User talk:Nandesuka/Archive 5

AfD that needs sensible closing

I am writing in reply to a message I recieved. I am not spamming in 'Fairy'. The links are links to wikipedia like any other. I consider it unfair that you deleted the posts about the multicultural faerie links, and the anthology. Why are you behaving this way? I corrected my initial mistake.

Feel like closing this? I'd do so but I added a second pseudo-subpage to the nomination, so I'm "involved."
brenneman {L} 23:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are clearly insane, as tht is exactly the close that I would have made. Enjoy your pariah-hood.
brenneman {L} 00:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • FYI: Actually TWO of us cited sources dating the term earlier than its Wikipedia article. After I found one source, someone else posted a source that was a year older than that. Wryspy 01:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure. It's clear that the term had been used, but that doesn't make the particular way it was being used in this article (and all throughout Wikipedia, incidentally — you wouldn't believe how much I've had to scrub) was not original research. Nandesuka 01:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nice job on the AfD. I now note that the Cousin Oliver page now has a long list of examples, and there's a new discussion on its talk page as to whether the article should also include the addition of new adult characters to TV shows! One suggestion is the creating of a new list-article for adult cast additions. Asa01 02:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Chuck Lives! Article Chuck Cunningham syndrome has returned. How can that hapen? Asa01 03:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TTTS

This is fetal hope and along with the TTTS Foundation, we are the only non-medical foundations that support TTTS. Is it possible to move our external link from the bottom to the top or just under TTTS Foundation? We are the only foundation to have the leading TTTS Treatment centers on our board.

Thank you,

Fetal Hope

TTTS Reply

Thank you for your comments. While you have a good suggestion and one we will take up, we do not appreciate the tone accusing us of using Wikipedia as the likes of Google. We request the placement only to help save babies lives. If you could save two babies lives today by getting information to a family, would you? We are asking nothing more than being listed in a means that might provide that hope. Most people do not look at the last links, but only the first couple of ones. The other links are medical resources that are on our site and on our board advisory, so we would not be infringing on their placement. We hope you understand this.

Again your suggestion on the text insert about the role of ours and other organizations is important. We intend, with our medical board, to edit quite a bit because the information can be more detailed and some is outdated.

We hope that you appreciate and understand why this is so important. Twice as many babies die from TTTS as SIDS, yet more of the population is aware of SIDS.

We thank you for yor understanding. We are not looking for Wikipedia to be an advocacy or a google!

List of Soul Calibur Bonus Characters deletion

Why did you delete the List of Soul Calibur Bonus Characters? Regards, iswatch19 09:54, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Soul Calibur Bonus Characters deletion Reply

Thanks for the Reply! but why is the article deleted? I want to known more.

Derek Smart

I am considering filing an RFC against User:Supreme_Cmdr due to conduct and persistently ignoring consensus. Would you certify the basis for the complaint if I filed such an RFC? Stifle (talk) 23:37, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That would be great, because then someone who is hopefully neutral will take an interest on the page and see how you folks have blatantly abused your authority and with wanton disregard for policy. So go ahead, file it. The more attention his page gets, the more likely it is that someone will step in and sort it out. In fact, I've already sent a strongly worded email to Wales about this.
Supreme_Cmdr(talk) 13:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Supreme Cmdr is now ready. Please review, and sign if you agree. Stifle (talk) 00:29, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I asked JBKramer about this on his talk page. I'm guessing he is referring to the idea that SC is DS. Addhoc 13:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC) Guessing wrongly as it happens. Addhoc 13:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting vandal

Thanks a lot for help in stopping that anon user (actually a reincarnation of [[User:Alienus}}). Do you know how to have someone blocked for sockpuppetry? LaszloWalrus 21:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I demand a CHECKUSER or phone call

You have implied that I am James Salsman. I am not. Do a checkuser or tell me how to reach you by phone. Peter Cheung = 69.228.65.174 05:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I resent the implication that I merely implied that you were James Salsman. Nandesuka 12:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, I ran "Peter Cheung's" IP through geobytes and it came up in San Fransisco, right by where James lives, but no where near the real Dr Peter Cheung in Texas. I have emailed the good doctor (the real one), and am awaitng a reply. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 03:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I demand a full head of curly hair!

Or, "How to make people cranky without even trying." As anyone whom has ever been in charge of a toddler knows, making a demand that you can't enforce is certain to mostly make the demand-ee cranky. How about asking nicely? - brenneman {L} 05:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

August Esperanza Newsletter

Program Feature: To-Do List
The Esperanza To-Do List is a place where you may list any request, big or small, for assistance. If you need help with archiving your usertalk, for example, all you need to do is list it here and somebody will help you out. Likewise, if you need help with some area of editing on Wikipedia, list it here! Again, any matter, trivial or not, can be placed on this page. However, all matters listed on this page must not be of an argumentative nature. You do not need to be a member of Esperanza (or this program) to place or fulfill requests on this page. If you don't have any requests, consider coming by and fulfilling a few! This program has not been very active, but has lots of potential!
What's New?
In order to help proposed programs become specific enough to make into full-fledged programs, the In development section of the proposals page has been created. Proposals that are promising, but need to be organized in more detail are listed here. Please take a look at what is there, and help the proposals turn into programs.
To improve both the layout and text of the front page, in an attempt to clarify the image of Esperanza, the front page is going to have some redesigning take place. Please take your creative minds to Wikipedia:Esperanza/Front page redesign to brainstorm good ideas.
Many thanks to MiszaBot, courtesy of Misza13, for delivering the newsletter.
  1. In order to make sure all users who join Esperanza are welcomed, a list of volunteers who are willing to welcome new Esperanzians is at Wikipedia:Esperanza/Members#Esperanza_welcomers. Please add yourself if you are interested; we want to make sure all new Esperanza members are welcomed!
  2. The In development section of the proposals page has been created.
  3. Proposals page: Some proposals have been moved to the aforementioned "In development" section, some have been left as a proposal, and others have been archived. For those proposals that were a good idea but didn't necessarily constitute a program, General Esperanzial Actions has been created.
  4. Two small pieces of charter reform will be decided on in a straw poll at Wikipedia talk:Esperanza/Governance. One involves filling the position of any councillors who may leave, the other involves reforming the charter.
  5. Until cooperation with the Kindness Campaign is better defined, it remains as a proposed program.
  6. There is a page for discussing the front page redesign.
Signed...
Although having the newsletter appear on everyone's userpage is desired, this may not be ideal for everyone. If, in the future, you wish to receive a link to the newsletter, rather than the newsletter itself, you may add yourself to Wikipedia:Esperanza/Newsletter/Opt Out List.

Hi there! question

Why was Encyclopedia Dramatica deleted? What is it anyway? --66.218.12.190 05:07, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedia Dramatica

Just wondering, why isn't there allowed to be an article on Encyclopedia Dramatica? It is an actual website. If there was discussion relating to this, could you please point me to it? --Phantom784 01:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing. The deletion discussion is |here. Hope that helps. Nandesuka 12:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alienus sockpuppet

I think this guy is another Alienus sockpuppet: he deleted an entire block of text from Objectivism, Ayn Rand, and homosexuality and labeled the change in the summary as, "sp," which is similar, I believe, to something an Alienus sockpuppet did before. Anyway, this is the guy: user:Aminotene. --Yossarian 23:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alienus

This arbitration case has closed and the final decision is published at the link above.

Sam Korn (smoddy) 15:21, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This had two articles up for deletion:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of manga published in English by Tokyopop--Kunzite 18:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Primetime

I'm less certain that user:Gassali, et al, are socks of Primetime. Primetime stopped by my talk page to disavow those usernames, and there are indications that these other users have verifiable identities. They may be just coincidental plagiarists. -Will Beback 21:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Little Late

The pending ArbCom request reminded me to compliment you: your close of the Encyclopedia Dramatica AfD was absolutely brilliant, the perfect sort of finishing touch that leads neutral parties (of which I was one) to see the wisdom in your resolution. The soundness of that close really helped the matter sail through DRV, and I'm sorry if you've been pestered over it by partisans. Best wishes, Xoloz 15:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suckpuppet Vandalism

How am I supposed to dispute this? Doctor Octagon 22:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your request for a 'thesis'

Section courtesy blanked. See archives.

Octagon's userpage vandalism.

Here, if you haven't seen it yet. Ehheh 00:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trolling

You are clearly going out of your way to provoke by making the most pusilanimous personal attacks. Stop. --Tony Sidaway 12:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your characterization of my comments is, quite simply, false. A better example of a personal attack would be this edit, where you refer to a fellow editor (apparently) as "utterly barking mad". Nandesuka 12:35, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My mother always used to say, 'if you can't say anything useful, don't say anything at all'. Perhaps everyone involved in this might reflect on her words of wisdom. --Doc 12:40, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, Doc. I shouldn't have gotten involved. Consider it droppd. Nandesuka 12:45, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher131 (talk) 12:31, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Smart Talk Page

Please do not delete my "Fan Page Link Textual Description" section heading on the Derek Smart Talk Page and replace it with your own section heading. [1] I would like to discuss the status of the Werewolves link [2] as a link to a fan page. The section heading is meant to make this clear. There are other sections in the Talk Page where they discuss other concerns about the page(libellousness, BLP, EL, etc). AddHoc originally deleted my heading and replaced it the section heading "==Discussion about including potentially libellous link==" and I requested on his talk page that he not do so. 75.30.203.153 15:38, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are discussing the werewolves link. The discussion is precisely about how to characterize that link. It's inappropriate to assume the conclusion you want to reach in the heading. Nandesuka 15:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, The section is specifically discussing the werewolves page as a fan page - using Wikipedia's definition of a fan. There is already a heading "Wording of the werewolves link" discussing other aspects of the Werewolves page. I'll change the "Fan Page Link Textual Description" to "Fan Page Discussion" - that will differentiate it from the preceeding "Wording of the werewolves link" heading, while keeping the fact that the section is about discussing the Werewolves link as a Fan Page link, but without any appearance of assuming a conclusion.

Photos

I am intrigued, because I looked at them, and I didn't see anything that said to me they'd been photoshopped. And if they had, the person doing it needs a retraining course. But could you pick one and say what the most obvious area(s) is/are, so I can have another look. Tyrenius 01:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You'll find the most obvious spot-heals in Image:Womaninspandex.jpg. Compare that to the "facial" photograph and the touch-ups should be obious. There are others, as well, but that's the most readily noticeable. Nandesuka 02:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Sorry I didn't realise you'd left it here. Unfortunately it seems not even admins can get to deleted pics, unless you know a way. Are you referring, for example, to the hair on the left hand side of the picture? I had a camera for a short time that did that kind of thing - processed it to remove noise and ended up removing detail, particularly in hair. I'm not arguing a point. I'm genuinely interested in such matters. On some of them (now deleted) they just hadn't touched up blemishes which I'd normally expect to see vanished. The compositions have no slickness in them at all, and pro porn is usually very slick. There's random ugly bits of background intruding. There isn't any decent lighting there at all, as far as the results reveal. And in one facial a highlight on the shoulder is so over-exposed it's whited out. Cropping on the black bodice one is non-existent. She's surrounded by redundant space. The most I can imagine is a self-taught amateur who puts them on a pay site to get some money (lots of that kind of stuff around and some of this kind of quality), which then makes nonsense of putting them on wiki for free. It's a strange world. Tyrenius 03:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vanity stuff in NiMUD and Online Creation articles

Section courtesy blanked. See archive

Whoops... sorry

Hi, sorry about repeatedly wikilinking the bare month on the Fairchild Channel F and ColecoVision pages... force of habit! I gotta stop that... --Ecksemmess 17:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Tyrrell - AfD

You closed the AfD on Ivan Tyrrell but left the AfD notice on the article and did not put the AfD closure template on the talk page. I have removed the AfD template from the article but think that the summary on the Talk page needs to be done by you. If I have missed something (always likely :-) ) please put me right. BlueValour 20:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Publicgirluk DRV

Hi,

I have a minor objection to the manner in which you closed this. Jimbo did not invoke jurisdiction in his off-hand comment; he simply expressed an opinion. Personally, I dislike it when editors "read the tea leaves" of Jimbo's remarks as if they were scripture. If Jimbo wants the DRV to end, he may close it, or say "close the DRV." Short of a direct command like that, his opinion is no different than anyone's, and may be less significant than others, given the number of things the man has on his plate, and the probable lack of time he has to invest in little squabbles. Anyway, I don't object to the closing, but I consider it done by you, under your own authority, just like any other DRV closure by any admin. I'm removing the reference to Jimbo, and I hope you understand why. Best wishes, Xoloz 15:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As per what Xoloz said, I am highly tempted to unblock the user and may do so soon. If Jimbo thought the user should be indef blocked he should have done it himself. (At this point, I must say that I am highly disappointed in the general behavior on the Wiki about this. The user had multiple productive edits to topics completely unrelated to sexual matters and didn't act trollish at all. Contrast this for example with the crap with Courtney, an actual troll (who is amazingly unblocked at this point)). If the user chooses not to edit at this point, or edits unproductively it will be (in my mind at least) completely understandable. JoshuaZ 22:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have unblocked the user per my above comments. JoshuaZ 22:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have restored the block, even though I am not in favor of it. I have been having an email conversation with Jimbo regarding this situation, and I regard it as unambiguous that under the present circumstances he intends that this user be blocked. Dragons flight 23:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Octopus

I'm a bit concerned about this comment. Surely he has the right to see the evidence against him? --David Mestel(Talk) 15:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why? He's not asking me to "show him the evidence." He's asking me to "prove it," which is an entirely different ball of wax. Presumably, if I actually did post the relevant logs on his talk page, his next complaint would be that I'm unethically releasing personal information about him. So it's really a no-win situation for me if I attempt to "prove it" to the general public. That's why I offered to show the information, in confidence, to admins that are concerned about the issue.

He doesn't need to see the evidence, because he already knows that I'm telling the truth about who he is. Nandesuka 16:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that like saying that someone accused of a crime IRL doesn't need to see the evidence against them because, according to the prosecution, they "already know" that they are guilty? It would be perfectly reasonable to ask him to give consent to the logs being posted. --David Mestel(Talk) 21:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia isn't a government, and we're under no obligation to play nice with those who would abuse the encyclopedia. Nandesuka 00:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But it's just someone whom you accuse of abusing the encyclopedia - you've shown no concrete evidence why we should believe you. Why not just file an RFCU to sort things out? --David Mestel(Talk) 06:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As I've already noted, not all Checkuser requests go through WP:RFCU. Out of curiosity, have you actually looked at this user's contributions? Nandesuka 12:37, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry accusation

I think you should post a sockpuppet report and let things flow normally. Without another admin to investigate, he does have a point that he cannot respond to that. Posting a sockpuppet tag and not following through with the report that may incriminate or exonerate him is not really fair. Thanks -- Avi 18:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm already pursuing this through private channels. Not all sockpuppet check requests go through WP:RFCU. Nandesuka 19:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NiMUD on deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of NiMUD. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, your reasons on how or why you did so will be greatly appreciated in the above review. Doctor Octagon 18:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC).[reply]

There is a request for Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Nandesuka, please do not remove the tags until the dispute is settled. Doctor Octagon 18:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Violation of 3 revert rule

There is no overwhelming majority on the talk page, yet you continue to revert this page. Clearly in violation of the Three Revert Rule. As such you are ask to stop, further continuation will result in reporting to WP:AN/3RR.Jigahurtz 20:02, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe I am in violation of the 3RR rule, then I encourage you to report me. Obviously, I believe that I am expressing the clearly-expressed consensus from the talk page. Nandesuka 20:03, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is in no way such a consensus. I see three users supporting you, and one of them seems to be doing it due to a previous dispute, not for your reasons given.Jigahurtz 20:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously, I disagree. Nandesuka 20:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How do I contact you, Nandesuka .. I am curious about why you welcomed back James Salsman on the depleted uranium page -and why don't people have e-mail contact points .. - rhelbig AT calif (ornia) dot com.

Please refrain from removing content from Wikipedia, as you did to Xbox 360. It is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Jigahurtz 04:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe that editing an article in accordance with the overwhelming consensus on the talk page is vandalism, then I encourage you to file an RfC. Nandesuka 04:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: PS3 / Xbox Hardware "list"

I just posted a small note in the article talk page of PS3. I will try to stay in touch with the article, but I am terribly busy with other two WikiProjects, and dead tired. Remember that, if we can't agree, we can always request a straw poll at the CVG WikiProject to determine whether the articles should have literal copy/paste of specifications or converted into prose, even if losing "exact" information. -- ReyBrujo 04:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Massiveego situation

Nandesuka, incivility and personal attacks are one thing. Wheel warring another. Obviously there is dispute on this matter, so I'd ask you to please reconsider your re-re-block of Massiveego. What good is this serving? How does 'punishing' him, on grounds which clearly do not follow policy, make him likely to be a better Wikipedian in the future? You disagree with and are angry with me... that in itself is a good reason not to act, but even if you are absolutely right wheel-warring to get your way is bad for Wikipedia. --CBD 12:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reversing administrator actions is not wheel-warring. We do it all the time and should. Taking administrator actions you know are disputed (whether reversing or initiating) is wheel-warring. Regardless of whether W.marsh's removal of his block was a "tantrum" as you say or not... his initial block was itself wheel-warring... and even had it not been, your re-instatement of a block you knew to be disputed would still be wheel-warring. The point is to not use your admin buttons to enforce your viewpoint when you know there are going to be admin objections / no consensus has been established. --CBD 14:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"A wheel war is a struggle between two or more admins in which they undo another's administrative actions." That's from the very first sentence of WP:WHEEL, which sets out very clearly what wheel warring is and is not. Hope that helps. Nandesuka 14:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I was way down on the fourth sentence, "Wheel wars occur when administrators get too distressed to discuss something, or when an administrator takes it upon him or herself to undo another admin's actions without consultation, or deliberately ignores an existing discussion (often at WP:ANI or WP:DRV) to implement their preferred version." --CBD 16:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lordkazan

Hi - it seems that while I was making a complaint here you were busily blocking him. You may wish to comment, or if you think the matter's dealt with, delete the complaint. I just wanted to let you know. Jakew 14:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How to Write Haiku

I just fell out of my chair laughing. RFerreira 19:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedia Dramatica on deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Encyclopedia Dramatica. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, your reasons on how or why you did so will be greatly appreciated in the above review. -AlexJohnc3 My Talk Page 21:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Martial arts

Greetings. I was just venting my spleen on the Talk:Martial arts page about the list you removed. Well done, thanks! --Fire Star 火星 03:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frankness

I wonder if T.C. is enjoying all the attention. Evertype

Your protection of User:Badlydrawnjeff's talk page

Hi, I was wondering if you could explain to me what possible good this action served. I, along with several other editors, feel the block of Bdj was clearly a punitive one to silence argument. I would argue strongly that civil discussion is never disruption, and a block for such is always unwarranted. But, to then protect his talk page to silence any possible outlet is unfathomable. I hope you can illuminate the beneficial nature of this page protection for me, because as it stands it appears entirely without merit, against the principles of wikipedia, and not in good faith. --Nscheffey(T/C) 20:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I explained it adequately on Jeff's talk page. But, since you're asking me to elaborate, it's quite simple: he was given that small block to cool his head. He was, instead, working himself up into a lather on his talk page and snapping at well-meaning editors who were offering advice. Jeff was blocked, more or less, for fomenting unreasonable amounts of drama, and the protection was to stop him from doing the same on his talk page. The protection was for his own good. Whether or not he believes that is not my concern. Nandesuka 20:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, where in WP:BLOCK does it suggest blocking people so they can "cool down"? The idea that a block would ever have the effect of calming someone down is ridiculous. Has it ever worked? I see no logic behind the idea that denying him the ability to speak on his talk page was in any way "for his own good." After your last, roundly denounced, block of Bdj, don't you think it would be advisable to show a little restraint with the mute button? As for your concerns, it is your concern to explain your actions to the Wikipedia community. I again repeat that Discussion is not Disruption and what I have seen this morning is an embarassment.--Nscheffey(T/C) 20:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your input. Nandesuka 21:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is some dark humor. --Nscheffey(T/C) 21:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I'll take that as a compliment. Thank you. Nandesuka 21:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Xbox 360

Hey, I wanted to let you know that I'm going to quietly bow out of the discussion and revert war on the Xbox 360 page. I've removed it from my watch list because I decided that I have more important things to do around the wiki than fight with a couple of users who ignore consensus. I have no doubt that they'll eventually be put in their place for ignoring other editors' wishes and revert warring, but I'm through with arguing. It's really getting absolutely nowhere since they aren't bothering to respond to the points and just continue to insist that consensus is irrelevant so long as they disagree with it.

Anyway, have fun with that whole mess, and I'm sorry I can't manage to stick it out. I've made several other people aware of the situation, so I doubt it will be very much longer before someone takes action or you have enough support for an RfC. -- mattb @ 2006-09-07 05:00Z


If you dislike the guideline discuss it on the guideline's talk page.DeathSeeker 05:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(1) That guideline doesn't actually say what you think it does.
(2) No one really uses that as a guideline anyway. It's totally incomprehensible (at least, to me).
Regards, Nandesuka 05:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: You should be an admin.

Thank you, but I don't need the admin tools for now. Although I massively revert, it is only a 2-3 click action which does not bother me at all. I prefer focusing on building and polishing articles, at least for the time being. Thanks again. -- ReyBrujo 05:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tobias Conradi

I have removed your protection of User talk:Tobias Conradi. The template you placed on his page indicating that it was for vandalism and/or removal of warnings was clearly false. Nor is it at all appropriate for you to take action against him for incivility given your own engagement in incivility and personal attacks towards him. If you think that his behaviour is so bad as to require both blocking and stifling please get some admin who has not been abusive to him to do so. I would also caution you against things like this. --CBD 17:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should have taken your own advice and found an uninvolved admin to remove the protection, rather than simply wheel warring over it. As to the other issue, if you will avoid shaking down well-meaning editors who answer the questions you ask in a straightforward manner, I'll avoid commenting on it. Nandesuka 17:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(Thank you for saying this. Evertype)

Encyclopedia Dramatica

Hi Nandesuka, MONGO pointed me here to ask you about Encyclopedia Dramatica's closure after he decided he didn't want to dicuss it any further. I haven't been able to find any valid reasons yet (after reading much of the old DRV, the last AfD, and all of my DRV) and if you want to discuss it that would be appreciated. Otherwise I can look elsewhere. --AlexJohnc3 (talk) 20:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should read the most recent AfD and the first DRV of it again, because it's fairly clear to me. If you can't understand the arguments articulated there, I doubt I'll be able to enlighten you. Best of luck, Nandesuka 20:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about understanding the arguments, it's about finding valid ones. I'll look more closely though, do you remember if they were they concentrated mainly in a certain section of the discussions? --AlexJohnc3 (talk) 00:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They seem plain as day to me, all throughout the discussion. Good luck with your studies. Nandesuka 15:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well then how about elucidating it for me? I have laughed myself silly reading the satire on ED's site and was curious about its origins and why it hates Wikipedia so much. But to my utter saddness, there isn't a Wikipedia article? How can a topic of interest NOT have at least biographical/historical references in the Wikipedia? Don't point me to a talk page so I can waste hours navigating through an ego fest... just please give me a reason why it was deleted?

ED failed to meet WP:V or WP:N. In short, it had no independent reliable sources say anything about it. JoshuaZ 02:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your note

Hi N, regarding Tobias, I wasn't sure where to comment or what to say, and couldn't quite follow what was going on. If you'd still like me to comment, please say where, and I'll try to concentrate. :-) SlimVirgin (talk) 00:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will need your help

Nandesuka, greetings. I have created several articles on Wikipedia and I did not realize at the time because of my ignorances that I could not set up an account using my companies name and editing as the same. When I found out I made strides to edit said articles as my own editor and not using facts from our company. I have ran into a problem with an editor that you yourself have had to block for civility and improper wiki editing tactics. The editor is Wikipediatrix. She has been rude to me from day 1. She has used language that is very harsh and she does these rambo edits without explaining why she is doing them or refusing to do anything to help me to improve the problems. When I respond, she uses terms like. "I thought you would have been smart enough to know that?" or she will even go to her allied editing buddies and have them gang up on me as well. I am really getting tires of this. I set up a new account because they blocked the username I was editing under and I am alright with that because I understand now what Wikipedia's terms are for editing under a company title. However, they have tagged several of the articles that I created and on one of them Wikipediatrix has removed every cite that I have put on and even removed a complete discography and filmography for an artist that my company handles and I know the facts very well. She states she cannot find reference to the dicography so she chose to remove it? I did a google search and found most of it myself. This is just ridiculous! If you look at the history of her discussion page you will see that she is very aggressive and causes waves wherever she goes. For a new editor such as myself, that can be very discouraging. I am at the point where I just want to delete these articles and forget about wikipedia. She and some of her friends have gone onto an article that I created about our company and has tagged it as a hoax company? IAMAS Corporation is an American entertainment and media corporation with 19 offices throughout the country. They are a private company and are not open for public consumption because of dealing with celebrities. The learning universities are located in Japan and New Zealand in which I referenced the Japan based website. They tagged it because they said there were no reference to anything being done across the oceans {which is totally untrue} and that it does not say anything about being a corporation. The site clearly says that when it comes to the learning institutions they only refer to them as IAMAS. They were told by several editors that before they make these tags they should post it to the talk pages and lets discuss it before making such tags. These people do not listen to any of this and I have to say I am very tired of dealing with it. The company is not a hoax, nor does it deserve to be tagged in such a fashion. But again, no one went to the discussion page to ask about the format of the company? The article that they like to go after me about is an artist by the name of David L Cook. I have cited things and she will remove the cites claiming they are not proper cites? Yet, other editors have said they saw nothing wrong with them? I have included qoutes from other people and she has removed them saying that they were not proper. That is fine, however there is a proper way of doing it without being nasty and abrassive. If you look at the discussion page for David L Cook, you will see that I have tried to get her to help and to explain why she does what she does. To explain her tags and edits. She says she doesn't have to or she gave a brief discription in the editing tag line. Other editors have told her that instead of using all of these tags she should get her hands in there and help in the editing. She wrote back to him and said that why should she do that when she has the tags? Why would Wikipedia give her the tags if she was expected to do the editing? I am sorry, is'nt that what we are here to do? Help each other to make wikipedia a viable source of information?

If you could please help me I would be forever grateful for it. Otherwise, I am just going to delete my articles and be done with this whole thing. I feel defeated with this woman and I am sorry, she has turned this into something very personal. She claims she hasn't, however too many have seen the same things I have. She now goes on about POV which I have been very aware and careful of, But According to our own Wiki rules;

"The reliability of the person giving you the facts is as important as the facts themselves. Keep in mind that facts are seldom facts, but what people think are facts, heavily tinged with assumptions." Hard facts are really rare. What we most commonly encounter are opinions from people (POV's). Inherently, because of this, most articles at wikipedia are full of POV's. An article which clearly, accurately, and fairly describes all the major points of view will, by definition, be in accordance with Wikipedia's official "Neutral Point of View" policy.

I look forward to cooresponding with you in regards to this issue. If you could just watch her and see how she treats these issues, I would also be in debt to you. Thank you Junebug52 20:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look. Generally speaking, the best way to deal with edit conflicts is to discuss the issues fully on the talk pages of the articles in question; if one editor disagrees with you, then often you can find others to take up your cause. If many editors disagree with you, you should reexamine your contributions with an open mind. Nandesuka 01:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Nandesuka, I will keep that in mind. I am just tired of her attacks and narrow mindedness. I would not have a problem with her edits if she explained or helped and others did not have simular problems with her rudeness. I appreciate any help you can give. Junebug52 22:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nandesuka, I would hope that you're aware that at no time have I done anything of the sort that "Junebug52" has claimed, as a simple glance at the talk pages and the history will show. Furthermore, I would have hoped you would have corrected Junebug52's statement here that you blocked me for "civility and improper wiki editing tactics", which is of course not true. If anything Junebug52 states in this long tirade against me is true, I would love to see a diff. wikipediatrix 15:56, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't notice that Junebug had claimed that I had blocked you. I guess that got lost in the flood of detail. It's somewhat hard to parse. Nandesuka 15:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Read up on wikipolicy and guidelines

It's perfectly fine for later sections to be highly technical, if necessary. Those who are not interested in details will simply stop reading at some point, which is why the material they are interested in needs to come first.
Do not "dumb-down" the article in order to make it more accessible. Accessibility is intended to be an improvement to the article for the benefit of the less-knowledgeable readers (who may be the largest audience), without reducing the value to more technical readers.
In many cases, edit wars are based on a premise, that: "such material doesn't belong here, because it belongs in another article." Instead of removing content, it is preferred to have abundance and redundancy of content.
Improve pages wherever you can, and don't worry about leaving them imperfect. However, avoid deleting information wherever possible.


Your breaking official wiki policy and guidelines.DeathSeeker 00:32, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You were wrong last time, and you're wrong this time. Don't force me to prove it. Come over to the good side. Nandesuka 00:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm wrong? Everything you've done to this article violated the three above. And every reversions you've made violates guidelines.

Wikipedia:Abundance and redundancyis a guideline dealing with similar material being shared among separate articles, and debates over the removal of said materials on the basis of context: It is a preferred solution that material be included rather than excluded to resolve an edit war. In many cases, edit wars are based on a premise, that: "such material doesn't belong here, because it belongs in another article." Instead of removing content, it is preferred to have abundance and redundancy of content.

Yes, I understand that you hunted around until you found an obscure and, to be frank, somewhat incoherent guideline that nobody has ever paid much attention to to justify your position. That doesn't give you the right to undermine the consensus process, which is one of the core pillars that supports Wikipedia. If you think it does, you are in for a very rude awakening. Nandesuka 00:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your lack of knowledge on basic wiki policy is no justification for your violating edits.DeathSeeker 00:49, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just don't say I didn't warn you. Nandesuka 00:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it is any consolation, I think you handled the situation well. What was odd is that in the process, because the user was just blindly reverting, the user was wiping out other info, thus taking away even more credence from the user's arguments. Right now it is still in that very unsavory state - I'll try to revert/clean it up tomarro morning if it is still that way :). RN 02:21, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Welcome Back

Thanks. I don't know if I'm back, really, for a while I felt like I was a vandal/troll (apparently that would raise my value to Wikipedia in the eyes of some, so why resist it?). Anyway... I've never lost my deep enthusiasm about the article namespace and all that represents... it's just the nastiness and backwardness of the "other" areas of Wikipedia that was quite upsetting when I finally encountered it firsthand. I've voluntarilly had myself de-sysopped until I figure out what I'm doing... so let's just see where this goes. Thanks for your note. --W.marsh 01:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Circumcision & Jakew

Jakew is the editor who is pretty much singlehandedly responsible for the pro-circumcision bias of the Circumcision article. I am the victim of male genital mutilation, so I'm not going to take kindly to him keeping a wikipedia article in violation of NPOV so he can work out his cognitive dissonance and get other little boy's rights violated in the same way mine were. I am the victim of a GOMCO Clamp (They leave a very distinctive scar) Lordkazan 03:30, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha, it's hard to stay civil with Jakew blocking every attempt to bring the article into a more NPOV state - I go to the talk page first, I don't simply edit, and it's REALLY frustrating to have my attempts to make the article more neutral be blocked by a known POV-pusher Lordkazan 03:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(additional note) while it's hard to stay civil with him, I will attempt to do a better job in doing so. Lordkazan 03:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Nandesuka 03:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your welcome. It's really frustrating trying to get that article more neutral - I went to the talk page to try and create a consensus before making edits, but it seems Jakew has no interest in reaching a consensus other than "my way or the highway" :/ Lordkazan 04:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you again Lordkazan 15:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ok

No problem, but it will sit a whole lot better with me if you do something to make him remove the untrue statements spread all over Wiki. I never referred to him as an anti-Semite or Islamophobe; holding some views which are Islamophobic and/or anti-Semitic does not necessarily make one an Islamophobe and/or anti-Semite. I`ve made this point before, but it doesn`t seem to register. His repeated assertions are just not true; lying is a serious violation. Calling me a "criminal" in various places certainly doesn`t help the dynamic, either. There are many others, but you get the point. I will follow your advice now, but I think you may be wrong about who is being more provocative. For the record, my goal is not to have him banned but to have him change his behavior to conform to policy. If he cannot or will not do this, however, it should be expected that some further administrative action be taken. Dasondas 15:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Nandesuka :) Crimsone 16:03, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nandesuka, are you planning to do anything to cause Lordkazan to remove the false charges against me from the top of his userpage? This was the dialogue I was involved in when you asked me to stop. Out of respect for your request, and in an attempt to let things calm down a bit, I did as you requested. However, I still intend to to have the false accusations removed, and I'd prefer to do it the easy way rather than the hard way. In my view, the easier way -- for me, anyhow :) -- would be for you to prevail upon him to voluntarily remove the incendiary comments. I never called him an Islamophobe or anti-Semite, and he shouldn't be saying that I did. Dasondas 18:03, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am not. I think the interactions between you two are poisonous, and I think you should simply continue to ignore each other. If I got upset every time someone wrote something somewhat nasty about me on Wikipedia, I'd be upset a lot of the time. If I see Lordkazan and you tangling in the future I'll be upset, but my strong recommendation to you is that you just don't pick at the scab. He has his opinion, you have yours, and you should do your best to stay out of each others' way. Nandesuka 04:32, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll neither seek out nor avoid any individual editors; my interest is in improving the encyclopedia not scoring personal points with anonymous web surfers. However, I don't intend to let an uncivil editor intimidate me into staying away from controversial articles just because the atmosphere is poisonous, so I imagine that my path and his will be crossing again. In fact, I see it as something of a Wiki-responsibility to get even more engaged when dirt starts flying my way, otherwise the shrillest and most opinionated editors wind up controlling the content (this applies to any article, not just the specific one that led to this dispute). The only "opinion" user:Dasondas has wrt to this issue is that Wikipedia content conform to policy. That means article content as well as inter-editor dialogue. I'm sure you didn't mean to suggest that my personal opinions interfere with my ability to be a good editor, so I won't take it that way. And if I do choose to make a RfC regarding the numerous personal attacks, I hope you'll understand my point of view even though you would have preferred that I let it go. Thanks for your feedback; even if I don't wind up taking your advice, I'll seriously reflect on it before acting. Dasondas 05:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I will amend my previous statement: an RFC is an appropriate response to issues like this. When I advised you to "stay out of his way" I was referring to engaging in further arguments on his talk page about this issue that you both clearly won't agree about. Nandesuka 11:37, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for backing me up at the Thoreau page. Perhaps you should keep watching it and add to the comments on the talk page if they start up again, as I'm getting quite lonely. Also, maybe check out the anarchism page (well, talk page, since the anarchism page is protected). Thanks. Oh, and that was totally the best scene. Ungovernable ForceThe Wiki Kitchen! 06:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:D cheney

Having blocked this user, you might be particularly interested in the recent edit history of Umbilicus. I smell a bunch of sockpuppets. —freak(talk) 14:12, Sep. 11, 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppet notice on my user page

"Section courtesy blanked. See archive.'

Encyclopedia of Arda

I apologize for inadvertantly recreating deleted content: I made a reference to it on AFD (ironically as an example of subject-specific sites with content we shouldn't bother with) and was surprised to find it a redlink. Is there an index of previously-deleted articles that one can check? In this instance, I am moderately surprised at the result: such a monumental undertaking should have attracted some reliable third-party comment. Robert A.West (Talk) 19:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Hello, I'm Aeon the Deputy Coordinator for the AMA. I have reviewed and declined Hans Gruber's request for an advocate on the grounds of Sockpuppet abuse and bad faith request. Thanks for the additional information Æon Insanity Now!EA! 01:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your block of User:Pussy Galore

Well done. I should like to shake your hand. Watch out for new socks though. Regards, HawkerTyphoon 11:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Checkuser revealed sock puppets but until the trolling ban, the sockpuppets were not out of policy. I have requested that the sockpuppets that were turned up (at the Users request) get banned as well. --Tbeatty 04:19, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nandesuka, I haven't really followed this so I respect your decision, but could you please be more specific about the reason for this ban? From your banning comment it would appear that the cause is the discussion on his talk page, but surely one cannot be banned just for that. Could you please point me to other notable trollings please? Thanks. PizzaMargherita 08:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. If you examine the user's edit history, you'll see that the number of substantive edits this person has made to article space can, quite literally, be counted on one hand. His entire raison d'etre is stirring up trouble on AfD and on talk pages (see this, for example, hardly a typical eighth edit for a good-faith user. In other words, he was here solely to troll — almost certainly he edits here under another name, and just created this identity to avoid that one being banned — and is trying to stir up trouble. Accounts like that need not be permitted to edit. Hope that helps. Nandesuka 12:13, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see, thanks. So where does that leave us with Tbeatty's request to dig up all his multiple accounts and ban them all? And presumably prevent him from creating another account and start again? Wouldn't that be a bit of a nazi thing to do? PizzaMargherita 15:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't ask them to dig up anything nor to even reveal those sockpuppets. I only asked them to ban the accounts that showed up at this user's request for the checkuser that has already been done per the Sockpuppet policy as using them would violate Wikipedia polcy.--Tbeatty 17:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I can't see a big difference there, so my question to Nandesuka still remains. Also, are you (Tbeatty) also asking to ban any other accounts that pop up from that same IP address? PizzaMargherita 20:18, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't specified any accounts. That's up to the checkuser people to decide. Certain accounts and IPs showed up for this user said were other accoutnts of his. They should be blocked per policy. The person behind the "Pussy Galore" account is blocked for trolling. The person. Not the IP, or accounts or anything like that. Until the block is lifted, he is unwelcome in any guise. That is policy. He cannot simply create or use a different account and be within policy.--Tbeatty 20:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But about the IPs, if the blocking admin followed the normal procedure, the IP will be autoblocked and any IP's used by the account will be blocked as they are used. IP autoblocks expire even on permanent bans --Tbeatty 20:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So excuse my ignorance, but how does that work then? If he had logged in once from a Net Cafe in Paris, according to what you say that IP has also been locked, right?
Also, I have another question for Nandesuka. Is it true that no warning been issued before the ban? If so, why? I can't really see any urgency, it's not like he was blanking 10 pages per second... PizzaMargherita 12:13, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you view someone disrupting the work of other editors as an urgent matter? Nandesuka 13:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Because trolls can be ignored. And even then, even serial blatant template vandals are warned before a ban, especially an indefinite one. PizzaMargherita 14:54, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, trolls can be ignored. They can also be banned. he was trolling, he knew he was trolling, and giving him warnings would not have changed his behavior or benefitted the encyclopedia in any way. Except for letting him continue to troll. I stand by the block. He says he's going to contest it, so I'm content to wait and see how that works out for him. Nandesuka 15:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if he knew he was trolling, but I'll trust you on that. But which one is it now: you didn't give any warnings because it was an urgent issue, or because you thought it would have been pointless? Note that I'm not questioning the ban (although an indefinite one looks a bit on the harsh side in my opinion), just the way it was carried out.
Also I repeat: where does that leave us with Tbeatty's request to ban all his multiple accounts, apparetntly according to policy? And how does this affect shared IPs that he might have logged from? PizzaMargherita 16:13, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inevitably inflammatory edits

Edits to comments that will obviously cause, at the least, tension, are counterproductive and should be avoided. Additionally, I'd appreciate if you refrained from editing my comments (especially on my own talk page) to the effect of misrepresenting my sentiments. Going around replacing sentiments you deem less appropriate with "better" ones is not what wiki-editing is intended for. Thanks very much, Karwynn (talk) 02:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, right, I should avoid inflaming you by editing your giving your fellow editors the fingers and calling them bitches. How outrageous of me. Nandesuka 03:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken. I've since modified it so it is acceptable. Karwynn (talk) 03:07, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Nandesuka 03:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Jeremy

You reverted my revert of the Ron Jeremy page, removing a link that has been in place for over two months. Please use the talk page before making significant changes. Regards.

Please do not remove content from Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.

205.188.117.11 20:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC);;[reply]

You give a vandalism warning to a wiki administrator for doing his job and revert him? It's not the first time the link has been removed, and what's worse, it's a link to megaupload. THAT's the issue. Removed warning, but not the revert. Besides, it's customary to actually talk before throwing warnings around. You were only just thanking him a little while ago--Crimsone 08:13, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He wasn't doing his job. Its the first time in many months the link has been removed. There is no issue that it is to megaupload. There are links to youtube in External Links. And besides, its customary to actually talk before removing links. And the reason I was thanking him was because he reverted his own edit but now he seems to have unreverted it.205.188.117.11 13:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So it wasn't removed a day or two ago by an IP? [3] Crimsone 17:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what the significance of that is. I am just saying you shouldn't remove external links without first consulting the talk page.205.188.117.11 20:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The significance is that you said that the link had been removed by nandesuka for the first time in many months, which is blatantly untrue. Perhaps before telling others about talking before doing, it might be prudent to try talking before throwing vandalism warnings at administrators. If you feel that Nandesuka has done wrong, then why do the exact same thing yourself? The phrase "mountain out of a molehill" springs to mind. --Crimsone 00:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OMG, it was removed one or two times over a three month period!!!! Whoopdedoo. Point stands. You say I did the "exact same thing" as he did. What did I do that was the exact same thing that he did? Clarify.

Also, your point about "try talking before throwing vandalism warnings at administrators" is not a very valid point considering that he has removed my posts on the Ron Jeremy Talk page.

You shouldn't remove external links without first consulting the talk page.205.188.117.11 03:09, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You happen to be wrong that I removed the link, but had I noticed it, I would have removed it. Anyone should feel free to remove garbage links from the encyclopedia at any time. No need to talk it out endlessly on the talk page. Nandesuka 11:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I happen to be right: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ron_Jeremy&diff=75355810&oldid=75353971205.188.117.11 23:46, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Morrowind

I was just wondering why you RV 213.249.155.236's edit to the page Morrowind as he made a perfectly good edit which was valid and correct. Mr Roboto 16:23, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't a "perfectly good edit." It was poorly writte and ungrammatical. Nandesuka 17:21, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SNOW

Please try to engage in discussion before making an edit on a page that is currently being debated. Since this has been going back and forth for a few days, with us only just reaching a semi-suitable agreement of not calling it anything, your edit was poorly timed and unhelpful, and has already been changed. Also, calling the dozen or so, clear majority of participants in the discussion, complainers is probably not a good idea. Let's try not to inflame things around here. —Nate Scheffey 17:39, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please try to not mischaracterize my words. I didn't "call a dozen or so participants complainers." I said that User:badlydrawnjeff was complaining about it. Hope that helps. Have a nice day. Nandesuka 17:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Carter and Tracy Grammer

Don't forget Dave Carter and Tracy Grammer. WAS 4.250 11:55, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously bad edits

I'm genuinely baffled here. I'm trying to source true material to Wikipedia's standards - this is not an "obviously bad edit," and it seems quite incivil to say it is. Again, at its simplest level, there seem to me three things to verify. 1) That the post was made to the talk page. 2) That User:Grammer is Tracy Grammer. 3) That Tracy Grammer is a reputable source for these claims. Which, exactly, do you believe to not be verified? Because I'm happy to keep trying to work this up to your standards. Phil Sandifer 13:46, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, the problem with the "I talked to Laura Bush" at a dinner party is that its equivalent 1) is not verifiable - there's no record of it. A dinner party would be a perfectly acceptable place to interview Laura Bush. Likewise, comments she made at a dinner party, if corroborated by at least two sources, would be acceptable. In this case, such corroboration is unnecessary - the "dinner party" was a public forum with a record of everything that was said. Phil Sandifer 14:25, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've replied on your talk page. Please accept my constructive criticism in the spirit in which I intend it. When I describe your edit as "obviously bad" —; it is — realize that I have both the interests of the encyclopedia, and your own personal and professional growth in mind. Taking constructive criticism on such matters can be difficult, but it's always worth it. I know that you're up to the challenge, Phil. Nandesuka 14:28, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Constructive criticism, I have always found, often goes better without condescension. Regardless - third party corroboration of the forum seems to me unnecessary when the forum is publicly available. Though if you want it, we do now have a WikiNews piece on it. I, as an academic studying media theory and popular culture, could write a quick piece for my website about it, which would be a researcher working in his own field. All of these things could be done, but they seem to me unnecessary - the forum is publicly available. It is trivial to verify that the comment was made. Phil Sandifer 14:47, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I find that everything goes better without condescension, myself. I understand that you feel that all of these things are unnecessary. That's precisely why your edits are bad. Nandesuka 14:49, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It seems as though consistently behaving with as much skepticism towards verifiable reality as you are displaying here would be difficult. Please, explain to me - do not simply assert, but explain to me - what exactly leads you to have any doubt that the talk page post exists? Or, if you have no such doubt but are doubting by proxy on behalf of some "reasonable person," please explain that doubt. What, exactly, is less than reliable here? Because this seems to me an assertion as easily checked as "Evanston is a suburb of Chicago" - a fact that we do not cite an atlas for, and that any attempt to demand such a citation for would (rightly) be met with derision. Phil Sandifer 15:04, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So far, the only thing that has been met with derision — nearly universal derision, in fact — has been your attempt to include inadequately sourced material into the article. A reasonable person might take a hint from that broad-based community reaction. The difference between the material you're trying to insert and the widely-verifiable fact "Evanston is a suburb of Chicago" is plain as day to me. Why isn't it as plain as day to you? If you can't figure that out, then I doubt that I'll be able to help you. Nandesuka 15:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
When someone with the respect and confidence of the community insists that black is white; what is the proper procedure?????? (rhetorical question) WAS 4.250 19:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Supreme Cmdr

I swear this user is Derek Smart himself - 1st it's his username, 2nd they're absolutely rabidly pro-Derek Smart, 3rd they're absolutely bullheaded and try to act like Derek Smart is a complete angel and not the total arse that we know him to be. This user reverts anything negative about Derek Smart out of the article - even when it's well sourced. Even if it isn't him, wikipedia is not a site for fanboi agendas and I think User:Supreme Cmdr is the single biggest cause of revert wars on that article - if he was gone there wouldn't be any.

PS: your talk page is 81kb long... time for an archive :D Lordkazan 19:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Faerie

Why did you revert all my changes related to the proposed new article Faerie/Fairyland without so much as a vfd or discussion? laddiebuck 20:55, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Concerned

I'm concerned about your most recent edit to Zoe's talk page. As you know, we have much more open inclusion standards than Britanica. To claim otherwise to a new user by way of discouraging her contributions seems to me an unfortunate violation of WP:BITE. Phil Sandifer 04:49, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for expressing your concern. Nandesuka 05:01, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again

Section courtesy blanked. See archive

Thanks

Thanks for stepping in to protect my talk page - I've just reviewed the history and see why. Eek! Some people evidently need to write out WP:CIV in longhand, repeatedly, until it eventually sinks in... Jakew 11:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

September Esperanza Newsletter

Program Feature: Barnstar Brigade
Here in Wikipedia there are hundreds of wikipedians whose work and efforts go unappreciated. One occasionally comes across editors who have thousands of good edits, but because they may not get around as much as others, their contributions and hard work often go unnoticed. As Esperanzians we can help to make people feel appreciated, be it by some kind words or the awarding of a Barnstar. This is where the Barnstar Brigade comes in. The object of this program is to seek out the people which deserve a Barnstar, and help them feel appreciated. With your help, we can recognize more dedicated editors!
What's New?
September elections are upon us! Anyone wishing to be a part of the Advisory Council may list themselves as a candidate from 18 September until 24 September, with the voting taking place from 25 September to 30 September. Those who wish to help with the election staff should also list themselves!
Appreciation Week, a program currently in development, now has its own subpage! Share your good ideas on how to make it awesome there!
The Esperanza front page has been redesigned! Many thanks to all who worked hard on it.
Many thanks to MiszaBot, courtesy of Misza13, for delivering the newsletter.
  1. The proposals page has been updated, with some proposals being archived.
  2. Since the program in development Appretiaion week is getting lots of good ideas, it now has its own subpage.
  3. The September 2006 Council elections will open for nominations on 18 September 2006. The voting will run from 25 September 2006 until 30 September 2006. If you wish to be a candidate or a member of the elections staff, please list yourself!
  4. The new Esperanza front page design has but put up - many thanks to all who worked on it!
  5. TangoTango has written a script for a bot that will list new members of Esperanza, which will help those who welcome new Esperanzains greatly!
Signed...
Although having the newsletter appear on everyone's userpage is desired, this may not be ideal for everyone. If, in the future, you wish to receive a link to the newsletter, rather than the newsletter itself, you may add yourself to Wikipedia:Esperanza/Newsletter/Opt Out List.

Your block against me

Hi there! You blocked me from editing several user talk pages, although under the IP, I totally conformed to all Wikipedia guidelines. This is a personal attack against me. Please don't do it again unless you have a good reason. 87.78.150.238 14:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Banned users are not permitted to edit Wikipedia. Nandesuka 15:21, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused.. why did you revert this edit? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ALordkazan&diff=77115830&oldid=77112679 Lordkazan 13:17, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK.. didn't realize he was banned until i came over to your page in the first place.. told him to behave himself, guess he didn't listen. Lordkazan 14:11, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trolling

May I ask what on earth made my comment on Dragons Flight's talk page trolling, and you clean up his page for him? Could I ask that he be left to reply to or as the case may be clean up his own talk page? grendel's mother 13:43, 24 September 2006 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by grendel's mother (talk • contribs) [reply]

Now I see that you have erased my comments on User talk:Publicgirluk. Your censoring me is becoming an issue in itself. Firstly would you please direct me to the policy that says you have the right to decide when a discussion on someone's talk page is no longer a matter of interest? Secondly, could you please tell me why you apply the word trolling to anything I say about Publicgirluk? I have a genuine interest in reading and assisting wikipedia. This is a topic that interests me, I believe the way it was resolved was hazardous to the project, and I would like to discuss it, not only because I have the supposed right to as an editor, but primarily because I use wp, even for work, and I have a vested interest in how it is run. Deleting my comments on the matter gives an impression of censorship. If indeed I don't have the right to talk about it where I have, would you please point me to the guideline that specifies that, and as a helpful admin perhaps recommend where I can talk about it? If this is not the case then would you please stop deleting my comments, none of which have been made to you? Thank you, and I hope this is the last we here from each other in this regard - grendel's mother 14:45, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you are interested in discussing issues on the relevant policy pages, be my guest. If you're only interested in demogoguery and calling for the desysopping of Dragons flight, then you are trolling, and you should expect your comments to be removed. Kind regards, Nandesuka 14:55, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nandesuka, I reversed your protection of the Publicgirluk talk page for several reasons - most significantly (to me) the fact that the user should be able to comment on her talk page if she chooses and has done nothing which should prevent that. However, it is also the case that you just should not have protected a page you were involved in editing. I also commented on the related issues here. --CBD 13:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that unprotecting a talk page so that an indefinitely blocked user can "comment on her talk page if she chooses" is the height of foolishness. Nandesuka 13:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't surprise me that you don't understand that, because you entirely miss the point that people have the right to speak about things you don't want, including addressing the fact that they are indefinitely banned. If someone is blocked and someone blocks their talk page, how are they supposed to fight it if they think it was done unjustly? Not publicgirl, anyone. grendelsmother 14:05, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Any user -- even indefinitely banned ones -- is free to send mail directly to an administrator or to the Arbitration Committee. Nandesuka 16:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giano

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giano. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giano/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giano/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, MacGyverMagic - Mgm|(talk) 22:14, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the /Workshop page please don't rewrite a proposal someone else has made. Make an alternate proposal. Fred Bauder 13:18, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully Fred, this seems a sub-optimal way to work. We're meant to be good at writing things collaborativly, what's the value in forcing statements into little silos? It just seems to make things more difficult without a compelling reason for doing so.
brenneman {L} 13:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pregnancy

Good morning. I wonder if you would like to contribute some reasoned viewst in the debate about the naked woman photo at pregnancy. Cheers, Henry Maustrauser 23:40, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Maustrauser 02:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gülen article big reverts

Hi. There's a brand new user, User:Bismihi maybe the same guy as 128.101.154.52 who has reverted the Fethullah Gülen article to the last (ca may/june 2006) version of indef banned user User:Rgulerdem (aka user Light&Truth and others). I reverted to the 19 sept 2006 version twice, but to no avail. Can you please look into this? Azate 18:17, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for unblocking me

No hard feelings 'cause I can see how you thought the anon's post was part of mine. The problem is that this seems to be happening to me a lot; I closed my old account and stopped contributing to Wikipedia for about 8 months because some person(s) kept editing my posts on the Talk Pages of various articles and trying to make them look like part of my commentary. It got old after awhile and I have only recently begun editing Wikipedia again.

Is there any way for the Wiki admins to automatically "tag" an anon's edit when they try to insert it into someone else's post?

P.S._ I know this wasn't the issue on the Daniel Pearl page, but I thought I'd bring it up anyway. Roland Deschain 02:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm.

I've always respected your work. Do you believe that the Derek Smart article, particularly the changes undone here is fully compliant? JBKramer 19:57, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm generally opposed to slapping tags on articles when there is not substantial forward progress on an article's talk page, because then they stay there forever. I'd say focus on improving the article, not warring over a tag. Nandesuka 23:13, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedied Images

Sorry to bug you--Image:Alyson07.jpg and Image:JenniferSu.jpg are back, with a new copy Image:Alyson007.jpg showing up as well. Before I re-list them for speedying, would you know a reason why they'd immediately pop back in like that? I'm confused--the recreated Alyson pictures are now missing the PUI tags I had left, so I am guessing an administrator didn't bring them back... —LactoseTIT 23:00, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since it claims to be a self-upload, did anyone try contacting Alyson Hau [4] about the image? Even if it was just a fraud, one could ask for free image. If it is a fraud one should probably also block User:Alysonhau as an inappropriate username. Dragons flight 17:40, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotect, etc

Hi Nandesuka, could you unprotect my User talk:Jakew please? Also, could you delete User:Jakew/tmpRfc - I was the sole editor. Thanks. Jakew 14:24, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you delete Encyclopedia Dramatica?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclopedia_Dramatica

You deleted both the article and the talk page. If Unencyclopedia deserves an article, surely Encyclopedia Dramatica does, or at least warrents an unlocking of the talk page. Klosterdev 00:44, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the plug!

Sorry, I was offline there. Hmmm. I think your explanatory part—frankly, the hard part— is excellent, but maybe a catchier title? I suppose "Administrators are not a higher caste" would be culturally insensitive? Yikes, yes, it sure would. "WP:NOT a feudal hierachy"? "All users are equal"? (And "Admins are not more equal than others," lol.)

There's some relevant stuff in Wikipedia:What adminship is not :

Administrator status does not place you in an elevated status within Wikipedia. It is not the user-equivalent of a featured article. Every good-faith editor, from the newest editor to the most experienced bureaucrat, has the same status within Wikipedia. You will not gain respect simply by being an administrator. It may help to consider the other meaning of the word administrator, that is one who organises and facilitates, rather than one who controls.

Bishonen | talk 00:49, 2 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]