User talk:CheeseDreams/January 2005

A quick note

Just a short note to say that I have been invited to the vatican for some reason (according to the letter, the pope does this to about 20 random people each year, which doesn't really explain why they choose who they do at all. Oh, ive just noticed on the letter that its connected to some Jesuit thing), and I'm not going to turn a free trip to Rome in winter down, so I won't be around for a few days.

I might try to do some research in the (rather famous) library while I am there, although it is notorious for deliberately not having a proper catalogue, and not letting you look at a book unless you already know what the book is.

P.s. before any of you think of this as an opportunity to push your POV, you should bear in mind that I have chosen to tell you this, and have ulterior motives for doing so. CheeseDreams 00:20, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You're so full of crap! This is just some idiot way for you to be "saved by the bell"! Goodbye and good riddance, ye compulsive liar! Piglet 04:05, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

To be saved by the bell, you have to be saved from something darling. Please choose your aphorisms more carefully next time. CheeseDreams 00:45, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have warned Nasse to stop the abuse. I might get into conflict with you CheeseDreams, but I don't agree with you being abused by personal attacks. At least my arguments with you are to do with content. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:04, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Oooo. Spooky! - Ta bu shi da yu 13:19, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Interesting. Share some pictures when you get back. :-D Johnleemk | Talk 16:06, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

They wouldn't let me take pictures inside, due to restrictions on flash photographs. Ill need to find a library to scan in the rest. There are some lovely ones of venice (where my boyfriend took me since we were already in Italy, though its a long train journey, and it doesn't smell very pleasantly when you get there - something to do with sewers).

While this is a little late for you to try, but if you ever get the chance see if they have any Stephen King. You may not know it but he has made a deal with The Devil(tm) to have his books shelved everywhere. Trust me, I know. Wjw 05:45, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I didn't really get allowed to look at much in the library, as they are quite particular about you knowing exactly what it is you are looking for, which is a bit unfair, and I didn't see any popular fiction in there, it is more of a research library. CheeseDreams 00:45, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I haven't heard of this tradition. Pretty neat! And to think that after living four years in Rome, I never got to talk to the Pope... (Of course there are other benefits to living in Rome.) Mpolo 08:59, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)

He looks more dead than I was expecting, and he isn't very good at speaking. I suppose its a bit like speaking to the queen would be, it was all very polite, but you get asked mindless questions like what do you do for a living etc. and never get to ask anything interesting because the Cardinals and the secretaries and things are quite clever at changing the subject. The bed was nice though, and some of it is quite elegant.

Arbitration

Just dropping you a note to say that the Arbitration Committee has accepted your request concerning User:Rienzo. The arbitration proceedings are available at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rienzo, and you may add evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rienzo/Evidence. Ambi 00:44, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

STOP placing the "BPOV" template on Bible pages!

CheeseDreams: Please STOP placing your newly-minted {{BPOV}} template under your adapted new User name of User:Cheese dreams. They will be removed. You cannot make such a sweeping template-SPAM of all Hebrew Bible articles with your own self-invented comments without broader discussion and agreement from the many editors who contribute to Hebrew Bible articles and others involved in this area of scholarship. IZAK 14:22, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Actually, if you pay attention, you will notice that I only applied it to certain of the articles, and by no means all. Some articles I find quite balanced. For example, Book of Esther. I very carefully observed which articles were biased, and which were not.

Further if you look at the contributions under the User name User:Cheese dreams, you will see it has been in existance for a while now. Probably at least one month.

So please stop your abusive jumping to conclusions, and check the facts before you make sweeping statements. CheeseDreams 00:45, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

P.s. the whole point about templates like NPOV is that they are added when someone percieves a bias, and are not a consensus addition. You don't go to the talk page and discuss for ages is this article NPOV because that is how you solve the issue, not how you judge whether to put the template on. CheeseDreams 00:45, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

ArbCom temporary order

"1) Pending a final decision in this matter CheeseDreams is banned from editing all articles which relate to Christianity. This ban is based on aggressive POV editwarring as illustrated by the edit history of Historicity_of_Jesus."

See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/CheeseDreams#Temporary_injunction. --mav 19:47, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have blocked her for 24 hours. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:13, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Please explain why you have blocked me. I edited Zero Christianity articles.

I edited articles relating to Judaism. I also edited talk pages. And templates. None of these things are Christian articles. CheeseDreams 00:46, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Judaism articles are related to Christianity. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:11, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Islam articles are related to Christianity, as are Mar Thoma articles, articles on Missionaries and on Slavery (and thus the history of Africa), articles on debt relief, witchfinding, the reformation, the english civil war, european history, politics, culture, law, and much more besides. "Christianity related" covers about 90% of Wikipedia. CheeseDreams 02:53, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Given your past history with CD, it probably would have been better to get an un-involved admin (are there any by now? :-) to do any enforcement needed, TBSDY. Noel (talk) 20:20, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Why not get John Kenney to do it? He's apparently above the law so he'd be a good choice. Dr Zen 03:32, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think Slrubenstein would have been a better choice. CheeseDreams 02:53, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Really? I notice you just placed him on WP:RFAr. Nice choice. What exactly is your agenda again? - Ta bu shi da yu 22:57, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Just one thing. Is User:John Kenney the sock puppet used by User:Jimbo Wales, thus explaining why people are so afraid to touch him. CheeseDreams 02:53, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

BPOV templates

I have added your BPOV templates to Votes for Undeletion: [1]. - Vague | Rant 10:50, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. CheeseDreams 02:08, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

As you will have noted, Cheese, I'm speaking up for your templates (as well as for you generally). I think your POV should be represented in the Christianity articles and I don't think it's right that you should be silenced by the campaign against you. However, you haven't met the norms of the community (and I know you know that) and, although I think I understand your reasons for that (I have assumed good faith and believe you genuinely hold the views you are defending and are not trolling for the hell of it), I do think you should attempt to moderate yourself a bit, if only because not doing so will prevent you from being able to tell what you see as the truth at all. I understand how difficult it is to talk about these subjects with people who simply do not accept even the possibility that their views can be wrong but you are obliged to try to do so without rancour. Find a way, Cheese. I for one will support you in what you're doing if you make that effort. If you keep on the track you're on though, I'm going to be concluding that you are only here to stir the shit. I am not in any way suggesting that you moderate your views, cease to include your content (although I do suggest being more temperate in removing others') or suffer in silence the treatment you've had from some of the other editors here, not just from Rienzo/Nasse/Lady Tara but from SLRubenstein and John Kenney, to name two whose conduct has not been anything to be proud of. But I am suggesting that you try to walk within the bounds a little. Insist they match the same standards. Insist that their sources are of the same quality. Insist they treat you with civility. All of that is within the bounds. Stop tagging articles, because even though you might be right, that is just going to cause you trouble. Make forks in your user space and argue for them. Remember, there are neutral editors who are no fonder of the bias in those articles than you are.Dr Zen 07:11, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts. I do appreciate them. Rienzo/Nasse/Lady Tara are being dealt with now. Slrubenstein will happen shortly. I haven't decided about dealing with John Kenney properly yet, I would like to see how he/she reacts to what happens with Slrubenstein.

I knew full well that adding the "actually there is quite a lot of evidence against Jesus" information would result in a campaign against me. Which is why I created the CheeseDreams accounts. I have others where I edit other articles. The point of the CheeseDreams account is to put the information there, and take the heat off the other editors (some of whom at a later stage will be me) who support it.

Unfortunately, I have an inbuilt tendency to fight fire with fire. I do not abide evil, nor allow it to continue existance where I see it. It is done now, and they can't prevent the truth from being true. CheeseDreams 02:53, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That's disgusting. You deliberately made that account to do POV-pushing. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:12, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hmm. While I sympathise with you and why you did it, you must be aware that some won't think that creating a sock to run flak was a legitimate way to do it. I understand, though, that making these edits, or anything like them, would endanger your name, as it were, and once named as a witch, you'd have no chance of shaking the label. There are just too many editors who enjoy the game of hounding other users.Dr Zen 02:58, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Apology over blocking you

My apologies to you for blocking out of order. I was under the impression that the temporary injunction had started then, but it appears that it had not. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:06, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Accepted. Thank-you. CheeseDreams 02:53, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Talk pages

You know, if you have an issue with what I have to say to other users, you should have some guts and leave a message on my own talk page. I was talking to Dr Zen about your actions because he sent me a message. Responding on his talk page with comments directed to me are NOT acceptable. If I hadn't continued corresponding with Dr Zen (who is a very reasonable user, you should know) I would never have seen your messages. Oh, and incidently: I refuse to speak to your sock puppets. In fact, I seriously wonder why you need them. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:02, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't watch your talk page, and I always respond to comments where they are written, rather than respond to a comment in the Times by scrawling on the wall behind the bikesheds. CheeseDreams 02:53, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You refuse to speak to Cheesedreams, Cheese Dreams, Cheese-Dreams (new), or Cheese dreams?

Thats a bit silly isn't it? They are blatently me. CheeseDreams 02:53, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Silly? Why? If your edits are reasonable, why do you feel the urge to hide them?! I'm not unfair. I dislike POV pushing. Your insistence in adding material like Alexander Hislop's The Two Babylons (I've just started to read through that rubbish) shows that you're faith is almost greater than my own! The Roman Catholic church is the new Babylon indeed. What a load of crap. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:16, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If you wonder why they exist. Consider whose contribution lists you and others are watching. CheeseDreams 02:53, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I am not watching your contribution list, but I am watching the articles. So I'd suggest you take back that allegation. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:16, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm contemplating asking for them to be merged, as they have served their purpose now. CheeseDreams 02:53, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee ruling

The Arbcom case against you has closed. Effective 13 January 2005, you are to be banned from editing Wikipedia in general for eight days ending 21 January 2005, and shall be prohibited from editing Christianity-related articles for a period of one year, ending 13 January 2006. You are also restricted to two reverts per article in any given twenty-four hour period. If you can demonstrate a pattern of editing with civility, and without serious conflict, for the next six months, you can apply for a lifting of the above year long ban. For further details, please read the final decision of the case. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 00:03, 2005 Jan 13 (UTC)

Am I banned now then? I ought not to be editing in that case I suppose. Maybe someone should actually try to block me and my other accounts? CheeseDreams 02:53, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

My heart bleeds for you......darling! =) 67.15.77.158 02:24, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Darling, the ban expired days ago, unlike yours, Rienzo. CheeseDreams.

Rhobite

Rhobite also misused his admin powers with me.This page gives his victims the chance to respond. Ollieplatt 08:27, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"Someone" has removed the page in question. Ive been packing my stuff up so that I can move to a house with my boyfriend, so I haven't really been paying attention, otherwise I would have certified the page for you. CheeseDreams 02:53, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Akrotiri and Dhekelia vote

I urge you to reconsider your vote on the inclusion of Akrotiri and Dhekelia as dependencies in Europe at Template talk:Europe. The CIA World Factbook now lists them [2] as dependencies of the UK and has separate entries for the two ([3] & [4].) They also have this note posted on the main page [5]:

Recent confirmation that the United Kingdom Government administers the Sovereign Base Areas of Akrotiri and Dhekelia on Cyprus as dependencies (and not as lease areas like the US Guantanamo Bay Naval Station in Cuba) has required a changing of their status and their addition to the Factbook as new entities.

Thanks. —Cantus…☎ 06:12, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)

I DO NOT consider the CIA world factbook either reliable or unbiased. CheeseDreams 02:53, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Just Wondering

If God is truly infinite doesn't that imply that it transcends personality and is beyond what humanity considers what is and is not an entity? I mean, we take the concept of a human, and expand that to an infinite size and then say there, that is God. I'm tired and just thought I'd ask and no, I don't mean this as a flamebait or some sort of attack, I am truly wondering (I always have to say that before I'm yelled at). Wjw 09:01, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That depends on what you mean by infinity, for example, cardinality implies that there are numbers bigger than infinity. In terms of physics, infinite is still within a tangible construct, being space-time, which also has the property of (if fully viewed) being static. It also depends on what you mean by personality, for example, Jungian philosophy holds that there is a collective conciousness, which could quite easily compose God. Islam holds that each person is an aspect of God, and thus God is the sum total of all humanity, together with a few other things (which may or may not exist), and thus there is no issue of transcendence.

Blocked

I blocked your alternate account User:Cheese-Dreams permanently, since you violated the Arbitration Committee 8 day ban on editing. Please remember that violating the sanctions against you is a serious matter, and will probably result in longer bans if you continue. In the future, please use your main account for editing. Rhobite 22:50, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

I'm reverting this block. The ArbCom authorized blocks for a length up to (probably including) one week, not infinite. As it's been 5 days at this point, I'm not going to block the account for another 2 days, but you can feel free to. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 22:37, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

Those accounts serve no purpose except to avoid blocks, and CheeseDreams has used them repeatedly to do so. In the past the ArbCom has ruled that sockpuppets are not to be used to circumvent blocks, so I strongly feel they should be banned infinitely. CheeseDreams can edit from her main account now since the block expired - there is no need for her to also have Cheese dreams, Cheese Dreams, Cheese-dreams, and Cheese-Dreams. But since you've decided to unblock these abusive sockpuppets, I think you should at least have the responsibility of watching them. Please do. Rhobite 05:08, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

If you feel they are problem accounts, YOU block them. Just don't cite the ArbCom case as justification. Besides, they can't be used to evade a block that doesn't currently exist, and they are rather too transparent to be used for the more nefarious purposes to which sockpuppets are sometimes put. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 11:35, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)

CheeseDreams has admitted that she has used these accounts to evade people watching her contributions. That is the sole pupose of those accounts. She has admitted owning the accounts. Why does she need them? if she edits from these account on the articles she is banned from, I will block. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:28, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm not going to get into a blocking war. If you feel that CheeseDreams should be able to edit from five identically-named accounts, that's enough for me. I'm just making sure you're aware that she gets blocked all the time, and she routinely ignores the block and continues editing from different accounts. Rhobite 00:58, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

It would be nice if someone actually blocked the main account. It isn't listed under the Ipblocklist at the moment, which is quite disappointing. CheeseDreams 23:47, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Just to respond to your (Rhobite's) comment on the Ip block list. If you think CheeseDreams (and variants) are my main account, you are very much mistaken. It is just the one I am editing a certain set of articles with. So far, I haven't allowed the other account(s) to overlap in the areas they/it edit(s), mainly because I am not that stupid. CheeseDreams 01:02, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Actually, maybe this just counts as taunting, and I suppose I oughtn't to do it. CheeseDreams 01:06, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely. In fact, you should not expect that we will spend lots of time tracking down your numerous accounts. You should also not be violating the ban that the arbcom has given you. This is your own fault for creating numerous sock puppets and you should not be complaining about the whole situation as it would never have happened if you hadn't created them. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:08, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Tell me, do you think I have any intention for you to track down my numerous accounts ?

And, what exactly is it that you think I am suffering such that the suffering is my own fault ?

And, in my above comments, what exactly is it that you think constitutes complaining, because I can't see anything?

CheeseDreams 19:16, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Does it matter if you secretly edit from other accounts? As long as you don't cause more problems in Christianity-related articles, I don't think anyone will really mind your surreptitious editing, although bragging about it might not be the best approach. But I will block any more sockpuppets you create, and refer it to the ArbCom to increase the length of your ban. You're currently banned right now, and you're continuing to ignore this ban. Rhobite 01:15, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)

Who says I'm not still causing problems in Christianity-related articles? Obvious sockpuppets aren't the only way to edit, are they, RS?. CheeseDreams 19:13, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

User:Jakew

I'm complimented by your edit to my user page, but I'm reverting it nonetheless since it makes me sound arrogant. It's not clear what your edit summary is supposed to mean... - Jakew 21:15, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I'm not a man. CheeseDreams 21:23, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Why such concern about homophobia on your user page? I'm not saying that non-homosexuals don't have a right to be concerned, but it seems unusual - hence the question. - Jakew 21:31, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

My ex boyfriend turned out to be gay, he is a close friend now (obviously we have split up). But the issues on my talk page are more to do with User:Rienzo and other assorted sock puppets of the same user (as discussed at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rienzo) launching a personal attack and vandalism etc. due to edits I made suggesting (and evidencing) that there is very little evidence for Jesus, and quite a lot against. CheeseDreams 21:37, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I see. Thanks for the explanation. Hope your current/next (none of my business) turns out to be straight. :-) - Jakew 21:40, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

He is a bad dancer, can't sing, watches football for the "sport", I have to choose his clothes, I have to do all the cooking, and he needs to learn to that kissing a guy with stubble isn't that pleasent. So I think he probably is. CheeseDreams 21:50, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

In the interests of gender equality, may I suggest that you amend your statement to read "kissing someone with stubble isn't that pleasant"... I have no specific data to back this up, but I'm going to go ahead and assume that stubble is no less scratchy even if it is on a female. ;) --Dante Alighieri | Talk 00:07, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)

I have never kissed a female, so I am afraid I wouldn't really know. CheeseDreams 19:51, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting that you had, I was just making a joke about stubble. :) --Dante Alighieri | Talk 02:00, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

re: Slrubenstein

Just for the record, is your RfAr against Slrubenstein serious or a "stunt"? The prevailing climate seems to be an assumption that you're being intentionally disruptive rather than possessed of a legitimate beef. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 00:05, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)

ABSOLUTELY 100% SERIOUS. CheeseDreams 19:50, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes, of course you are...darling! I can see you're in trouble again... 67.15.54.16 05:17, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Since when did this count as trouble, darling LouiseR ? CheeseDreams 23:34, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Okey-dokey. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 02:02, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

This is your absolutely last warning. If you try a stunt like that again, I'm taking you back to the ArbCom. You have been warned about submitting frivilous and unwarranted RFCs, that should include RFArs also. I don't think you have too many supporters when you do stuff like that. - Ta bu shi da yu 22:44, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This is your absolutely last warning. If you try to make threats against another user again, I will be the one taking you to the ArbCom. Note also, that the issue of RFCs actually failed to be passed in the ArbCom's ruling, don't think you own the place. CheeseDreams 23:34, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

CheeseDreams, it's not a threat, it's a promise. You were warned about frivolous and unnecessary attacks like the one you just did to Slrubenstein. I'll not warn you again. If I see another one of those and they get rejected out of hand, I will request arbitration again. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:17, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It is both, darling. Remind me who I was warned by. It wasn't arb com. Request arbitration all you like, darling. It won't block me any more than fvw has tried to. CheeseDreams 00:28, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)