a bad day I might fall into that mistake myself; or had I come back to it in a few days, having forgotten the back-and-forth that preceded it). As I mentioned, it is very hard to convey tone in writing, even with context, hence the invention of the smiley. (-: As for the "superiority complex" thing, it was likewise meant to be a joke, based on what I understood to be an over-the-top joke about looking for "worthy opponents" who were seldom to be found, which you wrote somewhere or other (can't find it now...) My original comment had been "I see your superiority complex and raise you a Ph.D. in Maths for pedantry"; meaning, as in poker terms, I can match the complex and have even more to back it up. But I edited it a bit. (-: Regards, Magidin (talk) 02:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The comment you replied to was not mine; I merely corrected "sence of humour" to "sense of humour". Regards, Magidin (talk) 20:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. I have nominated this category for speedy deletion at Wikipedia:User categories for discussion, as I believe that it is a definite case of overcategorisation. Imagine if this principle was applied to everything, we could have "Category:Wikipedians who have named themselves after their real names", "Category:Wikipedians who have named themselves after celebrities", "Category:Wikipedians who have named themselves after their pets" ... Frickeg (talk) 09:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I've proposed to rename the user category Category:Charismatic Wikipedians. Since you are listed a member, you may be interested in participating in the discussion.--Tikiwont (talk) 13:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

These articles have already been created. They already had a discussion and it was decided they were to be deleted because they are non-notable.--NeilEvans (talk) 18:42, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought an anon had writen that; regardless, I was too rude.

Ganon is utterly remorseless and cares for no-one but himself, showing an utter disregard for human life and taking sadistic pleasure in the suffering of his enemies.

He is not shown to be remorselss and have an utter disregard for human life, as shown primarily in The Wind Waker - while he took the wrong path, it is strongly implied that part of his quest for conquest was to obtain a better existence for his tribe, and while he was in power, they did have that. I would also doubt that he takes sadistic pleasure in his enemies suffering - while his actions against the tribes were undoubtedly evil, they served a clear purpose, and were meant to either obtain his needed items, or enforce loyalty. In my recollection, he never went overboard and took prisoners solely to torture them - in fact, only the myriad knights seem to be at all missing after the timeskip in Ocarina of Time. He also seems to be uncharacteristically gentle to Link and Zelda in The Wind Waker - he could have killed Link when they met in the Forbidden Fortress, as Link did not have the Triforce and was completely dispensable in Ganon's plans. However, he did not, and seemed gruff, if anything - Link was not a threat to his quest (as the Master Sword was broken), and so not worth taking the time to kill. While this changed slightly when Tetra appeared with the Triforce of Wisdom, Ganon still seems to have let Link get away with more than was reasonable from his perspective.

The same occurs in Ocarina of Time, before the timeskip. Instead of simply murdering Link for being in his way, he merely demands Link tell him which way Zelda went, even though he had spotted Link in the courtyard with Zelda earlier (IIRC), and even though he must have known what Link was up to with the Spiritual Stones (as he used that knowledge to follow him into the Sacred Realm).

I would instead say that Ganondorf is, if not simply ruthless (as he does seem to show some remorse in TWW), then "merely" amoral - he knows what he has to do to accomplish his goals, and won't let "small" concerns like the lives of a "few" individuals stop him.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 22:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm no expert, but this guide is pretty helpful WP:AATP. I used the cut-and-paste method to do mine. CredoFromStart ^talk 17:56, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, you state on your user page that you want to learn how to archive your talk page. I thought I might point you in the right direction: Help:Archiving a talk page. That article is extremely helpful and should tell you all you need to know about archiving. Cheers, Artichoker^[talk] 21:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Apparently somebody beat me to it. Apologies. Artichoker^[talk] 21:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Regarding this, please read Wikipedia:Verifiability. According to the policy, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". If you have any questions, comments, or concerns please express them on your talk page (which I have watchlisted). Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Sesshomaru, I'm sorry if I've caused offence. I am aware of the verifiability not truth policy however I think it worth noting that the description of Ganon's physical appearence was actually verified by the lead picture of him. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 10:12, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Niall McAuley was a regular poster at alt.atheism back when I was a regular poster there; on July 1998, he made a post which contained the joke I appropriated in that exchange, even down to the typo ("caseless" for "ceaseless"). Magidin (talk) 05:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I am an atheist. As to who would name their child Niall, my guess would be someone of Gaelic ancestry (e.g., irish), as it means "champion" in ancient Gaelic and was the name of many a High King of Ireland. It is the Gaelic form of the name that is rendered "Neil" in modern English. 22:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Poor sod. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 14:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Do I know who could block the vandalism to the article on Queen Narissa? Not really. Some time ago, some twit was inserting bits of the the "Requiem for a Martian" Star Trek hoax into Richard Kiley's article, in a way that might lead the more gullible to believe that the spurious episode really existed (it didn't), really did guest-star Kiley (his only connection to Star Trek was the DS9 episode, "Second Sight"), and really was suppressed (admittedly, an episode as bad as that one was supposed to be would deserve such a fate, but you can't suppress an episode that never saw the inside of a soundstage). Eventually, the aforementioned twit grew bored and gave up, and hopefully this twit will do the same.

hbquikcomjamesl James H. H. Lampert 69.238.233.81 (talk) 22:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I do have an account, "hbquikcomjamesl" (as noted above). I just don't bother signing on if I'm doing something relatively trivial, like cleaning up vandalism (or answering comments sent to an IP address I might be using).

69.238.233.81 (talk) 16:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Really? You couldn't see weasel words? "It is speculated that..." Who speculates? Where? That is an archetypical weasel word formulation; it is unattributed speculation. Magidin (talk) 21:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm... I seem to have fallen prey to bad phrasing; didn't see "by Dumbledore". That should be in active voice, not passive. It still needs referencing, though. Magidin (talk) 21:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

My point being that it is incorrect to describe Voldemort as "the main enemy of the wizarding world" (emphasis added). He is not. The wizarding world is full of factions, of which Voldemort represents but one. He is properly described as the main enemy of our hero (Harry), or of our hero's faction within the wizarding world, or other such descriptions, but not simply of "the wizarding world". Hence I reverted, and then you reverted my revert. Magidin (talk) 14:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Being the most evil wizard who ever lived does not equate with being "the main enemy of the wizarding world". The wizarding word includes people who are allied with Voldemort, and entire races that are allied with Voldemort. How could he possibly be their main enemy as well? Harry's faction of the wizarding world does not equal the wizarding world as a whole. As to my being "easy to annoy", I wasn't before, but that kind of comment belongs in a usenet flame war, not in Wikipedia. If you want to get your kicks out of annoying people, perhaps you should take it elsewhere. A good psychiatrist office, perhaps? Magidin (talk) 14:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The wizarding world is described as being deeply divided, Voldemort as having great pull with large sections of it. At the risk of invoking Goodwin's Law, we would not call Hitler the enemy of world or the enemy of every country. The comparison to Morgoth does not seem apt to me because Morgoth was the enemy of everyone else at one point, he is the source from which all that is in "his side" flows, and his purpose is to subvert and destroy all the world; that is, Morgoth is playing the role of enemy of all creation, and this is not the role of Voldemort. Hagrid makes the point early: "the wizarding world" is not all good, and there is plenty of bad in it. Voldemort is the leader of a faction within that world, not the enemy of that world. Magidin (talk) 18:30, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

And yet, the paragraph in question is about an objective description of Voldemort's role within the bookworld, not about his metaphorical one or what he may be called. Objectively, I think it is pretty inaccurate to say his role is that of "enemy of the wizarding world". Magidin (talk) 19:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a WP:SOURCE that implies his sociopathy or psychopathy? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe because you continue adding it? Wikipedia requires you to source your findings, please read WP:VERIFY and WP:ORIGINAL. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:01, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Regardless, it's gone for now [2]. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:26, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi,

As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference. Please see here for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.

We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.

You may also wish to attend the next London meet-up at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch Wikipedia:Meetup, for updates on future meets.

We look forward to hearing from you soon, and we send our apologies for this automated intrusion onto your talk page!

Addbot (talk) 21:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I deleted an edit summary that contained a link to a browser-crashing shock site. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I reverted your add for a couple reasons; primarily because in the Alice "Works Influenced..." and Template there has been a (very good) trend to avoid vapourware works being placed in before they're actually released. Manson has had this work "in progress" for quite a while now and there's no sign that it's going to be released for real at any point in the near future. So let's continue to leave it out. (Secondarily, it was a bad edit leaving in needless brackets.) Thanks. Quaeler (talk) 17:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of previously published material to our articles as you apparently did to Jafar (Aladdin). Please cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:26, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:Disney Villains, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:Disney Villains was previously deleted as a result of an articles for deletion (or another XfD)

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:Disney Villains, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 22:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello, it is me, Tutthoth. I want to tell you that,as you appear to edit Bionicle articles, there is a Bionicle task force here. Also, your creation of the Teridax article puzzles me. It is uncited, and is probably unnotable, which puzzles me, as you claim to be a deletionist. Best wishes, from [[User:Tutthoth-Ankhre|Tutthoth-Ankhre~ The Pharaoh of the Universe]] (talk) 16:24, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello. I am considering nominating you for Adminship, and you ned to state your acceptance first. [[User:Tutthoth-Ankhre|Tutthoth-Ankhre~ The Pharaoh of the Universe]] (talk) 17:32, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I can't figure out how to nominate you (because it is a second nomination). If you nominate yourself, however, I will vote in support. [[User:Tutthoth-Ankhre|Tutthoth-Ankhre~ The Pharaoh of the Universe]] (talk) 18:08, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

This is a bad idea. Recent RFAs like Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/EvilWendyMan 2 have gone down quick and hard due to lack of experience. You also don't use edit summaries, which many RFA voters see as very important, and I don't see any participation in admin-related areas. I believe WP:NOTNOW will be thrown at you again and again if you nominate yourself today. I would suggest that you begin using edit summaries and wait till you have several more months of experience and several thousand more edits before trying this again. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:05, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Jupiter Optimus Maximus. You have new messages at Beeblebrox's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Just saw from your userpage that you're currently in london; there's a meetup there next sunday if you're interested. Ironholds 20:58, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Oklie-dokes; just sign up and follow the map on sunday; I look forward to seeing you there :). Ironholds 21:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I'm sorry, but I've closed your RFA per WP:NOTNOW. Please don't think your contributions are not valued or your input unwanted - this is not the case. Regretfully your RFA was very unlikely to pass given current community standards. I hope you'll take this in your stride and look forward to a future succesful request. In the meantime, happy editing and please feel free to ask if I can be of any help. Pedro :  Chat  22:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Just noticed your note on your userpage and thought I'd give you some help with this. There are detailed instructions at WP:ARCHIVE. Archiving your talk page is easy, and there are even bots you can use to do it automatically. I recommend the automated method, but I'll give you both ways:

Manual archiving

1. First, create an archive box on your talk page. To do this, place {{Archive box|[[User talk:Jupiter Optimus Maximus/Archive 1|1]]}} at or near the top of your talk page and click save. You should now have an archive box with a "1" in red in it. It's red because the link leads nowhere, because you haven't yet created the archive page.
2. Click "edit this page" again. In the edit window, highlight all of the text you'd like to archive, then click Ctrl+C to copy it to your clipboard. Now press delete to delete the text, and then save the page. All the comments you're archiving should now be gone, and you should still have the archive box with the red "1" in it near the top of the page.
3. Click on the red "1". This will take you to the edit window to create the archive page. Simply click in the edit window and press Ctrl+V to paste the text from your clipboard into the edit window.
4. Before saving the page, place {{talkarchive}} at the top and bottom of the page. Now save the page. Congratulations! You now have an archive.
5. Any time you want to archive a discussion from your talk page, simply, highlight it in the edit window and use the copy/paste method to place it in the archive page. If the archive page gets too big and you want to create a new one, simply create a new page at User talk:Jupiter Optimus Maximus/Archive 2 and begin adding to that one. Remember to place {{talkarchive}} at the top and bottom of the new page. To add a link to the new page to your archive box, add [[User talk:Jupiter Optimus Maximus/Archive 2|2]] into the box.
6. Every time you want to create a new archive page, use the same method and just go up a number (3, 4, 5, etc.).

Automated archiving

This is the method I use, and the one I recommend because it's so easy and you don't have to move anything manually since a bot will do all the work for you. MiszaBot is the little helper for this method.

1. Place the following code near the top of your talk page:

{{User:MiszaBot/config
|maxarchivesize = 250K
|counter = 1
|algo = old(30d)
|archive = User talk:Jupiter Optimus Maximus/Archive %(counter)d
}}
{{archivebox|auto=yes}}

2. Save the page.
3. That's it! Every couple of days Miszabot will check your talk page for old discussions. Topic threads in which the last comment is more than 30 days old will automatically be moved to your archive. You don't even have to create the archive pages; Miszabot does it for you. When the archive reaches 250K in size, it automatically makes a new one and adds the link to your archive box. Totally automated! I love it!
4. If you want to change the parameters, just edit the code. For example, if you want it to archive discussions after 45 days instead of 30, go to where it says "algo = old(30d)" and change the 30 to a 45. If you want to change the maximum size of the archive page, change "maxarchivesize = 250K" to whatever you want the size to be (say, 300K for larger or 200K for smaller). The "counter" parameter tells the bot which archive page to start with. Since you don't have an archive yet, leave it at 1 and the bot will begin by creating your first archive at User talk:Jupiter Optimus Maximus/Archive 1. Since I had already created 2 archives manually before I started using the bot, I started my counter at 3. You should just leave it at 1.

I hope that helps! --IllaZilla (talk) 18:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• It will work. The bot runs its cycle every couple of days (every 3 days I think). Give it a few days and it will start filing things away for you. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did to Jafar (Aladdin), you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive comments.
If you continue to make personal attacks on other people as you did at Talk:Jafar (Aladdin), you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 16:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I make one disruptive comment. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 16:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Teridax really needs some citations. Also, it appears to have OR (as far as I know, Roodoka was never marries to Sidorak. [[User:Tutthoth-Ankhre|Tutthoth-Ankhre~ The Pharaoh of the Universe]] (talk) 15:24, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Your conflict at Makuta Teridax (Bionicle) is turning into an edit war. Please try to speak to the opposing party at the talk page rather then engaging in an edit war. [[User:Tutthoth-Ankhre|Tutthoth-Ankhre~ The Pharaoh of the Universe]] (talk) 16:45, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

You have just violated the Three Revert Rule (WP:3RR) at self-deification. Please refrain from this behavior as it is considered to be WP:Edit warring. I will be returning the article to its status before this last, improper edit. If you can provide a WP:Reliable reference to support your contention that the Russian Orthodox Church was shut down and Stalin was worshiped as God, please provide them, after your suspension from editing this article.--Editor2020 (talk) 23:04, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. لennavecia 02:52, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello, you just cautioned me for causing vandalism. However, I had never been on the page you said I have been. Also, earlier today, i received a message saying id registed on a wikia id never heard of. I believe some-one may be using my ip address to commit vandalism as me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.55.52 (talk) 17:12, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Category:Planet devourers, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on [[Talk:Category:Planet devourers|the article's talk page]] explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. IllaZilla (talk) 04:29, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Category:Planet devourers requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia, because it appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion. If you can indicate how it is different from the previously posted material, place the template {{hangon}} underneath the other template on the article and put a note on the page's discussion page saying why this article should stay. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. If you believe the original discussion was unjustified, please use deletion review instead of continuing to recreate the page. Thank you. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:20, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Please stop re-creating the category. Just because a character may decide to call themself a lord or lady, doesn't mean we should categorise by it.

If they are actually are nobility, then they may be categorised under Category:Fictional nobility (where the rest of the "lords and ladies" are already). - jc37 15:01, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Time to stop and talk

Enough. The back and forth edit warring over the fictional character categories between the two of you needs to stop, now. You two need to find a place to discuss the situation and try to work things out between the two of you. Continued edit warring like this benefits noone, and is bad for the project. - TexasAndroid (talk) 15:17, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Fictional character categories

Please stop removing characters who are specifically referred to as lords and ladies from Category:Fictional lords and ladies and deleting this perfectly relevant category without any discussion whatsoever. The same goes for Fictional dukes and duchesses. Your edits are blatant vandalism and it's really quite tiresome for me having to go around reverting them. I'm a very important figure on Wikipedia so I have better things to do with my time. Furthermore kindly refrain from nominating every single Fictional character category for deletion. I have read that essay you wrote on Fictional character categories and found it quite frankly stupifying in its vagueness. I have left a comment on the talk page which you're free to take a look at. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 17:05, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I think I'm going to ignore most of your rant, as, since you seem to feel that you're: "a very important figure on Wikipedia so I have better things to do with my time", there would seem to be little point in my wasting my time in responding to unsubstantiated accusations.

That aside, I'll merely note that I posted a comment on your talk page (simply scroll up).

But since you seem to not understand, or simply disagree, I'll be happy to post these at CfD. - jc37 17:12, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

That rhymed nicely. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 17:21, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:Villain races, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:Villain races was previously deleted as a result of an articles for deletion (or another XfD)

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:Villain races, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 20:10, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Presumably this edit was a mistake? Looking at the diff and thinking the IP had added the sentence rather than deleting it? —KCinDC (talk) 17:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for for personal attack and uncivil edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. --VS ^talk 04:24, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I have nominated Baron Vengeous, an article you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baron Vengeous. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. TTN (talk) 14:54, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello my acquatance, It is I Dr. Doom again. Just wanted to say hey to you.-Disneyvillainman (talk) 01:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

What is it with adding categories over and over? "Fictional lords and ladies" does not seem appropriate to Lord Voldemort; the category refers to fictional nobility, rather than to fictional characters who call themselves by the title of "lord" or "lady".... Magidin (talk) 02:02, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

And, of course, you are a gas giant. After all, you are "Jupiter". Magidin (talk) 14:29, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

And, no, I did not tell you if I am american. My user info will tell you that English is not my native language in any case. Magidin (talk) 14:31, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not offended by the question, I just don't see what is to be gained by answering it, just like I don't really see the point in telling you the color of my eyes. If your question had to do with my spelling or ways of expression, the fact that English is not my native will language will answer it quite well. Magidin (talk) 19:49, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

He's a Dark Lord. That's the same thing. I take it, then, that you will be adding Jack Dawson to the category; he is, after all, "King of the World." As for knowing me, my user name is my last name. Magidin (talk) 20:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Lord Voldemord calls himself Lord Voldemort, and has his followers call him "Dark Lord". This is an affectation, not a title of nobility. As to the claim that "Dark Lord" means "warlord with magical power", well, all I can say is that you must be wearing a shirt with rather puffy sleeves to pull that one out. As to "lord" being an entitlement of those who "rule people", Roman dictators during the Republic ruled people, but they were not lords (and would be deeply offended if they were called that). While, at the same time, there are plenty of literary and real world "Lords" who rule nobody. Ruling people is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition to have a title of "Lord", nor to be called one such title. So I guess that uses up your other voluminous sleeve. You insist on confusing and conflating what someone is called or calls himself with what someone is. Magidin (talk) 21:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

You are pulling things out of your sleeve. Things so big and large that there must be a lot of room in your sleeves to accommodate such huge items prior to you pulling them out. As to the rest, no, I do not think "warlord" is accurate (he does not rule through force of arms nor does he command an army engaged in open hostilities or suppresion), and even if he were, "warlord" is not a title of nobility, and as such ought not qualify under "Fictional Lords and Ladies". Just because it has the leters l, o, r, and d in it does not make it a Lord in the sense of a patent of nobility. Attila was not a Lord or Lady, though he was certainly a warlord. Magidin (talk) 21:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

You are simply repeating the same categorical mistakes you made in trying to claim that Voldemort was a "dictator". No, he does not rule by force of arms within the meaning of "warlord". No, the Death Eaters are not an "army" within the meaning of "warlord". You are taking plain, straight terms, then stretching them, then interpreting them metaphorically, and then claiming they "fit". They do not. Voldemort was not a warlord, just like he wasn't a dictator. Being "kind of like" something does not mean you are something. Being called something does not mean you are that something. Calling yourself something does not make you that something either. And this is Deja Vu all over again, since this is exactly what your arguments about "dictator" came down to. Magidin (talk) 04:57, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

And if you ask me, it's not that people are "technically happy", is that you are quite simply wrong because you insist on stretching metaphors to the point of breaking, and then claim that a perfectly fine precise word should cover all sorts and sundry. We are not engaging in poetry or in florid language, your continued insistence that we ought to and in misusing and misunderstanding the meaning of words notwithstanding. That, and you also seem completely incapable of distinguishing between what something is and what something is called. Perhaps you need to read the chapter on the White Knight in Through the Looking Glass, see if you can learn the difference between the two. Magidin (talk) 15:33, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Do me a favor: get a new therapist. You are getting worse and worse every day. And look up the definition of "definition", as it seems you are also unaware of what it means to "fit the definition." Magidin (talk) 16:29, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Please do not add a category without a source establishing that the article belongs in that category. - jc37 13:13, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

And please do not re-add uncited lists of characters simply because you feel they belong. Find citations to support your contention, and until then, please remember that the discussion page is your friend. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I was somehow unclear in my request that you utilize the discussion page prior to reverting; if so, I apologize. Please use the discussion page to find a consensus for your edits. If you are unclear as to why this is a beneficial practice, please refer to WP:BRD. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:11, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I have nominated Matoran Universe, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matoran Universe. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 06:30, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I have nominated Makuta Teridax, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Makuta Teridax. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 06:33, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

If you don't want that section deleted you need sources to prove the examples you did use were notable, if not they will just be considered OR. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 23:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I have nominated Faceless One (Skulduggery Pleasant), an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Faceless One (Skulduggery Pleasant). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. TTN (talk) 01:00, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

That information has remained in the article without citation long enough. It cannot remain as part of the article without the addition of reliable citation and, with all respect, your categorization of such isn't all that notable. Please feel free to contribute to article discussion and advance your views on the subject, but until substantial citation appears to accompany the text, it can't be in the article. I am sorry. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Prove to me that the Makuta are demons, assasins, and charecter who use magic.--Carolinapanthersfan (talk) 17:38, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did to Jafar (Aladdin), you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I tried not to revert that edit, I did so try but my pride got the better of me. The thing is, the number of policies they have on Wikipedia is absurd. It's a wonder anything gets done! Most the policies are ridiculous anyway, I mean really, who sits down and takes the time to think of all these policies. Whoever they are they must a very great deal of time on their hands but then I suppose I have or else I wouldn't be here. Anyway, I think I'll remove the Jafar article from my watchlist. Trying to control it is impossible as the Wiki-fanatics have obviously got their claws into it. By the way Sesshomaru, and please don't take this as a personal attack but I really think you need to work on your people skills. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 13:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Numerous editors have asked you to stop adding your own WP:SYNTHESIS for Wikipedia articles, and you've already been blocked in the past on account of your crude behaviour (and complete ignorance for our rules I might add). Maybe Wikipedia isn't the place for you. There are plenty of Wikias where you can add in whatever WP:CRUFT you want. Why not try those out? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 16:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't call my behaviour crude. Crude suggests a lack of refinement and I'm actually a very cultured, sophisticated individual or at least everyone I know says so and to be perfectly honest I rather agree with them. Perhaps rude would a better word as that's more indicative of arrogance than vulgarity. As for the other Wikias, they just seem amateurish. They lack the patina of grandeur and elitism that attract me to Wikipedia. Nevertheless perhaps they would be conduitive to my creative abilities. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 16:32, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

"Conduitive"? I don't think that word exists. Do you mean to say "productive"? Well regardless, Wikia seems like the best field for you. One thing's for sure, you'll never hear anyone cry 'original research' or similar there. Wikipedia, and even Wikiquote, are pretty strict places. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

No, it's a neologism derived from the word "conduit". --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 17:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

So it's jargon, whatever. Are you gonna stop ignoring Wikipedia policies? Becuase let me tell you right now, the road's gonna get rough from here ... Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Naturally, jargon. As to your question, I was never big on rules but I do owe you a favour so I'll think about it. Are you going to work on your people skills? Because I tell you, at the moment it's like talking to HAL-9000. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 20:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Deal ;) Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Cool. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 00:14, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:Skulduggery Pleasant characters, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:Skulduggery Pleasant characters has been empty for at least four days, and its only content has been links to parent categories. (CSD C1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:Skulduggery Pleasant characters, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 21:10, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Category:Sociopaths, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Cgingold (talk) 14:29, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

This shit doesn't fly around here. Blatantly edit warring will get you blocked regardless of whether you are right or wrong or whether the other guy is edit warring. That behavior is entirely unacceptable. Go to the talk page. John Reaves 20:44, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I have nominated Category:Fictional tyrants (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:40, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I feel that you may want to participate in the debate at Voldemort's talk page. --LoЯd ۞pεth 19:12, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 16:07, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I know that you contribute greatly to Skulduggery Pleasant related articles, so I thought this might interest you. TopGearFreak 19:22, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

We prolly should stop, as Caveat or some other, well-meaning editor, might get the impression that we aren't playing. Call it a draw? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I'n not sure its helpful to compare trolls to living people who deserve our respect--certainly not with a link, which I've redacted. pls email me if qys about this. DGG (talk) 03:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

actually, there is a dissimilarity., in terms of one being actually a genius, and having made very major contributions to several subjects --not just the one he is best known for and furthermore recovered, and academically active again after that--and a rather nice man with a good deal of self-understanding at least at that stage, where I had a nodding acquaintance from the commuter train sometimes, & my library. DGG (talk) 14:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

as I said, he occasionally used my library when I ran the Princeton biology library and we chatted from time to time, and I sometimes rode on the same commuter train with him, and we had a nodding acquaintance. I am not presumptous enough to say that I know him. Working as a librarian, one gets to meet such people from time to time, though not to the level of saying any of them are friends. DGG (talk) 14:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Count Olaf, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses novel, unpublished syntheses of previously published material. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your information. To see how to write such a section, look at Randall_Flagg#Characterization.--CyberGhostface (talk) 21:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of previously published material to our articles as you apparently did to Count Olaf. Please cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you.--CyberGhostface (talk) 18:22, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Another fanatic, eh. I seem to collect them. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 18:23, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I have nominated List of megalomaniacs, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of megalomaniacs. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:01, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Same weekend next month; I'll send you a message when the page is up so you can get the info. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ironholds (talk • contribs) 21:18, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

everyone knows he's intelligent, charismatic, narcissistic and has a sense of humour. IllaZilla is the only person who has a problem with this. It's going in.

Whether "everyone knows it" or not is irrelevant. As is clearly stated in Wikipedia's Core Content policies, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—meaning, in this context, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." Really, must we go over this every time you wake up in the morning feeling ornery? Magidin (talk) 19:01, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

The phrasing you provide is more than simply summary of available facts, it's interpretation, and that means it is not disputable whether it constitutes original research or not. If you find Wikipedia's policy boring, well, too bad, we aren't here for your amusement; nor is Wikipedia an outlet for you to express your "creativity". And it seems you are finding it harder and harder to express yourself without being insulting. Frankly, you left "amusing" a long time ago and are straying well into a different category; it doesn't require any creativity to hurl around words like "moron", or silly, pedestrian but high-falluting sounding phrases like "cultural plebeian". Pfeh; talk about plebeian. IAR is not a license for you to be make an ass of yourself, though of course that is within your rights, as holding you in contempt is a right I am getting closer and closer to exercising. You are not displaying creativity, you are displaying something else entirely, though I am sure you'll tell yourself it is everybody's problem but your own. Magidin (talk) 20:13, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

If you cannot address someone with an honest disagreement with you without calling him a moron or an idiot, then I'm afraid that you are deluded about your self-ascribed ability and intelligence; they just ain't there, sonny, and you can put whatever look on your face you like, it won't change that fact. As such, perhaps you will do me the great honor of absenting yourself from my talk page in the future, unless you are capable of expressing itself without insults. Magidin (talk) 02:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you might ponder that if you feel the need to keep pointing out your towering intelligence to everyone, perhaps it is because it is simply not in evidence. As for "sonny", it's called tit for tat, deary. I don't go by "Maggy", and your inability to express yourself without having to demean others in order to have a false sense of superiority goes perfectly well with your choice of handle: a giant ball of gas, for sure. For future reference, it's Dr Magidin to you. Magidin (talk) 18:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Oohh! At home to Mister Tetchy are we? You know, if you don't like my pet-names, you could have just said so. Furthermore, the reason I keep pointing out my towering intelligence to everyone is because I'm so impressed with myself that I just like to shout about it, not to have a false sense of superiority. I'm perfectly secure in my superiority. Other people just aren't in theirs which is why they have to keep trying to put me down (albeit to no avail). Also, with reference to my nom de guerre, I didn't name myself after the planet, I named myself after the Roman King of the Gods. Finally, for future reference it's Lord Barter to you. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 19:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I have nominated Christine White, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christine White. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:58, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I have nominated DG (character), an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DG (character). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:09, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I have nominated Wyatt Cain, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wyatt Cain. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:09, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I have nominated Glitch (character), an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glitch (character). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:09, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I have nominated List of characters in Tin Man, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of characters in Tin Man. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Your remark about socks had me a bit curious so I took a look at some of your earlier edits. They seem remarkably similar to the blocked sockpuppeter User:YourLord, also known as User:Illustrious One. Care to explain how that it? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Just noticed this, and tracked down the filed SSP report. Thought you might wish to mosey on yonder. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Makes note to self: system does not auto notify (instructions seemed to imply it does) :P -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I have nominated Category:Tin Man (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:17, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd actually quite like to know why I've been blocked. Some spiteful malcontent suspects that I might be a sockpuppet of a previously blocked user because our edit patterns are vaguely similar. Is every user with an interest in fiction to be blocked as a sockpuppet of this user then? Need I remind the general populace that I am an established and respected, if somewhat controversial user on Wikipedia and have in the past been considered for adminship so being compared to this miscreant is really quite insulting. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 17:54, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

If you so chose you may contest this block by placing {{unblock|your reason here}} at the bottom of your talk page. Also, you might want to read over WP:CHECK, and the block message left for you by the software. Tiptoety ^talk 18:47, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 19:43, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

What's your interest in megalomania, and why the deletion of infamous madmen from the article (on top of illa-whatever's?) Is this somehow based on the notion of a writer's (me) "subjectivity" in regard to reporting a personality trait that involves mass murder? Is the well-documented extermination of hundreds of millions of human beings by well-known thugs in question? Are you in possession of other evidence? Are the atrocities of the listed criminals a subjective matter? Is not inclusion of the list a priority to those seeking the truth about the specific mental defect?

In all sincerity, and with all goodwill, what do you suggest?

Best wishes,Learner001 (talk) 21:41, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Not sure if this is where to respond to your note on my page. Also responded there. What can be done to control the influence of jackasses like him? see his talk page. Was I out of line? thanks. on your side.Learner001 (talk) 20:18, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

You were very out of line, and I'll thank you not to make personal attacks like this or I'll report it. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not personal, it's editorial as to your tactics in hijacking sites. sorry, but that's the truth. face it.Learner001 (talk) 21:48, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Calling me a "jackass" is a personal attack. Keep your name-calling on the playground where it belongs. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:56, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Suddenly my talk page has become a battle ground! --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 00:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your comments on User talk:Collectonian: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:13, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

See WP:CHECK. Basically it is a tool provided by ArbCom to a very limited number of trusted users which allows them to examine user IP information and certain other server log data. In a sockpuppet case it is used to compare your IP and server log info to that of the other accounts which you are suspected of puppeting or being the puppet of, thereby giving some measure of likelihood as to whether the suspicion might be accurate. Results are usually posted to the sockpuppet investigation page as "highly likely", "likely, "unlikely", "highly unlikely", or something similar. Basically in this case, if your IPs show up as being in the UK and Your Lord's show up as being in, say, Mexico, then it's highly unlikely that you're the same person...case more or less dismissed. But if your IPs show up as being pretty close to each other, or from the same server, then the suspicion of sockpuppeting becomes more likely. Hope that clears it up. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:18, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Please note that I have discussed this with Tiptoey at User_talk:Tiptoety#Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations.2FYourLord. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 04:41, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Jupiter Optimus Maximus (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Hello. I am User:Jupiter Optimus Maximus and I was recently blocked by a user named Collectonian who is under the impression that I am the sockpuppet of a blocked user by the name of YourLord. Her reason for thinking this was because I once wrote in an edit summary "Isn't it funny when sockpuppets do good things", as an innocent observation. After conducting some research into my contributions, Collectonian observed that they were vaguely similar to those of YourLord and opened a case. A checkuser was subsequently carried out after which it was found that our IPs were somewhat close to each other. Aside from the last piece of evidence, I don't think there's any evidence as to having any dealings with YourLord or being a sockpuppet. Furthermore all the people who took part in the debate have crossed me in the past and consequently seem to view me as a threat. My beliefs with regards to wikipedia policy have made me something of a controversial figure on the website and so it is conceivable that people would want a reason to indefinitely block me. Despite the controversy surrounding my name I am a well-respected figure on wikipedia and have made many positive contributions, even being considered for adminship at one stage. I hope you will consider my arguments and come to realise that the correct course of action would be to unblock me ASAP. Thank you for your time.

Decline reason:

You were suspected of being YourLord and checkuser confirmed that evidence. She suspected you to be a specific user first, and then the checkuser supported it. Since she knew who you were and the checkuser said likewise, it doesn't get any more damning than that. Also, Collectonian didn't block you. — Smashville^talk 00:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

• Note: Collectonian is not an admin and did not perform the block. — Athaenara ✉ 20:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to ask Tiptoety about this block. Mangojuice^talk 21:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Here is the original SSP Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/YourLord - I'd say the results seemed pretty clear and obviously my report was far more extensive than implied above. Nor is he a "well-respected" figure on Wikipedia and his "considerations" were both self-started and snow rejected (and note that in Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jupiter Optimus Maximus 2 he admits to having recreated the AfDed articles deceptively). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

This is all nonsense. I am indeed a well-respected figure on wikipedia, at the risk of sounding arrogant. As you'll see, the second time I nominated myself for adminship it was at the recommendation of a user named Tutthoth-Ankhre who strongly supported my nomination as two other users did. I admitted to recreating AfDed articles but they were never deleted in the first place, simply redirected and the thought of un-redirecting them hadn't occured to me because it was my first time recreating articles. Nor did I recreate them deceptively. You make me sound like some sort of master criminal. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 00:33, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

You were completely shut out on your first attempt and had only 1 real support in the second. That's not exactly something to keep bragging about. And has absolutely zero to do with your sockpuppetry. --Smashville^talk 00:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Bollocks. They all said I was along the right track and would make a great admin one day in my first nomination and I was supported by no less than three people in my second one so I'm perfectly entitled to brag about it. The reason I brought it up was because I consider it a good argument for my integrity which has only been brought into question as the result of sneaky little deletionists conspiring against me. For evidence of the respect I receive by clever, open-minded people willing to believe in truth then look no further than the person defending me below. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 11:47, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello! Just as an observation, the checkuser came back as "likely", not "confirmed," so I don't think it's 100% here. Were there any other actually confirmed socks operating now? The Your Lord account hasn't edited since 2007, i.e. over a year ago. So, has JOM edited for over a year and half mostly constructively and without using other accounts? If we do think it's the same editor, then wouldn't it be block evasion rather than sockpuppetry? If there have not been new socks since 2007 and Jupiter Optimus Maximus has been a worthwhile contributor in the meantime, shouldn't we give him a chance (if there is some larger issue of harassment or something, I'm missing, please point it out)? I say that based on User:WillOakland, User:Jack Merridew, User:Doctorfluffy, etc., i.e. we seem to be forgiving when time has elapsed and a claim can be made by someone for constructive edits. I do see some potential incivility, but his article creation seems good faith at least. Thus, perhaps a solution akin to those aforementioned users above is appropriate and could be that JOM is limited to this account and is strongly urged to remain civil from here on out (I might suggest Collectonian avoid JOM as well to avoid escalataions?). One would have to review his edits more thoroughly, but I don't see why we would only give some editors a second chance and not others. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 02:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

A couple of things to comment on. First of all, A Nobody: In a checkuser situation "likely" is as close as it gets to "confirmed", because we cannot confirm with absolute 100% certainty without outing anyone. However, a preponderance of evidence suggests that Jupiter and YourLord are the same person: Their editing styles were similar enough to arouse suspicion even a year after YourLord's block, and a checkuser confirmed that they have the "same IP overlap" (same IP address). Therefore we can, beyond reasonable doubt, conclude that they are the same person. Of course I imagine you are familiar with the meaning of checkuser results from your own experience this past September. In any case, having interacted with Jupiter many times over the past 6 months, and having reviewed YourLord's contribution history, in my honest opinion I strongly believe that they are the same person. Coupled with the checkuser result, it would take some very strong evidence to convince me otherwise. As for a possible unblock, I do acknowledge that Jupiter has made some positive contributions but I also feel strongly that sockpuppet/block evasion is not his only issue. The various warnings, blocks, and discussions on this talk page and its archive attest to the fact that he has problems with original research, edit-warring, and civility. In fact I was quite close to initiating an RfC about his behavior a while back, and if he is unblocked I feel it would probably be pertinent to pursue that.

As for you, Jupiter: The evidence that you are YourLord is quite strong, and the checkuser confirmed that suspicion. You have the same IP address. As Smashville says, it doesn't get any more damning than that. The fact that you were entirely dismissive about the sockpuppet investigation and did not even try to defend yourself does not strengthen your case. At this point we would all have to be childishly gullible to believe that the you and YourLord are not the same person. How else do you explain that you have the exact same IP address?

As for this self-professed "well-respected figure" malarky, I have been keeping an eye on your interactions with other editors for several months and I feel confident in assuring you that any high level of respect or positive reputation you may feel on Wikipedia exists solely in your imagination. Bringing up your RfAs does nothing to illustrate any positive reputation of yourself on-wiki: Both times you nominated yourself, and both times you were roundly rejected. This does very little to evidence your supposed wiki-integrity. If anything, it evidences only egotism. You even claim that A Nobody's comment above is "evidence of the respect I receive by clever, open-minded people willing to believe in truth", when in fact all that A Nobody is doing is assuming good faith on your part and offering some precedent for processes by which you might be unblocked. As for myself, as I said above your behavior is at least worth an RfC due to your long-term patterns of original research, edit-warring, etc. There may be avenues by which you can pursue an unblock, but your attitude will have to change if you wish to avoid future censure. Blowing hot air about your supposed "integrity" and "respect" on Wikipedia does nothing to address your sockpuppetry, and comes off as totally hollow when nearly every other user involved in these discussions disagrees with you. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Without outing anyone, I know from past experience that "likely" is not always actually the suspected person. My main concern is that I am not seeing behavior that is worse than the examples of other editors mentioned above who have been given another chance. Because of that, in the interests of fairness, either those other editors should also be blocked, or we should consider a way to move forward here as well. The edit-warring and incivility does not seem one-sided here either. It seems that it is only with a couple of specific editors and it looks more like a dispute rather than one side be categorically "wrong." It seems as if he has been antagonized to some degree as well and while perhaps not handling things appropriately, i.e. not de-escalating, we should consider the larger context. But IllzaZilla is correct that I am assuming good faith here, because I like to see when editors who have suspect pasts can go ahead and show that they can be constructive contributors (I do not want people to think there's no point in ever trying to reform or better themselves and the only times I personally feel people do not deserve second chances is when they try to out people or harass them in real life) and is not an endorsement of all of JOM's edits. In any event, I encourage JOM to 1) apologize for any past mistakes; 2) pledge to stick to the one account as I and others in situations of alleged sockpuppetry have done; and 3) avoid responding to incivility with more incivility; if you think someone is targetting you maliciously, seek admin help rather than insulting the editor in question. I think from some quick observations that there are benefits from having JOM around, but encourage him taking a conciliatory approach to move forward. Please take on my advice as it is to your benefit. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:26, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you, specifically with the sentiment that there are precedents for editors such as this being unblocked and allowed to return under caveats. If Jupiter wishes to have another chance, as with the other editors you mentioned earlier, he need merely follow the guide to appealing blocks. If he does, I think he can probably convince administrators that he understands why he was blocked and won't do it again, and that he will make positive contributions instead. The sockpuppetry policy may mean that he would have to make such a request through his main account, which would be YourLord. I think it's worth noting, though, that when he was blocked as YourLord he was given specific instructions on how to go about demonstrating that he wished to make positive contributions and getting a second chance: [3]. Instead, he chose to wait 8 months or so and then evade the block by creating a new account. Were he to be granted another chance this time around, I'm not sure if an admin would allow it to be under this account or if it would have to be under the original YourLord one. Whichever account it may be under, following the appeals guide is really the only road open to him at this point. It's up to him whether he chooses to take that option. In any case, I think the first step is for him to either A) Fess up to being YourLord, since the evidence strongly supports this and continually denying it is really only eroding his reputation further; or B) Provide some evidence that he and YourLord are separate persons, since thus far everything has pointed to them being the same. I'm not sure how he could do this, other than by providing some explanation as to how they could have the same IP address yet be separate persons. But he hasn't offered that explanation yet. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Alright, you got me. I'm YourLord. Might I point out however that I never actually said that I wasn't. I merely pointed out that assuming that I was YourLord was quite silly since there was no damning evidence to suggest that I was apart from the IP address thing which could be easily explained away since lots of people have the same IP address. However I think we can all agree that this has gone on for long enough so I've decided to come clean. I realise I've misbehaved in the past but I wasn't hurting anyone was I? And I promise that if I am unblocked I'll try to behave myself in future. When I was YourLord I did go through the proper channels as I was advised but I was just ignored. People didn't give me a chance. I was young, impulsive. See WP:BITE. And besides I never should have been blocked in the first place, all I did was recreate a bit of deleted material that shouldn't have been deleted anyway. Like A Nobody says however, I have made a few pretty good contributions. I'll also thank IllaZilla to stop trying to grind my self-esteem into the dust. I was advised to nominate myself by another user and supported by three people. That alone, proves that I am respected as does the fact that A Nobody is willing to assume good faith on my behalf. Allegations of egotism are irrelevant. I admit that I am indeed somewhat egotistical but I don't see that as a negative trait at all. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 20:17, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for coming clean, although if you had simply done so from the start the block probably could have been avoided. If you had admitted it in the sockpuppet investigation, I think things might have gone a lot more smoothly. Of course, it's important to note that you have a history of sockpuppeteering and block evasion:

• After you were blocked as YourLord in June 2007, you appear to have continued editing anonymously. See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/YourLord.
• From December 2007 to February 2008, you operated as User:Illustrious One. This account was revealed as a sock at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/YourLord (2nd)
• Conveniently, you registered the JOM account just a few days after the Illustrious One account was blocked. You then further implicated yourself by editing the Illustrious One userpage as JOM: [4] [5].

Frankly, I'm surprised you weren't found out a lot earlier. It's clear that you knew what you were doing and were creating new accounts in order to evade blocks. Even so, Honesty generally garners a lot of good will, and if you had simply 'fessed up to everything instead of being entirely dismissive towards the accusation, the community might have been able to see their way to extending you some good will since it had been so long since your original block, and since you appear to have operated as JOM exclusively for a year and made some positive contributions. But you chose to be dishonest instead, and there isn't technically a statute of limitations on these types of behavior.

• "Alright, you got me. I'm YourLord. Might I point out however that I never actually said that I wasn't."

Um, yes you did. In your unblock request above, you stated "I don't think there's any evidence as to having any dealings with YourLord or being a sockpuppet." And in your "Attention lesser beings" comment up top, you said "Some spiteful malcontent suspects that I might be a sockpuppet of a previously blocked user because our edit patterns are vaguely similar." These are weasely wordings that cannot reasonably be interpreted as meaning anything other than "I'm not YourLord". Dishonesty only hurts your case.

• "When I was YourLord I did go through the proper channels as I was advised but I was just ignored. People didn't give me a chance."

Again, this is not entirely honest. You weren't ignored. See here: Yamla not only responded to your request for unblock, he gave you specific instructions on how to earn back the trust of the community and demonstrate your desire to make positive contributions. You chose not to take that route.

• "I never should have been blocked in the first place, all I did was recreate a bit of deleted material that shouldn't have been deleted anyway."

I'm sorry, but I don't have a ton of sympathy for you on this one. You were warned about outright recreating deleted material, and your response was anything but receptive. Despite being told why this was inappropriate, you continued to recreate deleted material without any discussion (I don't have access to most of the relevant diffs because they've been deleted, but any admin can confirm by looking at your deleted contributions). So you were blocked for repeatedly recreating deleted material. I personally know that you didn't learn anything from this experience, since as JOM you've recreted several articles & categories that have then had to be re-deleted under G4. I know because I nominated several of them for speedy deletion, or started the relevant AfDs/CfDs. Again, any admin can view the diffs under your deleted contributions. You need to respect the fact that Wikipedia works by consensus; if something has been deleted due to community consensus in an AfD/CfD, you shouldn't just recreate it because you disagree with its deletion. You need to get comfortable with the idea that, when almost everybody disagrees with you, you may in fact be incorrect. Just because you think you're always right doesn't give you free license to flout consensus. And you know when you're recreating something that's been deleted, because a big red-boxed warning pops up above the edit window directing you to the deletion discussions.

Bottom line, you are hardly a newcomer to Wikipedia and, given your past sockpuppet cases and blocks, are well aware of the policies regarding blocking, recreation of deleted material, sockpuppeting, and evasion. Had anyone noticed your puppeting when you created this account a year ago, we wouldn't be having this conversation now. You're also well aware of policies like WP:V and WP:NOR but still haven't demonstrated improvement in those areas. You've acknowledged that your good faith reserves are quite low; now if you wish to be unblocked or to continue contributing to Wikipedia legitimately you'll need to follow the steps at WP:GAB, and you'll have to make the request from your original account (YourLord - though you may be able to make a case for leaving that one blocked and unblocking this one as your new main account, since this is where most of your contributions are). Since you've already been denied unblocks here, you'll probably have to take it to the next level and appeal to ArbCom or the administrator's noticeboard. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Just as quick note, he can't take it to ArbCom or ANI, while blocked, so I would urge an admin to temporarily unblock him solely for that purpose as I strongly urge JOM not to create a new account to use for posting a message at ArbCom or ANI. Sicnerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think he needs to be unblocked for that purpose. He can just as easily communicate with them, or any admin, via email. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I recall past cases where people were granted temporary unblocks on the understanding that they only participate in the unblock discussions or where their talk page is somehow included onto the ANI page so that their comments can be added (I'm no technology wizard, so not sure what that's called). Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

He can also ask an admin to start an AN/I then they create a section on his talk page to transclude in the discussion so he can respond on his talk page while remaining blocked. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that seems to be a typical method, but the initial request seems to normally be made via email. That appears to be what happened in the Jack Merridrew case you cited earlier. See here. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

That's what I was referring to, but wasn't sure if "transclude" was the word. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

←Thank you for your advice. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 01:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome and good luck! I think you have potential; please don't let me down.  :) Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 01:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Just an FYI, this is where you need to go to pursue an unblock. Click on "click here to request unblocking" and send an email to [email protected]. Just in case you'd like to pursue it. Remember to read over WP:GAB first for steps & tips. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

That or ArbCom ([email protected]). You may also want to take a look at WP:APPEAL. Tiptoety ^talk 04:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you all. Going off topic, I'm amazed I got caught out when I was Illustrious One. I looked at the report and there seemed to be little more than the faintest whisp of evidence against me. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 15:21, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not terribly surprised, really. As Illustrious One you seemed to edit mostly the same or similar articles as you did as YourLord, and your editing style is pretty recognizeable from the substance of your edits (categories, personality sections, etc.), the tone and wording of your edit summaries, and the introductions on your user and talk pages. I'm actually surprised you didn't get caught as JOM fairly quickly. Your edits (under any account) are fairly easy to recognize as they have mostly the same style & tone. That's enough to raise suspicion from people who are familiar with you, or who work on mostly the same articles that you do. In the Illustrious One case that suspicion alone seemed to be enough, and if it wasn't then a checkuser surely would have confirmed it. At this point there are enough people who know your style, and who edit in the same areas that you do, that it's not terribly difficult for them to recognize when it's you. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it was probably because around the time I was blocked as Illustrious One I had expressed anti-deletionist sentiments. Of course most of the people in charge of Wikipedia are deletionists (they're probably communists as well) so naturally they must immediately have started looking for dirt on me and as my YourLord account was the most similar to mine (by virtue of the fact that in actuality it was mine) they immediately blocked me as a sockpuppet ASAP despite the obviously inconclusive nature of the evidence. Coincidentally they had guessed correctly as to my identity. Buggery. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 21:04, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I guess I never answered your previous question. It's not about deletionism vs. inclusionism, you were found out because your editing patterns, under whatever name you used, were very similar if not the same. The evidence in the sockpuppet case for the Illustrious One account [6] was based on your category-warring at articles about fictional characters such as Stewie Griffin, a pattern which you continued in other articles as JOM. You were obsessed with adding, creating & recreating certain fictional character-related categories, so when a brand new account suddenly popped up adding & creating the exact same or very similar categories it was a red flag. You have to accept that you have built a reputation around here based on your editing habits, and that editors such as myself who have dealt with you in the past are going to be able to recognize those habits popping up again even if they're under a different name. The only way to redeem yourself and avoid close scrutiny is going to be to change those habits and patterns, but personally I can't really see you doing that. And I fail to see how deletionism on Wikipedia is in any way, shape, or form related to communism, so just quit the nonsense personal attacks. It's exactly that kind of behavior that turns everyone you deal with against you. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:11, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Ooh, now who's making personal attacks? Yes the Stewie Griffin article is tightly controlled by a user named Edgarde who built evidence against me in the past and assisted in the downfall of my Illustrious One account. I've been keeping tabs on him ever since as I do all my enemies. Every so often I'll bump into someone on Wikipedia who fancies themself the Sherlock Holmes to my Professor Moriarty so to speak. And no deletionism isn't related to communism, that was just an irreverant remark on my part. --86.147.154.194 (talk) 02:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Exactly where in my previous comment did I make a personal attack against you? I am merely trying to help you by answering your question as to how others are able to discover your alternate accounts via observations of your editing behavior. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:34, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

"Quit the nonsense personal attacks, it's exactly that kind of behavior that turns everyone you deal with against you." --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 11:37, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

←Asking you not to make personal attacks against others does not constitute a personal attack against you. I was referring to your comment that "most of the people in charge of Wikipedia are deletionists (they're probably communists as well)" which is insulting as well as ludicrous. That sort of comment does put people on the offensive towards you, and if you haven't realized that by now then I think it's safe to say you haven't learned anything from this whole debacle.

Look, I'm done responding here. You're blocked, you know why you were blocked, and you know what steps you have to take to get unblocked. You can either take those steps or leave Wikipedia altogether. Any other conversation here is irrelevant, and I'm through encouraging it. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Just making idle chatter. Furthermore people who disagree with me are usually either communists or deletionists so I thought it would make sense if they were one in the same. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 23:29, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.